Liberals, can you tell me if any of the following is untrue?

Question

1979 Vice President Saddam Hussein becomes president after President's resignation. Saddam
Immediately executes his political rivals.

1980 Iraq, under Saddam Hussein rule, invades Western Iran, claiming artillery attacks from Iran, along with a dispute over the waterways in the Persian Gulf. Although Iraq was initially successful, they were soon forced to withdraw from occupied Iran by early

1982. Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini vows to continue fighting until
Saddam's regime is toppled. Saddam resorts to the use of Chemical weapons, as a defensive. Iran is successful in capturing Iraqi territories over the next few years.

1987 Iran attacks Kuwaiti oil tanker in the Persian Gulf, sparking involvement from the United States, and several European nations.

1988 Iran is forced to accept the United Nations mandated cease-fire. Saddam uses this opportunity to use poison gas on Kurdish villages for their support of Iran during the war. Saddam rounds up Kurdish males and executes them, amounting to more than 200 thousand Kurdish deaths in 1988 alone. More than 300 thousand is the eventual death toll.

1990 Saddam invades Kuwait, claiming they are responsible for the ailing economy of Iraq and low oil prices. The U.N. imposes the first sanctions on Iraq.

1991 Persian Gulf war, between Iraq and a coalition of 32 nations begins. The U.S. led forces free Kuwait in approximately 4 days. The Kurd's and Shiite's attempt to overthrow Saddam, but they are not supported by the coalition, and are suppressed by Saddam. Iraq agrees to Coalition peace terms, including allowing
weapons inspectors full access to Iraqi facilities.

1993 U.S., Great Britain, and France, launch air strikes against Iraq, for breaking the agreement, and other provocations

1994 President Clinton authorizes bombing of Iraq, due mainly to Saddam's continued resistance of weapons inspectors.

1997 The United Nations Disarmament Commission reports it's conclusion that Iraq has continued to conceal information on biological chemical weapons, and missiles.

1998
(Jan) Saddam completely cuts off cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors.
(Feb) The U.N. negotiates a peacefull solution. Saddam continues to impeded U.N. Inspectors
(Oct) Saddam once again completely cuts off cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors.
(Nov) Iraq agrees to cooperate completely with U.N. weapons inspectors.

(Dec) United nations chief weapons inspector says that Saddam is not following through with his promise. United States and Great Britain launch air strikes on Iraq.

1999 Air strikes continue (for years under the Clinton Administration) in Iraq, mostly in the no fly zones.

2002 The United Nations updates the 11 year old sanctions against Iraq. The new sanctions are more restrictive of military and duel use equipment. United Weapons inspectors are allowed for the first time in 4 years into Iraq. Soon afterwards former weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, who received $400,000 for his 2000 documentary from an Iraqi businessman, is vocal about his opinion that no weapons violations occurred in Iraq.

2003
(Jan) Weapons inspectors discover and report a violation of 11 undeclared, empty chemical warheads in Iraq. The U.N. reports that Iraq has still not accepted the disarmament demanded upon them.

-----------------

I happen to know the above is true, as i researched it, and wrote it. I would like to understand why liberals say the things they do, if they realize the above is true.

Aren't you glad i had to explained that to you, so you can no longer feel righteous?

I understand that a 20+ year timeline is not going to have every detail in it, when it is this short. It is hard to get liberals to read half this sized text, so many details had to be left out.

If you feel something relevant was left out, that would show why liberals have opinions the way they do, please add them, as I am clueless to how they can think the way they do.

---------------------

empty warheads, ready to be filled.

Answer 1

ah yes, history as you see it, all well and good. one glaring omission:

September 11, 2001 ~ NYC... a group of Saudi nationals, alleged Al Qa'ida operatives, attack World Trade Center ten days after french intelligence advised CIA of the planned attack. what follows is shock and outrage, and a national uprising in america to find and neutralize Al Qa'ida and Usama bin Ladin in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, a mission soon abandoned as hopeless. "I'm not interested in Afghanistan anymore." President George W. Bush.

i see you are "not interested" in 3,000 dead americans in NYC either. personally, i'm still kinda p*ssed off about it.

by the way Saddam Hussein is dead. which of the 50,000+ dead iraqi women and children do you blame for his actions?

Answer 2

The way in which your legal system is failing, in that you have arbitrarily divided decisions rightly left to a jury, into the opinions of what you call 'liberals' and 'conservatives', is a cause of grave concern for those countries which have signed up for extradition treaties with you. There is a simple case here. A man shot another man. The question is whether he was in any way justified in doing so. Personally, I believe that having been ordered by the police to stop stalking the dead man, he is at the very least guilty of manslaughter, and it may be argued that he intended to murder his victim. In which case your country has a system of executing the guilty party. Where your collapsing political system comes into this is your own problem.

Answer 3

Explain this part to me, i might be simple, but it looks like it makes invading him 4 years ago a mistake. I have no trouble with the accuracy of what you are saying, but I am wondering why you put so much importance in the empty shells. As far as Clinton bombing him, it may be why he didn't have a technological ability and why he had no WMD's. why haven't we invaded Iran or N. Korea yet....and then compare your answer with Iraq

"2003
(Jan) Weapons inspectors discover and report a violation of 11 undeclared, empty chemical warheads in Iraq. The U.N. reports that Iraq has still not accepted the disarmament demanded upon them. "

"Ready to be filled"...hahahahah

Answer 4

1980-true but only after encouragement from the US, which continued up to the end of official hostilities between Iraq and Iran. The gassing of Kurdish villiagers? our idea, and fault after we along with Iran and Turkey made promises to the Kurds for autonomy if they would fight for the side that we dictated. we then recommened to saddam that he test those weapons on them, to show his strength. which is why he thought he could get away with invading Kuwait.

and you forgot to mention that the sanctions placed on Iraq killed more civilians than Saddams gassing of the kurds by several times over.

the rest is escalation. It may be true, but it is not all of the truth. its never that black and white.

edit: i have researched all of this as well, the middle east is the basis of my career, and im telling you that leaving out the US involvement and actual impact in your little timeline is misleading in the extreme. I know all of this and am still liberal and still have the beliefs that i do, because i look at the whole picture, not just the side that makes my country look good.

Answer 5

I remember all of these things you write about, these are things alot of libs dont even know about because half of these losers were playing with their video games and shitting their pants when all of that was going on, most of these liberal punks on here just got involed in politics in the last 3 or 4 years, they are brainwashed by a liberal media and support terrorism

Answer 6

11 empty chemical warheads found? And ready to be filled with WHAT?

Air?

You had me going there, Sparky. You were on a real ROLL of truth...until the last part--which is so full of ****--that even a 5th grader could see right through that cherry-picked piece of intelligence.

Answer 7

YOU CONVENIENTLY LEFT OUT THE PART ABOUT THE USA FINANCING THE IRAQIS(READ - SADDAM) TO FIGHT IRAN. IRAN HAD HELD US PRISONERS FOR 444 DAYS UNTIL REAGAN BECAME PREZ.
IRAN LET THEM GO, BUT REAGAN AND HIS REPUB CONS DECIDED TO HELP IRAQ TO FIGHT A WAR AGAINST IRAN. IT ENDED IN A STALEMATE. WHATEVER ELSE YOU SAID COULD VERY WELL BE TRUE, BUT IN TYPICAL NEO-CONSPEAK, YOU LEFT OUT THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF THE PUZZLE !! NICE TRY JERK !!

Answer 8

Don't get what you're trying to do, but good for you. Found some trivial facts. Finally got on internet eh? So good work.

But all that doesn't change the fact that we went to war with Iraq based on a single source(curveball) claim about WMD. We had other reasons to go to Iraq. But they only argued for WMD. I don't know why, but that's what they did. It is true our gov had 'regime change' as official Iraq policy.

Iraq War was horribly planed. Including debathafication that helped to fire up Sunni insurgencies. Bush administration opposed using Saddam's old army. So we disbanded old Iraqi army. Putting thousands of armed, trained soldiers on streets without jobs. And here comes US troops.

I wonder what those Iraqi soldiers thought of US troops after getting fired. Wave at them? Or set up some IEDs?

Sure Iraq is now 'free' and 'democratic' nation. But we installed Shiite dominant gov in Iraq. Who else is Shiite? Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and other 'terrorists & evils.' I don't know about you, but fellow Shiites might come together one day. Iraq is 'free.' Free to choose its enemies. No one can guarantee Iraq will be our best friend forever.

As Rumsfeld said 'people are free to committ crimes, make mistakes.' May be Iraq will one day choose to committ crimes against the US. They're free right?

This is something that worried Jordanian king as well. And many others. Look out for this new 'Shiite Crescent' in Middle East.

WMD is a booger compares to future challeges lie ahead.

It ain't gona help you when you pick your boogers to clear sinus when you contracted AIDS. You can pick all you want. It won't get rid of AIDS.

You can search for Osama, WMDs but when you got big volt of lightning charging up right over your head it might be good to get up and look around, see what's happening in the sky.

Answer 9

I think a simple amount of research could tell you whether they're true or not. Why do you have to waste the time of a specific political opinion group to do your research for you? They're also really specific questions for you to be unsure about. You just came up with them out of nowhere and decided to ask a political opinion group to find out whether or not they are factual? That's nuts, man. Maybe you're crazy.

Answer 10

just did very very quick scan, there are facts in there. There are things missing.
As I can't say yes it is 100% accurate or complete, do you have a different question. What's your point?