War with Iran?

155,535 Views | 2236 Replies | Last: 17 sec ago by muddybrazos
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 7:38a, 2/21/26
whiterock said:

Yeah, he did. I always thought he was pissed his Dad didn't get to do it in 91. Cheney's interest for Haliburton didn't dissuade him either.

Never figured how Rumsfeld fit in, you have a better fix on the whole situation I am sure (seriously). I know Rummy would love the Roundup EO... (shouldn't go there, on me.)
Reply Quote
1
2 edits
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 6:25a, 2/22/26
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:

Yeah, he did. I always thought he was pissed his Dad didn't get to do it in 91. Cheney's interest for Haliburton didn't dissuade him either.

Never figured how Rumsfeld fit in, you have a better fix on the whole situation I am sure (seriously). I know Rummy would love the Roundup EO... (shouldn't go there, on me.)

he had no choice.

I saw the intel on his desk. He had a WMD-capable dictator in active liaison with AQ while we were still digging bodies out of the rubble in New York City.

Put all the worst-case scenarios of invasion on the table. None of them, individually or collectively, outweighed the risk of a WMD attack on an American city from a terror group who had just engaged in a spectacularly successful operation on our soil. The choice was to run the risk of an attack with 1000x or more casualties of 9/11, or run the risk of what ended up happening in Iraq.

I'm no Bushie. W had no choice.

Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 7:52a, 2/22/26
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:

Yeah, he did. I always thought he was pissed his Dad didn't get to do it in 91. Cheney's interest for Haliburton didn't dissuade him either.

Never figured how Rumsfeld fit in, you have a better fix on the whole situation I am sure (seriously). I know Rummy would love the Roundup EO... (shouldn't go there, on me.)

he had no choice.

I saw the intel on his desk. He had a WMD-capable dictator in active liaison with AQ while we were still digging bodies out of the rubble in New York City.

Put all the worst-case scenarios of invasion on the table. None of them, individually or collectively, outweighed the risk of a WMD attack on an American city from a terror group who had just engaged in a spectacularly successful operation on our soil. The choice was to run the risk of an attack with 1000x or more casualties of 9/11, or run the risk of what ended up happening in Iraq.

I'm no Bushie. W had no choice.

LOL
Reply Quote
3
KaiBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 8:42a, 2/22/26
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:

Yeah, he did. I always thought he was pissed his Dad didn't get to do it in 91. Cheney's interest for Haliburton didn't dissuade him either.

Never figured how Rumsfeld fit in, you have a better fix on the whole situation I am sure (seriously). I know Rummy would love the Roundup EO... (shouldn't go there, on me.)

he had no choice.

I saw the intel on his desk. He had a WMD-capable dictator in active liaison with AQ while we were still digging bodies out of the rubble in New York City.

Put all the worst-case scenarios of invasion on the table. None of them, individually or collectively, outweighed the risk of a WMD attack on an American city from a terror group who had just engaged in a spectacularly successful operation on our soil. The choice was to run the risk of an attack with 1000x or more casualties of 9/11, or run the risk of what ended up happening in Iraq.

I'm no Bushie. W had no choice.



No fan of Bush; though certainly rate him a more stable president than Obama , Biden or Trump.

Bush tactically won a great victory in Iraq; and strategically prevented Hussein from dominating the Middle East oil fields ……

but it wasn't worth the lives of thousands of our men or the additional thousands who were horribly wounded..

Dumbest thing one can ever do is volunteer for combat.

Thinking you are serving your country when in reality you are risking your ass for entitled rich boys who always position themselves out of harms way.

Reply Quote
3
1 edit
STxBear81
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:49a, 2/22/26
Not worth losing a son for imo
Reply Quote
1
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 9:50a, 2/22/26
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:

Yeah, he did. I always thought he was pissed his Dad didn't get to do it in 91. Cheney's interest for Haliburton didn't dissuade him either.

Never figured how Rumsfeld fit in, you have a better fix on the whole situation I am sure (seriously). I know Rummy would love the Roundup EO... (shouldn't go there, on me.)

he had no choice.

I saw the intel on his desk. He had a WMD-capable dictator in active liaison with AQ while we were still digging bodies out of the rubble in New York City.

Put all the worst-case scenarios of invasion on the table. None of them, individually or collectively, outweighed the risk of a WMD attack on an American city from a terror group who had just engaged in a spectacularly successful operation on our soil. The choice was to run the risk of an attack with 1000x or more casualties of 9/11, or run the risk of what ended up happening in Iraq.

I'm no Bushie. W had no choice.



I watched Powell's presentation to the UN. He made a good argument. I know for a fact that chemical weapons was an issue with Iraq, alarms went off in the Gulf war. The guy would do it in a heartbeat.
Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 10:08a, 2/22/26
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:

Yeah, he did. I always thought he was pissed his Dad didn't get to do it in 91. Cheney's interest for Haliburton didn't dissuade him either.

Never figured how Rumsfeld fit in, you have a better fix on the whole situation I am sure (seriously). I know Rummy would love the Roundup EO... (shouldn't go there, on me.)

he had no choice.

I saw the intel on his desk. He had a WMD-capable dictator in active liaison with AQ while we were still digging bodies out of the rubble in New York City.

Put all the worst-case scenarios of invasion on the table. None of them, individually or collectively, outweighed the risk of a WMD attack on an American city from a terror group who had just engaged in a spectacularly successful operation on our soil. The choice was to run the risk of an attack with 1000x or more casualties of 9/11, or run the risk of what ended up happening in Iraq.

I'm no Bushie. W had no choice.



I watched Powell's presentation to the UN. He made a good argument.

He didn't think so.
Reply Quote
4
KaiBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 10:36a, 2/22/26
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:

Yeah, he did. I always thought he was pissed his Dad didn't get to do it in 91. Cheney's interest for Haliburton didn't dissuade him either.

Never figured how Rumsfeld fit in, you have a better fix on the whole situation I am sure (seriously). I know Rummy would love the Roundup EO... (shouldn't go there, on me.)

he had no choice.

I saw the intel on his desk. He had a WMD-capable dictator in active liaison with AQ while we were still digging bodies out of the rubble in New York City.

Put all the worst-case scenarios of invasion on the table. None of them, individually or collectively, outweighed the risk of a WMD attack on an American city from a terror group who had just engaged in a spectacularly successful operation on our soil. The choice was to run the risk of an attack with 1000x or more casualties of 9/11, or run the risk of what ended up happening in Iraq.

I'm no Bushie. W had no choice.



I watched Powell's presentation to the UN. He made a good argument. I know for a fact that chemical weapons was an issue with Iraq, alarms went off in the Gulf war. The guy would do it in a heartbeat.


Yep

Weapons of mass destruction includes chemical weapons as well as nuclear weapons.

And Hussein had repeatedly used chemical weapons in the region.

There was every reason to believe he would use them against us.
Reply Quote
1
Porteroso
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:44a, 2/22/26
He did not have the weapons our intelligence told the world he had, plain and simple. Invoking Article 5 meant not only our son's and daughters died, not to mention half a million civilians... but the sons and daughters of our allies.

War is always a choice. To pretend hands were tied is a lame attempt at avoiding responsibility.

And if we invade Iran, at least Trump will likely not make up reasons. He will just say we had to do it for our sake and Israel's. It will be the end of MAGA, but I do think he will be honest.
Reply Quote
2
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 10:50a, 2/22/26
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:

Yeah, he did. I always thought he was pissed his Dad didn't get to do it in 91. Cheney's interest for Haliburton didn't dissuade him either.

Never figured how Rumsfeld fit in, you have a better fix on the whole situation I am sure (seriously). I know Rummy would love the Roundup EO... (shouldn't go there, on me.)

he had no choice.

I saw the intel on his desk. He had a WMD-capable dictator in active liaison with AQ while we were still digging bodies out of the rubble in New York City.

Put all the worst-case scenarios of invasion on the table. None of them, individually or collectively, outweighed the risk of a WMD attack on an American city from a terror group who had just engaged in a spectacularly successful operation on our soil. The choice was to run the risk of an attack with 1000x or more casualties of 9/11, or run the risk of what ended up happening in Iraq.

I'm no Bushie. W had no choice.



I watched Powell's presentation to the UN. He made a good argument.

He didn't think so.

Such is life. I am sure he thought he could do better and he had better intel.
Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 11:03a, 2/22/26
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:

Yeah, he did. I always thought he was pissed his Dad didn't get to do it in 91. Cheney's interest for Haliburton didn't dissuade him either.

Never figured how Rumsfeld fit in, you have a better fix on the whole situation I am sure (seriously). I know Rummy would love the Roundup EO... (shouldn't go there, on me.)

he had no choice.

I saw the intel on his desk. He had a WMD-capable dictator in active liaison with AQ while we were still digging bodies out of the rubble in New York City.

Put all the worst-case scenarios of invasion on the table. None of them, individually or collectively, outweighed the risk of a WMD attack on an American city from a terror group who had just engaged in a spectacularly successful operation on our soil. The choice was to run the risk of an attack with 1000x or more casualties of 9/11, or run the risk of what ended up happening in Iraq.

I'm no Bushie. W had no choice.



I watched Powell's presentation to the UN. He made a good argument.

He didn't think so.

Such is life. I am sure he thought he could do better and he had better intel.
It was a scam. He should have known.
Reply Quote
1
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 12:36p, 2/22/26
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:

Yeah, he did. I always thought he was pissed his Dad didn't get to do it in 91. Cheney's interest for Haliburton didn't dissuade him either.

Never figured how Rumsfeld fit in, you have a better fix on the whole situation I am sure (seriously). I know Rummy would love the Roundup EO... (shouldn't go there, on me.)

he had no choice.

I saw the intel on his desk. He had a WMD-capable dictator in active liaison with AQ while we were still digging bodies out of the rubble in New York City.

Put all the worst-case scenarios of invasion on the table. None of them, individually or collectively, outweighed the risk of a WMD attack on an American city from a terror group who had just engaged in a spectacularly successful operation on our soil. The choice was to run the risk of an attack with 1000x or more casualties of 9/11, or run the risk of what ended up happening in Iraq.

I'm no Bushie. W had no choice.



I watched Powell's presentation to the UN. He made a good argument.

He didn't think so.

Such is life. I am sure he thought he could do better and he had better intel.

It was a scam. He should have known.

The piece you miss there is that he was talking with people on the ground in Saudi and those chemical weapons warnings were going off. SCUDS were landing and we were having to mask up during the war. We still had to mask up after the war was over sometimes in Kuwait depending on what was found when they were destroying weapons caches and the oil fires. It was a legitimate scare. Powell had that in his mind, so it is really not a fair look back 35 years later and say he should have known.
Reply Quote
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:47p, 2/22/26
He expresses hindsight regret that he was wrong...but explains that at the time he was working with information he was repeatedly assured was accurate.

Reply Quote
1
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 2:20p, 2/22/26
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:

Yeah, he did. I always thought he was pissed his Dad didn't get to do it in 91. Cheney's interest for Haliburton didn't dissuade him either.

Never figured how Rumsfeld fit in, you have a better fix on the whole situation I am sure (seriously). I know Rummy would love the Roundup EO... (shouldn't go there, on me.)

he had no choice.

I saw the intel on his desk. He had a WMD-capable dictator in active liaison with AQ while we were still digging bodies out of the rubble in New York City.

Put all the worst-case scenarios of invasion on the table. None of them, individually or collectively, outweighed the risk of a WMD attack on an American city from a terror group who had just engaged in a spectacularly successful operation on our soil. The choice was to run the risk of an attack with 1000x or more casualties of 9/11, or run the risk of what ended up happening in Iraq.

I'm no Bushie. W had no choice.



I watched Powell's presentation to the UN. He made a good argument.

He didn't think so.

Such is life. I am sure he thought he could do better and he had better intel.

It was a scam. He should have known.

The piece you miss there is that he was talking with people on the ground in Saudi and those chemical weapons warnings were going off. SCUDS were landing and we were having to mask up during the war. We still had to mask up after the war was over sometimes in Kuwait depending on what was found when they were destroying weapons caches and the oil fires. It was a legitimate scare. Powell had that in his mind, so it is really not a fair look back 35 years later and say he should have known.

We're talking about 2003, not 1991. Those chemical weapons were long gone by then, and we had the intel to prove it. If I knew it, he should have too.
Reply Quote
2
2 edits
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Porteroso • 2:51p, 2/22/26
Porteroso said:
He did not have the weapons our intelligence told the world he had, plain and simple. Invoking Article 5 meant not only our son's and daughters died, not to mention half a million civilians... but the sons and daughters of our allies.

War is always a choice. To pretend hands were tied is a lame attempt at avoiding responsibility.

And if we invade Iran, at least Trump will likely not make up reasons. He will just say we had to do it for our sake and Israel's. It will be the end of MAGA, but I do think he will be honest.

Thank you for stating the fallacy so clearly. The size of his inventory mattered not. Iraq did possess the ability to manufacture and use them, as they had done so previously.
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:52p, 2/22/26
Reply Quote
1
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 3:47p, 2/22/26
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:

Yeah, he did. I always thought he was pissed his Dad didn't get to do it in 91. Cheney's interest for Haliburton didn't dissuade him either.

Never figured how Rumsfeld fit in, you have a better fix on the whole situation I am sure (seriously). I know Rummy would love the Roundup EO... (shouldn't go there, on me.)

he had no choice.

I saw the intel on his desk. He had a WMD-capable dictator in active liaison with AQ while we were still digging bodies out of the rubble in New York City.

Put all the worst-case scenarios of invasion on the table. None of them, individually or collectively, outweighed the risk of a WMD attack on an American city from a terror group who had just engaged in a spectacularly successful operation on our soil. The choice was to run the risk of an attack with 1000x or more casualties of 9/11, or run the risk of what ended up happening in Iraq.

I'm no Bushie. W had no choice.



I watched Powell's presentation to the UN. He made a good argument.

He didn't think so.

Such is life. I am sure he thought he could do better and he had better intel.

It was a scam. He should have known.

The piece you miss there is that he was talking with people on the ground in Saudi and those chemical weapons warnings were going off. SCUDS were landing and we were having to mask up during the war. We still had to mask up after the war was over sometimes in Kuwait depending on what was found when they were destroying weapons caches and the oil fires. It was a legitimate scare. Powell had that in his mind, so it is really not a fair look back 35 years later and say he should have known.

We're talking about 2003, not 1991. Those chemical weapons were long gone by then, and we had the intel to prove it. If I knew it, he should have too.


Think of it as a criminal history, it is relevant. He gassed his own people in Iran-Iraq war, he had chemical weapons in the Gulf War and he unleashed the worst environmental damage in history setting the oil fires. (as someone that saw them and sky burn bright orange for months, the coverage in US did not do them justice ) Sorry, the benefit of the doubt here goes to W. Whiterock is correct, a WMD in an American City would have been catastrophic. I do not think it would be nukes, but either chem or bio.

If Iran still has the capability, it has to be destroyed.
Reply Quote
The_barBEARian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 3:55p, 2/22/26
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:

Yeah, he did. I always thought he was pissed his Dad didn't get to do it in 91. Cheney's interest for Haliburton didn't dissuade him either.

Never figured how Rumsfeld fit in, you have a better fix on the whole situation I am sure (seriously). I know Rummy would love the Roundup EO... (shouldn't go there, on me.)

he had no choice.

I saw the intel on his desk. He had a WMD-capable dictator in active liaison with AQ while we were still digging bodies out of the rubble in New York City.

Put all the worst-case scenarios of invasion on the table. None of them, individually or collectively, outweighed the risk of a WMD attack on an American city from a terror group who had just engaged in a spectacularly successful operation on our soil. The choice was to run the risk of an attack with 1000x or more casualties of 9/11, or run the risk of what ended up happening in Iraq.

I'm no Bushie. W had no choice.



Who provided that false intel that Sadaam had or was working toward nuclear weapons?
Reply Quote
1
The_barBEARian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 3:58p, 2/22/26
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:

Yeah, he did. I always thought he was pissed his Dad didn't get to do it in 91. Cheney's interest for Haliburton didn't dissuade him either.

Never figured how Rumsfeld fit in, you have a better fix on the whole situation I am sure (seriously). I know Rummy would love the Roundup EO... (shouldn't go there, on me.)

he had no choice.

I saw the intel on his desk. He had a WMD-capable dictator in active liaison with AQ while we were still digging bodies out of the rubble in New York City.

Put all the worst-case scenarios of invasion on the table. None of them, individually or collectively, outweighed the risk of a WMD attack on an American city from a terror group who had just engaged in a spectacularly successful operation on our soil. The choice was to run the risk of an attack with 1000x or more casualties of 9/11, or run the risk of what ended up happening in Iraq.

I'm no Bushie. W had no choice.



I watched Powell's presentation to the UN. He made a good argument.

He didn't think so.

Such is life. I am sure he thought he could do better and he had better intel.

It was a scam. He should have known.

The piece you miss there is that he was talking with people on the ground in Saudi and those chemical weapons warnings were going off. SCUDS were landing and we were having to mask up during the war. We still had to mask up after the war was over sometimes in Kuwait depending on what was found when they were destroying weapons caches and the oil fires. It was a legitimate scare. Powell had that in his mind, so it is really not a fair look back 35 years later and say he should have known.

We're talking about 2003, not 1991. Those chemical weapons were long gone by then, and we had the intel to prove it. If I knew it, he should have too.


Think of it as a criminal history, it is relevant. He gassed his own people in Iran-Iraq war, he had chemical weapons in the Gulf War and he unleashed the worst environmental damage in history setting the oil fires. (as someone that saw them and sky burn bright orange for months, the coverage in US did not do them justice ) Sorry, the benefit of the doubt here goes to W. Whiterock is correct, a WMD in an American City would have been catastrophic. I do not think it would be nukes, but either chem or bio.

If Iran still has the capability, it has to be destroyed.


Israel has the capability and they are every bit as much a rogue regime as Iran.

Israel has directly killed more Americans than Iran.

Why hasn't the US forced Israel to comply with the international non-proliferation treaty?

Reply Quote
1
1 edit
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The_barBEARian • 3:59p, 2/22/26
The_barBEARian said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:

Yeah, he did. I always thought he was pissed his Dad didn't get to do it in 91. Cheney's interest for Haliburton didn't dissuade him either.

Never figured how Rumsfeld fit in, you have a better fix on the whole situation I am sure (seriously). I know Rummy would love the Roundup EO... (shouldn't go there, on me.)

he had no choice.

I saw the intel on his desk. He had a WMD-capable dictator in active liaison with AQ while we were still digging bodies out of the rubble in New York City.

Put all the worst-case scenarios of invasion on the table. None of them, individually or collectively, outweighed the risk of a WMD attack on an American city from a terror group who had just engaged in a spectacularly successful operation on our soil. The choice was to run the risk of an attack with 1000x or more casualties of 9/11, or run the risk of what ended up happening in Iraq.

I'm no Bushie. W had no choice.



Who provided that false intel that Sadaam had or was working toward nuclear weapons?


IIRC, it was chem/bio. Wasn't there a defector that collaborated?
Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 4:02p, 2/22/26
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:

Yeah, he did. I always thought he was pissed his Dad didn't get to do it in 91. Cheney's interest for Haliburton didn't dissuade him either.

Never figured how Rumsfeld fit in, you have a better fix on the whole situation I am sure (seriously). I know Rummy would love the Roundup EO... (shouldn't go there, on me.)

he had no choice.

I saw the intel on his desk. He had a WMD-capable dictator in active liaison with AQ while we were still digging bodies out of the rubble in New York City.

Put all the worst-case scenarios of invasion on the table. None of them, individually or collectively, outweighed the risk of a WMD attack on an American city from a terror group who had just engaged in a spectacularly successful operation on our soil. The choice was to run the risk of an attack with 1000x or more casualties of 9/11, or run the risk of what ended up happening in Iraq.

I'm no Bushie. W had no choice.



I watched Powell's presentation to the UN. He made a good argument.

He didn't think so.

Such is life. I am sure he thought he could do better and he had better intel.

It was a scam. He should have known.

The piece you miss there is that he was talking with people on the ground in Saudi and those chemical weapons warnings were going off. SCUDS were landing and we were having to mask up during the war. We still had to mask up after the war was over sometimes in Kuwait depending on what was found when they were destroying weapons caches and the oil fires. It was a legitimate scare. Powell had that in his mind, so it is really not a fair look back 35 years later and say he should have known.

We're talking about 2003, not 1991. Those chemical weapons were long gone by then, and we had the intel to prove it. If I knew it, he should have too.


Think of it as a criminal history, it is relevant. He gassed his own people in Iran-Iraq war, he had chemical weapons in the Gulf War and he unleashed the worst environmental damage in history setting the oil fires. (as someone that saw them and sky burn bright orange for months, the coverage in US did not do them justice ) Sorry, the benefit of the doubt here goes to W. Whiterock is correct, a WMD in an American City would have been catastrophic. I do not think it would be nukes, but either chem or bio.

If Iran still has the capability, it has to be destroyed.

I disagree, but if that's the case that the Bush administration wanted to present to the American people, let them present it. Instead they lied, and that's the problem.
Reply Quote
2
The_barBEARian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 4:04p, 2/22/26
FLBear5630 said:
The_barBEARian said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:

Yeah, he did. I always thought he was pissed his Dad didn't get to do it in 91. Cheney's interest for Haliburton didn't dissuade him either.

Never figured how Rumsfeld fit in, you have a better fix on the whole situation I am sure (seriously). I know Rummy would love the Roundup EO... (shouldn't go there, on me.)

he had no choice.

I saw the intel on his desk. He had a WMD-capable dictator in active liaison with AQ while we were still digging bodies out of the rubble in New York City.

Put all the worst-case scenarios of invasion on the table. None of them, individually or collectively, outweighed the risk of a WMD attack on an American city from a terror group who had just engaged in a spectacularly successful operation on our soil. The choice was to run the risk of an attack with 1000x or more casualties of 9/11, or run the risk of what ended up happening in Iraq.

I'm no Bushie. W had no choice.



Who provided that false intel that Sadaam had or was working toward nuclear weapons?


IIRC, it was chem/bio. Wasn't there a defector that collaborated?


Israeli officials, including Benjamin Netanyahu, urged the US to take action against Iraq, arguing in 2002 that Baghdad was developing WMDs.
Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 4:07p, 2/22/26
FLBear5630 said:
The_barBEARian said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:

Yeah, he did. I always thought he was pissed his Dad didn't get to do it in 91. Cheney's interest for Haliburton didn't dissuade him either.

Never figured how Rumsfeld fit in, you have a better fix on the whole situation I am sure (seriously). I know Rummy would love the Roundup EO... (shouldn't go there, on me.)

he had no choice.

I saw the intel on his desk. He had a WMD-capable dictator in active liaison with AQ while we were still digging bodies out of the rubble in New York City.

Put all the worst-case scenarios of invasion on the table. None of them, individually or collectively, outweighed the risk of a WMD attack on an American city from a terror group who had just engaged in a spectacularly successful operation on our soil. The choice was to run the risk of an attack with 1000x or more casualties of 9/11, or run the risk of what ended up happening in Iraq.

I'm no Bushie. W had no choice.



Who provided that false intel that Sadaam had or was working toward nuclear weapons?


IIRC, it was chem/bio. Wasn't there a defector that collaborated?

Yeah. He was lying, and we had more than enough reason to know it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Porteroso
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 4:43p, 2/22/26
whiterock said:
Porteroso said:
He did not have the weapons our intelligence told the world he had, plain and simple. Invoking Article 5 meant not only our son's and daughters died, not to mention half a million civilians... but the sons and daughters of our allies.

War is always a choice. To pretend hands were tied is a lame attempt at avoiding responsibility.

And if we invade Iran, at least Trump will likely not make up reasons. He will just say we had to do it for our sake and Israel's. It will be the end of MAGA, but I do think he will be honest.

Thank you for stating the fallacy so clearly. The size of his inventory mattered not. Iraq did possess the ability to manufacture and use them, as they had done so previously.

They did not have the capability to produce the weapons they were accused of having. So no. Try again.
Reply Quote
2
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Porteroso • 5:56p, 2/22/26
Porteroso said:
whiterock said:
Porteroso said:
He did not have the weapons our intelligence told the world he had, plain and simple. Invoking Article 5 meant not only our son's and daughters died, not to mention half a million civilians... but the sons and daughters of our allies.

War is always a choice. To pretend hands were tied is a lame attempt at avoiding responsibility.

And if we invade Iran, at least Trump will likely not make up reasons. He will just say we had to do it for our sake and Israel's. It will be the end of MAGA, but I do think he will be honest.

Thank you for stating the fallacy so clearly. The size of his inventory mattered not. Iraq did possess the ability to manufacture and use them, as they had done so previously.

They did not have the capability to produce the weapons they were accused of having. So no. Try again.


Do you take chances with someone that used WMDs and set the world on fire?
Reply Quote
The_barBEARian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:14a, 2/23/26
Reply Quote
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:55p, 2/23/26
Reply Quote
2
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:29p, 2/23/26
Reply Quote
2
Realitybites
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 3:41a, 2/24/26
Mothra said:

Do you believe Iran to be a terrorist state? Do you believe it to be run by Islamists? Just FYI, most of the free world believe so and there's plenty of evidence for it. Or is that a position you don't subscribe because they share with you a common enemy?


Iran's leadership may be Islamic, but the leadership isn't suicidal.

They've already offered to work with US companies to develop their oil resources.

That's more than Mossaddegh was willing to do.

From a geopolitical perspective, removing a major obstacle to Sunni ascendency in the middle east doesn't help us. We've already seen how poorly removing Saddam Hussein and Assad has gone.

As far as chem/bio weapons, we're six and a half years out from the first major biological weapons attack on our homeland, it turns out that our own deep state and China were responsible for it, and despite that everything in Walmart is still made there.
Reply Quote
2
5 edits
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to boognish_bear • 5:22a, 2/24/26
boognish_bear said:

Quick question, why is Iran's nuclear program an issue? Trump told us it was destroyed by the most perfect military strike ever undertaken. So, there must be no risk of nukes in Iran. Or did I miss something?

'Totally obliterated': Full text of Trump's speech after US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities | The Times of Israel

Reply Quote
3
The_barBEARian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 7:04a
FLBear5630 said:
boognish_bear said:

Quick question, why is Iran's nuclear program an issue? Trump told us it was destroyed by the most perfect military strike ever undertaken. So, there must be no risk of nukes in Iran. Or did I miss something?

'Totally obliterated': Full text of Trump's speech after US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities | The Times of Israel



Great question!

They have dropped the nuclear weapons pretext and are not hiding this is entirely about regime change.
Reply Quote
1
muddybrazos
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:10a
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.