Talk-Polywell.org

ladajo wrote:

as stated by the rest of the world

Skip, you should stop saying this. It is not true.

As every village has it's idiot this online community has Skipjack.


He knows nothing about World Events which wasn't put into his head by left wing kooks who operate the media.


Actually we have several like him.

Banksters, big oil, military industrial complex, same difference, interlocking directorships, revolving door with the Pentagon and Washington.

"Iraq crisis: Isis jihadists 'seize Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons stockpile'"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -live.html
These would be chemical weapons that aren't supposed to exist?

GIThruster wrote:

Skipjack wrote:So when Bush invaded Iraq against all indications that there were WMDs (as stated by the rest of the world). . .

What ridiculous bullshit!!! All the major intelligence sources in the world said Saddam had WMD's! He had used them on his own people! You don't recall those days where we were concerned of Scuds dropping on our people with VX gas in them? Just because it never happened doesn't mean it couldn't have, and pretending after the fact no one thought it could or would happen is just leftist bullshit politicizing. Shame on you! Anyone can get the list of those intelligence sources around the world that thought Saddam had WMD's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack

That was wayyyy before the last Iraq war!!! And the UN inspectors found nothing. And no one joined the US and the UK the war, because of that. And then later US army found nothing either. If there were weapons of mass destruction by the time we attacked Iraq, I would sure like to see them, or any proof of them! Where are they?!!
Answer: Nowhere!
Lies, lies, lies! The rest of the world knew it. That is why only the UK (for certain reasons) supported the US. Noone else did. Noone! In Germany and Austria and elsewhere in Europe these things were equally discussed by military and civilian decision makers and the conclusion was that there was no plausible indication that Iraq had any WMDs left at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_w ... estruction

hanelyp wrote:"Iraq crisis: Isis jihadists 'seize Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons stockpile'"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -live.html
These would be chemical weapons that aren't supposed to exist?

Probably media hyperbole. From what I understand these are the remains of weapons decommissioned after the first Iraq war.

And the UN inspectors found nothing. And no one joined the US and the UK the war, because of that. And then later US army found nothing either.

This is completely wrong. They are still finding things.

Saddam used WMD before and after Gulf I, and then heavily marketed his WMD capabilities (real and false) post Gulf I, leading into the spin up for Gulf II.
He truly misread (self admitted even) Western understanding and intentions.

Skip, on this one you have a leftist media centric myopic view.

Here check these out;

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

and the sourcing article;

http://www.wired.com/2010/10/wikileaks- ... g-results/

There are many more. I would suggest even reading the wikipedia articles and chasing down some of the cited refs.

You can try to point fingers all you want, but the fact is that Saddam intentionally wanted folks to think he had capabilities. And in addition, he had every intention of going back to full up as soon as he felt he could.

Again, do your homework and stop spouting regurgitated media garbage.

Probably media hyperbole. From what I understand these are the remains of weapons decommissioned after the first Iraq war.

Probably you are citing as gospel some media hyperbole.

I assess that some finds were Gulf I leftovers, and some were not.

Some of this stuff has a shelf life, and does not sit around happy and content for a decade or more as your media hyperbole suggests.
It had to be newer.

Of course I know that you choose to ignore Iraqi nuclear program scientists that came forward and handed over weapons program materials and knowhow they were order to sit on by Saddam as well.

ladajo wrote: Some of this stuff has a shelf life, and does not sit around happy and content for a decade or more as your media hyperbole suggests.
It had to be newer.

Actually, if you read up on this, you would find that all the so called "chemical weapons caches" (really just a few random, forgotten rounds) that were found were of old, long long defunct weapons, way past their shelf life "from before the first gulf war". But you only read the hyperbole headlines, eh? Some of the other WMDs were actually smuggled in from Iran for use by insurgents.
But you are so eager to find those WMDs that you are grasping for straws.

My friend died after subsuming to multiple effects of a chemical weapons cache that they blew up.
Accident contamination
The same stuff you refuse to admit existed and it was more than a few forgot rounds
RIP Tony

paperburn1 wrote:My friend died after subsuming to multiple effects of a chemical weapons cache that they blew up.
Accident contamination
The same stuff you refuse to admit existed and it was more than a few forgot rounds
RIP Tony

Weapons that are old can still hurt people, when you blow them up. That does not mean that they are still useful. There is no official report that says there were any. Sorry, but you will have to do better than anecdotes.

(really just a few random, forgotten rounds)

This is wrong and you know it. You do not help yourself with persistent uninformed embellishment.

If you had "read up" even half of what I have on this, you would understand how silly your own hyperbole looks.

Granted, you can not read some of what I have, but there is still plenty in the wild to inform you beyond your leftist myopic headlines that you like to parrot and embellish.

Here give this a read:
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/sp ... 22003.html

By the way, decayed material do not cause significant reactions. That is the decayed part. Plenty of recovered material was still lethal, and ergo fresher than it should have been according to your argument. But I see you are now pointing the finger at Iran.
Interesting that Iran was smuggling chemical weapons into Iraq right after Gulf I and II. I am sure they found that useful and had access to do so...riiiight.

Stop behaving like a media lemming. Think for yourself.

The entire Al Muthanna mega-facility was the bastion of Iraqi’s chemical weapons development program. During its peak in the late 1980s to early 1990s, it amassed mega-bunkers full of chemical munitions, and provided Iraq with a force multiplier sufficient to counteract Iran’s superior military numbers. Two wars, sanctions and UNSCOM oversight reduced Iraqi’s premier production facility to a stockpile of old damaged and contaminated chemical munitions(sealed in bunkers), a wasteland full of destroyed chemical munitions, razed structures, and unusable war-ravaged facilities. In 1998 Al Tariq State Establishment took over all remaining remnants at Al Muthanna.
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/gen ... annxB.html

and from CNN http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/ ... inton.html
Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

This is all hearsay or things that were abandoned or forcefully ended long before 2003. Very little solid evidence. A few broken computers, some plans for possibly, maybe, might have had if then when...
In other words: Nothing! Not enough to sacrifice the lives of 4000 Americans and the stability of the region.
Again, no one else thought this was necessary.

IDIOT reread the report