• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Saddam: 'I Lied About WMD In Fear Of Iran'

GarzaUK

British, Irish and everything in-between.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,688
Reaction score
631
Location
Carrickfergus, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Saddam Hussein allowed the world to believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction because he feared revealing his weakness to Iran, it has emerged. Skip related content
Related photos / videos Saddam: 'I Lied About WMD In Fear Of Iran' Enlarge photo The former dictator made the revelations in a series of interviews with the FBI during his incarceration before he was hanged in 2006.

The new details were among over 100 pages of notes written by special agent George Piro, who interviewed Hussein after he was found hiding underground on a farm 80 miles from Baghdad.

Hussein also denied any connection to Osama bin Laden and described him as a "zealot", insisting he had personally never met the al Qaeda leader.

Iraq had fought a devastating eight-year war with Iran in the 80s that involved the use of chemical weapons and Hussein felt vulnerable to the threat from "fanatic" leaders in Tehran.

In fact, he would have been prepared to seek a "security agreement with the US to protect [Iraq] from threats in the region," according to the notes.

Saddam: 'I Lied About WMD In Fear Of Iran' - Yahoo! News UK

Just shows that this war could have been avoided, if only the UN was given a few more months by the US, Saddam would have been found weak and we could have used his fear of the Iranians to press him into more democratic policies in exchange for "a security agreement", meanwhile focusing on the real problem - Iran.
 
Saddam: 'I Lied About WMD In Fear Of Iran' - Yahoo! News UK

Just shows that this war could have been avoided, if only the UN was given a few more months by the US, Saddam would have been found weak and we could have used his fear of the Iranians to press him into more democratic policies in exchange for "a security agreement", meanwhile focusing on the real problem - Iran.

Agreed the operation in Iraq was rushed,by incompetant men.
 
This is just grand.
Now where are those conspirators who'll blame the US for a manipulation of the investigation results?
 
Unnecessary Iraq War that cost billions (trillions?) of dollars and countless lives (both civilian and military).

(Unless you think American intelligence is too stupid to figure out Saddam was bluffing? We have dozens of pages of intel that strongly suggest- maybe even prove- that he was bluffing.)

/Conservative "justifications"
 
First of all I have never been a big fan of the Bush doctrine but a couple of things should clear by now. Saddam could have cooperated fully with the UN inspectors and not pretended to play hide and seek with with non existing WMDs or the documents that showed there were none, and therefore could have avoided the invasion. His failure to come clean played into the Bush get even for the attempt on Dads life plan.
There is something that came with the destruction of the Iraqi military twice that is always over looked in all discussions of this part of the middle east. That is this. For 8 years Iraq and Iran fought each other to a stand still and finally both sides lost massively. Then before the first Gulf war Iraq was touted as having the 3rd most powerful military in the world and it was driven out of Kuwait and virtually rendered impotent in 100 hours. Then they were soundly beaten as a fighting force again just a few years later. The question I have is this. Knowing all this how can Iran hope to survive more than a few days in a conventional was with the U.S. or a few minutes in a nuclear war.
Iran has made statements that make me wonder what could possibly be in their heads that leads them to make provocative remarks? Is it that they saw sometime back the backlash of the Bush Administration leading to an Obama victory. And with it the weakening or our military and our will to defend Israel as we have always done in the past because they knew Obama would be sympathetic to any Islamic country over Israel?
I'm just asking.
 
So Bush did not lie. /liberal whining. :lol:

Doesn't mean Bush wasn't still a retard and disregarded the UN and Europe when we could have all avoided thousands of unnecessary deaths.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't mean Bush wasn't still a retard and disregarded the UN and Europe when we could have all avoided thousands of unnecessary deaths.
I dunno about it.
Saddam was indeed brought to justice, and Democracy gained power in Iraq, so I think it was worth it.
*Gets ready for hundreds of pissed posts*
 
I dunno about it.
Saddam was indeed brought to justice, and Democracy gained power in Iraq, so I think it was worth it.
*Gets ready for hundreds of pissed posts*

True, but that could have been done without a war..
 
I dunno about it.
Saddam was indeed brought to justice, and Democracy gained power in Iraq, so I think it was worth it.
*Gets ready for hundreds of pissed posts*

We'll see if this "Democracy" is maintained and survives for a decade.

It'll collapse and a dictator will come into power and deaths would have been for nothing no doubt.
 
I dunno about it.
Saddam was indeed brought to justice, and Democracy gained power in Iraq, so I think it was worth it.
*Gets ready for hundreds of pissed posts*


Even though I agree with you, the operation could have been handled much much much much better. Starting with not alienating our Allies, by having enough troops to do the job, not sabotaging Afghanistans mission. Bush should have waited a year, and gave an opportunity for the UN to make a show of trying to do something at least then we would be the heros like we were in Desert Storm. Geopolitically it was a very miscalculated operation. Having said its great Iraq is getting better by the day, but not at the cost.
 
So Bush did not lie. /liberal whining. :lol:

Amazing how liberal conspiracy nuts will sit there and claim Bush Lied when Saddam has a history of having and using WMDs, lead everyone to believe he had WMDs, refused to allow inspectors inspect the areas they wanted to inspect and everyone regardless if they were a democrat or republican claimed Saddam had WMDs. Seems to me that any reasonable person would agree Saddam had WMDs,after all if looks like a duck,quacks like a duck and behaves like a duck then it might be a duck.
 
We'll see if this "Democracy" is maintained and survives for a decade.

It'll collapse and a dictator will come into power and deaths would have been for nothing no doubt.
Ooooo, a rage prophecy. I love those. :2razz:
 
Oxy and Garza,

Yes, it could be settled in another way.
Yes, the operation itself could go smoother.
But that's all in the past now, let the results speak for themselves.
The dictator was brought into justice for his deeds, and now Iraq is becoming more and more of a democracy, a good thing, yes?
 
Ooooo, a rage prophecy. I love those. :2razz:

:rofl

We can't judge what happened in Iraq right now, only history can when we see and judge if our actions really did make a difference for the better and towards democracy which i don't think will last.
I think we just gave Iran an ally in ME whereas previously Iraq was Iran's main fear.

Bringing Saddam to justice means little to me, was not worth going into the country and destroying it for one man. He is no Hitler, so why bother?
 
Last edited:
:rofl

We can't judge what happened in Iraq right now, only history can when we see and judge if our actions really did make a difference for the better and towards democracy which i don't think will last.
I think it just gave Iran an ally in ME whereas previously Iraq was Iran's main fear
Here's another prophecy for you:
Soon the Iranian regime would fall and a new one shall take its place.
Of course, this is just a prophecy, you can choose to believe it or ignore it.

EDIT:
Bringing Saddam to justice means little to me, was not worth going into the country and destroying it for one man. He is no Hitler, so why bother?
First of all, that was only one of the results.
Secondly, he was a douche who killed ****loads of innocents, so in one way or another justice was served.
 
Last edited:
Soon the Iranian regime would fall and a new one shall take its place.

There is Prophecy and then there is delusional.
No one will bring down Iran's Islamic regime.

First of all, that was only one of the results.
Secondly, he was a douche who killed ****loads of innocents, so one way or the other justice was served.

So?
The British killed alot in Iraq, so did Americans.
Hell, millions of people die every single day by the hand of some dictator.
Saddam means little to me and hardly something to cheer.
 
There is Prophecy and then there is delusional.
No one will bring down Iran's Islamic regime.
You can't call a prophecy delusional.
What's wrong with you, it doesn't use evidence for support. :lol:
 
Amazing how liberal conspiracy nuts will sit there and claim Bush Lied when Saddam has a history of having and using WMDs, lead everyone to believe he had WMDs, refused to allow inspectors inspect the areas they wanted to inspect and everyone regardless if they were a democrat or republican claimed Saddam had WMDs. Seems to me that any reasonable person would agree Saddam had WMDs,after all if looks like a duck,quacks like a duck and behaves like a duck then it might be a duck.

The decision to mobilize the US military was not made based on rumor, exaggeration, or something Saddam said. Supposedly the CIA had "hard evidence" that Saddam had WMD. The case for war was a "slam dunk". And yet, any "evidence" supposedly found by the CIA does not hold up to the most amateur inspection. Still, that flimsy evidence was massaged by the White House until it seemed unassailable, and evidence to the contrary was thrown out. Colin Powell was practically brainwashed with false information so he would stand up at the UN and put the stamp of credibility on a case for war which was fabricated.

Saddam was clever in holding off the Iranians using nothing but fantasy. George Bush instructed the CIA to craft that fantasy into an airtight excuse for war. The White House cannot be excused for being "misled" by false information.

It takes a lot of information to go to war, redundant, confirmatory, hard evidence. War is the final and most serious diplomatic option for a nation, to be undertaken only in the most extreme circumstances. This war was begun simply because Bush had the authority to start it, not because it was necessary. Thousands of young Americans died because Bush wanted to exercise power, wanted to be a "war president". That is inexcusable.
 
The decision to mobilize the US military was not made based on rumor, exaggeration, or something Saddam said. Supposedly the CIA had "hard evidence" that Saddam had WMD. The case for war was a "slam dunk". And yet, any "evidence" supposedly found by the CIA does not hold up to the most amateur inspection. Still, that flimsy evidence was massaged by the White House until it seemed unassailable, and evidence to the contrary was thrown out. Colin Powell was practically brainwashed with false information so he would stand up at the UN and put the stamp of credibility on a case for war which was fabricated.

Saddam was clever in holding off the Iranians using nothing but fantasy. George Bush instructed the CIA to craft that fantasy into an airtight excuse for war. The White House cannot be excused for being "misled" by false information.

It takes a lot of information to go to war, redundant, confirmatory, hard evidence. War is the final and most serious diplomatic option for a nation, to be undertaken only in the most extreme circumstances. This war was begun simply because Bush had the authority to start it, not because it was necessary. Thousands of young Americans died because Bush wanted to exercise power, wanted to be a "war president". That is inexcusable.




Nonsense. Bush did not want to be a "War president" please, this is foolish.


Furthermore, there was mountains of evidence and as I called it way back when, a bluff. Hussein bluffed and it cost him. Stop defending him.
 
Saddam: 'I Lied About WMD In Fear Of Iran' - Yahoo! News UK

Just shows that this war could have been avoided, if only the UN was given a few more months by the US, Saddam would have been found weak and we could have used his fear of the Iranians to press him into more democratic policies in exchange for "a security agreement", meanwhile focusing on the real problem - Iran.

Also taken from the story:

Saddam denied having unconventional weapons before the US invasion but refused to allow UN inspectors to search his country from 1998 until 2002.

The inspectors returned to the weapons hunt in November 2002 but still complained that Iraq was not cooperating.

"The threat from Iran was the major factor as to why he did not allow the return of UN inspectors," the FBI agent wrote.

"Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq's weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq."

But of course, just a few more months and he would have finally cooperated...

And, my husband really loves me, and promises he wont' ever do that again.
 
Last edited:
Also taken from the story:





But of course, just a few more months and...

And, my husband really loves me, and promises he wont' ever do that again.


This "if only we would have waited a few months to talk things out peacefully" would have never happened. Did talking things out peacefully before we invaded Iraq get us anywhere? No it didn't work because Saddam thought we were not going to do anything and the longer we didn't do anything the more his belief we were bluffing was proved right.

If we never invaded Iraq the democrats and everyone else would still be claiming Saddam has WMDs.The democrats would have bashed Bush his entire presidency for not doing something about it while some of the republicans would have gave it a token mention. Then when Obama won the presidency only the republicans would be claiming Saddam has WMDs and we got to do something about it while the democrats claim it is not a big deal or start to act like they never believed Saddam had WMDs in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Nonsense. Bush did not want to be a "War president" please, this is foolish.


Furthermore, there was mountains of evidence and as I called it way back when, a bluff. Hussein bluffed and it cost him. Stop defending him.

I don't recall "defending" Saddam Hussein, and you are lying when you say "Bush did not want to be a "War president". You are also lying when you say there was "mountains of evidence". Even the UN inspectors suspected there were no WMD, and they had no vast intelligence service to provide information, only on-site inspection. Bush may have been fooled by Cheney, and you may have been fooled but hey, that's a slam dunk.
 
Back
Top Bottom