Jump to content

New evidence Nixon did indeed sabotage peace talks in 68


Recommended Posts

It makes perfect sense.

How does moving all your weapons out of your country right before a war make any sense what so ever? Seriously it only make sense in the heads of "those who were there" because they think the bull they were sold at the time trumps real facts and evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 228
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hard to get rid of something that doesn't exist isn't it? However in 2003 Iraq sent the UN a 25 report on how in 1991 they went about getting rid of that never agent I suggest if you care about this question you read it.

So you also think Iraq did not have a chemical weapons program? Amazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No they existed and then were gotten rid of just like all the good Intel at the time said Shady. Just because South Africa at one time had a nuke doesn't mean the Us should invade them today. That is just the type of Conservative logic which cost American lives and why "well I was there so I know" attitude I am pointing out is abused.

Then why did they refuse weapons inspections for 3 years? Why did they violate the terms of the cease fire they agreed to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does moving all your weapons out of your country right before a war make any sense what so ever? Seriously it only make sense in the heads of "those who were there" because they think the bull they were sold at the time trumps real facts and evidence.

He wasn't going to win. Even Saddam figured that out early no matter the Iraqi Minister of Information. Why get caught with the smoking gun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you also think Iraq did not have a chemical weapons program? Amazing.

We know for a fact Iraq developed weapons what we now also know is Iraq complied with UN orders and destroyed those weapons long ago and documented all that information for the UN and anyone else to read. You want to know what happened to the VX nerve agent read the 25 report that Iraq sent to the UN on it in 2003 when they asked that same question. You don't actually care about the answers you want to make the same arguments that were made in 2003 that we now know are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why did they refuse weapons inspections for 3 years? Why did they violate the terms of the cease fire they agreed to?

We know the answer to this to. Saddam feared others in the Region (Iran) knowing how weak his military and country was so he refused to ever show the proof that the weapons didn't exist. All this is well documented go read the reports on this seriously go pick up a book and read it you might learn something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He wasn't going to win. Even Saddam figured that out early no matter the Iraqi Minister of Information. Why get caught with the smoking gun?

That makes no sense what do ever. His only card is WMDs and being to use them on countries in the Region or his own populace. Saddam wasn't stupid he wouldn't give up his only trump card.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol.... 'We' do not know anything.

No you do not know anything. The rest of us who read the news and who have followed the evidence know quite I bit about Iraq, but I guess you were there so it doesn't matter you don't know anything right? Which is again my point, that is the worst argument ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know the answer to this to. Saddam feared others in the Region (Iran) knowing how weak his military and country was so he refused to ever show the proof that the weapons didn't exist. All this is well documented go read the reports on this seriously go pick up a book and read it you might learn something.

Right. So he pretended he had such weapons. Well, his bluff was called. I guess he should have been more upfront, and realized that such actions, along with breaking the cease fire agreement could have pretty grave consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No you do not know anything. The rest of us who read the news and who have followed the evidence know quite I bit about Iraq, but I guess you were there so it doesn't matter you don't know anything right? Which is again my point, that is the worst argument ever.

There is no argument....a U.S. president and the prime ministers of three other nations decided to invade Iraq. So they did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. So he pretended he had such weapons. Well, his bluff was called. I guess he should have been more upfront, and realized that such actions, along with breaking the cease fire agreement could have pretty grave consequences.

Doesn't change the fact that the US Admin had little to no proof and most in the US Intel community told them he didn't have those weapons, that the UN inspectors asked for more time and said they thought he didn't have weapons and that in the end they were wrong. They were wrong and now history gets to judge them. Very few people believe the war was worth it and the more evidence comes out that the Bush Admin knew there weren't any WMDs the less people think your reason is a good one in the least. I am not defending Saddam I am saying that lying to the American people about sketchy intel is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no argument....a U.S. president and the prime ministers of three other nations decided to invade Iraq. So they did.

They sure did but we do get to argue about their reasons and justification to their people. History does get to judge them and that is happening already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't change the fact that the US Admin had little to no proof and most in the US Intel community told them he didn't have those weapons, that the UN inspectors asked for more time and said they thought he didn't have weapons and that in the end they were wrong. They were wrong and now history gets to judge them. Very few people believe the war was worth it and the more evidence comes out that the Bush Admin knew there weren't any WMDs the less people think your reason is a good one in the least. I am not defending Saddam I am saying that lying to the American people about sketchy intel is wrong.

Complete and utter nonsense. There was intel of both pro-WMD and con-WMD. Nobody KNEW one way or the other. Your conspiracy theories are amusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. So he pretended he had such weapons. Well, his bluff was called. I guess he should have been more upfront, and realized that such actions, along with breaking the cease fire agreement could have pretty grave consequences.

Nope he never pretended to have those weapons. He was very clear he didn't have those weapons he sent all documents requested by the UN to the UN but he did make a mistake with weapon inspectors probably thinking that the inspectors opinions that if they were give just a few more months everything would be found out would be taken seriously by the US to bad the President of the US did not care what anyone with good intel was telling him at the time eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They sure did but we do get to argue about their reasons and justification to their people. History does get to judge them and that is happening already.

Same reason Nixon bombed Vietnam....because he wanted to and had the means to do so. No need to over think this for justification, as none was needed. The reasons were quite clear. Saddam Hussein is dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope he never pretended to have those weapons. He was very clear he didn't have those weapons he sent all documents requested by the UN to the UN but he did make a mistake with weapon inspectors probably thinking that the inspectors opinions that if they were give just a few more months everything would be found out would be taken seriously by the US to bad the President of the US did not care what anyone with good intel was telling him at the time eh?

Of course he pretended. You just said so yourself. As to not look weak to other countries in the region.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... if they were give just a few more months everything would be found out would be taken seriously by the US to bad the President of the US did not care what anyone with good intel was telling him at the time eh?

So what...the goal was to invade Iraq and depose Saddam. The US Congress agreed, as did the PMs of other nations.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Complete and utter nonsense. There was intel of both pro-WMD and con-WMD. Nobody KNEW one way or the other. Your conspiracy theories are amusing.

Nope there was some really bad pro-WMD intel that everyone was saying was terrible and some really good con-WMD intel that almost all high ranking US intel officals agreed with. You again are trying to re write a history that is easily researched. The pro-WMD Intel was very very very bad in fact it was so bad that the President sometimes couldn't even get the US intel agencies to go on record with it and relied on intel from other nations to justify some of his reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course he pretended. You just said so yourself. As to not look weak to other countries in the region.

He told the US straight up "I don't have anything you think I have an a got rid of them all in the 90s when you asked me to". This was backed up by many intelligence agencies at the time. The Senate wrote a whole report on it Shady maybe you should read it its called "Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq". We know what happened we know where the failings are stop pretending this isn't something that has already had countless books written on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He told the US straight up "I don't have anything you think I have an a got rid of them all in the 90s when you asked me to". This was backed up by many intelligence agencies at the time. The Senate wrote a whole report on it Shady maybe you should read it its called "Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq". We know what happened we know where the failings are stop pretending this isn't something that has already had countless books written on it.

Yep, he told them that, but then went on to not allow weapons inspections for several years, as well as tell a different story of his weapons capabilities to his military leadership, as well as other countries in the region. He bluffed, and lost. That's on him. Is there ever a day you're not defending a dictator in this forum? Seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, he told them that, but then went on to not allow weapons inspections for several years, as well as tell a different story of his weapons capabilities to his military leadership, as well as other countries in the region. He bluffed, and lost. That's on him. Is there ever a day you're not defending a dictator in this forum? Seriously.

You live in Bizarro World Shady. We don't start wars because a leader lies to his country sorry. That is why we spending Billions and Billions of dollars on thing called Intel and all the best intel at the time we now know pointed to him having nothing. Which makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You live in Bizarro World Shady. We don't start wars because a leader lies to his country sorry. That is why we spending Billions and Billions of dollars on thing called Intel and all the best intel at the time we now know pointed to him having nothing. Which makes sense.

Had nothing to do with "intel' that 'we' ??? are spending billions on. The invasion of Iraq by the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and others was the continuation of more than 12 years of conflict stemming from Gulf War I.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had nothing to do with "intel' that 'we' ??? are spending billions on. The invasion of Iraq by the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and others was the continuation of more than 12 years of conflict stemming from Gulf War I.

We know that was true now it wasn't the reasons when we were being sold a big pile of garbage called WMDs and the terrorist connection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...