Iran Cheated On Odumbo Before The Ink On The Treaty Was Dry.

[SIZE="4"][COLOR="Black"]There is no way you can reconcile what you just posted with the factual reality that Zarqawi was in Iraq DOING IT! DOING IT! DOING IT! So, your notion that "Saddam wouldn't let him", is BS.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Noticed you have not answered when and where Zarqawi entered Iraq.

Was it after the Afgan invasion and Kurdish held Iraq.

Our intelligence service has found no evidence that Saddam supported this fucker. None.

more on Karl Rove's brilliant genius.
https://www.americanthinker.com/arti..._delusion.html



this details on the cover up on the WMD discovery.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...s-real-wmd.htm Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Do you understand that what we found were degraded arms?

That these weapons at their best are not as lethal as conventional weapons?

That they are weapons WE gave Saddam?

That those same weapons almost got Saddam defeated by Iran?


If in fact you think this is a basis for invading another country....we should invade Syria or Russia...

Noticed you have not answered when and where Zarqawi entered Iraq.

Was it after the Afgan invasion and Kurdish held Iraq.

Our intelligence service has found no evidence that Saddam supported this fucker. None. Originally Posted by WTF

I did, but you evidently weren't paying attention.

https://eccie.net/showthread.php?p=1...post1061258006

I did, but you evidently weren't paying attention.

https://eccie.net/showthread.php?p=1...post1061258006 Originally Posted by I B Hankering

That was the date 2002, now can you name the location? Was in the protected no fly zone that Saddam had little to no control over.

So to recap...you run a terrorist from one country to another country that wants nothing to do with him and into a region you are protecting from Saddam and you think that is a reason for a preemptive War

Do you understand that what we found were degraded arms?

That these weapons at their best are not as lethal as conventional weapons?

That they are weapons WE gave Saddam?

That those same weapons almost got Saddam defeated by Iran?


If in fact you think this is a basis for invading another country....we should invade Syria or Russia... Originally Posted by WTF

degraded, yes, but the fact remains, they were hidden. and were still dangerous.



you don't hide them unless you intend to use them at some future date.


no question we gave them empty shells. that wasn't the point tho was it.


did we give them shells containing sarin & mustard gas which you seem to imply? I don't think so.


just because they were from that war doesn't disqualify them as wmds.

I found it. took some digging.

https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php...post1055916770

just a problem with the search parameters. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Dilbert you are losing it fast. Try reading the entire New York times article posted by Barleycorn 4 years ago that was in the link above. That link did not prove Bush43 right it proved him wrong. Saddam and Iraq were not manufacturing or working on WMD's. One more time, the weapons that the U.S. soldiers found were Designed by the USA as far back as 1980, manufactured in Europe and installed on Iraq soil by WESTERN Companies. The weapons corroded to a point that they could no longer work as designed. You made the same mistake Barleycorn made. You didn't read the entire article. Bush had our troops looking for WMD's the USA designed and that Europe had manufactured. Try READING before you post.

From the New York times article that was in the the link YOU just found and posted above.

Others pointed to another embarrassment. In five of six incidents in which troops were wounded by chemical agents, the munitions appeared to have been designed in the United States, manufactured in Europe and filled in chemical agent production lines built in Iraq by Western companies.

they are still wmds regardless.

they are still wmds regardless. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

The Bush43 sales pitch to America was not to Invade Iraq to get weapons that the USA designed. Those weapons that the USA designed and had corroded were not going to cause any "mass destruction". Bush lied and 4,000 of our troops died for no reason. You can print the money to make up for the loss of 2 Trillion but you can't bring back the 4,000 who died because of that decision to Invade Iraq.

[QUOTE=I B Hankering;1061231002][SIZE="4"][COLOR="Black"]Pssst, seven to twelve months isn't "10 years". ]

It is if the high speed centrifuges are turned off and they can't enrich the "natural" uranium. The high speed centrifuges are turned off according to your guy Albright.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_...Plan_of_Action

That was the date 2002, now can you name the location? Was in the protected no fly zone that Saddam had little to no control over.

So to recap...you run a terrorist from one country to another country that wants nothing to do with him and into a region you are protecting from Saddam and you think that is a reason for a preemptive War Originally Posted by WTF

The only question that matters was "Was Zarqawi in Iraq manufacturing chemical weapons?" And the answer is, "Yes, Zarqawi was in Iraq manufacturing chemical weapons."

It is if the high speed centrifuges are turned off and they can't enrich the "natural" uranium. The high speed centrifuges are turned off according to your guy Albright.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_...Plan_of_Action Originally Posted by adav8s28

Your notion that the centrifuges were turned off is based on reports that were written without solid proof that Iran was in compliance with Odumbo's POS treaty. The "proof" is that Iran was never in compliance with Odumbo's POS treaty and never intended to be. The thorough inspections required to insure compliance were never conducted.

they are still wmds regardless. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Jesus in that case we should invade France!
They still have unexploded mustard gas bombs

https://www.itv.com/news/2018-08-07/...-100-years-on/

they are still wmds regardless. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Are lightening bugs , lightening?

The only question that matters was "Was Zarqawi in Iraq manufacturing chemical weapons?" And the answer is, "Yes, Zarqawi was in Iraq manufacturing chemical weapons."
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Actually he was in the Kurdish area of Iraq protected under the no fly zone.....drumb roll please, the United States.

I've told you Saddam did not want those terrorist in the part of Iraq he controlled.

Evidently America wanted terrorist in the part of Iraq we controlled according to your logic.

Actually he was in the Kurdish area of Iraq protected under the no fly zone.....drumb roll please, the United States.

I've told you Saddam did not want those terrorist in the part of Iraq he controlled.

Evidently America wanted terrorist in the part of Iraq we controlled according to your logic. Originally Posted by WTF

Actually, Zarqawi was indeed in Iraq manufacturing chemical weapons.

Actually, Zarqawi was indeed in Iraq manufacturing chemical weapons. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Not before the invasion of Afghanistan.

Your distortion will not justify the invasion of Iraq.

Even Trump thinks your argument is idiotic. Something I agree with Trump about.