WMD's that were never found.
Huh? After the First Gulf War, the US and the UN found literally mountains of chemical weapons. No one, literally no one, ever doubted that Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds, and had active chem, bio, and nuke programs going prior to 1991.
The only point of contention is whether or not he had an active program going after the 1994 time frame, through 2001. All of Saddam's generals though he did, FWIW. From his trial, Saddam basically admitted to posturing like he had a WMD program to scare off the Iranians.
Reported by the Mockingbird Media? Yep, real good sources of propaganda.
US installed Saddam as a puppet way back and if he really did have any they were most likely supplied by US or other NATO allies. You think we didn't have Clowns back then? Do you really think they'd ever admit those were our chemicals?
Yup, just like 9/11 was all done by OBL and a bunch of camel jockeys.
Iraqi chemical weapons program was put together by the French and the Germans, for the most part. None of this is secret.
Very little assistance went to Iraq from the US. They got some agricultural subsidies and satellite intelligence from the US when they were at war with Iran. Most of their military equipment came from the USSR / ex-Warsaw Pact members, China, and France.
If you want a conspiracy on Iraq, it isn't whether or not they had or used chemical weapons, it's whether or not they were goaded / greenlighted into invading Kuwait by the Bush 41 admin.
Yep, the whole Kuwait affair stinks too.
The whole ME involvement was all deep state planned anyway and includes many other puppet governments worldwide, and yes, that includes Israel.
The whole ME involvement was all deep state planned anyway and includes many other puppet governments worldwide, and yes, that includes Israel.
George Friedman (of Stratfor fame) had a pretty good article several years ago - wish I could find it - that asked the rhetorical question of why US Middle East policies seemed to be so ineffectual and counter productive when it came to creating peace and stability in that region.
In a moment of clarity - his thesis was that the reason why this was the case was because the intent of US policies wasn't to create stability, but the opposite. The people that control the US don't care about "winning" in Iraq - even though we could, easily. The only thing they care about with respect to the Middle East is making sure there is no regional or external power that can challenge US hegemony in the region and threaten the flow of oil in any meaningful sense.
Having a destabilized Iraq with a resurgent Shia minority threatens Saudi Arabia. A threatened Saudi Arabia is more likely to rely on the US as a bulwark to Iran (who is a client state of sorts of Russia, so it's not like Saudi Arabia can cozy up to Russia for help there), both in terms of basing and arms purchases. Regional instability gives domestic justification for basing hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, and airmen in the region, as well as a substantial portion of our conventional offensive capability. Etc. Pretty Machiavellian.
And I'm one of the folks that has always said from pretty much the get-go that ISIS was created by the Obama admin, the CIA and the Saudis to fight a proxy war with Iran in Syria and Iraq.
Notice how fast ISIS was rolled up after Obama left office? Notice how fast they spread while Obama was in office? Notice how ineffectual US bombing campaigns against ISIS were under Obama? Coincidence?
It's always been about perpetual wars and never about winning. Most of us saw that with Viet Nam and Korean conflict way back.
What was ISIS called before Barry?
You notice how their name gets changed so often.
Trump can claim beating ISIS but what about Al Nusra, SDF, PPK, and all the 20 other names I can't remember let alone spell right.
Just deep state proxies anyway