"Breaking" - Iraq had WMDs.

[LPMan59]

W claimed Saddam had an active WMD program; the article points out that he didn't. Everything was old and leftover from Reagan/Bush I.

As for the oil, I seem to remember Iraq was pushing to change the petrodollar to another currency. Bush and Powell declared al Quaeda was there (wrong) and Saddam was building new WMDs (wrong).

All coincidence.

 

[churchmouse]

W claimed Saddam had an active WMD program; the article points out that he didn't. Everything was old and leftover from Reagan/Bush I.

As for the oil, I seem to remember Iraq was pushing to change the petrodollar to another currency. Bush and Powell declared al Quaeda was there (wrong) and Saddam was building new WMDs (wrong).

All coincidence.

Remember......we announced our delayed arrival. Easy enough to clean up any evidence.

 

[gravitas73]

We didn't goto war over chemical weapons. The warmongers were shoving threats of nuclear weapons down our throat.

And in the war itself, we were the ones that used chemical weapons.

 

[pudly]

We were the ones that used chemical weapons.

What chemical weapons?

 

[printcraft]

And in the war itself, we were the ones that used chemical weapons.

What chemical weapons?

I'm guessing hes going to say phosphorus incendiary, depleted uranium or something of that type but I am probably off base.

 

[churchmouse]

What chemical weapons?

Yes......what chemical weapons

 

[gravitas73]

I'm guessing hes going to say phosphorus incendiary, depleted uranium or something of that type but I am probably off base.

Nope, both of those.

 

[printcraft]

Nope, both of those.

Not even close to the same thing.

Here, watch this instructional video and get back with us.

[video=youtube;ueZ6tvqhk8U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueZ6tvqhk8U[/video]

 

[gravitas73]

When a defensive countermeasure is used as a banned weapon, like napalm, it is a weapon.

 

[pudly]

I'm guessing hes going to say phosphorus incendiary, depleted uranium or something of that type but I am probably off base.

Nope, both of those.

@printcraft- Looks like you were right on.
@gravitas- You are wrong on both accounts, unless you are using a definition that you've created. The UN doesn't classify them as such Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs and they certainly aren't weapons of mass destruction as they do not spread in any significant fashion. To the best of my knowledge, Saddam Hussein is the only person to have used chemical weapons on any significant scale in recent memory.

 

[rambone]

Why is chemical weaponry morally any worse than blowing people up with conventional bombs? Dead is dead.

Acting outraged over the weapon is an emotional tactic, much like decrying "assault weapons."

But emotion is all it takes to whip Americans into a frenzy.

Here's another example of the same thing: beheading.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Iraqi WMD destroyed from 2004 to 2009: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/23/w...e=Recommendation&src=recg&pgtype=article&_r=0