Glenn Beck: ‘Liberals, You Were Right,’ We Should Never Have Gone into Iraq
- Thread starter Spikender
- Start date
Black Mamba
Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2011
- Messages
- 62
I'm not talking about "conspiracy theories" or anything like that. What I'm saying is that one of the main rationales given for the war was Saddam's WMDs. But since they didn't find them, people said "oh, there were never any WMDs! One of the main rationales for the invasion was based on lie!" But after all this time, those WMDs were finally found.
Black Mamba
Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2011
- Messages
- 62
Maybe those "troglodytes" are smarter than they're given credit for? Even if they aren't that smart, then I guess it's like when a blind squirrel finds a nut - it happens every once in a while
pcosmar
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 54,940
No Theory.. The WMDs were an Excuse..
Yes he had them.. We gave them to him and he used them.. (that is documented history)
As far as massive stockpiles,,, they never existed.. He had some,, he used some.. His country was decimated in the first gulf war and never ever recovered.
The second Gulf war was bullshit,, nothing but Profit for the arms industry.
acptulsa
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 75,406
Excuse me?
I thought we found a couple of old chemical weapons that we sold them decades ago. Are you trying to tell us we found his mythical nuclear weapons program and his much-rumored, never-seen, Bigfoot-like yellowcake uranium? Really?
Tell us all about it, dude.
Black Mamba
Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2011
- Messages
- 62
^ What exactly do you mean by "a couple of old chemical weapons"? Elaborate for me please...
Black Mamba
Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2011
- Messages
- 62
I'm not trying to antagonize anyone or anything... I would really just like to learn from other people's perspective on this issue
purplechoe
Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2007
- Messages
- 8,971
The real truth is that neocons wanted exactly what is happening in Iraq to happen. Their plan was never to liberate or make the world a better place. The thing thing they wanted was to try and start WWIII. America is ruled by fascists. They say they wanted to spread Democracy, but why? Our founding fathers said that Democracy is the worst type of government and is the reason they made us a Republic. (A Republic if you can keep it - Benjamin Franklin) A Democratic Republic, but not a pure Democracy. That is an important difference. Bush and Obama, etc keep saying that they want to make the world a safe place for Democracy. Why? Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what is for dinner. They should say that they are spreading a Constitutional Republics if they are truly trying to bring some type of freedom to the world, but they are not. They need to sell lies to the public in order to get their consent to start another murder campaign.
Weapons of mass destruction was BS. Both Democrats and Republican leaders wanted to bomb Iraq. They only needed an excuses for which the people would support the aggression. They wanted to invade Iraq since the 90's. Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction unless they were given to him by the Americans. What is so hard to understand about that?
purplechoe
Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2007
- Messages
- 8,971
Do you have a problem understanding English?
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 63,472
Yes, they did want exactly what happened. The plan was to break up most of the nations of the Middle East into Balkanized factions, all fighting each other. Iran is next on their list. If they could break Russia down into even smaller pieces, they'd try that too.
Saddamn did have WMDs and used them, killing thousands of Kurds and Iranians and created mass birth defects. Most were destroyed in the 90's by the UN inspectors. Yes the US helped Saddamn develop those weapons but the majority of the help came from other western nations. It was worldwide policy to keep any side from winning decisively in the Iran/Iraq war and if that meant supplying the Iraqi's with WMD's to counter the Iranian human wave attacks so be it.
The US definitely went into Iraq with false pretenses as it had been official US policy after congress passed and Clinton signed the Iraqi liberation act to get rid of Saddamn.
It also equally false that the US supplied most of Iraq's weapons either conventional or WMDs. The US played a part but were by no means the main suppliers. Did Saddamn have WMD's in 2003? We will probably never know but the biggest point is so what, he didn't use them to save his life. If there was ever a time he would have used them against America it would have been when the US had multiple divisions rolling across his borders.
The US definitely went into Iraq with false pretenses as it had been official US policy after congress passed and Clinton signed the Iraqi liberation act to get rid of Saddamn.
It also equally false that the US supplied most of Iraq's weapons either conventional or WMDs. The US played a part but were by no means the main suppliers. Did Saddamn have WMD's in 2003? We will probably never know but the biggest point is so what, he didn't use them to save his life. If there was ever a time he would have used them against America it would have been when the US had multiple divisions rolling across his borders.
EBounding
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2011
- Messages
- 4,296
SMH
Those aren't WMDs hidden by Saddam. They were sealed by the UN after the first Gulf War. They were never destroyed because they weren't weaponized, so it was safer to just seal them away in the bunkers. The only thing that's changed now is the area is in control of ISIS instead of the Iraqi government. The conservative sites aren't actually reading the articles they're linking to.
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxB.html
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ly-Misinterpreting-ISIS-Chemical-Weapon-Story
Similar threads
