Yeah we went in for nukes.
You didn't go in for WMDs. If you had you wouldn't have been there for over a decade. Unless you're still looking?
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10 … g-results/AussieReaper wrote:
You didn't go in for WMDs. If you had you wouldn't have been there for over a decade. Unless you're still looking?
found mostly chemical weapons though.
None of which weren't remnants from the previous Gulf War, which as I said were not given as reasons for invasion.Cybargs wrote:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10 … g-results/AussieReaper wrote:
You didn't go in for WMDs. If you had you wouldn't have been there for over a decade. Unless you're still looking?
found mostly chemical weapons though.
Can't believe this is even up for debate. No WMD's that the Bush admin claimed were in the country ever materialised. Mass destruction implies mass destruction. Not a couple of shells of mustard that were in no state to be used.
No, I'm talking about the chemical weapons, weapons plants etc which were supposedly identified in satellite photos and other intel, the WMD which could supposedly be launched at London in 45 minutes, the ones the UN couldn't find under their noses because they were useless faggot-ass euro whiners, the ones we were going to find on day one of the invasion because they were just so damn obvious.rdx-fx wrote:
You mean other than all the ones "chemical" Ali used against the Kurds,Dilbert_X wrote:
So where did those truckloads of WMD go then?
all the chemical shells they launched at coalition troops during Desert Storm,
The Iraqi modified scud missiles designed for chemical payloads that US forces destroyed,
link, link, link, link
If you dig, there may be pictures of blown up chemical scuds on BF2S.
Wiki has details of the Al Anfal campaign.
Those WMDs
(Not the ones which had been destroyed 10 years previously, obviously)
Why 'should' the US have done anything to Saddam or Iraq?Short version:
After the 1st Gulf War, Saddam's military was weakened.
Saddam exaggerated his chemical WMD capabilities, to compensate for his conventional military's weakened state.
US politicians decided to play along with Saddam's exaggeration.
We really should've finished the job in 1991, and removed Saddam from Iraq then
- regardless of how much Wolf Blitzer cried about the "highway of death", or how often he wet himself live from the Baghdad Hilton.
Getting involved in a tribal border dispute was retarded in the first place.
Why did US politicians 'play along' exactly, when AQ and Iran were threats, and Iraq was a complete irrelevance?
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-02-29 00:59:46)
Fuck Israel
Here's to you not knowing what you're talking about.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
intel that was provided by the us because almost any other country within the coalition of the willing lacked (and still lacks) the means of gathering reliable intel themself. some of the intel was even made upFEOS wrote:
More than Britain (not just Blair) and Israel.
Multiple countries agreed that the intel pointed toward an active WMD program
“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
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Because you (and others) can't be bothered to research anything yourselves:Dilbert_X wrote:
No, I'm talking about the chemical weapons, weapons plants etc which were supposedly identified in satellite photos and other intel, the WMD which could supposedly be launched at London in 45 minutes, the ones the UN couldn't find under their noses because they were useless faggot-ass euro whiners, the ones we were going to find on day one of the invasion because they were just so damn obvious.rdx-fx wrote:
You mean other than all the ones "chemical" Ali used against the Kurds,Dilbert_X wrote:
So where did those truckloads of WMD go then?
all the chemical shells they launched at coalition troops during Desert Storm,
The Iraqi modified scud missiles designed for chemical payloads that US forces destroyed,
link, link, link, link
If you dig, there may be pictures of blown up chemical scuds on BF2S.
Wiki has details of the Al Anfal campaign.
Those WMDs
(Not the ones which had been destroyed 10 years previously, obviously)Why 'should' the US have done anything to Saddam or Iraq?Short version:
After the 1st Gulf War, Saddam's military was weakened.
Saddam exaggerated his chemical WMD capabilities, to compensate for his conventional military's weakened state.
US politicians decided to play along with Saddam's exaggeration.
We really should've finished the job in 1991, and removed Saddam from Iraq then
- regardless of how much Wolf Blitzer cried about the "highway of death", or how often he wet himself live from the Baghdad Hilton.
Getting involved in a tribal border dispute was retarded in the first place.
Why did US politicians 'play along' exactly, when AQ and Iran were threats, and Iraq was a complete irrelevance?
Stick a fork in it...it's done.Saddam's Interrogator wrote:
"And what did he tell you about how his weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed?" Pelley asks.
"He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says.
"So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.
"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.
Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.
"He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks.
"Absolutely," Piro says.
"As the U.S. marched toward war and we began massing troops on his border, why didn't he stop it then? And say, 'Look, I have no weapons of mass destruction.' I mean, how could he have wanted his country to be invaded?" Pelley asks.
"He didn't. But he told me he initially miscalculated President Bush. And President Bush's intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 under Operation Desert Fox. Which was a four-day aerial attack. So you expected that initially," Piro says.
Piro says Saddam expected some kind of an air campaign and that he could he survive that. "He survived that once. And then he was willing to accept that type of attack. That type of damage," he says.
“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
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
So explain again how a third world tin pot dictator managed to fool the entire world (CIA really) by doing nothing whatever.
Fuck Israel
lol
Baba Booey
It's already been explained, Dilbert.
It has nothing to do with being a "third world tin pot dictator." Running a successful deception operation is very simple and requires no real technology--only strict compartmentalization. His own people thought they had WMD, ffs.
It has nothing to do with being a "third world tin pot dictator." Running a successful deception operation is very simple and requires no real technology--only strict compartmentalization. His own people thought they had WMD, ffs.
“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
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Did they? Did they really?
Invisible WMDs?
Invisible WMDs?
Fuck Israel
If they were invisible then what did all those satelite images show?
this is ridiculous. first they say their awesome intel is adamant about WMD's in iraq. then they say they've been fooled but, hey, we did the right thing anyway. i wonder what will happen it tomorrow somebody actually discovers WMD's hidden somewhere in iraq desert.
/facepalm
/facepalm
Last edited by Shahter (2012-03-01 05:45:39)
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Dilbert_X wrote:
What satellite images?
Oh, those satellite photos.
I thought you had some real ones for a minute there.
I thought you had some real ones for a minute there.
Fuck Israel
Nope. Just the stuff Powell gave to the UN.
see powells speech at the unFEOS wrote:
Here's to you not knowing what you're talking about.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
intel that was provided by the us because almost any other country within the coalition of the willing lacked (and still lacks) the means of gathering reliable intel themself. some of the intel was even made upFEOS wrote:
More than Britain (not just Blair) and Israel.
Multiple countries agreed that the intel pointed toward an active WMD program
and lol at defending the iraq war. it makes you look like an idiot
AussieReaper wrote:
Can't believe this is even up for debateCybargs wrote:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10 … g-results/AussieReaper wrote:
You didn't go in for WMDs. If you had you wouldn't have been there for over a decade. Unless you're still looking?
found mostly chemical weapons though.
Who's defending the Iraq war?cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
see powells speech at the unFEOS wrote:
Here's to you not knowing what you're talking about.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
intel that was provided by the us because almost any other country within the coalition of the willing lacked (and still lacks) the means of gathering reliable intel themself. some of the intel was even made up
and lol at defending the iraq war. it makes you look like an idiot
I'm merely laying out facts. As opposed to emotion-laden arguments from others.
You don't know what you're talking about because of what you posted. There was intel provided by multiple other nations, as well. The issue was not whether the multinational intel community believed Iraq had an active WMD program--it was in the manner chosen by which to deal with it.
For you to say other countries didn't have the means to gather reliable intel themselves is you just talking about things you clearly know nothing about.
“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
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Dilbert_X wrote:
What satellite images?
Nope. No photos. Not corroborated by signals intelligence (from multiple nations). Not corroborated by Saddam and other regime officials after the invasion.
Nope. Nothing to see here. Move along.
“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
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Nice one FEOS, +1 for doing your homework
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Dilbert_X wrote:
So explain again how a third world tin pot dictator managed to fool the entire world (CIA really) by doing nothing whatever.
lol
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.