Interrogator: Invasion Surprised Saddam

2008-01-26 17:22:37

#1

Major.League.Infidel: Make Love and War; +303|6762|Communist Republic of CA, USA

The Associate Press wrote:
Saddam Hussein allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction to deter rival Iran and did not think the United States would stage a major invasion, according to an FBI interrogator who questioned the Iraqi leader after his capture.

Piro added that Saddam had the intention of restarting an Iraqi weapons program at the time, and had engineers available for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Full Article
Having read the article, I almost feel like he got what was coming to him. I find it funny that he made up the weapons to deter Iran, and ended up bringing the US of A.

2008-01-26 17:40:51

#2

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6813|Global Command

It's not like he didn't have the chance to comply.

One thing Bush did right is ( for a while ) make the world take seriously the U.S. when it says it will attack.

Pity, in a way, that they fucked it up so badly.
The primary fuck up? Companies like Halliburton making millions/billions off the war.
A draft was what was needed, if we were going to kick some middle eastern terrorist asses with boots on the ground.

Although, the situation in Iraq appears to be improving.

2008-01-26 18:01:05

#3

Skorpy-chan: Member; +127|6629|Twyford, UK

Welp, they called his bluff good and proper. Frankly, he needed to be ousted anyway. Always nice to see imperialism lumbered with an empire.

2008-01-26 18:01:18

#4

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7046

ATG wrote:
It's not like he didn't have the chance to comply.

One thing Bush did right is ( for a while ) make the world take seriously the U.S. when it says it will attack.

Pity, in a way, that they fucked it up so badly.
The primary fuck up? Companies like Halliburton making millions/billions off the war.
A draft was what was needed, if we were going to kick some middle eastern terrorist asses with boots on the ground.

Although, the situation in Iraq appears to be improving.

Well who else is going to rebuild? ACE Hardware?

2008-01-26 18:02:18

#5

adam1503: Member; +85|6672|Manchester, UK

ATG wrote:
The primary fuck up? Companies like Halliburton making millions/billions off the war.

You think that was the biggest fuck-up in the invasion of Iraq?

I would say it was the lack of any coherent post-war plan to re-establish the country once Saddam was overthrown. If we'd had it all planned out beforehand Iraq might not be in the mess it is today.

2008-01-26 18:17:33

#6

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7046

adam1503 wrote:
If we'd had it all planned out beforehand Iraq might not be in the mess it is today.

If I had bought stock in Starbucks and Microsoft...

They had a plan, but it was wrong. Don't forget a lot of that plan came on the advice of Iraqis who fled Iraq.

2008-01-26 18:24:35

#7

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6813|Global Command

usmarine2005 wrote:
ATG wrote:
It's not like he didn't have the chance to comply.

One thing Bush did right is ( for a while ) make the world take seriously the U.S. when it says it will attack.

Pity, in a way, that they fucked it up so badly.
The primary fuck up? Companies like Halliburton making millions/billions off the war.
A draft was what was needed, if we were going to kick some middle eastern terrorist asses with boots on the ground.

Although, the situation in Iraq appears to be improving.
Well who else is going to rebuild? ACE Hardware?

How about the U.S. Army?

Fuck Halliburton right in the ass, they are a cancer and disgrace on our efforts.

2008-01-26 18:25:23

#8

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7046

ATG wrote:
How about the U.S. Army?

I do not think they could handle all of that own their own dude.

2008-01-26 18:25:43

#9

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6813|Global Command

adam1503 wrote:
ATG wrote:
The primary fuck up? Companies like Halliburton making millions/billions off the war.
You think that was the biggest fuck-up in the invasion of Iraq?

I would say it was the lack of any coherent post-war plan to re-establish the country once Saddam was overthrown. If we'd had it all planned out beforehand Iraq might not be in the mess it is today.

I totally disagree that we didn't have a plan.

It was just not a good plan.

2008-01-26 19:22:10

#10

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6695|'Murka

I seem to remember someone mentioning this in another thread...and being told I was delusional for it. Not by any of you, mind you. But I wonder if those other "Bush lied people died" intellectuals will even pay attention to this.

Biggest fuck up? Rumsfeld throwing out the plan that was built, going with his own, and not allowing State to handle the post-war phase.

Last edited by FEOS (2008-01-26 19:56:34)

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-01-26 19:45:19

#11

Spearhead: Gulf coast redneck hippy; +731|6974|Tampa Bay Florida

Holy shit..... that article effectively answers so many things. People have been debating for hundreds of hours on these forums. Thats a pretty damn good read right there.

2008-01-26 19:50:59

#12

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6695|'Murka

It's all in the book Cobra II...which I've recommended many of those "debaters" read. But I was just making all this stuff up because I'm a blind GWB follower.

Hell...most of them will probably say that it's just too convenient. Wraps up too many loose ends without placing blame solely at the feet of Bush and Cheney. I can't wait to see their rationalizations...

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-01-26 19:51:06

#13

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7046

Major.League.Infidel wrote:
Piro added that Saddam had the intention of restarting an Iraqi weapons program at the time, and had engineers available for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Hmmmm....interesting. Guess he was going to make WMD's after all.

Last edited by usmarine2005 (2008-01-26 19:51:17)

2008-01-26 20:00:52

#14

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,816|6390|eXtreme to the maX

This doesn't change anything.
Saddam didn't have WMD, he was bluffing, the inspections found nothing and were ongoing.

In any case it was no business of the US to decide who is allowed WMD and who isn't - its for the UN and the UN process was ongoing.

Iraq had no connection to terrorism, and had no WMD - despite the deception plan it was pretty clear.
Iran on the other hand has extensive connections with terrorism and very probably has WMD.

Why invade Iraq and not Iran? The whole thing stinks.

Fuck Israel

2008-01-26 20:02:16

#15

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7046

Dilbert_X wrote:
Why invade Iraq and not Iran?

Iran has not invaded another country in a while.

2008-01-26 20:54:36

#16

motherdear: Member; +25|6935|Denmark/Minnesota (depends)

Dilbert_X wrote:
This doesn't change anything.
Saddam didn't have WMD, he was bluffing, the inspections found nothing and were ongoing.

In any case it was no business of the US to decide who is allowed WMD and who isn't - its for the UN and the UN process was ongoing.

Iraq had no connection to terrorism, and had no WMD - despite the deception plan it was pretty clear.
Iran on the other hand has extensive connections with terrorism and very probably has WMD.

Why invade Iraq and not Iran? The whole thing stinks.

well if you think about it, it was not the US that made the first attack, over the last 10 years after the first gulf war Iraq has repeatedly launched missiles and fired anti air cannons at american planes that were tasked to upkeep a no fly zone over norther iraq (which saddam agreed to respecting when he signed the treaty to have peace after invading kuwait) so saying that it was up to the us which is pretty much useless is dumb (not trying to spit on you or anything here) since the UN also states that any state has the right to defend itself if it's clearly being attacked by foreign powers (not terrorist because they can be hard to determine if they are working for another state or not)

and as other people say Iran did not invade another country for a while and they did not treaten other countries before now.

2008-01-26 21:08:48

#17

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|6928

FEOS wrote:
Biggest fuck up? Rumsfeld throwing out the plan that was built, going with his own, and not allowing State to handle the post-war phase.

2008-01-27 09:38:26

#18

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7046

lol@ the lack of traffic in this thread. No worries, we understand why.

2008-01-27 10:51:05

#19

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6507|Escea

rdx-fx wrote:
ooh! whatzis?! nope.. can't possibly be one of those mythical chemical scuds Saddam had.
Looks like it's seen better days.
http://www.vlar.net/bf2s/Dead.Scud.01.jpg

here, have a few links detailing Saddam's use of WMDs;

http://www.kdp.se/old/chemical.html
http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east … eapons.htm
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stori … ads03.html
http://www.gendercide.org/case_anfal.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign

I'm not posting pics of chemical weapons victims. One, not a fan of the Banhammer. Two, I'm pretty sure more of you would actually get off on them, rather than the intended effect of shocking some reality into you.

Do your own google work. "Chemical Ali" "Anfal Campaign" "Halabja".
This wasn't one incident. This was a systematic program of genocide by Saddam.

Now, who didn't have any WMDs?

Yeah, see this is why nobody can really say he didn't have them. They could easily be buried out in the desert somewhere.

2008-01-27 11:56:37

#20

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6507|Escea

rdx-fx wrote:
M.O.A.B wrote:
Yeah, see this is why nobody can really say he didn't have them. They could easily be buried out in the desert somewhere.
that particular one is dead and disabled (note burn marks around tail of missile).
Not one that was buried for safe keeping.

Though, Saddam did have a fetish for burying his toys;
While there are rumors of Iraqi chemical and biological weapons being shipped to nearby Syria, the weapons may very well still remain inside Iraq buried under the vast desert wastelands.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/f/foxbat.htm

here, have a mig-25 interceptor.. buried in the sand by Saddam for safe keeping
http://www.truthorfiction.com/images/FILE30289.JPG
from above-linked http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/f/foxbat.htm

Yeah seen that before, lol.

2008-01-27 12:39:32

#21

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6689|North Carolina

Saddam had just as much right to have WMDs as we do.

2008-01-27 14:09:31

#22

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7046

Turquoise wrote:
Saddam had just as much right to have WMDs as we do.

lol... except for the fact he gassed women and children in his own country.

2008-01-27 14:24:00

#23

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6839

usmarine2005 wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Saddam had just as much right to have WMDs as we do.
lol... except for the fact he gassed women and children in his own country.

WMD suck.

https://www.uiowa.edu/~policult/assets/VietNam/napalm_kim_phuc.jpg

2008-01-27 14:28:10

#24

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,981|6916|949

usmarine2005 wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Saddam had just as much right to have WMDs as we do.
lol... except for the fact he gassed women and children in his own country.

Would it be ok if it was just men, or was the "women and children" thrown in for sympathy votes?

Regardless of whether or not there were still WMD (which we helped him procure in the '80s along with other countries), there is still evidence that there was an agenda to attack Iraq. There was a deliberate misrepresentation of facts and a push to act without broad international support. I'm sure many people are familiar with the U.N. Resolutions against Iraq, so why didn't we allow the U.N. to handle the threat (whether through sanctions or a military effort)?

Perhaps I should list all the countries where genocide is happening, people (including women and children) are being killed for no good reason, dictators sponsored by the U.S. are destroying their civilizations, etc. Surely the U.S. should go into those countries too.

2008-01-27 14:32:57

#25

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6729|The Land of Scott Walker

Don't make me post the unanimous UN resolution again ...

BF2S Forums Interrogator: Invasion Surprised Saddam

The Associate Press wrote:

ATG wrote:

ATG wrote:

adam1503 wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

ATG wrote:

ATG wrote:

adam1503 wrote:

ATG wrote:

Major.League.Infidel wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Board footer