• 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!

We may have found out what happened to Iraq's WMD

In the age of Trump, if 3 out of 10 words of a statement end up having a bearing in reality, regardless of if it occured well before or well after the claim was made, the statement is then true. "Iraq has an Active weapons of mass destruction program including nuclear weapons" is somehow no different than "Iraq has a stockpile of 20 year old, rotting, rusted weapons that can still be deployed in limited areas in some cases and they may not even know where they are".
 
Everybody knew they had them,and that , of course, Bush wasn't lying about them

The question is- what happened to them?
It's not likely they were destroyed.
Some thought they were off-loaded to Syria.

That theory just became a lot more credible.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/04/syria-chemical-attack-idlib-province
At least 60 people have been killed in northern Syria after being exposed to a toxic gas that survivors said was dropped from warplanes, an attack that sparked comparisons to the most infamous act of the country’s six-year war.


You know what bothers me..... the words WMD...and how it is interpreted. Same with Assault Rifles and the term AR..... AR is not Assault Rifle its Armalite Rifle. But people want to put what ever term fits their Agenda.

WMD, to me is not a Nuclear weapon, its;

Weapon of mass destruction, munitions with the capacity to kill large numbers of human beings indiscriminately

Scud Missiles, Mustard Gas, chemical weapons, 120mm Motar rounds......are all Weapons of mass destruction, a Nuclear Bomb is NOT the only official type of WMD.


Did Iraq and its dictator have the ability to acquire WMD, and not NUCLEAR weapons, but weapons that have the ability to kill large numbers of human beings indiscriminately. YES... Saddam shows signs of ethnic Genocide, in relations to Religious beliefs, wiping out people that did now believe in his religion and his dictatorship. Invading or Kuwait etc.....


Now with that, YES I have been on the ground, was part of 432 combat ops, traveled a total of 34,000 miles during my time there from Kuwait, to the Syrian Border and back. Touching both the western and eastern boarders as well.... Did that country have mass casualty weapons.... YES...and without over stepping my Security Clearance. We were briefed of specific areas of concern, to include weapons and bio-hazards....hmmmm Why is that? hmmmmm.


Was the invasion to Iraq legitimate to 9/11? I dont know the answer to that...way above my Pay Grade.... but....and this is a huge but did that establish the Do not @#$%% With us..... well I would like to think so.....
 
Bush didn't say they had them. The CIA said they had them, and he just relayed the message. And now you want to believe the CIA in this Russian nonsense.

Hilary Clinton was advised, that the Attack on the Embassy in Lybia was due to a video on YouTube, that incited violence in Egypt. Thats what her advisers said....well even though leaked emails showed other wise...

So HRC got a pass... I dont think Bush made the comment without being briefed by his staff that was in the know....


Funny how hypocrisy grows strong when put to the wall.....
 
You know what bothers me..... the words WMD...and how it is interpreted. Same with Assault Rifles and the term AR..... AR is not Assault Rifle its Armalite Rifle. But people want to put what ever term fits their Agenda.

WMD, to me is not a Nuclear weapon, its;

Weapon of mass destruction, munitions with the capacity to kill large numbers of human beings indiscriminately

Scud Missiles, Mustard Gas, chemical weapons, 120mm Motar rounds......are all Weapons of mass destruction, a Nuclear Bomb is NOT the only official type of WMD.


Did Iraq and its dictator have the ability to acquire WMD, and not NUCLEAR weapons, but weapons that have the ability to kill large numbers of human beings indiscriminately. YES... Saddam shows signs of ethnic Genocide, in relations to Religious beliefs, wiping out people that did now believe in his religion and his dictatorship. Invading or Kuwait etc.....


Now with that, YES I have been on the ground, was part of 432 combat ops, traveled a total of 34,000 miles during my time there from Kuwait, to the Syrian Border and back. Touching both the western and eastern boarders as well.... Did that country have mass casualty weapons.... YES...and without over stepping my Security Clearance. We were briefed of specific areas of concern, to include weapons and bio-hazards....hmmmm Why is that? hmmmmm.


Was the invasion to Iraq legitimate to 9/11? I dont know the answer to that...way above my Pay Grade.... but....and this is a huge but did that establish the Do not @#$%% With us..... well I would like to think so.....

Great post -thank you!
 
Sorry but when the Bush admin talked about WMD's they were scaring us with mushroom clouds over american cities, not "they have some chemical weapons".

Even if they had chemical weapons that isn't what they argued to get us into Iraq. On top of that, saying that they must have had some because Syria is using some is just pure imagination. Syria has always been known to have a large stash of chemical weapons. No need to be using gifts from Saddam.

I guess I missed that. I never heard one person argue that Iraq had nuclear weapons.
 
I knew somebody would take the bait! :doh I'm sure my dear sister did too, but we haven't talked about this one.

Bush didn't lie...:lamo

This is a frame-up more blatant than MH17. Non-western media are saying that the building struck was a site for manufacturing weapons including chemical weapons, and that maybe the gas canisters exploded during the attack, releasing the gas.
 
You know what bothers me..... the words WMD...and how it is interpreted. Same with Assault Rifles and the term AR..... AR is not Assault Rifle its Armalite Rifle. But people want to put what ever term fits their Agenda.

WMD, to me is not a Nuclear weapon, its;

Weapon of mass destruction, munitions with the capacity to kill large numbers of human beings indiscriminately

Scud Missiles, Mustard Gas, chemical weapons, 120mm Motar rounds......are all Weapons of mass destruction, a Nuclear Bomb is NOT the only official type of WMD.


Did Iraq and its dictator have the ability to acquire WMD, and not NUCLEAR weapons, but weapons that have the ability to kill large numbers of human beings indiscriminately. YES... Saddam shows signs of ethnic Genocide, in relations to Religious beliefs, wiping out people that did now believe in his religion and his dictatorship. Invading or Kuwait etc.....


Now with that, YES I have been on the ground, was part of 432 combat ops, traveled a total of 34,000 miles during my time there from Kuwait, to the Syrian Border and back. Touching both the western and eastern boarders as well.... Did that country have mass casualty weapons.... YES...and without over stepping my Security Clearance. We were briefed of specific areas of concern, to include weapons and bio-hazards....hmmmm Why is that? hmmmmm.


Was the invasion to Iraq legitimate to 9/11? I dont know the answer to that...way above my Pay Grade.... but....and this is a huge but did that establish the Do not @#$%% With us..... well I would like to think so.....

Thank you for posting a bit of sanity. Yes, under the proper conditions, the M-60 machine gun is WMD, any machine gun is WMD.
 
I guess I missed that. I never heard one person argue that Iraq had nuclear weapons.

Both of us are correct it seems. Upon research there were more references to chemical and biological weapons than I remember. But there was also lots of talk of mushroom clouds, that Saddam has purchased aluminum tubes used for enriching uranium, that he is purchasing uranium from africa and that they are racing ever closer to a nuclear weapon etc.

What I don't understand is why would Saddam get rid of his stockpile if he had one? Why on earth would a dictator gather a huge stockpile of weapons only to ship them out when someone is going to attack? The entire argument is stupid.
 
Both of us are correct it seems. Upon research there were more references to chemical and biological weapons than I remember. But there was also lots of talk of mushroom clouds, that Saddam has purchased aluminum tubes used for enriching uranium, that he is purchasing uranium from africa and that they are racing ever closer to a nuclear weapon etc.

What I don't understand is why would Saddam get rid of his stockpile if he had one? Why on earth would a dictator gather a huge stockpile of weapons only to ship them out when someone is going to attack? The entire argument is stupid.

Saddam was a power drunk fool. Why would he keep defying the UN orders with the threat that we would invade? He had $billions and an entire country beneath him. Why risk it all? I think he just thought there was no way we would remove him and he could do whatever he wanted. I guess he didn't want the rest of the ME seeing him relent and comply with our demands, making him look weak.
 
Saddam was a power drunk fool. Why would he keep defying the UN orders with the threat that we would invade? He had $billions and an entire country beneath him. Why risk it all? I think he just thought there was no way we would remove him and he could do whatever he wanted. I guess he didn't want the rest of the ME seeing him relent and comply with our demands, making him look weak.

If he didn't think we would invade then no need to ship out any chemical weapons he had. The entire idea that he had a huge stash and shipped it all out makes no sense.
 
If he didn't think we would invade then no need to ship out any chemical weapons he had. The entire idea that he had a huge stash and shipped it all out makes no sense.

Well, we know he had them, because he used them on his own people. He was not a rational person.
 
Bush didn't say they had them. The CIA said they had them, and he just relayed the message. And now you want to believe the CIA in this Russian nonsense.


Wrong. CIA intelligence never informed the Director, WH staff or the President that Iraq had WMD. You can say that CIA Director Tenet said so, but no one in the CIA told him or anybody else so. Am I right, or wrong? Answer me back, or stop throwing out disingenuous bull.
 
If he didn't think we would invade then no need to ship out any chemical weapons he had. The entire idea that he had a huge stash and shipped it all out makes no sense.

Did Iraq have the facilities and the isolation (think North Korea) to create a reactor to enrich uranium? Likely not, He may have acquired a lot of product, and realized that he was unable to properly manufacture a weapon, So likely reached out to another country that had the will and the facilities to do so for him and yes... "shipped" them out.

While I dont think Saddam actually had a weapons grade plutonium at the time, the likely hood of him being unchecked would have been too late. With that again, WMD is not exclusive to Nuclear weapons. This was the issue and Saddam showed signs of direct genocide to large amounts of people. Currently no dictator has actually acted on their statements. Kim Jong Un, has tested but yet acted upon a genocide. Syria, Mossad, Egypt, Libya, all are having a civil war, but no "Dictator" has annouced a genocide its a civil war. Saddam on the other hand was the most current dictator to directly wipe out large group of people. .... (At the time) as we all know Osama got his day as well..
 
I guess I missed that. I never heard one person argue that Iraq had nuclear weapons.

But I am sure you remember the threat of waking up to a mushroom cloud over some US city because of Saddam
 
Sorry but when the Bush admin talked about WMD's they were scaring us with mushroom clouds over american cities, not "they have some chemical weapons".

Even if they had chemical weapons that isn't what they argued to get us into Iraq. On top of that, saying that they must have had some because Syria is using some is just pure imagination. Syria has always been known to have a large stash of chemical weapons. No need to be using gifts from Saddam.

No one in the Bush administration ever scared me, or anyone I have ever talked to, with any talk of mushroom clouds over American cities. That is your invention.
 
But I am sure you remember the threat of waking up to a mushroom cloud over some US city because of Saddam

No. The problem was that he was working on getting nukes. Turns out Libya was involved with that. Obviously, we couldn't let them get Nukes. But it's okay for Iran.
 
There were no WMDs and the Bush administration knew it from the get go. It was all a bunch of lies, what's new, right? Who doesn't remember the Gulf of Tonkin, the Afghanistan lies, the every president always tells lies.

bush admits there were no WMDs in IRAQ [starting at 0:15]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSN-Kku_rFE

What happen all the time in the US is there is a barrage of propaganda so gigantic that it completely discombobulates the average John And Betty Q Public's busy minds so they misremember everything because they have the strong set of propaganda that is instilled from very young ages that the USA is a good, kind and benevolent country when the opposite is the reality.

The result, the mass confusion exhibited in this thread. The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were both war crimes, the same as the war crimes committed by the war criminals of WWII, who were hung for those crimes.
 
There were no WMDs and the Bush administration knew it from the get go. It was all a bunch of lies, what's new, right? Who doesn't remember the Gulf of Tonkin, the Afghanistan lies, the every president always tells lies.

bush admits there were no WMDs in IRAQ [starting at 0:15]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSN-Kku_rFE

What happen all the time in the US is there is a barrage of propaganda so gigantic that it completely discombobulates the average John And Betty Q Public's busy minds so they misremember everything because they have the strong set of propaganda that is instilled from very young ages that the USA is a good, kind and benevolent country when the opposite is the reality.

The result, the mass confusion exhibited in this thread. The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were both war crimes, the same as the war crimes committed by the war criminals of WWII, who were hung for those crimes.

Yes, all war crimes... Don't forget FDR, Eisenhower, and Truman, they qualify too, right?
 
There were no WMDs and the Bush administration knew it from the get go. It was all a bunch of lies, what's new, right? Who doesn't remember the Gulf of Tonkin, the Afghanistan lies, the every president always tells lies.

bush admits there were no WMDs in IRAQ [starting at 0:15]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSN-Kku_rFE

What happen all the time in the US is there is a barrage of propaganda so gigantic that it completely discombobulates the average John And Betty Q Public's busy minds so they misremember everything because they have the strong set of propaganda that is instilled from very young ages that the USA is a good, kind and benevolent country when the opposite is the reality.

The result, the mass confusion exhibited in this thread. The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were both war crimes, the same as the war crimes committed by the war criminals of WWII, who were hung for those crimes.

Our war criminals today are mostly decorated and promoted, NEVER prosecuted. America has become the sociopath amongst nations, obeying no law and bringing war and destruction where it goes.
 
Yes, all war crimes... Don't forget FDR, Eisenhower, and Truman, they qualify too, right?

I'll grant you Truman, but it would be interesting to see you try to make a case for Eisenhower and FDR.
 
I'll grant you Truman, but it would be interesting to see you try to make a case for Eisenhower and FDR.

Well, what do you need other than waging war against an evil dictator? Heck, FDR imprisoned Americans.
 
Back
Top Bottom