Charles Krauthammer: "we know he's got tons of weapons"

[JohananRaatz]

Foreign Meddling is Good! watch?v=0HrJYI1QHa8

[TheMango121]

NO SHIT HE HAS WEAPONS

WE GAVE THEM TO HIM.

... Why is America so fucking dumb? If its not the stupid jesus rednecks, its the hippy liberal cunts.

[jefmered]

Lying Krauthammer. So typical

[khavarian]

socialist krauthammer and his communist benefactors

[mb4073]

He said weapons. Let's assume he meant nuclear weapons and was, as we now know, wrong. At the time, the evidence was heavily in favor of his view. The inspections were set up to fail by people under Hussein's influence. It's why the original inspector, a swede who's name I forget, wasn't approved- because he had a record of success while Hanz did not.

Either way, the ME has one less America-hating, genocidal megalomaniac in control of a heavily (if not nuclear) armed nation.

[jgestiot]

Nice attempt to rewrite history but it is not true. The evidence at the time was heavily against the fact that Iraq had any potent capability. See the book written by Scott Ritter before the invasion of iraq. It explains why Saddam Hussein could not have significant weapons. And the inspectors were succeeding. At the time the USA asked the weapons inspectors to get out of Iraq, they had found Al Sammoud missiles that had an illegal range and were in the process of destroying them.

[khavarian]

this guy is scum of the earth, his family should be dowsed in an acid bath in front of his stupid look to experiment and witness whether or not he wipes that filth expression off his face. this guy is pure toilet.

[pratinus]

@khavarian and someone who wants innocent people to be dowsed in an acid bath is not scum?

[Spinlandia]

Yes, they were in Iraq but they were NOT allowed into the sites they asked to inspect...

Never mind. Don't let the facts bother you

[jgestiot]

You're the one who need a good dose of facts. The inspectors were allowed to go wherever they wanted and they even found some of the Al Sammood missiles with a range greater than allowed by the UN and the inspectors were in the process of destroying them when the Americans asked everyone to get out of the country because of the imminent attack. Who is telling big porkies here?

[Spinlandia]

*sigh* I really don't have time for this, and didn't even see your reply until today. Waste of time. You write: "The inspectors were allowed to go wherever they wanted". BS. Even Scott Ritter admitted: "I agree the inspections were a never-ending proposition and are doomed to fail if we try to reconstitute UNSCOM. It will never work because the Iraqis will never allow these inspections to have the kind of intrusive element that is required for absolute certainty that nothing's hidden anywhere."

[Spinlandia]

It's Sunday and I finally have a bit of time to waste...

There's more evidence - not only by Ritter, who was against the invasion - but also in official UN reports. If you researched this issue, I'm sure you know this by now. To suggest that "The inspectors were allowed to go wherever they wanted" is complete ignorance about the subject. Sorry.

[jgestiot]

Saddam Hussein felt that the never ending inspection where a trick by the Americans to keep his country under the boot. He knew he did not have WMDs so he was rightly suspicious of the years of no-fly zones and the decimation of iraqi civilian populations through sanctions. What is your point? That there was evidence pointing to WMDs? Read Scott Ritter's book. He explains why there was none. The Inspectors were on the ground at the time of the invasion and left when asked by the US.

[Spinlandia]

*sigh* I'm falling very short in the facts department.... ok... what a waste of time. If you don't even know the most basic fact - that Saddam DID NOT let UN inspectors into most places they asked to see, then this is really pointless. Have a nice life.

[jgestiot]

The basic fact is that the weapons inspectors were in Iraq doing their job when the USA asked them to get out because they were about to invade.

[Spinlandia]

Ho. You did not. Again, Saddam declared (himself) that he has a nuclear program plus other WMD programs. Saddam didn't let the UN's IAEA inspectors into facilities they asked to visit. Did you have other sources of information back then?

And today we know for a FACT that he had 550 Metric Tons of URANIUM.

[jgestiot]

You are falling very short in the facts department. At the time of the invasion, the inspectors were in Iraq and doing their job. In fact, they had found that some of Saddam's Al Samound missiles had a range slightly over what was allowed by the UN at the time, and the inspectors were busy destroying the missiles. The USA ordered the weapons inspectors out to invade Iraq. All subsequent investigations have shown that Saddam's nuclear program was non-existent.

[EasyEs]

I thought that the enrichment program was non existent but the rest of the work to build nuclear weapons was underway, a recently translated document showed that Saddam thought enriching his own uranium was too risky and that it set off too many alarms in the west. My guess is that he thought he would be able to acquire fissile material through networks inside the Pakistani military would be a better idea.

[jgestiot]

So in short, he did not have the weapons at the time. The issue of whether he should be allowed to have nuclear weapons considering that other rogue states like Pakistan and the United States have them is an interesting debate. If Iraq is not allowed to have nuclear weapons, surely the United States should not either. They have a far worse record of aggressive behavior around the world.

[EasyEs]

America has Nuclear weapons because we needed to end the second world war and keep the soviets from oppressing all of Europe for 5 decades. You are saying you trust Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons more then the United States. You realize that he named his nuclear reactor after a Babylonian who slaughtered Jews for King Nebakanezer.

[jgestiot]

I'm saying that in the presence of two fools, it is a pointless exercise to try deciding who is the most foolish. Saddam Hussein and George Bush are in the same league. One gets cute when naming a nuclear reactor and the other talks about being guided by God before invading Iraq. In the middle of that mess, the world needs to decide one fundamental thing: if one country is allowed to have nuclear weapons, why not the others?

[EasyEs]

At the very minimum totalitarian regimes should not be allowed to posses them. Ones that also believe that they need to bring about Armageddon to release hidden prophets would be a good start. Nations that can not feed large sections of their population I think we can add to that list.

I would defiantly say that it a tad absurd to believe that GWB and Saddam are in the same league.

[jgestiot]

Why not include all countries that have a record in aggressive behavior? You seem to be cherry picking to make sure thay your own country avoids being recognised as one which should not have nuclear weapons. America has behaved like a totalitarian regime as proved by the executive orders and the crafty avoidance of national and international law by the Bush Administration. It has murdered people, tortured, imprisoned people for years without trial. What is the difference?

[EasyEs]

I am Canadian buddy first of all. Second I am not cherry picking anything no nation follows international law to the T. I am not sure that every international law crafted by the UN should be followed. If and when the UN outlaws critics of religion are you going to follow that? If not does that make you the moral equal of Saddam?

The biggest difference is that these people were picked up on the battlefield and not a street in front of their home for the crime of slandering Bush.

[Spinlandia]

How?

[jgestiot]

I answered that in my last post here.

[Spinlandia]

Wait, so are you saying that Saddam with nukes is NOT something Americans should fear???

[jgestiot]

No, I am saying that Saddam did not have any nukes nor did he have any weapons that represented an imminent danger for anyone.

[Spinlandia]

And you know it how????????

1. Saddam declared (himself) that he has a nuclear program plus other WMD programs.

2. Saddam didn't let the UN's IAEA inspectors into facilities they asked to visit.

3. The IAEA said that Saddam had no uranium... today we know that wasn't the case...

[jgestiot]

The core evidence to support the Iraqi nuclear program was a forgery. We know it now and there is no doubt about it. All official investigations including by the United States have confirmed that Iraq at the time of its invasion in 2003 did not have a nuclear weapons program. Furthermore, it did not have a weapons program of any kind posing an immediate danger to the rest of the world. That's how I know.

[MidEastTruth]

550 METRIC TONS (that's BIGGER than 5 Rosie O'Donnells) were removed from Bagdad by the US Government. Google it...

[jgestiot]

Every country has tons of weapons. Doh! We are talking about weapons of mass destruction, not kitchen knives.

[Spinlandia]

don't confuse them with facts.

jgestiot - it was 550 Metric Tons of URANIUM!!! You know, the staff they make nukes from.

[jgestiot]

Yes, sure. And I am Jesus Christ.

[Spinlandia]

You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!

Please do your homework... :-)

[jgestiot]

So tell me, what is the truth? You come here throwing a meaningless statistic up in the air. Explain what it means to have 550 metric tons of uranium and how this is a threat to the world. A country like Canada or Australia has millions of metric tons of uranium. Should we attack them too? There is a difference between making a meaningful logical point in the debate and throwing shit in the air hoping that it will hit somebody when it comes down.

[Spinlandia]

The question was about Saddam's WMD. It turned out that he DID have the ability to create nukes (up to 150 bombs, according to some physics experts). He didn't keep those 550 Metric Tons of URANIUM for candy making... Canada, Australia (or France, India, Israel, UK...) don't have mass murderers like Saddam Hussein as heads of states.

If you thing the war was a bad idea - no matter what, even if Saddam had WMD - then fine. It's a legitimate argument. But this video is about the WMD question...

[jgestiot]

You are playing with long bows and you're about to hurt yourself. You do not invade a country on the basis of its potential in making nuclear bombs. Every country has that capability and how to make a nuclear bomb can even be found on the Internet. There are legitimate uses of radioactive components such as in medicine so most country have radioactive material. You invade a foreign country on the basis of an urgent threat and it never was there. All lies, as evidenced by several inquiries.

[Spinlandia]

Sir, please read the subject of the above video. You're making completely irrelevant points... I agree that "You do not invade a country on the basis of its potential in making nuclear bombs" but this is not the issue here.

Before you wrote " Yes, sure. And I am Jesus Christ."... I'm glad that at least now we agree on the basic facts.

[jgestiot]

He said "We know he's got tons of weapons" in the context of them about to be used in a way that warranted immediate intervention. That was the context at the time. In Andorra, they have tons of weapons too, should we invade them? (yes, they have a lot of kitchen knives)

[Spinlandia]

This is not what he said... just listen...

[jgestiot]

The subject of the video is Charles Krauthammer: "we know he's got tons of weapons". And Mr Krauthammer was saying that to make people believe that the Saddam Hussein threat was something Americans should fear. What he said formed the basis for the invasion of Iraq and it was all lies.

[cman2050]

Zionists are the masters of deception, this is proof.

[llapole]

i would like to point out that it wasn't just right wingers who thought saddam had WMD's. EVERYONE did. bill clinton, tony blair, jacques chirac, and every intelligence agency on the planet were certain that saddam had chemical and biological weapons.

[oldjoe5]

What you say is clearly untrue as many intelligence agencies knew there was no solid indicators that Saddam had WMD. the question you need to ask is why did so many people think he did, or say that they thought so. Who gave them this impression?

[US185VOSS2]

ah Saddam did by buying them and gassing the Kurds...... and by kicking out the inspectors....gee

[oldjoe5]

Saddam gassed the Kurds in the early to mid 80s --and was rewarded with additional aid from Reagan admin. We are talking about 2003 -- 20 years later.

U do know that israel has illegal nukes and WMDs and does not allow inspectors in?

Saddam was disarmed post Gulf War I and everyone knew it - Powell and Cheney said as much in early 2001.

[US185VOSS2]

and what he said was absolutely correct

[nixxifocal]

Liar.