A203D said:
" I've read enough of the replies back and forth that I really don't want to engage in what seems to be discussions slipping more and more off topic. Have a good one." You've engaged me to try and prove yourself the moderator who lost a lot of ground to me. I'm not sorry that hasn't worked out for you, but you chose this path, not me. Let me remind me of what you said: Off the mark with this "I only ask since you keep referring people to Vice" I gave multiple links, but you ignored them, including the part where the United Nations did not sanction an invasion of Iraq because you were trying so hard to impress the moderators. You saw that guy lost so much ground you went into support his chemical weapons post, in which you then ignored the article I posted. You then tried to propose a conspiracy theory that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction: You are correct I didn't follow those links. The only one I read was the times one (it is also listed high in the results when searching Iraq Chemical Weapons Program) it was pretty long "If you tell me exactly where and when you are going to look for something, chances are I am going to be able to hide it from you." The times article only reinforces this point, it is pages upon pages telling stories about soldiers being injured by chemical weapons that were hidden and later discovered. How is it that the inspectors in the 90's missed all those ... oh could it be because they were buried in many cases i.e. hidden. Surely I am not the only one that remembers the news stories in the 90s about UN inspectors being denied access to Iraqi facilities time and again. This is what you said, then you ignored the article I posted about chemical weapons: "Participants in the chemical weapons discoveries said the United States suppressed knowledge of finds for multiple reasons, including that the government bristled at further acknowledgment it had been wrong. “They needed something to say that after Sept. 11 Saddam used chemical rounds,” Mr. Lampier said. “And all of this was from the pre-1991 era.” You should read the whole article, its quite insightful. Either way, an invasion of Iraq was not sanctioned and US actions were illegal. I did read the article and it only reinforced the idea that chemical weapons were hidden from inspectors sometime around when their chemical weapons program was supposed to have been dismantled. According to the Times article it was mostly Mustard Gas rounds but it also mentioned Sarin. Given the US's odd stance of burying their head in the sand about injuries sustained while disposing of these HIDDEN munitions, it is hard to say how much was unreported or what else they may have come across. As for the part of the article you quoted Lampier could be right but is for sure speculating so I'm not giving that too much weight. "Don't bother responding I was initially trying to help you out by trying to remedy what i thought may be a misinterpretation of your use of "covid hoax" but you didn't bother to answer that." Well the moderator felt threatend so he played the warning card so I couldn't talk about it, which you already knew, hence why you have coming running to his defence when you saw he lost so much ground. Is it my fault you chose to reply to a comment that you were never involved with in the first place? On this I can say you are correct, it is not your fault I chose to get involved. I cannot say if they felt threatened or not and to be frank I don't give a rat's ass if they were. The entire reason I responded was again trying to help you out if there had in fact been some kind of misinterpretation of your use of the phrase "covid hoax". That clarification is what I desired from the onset. It is unfortunate that you never gave me the clarification and put it off for a "later" that until now seemed likely to never come. The whole paragraph about the chemical weapons was not defense of Perma but more along the lines of recognition. In my experience it is pretty rare for someone to acknowledge Iraq's chemical weapons program. By the end they got very good at making Mustard Gas, good enough in fact that leaky munitions were still able to screw soldiers up for life even after being buried for a decade or longer (as detailed in the Times article you think I didn't read ... interesting since my second reply included a copy-paste straight from the aforementioned article). Saddam was a bit of a monster (from my perspective) I won't list out all the times he used the fruits of his countries chemical weapons program but leave you with this one if you are unaware: Halabja massacre (recognized by some as an attempt at genocide) The incident was the largest chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history, killing between 3,200 and 5,000 people and injuring 7,000 to 10,000 more, most of them civilians. Preliminary results from surveys of the affected region showed an increased rate of cancer and birth defects in the years afterward.You speculate that the real reason the coalition went into Iraq was for the oil and you could very well be correct. We went in waving the banner of stomping on terrorism but it seems they were too far north if they wanted the country responsible for 9/11. |
