*golfclap*

Though I would never have accepted an "alliance" with Saddam Hussein- he was, after all, a despotic farkwit- still, more evidence that it wasn't worth the lives of thousands of some of the most dedicated of our citizens and the trillion and a half dollars we poured into that sand-filled hell hole in the middle east.

ragekage: Though I would never have accepted an "alliance" with Saddam Hussein

Well, then, I guess it never would have happened.

Pocket Ninja: ragekage: Though I would never have accepted an "alliance" with Saddam Hussein

Well, then, I guess it never would have happened.

Yer got-damnned-right. I got connections.

Fnord.

Remember kids, IRAN is the enemy again.

Scary enough to make even Saddam HUSSEIN cower in fear. IRAN.

ragekage: *golfclap*

Though I would never have accepted an "alliance" with Saddam Hussein- he was, after all, a despotic farkwit- still, more evidence that it wasn't worth the lives of thousands of some of the most dedicated of our citizens and the trillion and a half dollars we poured into that sand-filled hell hole in the middle east.

Saddam WAS our ally. We knew he was gassing Kurds but we were still arming him and giving him funding. Because he was the enemy of Iran and was fighting them.

Up until the invasion of Kuwait, Hussein was 'our guy'. That doesn't make him any better but it does reflect rather poorly on the US.

shivashakti: Up until the invasion of Kuwait, Hussein was 'our guy'. That doesn't make him any better but it does reflect rather poorly on the US.

If we're going to judge the US by local allies, there isn't anything that reflects well on us.

No, no, no. I was told in no uncertain terms Saddam was the new Hitler and threatened the world. The wmd's are in, um, Syria. Yep.

ragekage: *golfclap*

Though I would never have accepted an "alliance" with Saddam Hussein- he was, after all, a despotic farkwit- still, more evidence that it wasn't worth the lives of thousands of some of the most dedicated of our citizens and the trillion and a half dollars we poured into that sand-filled hell hole in the middle east.

In retrospect, it would have made sense. He certainly wouldn't have been the first brutal dictator the neocons had worked with. Hell, they worked with Saddam before. If it was too impalpable to work with him, they could have bought him off. Either way, they would have achieved their original goal of surrounding Iran with US allies. Of course, that type of power diplomacy wouldn't have gotten Bill Kristol's dick hard.

So does this make it a false positive? Was Saddam pregnant with WMDs or not?

"Boy, do I feel like a horse's patoot!"

Mentat: He certainly wouldn't have been the first brutal dictator the neocons had worked with.

It wouldn't have even been the first time we worked with THAT brutal dictator. Donald Rumsfeld was the one who originally opened up a friendship between Saddam and the Reagan administration. We gave Iraq plenty of aid in the '80s.

Iran-Iraq War II: Electric Boogaloo.

We need to somehow get Iran to antagonize Kim Jong Il.

Iran has rape rooms. Rape rooms, I tell you.

Boo farking hoo.

Saddam would never have been any kind of a remotely reputable ally. Unless you were Russia or France.

This kind of journalism is irresponsible at best.

And for what it is worth, Saddam would have given handjobs to every marine personally if it meant saving his sorry skin.

Control_this: Iran has rape rooms. Rape rooms, I tell you.

You said rape rooms twice.

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

-- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, January 29, 2003


BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!!1!!

inconnu: Boo farking hoo.

Saddam would never have been any kind of a remotely reputable ally. Unless you were Russia or France.

This kind of journalism is irresponsible at best.



Now you tell us!

Saddam was hanged.

Of course he would have accepted assistance.

/Not like it hadn't happened before.

SoxSweepAgain: Saddam was hanged.

He was also hung

/HAYYOOOOO

Even though the war in Iraq was a huge mistake, Saddam was still a huge shiatbag who absolutely deserved to be strung up by the neck. Don't forget this.

ragekage: *golfclap*

Though I would never have accepted an "alliance" with Saddam Hussein- he was, after all, a despotic farkwit- still, more evidence that it wasn't worth the lives of thousands of some of the most dedicated of our citizens and the trillion and a half dollars we poured into that sand-filled hell hole in the middle east.

If you actually just divided that money up you'd have enough to give every Iraqi a new life in a first world nation of their choosing.

The US could literally have bought Iraq.

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

The weapons inspectors remember things a little differently. As do I. Not all of us were watching Fox News then and were well away of the fabricated evidence. The European press were all over it at the time. Anyone who quoted them and their sources were called out as hating America.

I would like to take this time to say....

I farkING TOLD YOU SO.

/that is all.

the_sidewinder: SoxSweepAgain: Saddam was hanged.

He was also hung

/HAYYOOOOO



...and they was RIGHT!

There was never a stash...... just a stache.

Saddam used gas on the Kurds. Gas is a WMD. He didn't just farking make it up.

OgreMagi: Saddam used gas on the Kurds. Gas is a WMD. He didn't just farking make it up.

Gas is not a weapon of mass destruction.

It doesn't destroy anything. Weapon of mass poisoning? Sure. I'll take that. Destruction? No.

Duh, this was pretty clear during the run up to the war. There were many in the intel community and foreign policy circles saying this is 2002, it isn't really news.

No shiat. Saddam wanted the world to think he had WMDs so that Iran wouldn't fark with him. He was counting on the UN (read: France) to keep us in line.

I thought this was pretty well farking known?

FTA:

The documents also confirm previous reports that Saddam falsely allowed the world to believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction - the main U.S. rationale behind the war - because he feared revealing his weakness to Iran, the hostile neighbor he considered a bigger threat than the U.S.

Fairly logical. The Iranians had significantly more grievances with Iraq, and were neighbors. And the US had more grievances with Iran, as well.

What isn't logical is why he apparently didn't bother to meticulously document the bluff and store evidence of the (concealed) destruction of proscribed materials, for later production -- video, statements, maps et al could all be stored digitally and would have been trivial to hide for a last resort. He might have been able to win security guarantees, had he provided convincing evidence and explanation of absence rather than an absence of evidence of presence -- not likely the US would have approved of an Iranian invasion had he done so, and the guarantee would have been helpful in persuading other suspect nations that it might in fact be safe to comply with disarmament protocols even in difficult neighborhoods.

OgreMagi: Saddam used gas on the Kurds. Gas is a WMD. He didn't just farking make it up.

You said it. Past tense. As in, "We can't find any of the stuff now, I guess he must have already used it all up killing the Kurds and lied about still having some."

Need_MindBleach: Even though the war in Iraq was a huge mistake, Saddam was still a huge shiatbag who absolutely deserved to be strung up by the neck. Don't forget this.

Perhaps, but why that shiat bag?

Despite the fact that I saw this guy interviewed on TV at least a year ago I can't think of a more appropriate use of the FAIL tag.

kyoryu: No shiat. Saddam wanted the world to think he had WMDs so that Iran wouldn't fark with him. He was counting on the UN (read: France) to keep us in line.

I thought this was pretty well farking known?

You've got some retard in your brain. Thought you should know.

/FRANCE!
//It controls the world!

can't we just go bac to give weaons to the revolutionaries of countries.

civil war cool

LavenderWolf: OgreMagi: Saddam used gas on the Kurds. Gas is a WMD. He didn't just farking make it up.

Gas is not a weapon of mass destruction.

It doesn't destroy anything. Weapon of mass poisoning? Sure. I'll take that. Destruction? No.

It's considered a WMD by the US, the UN, our allies, and probably our enemies. But you don't consider it a WMD, so I guess everyone else is wrong. My bad.

The circle of failure is complete.

VwlssWndr: OgreMagi: Saddam used gas on the Kurds. Gas is a WMD. He didn't just farking make it up.

You said it. Past tense. As in, "We can't find any of the stuff now, I guess he must have already used it all up killing the Kurds and lied about still having some."

We had no reason to not believe he had more. I'm fairly certain they did find the components to make more gas. So even if they didn't find a bunch of ready to use tanks of the stuff, he was a danger. However, I think it was a big mistake to invade Iraq while we were still very busy in Afghanistan. Bush had all the attention span of an ADD six year old with a 2 liter bottle of Mountain Dew.

OgreMagi: Saddam used gas on the Kurds. Gas is a WMD. He didn't just farking make it up.

The shelf life of this stuff is kind of short. Short enough that Iraq would have had to kept manufacturing these agents post gulf war, when the United States and Great Britain were bombing them at least once a week. This is why that entire bullshiat story about the moving manufacturing trucks was made up. If he had build a factory that was capable of making the stuff, we would have seen it from the air and blown it apart. They only way he could have anything that was dangerous if he were crafty and put it in moving vehicles.

Problem is, other than the fact that it was made up bullshiat, the embargo on Iraq was successful and our intelligence agencies knew it. There really was no way for Iraq to keep making any WMD of any kind. Just ask ANYONE in the administration before the Sept 11 attacks if Iraq had WMDs, like the media did, and they will tell you the truth. Iraq had no WMDs. It was only after the Sept 11th attacks that Iraq suddenly had them.

All this stuff is documented. The Bush administration lied to the public. It did so to test a political theory written by members of his administration that once democracy takes hold in the middle east, the long term threat of the Islamists will diminish and it used the Sept 11th attacks as an excuse to do so.

All this was done at the cost of prolonging the war in Afganistan, letting the Taliban and Al Qaeda escape over the mountains into Pakistan, a few thousand US lives and an unknown amount Iraqi lives.

We sure freed the hell out of them.

He was just a petty dictator? No real threat to anyone?

The HELL you say!

/should have been an "obvious" tag.

It just another example of why the bush admin was behaving like a fascist pussy POS. They had to kill the weakest of the middle east, they used the boy in their pocket as a lamb. Clown show circus politics.

nice guy, except for that whole gassing of the Kurds ordeal....

OgreMagi: LavenderWolf: OgreMagi: Saddam used gas on the Kurds. Gas is a WMD. He didn't just farking make it up.

Gas is not a weapon of mass destruction.

It doesn't destroy anything. Weapon of mass poisoning? Sure. I'll take that. Destruction? No.

It's considered a WMD by the US, the UN, our allies, and probably our enemies. But you don't consider it a WMD, so I guess everyone else is wrong. My bad.

I'm sorry, I missed the part where I said I was an expert and said everybody else has to do exactly what I think they should do.

You don't have to preface your paragraph with "in my opinion.." for that to be implied. I am saying it therefore it's my opinion.

OgreMagi: Saddam used gas on the Kurds. Gas is a WMD. He didn't just farking make it up.

LavenderWolf: Gas is not a weapon of mass destruction.

It doesn't destroy anything. Weapon of mass poisoning? Sure. I'll take that. Destruction? No.

Yeah it most definitely is a WMD.
But the thing was this was old news. Halabja was gassed in 1988, the US and the world kinda came in and said "no, you can't do that", and Saddam never did it again. At the time, the Kurds were sort of aligned with Iranians, probably sort of an "insurgent stronghold" like Ramadi, and he had tried to send a message by gassing the whole place.

Actually Saddam has used poison gas against Iranians- probably extensively- during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War. He bombed Iranian towns and outposts. We never mentioned that part; evidently that was ok. We only focused on the one attack on Iraqi soil, probably because after vilifying Iranians they thought that him bombing Iranians thusly might not even go down as a black mark on his record.

LavenderWolf: kyoryu: No shiat. Saddam wanted the world to think he had WMDs so that Iran wouldn't fark with him. He was counting on the UN (read: France) to keep us in line.

I thought this was pretty well farking known?

You've got some retard in your brain. Thought you should know.

/FRANCE!
//It controls the world!

That's cute. Do the words "Security Council" mean anything to you?

France was getting cheap oil from Iraq, and they also owed France a ton of money. With their ability to veto any action by the UN, they should have been able to put a stop to any military action.

What they didn't plan on was the US saying "fark you" to the UN. Otherwise, it was a pretty good plan by Saddam... if it wasn't for those meddling kids.

Bob tells Dave not to move as he has a gun in his pocket and it's pointed right at him. Dave looks down, sees that Bob has his hand in his pocket and that there sure is something gun shaped there. A police officer walking by sees Dave looking scared and demands to know what is going on.

'He's got a gun!' says Dave.

'Is that true?' the office asks

'What does it look like to you?' says Bob with a smile.

'I said, is it true?'

'Why don't you come here, inspect my pocket and find out?'

The police officer considers this and decides, instead, to put a bullet through Bob's head. Problem solved except that it turns out Bob was bullshiatting: it wasn't a gun, it was his finger pointed at Dave.

Conclusion: Bob's dead, Dave feels the need to protect himself just in case the next nutcase actually has a gun and the cop gets written up for excessive force - couldn't he just have tased the guy? or talked him down? etc etc

/not sure where I was going with this
//Saddam should have realised when to stop bluffing

LavenderWolf: OgreMagi: LavenderWolf: OgreMagi: Saddam used gas on the Kurds. Gas is a WMD. He didn't just farking make it up.

Gas is not a weapon of mass destruction.

It doesn't destroy anything. Weapon of mass poisoning? Sure. I'll take that. Destruction? No.

It's considered a WMD by the US, the UN, our allies, and probably our enemies. But you don't consider it a WMD, so I guess everyone else is wrong. My bad.

I'm sorry, I missed the part where I said I was an expert and said everybody else has to do exactly what I think they should do.

You don't have to preface your paragraph with "in my opinion.." for that to be implied. I am saying it therefore it's my opinion.

Gas is destructive to life.

Just a tiny factoid I thought you should be made aware of.

Oznog: OgreMagi: Saddam used gas on the Kurds. Gas is a WMD. He didn't just farking make it up.

LavenderWolf: Gas is not a weapon of mass destruction.

It doesn't destroy anything. Weapon of mass poisoning? Sure. I'll take that. Destruction? No.

Yeah it most definitely is a WMD.
But the thing was this was old news. Halabja was gassed in 1988, the US and the world kinda came in and said "no, you can't do that", and Saddam never did it again. At the time, the Kurds were sort of aligned with Iranians, probably sort of an "insurgent stronghold" like Ramadi, and he had tried to send a message by gassing the whole place.

Actually Saddam has used poison gas against Iranians- probably extensively- during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War. He bombed Iranian towns and outposts. We never mentioned that part; evidently that was ok. We only focused on the one attack on Iraqi soil, probably because after vilifying Iranians they thought that him bombing Iranians thusly might not even go down as a black mark on his record.

Right. The gassing your own people thing looks more evil. I mean, you realize we never really cared about brown people getting gassed one bit. When people still think we care about people's freedom, it just amazes me. But they fall for it everytime.

Renowned transvestite sexologist: The shelf life of this stuff is kind of short

No, the shelf life of poison gases is not short. If it was short, then the US wouldn't have to deal with the tons we have in Utah, Oregon and Kentucky.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umatilla_Chemical_Depot

Need_MindBleach: Even though the war in Iraq was a huge mistake, Saddam was still a huge shiatbag who absolutely deserved to be strung up by the neck. Don't forget this.

Whew! I'm glad to hear we had a GOOD reason to start a farking war. Saddam was a huge shiatbag? Well that changes everything.

Here's a newsflash for you: conservatives don't give a shiat about oppressed people anywhere. The only thing they care about is not being perceived as the irrelevant, heartless, hopeless fark-ups they've repeated demonstrated themselves to be.

Perhaps the next time a bunch of old politicians need to compensate for their non functioning penises, they'll choose to pop a few Viagra instead of bullshiatting us into a war that has cost a huge amount of time, resources and lives.

kyoryu: LavenderWolf: kyoryu: No shiat. Saddam wanted the world to think he had WMDs so that Iran wouldn't fark with him. He was counting on the UN (read: France) to keep us in line.

I thought this was pretty well farking known?

You've got some retard in your brain. Thought you should know.

/FRANCE!
//It controls the world!

That's cute. Do the words "Security Council" mean anything to you?

France was getting cheap oil from Iraq, and they also owed France a ton of money. With their ability to veto any action by the UN, they should have been able to put a stop to any military action.

What they didn't plan on was the US saying "fark you" to the UN. Otherwise, it was a pretty good plan by Saddam... if it wasn't for those meddling kids.

Oh come on.


We have here evidence that France was right in being against military action here.

Do you not see the fking point?

Saddam was never a threat but he was always, always an option.

/Option was taken.

OgreMagi: LavenderWolf: OgreMagi: LavenderWolf: OgreMagi: Saddam used gas on the Kurds. Gas is a WMD. He didn't just farking make it up.

Gas is not a weapon of mass destruction.

It doesn't destroy anything. Weapon of mass poisoning? Sure. I'll take that. Destruction? No.

It's considered a WMD by the US, the UN, our allies, and probably our enemies. But you don't consider it a WMD, so I guess everyone else is wrong. My bad.

I'm sorry, I missed the part where I said I was an expert and said everybody else has to do exactly what I think they should do.

You don't have to preface your paragraph with "in my opinion.." for that to be implied. I am saying it therefore it's my opinion.

Gas is destructive to life.

Just a tiny factoid I thought you should be made aware of.
Right. And totally equal to a nuclear device and should be classified on the same level.

/do you know how big a nuke is?
//there doesn't exist gas weapons large enough to fill 1% of the blast of larger bombs.

Just to play devil's advocate, we now have a permanent military presence in the Middle East, with troops in both Iraq and Afganistan. How that's going to work out in the long run, I have no idea, but I'm willing to bet that was one of the major goals in the beginning.

So everything was done out of fear of Iran. RLY?

And we couldn't figure this out 7 years ago before we invaded?

Further proof that the previous administration was absolutely careless, reckless, and not fit to lead a tango, much less a world superpower.

Any room left up in Canada?

/just checking

Fascinating account.

Saddam, a bloodthirsty dictator, comes across as far more of a rational actor than Bush.

Also, Saddam's capable of admitting his mistakes.

/hang 'em both

shivashakti: Saddam WAS our ally. We knew he was gassing Kurds but we were still arming him and giving him funding. Because he was the enemy of Iran and was fighting them.

Up until the invasion of Kuwait, Hussein was 'our guy'. That doesn't make him any better but it does reflect rather poorly on the US.

Everybody was "our" ally. If adventures were anything like adventurism, Frodo would have promised Saruman his help in overthrowing Sauron, allied with Sauron afterwards, signed a non-aggression pact with the dwarves, double crossed Sauron, kept the One Ring for himself, generated a large amount of pipeweed contracts across Middle-Earth for the local Shire growers, and brought Hobbitocracy or at least Hobbit-friendly overlordism to the reaches of Rohan.

inconnu: Boo farking hoo.

Saddam would never have been any kind of a remotely reputable ally. Unless you were Russia or France.

This kind of journalism is irresponsible at best.

Except when he was our reputable ally during the Iran-Iraq war, and our forward base for a lot of the covert ops in Afghanistan. But no, he wouldn't have been a very reputable ally any other time.

Meanwhile your good pals in Saudi Arabia ...Link (new window)

he had them, he didn't have them, he lied about having them

why doesn't someone just post in bold and align the text in the center? how am i supposed to know what to really believe?

The Bushes wanted vengeance for Saddam threatening Dubya's daddy and his boyfriends. Vengeance taken.
Next time let's hope they pay for it out of their own pocket, like Perot.

Deacon Blue: Just to play devil's advocate, we now have a permanent military presence in the Middle East, with troops in both Iraq and Afganistan. How that's going to work out in the long run, I have no idea, but I'm willing to bet that was one of the major goals in the beginning.

Really? No shiat? You figure that out on your own? Yes, that was the entire point.

Don't let's forget that that a certain bunch of neocons concocted the idea of invading Iraq and setting up a puppet government long before Dubya was elected, long before 9/11. Presumably they would have used the WMD pretext no matter what the case. So the only question is, did the neocons consider making a deal with Sadaam, or was he too difficult to bend to their purposes, making a deal with Satan a better choice.

OgreMagi: OgreMagi:

Gas is destructive to life.

Just a tiny factoid I thought you should be made aware of.

OMG!!!! But I'm breathing gas right now! What should I do? What should I do?!?!?!?!?

/Factoid = something oft-repeated as if it were a fact, but in truth is not; a simulated or imaginary fact.
//idiot

Dr. Mojo PhD: Everybody was "our" ally. If adventures were anything like adventurism, Frodo would have promised Saruman his help in overthrowing Sauron, allied with Sauron afterwards, signed a non-aggression pact with the dwarves, double crossed Sauron, kept the One Ring for himself, generated a large amount of pipeweed contracts across Middle-Earth for the local Shire growers, and brought Hobbitocracy or at least Hobbit-friendly overlordism to the reaches of Rohan.

Yeah, until TMZ publishes a pic of Sam arriving at Bag-end with a box of pipe-weed, lembas, and a 12" black rubber cock- forcing Frodo to retire from adventuring.

LavenderWolf: Right. And totally equal to a nuclear device and should be classified on the same level.

/do you know how big a nuke is?

not all nukes are the same size, and I think you are really discounting the potency of chemical warfare. Not only can large areas be affected, but it lingers there for days. Some nukes can obliterate half a continent (or some other large size whatever I don't feel like looking up exactly how big the largest ones are), sure, but that doesn't mean those are the only nukes that cause "mass destruction". The term is really meant in relationship to conventional explosives which can only get so big and don't deliver a continuous threat to life after their initial deployment. Just because there are weapons of mass destruction that cause way more mass destruction, doesn't mean gas doesn't still cause mass destruction.

ragekage: Though I would never have accepted an "alliance" with Saddam Hussein-

It's 5:17 EST here. The sunrise is just starting. The sun seems to be hesitatingat the horizon, though.

I think it's waiting for your approval.

TemperedEdge: So everything was done out of fear of Iran. RLY?

And we couldn't figure this out 7 years ago before we invaded?

The Bush administration knew. We sold Iraq weapons for years because we were scared shiatless of Iran. Donald Rumsfeld was selling weapons to Iraq when he worked for the Reagan administration.

Saddam was a tinpot dictator with several scary enemies at his borders and a population held together with an iron fist. The easiest way to keep that kind of situation under control to to make sure people think you are tougher than you are. You don't admit to the world that you don't have the ability to kick the crap out of the real bastards at your door.

Bush The Lesser was never interested in a peaceful solution to this non-crisis. He was pushing for an invasion of Iraq before 9/11 even happened.

"told you so!"

Sum Dum Gai: We gave Iraq plenty of aid in the '80s.

And the late 70's.

The State Department in 1980 actually arranged for Detroit to give Saddam the key to the city.

Although I suppose if we had to give Saddam the key to a US city, Detroit would be the obvious pick.

LavenderWolf: Gas is not a weapon of mass destruction.

It doesn't destroy anything. Weapon of mass poisoning? Sure. I'll take that. Destruction? No.

Typically, I'm not up this early, nor do I have the luxury of reading the ignorant posts from earlier in the day, but this one takes the cake.

Gas weapons are not WMD's?

Wow, the propaganda in our Education System/Mass Media are certainly doing their job.

Ed Grubermann: Saddam was a tinpot dictator with several scary enemies at his borders and a population held together with an iron fist. The easiest way to keep that kind of situation under control to to make sure people think you are tougher than you are. You don't admit to the world that you don't have the ability to kick the crap out of the real bastards at your door.

Which in itself was an insane extension of the already insane Kirkpatrick Doctrine, which was essentially that Our Bloodthirsty Dictator is Better than Your Bloodthirsty Dictator for a Lot of BS PR Reasons but Really Just Because He's OUR Bloodthirsty Dictator.

Christ what a load of shiat the Reagan years were. I wish the asshole could remember he's burning in hell. And I wish I believed in hell just so I could enjoy it.

Kinda crazy stuff.

LavenderWolf: Gas is not a weapon of mass destruction.

It doesn't destroy anything. Weapon of mass poisoning? Sure. I'll take that. Destruction? No.

Not that I don't generally agree with the sentiment of the rest of your posts, but are you seriously suggesting that a Neutron Bomb isn't a WMD because it doesn't actually destroy anything?

BigSnatch: So does this make it a false positive? Was Saddam pregnant with WMDs or not?

Haven't you Kurd, it was just gas. Pun Pun Pun Iran away.

Lokix1x: LavenderWolf: Right. And totally equal to a nuclear device and should be classified on the same level.

/do you know how big a nuke is?

not all nukes are the same size, and I think you are really discounting the potency of chemical warfare. Not only can large areas be affected, but it lingers there for days. Some nukes can obliterate half a continent (or some other large size whatever I don't feel like looking up exactly how big the largest ones are), sure, but that doesn't mean those are the only nukes that cause "mass destruction". The term is really meant in relationship to conventional explosives which can only get so big and don't deliver a continuous threat to life after their initial deployment. Just because there are weapons of mass destruction that cause way more mass destruction, doesn't mean gas doesn't still cause mass destruction.

We used to have (probably still do) a tactical artillery nuke, capable of being delivered from a standard 155mm howitzer or similar gun. It was intended for battlefield/anti-tank use, and wouldn't be considered a weapon of "mass" destruction.

Whether or not gas is a "mass" destruction weapon may turn on what type of gas you're referring to. Mustard maybe; chlorine, possibly; nerve, definitely.

Gyrfalcon: We used to have (probably still do) a tactical artillery nuke, capable of being delivered from a standard 155mm howitzer or similar gun. It was intended for battlefield/anti-tank use, and wouldn't be considered a weapon of "mass" destruction.

The Davy Crockett was a man-portable recoilless rifle tactical nuke, no artillery needed. There's also been air-to-air missiles with tactical nuclear warheads, etc.

Mass destruction is about scale and scope, not ingredients. It's easy to associate NBCR with WMDs but that's not necessarily the case. I'd be far more terrified of a massive thermobaric bomb than say the Davy Crockett.

But still, claiming gas is not or cannot be a WMD is more than a little disingenuous.

It's really depressing to remember that Bush was just being an asshole from the beginning and used "terrorism" as an excuse to invade a non-terrorist state (actually created one). I hope the people don't forget this War cause some president will always take advantage by blowing shiat up. Now we gotta make sure Obama ain't crossing any lines in the future. Hard to really tell what's up now.

OgreMagi: Saddam used gas on the Kurds. Gas is a WMD. He didn't just farking make it up.

WMD is a completely bullshiat term.

the ONLY purpose of it is to help conflate simple chemical weapons with nukes and z-virus in the public debate.

Gyrfalcon: inconnu: Boo farking hoo.

Saddam would never have been any kind of a remotely reputable ally. Unless you were Russia or France.

This kind of journalism is irresponsible at best.

Except when he was our reputable ally during the Iran-Iraq war, and our forward base for a lot of the covert ops in Afghanistan. But no, he wouldn't have been a very reputable ally any other time.

Yawn. Yeah. Because geopolitics were like, totally the same during the Cold War as after. It's not like it stopped us from smacking him down when he invaded Kuwait in 1991.

Stupid twit.

Ed Grubermann: Deacon Blue: Just to play devil's advocate, we now have a permanent military presence in the Middle East, with troops in both Iraq and Afganistan. How that's going to work out in the long run, I have no idea, but I'm willing to bet that was one of the major goals in the beginning.

Really? No shiat? You figure that out on your own? Yes, that was the entire point.

I also have this idea about how we support Israel in order to influence events in that region. Seriously, I just didn't see where someone else had pointed the 'American troops now permanently stationed in the Middle East' thing.

On a seperate note, I'm always surprised by people who think real-world international politics are carried out with anything but the most cursory of nods towards morality, and that only for the sake of public consumption. World leaders are influenced by Machiavelli more that by God, Jesus, Buddah, or Mohammad. I'm not sure you could successfully run a country using truly humanitarian principles.

cnstrctvcyncism: he had them, he didn't have them, he lied about having them

why doesn't someone just post in bold and align the text in the center? how am i supposed to know what to really believe?

Do you have a more plausible explanation? Off-hand, the possible scenarios seem to be

1- The article's contention: All non-trivial quantities of proscribed materials, that hadn't been destroyed during the course of the first Gulf War itself, were secretly and thoroughly destroyed under his orders or at least with his awareness and consent. This destruction was to be completely secret (in order to maintain the bluff); this violated the main resolutions, but was judged an acceptable risk. It is not entirely clear whether Saddam ever considered retaining evidence of destruction in case it became "prove they're gone or GTFO", but the failure to produce it in the face of very real threats and the failure of either UNMOVIC or UNSCOM to find clear evidence of this suggests that it wasn't retained.

2- Both UNSCOM and UNMOVIC were completely, utterly wrong and vastly overestimated the quantities of proscribed materials that were imported or produced, and therefore had to be accounted for. The materials weren't hidden or destroyed -- they never existed. This does not seem particularly likely; judging from Blix's writings and the various dossiers and other documents released, the inspectors were quite methodical and not prone to simply inventing numbers.

3- The materials continued to exist, but were extremely well hidden in Iraq. This seems unlikely; to be useful, somebody (presumably military) would have to be able to find them again. One would expect documentation. Also, one would expect that witnesses (somebody had to do the actual hiding) might have mentioned it by now; the probability that everybody with significant knowledge died during the war seems low. If they've been buried so well that nobody can recover them, they pretty much don't exist from a weapons POV and would probably mostly be an environmental issue (groundwater contanimation and the like).

4- The 'moved to [other country, usually Syria] theory': Iraq *did* have large quantities of proscribed materials even after the first Gulf War, but at some point managed to completely evade the inspections regime, occasional satellite or aerial surveillance, and so forth. Noting that Saddam was both rather paranoid and also unpopular, one has to ask whether he would have bothered (in that he might not trust anything to be returned) and whether anybody would have accepted them (in so far as they were a huge hot potato, and the consequences of getting caught with them might have been bad -- and also that nobody in the region was likely to do Saddam favors, anyway).

5. Saddam himself lacked an accurate picture and was the victim of an internal deception operation -- specifically, with overstated claims of procurement and production complete with forged documents and so forth. The motivation for this would be -- if you were working on a project that a frequently homicidal, rather vindictive tyrant considered near and dear to his heart, would you risk disappointing the man? In the face of production difficulties, you might weigh the risks of lying and honesty and decide that the former would be less likely to result in excruciating death. Lies would then have to be built on lies. Of course, this ties into (2); the forgeries and deception operation would have had to have been quite good to fool the inspectors even post-war; in addition, the people who might have done the deceiving don't have Saddam to fear anymore and AFAIK have not claimed to have actually run such a deception operation.


I think that covers all the major scenarios that are consistent with what's known, but of course I could have overlooked something. (1) seems far more probable to me than any of the others.

Lehk: WMD is a completely bullshiat term.

the ONLY purpose of it is to help conflate simple chemical weapons with nukes and z-virus in the public debate.

Actually, no. What chemical, nuclear and biological weapons have in common with each other (but not, say, 122mm HE or 5.45x39) is that they're all indiscriminate, very difficult to control in terms of area affected, and potentially dangerous for non-trivial time. Tabun doesn't exactly vanish instantly, for instance. Thus, they pose significantly more danger to civilians anywhere nearby and are an obvious target for anybody trying to 'humanize' warfare.

Nice knee-jerk reaction, however.

LavenderWolf: OgreMagi: LavenderWolf: OgreMagi: Saddam used gas on the Kurds. Gas is a WMD. He didn't just farking make it up.

Gas is not a weapon of mass destruction.

It doesn't destroy anything. Weapon of mass poisoning? Sure. I'll take that. Destruction? No.

It's considered a WMD by the US, the UN, our allies, and probably our enemies. But you don't consider it a WMD, so I guess everyone else is wrong. My bad.

I'm sorry, I missed the part where I said I was an expert and said everybody else has to do exactly what I think they should do.

You don't have to preface your paragraph with "in my opinion.." for that to be implied. I am saying it therefore it's my opinion.

In my opinion, you are a semantics fag. Or was that implied?

Sergeant Pecker's Lonely Hearts Club Gang Bang:

You said rape rooms twice.


I like rape rooms.

yeah right,,, that would be like telling Pelosi to make sense,, or to stop sucking her teeth.

It's a shame most people have run out of rage for this kind of thing... I met a kid tonight at a bar in Austin, fresh from a tour in Afghanistan, and one thing I can promise you is that he was traumatized. Hit by an IED, barely survived. In his words, "If I had a choice, I'd never do it again. It's going to be just like Vietnam... we'll be there forever. I gotta go back next year." Then I asked him if he was scared, and he said, "I guess not. I don't really believe in a god or anything, but I figure there's some reason I'm here. That IED blew up like 5 feet from me, and I didn't die."

Sorry if this is kind of long-winded, but considering the article and the experience of talking to that kid, I thought it might be appropriate to share. If you've never had a beer with a vet of any war, I recommend it. It adds a lot of perspective people like Sean Hannity lack.

itazurakko: Remember kids, IRAN is the enemy again.

Scary enough to make even Saddam HUSSEIN cower in fear. IRAN.

Saddam was nothing more than a modern day Colonel Klink.

Korovyov: they pose significantly more danger to civilians anywhere nearby and are an obvious target for anybody trying to 'humanize' warfare.

Nice knee-jerk reaction, however.


How many civilians have been unintentionally maimed or killed by poison gas in the last 50 years?

compared to say, US deployed land mines or Israeli cluster bombs.

crab66: The circle of failure is complete.

This....but that being said, at what point do we move on? There are plenty of other issues that need SERIOUS addressing, not 5m people still wanting to string up the Bush Administraion. We'll get nothing done until people open their eyes and realize we're FARK'd for an entirely different/new set of circumstances...well, some are old but hey, let's get cracking!

Why can't people just read UN Resolution 1441 to see what a dick Saddam was.

Lokix1x: LavenderWolf: Right. And totally equal to a nuclear device and should be classified on the same level.

/do you know how big a nuke is?

not all nukes are the same size, and I think you are really discounting the potency of chemical warfare. Not only can large areas be affected, but it lingers there for days. Some nukes can obliterate half a continent (or some other large size whatever I don't feel like looking up exactly how big the largest ones are), sure, but that doesn't mean those are the only nukes that cause "mass destruction". The term is really meant in relationship to conventional explosives which can only get so big and don't deliver a continuous threat to life after their initial deployment. Just because there are weapons of mass destruction that cause way more mass destruction, doesn't mean gas doesn't still cause mass destruction.

Let me put it this way.

The smallest successful nukes will destroy a small city.

The smallest successful gas attack could take out half a city block.

The largest nuke can take out half of north america.

The largest chem weapons can destroy (the population of) a small city.


Kalashinator: LavenderWolf: OgreMagi: LavenderWolf: OgreMagi: Saddam used gas on the Kurds. Gas is a WMD. He didn't just farking make it up.

Gas is not a weapon of mass destruction.

It doesn't destroy anything. Weapon of mass poisoning? Sure. I'll take that. Destruction? No.

It's considered a WMD by the US, the UN, our allies, and probably our enemies. But you don't consider it a WMD, so I guess everyone else is wrong. My bad.

I'm sorry, I missed the part where I said I was an expert and said everybody else has to do exactly what I think they should do.

You don't have to preface your paragraph with "in my opinion.." for that to be implied. I am saying it therefore it's my opinion.

In my opinion, you are a semantics fag. Or was that implied?

You're an idiot. I was going off on HIM for getting stuck up about it being my opinion.

crab66: The circle of failure is complete.

No, we still have to blame it on the black guy.

Renowned transvestite sexologist:
...We sure freed the hell out of them.


Agrees (pops)

10.0.0.1: crab66: The circle of failure is complete.

No, we still have to blame it on the black guy.

Well yeah...there's that.

OgreMagi: LavenderWolf: OgreMagi: Saddam used gas on the Kurds. Gas is a WMD. He didn't just farking make it up.

Gas is not a weapon of mass destruction.

It doesn't destroy anything. Weapon of mass poisoning? Sure. I'll take that. Destruction? No.

It's considered a WMD by the US, the UN, our allies, and probably our enemies. But you don't consider it a WMD, so I guess everyone else is wrong. My bad.

The entire term "WMD" is bullshiat used to scare everyone. That way they could lump chemical and biological weapons in with nuclear weapons to make them seem just as sinister.

But they is no comparison. Nuclear weapons are on an entirely different level.

The absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

We are just going to have to accept that there are some unknown unknowns.

Gen. Apathy: OgreMagi: LavenderWolf: OgreMagi: Saddam used gas on the Kurds. Gas is a WMD. He didn't just farking make it up.

Gas is not a weapon of mass destruction.

It doesn't destroy anything. Weapon of mass poisoning? Sure. I'll take that. Destruction? No.

It's considered a WMD by the US, the UN, our allies, and probably our enemies. But you don't consider it a WMD, so I guess everyone else is wrong. My bad.

The entire term "WMD" is bullshiat used to scare everyone. That way they could lump chemical and biological weapons in with nuclear weapons to make them seem just as sinister.

But they is no comparison. Nuclear weapons are on an entirely different level.

Hey gas is even better. Kill everyone leaving the infrastructure mostly intact. Then you can just bring out the soylent green trucks, spray some Lysol and move right in.

read most posts with Dennis Miller in my head doing the one-liners, cha-cha.

At first I was like:



But then I was like:

There was nothing in that article about any alliance with the US, so it looks to me like the person lying here is the person who linked the article.

Gyrfalcon: inconnu: Boo farking hoo.

Saddam would never have been any kind of a remotely reputable ally. Unless you were Russia or France.

This kind of journalism is irresponsible at best.

Except when he was our reputable ally during the Iran-Iraq war, and our forward base for a lot of the covert ops in Afghanistan. But no, he wouldn't have been a very reputable ally any other time.

Abort Retry Fail. Iraq shares no border with Afghanistan (in fact has a rather hostile to us country between them) and thus would make a poor "forward" base. I do believe that you are thinking of Pakistan, but are too afflicted with the WHARRGARBL to actually use your brain for something other than keeping your head inflated.

Lehk: OgreMagi: Saddam used gas on the Kurds. Gas is a WMD. He didn't just farking make it up.

WMD is a completely bullshiat term.

the ONLY purpose of it is to help conflate simple chemical weapons with nukes and z-virus in the public debate.

"Four thousand throats may be cut in one night by a running man."

So I guess a knife can be a WMD too.

As long as it's a kut'luch.

...and would have formed an alliance with the US

After Saddam switched from trading oil for Euros instead of US dollars? There's no way the overclass in the US would ally with someone who did that.

Hussein didn't make anything up.
It was the US 'intelligence' with all their drawings of rail cars that allowed the moving around of weapons that didn't exist.
It was payback by Bush for Hussein's attempt at killing his daddy.

Where are the WMD's?
It's been 6 farking years already.
That's right, there weren't any.

Gen. Apathy:

The entire term "WMD" is bullshiat used to scare everyone. That way they could lump chemical and biological weapons in with nuclear weapons to make them seem just as sinister.

But they is no comparison. Nuclear weapons are on an entirely different level.


sorry folks. wasn't paying attention...

One more thing. If the US had dropped chemical or biological weapons on Hiroshima or Nagasaki do you think it would have had the same impact? Why all the fear of nuclear annihilation during the cold war? I remember growing up thinking the world could end at any moment (those of us old enough to remember the nuclear stalemate between the USSR and the USA), I am sure there are Europeans that remember the thought of Europe becoming the nuclear battlefield. We weren't concerned with chemical or biological attacks, it was nuclear war that terrified us.

Granted, biological weapons could conceivably be horrific, but I have only read about the death of all humanity from bio-weapons in sci-fi books. But I am sure most of us can easily imagine a nuclear war annihilating everyone. We don't say "glass parking lot" for nothing.

The term WMD is bullshiat. Bio and chem weapons do not cause mass destruction on a scale comparable to nuclear. I have no doubt that the USA has more of bio, chem and nuclear weapons than all these "bad guys" we go after. What does that make us? It's like a cop telling me "you can't be armed citizen, only I can because I'm the good guy". Yeah right.

Renowned transvestite sexologist: OgreMagi: Saddam used gas on the Kurds. Gas is a WMD. He didn't just farking make it up.

The shelf life of this stuff is kind of short. Short enough that Iraq would have had to kept manufacturing these agents post gulf war, when the United States and Great Britain were bombing them at least once a week. This is why that entire bullshiat story about the moving manufacturing trucks was made up. If he had build a factory that was capable of making the stuff, we would have seen it from the air and blown it apart. They only way he could have anything that was dangerous if he were crafty and put it in moving vehicles.

Problem is, other than the fact that it was made up bullshiat, the embargo on Iraq was successful and our intelligence agencies knew it. There really was no way for Iraq to keep making any WMD of any kind. Just ask ANYONE in the administration before the Sept 11 attacks if Iraq had WMDs, like the media did, and they will tell you the truth. Iraq had no WMDs. It was only after the Sept 11th attacks that Iraq suddenly had them.

All this stuff is documented. The Bush administration lied to the public. It did so to test a political theory written by members of his administration that once democracy takes hold in the middle east, the long term threat of the Islamists will diminish and it used the Sept 11th attacks as an excuse to do so.

All this was done at the cost of prolonging the war in Afganistan, letting the Taliban and Al Qaeda escape over the mountains into Pakistan, a few thousand US lives and an unknown amount Iraqi lives.

We sure freed the hell out of them.

Then why is the US Army still destroying the stuff from WWI just up the road from me in Aberdeen?

rurdy: Renowned transvestite sexologist: OgreMagi: Saddam used gas on the Kurds. Gas is a WMD. He didn't just farking make it up.

The shelf life of this stuff is kind of short. Short enough that Iraq would have had to kept manufacturing these agents post gulf war, when the United States and Great Britain were bombing them at least once a week. This is why that entire bullshiat story about the moving manufacturing trucks was made up. If he had build a factory that was capable of making the stuff, we would have seen it from the air and blown it apart. They only way he could have anything that was dangerous if he were crafty and put it in moving vehicles.

Problem is, other than the fact that it was made up bullshiat, the embargo on Iraq was successful and our intelligence agencies knew it. There really was no way for Iraq to keep making any WMD of any kind. Just ask ANYONE in the administration before the Sept 11 attacks if Iraq had WMDs, like the media did, and they will tell you the truth. Iraq had no WMDs. It was only after the Sept 11th attacks that Iraq suddenly had them.

All this stuff is documented. The Bush administration lied to the public. It did so to test a political theory written by members of his administration that once democracy takes hold in the middle east, the long term threat of the Islamists will diminish and it used the Sept 11th attacks as an excuse to do so.

All this was done at the cost of prolonging the war in Afganistan, letting the Taliban and Al Qaeda escape over the mountains into Pakistan, a few thousand US lives and an unknown amount Iraqi lives.

We sure freed the hell out of them.

Then why is the US Army still destroying the stuff from WWI just up the road from me in Aberdeen?

some are more stable. I think reknowned meant the effective shelf life, as some agents degrade quickly but remain toxic, just not as potent.

ragekage: *golfclap*

Though I would never have accepted an "alliance" with Saddam Hussein- he was, after all, a despotic farkwit- still, more evidence that it wasn't worth the lives of thousands of some of the most dedicated of our citizens and the trillion and a half dollars we poured into that sand-filled hell hole in the middle east.

I personally beg to differ.
I think personally it was worth everything in the long run.

The only thing that is important and relevant to me is that because of George Bush and his cronies, thousands of American families lost a dad, mom, brother or sister for a political purpose that was not compelling or worthy.

It sickens me to think of all the wonderful Americans who threw their lives away or who were seriously wounded because they didn't question their patriotic duties even when a cadre of immoral political hacks utterly abused their authority and took advantage of our soldiers' honor to send them to their deaths in a cause that was not justified.

So people are still blaming Bush even after Sadam (and this is old news by the way) admits that he was actively trying to convince us that he had WMD's; amazing. So Sadam was bluffing, everyone's intelligence comes back with mixed information (because it was a bluff), Bush er's on the side of caution with foresight to the future and he's the evil idiot?

Hussein noted that Iran's weapons capabilities had increased dramatically while Iraq's weapons "had been eliminated by the UN sanctions," and that eventually Iraq would have to reconstitute its weapons to deal with that threat if it could not reach a security agreement with the United States.

It's hard to ignore that he also said "Yes we would have had them too." or did you think we'd welcome him with open arms as a friend all things considered? Or perhaps you think things would be much better in the region with a nuclear arms racing going on betwixt Iraq and Iran while we try to push the Taliban out of Afghanistan? Or could it be that an American invasion of Afghanistan would be what it took to get Iraq and Iran to work together against a common enemy? Would Egyptians, Syrians, Jordanians and other reformers of Middle Eastern countries be wondering "Why not us?" if Iraq had not had open and publicized free elections? Or do you think the Iranian dissenters would have been enough? Would the Iranians have dissented knowing that Sadam was still in power unopposed next door? That would have provided a much better boogey man for the Regime to point at for stability.

It's real easy to sit back and cast stones at Bush simply because we didn't find WMD's that everyone and their brother thought might be there, but it's a short sighted person who does so.

Given the information at the time and all the variables, enforcing the cease fire agreement in Iraq was a good decision. Not having enough boots on the ground to do it right for fear of "angering the Arab Street" was a poor decision.

OgreMagi: Saddam used gas on the Kurds.

Well, but so did the Brits.

Deacon Blue: Ed Grubermann: Deacon Blue: Just to play devil's advocate, we now have a permanent military presence in the Middle East, with troops in both Iraq and Afganistan. How that's going to work out in the long run, I have no idea, but I'm willing to bet that was one of the major goals in the beginning.

Really? No shiat? You figure that out on your own? Yes, that was the entire point.

I also have this idea about how we support Israel in order to influence events in that region. Seriously, I just didn't see where someone else had pointed the 'American troops now permanently stationed in the Middle East' thing.

On a seperate note, I'm always surprised by people who think real-world international politics are carried out with anything but the most cursory of nods towards morality, and that only for the sake of public consumption. World leaders are influenced by Machiavelli more that by God, Jesus, Buddah, or Mohammad. I'm not sure you could successfully run a country using truly humanitarian principles.


Approves.
/hot like iraq
//i wrote this post a long time ago
///a long long time ago

themeaningoflifeisnot: The only thing that is important and relevant to me is that because of George Bush and his cronies, thousands of American families lost a dad, mom, brother or sister for a political purpose that was not compelling or worthy.

So you don't think lancing the boil that was the Middle East with a long term eye for peace and democratization in the area, isn't a worthy enough cause? More people were murdered in Chicago alone than died in Iraq during the year of 2008.

Link (new window)

I'd say our soldiers who payed the ultimate price died for a much better reason than the people in Chicago who bought it, don't you think? So which would be a better focus of your energy? Trying to stop the process of allowing Iraqi's their chance at self-determination or trying to stop the crime spree in Chicago?

LavenderWolf: You're an idiot. I was going off on HIM for getting stuck up about it being my opinion.

My apologies. But I prefer the term "mean drunk".

Chemical weapons count as weapons of mass destruction because, regardless of actual property damage, they can kill a large amount of people indiscriminately. And killing people counts as "destruction" of human life. THAT is what I thought you were challenging.

How do we know he had chemical weapons? We sold them to him.

In case you are confused by this, it makes us the bad guys.

Yes. America. The USA. The bad guys. Starters of shiate in the middle east. Dealers in death, causers of wars, the aggressors, the oil and money whores. You read it here first. We kill people for money.

Koryovov : Actually, no. What chemical, nuclear and biological weapons have in common with each other (but not, say, 122mm HE or 5.45x39) is that they're all indiscriminate, very difficult to control in terms of area affected, and potentially dangerous for non-trivial time

So, lobbing mortar shells at populated areas isn't indiscriminate ?

But don't worry, history has shown middle eastern peoples don't hold grudges. Your grandchildren have nothing to fear.





I mean, what's 91,000 dead between friends? Their families will GET OVER IT. Just like Americans do.

Canis Noir : Trying to stop the process of allowing Iraqi's their chance at self-determination or trying to stop the crime spree in Chicago?

Right. Just like the US's deep concern for the people of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, who enjoy American support for their despotic regimes.

We are at war with EastasiaIraq, we have always been at war with EurasiaIran.

Saddam didn't have anything to do with Curveball,Chalabi, The Office of Special Plans,Forged Niger documents,forcing DoE out of the meetings about the "aluminum tubes" and all the other machinations that took place to facilitate and perpetrate a fraud upon the congress and the American people.

Doug Feith created fake entities out of thin air to try to link Saddam and bin Laden. They lied about meetings that never took place but were told so by people who were known liars and people who had a motivation to lie. This was a railroading to war.

jakomo002: Right. Just like the US's deep concern for the people of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, who enjoy American support for their despotic regimes.



Because the same solution will solve a problem everywhere and priorities are for idiots right? Bush didn't believe you needed to invade every middle eastern country to promote freedom there, Iran is a perfect example; we kept the black market of western luxuries alive there and we are seeing the fruits of those efforts right now.

People always ask "Well what about [insert country here]?" and the answer is obvious. Looking out for your own self interest is not a bad thing and in order to do this you need to prioritize what you do.

Hell, the way to look at this was they were counting on getting the most bang for the buck; use military force in two countries and cause reform all over the region.

CanisNoir: jakomo002: Right. Just like the US's deep concern for the people of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, who enjoy American support for their despotic regimes.



Because the same solution will solve a problem everywhere and priorities are for idiots right? Bush didn't believe you needed to invade every middle eastern country to promote freedom there, Iran is a perfect example; we kept the black market of western luxuries alive there and we are seeing the fruits of those efforts right now.

People always ask "Well what about [insert country here]?" and the answer is obvious. Looking out for your own self interest is not a bad thing and in order to do this you need to prioritize what you do.

Hell, the way to look at this was they were counting on getting the most bang for the buck; use military force in two countries and cause reform all over the region.

How was invading Iraq in our own self interest? I get your point, i just don't think it applies here. I think liberating Afghanistan (and doing it right) would have done wonders for the region. The Iraq situation may still work out for Iraq, but it's helped to solidify a lot of hatred towards us, which is what we should be trying to undo over there.

I don't think you're wrong in theory, i just don't think Iraq fits in the theory.

OgreMagi: Saddam used gas on the Kurds. Gas is a WMD. He didn't just farking make it up.

This was also before the first Gulf War, after that war Saddam was supposed to give up his WMD after getting a strongly worded letter, which he apparently did.

CanisNoir: themeaningoflifeisnot: The only thing that is important and relevant to me is that because of George Bush and his cronies, thousands of American families lost a dad, mom, brother or sister for a political purpose that was not compelling or worthy.

So you don't think lancing the boil that was the Middle East with a long term eye for peace and democratization in the area, isn't a worthy enough cause? More people were murdered in Chicago alone than died in Iraq during the year of 2008.

Link (new window)

I'd say our soldiers who payed the ultimate price died for a much better reason than the people in Chicago who bought it, don't you think? So which would be a better focus of your energy? Trying to stop the process of allowing Iraqi's their chance at self-determination or trying to stop the crime spree in Chicago?

Are you kidding me? "lancing the boil that was the Middle East with a long term eye for peace and democratization in the area?" What f*cking planet are you on? The odds of that happening at American behest are worse than those of Powerball.

You're just spewing the mantra of the neo-conservative Project for the New American Century. And the point of spending American lives to bring "democracy" to other countries was not, ultimately, out of concern for the welfare of the citizens of those countries. Bringing forth "democracy" for the neo-cons means establishing political systems with economic goals similar to those of the United States, to draw those new democracies into our economic sphere as potential markets for American goods.

Fark this "spreading democracy" bullshiat. So many people use the term "democracy" as if it has one meaning: what we experience in our republic. But it comes in many forms and degrees, some of which would make the average American sick to see. Just wait a few years and see what "democracy" in Iran looks like when the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds have had it out.

No, my friend, bringing peace and democracy to Iraq was not the true objective of the American traitors who failed to keep faith with our fighting men and women. The true objective was internal expansion of the military-industrial complex and expansion of American foreign economic power. They didn't give a rat's ass for the welfare of the average Iraqi, and they didn't give a rat's ass for the welfare of good, honest Americans who signed up to defend the freedom of America, but not as playthings for neocons and their bullshiat philosophies.

itazurakko: Remember kids, IRAN is the enemy again.


excuse me comrade, but we've always been at war with Iran. this is crimethink!

Strike that "Iran" and substitute "Iraq." That's what I get for not proof-reading.

GAT_00
shivashakti: Up until the invasion of Kuwait, Hussein was 'our guy'. That doesn't make him any better but it does reflect rather poorly on the US.

If we're going to judge the US by local allies, there isn't anything that reflects well on us.


You two might get a kick out of this, especially when he starts talking about Hussein at around 6:00.

shivashakti: Saddam WAS our ally. We knew he was gassing Kurds but we were still arming him and giving him funding. Because he was the enemy of Iran and was fighting them.

Up until the invasion of Kuwait, Hussein was 'our guy'. That doesn't make him any better but it does reflect rather poorly on the US.

Even during the invasion of Kuwait, he thought he was 'our guy'. I can't remember where I read it, but apparently there was some conversation to a US representative where Saddam said something to the effect of "Kuwaitis are slant-drilling into my oil. Is it cool if I take care of this?" and they gave him the go-ahead not realizing they just greenlit the invasion and attempted annexing of Kuwait.

ragekage: Though I would never have accepted an "alliance" with Saddam Hussein- he was, after all, a despotic farkwit

The U.S. enters into alliances with despots all the time. Or did you think Saudi Arabia was a democracy?

Pxtl: Even during the invasion of Kuwait, he thought he was 'our guy'. I can't remember where I read it, but apparently there was some conversation to a US representative where Saddam said something to the effect of "Kuwaitis are slant-drilling into my oil. Is it cool if I take care of this?" and they gave him the go-ahead not realizing they just greenlit the invasion and attempted annexing of Kuwait.

This, pretty much.

Saddam Hussein was a secular leader. His nation was not ruled by the laws of Islam, and thus women were free to obtain educations, go to college, own business, etc. Iran, of course, is an Islamic nation, and thus Iraq and Iran had their issues with each other.

Our response was to invade Iraq and install an Islamic government under which women can no longer own businesses or attend school.

America, fark YEAH!

rurdy: Then why is the US Army still destroying the stuff from WWI just up the road from me in Aberdeen?

Just a wild guess, but I imagine there is a century of decay between "still useful as a weapon" and "safe enough to bury in the ground" concentrations.

This is bullshiat and makes no sense. He *had* WMD. Then later when he didn't, he declared loud and clear that he didn't. This is more ass-covering by the intelligence communities for their lies. Sure, like every world leader, he exaggerated his power to scare his neighbors and rivals. But the WMD thing was clear in all cases when he had them, and when he didn't, and Bush knew all of this but attacked anyway because he (and Cheney) wanted to, and misled and lied to get it done. He wanted Saddam dead.

As for an alliance with the U.S., Saddam had that, with Reagan, throughout most of the 1980s, when he was fighting Iran. And he had WMDs at the time.

shivashakti:

Saddam WAS our ally. We knew he was gassing Kurds but we were still arming him and giving him funding. Because he was the enemy of Iran and was fighting them.

Up until the invasion of Kuwait, Hussein was 'our guy'. That doesn't make him any better but it does reflect rather poorly on the US.

And this is why we are hated world-wide. We don't give a shiat about other sovereign nation's rights, only our own interests. We'll turn on you faster than a hooker turns tricks on a Friday night if it suits our short-sighted, short-term goals.

kenposan
shivashakti:

Saddam WAS our ally. We knew he was gassing Kurds but we were still arming him and giving him funding. Because he was the enemy of Iran and was fighting them.

Up until the invasion of Kuwait, Hussein was 'our guy'. That doesn't make him any better but it does reflect rather poorly on the US.

And this is why we are hated world-wide. We don't give a shiat about other sovereign nation's rights, only our own interests. We'll turn on you faster than a hooker turns tricks on a Friday night if it suits our short-sighted, short-term goals.

This is why I consider most Americans to be clueless idiots. He's bad because our former moron president said so. People don't even question the obvious. They just follow along like mindless 4 year old kids are told 'because I said so' when asked why. And living by Walter Reed Medical center, Its a sad note imho opinion when I see these young soldiers and their prosthetic legs and missing limbs, that their sacrifice really wasn't worth it. Nevermind the lives of all those Americans that died invading and suppressing Iraq

kenposan

Actually, it was because Saddam farked up big time. It was not because the US "turns" on it's allies.

Saddam annexed Kuwait. Big no-no in international relations. It unbalances the region and creates a precedent where other nations might start getting expansionist ideas.

For this alone, he needed to be slapped down, big time.

adamgreeney: I don't think you're wrong in theory, i just don't think Iraq fits in the theory.

I would say invading Iraq served our interests in several ways. As it was Sadam was actively trying to make our lives difficult shooting at our aircraft and attempting to assassinate high level US Targets. (People make light of the fact that he a tried to have a former President assassinated and that boggles my mind). We were going into Afghanistan regardless, however we would still have combat forces locked into the Iraq theater to enforce (jokingly) the cease fire agreements and protecting Kuiat, with no change in the Iraqi stance towards us. By invading, sure we didn't have as many troops in Afghanistan as we'd like, but we didn't have to divert a whole hell of a lot either; not to mention we have much more support from NATO in Afghanistan than Iraq. Now that we've invaded, we can indeed start to redeploy those troops to the Afghanistan theater; combat troops that would other wise have been continuing to fly sorties over no fly zone's and protecting a Kuiati border. On top of that we have an Iraq that is self-governed and who's policies will change much more quickly and bloodlessly in the future because of it. (See, if we were a Dictatorship instead of a Democracy, Bush would still be tossing his military hard on all over the world instead of Obama flashing his Vag ;) ). That alone makes for a much more peaceful and workable Iraq.

Okay I rambled I hope I addressed your point as to how it served our interests.

Pxtl: shivashakti: Saddam WAS our ally. We knew he was gassing Kurds but we were still arming him and giving him funding. Because he was the enemy of Iran and was fighting them.

Up until the invasion of Kuwait, Hussein was 'our guy'. That doesn't make him any better but it does reflect rather poorly on the US.

Even during the invasion of Kuwait, he thought he was 'our guy'. I can't remember where I read it, but apparently there was some conversation to a US representative where Saddam said something to the effect of "Kuwaitis are slant-drilling into my oil. Is it cool if I take care of this?" and they gave him the go-ahead not realizing they just greenlit the invasion and attempted annexing of Kuwait.

That exact situation was where the US said "not our business" and Saddam took that to mean "sure, claim ownership of the country"

Mentat [TotalFark] Quote 2009-07-03 01:12:42 AM
ragekage: *golfclap*

Though I would never have accepted an "alliance" with Saddam Hussein- he was, after all, a despotic farkwit- still, more evidence that it wasn't worth the lives of thousands of some of the most dedicated of our citizens and the trillion and a half dollars we poured into that sand-filled hell hole in the middle east.

In retrospect, it would have made sense. He certainly wouldn't have been the first brutal dictator the neocons had worked with. Hell, they worked with Saddam before. If it was too impalpable to work with him, they could have bought him off. Either way, they would have achieved their original goal of surrounding Iran with US allies. Of course, that type of power diplomacy wouldn't have gotten Bill Kristol's dick hard.

In the 80's Iraq was at war with Iran. He was the lesser of 2 evils at that time. The US saw this as payback for Iran after the hostage crisis of Carter's failed regime.

Saddam had 14 years to comply with UN Sanctions imposed after the First Gulf War; Clinton let Saddam walked all over him during his 8 years in office.

Also, during the Clinton Administration, some of Saddam's Generals, with the aid of the US, planned to stage a coup to overthrow Saddam. The failed June 1996 coup attempt had largely been determined by domestic American political considerations. Like President George HW Bush before him, Clinton and his political handlers were sensitive to public perception in a presidential election year. This shaped both the coup's mission (get Saddam) and its timing (early summer, before the Republicans had nailed down their candidate). Not only was the 1996 plot chiefly a "wag the dog" scenario, but once again, any chance of Iraq disarming under UN supervision had been cynically undermined by the larger US objective of regime change

Source (new window)

The problem with Democrat Politicians in foreign affairs is that they are more concerned with getting elected than national security. FDR was the last great democrat IMHO. This is why I don't see the economy improving until we are in a Presidential election year.

At least neocons are willing to sacrifice popularity to do what they feel is right and good for their country. Sometimes what is popular, is not always what is best.

themeaningoflifeisnot: Strike that "Iran" and substitute "Iraq." That's what I get for not proof-reading.

I do that often so no worries. I disagree with you though. Where you see nothing but a nefarious plot to expand greed, I see something quite different.

I see decades of a failed Middle East Policy by both parties culminating in a major attack by terrorists on the US Mainland causing a major shift in that policy. The belief that a governmental model of Self Determination, since you dislike the term "democracy", is the most freest and therefore best model has always been our policy. We just shifted from attempting to achieve it by passive diplomacy to active engagement.

It was messy and it won't work for every nation in the middle east, but it got the best result in the shortest span of time, in decades.

The critical point is -- you don't EVER EVER EVER let the Pentagon be in charge of foreign policy.

That is not their job. They don't know what they are doing or how to do it. You have a whole other government department called "State". It is THEIR job. They train for it, understand it, spend their lives studying and working on it.

The Pentagon uses military, executive force to defeat and kill enemies. That is what they do.

You wouldn't think you would have to explain this to somebody that a near-plurality of the population put in the White House.

/don't EVER EVER EVER vote for a 3rd party candidate because the mainstream candidate doesn't agree strongly ENOUGH with your opinions.

I am curious how things would be currently in the Middle East if the US hadn't decided to fark with Iran's government.

They had previously gotten rid of the Shah on their own. We removed a democratically elected leader and returned the Shah to power. It was partially because that leader had some communist leanings but more so because they decided the oil in Iran belonged to Iran.

There was so much anger at the US and Khomeni was able to use that anger. The Shah was removed and the new government went from one extreme to the other.

Once that happened, some Iranians (especially women) realized too late what was going on.

If Iran had been allowed to continue on it's own without meddling from the US, would Saddam have ever risen to power?

Yes, Iraq is 'liberated' now but what's going to happen in 10-20 years?

The late Peter Jennings did a great impartial special on what happened with Iran as part of his 'The Century' series. If you can get your hands on it, it is very interesting viewing and might help put things in perspective for many.

Sergeant Pecker's Lonely Hearts Club Gang Bang: Control_this: Iran has rape rooms. Rape rooms, I tell you.

You said rape rooms twice.

that's hot.

Mongo cut wood: In the 80's Iraq was at war with Iran. He was the lesser of 2 evils at that time. The US saw this as payback for Iran after the hostage crisis of Carter's failed regime.

Saddam had 14 years to comply with UN Sanctions imposed after the First Gulf War; Clinton let Saddam walked all over him during his 8 years in office.

"Bombing the hell out of Saddam and getting lambasted as Wagging the Dog" is "letting Saddam walk all over him".

Notice how you single out only the Democratic Party presidents. Know how I know you're a koolaid-drinking sheep?

CanisNoir: adamgreeney: I don't think you're wrong in theory, i just don't think Iraq fits in the theory.

I would say invading Iraq served our interests in several ways. As it was Sadam was actively trying to make our lives difficult shooting at our aircraft and attempting to assassinate high level US Targets. (People make light of the fact that he a tried to have a former President assassinated and that boggles my mind). We were going into Afghanistan regardless, however we would still have combat forces locked into the Iraq theater to enforce (jokingly) the cease fire agreements and protecting Kuiat, with no change in the Iraqi stance towards us. By invading, sure we didn't have as many troops in Afghanistan as we'd like, but we didn't have to divert a whole hell of a lot either; not to mention we have much more support from NATO in Afghanistan than Iraq. Now that we've invaded, we can indeed start to redeploy those troops to the Afghanistan theater; combat troops that would other wise have been continuing to fly sorties over no fly zone's and protecting a Kuiati border. On top of that we have an Iraq that is self-governed and who's policies will change much more quickly and bloodlessly in the future because of it. (See, if we were a Dictatorship instead of a Democracy, Bush would still be tossing his military hard on all over the world instead of Obama flashing his Vag ;) ). That alone makes for a much more peaceful and workable Iraq.

Okay I rambled I hope I addressed your point as to how it served our interests.

You make some good points. I'm still not sure that what we gained is worth what we lost though. That's a pretty deep debate though, and in the end it's subjective.

What's important is how we handle it now that we're there, and while I'm glad to see the truth come out like this, it isn't really that relevant to the moment.

Pxtl: shivashakti: Saddam WAS our ally. We knew he was gassing Kurds but we were still arming him and giving him funding. Because he was the enemy of Iran and was fighting them.

Up until the invasion of Kuwait, Hussein was 'our guy'. That doesn't make him any better but it does reflect rather poorly on the US.

Even during the invasion of Kuwait, he thought he was 'our guy'. I can't remember where I read it, but apparently there was some conversation to a US representative where Saddam said something to the effect of "Kuwaitis are slant-drilling into my oil. Is it cool if I take care of this?" and they gave him the go-ahead not realizing they just greenlit the invasion and attempted annexing of Kuwait.

My thoughts are that we went into Kuwait to prevent a Dictator from overthrowing a Monarch. No attempts ever made to give Kuwaitis democracy.

Pxtl: Know how I know you're a koolaid-drinking sheep?

People who use the words "koolaid" (sic) and "sheep" are usually themselves kool-aid-drinking-sheep who love to think they are thinking for themselves but often live in an echo chamber with many like-minded individuals.

/Seriously.
//You certainly didn't think of those terms by yourself.
///And your thoughts on the topics at hand are hardly original either.

06Wahoo: People who use the words "koolaid" (sic) and "sheep" are usually themselves kool-aid-drinking-sheep who love to think they are thinking for themselves but often live in an echo chamber with many like-minded individuals.

/Seriously.
//You certainly didn't think of those terms by yourself.
///And your thoughts on the topics at hand are hardly original either.

Granted... but I don't believe I've made a post blaming Bush, Reagan, and Bush Sr. for all of the US's foreign policy problems, so I still win. Partisan hacks of both varieties are idiots.

adamgreeney: You make some good points. I'm still not sure that what we gained is worth what we lost though. That's a pretty deep debate though, and in the end it's subjective.

What's important is how we handle it now that we're there, and while I'm glad to see the truth come out like this, it isn't really that relevant to the moment.

Every military action from the beginning of time will suffer the same debate, and you're absolutely correct about it being a deep and subjective one. The fact that we debate it, on top of the fact that we can, are just two of the reasons why I am happy I live in the Western Hempisphere :)

to totally rip off another post on this thread :

i farking told you so too.

Control_this: Iran has rape rooms. Rape rooms, I tell you.

I know you're joking but, they do. A woman, especially a foreign woman, arrested in Iran is very likely to be raped.

i missed the part about him entertaining the thought of an alliance with the US. maybe i'll read it a 3rd time and see if it shows up.

Someone should wake up the countless Kurds that "died" from the "WMDs". Gosh golly, they're good pretenderers. You can stop pretending! We know Saddam really didn't have WMDs!!! lulz!

CanisNoir: themeaningoflifeisnot: The only thing that is important and relevant to me is that because of George Bush and his cronies, thousands of American families lost a dad, mom, brother or sister for a political purpose that was not compelling or worthy.

So you don't think lancing the boil that was the Middle East with a long term eye for peace and democratization in the area, isn't a worthy enough cause? More people were murdered in Chicago alone than died in Iraq during the year of 2008.

Link (new window)

I'd say our soldiers who payed the ultimate price died for a much better reason than the people in Chicago who bought it, don't you think? So which would be a better focus of your energy? Trying to stop the process of allowing Iraqi's their chance at self-determination or trying to stop the crime spree in Chicago?

Chicago, you hate it.

xaveth: Someone should wake up the countless Kurds that "died" from the "WMDs". Gosh golly, they're good pretenderers. You can stop pretending! We know Saddam really didn't have WMDs!!! lulz!

America has slavery

ask your third grade teacher to review the concept of past-, present-, and future-tense and get back to us.

meanwhile, we'll continue to nuke japan.

rippinthegears: Chicago, you hate it.



;P

This is old information. It was well understood that Saddam had little or nothing in the way of WMD's. After the beating his armed forces took from us in the first gulf war, followed by years of UN sanctions, his country was so weak he desperately feared several of his neighbors, including Iran and Turkey. It was very well known that his claims of WMD's were totally fictitious and that he only made the claims in hopes of making potential invaders a little wary of making the move.

With regards to his gassing of the Kurds, lets go all the way back in the history line. After largely destroying and scattering most of Saddams military capability in the first gulf war, the US strongly urged the Kurds to attack Saddam and drive him out of the area so as to establish their own independent country. We promised them military support. When the Kurds attacked, we supplied no assistance whatsoever. Hussein was faced with two choices, get overrun by the Kurds since he had no significant military capability, or use the gas.

Bay of Pigs, anyone?

So in short, we knew he didn't have WMD's, we just wanted a war and we found several good, but fictitious reasons to start one, and its entirely our fault that the Kurds were gassed.

It's real easy to sit back and cast stones at Bush simply because we didn't find WMD's that everyone and their brother thought might be there, but it's a short sighted person who does so.

It was well known that Saddam did not have WMDs. Furthermore Iraq was also in compliance with the UN.

But keep lying. :)

This is not news. Everybody who DIDN'T watch Fox news knew the WMD accusations were false. There were reports of Saddam trying to open a back-channel dialog with the US in the weeks before the invasion.

To this day, I know Fox news viewers who STILL think Saddam was behind 9/11.

CanisNoir: themeaningoflifeisnot: Strike that "Iran" and substitute "Iraq." That's what I get for not proof-reading.

I do that often so no worries. I disagree with you though. Where you see nothing but a nefarious plot to expand greed, I see something quite different.

I see decades of a failed Middle East Policy by both parties culminating in a major attack by terrorists on the US Mainland causing a major shift in that policy. The belief that a governmental model of Self Determination, since you dislike the term "democracy", is the most freest and therefore best model has always been our policy. We just shifted from attempting to achieve it by passive diplomacy to active engagement.

It was messy and it won't work for every nation in the middle east, but it got the best result in the shortest span of time, in decades.

I disagree that the neocons had any interest in simple self-determination. Their marching orders have always been to establish representative governments. Allowing self-determination in an Islamic country is very unlikely to result in a representative system. Self-determination in an Islamic country is much more likely to result in a theocratic, non-representational government. That is not at all in the long-range interests of the United States and does not fit within the economic plans of Bush, Rumsfeld, Feith, and company.

The reality is that some ignorant, arrogant American political pricks saw a chance to play with their war toys in furtherance of a political policy that most Americans did not agree with. And good Americans died and lost arms and legs because of it.

Bush's actions are in Iraq are completely indefensible, and besides the human cost, it sucked up a trillion dollars.

OgreMagi: Saddam used gas on the Kurds. Gas is a WMD. He didn't just farking make it up.

An Iraqi tribunal convicted him of crimes against humanity, and he was hanged at the end of 2006.

50,000 Kurds murdered. And another 300,000~500,000 (the exact number is still unknown) of his own citizens murdered and buried in mass graves.

"By God, if I had such weapons, I would have used them in the fight against the United States."

Nope, I still don't see where we make a mistake. The world is better off without him. Good riddance.

Mongo cut wood:

At least neocons are willing to sacrifice popularity to do what they feel is right and good for their country. Sometimes what is popular, is not always what is best.

Maybe the Neocons shouldn't be so concerned with sacrificing "popularity" and actually go JOIN the military, you know, to do "what they feel is right and good for their country".
Real solders/sailors/airmen/marines don't like wars, simply because they are the ones who have to go and die in them.

/yes I know Rumsfeld was a Navy Pilot
//and that Bush Jr's daddy made him join the Guard
///but neocons are still chickenhawks
////looking at you, Cheney and Limbaugh

Well looks like this was just a case of a guy screaming that he had a bomb, got taken down by the cops and discovered that it was just a joystick made to look like a detonator.

rewind2846 Quote 2009-07-03 07:06:08 PM
Mongo cut wood:

At least neocons are willing to sacrifice popularity to do what they feel is right and good for their country. Sometimes what is popular, is not always what is best.

Maybe the Neocons shouldn't be so concerned with sacrificing "popularity" and actually go JOIN the military, you know, to do "what they feel is right and good for their country".
Real solders/sailors/airmen/marines don't like wars, simply because they are the ones who have to go and die in them.

/yes I know Rumsfeld was a Navy Pilot
//and that Bush Jr's daddy made him join the Guard
///but neocons are still chickenhawks
////looking at you, Cheney and Limbau0gh



WOW Big talk from a party that runs to Canada to avoid defending their country and tells their kids not to join the military. Let's face it, Democrats are Yellow and spineless.

Many neocons have sons/daughters in the service. McCain's son graduated from Naval Acadamy and is serving in Iraq.

Control_this: Iran has rape rooms. Rape rooms, I tell you.

Dude, I have a rape room.

BTW, Saddam? Worst. Bluff. EVER.

Glenn beck says it-he's a loony
Hannity, Savage, Coulter, Ingram, Mancow, etc.
If they had said this..you would blast them for being idiots.

But one AP nutter, and the heavens open up for the word of god.

Just fer the record, we found chemicals in the Tigris and the Euphrates.
Little stuff like anthrax, mustard gas, ricin and others.
We found dozens of mobile weapons labs.
Thousands of pounds of chem materials in unexploded ordinance.

This is just reason #422 why I think the media can make uninformed people into sheep.

So............ Now that we know it was Saddam who fooled the entire world that he had credible WMDs and would use them, all you Farkers who called GW a liar will promptly apologize to him, right? RIGHT???????

ragekage: *golfclap*

Though I would never have accepted an "alliance" with Saddam Hussein- he was, after all, a despotic farkwit- still, more evidence that it wasn't worth the lives of thousands of some of the most dedicated of our citizens and the trillion and a half dollars we poured into that sand-filled hell hole in the middle east.

yea, let's all hook up with a mass murderer... I love when liberals just want to play with adults....

biffstallion: ragekage: *golfclap*

Though I would never have accepted an "alliance" with Saddam Hussein- he was, after all, a despotic farkwit- still, more evidence that it wasn't worth the lives of thousands of some of the most dedicated of our citizens and the trillion and a half dollars we poured into that sand-filled hell hole in the middle east.

yea, let's all hook up with a mass murderer... I love when liberals just want to play with adults....

Hey, Pancho, I don't know where you got that from what I said there. I mean... just no way I can distill your comment out of mine. And besides that, fark, I'm not even a liberal- not even close! Wow! That's a helluva lot of fail to cram into two sentences.

/hotlink, yes?

I called this. Prepare for the new invasion.

natas6.0: Glenn beck says it-he's a loony
Hannity, Savage, Coulter, Ingram, Mancow, etc.
If they had said this..you would blast them for being idiots.

But one AP nutter, and the heavens open up for the word of god.

Just fer the record, we found chemicals in the Tigris and the Euphrates.
Little stuff like anthrax, mustard gas, ricin and others.
We found dozens of mobile weapons labs.
Thousands of pounds of chem materials in unexploded ordinance.

This is just reason #422 why I think the media can make uninformed people into sheep.

The record, show it to us.
With pics.