Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 31

Thread: There were chemical weapons in Iraq after all

  1. #16
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,213
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis View Post
    Rationale? You mean the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud? Judith Miller taking leaks from Cheney which Cheney used to justify his position? Curveball? Ahmed Chalabi? Meetings in Prague with Mohammed Atta? Blairs forty five minutes ?

    The fact that Bush and Rumsfeld concealed this intel because GHWB had the receipts for what they found? No I don't accept that. Mate.
    Ask him for some evidence that Saddam was producing chemical weapons. He knows that was the major pretext for US involvement, not a bunch of pre-91 stocks. Don't get dragged off course & into arguments on side points. Just keep hammering away for evidence & see what he can turn up. Should be interesting.


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  2. #17
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    The very fact that he still had chemical stocks is a violation of his terms of surrender. THAT IS NOT IN DISPUTE.

    And old mustard gas will kill you just as good as new mustard gas.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 16 Oct 14, at 14:47.
    Chimo

  3. #18
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis View Post
    Rationale? You mean the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud? Judith Miller taking leaks from Cheney which Cheney used to justify his position? Curveball? Ahmed Chalabi? Meetings in Prague with Mohammed Atta? Blairs forty five minutes ?
    The smoking gun are chemical artillery shell being maintained in Saddam's arsenal. New development of the Al Samoud chemical delivery SSM. And last, Saddam's ring of fire and our signal capture of his WMD release orders.

    In other words, it was Saddam who convinced us, NOT Bush, Cheney, nor Blair.
    Chimo

  4. #19
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,007
    IMO there were many good reasons for removing saddam. the "imminent threat" of WMDs really was not one of them.

    one of the reasons why this was hushed up was precisely because a bunch of pre-91 stocks really did not help the Bush Administration's case that Saddam was actively making/procuring WMDs.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  5. #20
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Our nukes are 40 years old. Does anyone think that we can't use them right now?
    Chimo

  6. #21
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,007
    our well-maintained, secured, occasionally-upgraded nukes, no problem.

    "filthy, rusty or corroded" shells that leak and were stored in plastic don't indicate to me an active WMD program.

    that's not to say that these weapons weren't dangerous-- they certainly were to the men and women whom handled them-- but simply put, what we discovered there was NOT the same as what was being described by the Bush Administration to explain why it was so urgent that we needed to act -now-.

    to the point where we couldn't wait for Canadian support, or even for our own forces to be positioned properly.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  7. #22
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Our nukes are 40 years old. Does anyone think that we can't use them right now?
    radiation damage

  8. #23
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    "filthy, rusty or corroded" shells that leak and were stored in plastic don't indicate to me an active WMD program.
    You forget the period. Just right after 11 September. Hell, even I could imagine of spraying blue foam over the pallets. Put it on a frieghter, send it to New York harbour and put a couple of bombs beside the pallet to rip the things apart, at the very least contimating NY Harbour.
    Chimo

  9. #24
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,007
    You forget the period. Just right after 11 September. Hell, even I could imagine of spraying blue foam over the pallets. Put it on a frieghter, send it to New York harbour and put a couple of bombs beside the pallet to rip the things apart, at the very least contimating NY Harbour.
    yeah, it's in the realm of the possible...but probable? NK, Libya, Syria, Iran could have all done that as well.

    hell, every country listed had significantly greater capability than Saddam's Iraq in the chemical weapons regard. and of course, NK and Iran had and have more in the way of nuke terrorism capability.

    i understand that some of this is 20/20 hindsight: there was a real intelligence failure on the status of Saddam's programs. but there's no doubt in my mind that the Administration exaggerated many of the intel community's very careful, cautious modifiers to make the case for war, and that the primary geopolitical reason why they wanted to remove Saddam was not so much an imminent threat from WMDs but because they really believed they could remake the Middle East.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  10. #25
    Regular
    Join Date
    06 Aug 14
    Location
    New Zealand.
    Posts
    87
    We'll the Wonkette puts it better than I could.

    The Revisionist Thing
    Rightwing Reads NYT Headline, Declares Bush Was Right About Everything
    Share0 Tweet1 Share3
    by Doktor Zoom
    Oct 16 2:28 pm 2014


    As we noted Wednesday, the New York Times has discovered that, after invading Iraq to keep Saddam Hussein from killing everybody with his huge Weapons of Mass Destruction program, which definitely included an ongoing program of building new chemical and nuclear weapons, the Bush administration did everything it could do to cover up the actual chemical weapons — relics from the Iran-Iraq war — that they did find.

    Obviously, the take-away for a lot of rightwing bloggers is easy: Suck it, liberals, Bush was right about WMDs in Iraq! Which kind of ignores the obvious question: If George Bush was so totally vindicated by the discovery of some old chemical weapons in Iraq, why is it that we’re only learning about it 10 years later? Where was the great big “Mission Accomplished” banner for that one?

    As a case study of how wingnuts are spinning the five or so paragraphs they actually read of C.J. Chivers’s story in the Times, let us examine this piece from the still-toxic remnants of the New York Sun, which explains that the Times story is, in reality, “best viewed as journalism’s longest correction,” because obviously the paper got it so thoroughly wrong with “all these charges about how President George W. Bush and his camarilla lied about the danger of Saddam’s chemical arsenal.” That’s apparently a set of now-disproven charges that President George W. Bush and his camarilla were also party to, seeing as how Bush himself made those high-larious jokes about the WMDS he couldn’t find.



    Not that Bush — or more likely, Sith Lord Cheney — isn’t above coming forward in the next few days and also retroactively crowing that they were absolutely right, and that those rusty 155 mm shells and leaky rockets were definitely the droids we were looking for.

    Just to review, Chivers’s piece is not primarily about whether Bush Was Right anyway, although he’s quite clear that one of the main reasons for the cover-up was that the administration didn’t want to publicize the nature of the chemical weapons that U.S. forces unearthed — literally — in Iraq. They were old, often inoperable leftovers from the Iran-Iraq war, not a one of them newer than 1991, and most of them were weapons of U.S. design and European manufacture. The mobile chemical weapons labs and nuclear programs that Bush told us were definitely the reason to invade simply were not there, and so the existence of the old but often still-lethal relics was hushed up — often at the cost of poor medical treatment for injuries to the soldiers who found them and blew them up as part of the effort to dispose of conventional explosives.

    Even the Pentagon was invested in the narrative that if there was no active chemical weapons program in Iraq, there simply were no chemical weapons, and therefore there was no need to warn ordnance disposal teams that they might come across the things, or to prepare medical teams to treat them. In some cases, soldiers were denied Purple Hearts for their injuries because the Pentagon didn’t consider mustard-gas burns incurred in digging up Saddam’s obsolete stockpiles as combat-related injuries.

    Ah, but on the right, here’s the executive summary of Chivers’s exposť, again from that New York Sun piece. What the Times was really saying was:

    “Dang, we’re angry at Mr. Bush for failing to tell us we found the weapons that he had warned were there and that the Times insisted weren’t.”

    To cover its own bumbling of the story, the Times tries to blame Mr. Bush for the fact that a number of our heroic GIs were injured by poison from the weapons the Times had claimed were a fiction.

    Never mind that they were injured because the military was not warning them or their medics about the danger. Or that we never heard Bush crowing about being right, surely the greatest act of self-denial in his presidency.

    Also, seeing this story as a vindication of the Chickenhawk War also misses another point: If we went to war in Iraq to get rid of these pre-1991 chemical weapons — a claim that the Pentagon already refuted in 2006 — why did the military do such a piss-poor job of destroying Saddam’s old chemical weapons? For instance, somewhere during the nine-year occupation of Iraq, maybe we should have done something about the stockpile at Al Muthanna, which we knew was

    the site where the UN ordered Saddam Hussein to dispose of his declared chemical munitions in the first place. Those weapons that could not safely be destroyed were sealed and left to decay on their own, which they did. The site was neither “active” nor “clandestine” – it was a declared munitions dump being used to hold the corroded weapons which Western powers themselves had in most cases helped Saddam procure.

    You might think, if that was really our Golden Purpose for invading Iraq, that complex might have been addressed. Instead, we ignored it because the mission shifted to fighting the insurgency that resulted from our stupid invasion, and which evolved into ISIS, which now has taken possession of the Al Muthanna site. The chemical weapons there aren’t especially good as WMDs, but in the hands of those sadistic assholes, they certainly can do terrible things as IEDs and in small-scale attacks. Let’s blame Obama, OK?

    To summarize: We didn’t find the massive WMD program the war was meant to destroy, but we found some chemical weapons, like a SWAT raid that was supposed to bust a heroin ring but instead killed a family’s dog and arrested a teenager for his pot stash. So let us be glad: Bush was right, and the Times owes him an apology and should probably reinstate Judith Miller as their chief foreign correspondent — yes, the NY Sun calls for that, too.

    Maybe George W. Bush should also apologize to himself for all those times he said that we found no chemical weapons because of flawed pre-war intelligence. Obviously, he was much smarter than even he gave himself credit for.

    [New York Times (really, read the whole thing) / New York Sun / The Intercept / Salon]

  11. #26
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,986
    Ah, 9/11 and chemical weapons.

    I remember the Halloween of 2001 in my neighborhood. Some kids thought it would be funny to throw some flour at each other. Right between a German school and a US church.

    7th Army HQ - next door - moved in their local CBRN unit which spent a full eight hours decontaminating the road.

  12. #27
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    yeah, it's in the realm of the possible...but probable?
    11 September. So, yes, not only probable. An intolerable strategic threat.

    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    NK, Libya, Syria, Iran could have all done that as well.
    None of them signed terms of surrender and then proceeded to violate those terms.
    Chimo

  13. #28
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    You forget the period. Just right after 11 September. Hell, even I could imagine of spraying blue foam over the pallets. Put it on a frieghter, send it to New York harbour and put a couple of bombs beside the pallet to rip the things apart, at the very least contimating NY Harbour.
    IIRC, those shells were buried and the buried shells accounted as "destroyed" or "disposed". Perhaps the men of Iraqi Army didn't want to risk their healths by digging them up and properly disposed them? I can see how they would tell Saddam and his cronies that they were destroyed without actually being destroyed because nobody in their right mind would expose themselves willingly to take care of those munitions. If that is the case, I don't really see how those shells actually constitute a violation of the terms of surrender.

  14. #29
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    IIRC, those shells were buried and the buried shells accounted as "destroyed" or "disposed".
    The same methodology Saddam used to "destroy" his nuclear weapons program.
    Chimo

  15. #30
    Regular
    Join Date
    23 Jul 14
    Posts
    54

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Chemical weapons used in Syria?
    By citanon in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 20 Mar 13,, 19:11
  2. Chemical Weapons.........Ready for anhiliation?
    By alokindia2020 in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03 May 06,, 21:25
  3. Terrorists' chemical weapons
    By Major_Armstrong in forum International Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 23 Apr 04,, 18:50
  4. 'Chemical weapons' found in Iraq
    By Ironduke in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 20 Jan 04,, 23:45

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •