Bush kicked out weapons inspectors not Saddam (2003)

[Rand0mManic]

Just seems like what everyone already knows.

It is good to totally disarm and fully measure up a country via the UN disingenuously before you fuck them right up. Im sure USA would of done it without the disarming but it saves a lot of money and a few more lives. Less US troops deaths is better politics.

[Primekid]

I did watch the video. The statements citing obstruction were in the U.N. report as reported by inspectors of UNMOVIC or the IAEA, it apparently not mentioned in the video. And the point is that the onset of the war was not because were not "kicked-out", the move to war was because of non-compliance with the 16th resolution. Personally, 12 years and 16 resolutions was way to long to wait for someone to actually do something about the situation. Even after Clinton signed the

[Primekid]

Ya, talk about rewriting history. Drink the Kool-aid... Drink the Kool-aid

[BI30]

@Primekid Just curious if... despite actual news footage of Bush ordering the evacuation of weapons inspectors, you consider others to be "Kool Aid drinkers" for refusing to believe it was *Saddam* who kicked out the weapons inspectors? Just curious.

[Primekid]

@BI30 The kicking out of inspectors had already ceased which is why this particular resolution which brougth the inspectors back in was the final last opportunity being given to Iraq. The resolution was far more severe and strict in that it required Iraq to comply completely and without the previous acts of resisting and blocking of the inspectors of UNMOVIC or the IAEA. While for some of the inspection process it was delcared that Iraq was complying with the inspection there were still many

[Primekid]

@BI30 cases, specifically with the IAEA, in which they were still continuing to evade and impede the inspectors, as per U.N. reports, which can be found online. Bush couldn't "kick out" the U.N. inspectors as he didn't have authority to do so. They removed themselves when it was evident that the U.S. was no longer going to stand for the same acts of obstructions as usual. I don't see any mention in these news clips, from unattributed sources, of any of these pertinent events.

[BI30]

@Primekid You clearly didn't watch the video then, as inspectors publicly noted that they were not being obstructed and were able to perform "no notice inspections at any time" (it also bears noting that Saddam hadn't kicked out inspectors previously either. Clinton did, citing Saddam's obstruction.) Bush didn't need "authority" to order them out, as the video shows. They could of stuck around for the bombing if they wanted.)

But all of that is irrelevant. What matters is March of 2003.

[Primekid]

Iraq Liberation act, nothing was done for another 5 years. As far as I am concerned, after the first surface to air missile was fired at a coalition aircraft in the no-fly zone after the cease fire agreement from the first Gulf War in 1991, the cease fire was already violated and rendered null and void at that point.

After 9/11, it looked like we were done playing footsie with every volatile dictator with a funny hat. Someone had to step up to the plate and stop playing games

[BI30]

@Primekid We didn't invade Iraq because of Saddam's supposed failure to comply with the ILA. Bush used non-extant WMD's as his justification. And if you actually READ those Resolutions Saddam "failed to comply with", they charged him with failing to destroy his WMD's... which the inspectors in 2003 were already proving did not exist.

I shouldn't still be surprised at just how willing Neocons are to send others off to fight and die in avoidable & unnecessary wars of choice.

[Primekid]

@BI30 Ooo, neocon, how novel. They never proved that they did not exist. They would not be destroying them if they didn't exist. Not to mention the fact that material exposed during the wikileaks "scandal" showed that WMD in Iraq did exist.

But then some leftist socialist will only see what they choose to see. “It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use and authority of reason as to administer medication to the dead.”

--- Thomas Jefferson

I'm through with you.

[BI30]

@Primekid "the wikileaks "scandal" showed that WMD in Iraq did exist... some leftist socialist will only see what they choose to see."

I don't even need to reply.

[jopaddy81]

@BI30 rubbish.... there were no weapons, the dossier contained lies, we all know it. Here in the UK we are not deluded like and we know the dossier was sexed up. Iraq let the inspectors in, Bush asked them to leave. Give us a break with the nonsense

[BI30]

@jopaddy81 I believe you replied to the wrong person. Everything you said is correct.

[jopaddy81]

@Primekid WMDs were all destroyed in 1993 in the memo released according to the informant Kamel Hussein. There were none. Where are they?

where were the mobile labs?

Bush is a liar and unfortunately Obama is no better

[jopaddy81]

Al Samoud 2 missiles were not WMDs. The were just long range missiles and we have plenty of those

[Oddballmarine90]

@Primekid

Actually there were WMDs in Iraq. Just in the hands of Ansar al-Islam.

[Primekid]

like the irrelevant UN.

[Hperman09]

Whether the we should have been in Iraq or not, it doesn't change that fact that Iraq disregard the UN resolutions and a ceasefire agreement that placed in the conclusion of the Gulf War and removing the dictator in power was justified.

The problem is that there were not enough troops, no economic or plan for a temporary government after Saddam Hussein was removed from power and Iran, an Islamic country, funded the insurgents in Iraq they backed.

[Oddballmarine90]

You know I wouldn't mind Saddam still being here to counter the crazy coming out of Iran.

[x1xBryanx1x]

AL_Samoud-2 surface to surface missile:

Production started in 2001

Range: 180km

Doesnt that violate UN 687?

...unconditionally remove and destroy all chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150km...

[BI30]

@x1xBryanx1x Yes, which is why they were being destroyed. But to attain that distance, they had no payload capacity, making them not much more than flying bricks.

[hearts76100]

Saddam was a bad man!

What does that make Bush??? EVEN WORSE!!!

[Oddballmarine90]

Saddam wasn't obligated to physically remove any terrorists groups like ansar from within his borders by UN 687. All he had to do was denounce and condemn their presence in his country which he clearly didn't do.

[BI30]

@Oddballmarine90 It might shock you to learn that news reports of who Saddam denounced inside his own country didn't always make it to the evening news in the U.S.. Saddam not only "denounced" the people that sought to kill him, he executed any that dare stray into Baghdad.

[Oddballmarine90]

Didn't matter if the UN inspectors stayed or not, Saddam was in still in violation of UN resolution 687 regardless of whether or not WMDs were found. He was supporting terrorism.

[BI30]

@Oddballmarine90 The only parts of 687 supposedly "violated" by Saddam are the restrictions on him from producing chemical & biological weapons. So unless you found something the Iraq Survey Group didn't, Saddam wasn't in violation of 687 or 1441.

[Oddballmarine90]

@BI30

UN 687 Paragraph 32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism.

And he never made such declaration to the UN Security council. In addition, Saddam also happened to be the only world leader not to condemn 9/11.

[BI30]

@Oddballmarine90 You have evidence Saddam was committing acts of international terrorism after 1991? You might want to inform the UN Security Counsel of this fact they obviously missed when they drew up their report.

As for Saddam "not condemning 9/11", when the country that is bombing you and restricting trade with the "oil for food" program is attacked, you don't exactly rush to condemn the attacker.

And I'm not aware of Iran, Syria, or a host of other M.E. nations condemning the attacks.

[Oddballmarine90]

@BI30 If you read UN 1441 it literally says that they r in breach of 687.

UN 1441 (2002) "Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its

commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism." They didn't miss anything.

The Oil for food program was a UN program.

[BI30]

@Oddballmarine90 They argued that the "terrorism" Iraq was "supporting" was the payment of cash stipends to the families of suicide bombers. By that standard (and then some), we should of invaded Saudi Arabia, who was not only guilty of the same, but 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi's. ZERO Iraqis.

And "Oil for food" was proposed and enforced (poorly) by the first Bush Administration. It was made a "U.N. Charter" specifically to get other countries to join in the embargo.

[Oddballmarine90]

@BI30

Dude, it was a known fact that there were terrorists and terrorist groups freely operating in Iraq on Saddam's behalf. PLO, PLF, ANO and MEK.

Oil for Food didn't start until 1995 under the Clinton admin.

[2paclove2]

@BI30 invade saudia arabia? you would have one billion people on your country inculding pakistan with nukes,plus saudi king is americas dog so no need to invade.

[Oddballmarine90]

@BI30

"On behalf of the Iranian government and the nation, I condemn the hijacking attempts and terrorist attacks on public centers in American cities which have killed a large number of innocent people," President Khatami.

“In a condolence message to his US counterpart, George W. Bush, President Assad, on behalf of the Syrians and of his own offered condolences to President Bush and to the American people and to the victim’s families."

N Korea, Hamas and hezbollah even condemned it.

[BI30]

@Oddballmarine90 I certainly stand corrected then on those nations. But whether or not Saddam condemned the attacks or not doesn't justify invading Iraq based upon false pretenses. You ARE aware Iraq was not involved in 9/11, correct?

[Oddballmarine90]

@BI30

No worries, my friend, fully aware of that fact. I'm not suggesting there was any link between Al-qaeda and Saddam, or 9/11, etc.

I'm arguing that because Saddam was in constant violation of the terms agreed upon in the ceasefire after the gulf war, the US/UK and Iraq were in a constant state of war similar to that of the South/North Korea situation and therefore justified action. Now am I saying that the action Bush took in 2003 was necessary. No, of course not.

[derpotni3riots]

@Oddballmarine90 So then your admitting that the action that Bush took in 2003 wasnt necessary, you said no of course not. Therefore you and B130 basically agree overall on what each other is saying other than your both arguing all the details that lead up to it.

[Oddballmarine90]

@derpotni3riots

Basically, I'm arguing that the removal of Saddam was justified, but the timing was unfortunate because it implied some kind of link to 9/11 which the Bush Adminstration took advantage of. I was against the war because they implied that link even though it was not needed to remove Saddam and it was a distraction in the overall war on terror.

[BI30]

@ttiger5050 Dude, you got issues.

[flowerdrop1]

fitting it starts with joe LIEberman, biggest scumbag Senator in US history

[slimv29]

Saddam for one had nothing to hide

[MarineMike97]

bush made a good decision for bad reasons that weren't even there and even that reason was probably for another. seriously going in there to find wmd's that the UN was already handling and finding just to invade to have the marines and everyone elese involved to find and die attempting to find wmd's that he likely he knew weren't there. the only good that came out of it was the fact saddam went out of power as well as the bathe party and handled the threat of the fedeyeen

[jacobew2000]

Lets not forget that WMD wasnt the only reason for going to war. Saddam was using Oil money to sponsor terrorism against our allies (act of war under any traditions of warfare), buying weopons with Oil instead of feeding their people, using WMD (shocker there) against their own people. From 1998 to 2002, they had 4 years to hide their WMD while inspectors were out. Read UN 1441

[BI30]

@jacobew2000 500 characters is not enough room to respond, but just what "terrorism against our allies" do you perceive Saddam to have been "funding"? The only people he "terrorized" were Kurds living abroad, he wasn't funding missile attacks. The WMD's he "used against his own people" was also against the Kurds, more than 15 years before Bush's war. "Hide the WMD's"? We've been there for seven years now, and you still believe he had WMD's? You're hopeless. And I've read 1441 thoroughly.

[USMarineSoCalfan]

@BI30

Saddam's Iraq was definitely a safe haven for terrorists. "My team just invaded the world's largest terrorist training camp since the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan."

-Colonel Charlie Cleveland referring to his Special Forces Group ODA 081 in Operation Viking Hammer which targeted the Ansar Al-islam camp in Northern Iraq.

At the camp, hazmat suits, atropine injectors, and manuals in Arabic on how to make chemical weapons were found. Ricin and potassium chloride was also discovered

[BI30]

@USMarineSoCalfan If Iraq was "a safe haven from terrorists", it was US giving them cover, not Saddam. "Ansar al Islam" was an ANTI Saddam al Qaeda splinter group that sought the overthrown of Saddam, PROTECTED FROM SADDAM BY OUR NO-FLY ZONE IN THE NORTH.

Citing "Ansar al Islam" as a justification for invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam is like bin Laden citing the Tea Party as justification for attacking the U.S. and overthrowing Obama.

[USMarineSoCalfan]

@BI30

Really who's your source?

[BI30]

@USMarineSoCalfan Reality. You've got an entire Internet at your disposal. Look it up.

[USMarineSoCalfan]

@BI30

YES! The internet. Where billions of people have access to. And where everybody is a reliable source.

[BI30]

@USMarineSoCalfan I didn't say "Fox News". If you can't tell the difference between a legitimate source and some kids blog, no wonder you are so misinformed.

I'm not exactly breaking news here. "Ansar al Islam" is well documented as seeking the overthrow of Saddam's secular government.

[USMarineSoCalfan]

@BI30

Obviously not "well documented" enough for you to name 1 reliable source. I named my source. And no sir, Fox news is not it. 

[BI30]

@USMarineSoCalfan Posting links is difficult on YouTube, but if you Google "Ansar al Islam" Jihad Saddam, you should find more than enough "reliable sources".

[USMarineSoCalfan]

@BI30

No it isn't. Give me a title and an author! Just one source and you still can't do it. You realize if I googled that right now and how many results I would get!

[BI30]

@USMarineSoCalfan Geez, how lazy can a person get? For pity sake:

For a description of Ansar al-Islam, go to BBC News and search for "Armed groups in Iraq". Look for document 4268904.

The CDI on their relationship to Saddam:

Go to CDI(dot)org and search for "Ansar al-Islam". Click the first link, DocumentID: 1453.

Your turn. Find me ONE "legitimate" link (I'll even accept Fox) claiming Saddam directed or controlled AAI in any way.

[USMarineSoCalfan]

@BI30

I wonder considering you wanted me to do your research for you.

[USMarineSoCalfan]

@BI30

"PROTECTED FROM SADDAM BY OUR NO-FLY ZONE IN THE NORTH."

There you go again. The Ansar al-islam camp was located outside Halabja, Iraq. The No Fly zone stops at the 36th parallel. Halabja is located south on the 35th parallel.

[BI30]

@USMarineSoCalfan So naturally, Saddam was willing to send armed forces right up to the border w/o going in. You're pathetic.

[USMarineSoCalfan]

@BI30

What part of NO FLY ZONE don't you understand?? Unless his soldiers and tanks can fly it doesn't stop them. In addition, there's about a 60 mile distance between each latitude. By the way, name calling just hurts your case.

[BI30]

@USMarineSoCalfan What part of "Saddam moving an army in the direction of Kurdistan would of gotten his ass kicked back to Baghdad" don't you understand?

Are you ACTUALLY suggesting that because AAI was on the wrong side of 36th parallel that the U.S. military would of sat idly by while Saddam attacked a "Kurdish" settlement in the North?

[USMarineSoCalfan]

@BI30

And Ansar was determined to attack Americans as well because we openly supported the PUK's cause. And the threat was legit because Ansar possessed ricin and potassium chloride and was developing weapons with them.

[USMarineSoCalfan]

@BI30

Abdullah al-Shafei, Abu Wael, and Qassem Hussein were all Iraqi Mukhabarat agents within the Ansar camp. Abu Wael was considered the true leader of Ansar because the actually leader was in exile in Norway.

Souce: "Ansar al-islam Dossier" By Dan Darling

[USMarineSoCalfan]

@BI30

Iraqi military intel supplied Ansar with TNT and caches of firearms. Saddam liked to play various Kurdish groups against each other in order to keep them from joining forces against his regime. And because Ansar's main enemy was the PUK, they were willing to accept help from secular baathists.

Source: "Ansar al-islam Dossier" By Dan Darling

[BI30]

@USMarineSoCalfan And this changes what exactly? Remember, you started out trying to suggest that the presence of Ansar al Islam inside Iraq was *proof* Saddam was working with al Qaeda (presumably against the U.S.) Supplying AAI with TNT to get the PUK? That's your refutation? SADDAM DID NOT DIRECT AAI.

Until you are willing to admit the presence of AAI in Iraq is NOT "evidence Saddam was working with al Qaeda against the U.S.", there is no point in any further discussion.

[USMarineSoCalfan]

@BI30

Why would Saddam "direct" Ansar? He's not the leader of Ansar.

My argument was the fact that Saddam was harboring a group like Ansar Al-Islam, a substantial reason for the invasion! Saddam knew Ansar was there, he provided them with weapons and he allowed them to operate in his country. THATS WHY WE NEEDED TO TAKE HIM OUT BECAUSE OTHER TERRORIST GROUPS LIKE ANSAR COULD GO TO IRAQ AND SET UP SHOP WHILE SADDAM WAS IN POWER!

[BI30]

@USMarineSoCalfan Saddam was NOT HARBORING AAI. AAI wanted Saddam dead. If he could of attacked them, he would have. You are trying to suggest Saddam was *protecting* them, That's nuts.

We're going around in circles now. Discussion over.

[USMarineSoCalfan]

@BI30 "If he could of attacked them, he would have."

Sure, right after he gave them weapons.

Ansar's stated main goal was to establish an indepedent islamic state in Iraqi Kurdistan.

[BI30]

@USMarineSoCalfan You are continuing to try and suggest Saddam was harboring an al Qaeda group that was focused on attacking the West. I've debunked that nonsense 9 ways to Sunday, and your responses since show nothing to change that. So I am deleting any further follow up posts because you refuse to acknowledge reality.

[USMarineSoCalfan]

@BI30

2 of your theories don't make sense. You say Ansar wanted to kill Saddam, but they made no effort to attack Iraqi forces, they didn't get rid of the Iraqis in their group, and they had no problem accepting weapons from Saddam. Even after Saddam was removed from power, Ansar continued to attack Kurdish forces.

Then you argue that if Saddam had made a move on the Ansar camp, that the US would stop them regardless of the fact they are 60 miles outside the no fly zone. Why?

[BI30]

@USMarineSoCalfan I am very sorry that you are so unwilling to accept reality.that you can't let this go. You are STILL trying to argue AAI wasn't an enemy of Saddam and that Saddam was harboring them from the U.S. so they could launch an attack against us.

And despite an entire Internets worth of evidence to refute you, and your inability to produce a single source to defend your absurd belief, you insist on challenging me like it is going to change history. Buh bye.

[USMarineSoCalfan]

@BI30

Joke's on you, bro. We already invaded and won in Iraq. So your argument is pointless anyway. Can't go back in time.

[BI30]

@USMarineSoCalfan 5,000 dead soldiers and no WMD's. I'm glad to see you are laughing. The rest of us, notsomuch.

[USMarineSoCalfan]

@BI30 "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

How bout that for hyprocisy.

[BI30]

@USMarineSoCalfan That's not hypocrisy. Senators are not privy to the same intel as the President. Kerry (and others) said that based upon what the Bush Administration was telling us.

[USMarineSoCalfan]

@BI30

So when democrats in the 1990's said Saddam had WMDs including President Clinton, and Bush goes off their intel, he's wrong?

[BI30]

@USMarineSoCalfan After Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of what he said were "Saddam's WMD production facilities" in 1998 and turned up nothing, he never again claimed Saddam possessed WMD's (though Albright did repeat the claim once in '99).

Bush didn't "go off Clinton's intel". The Clinton Admin told him Saddam had no WMD's. He dismissed them.

If you wish to relitigate the invasion of Iraq, this is not the place for it. Consider yourself blocked.

[USMarineSoCalfan]

@BI30

Why would the US and Kurdish stop Saddam from destroying the Ansar terrorist camp? The US and Kurds were both well aware of the fact the camp existed and where it was at in Iraq. The US and Kurds had no reason to stop Saddam from removing the camp.

[BI30]

@USMarineSoCalfan You are assuming American forces would already KNOW that that heavily armed Iraqi force moving North was going after AAI and should just sit back and wait until he gets close enough to launch rockets into Kurdistan.

[USMarineSoCalfan]

@BI30

Saddam used terrorists as a political tool to maintain his power. He let them operate in his country as long as they attacked his enemies. Abu Nidal attacked targets in Syria, Abu Abbas attacked Israeli and American targets, and Ansar al-Islam attacked Kuridish targets. The minute they turned on him, he killed them. For example, when Abu Nidal expressed in 2002 willingness to fight against Saddam in the event of a US invasion, Saddam had Nidal killed.

[BI30]

@USMarineSoCalfan "Saddam used terrorists as a political tool".

I never said otherwise. But you are trying to claim AAI was given safe harbor by Saddam from which they could plan attacks against the U.S.. That's nonsense, and the fact you are unwilling to simply accept it tells me there's no point in allowing this to continue. Next step, you will be blocked.

[USMarineSoCalfan]

@BI30

Saddam also funded and harbored terrorists groups like Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Abdul Rahman Yasin, all terrorists who committed acts against the US.

[BI30]

@USMarineSoCalfan While "captured" in Iraq *after* the invasion, there is NO evidence Abu Abbas was sponsored by Saddam or even in the country prior to the invasion. Prior to 2001 he was last cited in Gaza in 96.

Abu Nidal was the PLO's envoy to Iraq. He was not sponsored by Saddam.

Abdul Rahman Yasin was an American that moved to Iraq in the '60s. Whether he was sponsored by Saddam you can't say.

How come the Bush Administration never cited these guys to justify the invasion of Iraq?

[USMarineSoCalfan]

@BI30

"In 1988, Iraqi procedures for accepting Abbas and his wife as residents and providing them with Iraqi diplomatic passports. On April 25, 1998, Abbas left Iraq to go to the Palestinian terrorities. He returned to Baghdad on July 17, 1998. Abbas stated he is willing to fully work with in any area which will serve Iraq's objectives towards the Zionist enemies." - Iraqi Perspective Project Vol 1

[USMarineSoCalfan]

@BI30

During the 1990's, Abbas's group launched bomb attacks against the American Airlines office in the Philippines, American airbases in Spain and Turkey, and the American ambassador's residence in Jakarta, Indonesia. -Iraqi Perspective Project Vol 1

[USMarineSoCalfan]

@BI30

"Abu al-Abbas has proved thoughout all of the previous period, his good intentions (the previous attacks stated below) toward Iraq." -Akram Umar Salih, Officer Director of IIS

Source: Iraqi Perspective Project Vol 1

[USMarineSoCalfan]

@BI30 "Abu Nidal was the PLO's envoy to Iraq."

Now you're just making shit up! Abu Nidal's organization was a splinter formed to counter the PLO because he felt that they sueing for peace with Israel and he didn't want peace. Saddam provided weapons, money and a base for training because Abu Nidal agreed to attack Saddam's enemies including Syria.

[BI30]

@USMarineSoCalfan You DO realize that posting More doesn't make you more right?

You've gone off the deep end. You are trying to argue that these people justified the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam when EVEN the Bush Administration didn't try to make that argument.

The argument you originally made... trying to link Saddam to a terrorist group that had declared "jihad" on him... kinda sunk your credibility from the start.

[USMarineSoCalfan]

Credibility?! You're making shit up!

[BI30]

@USMarineSoCalfan Simply because you don't know it, doesn't mean someone "made it up".

[jacobew2000]

Sorry BI30, but you are the one trying to rewrite the history! Saddam kept up a game in the timeframe up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, of one day saying that he was "cooperating" and then turning around and stopping inspectors at the gates of various govt buildings. Eventually, Saddam simply kicked all the inspectors out.

[BI30]

@jacobew2000 Have you even watched the video you are commenting on?

[jacobew2000]

@BI30 yes, lots of thing taken out of context. Bush was right at 0:45. The UN inspectors were let back in @1:25, but they were blocked from entering most Iraqi buildings. @2:17, only old, outdated missles were blown up, @3:05, they couldnt verify what was destroyed. @3:40, problem was that Many UN inspectors were blinded by their desire for not wanting war, they let many things Iraq did during inspections to go unreported. BTW, most of the commentaries are from known biased reporters.

[BI30]

@jacobew2000 Nothing was "taken out of context". I'm not sure what context "able to perform no notice inspections at any time" proves Saddam wasn't cooperating. And the fact Bush ordered the inspectors out, not Saddam... I'd like to know the "context" that was "taken out" of. The sources are the BBC (an ally in the war), and PBS, the most unbiased news source around.

[USMarineSoCalfan]

@BI30

Also found at the Ansar al-islam camp were computer files that contained contacts to Hamas, Hezbollah, Abu Sayyaf (Al-qaeda group in the Philippines), and YES LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, contacts with Saddam's gov't. The Iraqi contact within the camp was a man by the name of Abu Wael. Kurdish intel also reported that Abu Musab Zarqawi stayed at the camp after fleeing Afghanistan in 2001. - "Masters of Chaos" By Linda Robinson

[jacobew2000]

Iraq let back in the inspectors only after Saddam played the bait and switch, magicians routine. Everytime an inspector got close to finding out the truth, Iraq kicked em out! Whether they had WMD or not, Saddam was violating the 1991 ceasefire agreements! Many times, Inspectors stood at the gates of govt buildings, waiting to get in, while it was observed that Iraqis were moving semitrucks loads of stuff out the back door.

[BI30]

@jacobew2000 You CLEARLY did not watch the video before commenting. All the events you describe took place in the 90's before UN weapons inspectors were allowed in (by Saddam).

[USMarineSoCalfan]

@BI30

Yea, and when inspectors came back in 2002, they discovered that Iraq was in material breach of UN 1441. They found Al-samoud 2 missiles with ranges outside the limit.

[BI30]

@USMarineSoCalfan First off: This IS the footage of their return in 2002-2003.

Second, half of the "breaches" of 1441 were Saddam's "failure" to produce evidence that he had destroyed all those WMD's he in fact never had.

Third: Despite over-reaching their range by 50 miles, Al-Samoud's were not WMD's, and... as the video shows, were being destroyed prior to the invasion with the full cooperation of the Iraqi military.

[USMarineSoCalfan]

@BI30

But that's exactly why the UN passed that charter. By passing the 150km range, the missiles were considered WMDs according to the UN resolution. In 2003, Iraq assembled 20 additional missiles before the UN left. - Globalsecurity

[BI30]

@USMarineSoCalfan Simply exceeding the 150km range doesn't turn a flying brick (which al Samoud's were essentially, having no payload) into "Weapons of Mass Destruction". And, as the video clearly shows, Iraq was complying with inspectors and dismantling their weapons when Bush decided to invade anyway (because Saddam had yet to produce "proof" that he had destroyed those WMD's he never had in the first place.)

[USMarineSoCalfan]

@BI30

Funny you should mention the payload. The Al-samoud 2 had a 280kg payload. You're right, in order to increase the range, the Iraqis cut the payload. However, Saddam's Iraq also had Silkworm missiles. The Silkworms had a range of 200km which is 20km longer than ther Al-samoud and has a 513kg warhead. Which also techincally makes them WMDs too but the UN didn't require their destruction because it was considered a defensive weapon.

[USMarineSoCalfan]

@BI30

Correction: The silkworm missile was allowed because it was considered a battlefield weapon by the UN. The Al-Samoud 2 was not because the diameter of the weapon was 760mm. The diameter had to be within 600mm to be consider a battlefield weapon. In any sense, both missiles were deployed in the same manner as cruise missiles against US forces during the invasion.

[toicricky]

y didnt bush just put bombs them there? i mean he was smart enough to pull off 911 without getting caught..

[timstime1970]

To say "seek help" only proves that all of this is beyond your mental capacity of understanding and reasoning..We will all see the truth come jugement day...

Nice compilation of tidbits you have put together but anyone can put together tidbits to prove either point,,,taking things out of context has been a problem for years,even with the Holy Bible..

But none the less,,,Blessings to You and Yours...

[BI30]

Or perhaps it means you need more help than can be summed up into just 500 characters.

[timstime1970]

If it would have been the wrong country,nothing would have happened we would have been in and out in a week..But we are still taking out terror cells and the Terror cells are still killing but we are making progress and that is becuse we have been there long enough to gain the Iraqies respect.. Good things come in time and Terror Cells=WMD's.. Peace is the answer thru Jesus Christ we know this...But untill we convice the world of that ,,we will have wars...

[BI30]

Seek help.

[LittleEmoBoy001]

The invasion of Iraq created those terror cells you deathist scum sucking piece of rotten shit under my shoe. You are a mentally inferior piece of shit who I hope loses everyone you love in war. I will fucking laugh at you when it happens.

[timstime1970]

I beleive had we not invaded iraq,,we would have had hundreds of thousands life lost on our home turf.. Clearly the WMD's still exist,,and it is the Terror cells,the Alquieda etc.. Sudam Husein Horbored aided and abbeded terroists,,so taking him out was completely justifiable.. I feel G.W.Bush done the best any President could do in Present day War,I.E. rules of engagement..And I beleive G.W. hit the right country,,if it was the wrong country,nothing would have happened,we (continued)

[LittleEmoBoy001]

Then why not apply this to every nation you feel is a threat to the united states, furthermore why not apply it to terror suspects within the U.S borders? Why not apply it to every single human being you don't know, never will know and wouldn't know if you had the chance? Get it? you're just a deathist scumbag who loves living vicariously through the news media. I have an idea, if you love war so much get the fuck out there and die in one. Bitch.

[ASAManifesto]

Haha Joe Liberman, that two face, pro-war chicken hawk.

[EMPTYDRUM]

What gives here is no one able to see the big picture that Americe wants to Rule the Whole World.

[burbonboy]

But But, Hannity and Limbaugh told me that Bush is correct on everything!!!

[aaron0313]

Back in late 2002 and early 2003 I didn't hear anyone disagreeing with OIF except the UN, who must have enjoyed Saddam jerking their chain for years. In fact I remember the Dixie Chicks getting fried by many Americans for insulting Bush. Saddam starts giving up missiles as divisions of troops are mounting around his country, after years of hiding them and he is no longer guilty? You all sound like John Kerry " I voted against the war after I voted for the war. " Let's stick to our guns.

[BI30]

Not sure where to begin.

If the UN is the only body you hear opposing the war, you're not very observant. Marches and protests around the world, including the US, took place in early 2003.

The Dixie Chicks were reviled because they ticked off their primary audience, Redneck Conservatives. Non-country music fans supported them, but they were not their market.

Kerry voted for funding when it would be paid for by rolling back high-end tax cuts. Republicans balked, and he changed his vote.

[aaron0313]

B130 if you have opposed the war from the beginning, I have much respect for you. What makes me mad is all the flip - floppers that change their tune when situations become unpopular. Now that 95% of celebrities and musicians have did a 180, all the people that look up to them automatically share the same opinion. Like I said if a person has honestly opposed this war from the beginning I have much respect, but for the flip - floppers, we made our bed now let's sleep in it.

[BI30]

Yes, I opposed the war from the start. I discussed the topic with high school students while working as a substitute at the time, and wrote on the subject arguing "embedding a MILLION international inspectors in Iraq and keeping Saddam busy for the next 20 years" was preferable to declaring war where hundreds were likely to die, and stir up more animosity in the Mid-East.

I give the "come-arounds" a break for actually believing their President when he told them Iraq was an imminent threat.

[aaron0313]

Right or wrong do you agree that we are in this for the long haul now?

[BI30]

On balance, no. The belief that "if we leave, Iraq will fall into chaos" doesn't wash. The majority of fighting there is due to our presence. Leaving means fewer targets to shoot at, bringing the violence to a level Iraq can deal with themselves. Iran has a new ally in Iraq and no need to invade. al Qaeda in Iraq is a tiny hated Sunni terrorist group in the heart of Shi'ite Iraq/Iran, who would deal with them quickly. Bush said NOT invading risked Iraq becoming a terrorist training ground. Huh.

[aaron0313]

I do not want our troops there any longer than they have to be myself. But every country that we left high and dry has every right to hate us that is why it is so important we do this right and show all terrorists that we will not stop when the going gets tough. Terrorists have the advantage because of our bad track record, we need to change that.

[BI30]

The argument that we must stay and more must die to prevent the other side from declaring victory is foolish. We unquestionably defeated Iraq in 1991, yet he still declared "victory" and celebrated our "defeat" every year afterwards.

They are going to declare victory no matter what we do. Let them. Then if they pull something, we'll go back and kick their asses again. Staying is costing Billions and has only stretched our forces to the point where we can't respond to the next threat.

[aaron0313]

Well the next president will most likely begin pulling out, we will see what happens.

[elvis32z]

YES. Thank you for posting this. I've been looking of footage like this. Again, thank you!

[BlueEchidnaGirl]

When you read President Bush's speeches in the months before the invasion they all sound like he already made up his mind to go to war. It's like the inspections were just a farce so Bush could say,"See, I gave peace a chance".

[BI30]

See my video:

"Bush was on Iraq/WMD warpath LONG before 9/11."

For more on that subject.

[luckyvet]

Thanks for posting the evidence in this well laid out format.

[SpecialTacticsUnit]

I think that our government is leading us to believe anything it wants. Our government is the supreme law and no one else can check to see if they are feeding us a bunch of lies or not. I'm not going to say that they are true, you need to be open-minded, but what about September 11th conspiracies? It makes me sick thinking of even just the possibility that our government owns us more than we think.

[sheepblitzer]

learn your history. the same people have been in power, to varying degrees, for hundreds if not thousands of years. as for 9/11, iraq, and what's happening now...dont worry, in 50 years historians will have it sorted out, when the emotions have died down and the evidence has revealed itself.

[flavour54]

Well put together, I remember seeing bits of this but because of media propaganda somehow your steered of the truth over time. I only woke up earlier this year.

[chimychimychonga]

Thank you for posting this.

[mattmatt115]

how come americans dont know this? truth. simple fact: americans don't find the truth convienient, and sadly it has caused them to unleash a plague on themselves which will erode the country to a point where the world will see LIBERTY at the hands of JUST people, FREE people, and no longer see the days of american freedom bombs and peace missiles, and all of there WMD falling on their schools

[luckyvet]

matt bro, America doesn't see this because 95% of the media is owned by 6 companies with ties to the owners of the federal reserve.

The fed loves war and all the profit made by further indebting americans.

The boyz at the top have been fucking with us for decades.

[BI30]

A combination of BBC (UK) and PBS (US) news clips.

As for why most Americans don't know this, blame another three letter abbreviation: GOP.

[eskimofridge]

the bush admin are so hypocritical. look up on youtube about videos ppl like condi and powell saying in 2001 how saddam had no means whatsoever to make WMD´s. when 9/11 occured, they fabricated lies to serve their own cause. scum sucking pigs.

[BI30]

View the rest of my video collection and you will find it in there. I uploaded it about 10 months ago.

[JohnyJKLV]

WMD was just one stupid excuse of Bush to occupy Iraq. As he was determinate to invade Iraq by all means, Bush found a new pretext after Iraqis cooperated. New ultimatum was set that Saddam have to leave Iraq but I think that even if that happened Bush would find another pretext to go on with the invasion. Because only thing he is interested in is US world domination and personal benefits.