Was Iraq "better" under Saddam's rule?

 
lfd0311 said:
http://nypost.com/2010/10/25/us-did-find-iraq-wmd/

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918


http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/071912-618875-syria-chemical-weapons-came-from-iraq-.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html

A guy I went to High School with is an Army Ranger and burned himself pretty badly on the raid above.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/05/17/sarin-mustard-gas-discovered-separately-in-iraq/

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the 500 weapons were so degraded to the point that they were not weapons and only dangerous to people who collect them for scrap metal. The dod in their press conference said that those 500 'weapons' were not the WMD that the US were looking for.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2006/06/23/fox-news-hosts-and-guests-touted-discredited-re/136028

Your article link where you army ranger buddy took part says the factory was new built after the invasion of 2003.

"Boylan said the suspected lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Bush administration cited evidence that Saddam Hussein's government was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for the invasion. No such weapons or factories were found. "
 
It depends on your religion/ethnicity.
 
nhbfan8080 said:
Unfortunately the 500 weapons were so degraded to the point that they were not weapons and only dangerous to people who collect them for scrap metal. The dod in their press conference said that those 500 'weapons' were not the WMD that the US were looking for.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2006/06/23/fox-news-hosts-and-guests-touted-discredited-re/136028

Your article link where you army ranger buddy took part says the factory was new built after the invasion of 2003.

"Boylan said the suspected lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Bush administration cited evidence that Saddam Hussein's government was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for the invasion. No such weapons or factories were found. "
Click to expand...

All "degraded" meant was that the artillery rounds themselves could no longer be shot out of a cannon. The gas in them was just fine. As I said earlier in the thread, anything that was found after the invasion was quickly dismissed as "brought in after the invasion"
 
lfd0311 said:
All "degraded" meant was that the artillery rounds themselves could no longer be shot out of a cannon. The gas in them was just fine. As I said earlier in the thread, anything that was found after the invasion was quickly dismissed as "brought in after the invasion"
Click to expand...

How would it be possible that the 'gas in them was just fine'? Didn't the numerous talking heads tell us that WMDs had a short shelf life? Like up to 5 yrs max? Scott Ritter said any weapons would be degraded to the point of useless goo.

And why would the DoD dismiss possible evidence of wmd since it was one of their primary missions in Iraq? Especially by Col Boylan who is a right wing team player who routinely played down and dismissed US brutality and dirty tricks in Iraq?
 
lfd0311 said:
...We knew he had Chemical and Biological weapons...
Click to expand...

Our gov't sold them to Saddam, making them partners in the crimes they used as justification for attacking Iraq. The Riegle Report is a very interesting read if you haven't seen it. To skip to the real dirt, start on page 21.

http://moneydick.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/the_riegle_report.pdf



lfd0311 said:
...The evidence suggested that he was trying to obtain the neccessary pieces to start a nuke program...
Click to expand...

"Trying to start a nuclear program" is far different from "Is six months away from a working nuclear bomb", as Cheney announced to the nation a few months before the invasion.
 
Gervinho said:
Without a doubt. Nothing is worse than lawlessness
Click to expand...

This is what thousands of Afghans thought when the Taliban started dispatching their fighters into Afghanistan. At first, when they kept busy going after local factions who were ambushing and pillaging humanitarian aid convoys and establishinga semblance of order amidst the violence and chaos, putting up with their zealous piety didn't seem so bad.

That didn't last...
 
tkotom said:
It's nearly entirely a result of leaving a power vacuum in Iraq after removing Saddam.
Click to expand...

There isn't a "power vacuum." There never was.

When Saddam was ousted, an American administrator (Paul Bremer) ran the show. Then the Iraqi interim government, then the elected government. All backed by guys with guns.
 
I just asked Saddam and he said it was better for sure.
 
CelticThunder said:
Dude, they were caught red-handed with the bombs they were planting around Basra. They had to be broken out of Iraqi jail. It was in all the mainstream press.
Click to expand...

You're a genius, CT; a scholar and a fucking genius.

It seems you'd have me believe that clandestine provocateurs from Britain's elite Special Air Service were tasked with planting bombs around Basra...

[presumably, because at a time when violence between rival factions was at a pitch across Iraq, there weren't nearly enough bombs going off to keep things interesting]

...to include planting bombs in one of Shi'a Islams' holiest sites: the Al-Aksar mosque.

[because, presumably, it would been impossible to figure out a way to waylay a Sunni militiaman into bombing a mosque that Sunni militiamen have bombed repeatedly.

So the job was assigned to a pair of Brits, who dressed up as Sunnis-- whatever the fuck *that* means-- and toted bombs into a Shi'a mosque.]

[CONT'D]
 
Last edited:
[CONT'D]

[ALSO: given that the British SAS are world-reknowned masters of covert operation, it's logical to assume they'd dispatch two obviously-not-Iraqi guys in a disguise that's about as inconspicuous as the sandwich-board sign emblazoned with the slogan "I HATE NI**ERS" worn by Det. John McClain while strolling into Harlem in "Die Hard 3" ]

The bombing was intended to kickstart renewed violence between Sunni and Shi'a factions in and around Samarra.

[because, as I already alluded, there wasn't enough of that already.

Then again, around the time the bombing, Samarra was relatively pacified and stable compared to most if Iraq's other key cities. This reflected very positively upon the British troops who worked hard to make it that way,and was an example that American troops were struggling to replicate.

So naturally, the British military and the British government had every reason to want to go and royally fuck it up]

[CONT'D]
 
[CONT'D]You know all about this-- the bombings, the arrest of the SAS operators who perpetrated the crime, and the dramatic raid by British troops that sprung their comrades-- because it was all reported by "the mainstream press."

[by "mainstream press," I assume you mean the entity that you and all the other gullible, conspiracy-minded halfwits all over the Internet claim is fully controlled by the government, corporations,billionaire power-brokers,Zionist Jews, the Freemasons, and other shadowy forces of evil who use it to further their evil schemes and machinations by disseminating nothing but a constant flood of lies, propaganda, and obfuscations to the masses,and that only a fool would ever believe]

Actually, what happened was a pair of SAS operators in civilian garb were accused by a local militia of firing on two Iraqi policemen.

A search of the car they were in revealed a cache of tactical gear, weapons, and explosives. These being things one *could* conceivably...

[CONT'D]
 
[CONT'D]

...expect to find in the possession of combatents in a war zone. The idea that they were sent to blow up the mosque and/or other targets was a rumor spawned by Iraqi agitators, a common occurance in the wake of ugly incidents in occupied Iraq.

The mosque bombing was carried out by insurgents-- likely from AQ In Iraq-- dressed in Iraqi military uniforms who subdued a small contingent of armed Iraqi guards, planted the bombs, then left and detonated them.
 
MysticNinjaJay said:
Our whole point in going over there was a preemptive strike on a country we claimed had solid evidence of weapons of mass destruction so we could prevent another 9/11. Guess what? No Weapons of Mass Destruction! So with that rationale out the window Bush then changed the objective to toppling a well-known dictator and potential threat to the United States. Then we were trying to secure freedom for Iraq from insurgents, many of whom were probably Iraqis who didn't want us there in the first place.
Click to expand...

The Bush Administration proffered a number a justifications for invading Iraq; seizing WMD stockpiles and the apparatus to produce them was one, regime change was another. Those which were thought to bear the greatest weight of importance we given the most attention when making the case for war to the public, for what I'd think would be obvious reasons.

The idea that Bush sold it as being "all about WMD," then abruptly changed the record to "remove Saddam,"
[CONT'D]
 
[CONT'D]

...then yanked that one and changed it to "fighting insurgents" is simply not true.

Whatever the stated objectives were, removing Saddam was mandatory. Going to the trouble of staging a massive multi-national military incursion into Iraq and removing Saddam's entire regime, only to quickly withdraw and leave everything to the whims and caprices of a multitude of militant factions would've stupid, illogical, and counter-productive in any number of ways.

And I fail to see what the sense would be in playing up the WMD angle once it seemed certain that wherever they were, weren't to be found, and the military was fully focused on other objectives.
 
Gregster said:
Whatever the stated objectives were, removing Saddam was mandatory.
Click to expand...

Quite true. The USA had been committed to regime change in Iraq since the passing of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, signed into law by Clinton.
 
Marsupial said:
Quite true. The USA had been committed to regime change in Iraq since the passing of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, signed into law by Clinton.
Click to expand...

US is committed to regime change in any number of countries right now. There's just no logic why Iraq was invaded when it was. Why not Iran, North Korea, Syria, any number of central and south american countries? There would probably be just as much to gain in drumming up false accusations against Chavez circa 03 and invading Venezuela. It certainly had little to nothing to do with Al Qaeda in invading Iraq.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,704
Messages
55,510,429
Members
174,803
Latest member
Derik

Share this page

Back
Top