There were WMDs in Iraq

I'm sorry. At this point, I don't care. I'm more concerned with the threats from our home grown terrorists in the BLM and Antifa, and their enablers the Democrats, and their financial backers rhe Globalists.

Let’s not forget that the US Government aided Saddam and Iran in 1983 in the Iraq-Iran war knowing that Iran was gassing the Iranians. Bush and his pals lied to the American people to push their neocon agenda.

Okay...thank you for your contribution. I feel so much better about that decades-long debacle now.

I do appologize to the OP. It's simply old news well hashed out, and it was obvious from the get-go that the libs were doing everything they could to make political hay through the usual lies and misrepresentations. To me it was long settled fact that Saddam had hidden and/or shipped out his WMD arsenal. But we need to focus on the here and now, or there will not be an America.

Nowadays the covid vaccine is a weapon of mass destruction and an attack on humanity.

I do care because this goes to the motivations and good sense of various people. Thanks OP.

This has bugged me for years. We were told there were no WMDs in Iraq. OK, then how did Saddam Hussein manage to gas the Kurds?

Bush insisted that Saddam abandon the "Cheat and retreat" violations that Clinton had allowed him to get away with for years, often requiring the movement of US forces back and forth to the region keeping them from being effectively deployed elsewhere....come into full compliance with the 13 points of the agreement he had signed at the original "cessation of hostilities", ONE aspect of which was disclosure/destruction of ALL WMD's, labs, delivery devices. Gave plenty of warnings, then deadlines. Saddam refused...got destroyed. Hussein is on record as saying "I didn't think he really meant it, the former President never did". Why had we backed Hussein in the Iran/Irag war? Because he was the wedge between the two competing sides of a Pan Arab regional marxist, soviet style hegemony.Shiite caliphate ambitions on one side and Baath party unified bloc with Syria in control of the dozen or so surrounding nations. Bush's biggest blunder was NOT to destroy Mookie, Al Sadr early on, when he first crossed over from Iran with his militias, his faction was the eventual trigger for the rise of ISIS and still a ridiculously destructive force in the eastern sectors.

I defended this action by the Bush 43 administration until I was blue in the face. But, after the last two yrs of having the blinders ripped off of my eyes with respect to every politician, organization, institution, company and individual—which then resulted into my own research outside of the corporate media—I now not only don’t believe a word any of them says (no matter which side of the political aisle they are on) but I am also open to every conspiracy theory out there, no matter how crazy. I have found that a lot of those “lunatic theories” have a firm basis in fact. The good guys rode off into the sunset long ago. The world’s leadership has been left to the evil and depraved.

Oops post# 2 should read that the US government aided Iraq while they gassed the Iranians.

I see what the author means by "...and those who have an irrational hatred for GWBush..."

Thank you #8. It is so easy to forget the details of the time. Especially with the lens of 911. And i am interested in this story because i am interested in history. I cannot choose but wonder why the US would choose to bury this. It is of course the thread that starts with clitton’s neglect of the situation in order to avoid risking bad publicity to correct a situation he inherited but allowed to deteriorate for 8 years. (And of course clitton did not want the hot potato of bin ladin when clitton was offered him.) But then i blame bush for going quiet and meekly letting the narrative be written by the dims and the media, both of whom are controlled by who knows who. Bush has since shown himself to be a Gullible who seems to believe that The Narrative must be the truth. Or maybe it’s just where his bread is now buttered. But then, why did he invade? Bush should have advocated for the invasion and its successes during his second term and beyond rather than letting the dims destroy everything. Or maybe he thought nation building would be easier. Of course the obumbum years speak for themselves. Trump of course thought the invasion was a disaster. I never agreed with that, thinking along the lines pointed out by #8, but if bush then abandoned the effort to the malevolence of the dims there never was any point in starting. But the dims did nothing for the 8 clitton years. And it appeared some form of disaster was on the horizon especially in light of 911. The whole situation of course traces back to the Iraqi invasion of kuwait which may have been fomented by careless statements by a US official. Like bidet’s and harris’s regarding Ukraine.

Twenty one freight aircraft loads of chemical weapons (WMDs) were flown from Baghdad to Damascus in the week prior to the invasion of Iraq. Subsequently, Syria used chemical weapons several times against their own people. We found chemical weapon protective suits, testing kits, decontamination kits, and all the general who were interrogated said, "Yes, we had the capability to use nerve agents in artillery shells." IMO, they DID have nerve gas shells and probably warheads for their artillery rockets. Whether it was a overall good decision to go into Iraq....I'm still not convinced, yes or no, on the fence. Sadam was a truly evil person and had been doing harm for a long time, via direct action and via terrorism. He would have continued. But, are things better in Iraq now? Highly questionable, perhaps yes.

Iraq gassed the Kurds and the Iranians.

I think #8 states the truth very well. I remember the artillery shell mentioned in the article. Media said it was an old artillery shell and was dangerous so it didn't count. Finding mustard gas or Sarin would be mentioned one time in the news and never heard again. When the barrels of chemicals agents and the rockets were found, it was renamed "pesticides" and all was okay. There was a story a few years later while 0bama was in office that finally admitted Karl Rove was the one who made the political decision to cover up the finds of chemical weapons. I have no idea why he decided to do it, but am not surprised at his deceit. I though the long buildup before the invasion was to try to bring world wide political pressure against Sadam to let inspectors in so the actual invasion would not be needed. I still think that may have been the reason. Too many other countries around the world, along with the press and Dems here took up for Sadam that the war was not avoided. Just like the press and politics in DC forced the Russia/Ukraine war today. This parallel needs to be seen by the citizenry, although it probably won't. I was okay with Bush until he refused to build the wall after being given the money by congress and his stand supporting the illegal immigrant invasion of our own country. That finished off what little support I did have left for him at that point

There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq all this time. I remember a photo page of a town in Iraq that used one on it's own people to see if it worked. It even showed a dead mother and infant lying on the street. I think it was Life magazine. He had them. Then all of a sudden none could be found. Folks from the UN just looked and looked and all the Sunday morning talk shows said nope, no WMD's. Yeah, there were. Probably still are.

Of course, there were WMD's in Iraq. They're called chemicals and biological weapons, and they were used to kill thousands of Kurds. WMD doesn't have to mean just nukes. Anything that can kill thousands of people at once in a relatively small area is a WMD.

My friend who was there in 2008 said that there were WMDs and everyone who said there were not are liars.

There were WMDs. Much of it was tracked by satellite photography being shipped to Syria. There was knowledge that Saddam had used them in their ongoing war with Iran and hundreds of people died horrible deaths, but it was none of our damned business and they had nothing to do with 9/11/01, which was a Saudi operation carried out by bin Laden. George Bush was under pressure to "do something" and Daddy Bush wanted Saddam's hide.

Is it futile to remind that Sadaam had a nuke *program*? We know this bc he had his own son-in-law killed for squealing about it. He obstructed inspectors. Period. So IDC if he had WMDs or not. He had a program and he obstructed inspectors. This aint a big stinkin' game where you can jerk us around and play hide n seek and try to guess what I'm up to. After blitzing Kuwait, you have those 2 things, you get invaded. Case closed.

Machts nichts. The mainstream media carry the Democruds' water everywhere. They are totally unreliable, yet far too many people still view their reporting as implicitly trustworthy. The truth about these wars will be distorted and obscured beyond recognition until after everybody currently living has expired.