Oops Saddam didn't hide all of the WMDs afterall
- Thread starter Danoff
- 86 comments
- 2,330 views
- 1,271
actually phattboy, i'm no expert on this just want to make that clear, BUT: i've been told that the Government of our beloved country did provide Saddam with anthrax, or the proper knowledge on it, because we wanted him to win the Iran/Iraq war more than we wanted Iran to win. Unfortunately, the US government has been know to support wackos in the past because we thought, at the time, they were the less dangerous wackos, then years later, we end up declaring them our enemy and wonder how they got all those weapons and support that they got way back when..... i don't think we gave Saddam Sarin nerve agent, but i've been told we did give them anthrax.
- 563
sarin, mustard gas, anthrax and a whole bunch of other chemicals can be aquired by any undividual; you me anybody can get these. but the reason, and in my opinion is to baffle the military, and make them freak out nothing more or less.
unless we went to this war on the bases of the 115 millimeters they found, then they should not worry about. hey, we where invited by the iraqi people to go there, everybody supported us why should we feel woried. we don't even need to justify our actions, right!
the heck with all the people we killed over there, and to heck with the soldiers who died for this unjustified war; and yeah one more thing 20,000 severly wounded soldiers ranging from amputation to loss of hearing and/or sight is not a big deal.
what the heck, let's stretch our army so thin around the world that we become so vunlrable at home.
one day the U.S. will be envaded by the 200,000 troops that the honduras send to iraq and then pulled out, why? because our troops are out there policing everybody; oh sorry, was that to harsh?..............what i meant to say granting freedom to oppressed people around the world
for once just stop and think for a second what is going around the world and how are we becoming so hated every where.
oh by the way, what i said, does is it fall under inflammatory statment?
in·flam·ma·to·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-flm-tôr, -tr)
adj.
1.Arousing passion or strong emotion, especially anger, belligerence, or desire.
2.Characterized or caused by inflammation.
maybe!!!!!!!!!!!
and before you guys go on ranting and calling me names and as usuall degrading who ever does not agree with you guys as a non-human. i would like to applaud you guys for not letting me down, the term out of the box truly doesn't apply on you guys and by guys i mean who ever is going to backfire on what i said. on the contrary 75% of us americans as so much in the box, that we are planing of manufacturing more boxes for the rest of the 25% of the population. and some more to the billions around the world.
IGNORANCE IS SUCH A BLESSING
ON YOU'R MARKS, SET, GO..............................
GIVE IT TO ME
unless we went to this war on the bases of the 115 millimeters they found, then they should not worry about. hey, we where invited by the iraqi people to go there, everybody supported us why should we feel woried. we don't even need to justify our actions, right!
the heck with all the people we killed over there, and to heck with the soldiers who died for this unjustified war; and yeah one more thing 20,000 severly wounded soldiers ranging from amputation to loss of hearing and/or sight is not a big deal.
what the heck, let's stretch our army so thin around the world that we become so vunlrable at home.
one day the U.S. will be envaded by the 200,000 troops that the honduras send to iraq and then pulled out, why? because our troops are out there policing everybody; oh sorry, was that to harsh?..............what i meant to say granting freedom to oppressed people around the world
for once just stop and think for a second what is going around the world and how are we becoming so hated every where.
oh by the way, what i said, does is it fall under inflammatory statment?
in·flam·ma·to·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-flm-tôr, -tr)
adj.
1.Arousing passion or strong emotion, especially anger, belligerence, or desire.
2.Characterized or caused by inflammation.
maybe!!!!!!!!!!!
and before you guys go on ranting and calling me names and as usuall degrading who ever does not agree with you guys as a non-human. i would like to applaud you guys for not letting me down, the term out of the box truly doesn't apply on you guys and by guys i mean who ever is going to backfire on what i said. on the contrary 75% of us americans as so much in the box, that we are planing of manufacturing more boxes for the rest of the 25% of the population. and some more to the billions around the world.
IGNORANCE IS SUCH A BLESSING
ON YOU'R MARKS, SET, GO..............................
GIVE IT TO ME
- 715
I have been "told" that as well. Actually was around and old enough to remember (read that cognitive of what was going on around me) when some of that was supposedly taking place. I have read a fair amount on the subject. Point being, I am no expert but am somewhat familiar with what the accounts are in terms of efforts the US government made in support of Iraq and other such countries.
I don't deny there are accounts of such things. I don't even deny that it is possible and maybe even probable that what is alledged took place. Stupid us if we allowed it to take place directly or indirectly.
However... I don't know it was a sanctioned effort on the part of the US government. I doubt it! If it did come from the US government, it didn't come with the sanction of the official US government. It came covertly. It came from a decision outside the normal realm of the US government. If it did, it came from inside our government from someone(s)who had access to that information and who thought they knew and had the right to "do what they thought".
Such information is readily available to those who want to know that information and could have been gotten anywhere and would have been gotten at whatever cost from whomever.
My point is, I am sick and tired of everyone in the world (including in the US) just blaming the US government for everything that takes place whether they know it true or not. Everything is not our fault. Just because we are as free as we are as a nation and therefore information (and everything else) is more readily available here (good and bad) than anywhere else in the dang world does not make it our fault that bad things are done with that information. This issue is not our fault. This is the fault of who decided to use that information for the horrendous things they dreamed up to use it for!
Edit: And oh by the way... Yes, I do know that we (the USA) has WMD in our defense arsenal. I also know that by having them in general, we endorse WMD in situations we deem "right" or "just". My head is not in the sand here. The question really boils down to when "right" or "just" is.
phattboy
- 1,271
well, trust me, i wasn't agreeing with the "blame the US government on everything", i was just putting it out there that our government, officially or not, has done some dumb ass things.
Well, personally i don't think there would ever be a 'right' or 'just' time to use chemical or biological weapons. They are cruel and inhumane for one thing. notice i didn't say WMD, because i do think NUKES are good to have, and i say have not use. They are a deterrant, no one can deny that. now ideally, of course no one should have nukes, but this isn't.......... ok, i'm going way off topic here, i'll stop now.
Well, personally i don't think there would ever be a 'right' or 'just' time to use chemical or biological weapons. They are cruel and inhumane for one thing. notice i didn't say WMD, because i do think NUKES are good to have, and i say have not use. They are a deterrant, no one can deny that. now ideally, of course no one should have nukes, but this isn't.......... ok, i'm going way off topic here, i'll stop now.
- 8,191
- Southern Louisiana
- GTP_Kent
On a side note, I just noticed you guys talking about this and thought I would mention it...
In something like 86 the US sold bahgdad University the "aims iowa" strand ofanthrax for several reasons (all related to saddam's research or use of the product).
However, contrary to popular belief, we did not sell him all of the other toxins used in this chemical warfare campaigns.
Sarin, small pox, all those others, were acquired by saddam in a multitude of ways... but most of them were through other countries.
We sold bagd. U. anthrax, that is about all.
Note that I am no expert on this (of course).
And note that this is all what I had already been under the impression of.
Maybe I will do some research or something.
btw, did I mention that it was the aims iowa strand of anthrax we sold saddam back then...
Kinda funny, or atleast a major coincidence...
I mean, it was the aims iowa strand that was used in those anthrax letters sent at the time of sept 11, 2001.
Not to mention that a miami doctor claims to have treated a 9/11 high-jacker for anthrax on his leg only months before the 11th.
Oh well.
btw, I just read chevy87's post and it says it all pretty much. Good job chevy. 👍
Still though, I do think there is more to this than we are getting at.
:crazywackoparanoidconspiracytheorynut:
In something like 86 the US sold bahgdad University the "aims iowa" strand ofanthrax for several reasons (all related to saddam's research or use of the product).
However, contrary to popular belief, we did not sell him all of the other toxins used in this chemical warfare campaigns.
Sarin, small pox, all those others, were acquired by saddam in a multitude of ways... but most of them were through other countries.
We sold bagd. U. anthrax, that is about all.
Note that I am no expert on this (of course).
And note that this is all what I had already been under the impression of.
Maybe I will do some research or something.
btw, did I mention that it was the aims iowa strand of anthrax we sold saddam back then...
Kinda funny, or atleast a major coincidence...
I mean, it was the aims iowa strand that was used in those anthrax letters sent at the time of sept 11, 2001.
Not to mention that a miami doctor claims to have treated a 9/11 high-jacker for anthrax on his leg only months before the 11th.
Oh well.
btw, I just read chevy87's post and it says it all pretty much. Good job chevy. 👍
Still though, I do think there is more to this than we are getting at.
:crazywackoparanoidconspiracytheorynut:
Danoff
Premium
- 34,106
- Mile High City
Rally,
I think your post stole some of my brain cells. Give 'em back. Poor assumptions and unsupported conclusions run rampant through that post. I can't even unscramble it enough to rip it up. I don't usually do this, but I'm considering you a lost cause. Not only are you seriously mixed up on the whole thing, you're obviously not ready to listen to other points of view, and you have no logical standards for your arguments.
I think your post stole some of my brain cells. Give 'em back. Poor assumptions and unsupported conclusions run rampant through that post. I can't even unscramble it enough to rip it up. I don't usually do this, but I'm considering you a lost cause. Not only are you seriously mixed up on the whole thing, you're obviously not ready to listen to other points of view, and you have no logical standards for your arguments.
- 715
This is maybe a little "off topic" (I guess I agree) but, I gotta say this whole WMD thing is a conundrum for me to wrap my brain around. Nukes, chemical or biological weapons, when you think about it, all seem like sorta the same thing to me. On the other hand, they are each different. One is generally designed to just do in people and other living things, the other just plain lays waste to everything. I guess it all depends on what you call "mass destruction". Where is the line
I guess I don't know.phattboy
- 715
Good point and that is exactly what I mean... Truth be told, in the right hands (or is that "wrong hands"), a rapid repeating AK47 or M16 or ARwhatever could be considered a weapon of "mass destruction".
Given that, I have trouble with the political implications everyone has placed on the importance of finding WMD in Iraq.
Yes, in the classical sense (if there is such a thing with this issue) WMD is defined in the "large scale" realms. And, yes, one of the premises of being there in the first place was centered around WMD. (Whether I agree that it should have been a premise in the first place aside.) Immediately, and because of that premise, opposing politicians, countries and media who seek advancement of their agenda sieze the opportunity to define it however it best suits them and jump on their bandwagons to point out "No WMD"=bad decision to go there=bad president=bad USA.
Funny thing is, that same media, country or politician would be the first to criticize or point out the US "sold" Iraq anthrax or whatever and in so doing, acknowledge that WMD does exist over there in at least one form or another.
Seems like a "out both sides of your mouth" thing...
phattboy
- 1,271
Thanks GoKents.
Well, phattboy, I think just about anything unconventional (i.e. does not use chemilcal explosives, tnt, gunpowder) is a WMD. Nukes, chemical and bio agent weapons are all definately WMD. And i should change what i said about nukes. I think they are just about a necessity in our world if you don't want to get pushed over. I shouldn't have said i think they are a good thing to have. Because they do wipe out everything and not just the people. and they make the target area unlivable for up to generations. but i really don't see a just, or right time to use bio/chem weapons.
but then again, the world is a little overpopulated
[edit] ok, well apparently phattboy's post gut up before mine. I agree with you about the story spinning media. that's a good point.[/edit]
Well, phattboy, I think just about anything unconventional (i.e. does not use chemilcal explosives, tnt, gunpowder) is a WMD. Nukes, chemical and bio agent weapons are all definately WMD. And i should change what i said about nukes. I think they are just about a necessity in our world if you don't want to get pushed over. I shouldn't have said i think they are a good thing to have. Because they do wipe out everything and not just the people. and they make the target area unlivable for up to generations. but i really don't see a just, or right time to use bio/chem weapons.
but then again, the world is a little overpopulated
[edit] ok, well apparently phattboy's post gut up before mine. I agree with you about the story spinning media. that's a good point.[/edit]
- 715
@ 87chevy
I hope you didn't misunderstand my post about WMD to be a kind of sarcastic statement to your comment about nukes being a "good" thing to have. I agree they are a necessary thing in today's world (bed we made kinda thing). It's too bad... but... necessary reality. We likely think very similar (After all, you have a FJ40 which alone, in my book, makes you well above average intelligence and makes me prone to agree with you on about everything )
My whole personal challenge is to decide where I draw the line and I have a difficult time doing that in regard to all this. Much the same as you wanting to change the phrase "good thing to have" to "necessity" in that it is likely as difficult for you to use the word "good" about something so potentially destructive. In this sense, "good" is a relative term. So that being said, it is much the same for me to find it difficult to define one type of WMD as potentially "right" or "just" and not another, if the point of having either in the first place is as a necessary detterent to some potential evil.
On the other hand, I guess what I really think and you will likely agree is that: If someone or some country is deemed irresponsible to using their detterent to that end or making use of it to some other evil purpose, then neither is a "good" thing to have... That would be what the whole war in Iraq is really supposed to be all about and WMD is only part of that.
BTW: I believe I read that you served there. Thank you for putting yourself on the line for your country there... That country includes me and mine. I thank God and pray for you and others like you daily.
phattboy
I hope you didn't misunderstand my post about WMD to be a kind of sarcastic statement to your comment about nukes being a "good" thing to have. I agree they are a necessary thing in today's world (bed we made kinda thing). It's too bad... but... necessary reality. We likely think very similar
(After all, you have a FJ40 which alone, in my book, makes you well above average intelligence and makes me prone to agree with you on about everything )My whole personal challenge is to decide where I draw the line and I have a difficult time doing that in regard to all this. Much the same as you wanting to change the phrase "good thing to have" to "necessity" in that it is likely as difficult for you to use the word "good" about something so potentially destructive. In this sense, "good" is a relative term. So that being said, it is much the same for me to find it difficult to define one type of WMD as potentially "right" or "just" and not another, if the point of having either in the first place is as a necessary detterent to some potential evil.
On the other hand, I guess what I really think and you will likely agree is that: If someone or some country is deemed irresponsible to using their detterent to that end or making use of it to some other evil purpose, then neither is a "good" thing to have... That would be what the whole war in Iraq is really supposed to be all about and WMD is only part of that.
BTW: I believe I read that you served there. Thank you for putting yourself on the line for your country there... That country includes me and mine. I thank God and pray for you and others like you daily.
phattboy
- 1,271
phattboy:Thank you for your prayers. I am home, but i do not forget my commrades that are still over there. I condsider it an honor to protect you and yours, that is why i signed up.
oh, and no i did not change my wording because misunderstood what you said, i knew what you were saying, i did that for myself, so that I wouldn't be misunderstood. I think you are right. I think it is a matter of responsibility. Because we do allow other countries to have WMDs (nukes), so your right.
oh, and no i did not change my wording because misunderstood what you said, i knew what you were saying, i did that for myself, so that I wouldn't be misunderstood. I think you are right. I think it is a matter of responsibility. Because we do allow other countries to have WMDs (nukes), so your right.
- 185
Well, speaking of Iraq, and the handover of power on june 30th... I just heard on the radio, that coalition forces raided the guys house who were supposed to handover power to, and they thought he was corrupt and skimming money for himself...
well they found hard evidence of that AND they just happened to browse in his computer and find he was selling classified documents to Iran!
well they found hard evidence of that AND they just happened to browse in his computer and find he was selling classified documents to Iran!
- 185
Well, speaking of Iraq, and the handover of power on june 30th... I just heard on the radio, that coalition forces raided the guys house who were supposed to handover power to, and they thought he was corrupt and skimming money for himself...
well they found hard evidence of that AND they just happened to browse in his computer and find he was selling classified documents to Iran!
well they found hard evidence of that AND they just happened to browse in his computer and find he was selling classified documents to Iran!
- 185
damn double posts
- 1,271
Originally posted by 5LiterRiceEater
Well, speaking of Iraq, and the handover of power on june 30th... I just heard on the radio, that coalition forces raided the guys house who were supposed to handover power to, and they thought he was corrupt and skimming money for himself...
well they found hard evidence of that AND they just happened to browse in his computer and find he was selling classified documents to Iran!
well, that might change things then,huh?
- 185
Id say it changes alot! just goes to show how many people over there are horribly corrupt
- 185
Yeah but we were more worried about an insane Dictator having them and not having a conscience about using them.
WE (being the US) know better than to use any WMD unless its a last resort, or for retalliation mesures.
ExigeEvan
Premium
- 17,192
I'm sorry but I hate to hear things like that.
I'd like to ask this, if, by any strange chance, Iraq had managed to attack America with a nuclear bomb that killed countless innocent citizens, would you support American retaliating with Nuclear bombs.
And please, just use Iraq as the agressor for the moment.
- 185
personally i think ALL WMD should be outlawed, but when you do that you get Outlaws!
No, I wouldnt support the killing of more innocents non-combatant civillians. But if Iraq had managed to attack the us with a Nuke, i think there would be a world wide support to totally decimate the aggressor
- 185
My thoughts exactlly
I guess to be the "better person" so to speak, you would just have to suck it up and go on a world wide man hunt to find everyone involved and bring them to justice.
This is a very scarry subject because it isnt impractical for something like this to happen.
ExigeEvan
Premium
- 17,192
I think I'm finally starting to understand how the Generals of early WW1 felt, when they marched onto the battle field and horror, gasp! Faced machine guns.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that we are entering/entered a new kind of war. And teh only way we can learn is trial and subsequently, error.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that we are entering/entered a new kind of war. And teh only way we can learn is trial and subsequently, error.
- 185
Yeah, your right. its a whole new ballgame, for us anyways.
The thing is, there are new rules... there are none for them! They have been doing this for hundreds of years. maybe not with the same technology, but the same tactics.
- 1,008
I don't like the use of the word terrorist when talking about the rebels in Iraq. I think its rediuclous that someone fighting in their own country can be called a terrorist. It's hardly surprising they're fighting a guerilla war seeing as they have no heavy artillery support or supply lines etc. The way the Bush administration throws a round the word terrorist is just a method of tricking people into thinking the War was justified.
The Iraqis aren't using terrorism to fight for ideological reasons, they simply object to the Americans being in their country.
- 1,008
Are you stupid? Thats besides the point. The Iraqis were co-operating with the UN to dispose of the WMDs they had. As you can see they have infact done so. There have been, upto no only 2 shells found. The Bush administration didn't care whether Iraq was co-operating, he was going to send the troops in regardlessly. If he had let there co-operate no american soldiers would have died.
Similar threads
