My trip to Ground Zero (6)

Chattin with truthers

Category:

Comedy

Tags:

• NYC
• 9-11
• truthers

[esopxe]

Nobody is answering the question. Did there need to be any WMD's in Iraq to invade? It's a yes or no question.

[CHF2]

Yes. It was their justification, remember?

[esopxe]

Your not getting what I'm saying.  Did there need to be WMD's in Iraq, physically. Obviously not.

[CHF2]

Did there need to be WMD in Iraq for what? For them to invade? No, they invaded anyway. But it sure would have helped their cause, don't ya think?

[esopxe]

Did they need WMD's to invade? No. Why plant them if they were not needed in the first place?

[CHF2]

They weren't needed??? The justification for war was disarming Saddam's WMD. The entire reputation of the Bush admin has gone downhill since the inability to find any.

So tell me, esopxe - why didn't they plant some to save themselves all the embarrassment? If they could secretly rig up three buildings with bombs then surely some shells in Iraq would be a piece of cake.

[leftysergeant]

@usindependent50 Rummy, Cheney and the Shrub can't do anything right.

Which makes the idea of their staging a flase-flag op of this scale utterly laughable.

Somebody should have told the Shrub, "Be careful what you wish for, you might get it." He got his excuse for a war and ignored the only real fight he had any business persuing. He should have learned a lesson from WWII. Germany left a healthy enemy on their flank and marched on the USSR. Smooth move, huh?

[usindependent50]

@leftysergeant

If we went to Iraq for oil then why has the United States not secured one oil contract and why do we get less oil now than we did before?

Watergate involved a very small group, The 9-11 conspiracy would require thousands to be involved. Clinton couldn't even keep his affair secret.

[usindependent50]

I could go on but all of this and the UNSCOM (U.N. inspectors of the '90s) reports that could not account for some 6,500 chemical munitions and tons of biological growth media and anthrax cultures as well as evidence that Iraq was making fresh chemical munitions as late as 1998 leaves me flabbergasted at the continued myth that Iraq "had no weapons of mass destruction."

[usindependent50]

* On June 23, 2004, U.S. forces seized 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium at a nuclear facility in Iraq. This is the type of fuel that can be used to make nuclear weapons. It was also reported by the BBC (a frequent critic of the war) that the U.S. Department of Energy removed over a thousand "powdered" radioactive sources. These could be used to make a very effective dirty bomb.

[usindependent50]

* On Aug. 8, 2005, U.S. soldiers raided a warehouse in Mosul, Iraq, and found 1,500 gallons of chemical agents.

* On May 17, 2004, a U.S. convoy was attacked by a roadside bomb that was found to be an improvised device made from an artillery shell containing the nerve agent sarin

[usindependent50]

Polish troops in Iraq, upon receiving intelligence that insurgents in their sector were buying WMD, bought 17 chemical weapon warheads for $5,000 each from Iraqis to keep them from the insurgents. Tests confirmed that these warheads contained cyclosarin which is five to 10 times more effective (read deadly) than the sarin used on the Tokyo subway attack. Also, all munitions containing cyclosarin were reported destroyed by U.N. enforcers between 1991 and 1998. Apparently not.

[usindependent50]

After Gulf War 1, as part of the CEASE FIRE, the UN passed 22 resolutions which AUTHORIZED continued MILITARY ACTION against Iraq for failure to comply. Iraq FAILED to comply with 18 of the 22 which AUTHORIZED continued military action.

The invasion was a continuance and conclusion of Gulf War 1 and was FULLY AUTHORIZED by the UN. What people SHOULD be up in arms about is why the UN and US Govt of the 90s took so long to enforce their own mandates.

[Obelisk2290]

"Thats a a good quetion, I dont know!" Translation: I just got owned again

[leftysergeant]

Oil Boy was going to find some other excuse to invade anyway. Foregone conclusion. You would think that he would be able to do it in a way that did not plunge many wealthy people, who would be sympathetic to his ambitions anyway, into ecconomic hard times by putting the brakes on the ecconomy for moths on end.

If this was an inside job, the planning was incredibly slovenly. The sloppier an operation, the less chance of keeping an informational security lid on it.

[gcoll27444]

A better question is, did they need 9-11 to go into Iraq? And the answer is no.

An even better question is, why blow up building 7?? Another good question is, why blow up both towers? Just do one, same affect...cut the risk in half. Cut the risk by 4/5 if you just go with one tower....forget about firing a missile at the pentagon, and the plane in Pennsylvania and all the other nonsense of the truth movement.