The reason it's ignored is because no one really cares any more. The US did what we did when we did it; It's old news. Finding out that the Bush administration might have been right all along isn't too important.

One would think the former Bush administration would shouting about this as loud as they can...

link to this?

As you pointed out it is old news...that was all reported at during the conflict...and there was not really anything to shout about then...or now.

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceno.../10/08-03.html

there is more articles/studies/hobbyists around, not finding right now tho

if only there had been a clue :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

now I see it too :1orglaugh

for a moment there you stood at risk of me leaning towards thinking that you are impotent at debate, but I certainly stand corrected now that you have explained that you are actually above responding even though you respond nevertheless...now you are truly showing me what a master of self control you are :1orglaugh

oh well theres no debating with such strong arguments...get in to your plane and go bomb something you are right! :thumbsup:1orglaugh

my apologies, i remember it as 6k, i suppose i am remembering 60k

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....ng-close-to-2/

You have on multiple occasions referred to me as having bombed people. If you are under the impression that the Airborne in my division patch makes you think that I was in the Airforce...I was not. Airborne means that I was a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division which is the only remaining paratrooper division the U.S. Army has left.

Atleast we know you're not a shapeshifting reptillian believer _Richard_ :)

Or are you? :upsidedow

i think you are right Rochard. another thing i noticed was that the primary news sources that came up on google for a search for wikileaks wmds were right wing slanted, suggesting the liberal media avoided the story.

If you think the justification for going to Iraq was based on chemical and not nuclear weapons you are either:

a.) too young to remember 2002 and now are Googling stories about the Iraq war

b.) staying willfully ignorant to justify a terrible, terrible war

Stories about chemical weapons in Iraq were reported from day one of the war. It just wasn't a story because anyone with half a fucking brain knows the difference between a nuclear weapon or WMD and chemical weapons.

again, my post was about the wikileaks, i've mentioned that many many times, and included stating that i do not endorse the war or justification for it.

not sure why people confuse trying to find a factual view of the past with embracing that view. what's that expression *doomed to repeat something or other*,........

I dont doubt burying military equipment in the desert. There were plenty of pictures of that. Hiding/camouflaging equipment from attack is not a novel idea. In the middle of the desert, there is only one way to go... down. You have to remember what happened in the first war. He lost almost all of his hardware (tanks/planes etc) in the first 2 days.

I would guess they planned to go to war because it was a window of opportunity to plant a very large US base on the region. At least I would hope that was the reason.

No your post original post is about why Wikileaks cables were being "ignored"

These cables contained information that everyone knew about. It had be reported over and over that there were chemical weapons in Iraq. Nobody disputed that Iraq was in possession of chemical weapons, so finding this stuff was expected.

But the basis to get into Iraq was an imminent threat posed by their nuclear capabilities. And there were no nuclear weapons found.

So 7 years after the initial invasion, after finding no nuclear weapons, after all of the money spent, after the massive loss of life, you wanted the media to make a big deal about Iraq having chemical weapons that everyone knew they had?

I found that pic too. Wake up Canada!

....er... uhm... I mean George Bush is the problem!!!

Canada is the major supplier of Uranium for Nuclear Weapons
http://akashmanews.com/2012/12/12/ca...clear-weapons/

wait, you're blaming me for asking an honest question?

got it. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

hmmmmmmmmmm:::::::::

On May 27, 2003, a secret Defense Intelligence Agency fact-finding mission in Iraq reported unanimously to intelligence officials in Washington that two trailers captured in Iraq by Kurdish troops "had nothing to do with biological weapons." The trailers had been a key part of the argument for the 2003 invasion; Secretary of State Colin Powell had told the United Nations Security Council, "We have firsthand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails. We know what the fermenters look like. We know what the tanks, pumps, compressors and other parts look like." The Pentagon team had been sent to investigate the trailers after the invasion.

The team of experts unanimously found "no connection to anything biological"; one of the experts told reporters that they privately called the trailers "the biggest sand toilets in the world." The report was classified, and the next day, the CIA publicly released the assessment of its Washington analysts that the trailers were "mobile biological weapons production." The White House continued to refer to the trailers as mobile biological laboratories throughout the year, and the Pentagon field report remained classified. It is still classified, but a Washington Post report of April 12, 2006 disclosed some of the details of the report.

According to the Post:
A spokesman for the DIA asserted that the team's findings were neither ignored nor suppressed, but were incorporated in the work of the Iraqi Survey Group, which led the official search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The survey group's final report in September 2004 – 15 months after the technical report was written – said the trailers were "impractical" for biological weapons production and were "almost certainly intended" for manufacturing hydrogen for weather balloons.[90] "[No] one in this country probably was more surprised than I when weapons of mass destruction were not used against our troops as they moved toward Baghdad." General Tommy Franks December 2, 2005.[91]

i wish.. that's a big rabbit hole

who is ignoring it ?

it's well known Sodamn Insane had chemical weapons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

hmmmmmmm:::::

In the run up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, the main rationale for the Iraq War was Hussein's Iraq failure to transparently and verifiably cease Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD - nuclear, biological and chemical weapons) programs, and to destroy all materials relating thereto, as mandated in United Nations Resolution 1441.

In February 2003 the then Secretary of State Colin Powell gave a presentation before the United Nations showing a computer generated view of what the laboratories looked like. He said Iraq had as many as 18 mobile facilities for making anthrax and botulinum toxin. "They can produce enough dry, biological agent in a single month to kill thousands upon thousands of people."

Powell based the assertion on accounts of at least four Iraqi defectors, including a chemical engineer who supervised one of the facilities and been present during production runs of a biological agent. [1] Following the invasion of Iraq two trailers were found and initially declared as the alleged mobile labs.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Facilities.jpg


Dick Cheney continued to claim trailers were mobile labs
September 14, 2003 "Same on biological weapons--we believe he'd developed the capacity to go mobile with his BW production capability because, again, in reaction to what we had done to him in '91. We had intelligence reporting before the war that there were at least seven of these mobile labs that he had gone out and acquired. We've, since the war, found two of them. They're in our possession today, mobile biological facilities that can be used to produce anthrax or smallpox or whatever else you wanted to use during the course of developing the capacity for an attack." Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC.
January 22, 2004 "In terms of the question what is there now, we know for example that prior to our going in that he had spent time and effort acquiring mobile biological weapons labs, and we're quite confident he did, in fact, have such a program. We've found a couple of semi trailers at this point which we believe were, in fact, part of that program." Dick Cheney, Morning Edition, NPR.


Powell retraction
“ I looked at the four [sources] that [the CIA] gave me for [the mobile bio-labs], and they stood behind them, ... Now it appears not to be the case that it was that solid. At the time I was preparing the presentation, it was presented to me as being solid.[21] April 3, 2004
I feel terrible ... [giving the speech] ... It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now.[4]" 2005

No conspiracy...

No matter what... Julian Assange will always be considered a true hero. The world really need more people like him.

answers to any more question re: the validity of the thread can be found here::

Media perception

In a study published in 2005,[121] a group of researchers assessed the effects reports and retractions in the media had on people?s memory regarding the search for WMD in Iraq during the 2003 Iraq War. The study focused on populations in two coalition countries (Australia and USA) and one opposed to the war (Germany). Results showed that US citizens generally did not correct initial misconceptions regarding WMD, even following disconfirmation; Australian and German citizens were more responsive to retractions. Dependence on the initial source of information led to a substantial minority of Americans exhibiting false memory that WMD were indeed discovered, while they were not. This led to three conclusions:
The repetition of tentative news stories, even if they are subsequently disconfirmed, can assist in the creation of false memories in a substantial proportion of people.
Once information is published, its subsequent correction does not alter people's beliefs unless they are suspicious about the motives underlying the events the news stories are about.
When people ignore corrections, they do so irrespective of how certain they are that the corrections occurred.
A poll conducted between June and September 2003 asked people whether they thought evidence of WMD had been discovered in Iraq since the war ended. They were also asked which media sources they relied upon. Those who obtained their news primarily from Fox News were three times as likely to believe that evidence of WMD had been discovered in Iraq than those who relied on PBS and NPR for their news, and one third more likely than those who primarily watched CBS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_an... ons_Recovered

Not in my eyes...sport.

Why is that?

http://i.imgur.com/A0Gslk7.png

"Those weapons of mass destruction gotta be somewhere ?" --George Bush

funny shit isn't it. 6:40 :Oh crap

And your point is?

We helped the Brits and other countries have nuclear bombs, but if they start dropping them on their own citizens that's another matter entirely.

This is not true really. The US did not "give him permission" to attack a foreign country. The US was aware of troop movements near the Kuwait border, but not their intentions. The US had no reason to believe they were about to invade the country and rape it's citizens.

Yep. We sure did. And it was brutal. I mean, it was embarrassing for Iraq and it's military.

This is not true and there is no double standard here. Countries have the legal right to bring their ships - and planes - within a certain distance of another country. This happens on a daily basis - For example, Russian ships docking in Cuba. Not a thing we can do about it. Not a thing anyone can do about this at all. No double standard; We do it to other countries and they do it to us.

I'm not sure what you mean here... During the 1980s we helped Afghanistan beat back the Russians and then.... They allowed 9/11 to happen? We helped them and then they turned around and fucked us in the ass?

well you share responsibility for what happened...you willfully gave him WMD to fight your battles...


yes you did:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait

On 25 July 1990, the U.S. Ambassador in Iraq, April Glaspie, asked the Iraqi high command to explain the military preparations in progress, including the massing of Iraqi troops near the border.
The American ambassador declared to her Iraqi interlocutor that Washington, ?inspired by the friendship and not by confrontation, does not have an opinion? on the disagreement between Kuwait and Iraq, stating "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts."
She also let Saddam Hussein know that the U.S. did not intend "to start an economic war against Iraq". These statements may have caused Saddam to believe he had received a diplomatic green light from the United States to invade Kuwait.


and you knew...you have been supporting him invade for over a decade then...you saw him pile 100.000-s of troops and heard him threaten and your answer was:
"we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts."
She also let Saddam Hussein know that the U.S. did not intend "to start an economic war against Iraq".

can you see the green light before the backstabbing? :1orglaugh



yup you and kuwait supported your best boy saddam to fight your fight, then when it was over you basically shafted him...a good lesson to all your future allies about what they can expect from you...good move :1orglaugh


o come on LOL...so russians come as close as CUBA !!!! how tolerant of you :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh come on man you fucking sanctioned cuba for decades over the same fucking thing you are doing to north korea...you impoverished an entire country because the russians wanted to (quote Rochard):

"Countries have the legal right to bring their ships - and planes - within a certain distance of another country. "

come on man...fess up eh? theres a huge double standard...



yes you made him do an "avghanistan" right in his back yard and then you turned your back on your financially worn out ally...dude you were allies :1orglaugh its not like he picked the #1 military in the world as his enemy for nothing LOL

you fucked him over and you know it...now you control all the oil...sure its a coincidence :1orglaugh

would it matter to you if an alquaida guy dropped a bomb or came down in a parachute and started whacking people left and right? nope...its the same thing...murdering civilians...

Wikileaks rocks!!

You read that as the US giving a green light to Iraq to invade another country, an ally of ours. I see this as the US Ambassador saying "We don't have an opinion [at this time]". Once the invasion took place, Kuwait was quickly over run, and the world saw what happened there, the US was sure to get involved.

"we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts."
"the U.S. did not intend "to start an economic war against Iraq".


oh I see...huge red light to attack kuwait above...yes how could saddam have taken it any other way??? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh "we have no opinion" obviously means DO NOT ATTACK! ...we have no intention of starting a war with iraq= we have intention...

i see now...:1orglaugh

you divided and conquered...you gave him the green light...then you put kuwait in your pocket and saddam at your mercy...nice...saudi was afraid of saddam because you gave him power, from then on you control saudi too...nice...now you control all the oil...

no wonder saddam was so pissed off at you LOL

The U.S. did not give power to Saddam...period. Iraq was never an ally to the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_... 80%93Iraq_war

quote:

"United States support for Iraq during the Iran?Iraq War, against post-revolutionary Iran, included several billion dollars worth of economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct involvement in warfare against Iran.[3][4]
Support from the U.S. for Iraq was not a secret and was frequently discussed in open session of the Senate and House of Representatives. On June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline, "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into the power it became",[5] and "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted?and frequently encouraged?the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq."[6]

I am completely aware of what we did or did not do regarding Iraq...and no we did not put Saddam in power...and no Iraq was never an Ally of the U.S. As far as assisting Iraq during their war with Iran we did assist...and we also assisted Iran because we did not want either side to win. The U.S. assists many countries every year that are not an ally of the U.S. End of story.

heres some pigshit then:




"The coup that brought the Ba'ath Party to power in 1963 was celebrated by the United States.

The CIA had a hand in it. They had funded the Ba'ath Party - of which Saddam Hussein was a young member - when it was in opposition.

US diplomat James Akins served in the Baghdad Embassy at the time. Mr. Akins said, "I knew all the Ba'ath Party leaders and I liked them".

"The CIA were definitely involved in that coup. We saw the rise of the Ba'athists as a way of replacing a pro-Soviet government with a pro-American one and you don't get that chance very often.

Sport...there is not anything that you can tell me about Iraq or the U.S. relationship with Iraq that I do not know...not a single thing.