Syrian Civil War

[DogOnPorch]

Yup amazing revisionism.

14 155 mm shells filled with mustard gas

A few 122 mm chemical warheads

224.6 kg of expired growth media

Thats what was found....

...and that's all there ever was...'cause we found it.

[dre]

...and that's all there ever was...'cause we found it.

No there used to be more... but UNSCOM destroyed most of it. But in a country that size, where there was a pretty robust chemical weapon program, you are bound to find some remnants, which is what those things were. If we sent a few hundred people over there to scour the country yet again we would probably some more.

What we did not find were any recently used production facilities, or any other forensic clues that might lead us to believe they existed (government documents etc).

Theres a bunch of hairbrained theories out there, like the idea that all the components of this robust active manufacturing program and all traces of them were moved to Syria... Some people even tried to say the reason we couldnt find the weapons factories is because they were hidden in the back of pickup trucks

[Shady]

No there used to be more... but UNSCOM destroyed most of it. But in a country that size, where there was a pretty robust chemical weapon program, you are bound to find some remnants, which is what those things were. If we sent a few hundred people over there to scour the country yet again we would probably some more.

What we did not find were any recently used production facilities, or any other forensic clues that might lead us to believe they existed (government documents etc).

Theres a bunch of hairbrained theories out there, like the idea that all the components of this robust active manufacturing program and all traces of them were moved to Syria... Some people even tried to say the reason we couldnt find the weapons factories is because they were hidden in the back of pickup trucks

I guess it was pretty dumb on Saddam's part to refuse weapons inspections for 4 years if he didn't have any illegal weapons huh? It was just as dumb to make people believe that he did. It was even more dumb to violate the oil for food program. And it was the dumbest to violate the ceasefire by firing on coalition planes patrolling the no-fly zone. Technically, bombs could have started dropping the first minute inspectors were prevented from doing their inspections. Technically bombs could have started dropping the first time a coalition plane was fired upon.

The Saddam defenders never cease to amaze me. Making exuses for murderous dictators is what they do best. Saddam, Assad, Putin, Castro, the late Chavez, they love'em all!!!! Lol.

[dre]

I guess it was pretty dumb on Saddam's part to refuse weapons inspections for 4 years if he didn't have any illegal weapons huh? It was just as dumb to make people believe that he did. It was even more dumb to violate the oil for food program. And it was the dumbest to violate the ceasefire by firing on coalition planes patrolling the no-fly zone. Technically, bombs could have started dropping the first minute inspectors were prevented from doing their inspections. Technically bombs could have started dropping the first time a coalition plane was fired upon.

The Saddam defenders never cease to amaze me. Making exuses for murderous dictators is what they do best. Saddam, Assad, Putin, Castro, the late Chavez, they love'em all!!!! Lol.

The Saddam defenders never cease to amaze me.

I wouldnt know anything about that. The only Saddam defenders I can think of were folks during the Reagan administration that picked Iraq in the war against Iran. I think the guy was a dirtbag. But that doesnt excuse folks for BSing themselves into a war that cost trillions of dollars and got hundreds of thousands of people killed.

[Shady]

I wouldnt know anything about that. The only Saddam defenders I can think of were folks during the Reagan administration that picked Iraq in the war against Iran. I think the guy was a dirtbag. But that doesnt excuse folks for BSing themselves into a war that cost trillions of dollars and got hundreds of thousands of people killed.

Why do you make excuses for him? Why do you ignore the wrongs he committed? Refusing weapons inspections for 4 years. Breaking ceasefires by firing on patrolling planes. Why do you filter that out? I don't get it. The reason there was a war was Saddam Hussein. His actions led directly to conflict, starting way back in 91, and up until he was removed from power. If he doesn't refuse weapons inspections, if he doesn't break ceasefires, if he doesn't bluff about having illegal weapons,if he doesn't violate oil for food programs, if he doesn't fund suicide bombings in Israel, there is no war.

[dre]

Why do you make excuses for him? Why do you ignore the wrongs he committed? Refusing weapons inspections for 4 years. Breaking ceasefires by firing on patrolling planes. Why do you filter that out? I don't get it. The reason there was a war was Saddam Hussein. His actions led directly to conflict, starting way back in 91, and up until he was removed from power. If he doesn't refuse weapons inspections, if he doesn't break ceasefires, if he doesn't bluff about having illegal weapons,if he doesn't violate oil for food programs, if he doesn't fund suicide bombings in Israel, there is no war.

Im not making excuses for him. I said hes a dirtbag. Its YOU thats making excuses for people that played fast and loose with the facts and got hundreds of thousands of people killed, and wasted trillions of dollars of taxpayer money in a war that lasted twice as long as World War 2. There was no WMDs and there was no compelling evidence of them.

[Shady]

Im not making excuses for him. I said hes a dirtbag. Its YOU thats making excuses for people that played fast and loose with the facts and got hundreds of thousands of people killed, and wasted trillions of dollars of taxpayer money in a war that lasted twice as long as World War 2. There was no WMDs and there was no compelling evidence of them.

Stating that he's a dirtbag doesn't then provide you cover to make excuse after excuse for his behavior. That's like saying, well, Charles Manson was a jerk, but....

Nobody played fast and loose with the facts, because there were no facts, just guesses. The only facts are, that Saddam refused weapons inspections for 4 years. Tell me, why would somebody that doesn't have illegal weapons refuse inspections? Why would that same person then violate a cease fire multple times? Why do you give him a pass on those actions related to the conflict it caused? I'm curious. What goes into that mindset? Is it guilt?

[dre]

Stating that he's a dirtbag doesn't then provide you cover to make excuse after excuse for his behavior. That's like saying, well, Charles Manson was a jerk, but....

Nobody played fast and loose with the facts, because there were no facts, just guesses. The only facts are, that Saddam refused weapons inspections for 4 years. Tell me, why would somebody that doesn't have illegal weapons refuse inspections? Why would that same person then violate a cease fire multple times? Why do you give him a pass on those actions related to the conflict it caused? I'm curious. What goes into that mindset? Is it guilt?

I dont give him a pass on any of those things. But none of that changes the responsibility of the US government to its own people, to make intelligent, evidence based decisions. They failed at that, and by doing so they cost more American lives than were lost on 911 (never mind the tens of thousands that were horrifically injured, lost limbs, etc), and racked up a debt Americans will be making payments on for a century.

The only one giving anyone a pass is you.

Edited September 20, 2013 by dre

[GostHacked]

Why do you make excuses for him? Why do you ignore the wrongs he committed?

Who is making the excuses, and what are those excuses?

[bud]

Refusing weapons inspections for 4 years.

this is not true. you are repeating misinformation:

“Saddam chose to deny inspectors” Bush repeated this bald-faced lie recently. The cowering press still lets him get away with it, but the public is no longer fooled.

For the third time since the war began three years ago, Bush had falsely claimed that Saddam refused the U.N. weapons inspections mandated by the Security Council. For the third time, he had denied a reality witnessed by the entire world during the four months when those inspectors, under the direction of Hans Blix, traveled Iraq searching fruitlessly for weapons of mass destruction that, as we now know for certain, were not there.

But forget about whether the weapons were there for a moment. The inspectors definitely went to Iraq. They left only because the United States warned them to get out before the bombs started to fall on March 19, 2003. But for some reason the president of the United States keeps saying — in public and on the record — that the inspectors weren’t there.

[bleeding heart]

It was even more dumb to violate the oil for food program.

you know what's even more interesting? That the US, along with its little sycophant (the UK) also violated the sanctions program. Intentionally violated it, for the express purpose of making Iraqis suffer. And suffer they did.

It was a very serious crime, by any standard.

Now, a person of principle will, it should go without saying, be more concerned, and more outraged, about the crimes committed by us...or, in this case, by two of our closest allies...than they will be concerned about the crimes of official enemies.

So when you mention ugly truths like Saddam's intransigence and violations (all serious in and of themselves, I agree), how could you possibly avoid pointing to Western culpability for similar crimes, in the exact same timeframe and situation to which you're referring?

[Army Guy]

this is not true. you are repeating misinformation:

Here is a statement made by the state dept, saying other wise. The inspectors were in Iraq that much is a fact, however they were not allowed timely access to all of Iraq's facilities. How can one determine if any WMD's were present if the Iraqis were deciding where and when the inspection teams could go?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030320-usia09.htm

Here is another document breaking down all the issues leading up to the 2 and gulf war by date.

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02

After reading both documents can you honestly say that the US went to war strictly because of WMD's or was there, not so

The US knew that Iraq had WMD's, they had told the inspectors as much, they Iraqi government had reported how much chemical and Bio wpns they had produced, using this base figure there was huge shortfalls in what was reported destroyed by the Iraqis and what was destroyed by the Inspection teams....

At the end of the day there was a shortfall, the numbers did not match, what was destroyed and what was still out there...even after the 2 and gulf war WMD were destroyed by inspection teams,( while they were produced before the 1 st gulf war.... ) they still had them in their inventories which were suppose to be destroyed that were reported to be destroyed.....proving that they either lied or did not have full control over these wpns....

And even after all this the data is gathered on what was destroyed "still" the numbers do not add up, meaning there is still WMD's still out there some where, just because the US can not find them does not mean they do not exist...The proof they do exist... is it was the Iraqis that provided the base number of what they produced....This added to the long list of reasons why there was a Gulf war II, it was not the sole reason.

Edited September 20, 2013 by Army Guy

[jbg]

Here is a statement made by the state dept, saying other wise. The inspectors were in Iraq that much is a fact, however they were not allowed timely access to all of Iraq's facilities. How can one determine if any WMD's were present if the Iraqis were deciding where and when the inspection teams could go?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030320-usia09.htm

Here is another document breaking down all the issues leading up to the 2 and gulf war by date.

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02

After reading both documents can you honestly say that the US went to war strictly because of WMD's or was there, not so

I had almost forgotten what a farce Hussein made of the "inspections." If I recall sometimes it was even fodder for late-night comics. Edited September 20, 2013 by jbg

[Shady]

you know what's even more interesting? That the US, along with its little sycophant (the UK) also violated the sanctions program. Intentionally violated it, for the express purpose of making Iraqis suffer. And suffer they did.It was a very serious crime, by any standard.Now, a person of principle will, it should go without saying, be more concerned, and more outraged, about the crimes committed by us...or, in this case, by two of our closest allies...than they will be concerned about the crimes of official enemies.So when you mention ugly truths like Saddam's intransigence and violations (all serious in and of themselves, I agree), how could you possibly avoid pointing to Western culpability for similar crimes, in the exact same timeframe and situation to which you're referring?

No, the person responsible for Iraqis suffering was Saddam Hussein. Stop making excuses for his behaviour.

[bleeding heart]

No, the person responsible for Iraqis suffering was Saddam Hussein. Stop making excuses for his behaviour.

I['m not making excuses for Saddam.

I never deny that he was a terrible dictator, a mass killer.

You're the only one of us who is denying anyone's culpability.

Why would you do that?

http://www.scn.org/ccpi/HarpersJoyGordonNov02.html.

[bleeding heart]

Here is a statement made by the state dept, saying other wise. The inspectors were in Iraq that much is a fact, however they were not allowed timely access to all of Iraq's facilities. How can one determine if any WMD's were present if the Iraqis were deciding where and when the inspection teams could go?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030320-usia09.htm

Here is another document breaking down all the issues leading up to the 2 and gulf war by date.

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02

After reading both documents can you honestly say that the US went to war strictly because of WMD's or was there, not so

The US knew that Iraq had WMD's, they had told the inspectors as much, they Iraqi government had reported how much chemical and Bio wpns they had produced, using this base figure there was huge shortfalls in what was reported destroyed by the Iraqis and what was destroyed by the Inspection teams....

At the end of the day there was a shortfall, the numbers did not match, what was destroyed and what was still out there...even after the 2 and gulf war WMD were destroyed by inspection teams,( while they were produced before the 1 st gulf war.... ) they still had them in their inventories which were suppose to be destroyed that were reported to be destroyed.....proving that they either lied or did not have full control over these wpns....

And even after all this the data is gathered on what was destroyed "still" the numbers do not add up, meaning there is still WMD's still out there some where, just because the US can not find them does not mean they do not exist...The proof they do exist... is it was the Iraqis that provided the base number of what they produced....This added to the long list of reasons why there was a Gulf war II, it was not the sole reason.

The primary reasons were geostrategic; the wish to maintain (and increase) strategic control over the oil-rich reason,

I suppose it was also meant as an object lesson, so that everybody would see what the US is capable of.

That's how gangsters behave, and I think the analogy is accurate enough.

[Shady]

The primary reasons were geostrategic; the wish to maintain (and increase) strategic control over the oil-rich reason,

I suppose it was also meant as an object lesson, so that everybody would see what the US is capable of.

That's how gangsters behave, and I think the analogy is accurate enough.

More nonsense. It's very little of what you say.

[jbg]

More nonsense. It's very little of what you say.

The primary reasons were geostrategic; the wish to maintain (and increase) strategic control over the oil-rich reason region,

I suppose it was also meant as an object lesson, so that everybody would see what the US is capable of.

That's how gangsters behave, and I think the analogy is accurate enough.

Let's be a little less politically correct and a little more honest. These areas are incapable of self-government without tragedy. And yes, oil is valuable to the West. I admit that.

What makes Saddam privileged to the extent that he has the personal right to control the prosperity of the productive parts of the world?

[bud]

this is rich. jbg wants to be honest about his bigoted and misinformed feelings.

most of these dictators have been propped up by the west in order to keep control of the resources and the geopolitics. the u.s. has allowed, encouraged and helped these dictators to do what they want to do for a long time. like, for example, helping saddam gas his own people and their iranian neighbours. during this time, saddam and america were best buds. then, we get to a point where saddam doesn't want to play by the west's rules and he suddenly becomes this monster and there is a need to remove him.

there isn't a day that goes by when the hypocrisy of the u.s. is excused by the sycophants.

Edited September 20, 2013 by bud

[jbg]

this is rich. jbg wants to be honest about his bigoted and misinformed feelings.

most of these dictators have been propped up by the west in order to keep control of the resources and the geopolitics. the u.s. has allowed, encouraged and helped these dictators to do what they want to do for a long time. like, for example, helping saddam gas his own people and their iranian neighbours. during this time, saddam and america were best buds. then, we get to a point where saddam doesn't want to play by the west's rules and he suddenly becomes this monster and there is a need to remove him.

there isn't a day that goes by when the hypocrisy of the u.s. is excused by the sycophants.

And what use, honestly, have the nomads for these resources? Oops, I forgot, the Saddams of the world get rich off them.

[bleeding heart]

Let's be a little less politically correct and a little more honest.

That is exactly right, exactly what I think we should be doing.

[Guest American Woman]

No, the person responsible for Iraqis suffering was Saddam Hussein. Stop making excuses for his behaviour.

Exactly.

[waldo]

Exactly.

hey, when you've got nothing else, go with revisionism... go with your strengths!

[bleeding heart]

I'm (still, even to this day!) a little surprised at the tendency--practically the insistence--on a view that is not only black and white, but in which the black and white is birthed from the inherent nationalism, which is the enemy of truth in so many cases.

So let's get this little sub-topic straight in our heads: there is no argument about who is the Good guy and who is the bad guy: the United states versus Saddam Hussein.

That is, no one here is arguing that Saddam was the Good Guy in the conflict. That is not part of the argument.

The only people who are indulging in this foolishness are those who insist that the US did nothing wrong, or at least nothing too terribly wrong...and so all blame should be laid at the feet of the Iraqi dictator.

The self-indulgence, and self-mythologizing (insofar as personal identities get caught up with the behavior of the Mother State, a common weakness) is evident enough.

Here are the facts: Saddam Hussein was a murderer on a large scale. His behavior was so odious that he automatically shares responsibility for what happened.

But here are some more facts: the United States, with allies either or both weak and venal, committed an act of international aggression that precipitated the deaths of (minimally) many hundreds of thousands of human beings, only a trivial percentage of whom can be argued to have somehow Asked For It.

To defend this, even in the tepid deflection mode of "all Saddam's fault," is grotesque.

Edited September 20, 2013 by bleeding heart

[Guest American Woman]

To defend this, even in the tepid deflection mode of "all Saddam's fault," is grotesque.

Who ever said anything about "all Saddam's fault?" But in 'the buck stops here' sense, he IS to blame, and that's different from saying "all his fault;" and while "no one here is arguing that Saddam was the Good Guy in the conflict," Saddam's part in all of it seems to be often missing in the discussions. It seems to be all about the U.S being the Bad Guy. And many, myself included, find that grotesque - along with the "all the U.S.'s fault" and "the U.S. had it coming" mindset.

You want people to have a more open discussion about our role in it - yes, our role since Canada was involved, too - then make it an all inclusive discussion on your end rather than criticizing others for not doing so.

Edited September 20, 2013 by American Woman