|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Aug 25, 2016 13:18:42 GMT
I am not saying that your nephew is a liar and you can believe what you want. The US did not invade Iraq to find chemical weapons. Cheney was insinuationg about centerfuges and other materials to make nuclear weapons. Nothing to do with chemical weapons. Bought by most of American public.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Aug 25, 2016 14:42:32 GMT
Now about the book deal, where Trump buys copies of his books at the retail prices to get on the NYT best seller list and when he quadruples the rent in Trump tower for his own political offices so he can pocket the money. He's taking money from his own campaign funds which is clearly against the law.
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on Aug 25, 2016 14:51:59 GMT
I am not saying that your nephew is a liar and you can believe what you want. The US did not invade Iraq to find chemical weapons. Cheney was insinuationg about centerfuges and other materials to make nuclear weapons. Nothing to do with chemical weapons. Bought by most of American public. That's a different argument. All I'm addressing is the falsehood that there were no WMD's when there were. It's a fact. Even the New York Times admitted it. Eventually. There were WMD's in Iraq. Period.
I'm sure cheney exaggerated the threat and further insinuated that the Iraqis were trying to develop a nuke program. The International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN and everyone else said Iraq had no nukes and no capability to develop them. Cheney disagreed with the second part of that and probably lied about having intelligence that they did. Dirtbag Dick did lots of lying.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Aug 25, 2016 14:56:17 GMT
I am not saying that your nephew is a liar and you can believe what you want. The US did not invade Iraq to find chemical weapons. Cheney was insinuationg about centerfuges and other materials to make nuclear weapons. Nothing to do with chemical weapons. Bought by most of American public. That's a different argument. All I'm addressing is the falsehood that there were no WMD's when there were. It's a fact. Even the New York Times admitted it. Eventually. There were WMD's in Iraq. Period.
I'm sure cheney exaggerated the threat and further insinuated that the Iraqis were trying to develop a nuke program. The International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN and everyone else said Iraq had no nukes and no capability to develop them. Cheney disagreed with the second part of that and probably lied about having intelligence that they did. Dirtbag Dick did lots of lying.
and shooting someone in the face at least once.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Aug 25, 2016 16:21:56 GMT
I am not saying that your nephew is a liar and you can believe what you want. The US did not invade Iraq to find chemical weapons. Cheney was insinuationg about centerfuges and other materials to make nuclear weapons. Nothing to do with chemical weapons. Bought by most of American public. That's a different argument. All I'm addressing is the falsehood that there were no WMD's when there were. It's a fact. Even the New York Times admitted it. Eventually. There were WMD's in Iraq. Period.
I'm sure cheney exaggerated the threat and further insinuated that the Iraqis were trying to develop a nuke program. The International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN and everyone else said Iraq had no nukes and no capability to develop them. Cheney disagreed with the second part of that and probably lied about having intelligence that they did. Dirtbag Dick did lots of lying.
You can latch onto Chemical weapons all you want. That is not why Cheney potrayed the reasons the US had to invade. Cheney explicitly stated over and over the that Iraq had obtained materials to develop nuclear weapons. Everyone already knew chemical weapons were there. There were never any centrifuges nor any other material to build nuclear weapons. The fix was in and it was for money at the US taxpayers expense. The invasion made the US less safe. Chemical weapons had nothing to do with the invasion. The invasion was for Cheney and his cronies could profit. There never were any nuclear weapon WMDs that the US public was lead to believe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2016 17:32:49 GMT
Now about the book deal, where Trump buys copies of his books at the retail prices to get on the NYT best seller list and when he quadruples the rent in Trump tower for his own political offices so he can pocket the money. He's taking money from his own campaign funds which is clearly against the law. The first one is more common than you would think, but the second one isn't good for his campaign.
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on Aug 25, 2016 17:36:06 GMT
That's a different argument. All I'm addressing is the falsehood that there were no WMD's when there were. It's a fact. Even the New York Times admitted it. Eventually. There were WMD's in Iraq. Period.
I'm sure cheney exaggerated the threat and further insinuated that the Iraqis were trying to develop a nuke program. The International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN and everyone else said Iraq had no nukes and no capability to develop them. Cheney disagreed with the second part of that and probably lied about having intelligence that they did. Dirtbag Dick did lots of lying.
You can latch onto Chemical weapons all you want. That is not why Cheney potrayed the reasons the US had to invade. Cheney explicitly stated over and over the that Iraq had obtained materials to develop nuclear weapons. Everyone already knew chemical weapons were there. There were never any centrifuges nor any other material to build nuclear weapons. The fix was in and it was for money at the US taxpayers expense. The invasion made the US less safe. Chemical weapons had nothing to do with the invasion. The invasion was for Cheney and his cronies could profit. There never were any nuclear weapon WMDs that the US public was lead to believe. No, they didn't. This is the liberal lie that has surfaced. They chemical and biological weapons were supposedly all removed by the UN after the first gulf war. Forget the fucking nukes...the case to go to war was partially built on WMD's, which specifically included chemical weapons. Yeah dastardly dick pushed the case further with statements that there was intelligence that saddam was developing a nuke program. Maybe that tipped the scales to get the country to go to war. But the shady nuke argument from face-shooter wasn't the entire basis of the case to go to war. The existence of WMD's, thought to have been eliminated after the first war, along with saddams's continued human rights abuses and support of terrorist organizations were a big part of the argument as well.
I'm not arguing whether cheney overstated, lied, weaseled, manipulated, coerced, etc. our way into the second gulf war. He did. There was no nuke program, no materials, nothing. Agreed. There was for years (and still, for some people) a belief that there were never any WMD's found in Iraq during the second gulf war.
My whole point is this: Q: Were there WMD's in Iraq found during the second gulf war. A: Yes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2016 17:40:39 GMT
That's a different argument. All I'm addressing is the falsehood that there were no WMD's when there were. It's a fact. Even the New York Times admitted it. Eventually. There were WMD's in Iraq. Period.
I'm sure cheney exaggerated the threat and further insinuated that the Iraqis were trying to develop a nuke program. The International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN and everyone else said Iraq had no nukes and no capability to develop them. Cheney disagreed with the second part of that and probably lied about having intelligence that they did. Dirtbag Dick did lots of lying.
You can latch onto Chemical weapons all you want. That is not why Cheney potrayed the reasons the US had to invade. Cheney explicitly stated over and over the that Iraq had obtained materials to develop nuclear weapons. Everyone already knew chemical weapons were there. There were never any centrifuges nor any other material to build nuclear weapons. The fix was in and it was for money at the US taxpayers expense. The invasion made the US less safe. Chemical weapons had nothing to do with the invasion. The invasion was for Cheney and his cronies could profit. There never were any nuclear weapon WMDs that the US public was lead to believe. I didn't look long enough to see if he said it over and over, but Cheney did they say they had the ability to "reconstitute nuclear weapons." www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/08/wbr.iraq.claims/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2016 17:43:05 GMT
You can latch onto Chemical weapons all you want. That is not why Cheney potrayed the reasons the US had to invade. Cheney explicitly stated over and over the that Iraq had obtained materials to develop nuclear weapons. Everyone already knew chemical weapons were there. There were never any centrifuges nor any other material to build nuclear weapons. The fix was in and it was for money at the US taxpayers expense. The invasion made the US less safe. Chemical weapons had nothing to do with the invasion. The invasion was for Cheney and his cronies could profit. There never were any nuclear weapon WMDs that the US public was lead to believe. I didn't look long enough to see if he said it over and over, but Cheney did they say they had the ability to "reconstitute nuclear weapons." www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/08/wbr.iraq.claims/Edit: WTL is correct however, when he said the case wasn't built on nuclear weapons. Those claims were made about a year after the initial sales pitch, ostensibly for Haliburton.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Aug 25, 2016 17:54:15 GMT
You can latch onto Chemical weapons all you want. That is not why Cheney potrayed the reasons the US had to invade. Cheney explicitly stated over and over the that Iraq had obtained materials to develop nuclear weapons. Everyone already knew chemical weapons were there. There were never any centrifuges nor any other material to build nuclear weapons. The fix was in and it was for money at the US taxpayers expense. The invasion made the US less safe. Chemical weapons had nothing to do with the invasion. The invasion was for Cheney and his cronies could profit. There never were any nuclear weapon WMDs that the US public was lead to believe. My whole point is this: Q: Were there WMD's in Iraq found during the second gulf war. A: Yes.
The drum beat for for war was about materials obtained to build nuclear weapons not chemical weapons.
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on Aug 25, 2016 19:16:50 GMT
My whole point is this: Q: Were there WMD's in Iraq found during the second gulf war. A: Yes.
The drum beat for for war was about materials obtained to build nuclear weapons not chemical weapons. Not true...it was all of the above. Nuke, chem and bio. The left pounded the W administration because there were no WMD's and chemical/biological weapons were the focus of that argument very quickly because it became clear very quickly that there was no evidence of a nuke program. But there are still those who claim there were no WMD's. No nukes but chemical weapons which are, in fact WMD's, right? Of course they are. Well, chemical weapons were WMD's until they were actually found then they were just old missles.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Aug 25, 2016 19:53:35 GMT
The drum beat for for war was about materials obtained to build nuclear weapons not chemical weapons. Not true...it was all of the above. Nuke, chem and bio. The left pounded the W administration because there were no WMD's and chemical/biological weapons were the focus of that argument very quickly because it became clear very quickly that there was no evidence of a nuke program. But there are still those who claim there were no WMD's. No nukes but chemical weapons which are, in fact WMD's, right? Of course they are. Well, chemical weapons were WMD's until they were actually found then they were just old missles. Caaaaaaaarrrl! (noticed the new sig line - somebody finally watched Llamas with Hats!)
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Aug 25, 2016 20:10:27 GMT
The drum beat for for war was about materials obtained to build nuclear weapons not chemical weapons. Not true...it was all of the above. Nuke, chem and bio. The left pounded the W administration because there were no WMD's and chemical/biological weapons were the focus of that argument very quickly because it became clear very quickly that there was no evidence of a nuke program. But there are still those who claim there were no WMD's. No nukes but chemical weapons which are, in fact WMD's, right? Of course they are. Well, chemical weapons were WMD's until they were actually found then they were just old missles. You can discuss it all you want. Cheney was speaking about material to build nuclear weapons not chemical weapons. Cheney knew he had no chance to get the American public behind him unless he spoke of "nuclear weapons". There is video evidence of Cheney discussing it and talking about it. Again, everyone knew there were chemical weapons were there. Chemicals were not the reason Poppy Bush went in 91'. What was discussed afterward was there was nothing there to back up a claim that materials for nuclear weapons...were...not...and...never...were...there.
|
|
|
Post by sportsnut on Aug 25, 2016 20:20:21 GMT
Not true...it was all of the above. Nuke, chem and bio. The left pounded the W administration because there were no WMD's and chemical/biological weapons were the focus of that argument very quickly because it became clear very quickly that there was no evidence of a nuke program. But there are still those who claim there were no WMD's. No nukes but chemical weapons which are, in fact WMD's, right? Of course they are. Well, chemical weapons were WMD's until they were actually found then they were just old missles. You can discuss it all you want. Cheney was speaking about material to build nuclear weapons not chemical weapons. Cheney knew he had no chance to get the American public behind him unless he spoke of "nuclear weapons". There is video evidence of Cheney discussing it and talking about it. Again, everyone knew there were chemical weapons were there. Chemicals were not the reason Poppy Bush went in 91'. What was discussed afterward was there was nothing there to back up a claim that materials for nuclear weapons...were...not...and...never...were...there. I'd like to see a source on this. I don't recall S.H. having nuclear capabilities as part of the rationale... I recall the Italian Intelligence Appartus reporting uranium shipments to S.H. that were dubious. I also recall dual-use items that were banned being reported. Whenever the term WMD was used, I recall it being used referring to Chemical and Biological Weapons. Plenty of sources on that, just google "WMD" and that's what is referred to.
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on Aug 25, 2016 20:36:48 GMT
Not true...it was all of the above. Nuke, chem and bio. The left pounded the W administration because there were no WMD's and chemical/biological weapons were the focus of that argument very quickly because it became clear very quickly that there was no evidence of a nuke program. But there are still those who claim there were no WMD's. No nukes but chemical weapons which are, in fact WMD's, right? Of course they are. Well, chemical weapons were WMD's until they were actually found then they were just old missles. You can discuss it all you want. Cheney was speaking about material to build nuclear weapons not chemical weapons. Cheney knew he had no chance to get the American public behind him unless he spoke of "nuclear weapons". There is video evidence of Cheney discussing it and talking about it. Again, everyone knew there were chemical weapons were there. Chemicals were not the reason Poppy Bush went in 91'. What was discussed afterward was there was nothing there to back up a claim that materials for nuclear weapons...were...not...and...never...were...there. Wow, you are being incredibly hardheaded on this. I'm probably not making myself clear so I'm making one more attempt.
It is 100% false that everyone knew there were chemical weapons in Iraq when we went an invaded under W. Btw...No, of course HW didn't invade because of WMD's....it was because Saddam invaded Kuwait. THAT is when everyone knew about the chemical weapons in Iraq...saddam had just recently used that shit. After the 1st gulf war Iraq was "disarmed" of all such banned weapons. (except he wasn't really because he managed to hide some and the UN team was incompetent and didn't even find the misplaced ones that the Iraqis just plain old lost track of and were hiding in plain sight, mixed in with conventionals). Between the disarmament and the start of the 2nd gulf war the belief was that Iraq had been scrubbed of all WMD's - Chemical and biological. I agree with you that cheney pushed his agenda by claiming that the Iraqis had a nuke development program underway. It was bullshit. I agree with you that there were never any nukes or the semblance of a nuke program ever found. I agree with you that cheney is a war-mongering asswipe and belongs in hell. I agree that gulf war 2 was a huge mistake.
The only two things I disagree with you on is 1./ your belief that everyone thought there were chemical weapons in Iraq leading up to gulf war #2. That's just false. 2./ your belief that there were no WMD's in Iraq in gulf war 2. There were and they were eventually found. The purported "fact" of no WMD's that some of the media still stands by is false. No nukes, yes. WMD's in the form of chemical weapons, yes.
Cheers, ya stubborn lefty!
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on Aug 25, 2016 20:50:50 GMT
My nephew on my wife's side did 2 tours, one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. He was a bomb disposal expert. His unit was one of the ones who was called in to dispose of chemical weapons in Iraq. He's a hard core democrat with no reason to lie. There absolutely were WMD's in Iraq. And that will cork the subject nicely. Cork the logic on going into Iraq where the real danger was Afghanistan. North Korea has WMD. So why don't we invade North Korea. Stop the nonsense of trying to save the world. The Middle East is a mess,that had been more true since the Treaty of Versailles, and even more true looking back a thousand years.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Aug 25, 2016 20:54:20 GMT
You can discuss it all you want. Cheney was speaking about material to build nuclear weapons not chemical weapons. Cheney knew he had no chance to get the American public behind him unless he spoke of "nuclear weapons". There is video evidence of Cheney discussing it and talking about it. Again, everyone knew there were chemical weapons were there. Chemicals were not the reason Poppy Bush went in 91'. What was discussed afterward was there was nothing there to back up a claim that materials for nuclear weapons...were...not...and...never...were...there. I'd like to see a source on this. I don't recall S.H. having nuclear capabilities as part of the rationale... I recall the Italian Intelligence Appartus reporting uranium shipments to S.H. that were dubious. I also recall dual-use items that were banned being reported. Whenever the term WMD was used, I recall it being used referring to Chemical and Biological Weapons. Plenty of sources on that, just google "WMD" and that's what is referred to. That same place you found "WMD" that is my source and memory. It was about material to bulid nuclear weapons for the adevil Dick. I don't have to rewatch or read everything there is on the web again. Cheney repeated it over and over again. That was what he needed to fear monger. Chemical weapons were never going reach the US but nuclear weapons will always put fear in the public. If ISIL could use chemical weapons against the US there would be boots on the ground already. Chemical weapons are an "in close" weapon. All for not now, printing money for 3 war fronts. Even the Chinese are getting involved in Syria, that ain't good.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Aug 25, 2016 20:56:02 GMT
And that will cork the subject nicely. So why don't we invade North Korea. Stop the nonsense of trying to save the world. Because China wouldn't allow an invasion of N. Korea. Otherwise the US government would have.
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on Aug 25, 2016 21:03:23 GMT
So why don't we invade North Korea. Stop the nonsense of trying to save the world. Because China wouldn't allow an invasion of N. Korea. Otherwise the US government would have. Exactly, now think why the USA went into Iraq. Oil. Now look now at the price of oil and shale production. This was an oil war. There is no complicity with one party or the other on the issue taking it up the ass for a few corporations. China, oil, investment...... Debt! This is a merry go round of political idiots in both parties. Corporations have rights of citizens. The result is damning.
|
|
|
Post by sportsnut on Aug 25, 2016 21:47:55 GMT
I'd like to see a source on this. I don't recall S.H. having nuclear capabilities as part of the rationale... I recall the Italian Intelligence Appartus reporting uranium shipments to S.H. that were dubious. I also recall dual-use items that were banned being reported. Whenever the term WMD was used, I recall it being used referring to Chemical and Biological Weapons. Plenty of sources on that, just google "WMD" and that's what is referred to. That same place you found "WMD" that is my source and memory. It was about material to bulid nuclear weapons for the adevil Dick. I don't have to rewatch or read everything there is on the web again. Cheney repeated it over and over again. That was what he needed to fear monger. Chemical weapons were never going reach the US but nuclear weapons will always put fear in the public. If ISIL could use chemical weapons against the US there would be boots on the ground already. Chemical weapons are an "in close" weapon. All for not now, printing money for 3 war fronts. Even the Chinese are getting involved in Syria, that ain't good. Well, I used the NY Times for my information, but thats fine, your memory will do! haha Cheers
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Aug 26, 2016 0:25:21 GMT
That same place you found "WMD" that is my source and memory. It was about material to bulid nuclear weapons for the adevil Dick. I don't have to rewatch or read everything there is on the web again. Cheney repeated it over and over again. That was what he needed to fear monger. Chemical weapons were never going reach the US but nuclear weapons will always put fear in the public. If ISIL could use chemical weapons against the US there would be boots on the ground already. Chemical weapons are an "in close" weapon. All for not now, printing money for 3 war fronts. Even the Chinese are getting involved in Syria, that ain't good. Well, I used the NY Times for my information, but thats fine, your memory will do! haha Cheers en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_aluminum_tubesYou have some articles from the NY Times were Cheney was talking about just "chemical weapons" and that's the reason the US should go in ? Lets see them ?
|
|
|
Post by NAS on Aug 26, 2016 14:27:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Aug 26, 2016 15:22:40 GMT
Tell that to your candidate.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Aug 26, 2016 15:31:41 GMT
Oh. And one example of that coming from Mr. Trump. It'll look, you know, as good as a wall is going to look.” A few weeks later, Trump upped the cost to $10 billion to $12 billion. But none of these cost numbers could be verified by a Washington Post fact checker. The Post estimated the cost would be more like $25 billion.May 16, 2016
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2016 16:15:20 GMT
The political media is this country is such a fucking joke. The media is supposed to find the truth. The more I read out of the political media, the more is obvious that they aren't there to be journalists, they're there to influence people's opinions. I can respect the talk show hosts like Rush, Hannity, BOR because they don't present themselves as journalists. This garbage from the Times, the Huffington Post, etc is disgusting. I'm pissed off because I believed this when there was a perfect and logical explanation a grade schooler could figure out. There's no way the pinko that wrote that didn't try to deliberately mislead his readers.
|
|