Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: RandFan

The decision was based on the assumption — and that’s all it was — that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons.


Does the writer forget that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds?

Or does he expect us to believe that Hussein had some, used them, and then got rid of the remainder?


6 posted on 07/06/2021 5:19:10 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: DuncanWaring

“Or does he expect us to believe that Hussein had some, used them, and then got rid of the remainder?”

That appears to be exactly what happened. We did find some but they were old, degraded, and were probably more dangerous to Saddam’s army.

But that’s beside the point. Invading Iraq was stupid. A colossal blunder. And I say that as someone who supported it at the time. Saddam was an evil SOB for sure. But he kept a tight lid on the crazies. Once he was gone Iraq fractured into tribalism turned into a **** show.

Bush thought we could attract all the “bad guys” to Iraq and kill them. The problem is that there’s an endless supply of bad guys. Unless we reduce the entire ME to radioactive glass we will never get “all” of them.

Islam is the problem and Bush was either too stupid or to cowardly to say it and deal with it.

L


9 posted on 07/06/2021 5:34:21 AM PDT by Lurker (Peaceful coexistence with the Left is not possible. Stop pretending that it is. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: DuncanWaring

Whether Saddam actually had chemical weapons ( which i believe) and hid them/moved them, or the weapons didn’t exist (so, explain that to the Kurds), SADDAM believed he had them at his beck and call, and intended to use them (explain that to the Kurds).

I am an intelligence cynic. I don’t believe what we are being told now, any more than I believe what we were being told then.
Gulf of Tonkin, pick your start story, it all serves purpose of someone with an agenda.
Of course Bush was wrong because the intelligence was wrong. We were told that, too. So, exactly who was lying when(not then, when)?


23 posted on 07/06/2021 6:09:58 AM PDT by drSteve78 (Je suis deplorable. WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: DuncanWaring

Condi Rice and GWB were peddling dire warnings about nuclear weapons. You must have forgotten about the yellowcake and aluminum tubes. All bogus, as I was convinced at the time. It was a dangerous time to be a Freeper with his head screwed on straight.


27 posted on 07/06/2021 6:15:27 AM PDT by Romulus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: DuncanWaring

We were told that Saddam had “weapons of mass destruction”. So Iraq had to be invaded and occupied. Okay. But it would seem to me that the Bush administration would have moved Heaven and Earth to give us 100%, irrefutable proof that those weapons existed. (Not just some guy told some other guy that he saw a weapons truck go into Syria.) Irrefutable proof of WMD never materialized.

But let’s say that those WMD did exist. Is there mere existence enough to start a major war, and throw an entire region into turmoil?

After all, North Korea definitely has WMD. And they are definitely troublemakers. So why not invade North Korea too if that’s all that matters.


36 posted on 07/06/2021 7:23:15 AM PDT by Leaning Right (I have already previewed or do not wish to preview this composition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson