If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Those chemical weapons which Iraq had, then were moved to Syria, then Syria didn't have, now Syria does have, now are in Iraq. Confused? You won't be after this episode of the UN Security Council   (amanpour.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 229
    More: Followup, Prime Minister of Iraq, anti-tank weapons, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri, Salim Idriss, Free Syrian Army, American Friends, Moussawi, Heads of state of Syria  
•       •       •

1609 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Sep 2013 at 12:14 PM (30 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



229 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-15 12:03:43 AM
Sooooo..... does this mean you're not going to tell us what those UN weapons inspectors had to say in 2003?
 
2013-09-15 12:07:00 AM

Rent Party: Sooooo..... does this mean you're not going to tell us what those UN weapons inspectors had to say in 2003?


Surely he has had enough time to google it by now. After all the Internet is a wealth of information right at your finger tips.

/anyone notice the post count in this thread jumping around? I guess the mods are farking from the gin tank.
 
2013-09-15 12:07:23 AM

Rent Party: Sooooo..... does this mean you're not going to tell us what those UN weapons inspectors had to say in 2003?


They said the couldn't find signs of remaining chemical weapons or any ongoing programs to develop wmd's. They also said they couldn't find chemical weapons they had documented prior to being kicked out in 1998,or documentation that they had been destroyed.

Son, you just been schooled.
 
2013-09-15 12:14:41 AM

freak7: Rent Party: Sooooo..... does this mean you're not going to tell us what those UN weapons inspectors had to say in 2003?

They said the couldn't find signs of remaining chemical weapons or any ongoing programs to develop wmd's. They also said they couldn't find chemical weapons they had documented prior to being kicked out in 1998,or documentation that they had been destroyed.

Son, you just been schooled.


Schooled him? By repeating facts that he has already stated? Your "arguements" are pathetic.
 
2013-09-15 12:16:35 AM

max_pooper: freak7: Rent Party: Sooooo..... does this mean you're not going to tell us what those UN weapons inspectors had to say in 2003?

They said the couldn't find signs of remaining chemical weapons or any ongoing programs to develop wmd's. They also said they couldn't find chemical weapons they had documented prior to being kicked out in 1998,or documentation that they had been destroyed.

Son, you just been schooled.

Schooled him? By repeating facts that he has already stated? Your "arguements" are pathetic.


Nobody said a word about missing chemical weapons before I just did. You want us to believe that the UN confirmed that Iraq had no chemical weapons in 2003 and that's flat out not true.
 
2013-09-15 12:18:42 AM

freak7: You want us to believe that the UN confirmed that Iraq had no chemical weapons in 2003 and that's flat out not true.


Then how come we were not able to find any evidence of a chemical weapons program after we invaded Iraq in 2003?

(The desperation to revise history is very strong in here)
 
2013-09-15 12:19:15 AM

freak7: max_pooper: freak7: Rent Party: Sooooo..... does this mean you're not going to tell us what those UN weapons inspectors had to say in 2003?

They said the couldn't find signs of remaining chemical weapons or any ongoing programs to develop wmd's. They also said they couldn't find chemical weapons they had documented prior to being kicked out in 1998,or documentation that they had been destroyed.

Son, you just been schooled.

Schooled him? By repeating facts that he has already stated? Your "arguements" are pathetic.

Nobody said a word about missing chemical weapons before I just did. You want us to believe that the UN confirmed that Iraq had no chemical weapons in 2003 and that's flat out not true.


Funny, I don't remember stating any of that. You've moved on to projection. You have failed at stating facts, you've back pedaled, you dodged questions and now you are making absolute statements about what people believe.
 
2013-09-15 12:23:20 AM

freak7: Rent Party: Sooooo..... does this mean you're not going to tell us what those UN weapons inspectors had to say in 2003?

They said the couldn't find signs of remaining chemical weapons or any ongoing programs to develop wmd's. They also said they couldn't find chemical weapons they had documented prior to being kicked out in 1998,or documentation that they had been destroyed.

Son, you just been schooled.


Actually the west had the documentation before the war began, they just didn't fully credit it.

Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel al-Majid, defected to Jordan along with his wife (Saddam's daughter) after the first Gulf War. He claimed to have overseen the destruction of Saddam's WMD programs. In the build up to the war in 2003 Rumsfeld et al continued to use Kamel's testimony that Saddam had operated a WMD program including Bio, CW and Nuclear. What they did not mention was Kamel's claims that those WMDs were all destroyed (in secret so as not to embolden Iraq's enemies).

[themoreyouknow]

There was no "bad intel" in the lead up to that war as the GOP continues to insist to this day there were just flat out lies coming one after another a mile a minute.

/Fun fact: Kamel was eventually talked into returning back to Iraq where his wife divorced him as a traitor and he was shot dead within 24 hours.
 
2013-09-15 12:25:29 AM
I just came in here to gawk at the freak7 show.
 
2013-09-15 12:25:55 AM

Mrtraveler01: freak7: You want us to believe that the UN confirmed that Iraq had no chemical weapons in 2003 and that's flat out not true.

Then how come we were not able to find any evidence of a chemical weapons program after we invaded Iraq in 2003?

(The desperation to revise history is very strong in here)


How come Iraq couldn't provide proof that chemical weapons had been destroyed and programs dismantled?

You certainly are trying to rewrite things.
 
2013-09-15 12:26:32 AM

Kittypie070: I just came in here to gawk at the freak7 show.


How was your ice cream?
 
2013-09-15 12:29:50 AM

spawn73: vygramul: freak7: RyogaM: I never understood this argument, that Saddam gave away his WMDs.  Why?  Why would he do that?  What's the damn point?

To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.

The entire Hans Blix thing was to see what he did with them: destroy them like he was supposed to, or hide them or send them elsewhere.

He probably had destroyed them, but he wanted his neighbors to think he still had them. Plausible indisputability.

He had destroyed them, as he said so when he saw the writing on the wall. Blix had trouble accounting for every single piece because Iraq apparently were shiatty with bookkeeping. It's good to destroy your inventory, but the UN would like to see where exactly in the desert every single piece was etc.

And it's not "probably". I'm out of this thread. not good for me.

farking tards. It's Iraq war 2 all over again. Doomed to repeat history over and over again.


Looks like somebody mentioned the unaccounted for weapons in the 2003 report.
 
2013-09-15 12:33:24 AM

freak7: Kittypie070: I just came in here to gawk at the freak7 show.

How was your ice cream?


My ice cream was farkin' excellent.
 
2013-09-15 12:35:23 AM

freak7: How come Iraq couldn't provide proof that chemical weapons had been destroyed and programs dismantled?


In short, Saddam didn't think his cunning plan all the way though when he destroyed his stockpiles secretly.

The Bush admin cherry picked the hell out of the intel in order to drum up support for their military adventurism that largely ended up benefiting China more than anyone else in the region.
 
2013-09-15 02:08:21 AM

Kittypie070: I just came in here to gawk at the freak7 show.


same here
 
2013-09-15 03:26:40 AM

freak7: Iran has been making idle threats for decades, but they're really, really serious this time.


news.images.itv.com
 
2013-09-15 05:16:28 AM

OgreMagi: Noam Chimpsky: Saddam never had chemical weapons. Hans Blix just made up that detailed list of Saddam's chemical weapons. I've actually known democratics who think this.

Despite the fact that Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds, people are making this claim?  I should stop being surprised by people's ability to ignore provable facts.


People knew Saddam had chemical weapons from when he gassed the Kurds. They weren't the reason for the invasion. The troll is just knocking down an easy strawman.
 
2013-09-15 05:30:18 AM

Kittypie070: My ice cream was farkin' excellent.


i293.photobucket.com

Approves that message.

/Having a bowl of Mint choco-chip ice cream at the moment so I'm getting a real kick...
 
2013-09-15 08:27:44 AM

spawn73: vygramul: freak7: RyogaM: I never understood this argument, that Saddam gave away his WMDs.  Why?  Why would he do that?  What's the damn point?

To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.

The entire Hans Blix thing was to see what he did with them: destroy them like he was supposed to, or hide them or send them elsewhere.

He probably had destroyed them, but he wanted his neighbors to think he still had them. Plausible indisputability.

He had destroyed them, as he said so when he saw the writing on the wall. Blix had trouble accounting for every single piece because Iraq apparently were shiatty with bookkeeping. It's good to destroy your inventory, but the UN would like to see where exactly in the desert every single piece was etc.

And it's not "probably". I'm out of this thread. not good for me.

farking tards. It's Iraq war 2 all over again. Doomed to repeat history over and over again.


Hans Blix disagrees with you. In fact, after the Iraq invasion, he was asked if he felt vindicated because the US hadn't found any. His response was that it was too soon, and that the US should be given more time to find them. (He did add that it was more time than the US was willing to give him.)

So apparently Blix doesn't think it was unreasonable to think Iraq had them. He felt that war wasn't justified, but that doesn't mean it was obvious on its face that Saddam didn't have them. And there's a reason it wasn't obvious on its face Saddam didn't have them - because, well, it wasn't obvious on its face Saddam didn't have them.

Iraq 2? Please. The similarities are entirely superficial.
 
2013-09-15 08:29:25 AM

Halli: People knew Saddam had chemical weapons from when he gassed the Kurds. They weren't the reason for the invasion. The troll is just knocking down an easy strawman.


Part of me wants to think the reason that the invasion was so easy to justify was that Saddam Hussein was an epic IRL Troll, the likes of which every 4channer wishes they could aspire to be.

Before you call me a Bush apologist, however, just stick with me here as I lay this out. Everyone knew that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons thanks to the Kurds and attacks on Iran in the early 90s, as well as open admissions from the Iraqi Government. But, as we know today, Saddam had destroyed most of his active weapons, and what WAS found was old agents that would have killed the people handling them before they killed anyone else. But Saddam had a reputation in the middle east. He was king shiat of fark America mountain thanks to the Iraqi War and thanks to "Standing up to the West", and as long as he had that going for him, no one would mess with him.

So, even though he complied, he trolled the world by saying he wouldn't allow UN inspections, and was still doing stuff that pissed America off.

He was so good at doing this, that when the time came to prove he was in compliance, no one believed him, and the US was in a revenge-frenzy with a killboner thanks to 9/11.
 
2013-09-15 08:38:18 AM

Halli: OgreMagi: Noam Chimpsky: Saddam never had chemical weapons. Hans Blix just made up that detailed list of Saddam's chemical weapons. I've actually known democratics who think this.

Despite the fact that Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds, people are making this claim?  I should stop being surprised by people's ability to ignore provable facts.

People knew Saddam had chemical weapons from when he gassed the Kurds. They weren't the reason for the invasion. The troll is just knocking down an easy strawman.


The Bush administration saw an opportunity to put into place their magical-thinking vision of a new Middle East based on American power. They decided the problem was that we didn't throw our weight around enough and force the world to change. It was like they never left high school.

/Even were they the reason, the possession of chemical weapons was not in and of itself the reason but that someone the administration insisted couldn't be trusted not to hand them to terrorists to attack us.
 
2013-09-15 08:56:02 AM
Five pages of  "It's different when we do it". Well done Defenders of The Faith, well done.
 
2013-09-15 10:41:21 AM

vygramul: freak7: RyogaM: I never understood this argument, that Saddam gave away his WMDs.  Why?  Why would he do that?  What's the damn point?

To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.

The entire Hans Blix thing was to see what he did with them: destroy them like he was supposed to, or hide them or send them elsewhere.

He probably had destroyed them, but he wanted his neighbors to think he still had them. Plausible indisputability.


The UN accounted for the so-called WMD's in a report waay back before the Bushies tried to discredit Blix and Scott Ritter.
There was a small amount of sarin that Iraq claimed to have destroyed but could not prove. This was Saddam's supposed stockpile. Which the report even said were left over from 98. And these were deemed too degraded at the time to be any use, having only a few weeks shelf life. (Weapons of Mild Irritation)
 
2013-09-15 12:04:13 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: Five pages of  "It's different when we do it". Well done Defenders of The Faith, well done.


No it just shows your reading comprehension is terrible.
 
2013-09-15 12:33:59 PM

freak7: Rent Party: Sooooo..... does this mean you're not going to tell us what those UN weapons inspectors had to say in 2003?

They said the couldn't find signs of remaining chemical weapons or any ongoing programs to develop wmd's. They also said they couldn't find chemical weapons they had documented prior to being kicked out in 1998,or documentation that they had been destroyed.

Son, you just been schooled.


By "schooled" you mean "lied too?"

From the 2003 Q1 UNMOVIC Report to the Assembly

14. More than 200 chemical and more than 100 biological samples have been collected at different sites. Three quarters of these have been screened using UNMOVIC's own analytical laboratory capabilities at the Baghdad Ongoing
Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Centre (BOMVIC).The results to date have been consistent with Iraq's declarations.

What happened in Q2-2003?  I'll give you a hint.  It has to do with flag waving jingoists just like yourself.
 
2013-09-15 12:48:04 PM

quatchi: freak7: Rent Party: Sooooo..... does this mean you're not going to tell us what those UN weapons inspectors had to say in 2003?

They said the couldn't find signs of remaining chemical weapons or any ongoing programs to develop wmd's. They also said they couldn't find chemical weapons they had documented prior to being kicked out in 1998,or documentation that they had been destroyed.

Son, you just been schooled.

Actually the west had the documentation before the war began, they just didn't fully credit it.

Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel al-Majid, defected to Jordan along with his wife (Saddam's daughter) after the first Gulf War. He claimed to have overseen the destruction of Saddam's WMD programs. In the build up to the war in 2003 Rumsfeld et al continued to use Kamel's testimony that Saddam had operated a WMD program including Bio, CW and Nuclear. What they did not mention was Kamel's claims that those WMDs were all destroyed (in secret so as not to embolden Iraq's enemies).

[themoreyouknow]

There was no "bad intel" in the lead up to that war as the GOP continues to insist to this day there were just flat out lies coming one after another a mile a minute.

/Fun fact: Kamel was eventually talked into returning back to Iraq where his wife divorced him as a traitor and he was shot dead within 24 hours.


Hell, the effectiveness of Operation Desert Fox was phenomenal, and destroyed most of Iraq's capabilities in... 1998.   Right about when the US withdrew the inspections teams.  Of course, right wing assholes were too busy screaming "Wag the dog!!!" to notice.

Hey, perhaps there is something to that.   I wonder which US Diplomat said the following...

"Burleigh informed me that on instructions from Washington it would be 'prudent to take measures to ensure the safety and security of UNSCOM staff presently in Iraq.  I told him that I would act on this advice and remove my staff from Iraq."

There is a reason that we didn't find this massive weapons program in 2003.   There is a reason the press never talks about what we did find, which was the bombed out remnants of a program that ceased to exist about five years earlier.

It wasn't an intelligence failure, it was manipulating intelligence for a political purpose.   All the intelligence we needed to know what was really going on was right there, augmented by over 200 UN weapons inspectors on the ground.   Manipulating national security data is a felony, by the way.
 
2013-09-15 02:56:39 PM

dstrick44: vygramul: freak7: RyogaM: I never understood this argument, that Saddam gave away his WMDs.  Why?  Why would he do that?  What's the damn point?

To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.

The entire Hans Blix thing was to see what he did with them: destroy them like he was supposed to, or hide them or send them elsewhere.

He probably had destroyed them, but he wanted his neighbors to think he still had them. Plausible indisputability.

The UN accounted for the so-called WMD's in a report waay back before the Bushies tried to discredit Blix and Scott Ritter.
There was a small amount of sarin that Iraq claimed to have destroyed but could not prove. This was Saddam's supposed stockpile. Which the report even said were left over from 98. And these were deemed too degraded at the time to be any use, having only a few weeks shelf life. (Weapons of Mild Irritation)


You say it like it was clear in 2003. Hans Blix said it wasn't clear. He said it wasn't clear in 2004. I'm taking Hans Blix's word for it both before AND after, not just before.
 
2013-09-15 05:05:03 PM
Interesting.
 
2013-09-15 06:49:11 PM

Rent Party: Hell, the effectiveness of Operation Desert Fox was phenomenal, and destroyed most of Iraq's capabilities in... 1998.   Right about when the US withdrew the inspections teams.  Of course, right wing assholes were too busy screaming "Wag the dog!!!" to notice.

Hey, perhaps there is something to that.   I wonder which US Diplomat said the following...

"Burleigh informed me that on instructions from Washington it would be 'prudent to take measures to ensure the safety and security of UNSCOM staff presently in Iraq.  I told him that I would act on this advice and remove my staff from Iraq."

There is a reason that we didn't find this massive weapons program in 2003.   There is a reason the press never talks about what we did find, which was the bombed out remnants of a program that ceased to exist about five years earlier.

It wasn't an intelligence failure, it was manipulating intelligence for a political purpose.   All the intelligence we needed to know what was really going on was right there, augmented by over 200 UN weapons inspectors on the ground.   Manipulating national security data is a felony, by the way.


Cheney will never see the inside of a jail cell, sadly.

Good call on the "Saddam threw the inspectors out" lie there as well. Almost forgot that one.
 
Displayed 29 of 229 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report