That invasion of Iraq for the Iraq War (second Persian Gulf War) didn't start over night.  If you look at the history, it took a while from calls for U.N. resolutions on it in 2002 to US and British forces gathering up on the Iraq border, GWB ultimatum in March 2003 and subsequent follow-up action. 

Regarding GWB's statements about being primarily concerned about Saddam Hussein having nuclear weapons, please provide links to articles on that regard.  Am genuinely interested in your information source(s). 

Without trying to cop out and kick the can down the road, Syria is a MUCH more delicate situation than Iraq.  Syria is the prime example that I see where a MUCH bigger war could result from big brother stepping in when they side with a little brother.

Iraq has a nuclear power plant.  There was a time when Iraq was taking some of the nuclear material being purchased for power and weaponizing it until Israel bombed the processing plant.  That was in the early 80s.

The biggest nuclear threat the US was concerned about regarding Iraq was dirty bombs.  Terrorists could have been provided radiological material to be spread via conventional explosives (suicide or truck bomb) causing mass contamination of a city.

Iraq has NEVER tested a nuclear device. Bush did NOT state he cared about Iraq using nukes.  The threat was much less advanced than that.

Iraq has NEVER tested a nuclear device. Bush did NOT state he cared about Iraq using nukes.  The threat was much less advanced than that.

Bush said it
Because Omni says so


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Iraq has a nuclear power plant.  1) There was a time when Iraq was taking some of the nuclear material being purchased for power and weaponizing it until Israel bombed the processing plant.  That was in the early 80s.

2) The biggest nuclear threat the US was concerned about regarding Iraq was dirty bombs.  Terrorists could have been provided radiological material to be spread via conventional explosives (suicide or truck bomb) causing mass contamination of a city.

3) Iraq has NEVER tested a nuclear device. Bush did NOT state he cared about Iraq using nukes.  The threat was much less advanced than that.

1) Thanks!  Didn't know about the Israel bombing in the early 80s.  Interesting.  I'll have to read more about that aspect.

2) Yeah.  It was my understanding that chemical was the primary concern, like the scene in Jarhead where they have the drill to put on the protective gear.  That movie cracks me up BTW, at least parts of it.  But also that the dirty bombs was a big concern.  That in the post Gulf War investigations, they found proof of development of radiological weapons that involved packing bombs or missile warheads with radioactive material and the conventional warhead used as a method of dispersion, much like chemical weapons.  That the UN knew about that program and Iraq hid further development of those weapons to avoid further sanctions.

3) That is my understanding.  That Iraq didn't have working (developed and tested) nuclear weapon capability.  As in a "weapon that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions" as opposed to a device that may contain nuclear material. 

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-11-13/local/me-2688_1_radiological-weapon

Bush said it
Because Omni says so


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But was it 97%?

A very brief history lesson first:

Since the creation of Israel, Israel and Iraq have been at odds with each other. Technically, Iraq had been in a continuous state of war with Israel since 1948 until the second Iraq war. Iraq sent armies to fight Israel in 1948 and 1967. Iraq also sent in troops to help Syria's armed forces in the Yom Kippur War in 1973. In 1981 Israel being afraid of another attack from Iraq, bombed the nuclear reactor in Iraq that was still under construction, stating it was a threat to national security. In 1990 Saddam threatened to use nerve gas on Israel. Then during the Persian Gulf war in 1991 Iraq fired Scud missiles at Israel.

Let us not forget that a big part of removing the chemical weapons from Iraq was to also protect Israel from a chemical weapons attack (attack using WMD's). It was not made as big a deal about this because if the thought were to invade Iraq to save Israel, Iraq could have just as easily started shooting missiles with chemical weapons into Israel to provoke a war before we were ready to invade. Once other Arab countries sees Israel attacking Iraq (doesn't matter if Israel was defending itself) it was felt the other Arab countries would enter the war unprovoked and come to Iraq's aid. It is the same reason why the US convinced Israel not to enter the war after Iraq started firing missiles into Israel during the Persian Gulf War. This is the reason Saddam started firing missiles into Israel even tho the war was strictly between the coalition and Iraq. He was hoping Israel would defend itself and the other Arab nations would come to the defense of Iraq.

Just saying.... 

Iraq has a nuclear power plant.  There was a time when Iraq was taking some of the nuclear material being purchased for power and weaponizing it until Israel bombed the processing plant.  That was in the early 80s.

The biggest nuclear threat the US was concerned about regarding Iraq was dirty bombs.  Terrorists could have been provided radiological material to be spread via conventional explosives (suicide or truck bomb) causing mass contamination of a city.

Iraq has NEVER tested a nuclear device. Bush did NOT state he cared about Iraq using nukes.  The threat was much less advanced than that.

This is absolutely correct. However, I do remember Bush stating early on that he was concerned about Iraq's nuclear program, which was in its infancy at the time and and many decades from being able to construct a nuclear warhead. And I remember him stating that if Saddam ever developed a nuclear warhead he would be a huge threat to Israel and his neighbors. Which means the main threat was the fact that Iraq had a nuclear program at all. The thought of him getting and using a nuclear device was as horrid as the little fat man in NK doing the same once he develops a missile and warhead capable of reaching the US/SK/Japan.

However, the main concern as stated by Bush and the administration was the use of chemical weapons (they commonly interchanged the words chemical weapons and WMD's back then).

A very brief history lesson first:

Since the creation of Israel, Israel and Iraq have been at odds with each other. Technically, Iraq had been in a continuous state of war with Israel since 1948 until the second Iraq war. Iraq sent armies to fight Israel in 1948 and 1967. Iraq also sent in troops to help Syria's armed forces in the Yom Kippur War in 1973. In 1981 Israel being afraid of another attack from Iraq, bombed the nuclear reactor in Iraq that was still under construction, stating it was a threat to national security. In 1990 Saddam threatened to use nerve gas on Israel. Then during the Persian Gulf war in 1991 Iraq fired Scud missiles at Israel.

Let us not forget that a big part of removing the chemical weapons from Iraq was to also protect Israel from a chemical weapons attack (attack using WMD's). It was not made as big a deal about this because if the thought were to invade Iraq to save Israel, Iraq could have just as easily started shooting missiles with chemical weapons into Israel to provoke a war before we were ready to invade. Once other Arab countries sees Israel attacking Iraq (doesn't matter if Israel was defending itself) it was felt the other Arab countries would enter the war unprovoked and come to Iraq's aid. It is the same reason why the US convinced Israel not to enter the war after Iraq started firing missiles into Israel during the Persian Gulf War. This is the reason Saddam started firing missiles into Israel even tho the war was strictly between the coalition and Iraq. He was hoping Israel would defend itself and the other Arab nations would come to the defense of Iraq.

Just saying.... 

Hey. . . start your own thread. . . [kidding, kidding] 

Hmm, more history to look up.  Not sure if I mentioned last time we chatted, but the history of Israel, what happened leading up to, the decades to centuries of what came before in that region, etc is something I was always interested in.  One of those things that I perceived as a situation where modern people on each side just knew they hated the other side, but many may not know the full history.  Just that hate of the other side was taught and that's how it was. 

The SCUDs into Israel and calls for restraint were aspects that I recall though.  That was also another example of the case where little brother being the reason for big brother on both sides stepping in and causing larger scale conflict/war. 

The SCUDs into Israel and calls for restraint were aspects that I recall though.  That was also another example of the case where little brother being the reason for big brother on both sides stepping in and causing larger scale conflict/war.

When I was around 10 I was beat up by 3 or 4 older kids. They were probably 16/17. I won't get into why. When my oldest brother, who just came back from his stint in the Army, saw what happened he went out and beat the crap out of those other kids. My oldest brother is 13 years older than I am making him around 23 at the time. 

This is absolutely correct. However, I do remember Bush stating early on that he was concerned about Iraq's nuclear program, which was in its infancy at the time and and many decades from being able to construct a nuclear warhead. And I remember him stating that if Saddam ever developed a nuclear warhead he would be a huge threat to Israel and his neighbors. Which means the main threat was the fact that Iraq had a nuclear program at all. The thought of him getting and using a nuclear device was as horrid as the little fat man in NK doing the same once he develops a missile and warhead capable of reaching the US/SK/Japan.

This

Hell North Korea has a literal fuckton of chemical weapons.  But nukes are the one that cross the line for us. We don't want people to get nukes.  Chemical weapons will always be easy to make.

Not sure why we need to baby Israel....they are their own country if they felt the threat from iraq they can fight their own war.  inb4 we need to protect them cause they are jews....that argument is getting old.  Same as apologizing for slavery.

1) This

Hell North Korea has a literal fuckton of chemical weapons.  But nukes are the one that cross the line for us. We don't want people to get nukes.  Chemical weapons will always be easy to make.

2) Not sure why we need to baby Israel....they are their own country if they felt the threat from iraq they can fight their own war.  inb4 we need to protect them cause they are jews....that argument is getting old.  Same as apologizing for slavery.

1) What Inspector stated is NOT that you said previously regarding Bush's concern about nuclear weapons.  Just pointing out that concern about Saddam having nuclear weapons is WAY different than concerns about a program that it in it's infancy and showing evidence of growing. 

2) Now, the reasons behind supporting Israel is one that I always wondered about.  However, not knowing as much as I should about the history and such, that is something that I will continue to wonder as I read about it on my own, which really isn't very much.  Heck, there are many situations where I often wonder why the US sticks their nose in when we seemingly have a difficult time taking care of problems in the homeland.  That said, international politics is something that is way above my head. 

1) What Inspector stated is NOT that you said previously regarding Bush's concern about nuclear weapons.  Just pointing out that concern about Saddam having nuclear weapons is WAY different than concerns about a program that it in it's infancy and showing evidence of growing. 

2) Now, the reasons behind supporting Israel is one that I always wondered about.  However, not knowing as much as I should about the history and such, that is something that I will continue to wonder as I read about it on my own, which really isn't very much.  Heck, there are many situations where I often wonder why the US sticks their nose in when we seemingly have a difficult time taking care of problems in the homeland.  That said, international politics is something that is way above my head.

Same reason why we care about north korea.  Its not so much their nukes now but their nukes in their future.  The ones that can threaten us.  We try to stop all programs before they get a foothold like Iran.  They don't have to be 10 days from a nuke before we start to care...

1) Thanks!  Didn't know about the Israel bombing in the early 80s.  Interesting.  I'll have to read more about that aspect.

Look for "Osirak"

They blew up something else in another strike a few years back, just recall satellite photos of the before and after.  The building site was quickly bulldozed over.

Where did Syria obtain those weapons?  Some INTEL reports saw trucks moving something at night from Iraq to Syria before the US invaded.  Those trucks' contents were never identified or located once arriving in Syria.  Hmmm...

Sarin is one of the easiest chemical weapons to make and use, Sadam had a bunch of it and I'm sure sold, gave and taught Syria how to make it. It is what was used this year .

1) What Inspector stated is NOT that you said previously regarding Bush's concern about nuclear weapons.  Just pointing out that concern about Saddam having nuclear weapons is WAY different than concerns about a program that it in it's infancy and showing evidence of growing. 

2) Now, the reasons behind supporting Israel is one that I always wondered about.  However, not knowing as much as I should about the history and such, that is something that I will continue to wonder as I read about it on my own, which really isn't very much.  Heck, there are many situations where I often wonder why the US sticks their nose in when we seemingly have a difficult time taking care of problems in the homeland.  That said, international politics is something that is way above my head.

1) Thank you. I know he still doesn't get what I was trying to say because he quoted only part of my post for his own selfish, self centered millennial use.

2) The whole history is short and interesting.

Sarin is one of the easiest chemical weapons to make and use, Sadam had a bunch of it and I'm sure sold, gave and taught Syria how to make it. It is what was used this year .

Sarin doesn't last but a few weeks, dependig on the purity of the component chemicals.

If the precursors were shipped from Iraq, then Syria could have stored them this long before mixing.

Precursors are tracked by most countries because they can be misused.

For what it's worth:

Anonymous warns world to ‘prepare’ for World War 3

http://nypost.com/2017/05/08/anonymous-warns-world-to-prepare-for-world-war-3/  [note: has autoplay video of the message]

Excerpt:

The infamous hacktivist group Anonymous has released a chilling new video — urging people across the globe to “prepare” for World War 3 — as the US and North Korea continue to move “strategic pieces into place” for battle.

“All the signs of a looming war on the Korean peninsula are surfacing,” the group says in the ominous six-minute clip, posted on YouTube over the weekend.

Using their signature Guy Fawkes character, the hackers make several claims about recent military movements in the region — and alleged warnings made by Japan and South Korea about imminent nuclear attacks from the North — as they deliver their frightening prophecy.

“Watching as each country moves strategic pieces into place,” the organization says, in its notorious robotic voice. “But unlike past world wars, although there will be ground troops, the battle is likely to be fierce, brutal and quick. It will also be globally devastating, both on environmental and economical levels.”

Look for "Osirak"

They blew up something else in another strike a few years back, just recall satellite photos of the before and after.  The building site was quickly bulldozed over.

Thanks!   

I'll look that up. 

1) Thank you. I know he still doesn't get what I was trying to say because he quoted only part of my post for his own selfish, self centered millennial use.

2) The whole history is short and interesting.

1) Yeah, I know.  That's why I didn't respond.  Just not worth the effort.  Not really sure why I responded to the post before that.  I guess I earn myself a :facepalm:

2) Sure is.  But also one of those things where I often wonder about how much the account that I am reading or watching is slanted by "story teller's bias".  Well, that's always going to be the case.  It's just that the issues, conflicts, who did what to who when, etc seems to damn complicated. 

This

Hell North Korea has a literal fuckton of chemical weapons.  But nukes are the one that cross the line for us. We don't want people to get nukes.  Chemical weapons will always be easy to make.

Not sure why we need to baby Israel....they are their own country if they felt the threat from iraq they can fight their own war.  inb4 we need to protect them cause they are jews....that argument is getting old.  Same as apologizing for slavery.

1) Chemical weapons, especially the more lethal ones, aren't really that easy to make or store. Easier than a nuke, ok, but still rather difficult. If it were easy every terrorist group in the world would have and use them regularly.

2) The uninformed hoi polloi with their, "baby Israel" argument is what's getting old.

First off, what we get from Israel in return is a giant advantage strategically. We have hundreds of bases all across the world that I don't see you complaining about. They are (or were until muslim obama) our only reliable ally in the entire middle East. We spend billions on T&E each year, they are an invaluable part of that because they are the tip of the sword in providing real world experience.

Second, the amount of real world tactical and technological knowledge that we get from them is amazing. Beyond basically inventing modern urban anti-terrorism warfare tactics (which they train and trained our armed forces in, especially our special forces), they also provide a ton of electronic warfare technology, drone tech, defensive missile tech, etc. Whatever we do for Israel, they are virtually the only country (maybe Japan could be a distant second) that provides so much in return.

Lastly, the US hasn't put one troop on the ground or fired one missile, etc. for Israel since its birth, so not sure what you are thinking about when you say we "baby Israel," because they are Jews. Every war from 1948 onward the Israelis were on their own, except to say the U.S. provided strategic leverage so that the Russians didn't get involved, which is true. When they felt a real threat from Iraq, they did fight their own war. (If you want to count the patriot missile system, I suppose you could, but that is certainly no more or less than we do for other allies. Besides, the Israeli's played a large part in its later development, the US bankrolls that development.)

In short, you seem to just be talking out your behind, and doing it poorly.

inb4 we need to protect them cause they are jews...

This statement sounds racist to me.

You are nothing but a troll.