Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons
Wednesday, October 15, 2014 6:15 AM
AURAPTOR
America loves a winner!
Quote: The United States had invaded Iraq to reduce the risk of the weapons of mass destruction that it presumed Mr. Hussein still possessed. And after years of encountering and handling Iraq’s old chemical arms, it had retroactively informed the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in 2009 that it had recovered more than 4,500 chemical weapons. But it had not shared this data publicly. And as it prepared to withdraw, old stocks set loose after the invasion were still circulating. Al Muthanna had still not been cleaned up. Finding, safeguarding and destroying these weapons was to be the responsibility of Iraq’s government. Iraq took initial steps to fulfill its obligations. It drafted a plan to entomb the contaminated bunkers on Al Muthanna, which still held remnant chemical stocks, in concrete. When three journalists from The Times visited Al Muthanna in 2013, a knot of Iraqi police officers and soldiers guarded the entrance. Two contaminated bunkers — one containing cyanide precursors and old sarin rockets — loomed behind. The area where Marines had found mustard shells in 2008 was out of sight, shielded by scrub and shimmering heat. The Iraqi troops who stood at that entrance are no longer there. The compound, never entombed, is now controlled by the Islamic State.
Wednesday, October 15, 2014 7:56 AM
SECOND
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
Wednesday, October 15, 2014 11:24 AM
SIGNYM
I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.
Wednesday, October 15, 2014 12:42 PM
Quote: So WMD were, in fact, found in Iraq. Unfortunately, 'Bush Wasn't Lying' is not an especially catchy slogan … http://t.co/iYaZdrT3l0 — Philip Terzian (@PhilipTerzian) October 14, 2014 Can't we all just agree it's a good thing that George W. Bush kept us safe from these weapons getting into the hands of Islamic extremists — Benjy Sarlin (@BenjySarlin) October 14, 2014 Can we also agree that those who mocked any statement that there were WMD's in Iraq in '03 & '04 were/are wrong? — Brad Dayspring (@BDayspring) October 14, 2014
Wednesday, October 15, 2014 3:57 PM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: Interesting article thanks. It shows that Saddam did NOT have an active WMD program, but that what was found were remnants of old, lost/ abandoned chemical shells from the late 80s, traceable to the USA. (The USA wanted Iraq to use these weapons against Iran, and provided satellite intel and "ground truth" on chemical weapons use against Iranian troops. Blowback is a bitch, isn't it?)
Quote: Of all of the WMD, there are only three that I know of which stay potent for extended periods, in approximate order of "shelf life" .... Carefully sporolated anthrax Mustard gas Some radioactive isotopes One of the other things that "didn't happen" in Iraq was the use of depleted uranium shells and white phosphorous, neither of which are good for the troops that are exposed to them.
Wednesday, October 15, 2014 4:41 PM
JEWELSTAITEFAN
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote: The United States had invaded Iraq to reduce the risk of the weapons of mass destruction that it presumed Mr. Hussein still possessed. And after years of encountering and handling Iraq’s old chemical arms, it had retroactively informed the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in 2009 that it had recovered more than 4,500 chemical weapons. But it had not shared this data publicly. And as it prepared to withdraw, old stocks set loose after the invasion were still circulating. Al Muthanna had still not been cleaned up. Finding, safeguarding and destroying these weapons was to be the responsibility of Iraq’s government. Iraq took initial steps to fulfill its obligations. It drafted a plan to entomb the contaminated bunkers on Al Muthanna, which still held remnant chemical stocks, in concrete. When three journalists from The Times visited Al Muthanna in 2013, a knot of Iraqi police officers and soldiers guarded the entrance. Two contaminated bunkers — one containing cyanide precursors and old sarin rockets — loomed behind. The area where Marines had found mustard shells in 2008 was out of sight, shielded by scrub and shimmering heat. The Iraqi troops who stood at that entrance are no longer there. The compound, never entombed, is now controlled by the Islamic State. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html
Wednesday, October 15, 2014 4:47 PM
Wednesday, October 15, 2014 7:04 PM
KPO
Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.
Quote:Nice red herring there at the end, to try to segue away and divert attention from the fact that Bush and Cheney were absolutely, undeniably 100% RIGHT per WMD in IRAQ.
Wednesday, October 15, 2014 11:33 PM
Quote:Originally posted by kpo: Quote:Nice red herring there at the end, to try to segue away and divert attention from the fact that Bush and Cheney were absolutely, undeniably 100% RIGHT per WMD in IRAQ. Was Bush 100% right when he said (in 2002) that Iraq was actively developing ever more powerful WMDs, including nukes?
Quote: Anyone who can read that speech making the case for war and not be disgusted by it, I will be amazed by. It's not personal. It's just war.
Thursday, October 16, 2014 12:05 AM
Quote:Irrelevant. Saddam was in violation of the terms of the Gulf War and of UN sanctions.
Thursday, October 16, 2014 12:24 AM
Thursday, October 16, 2014 8:16 AM
Quote:W may have been wrong on some minor issues, but the over all point was absolutely right.
Quote:Obama ? If you like your doctor, you can't keep your doctor. PERIOD.
Thursday, October 16, 2014 9:00 AM
Quote:Originally posted by kpo: You think it's 'irrelevant' that Saddam's WMD programme and the threat that he posed was massively over-exaggerated by the Bush admin. as it led the country into war? You have no problem with that?
Quote: If Bush had told the truth - that Saddam had no active WMD programme, just old, decaying stockpiles of chemical weapons that WE supplied him with and NOTHING more - do you really think the country would have followed him to war?
Quote: Let's look at the mess of Iraq, that Bush made: - 100,000+ civilians dead and counting - Thousands of US (and allied) servicemen dead, many more maimed for life - Trillions of $$$ spent (and counting) - ISIS created (formerly Al Qaeda in Iraq) - America's moral standing in the world eroded And so on and so on. And the worst thing you have for Obama to compare to all this is a domestic healthcare bill that by all objective measures looks like it's going to be a success? This says a lot about the two presidents, and your own irrational partisanship.
Thursday, October 16, 2014 10:07 AM
Quote:Still viable
Quote:and dangerous weapons, which Saddam intentionally
Quote: failed to report or destroy.
Quote:I'm guessing you STILL don't believe that anything crossed over the Syrian border, in the days and weeks before the invasion, huh ?
Thursday, October 16, 2014 10:11 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote:Originally posted by kpo: You think it's 'irrelevant' that Saddam's WMD programme and the threat that he posed was massively over-exaggerated by the Bush admin. as it led the country into war? You have no problem with that? No, not really. . . . Bush DID tell the truth. . . .
Thursday, October 16, 2014 10:27 AM
Quote:Bush DID tell the truth.
Quote:The best intel we had, that ANYONE had,
Quote:Bush didn't MAKE any of that, any more than Churchill or FDR " made " the ruin of Europe from WW2.
Quote:Obama has depleted the US's moral standing in the world far more than W ever did.
Thursday, October 16, 2014 11:20 AM
JONGSSTRAW
Thursday, October 16, 2014 1:04 PM
Thursday, October 16, 2014 5:51 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Why would Saddam fly jet fighters to iran? But not illegal WMD to Syria , on the eve of a war which was brought on by him denying he had WMD... Talk about delusion being drilled into someone's head. Wow!!!!
Thursday, October 16, 2014 6:02 PM
Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Why would Saddam fly jet fighters to iran? But not illegal WMD to Syria , on the eve of a war which was brought on by him denying he had WMD... Talk about delusion being drilled into someone's head. Wow!!!! The delusion is strong in those you refer to. Can you be both stupid and racist?
Quote: 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs
Thursday, October 16, 2014 6:08 PM
STORYMARK
Thursday, October 16, 2014 6:09 PM
Quote: Jarrod L. Taylor, a former Army sergeant on hand for the destruction of mustard shells that burned two soldiers in his infantry company, joked of “wounds that never happened” from “that stuff that didn’t exist.” The public, he said, was misled for a decade. “I love it when I hear, ‘Oh there weren’t any chemical weapons in Iraq,’ ” he said. “There were plenty.”
Thursday, October 16, 2014 6:24 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: No , LIES are what Obama constantly tells Americans. Bush didn't lie.
Thursday, October 16, 2014 6:28 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Why would Saddam fly jet fighters to iran? But not illegal WMD to Syria , on the eve of a war which was brought on by him denying he had WMD... Talk about delusion being drilled into someone's head. Wow!!!! The delusion is strong in those you refer to. Can you be both stupid and racist? Don't forget homophobic and a misogynist. Point of all this is that there WERE WMD in Iraq. WMD that Saddam did NOT report, that Hans Blix and company did NOT find. Quote: 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs Not just a few random shells, lying around in some forgotten back room or closet. And this was covered up by OUR OWN GOVERNMENT !!!! THe question I have is WHY ??
Thursday, October 16, 2014 6:42 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Storymark: We get it - you're a HUGE FAN of a war fought for lies, that killed thousands of Americans, even more Iraqis, and made the NeoCons rich. Because you're a good little follower - you don't care if they lied, or were wrong. All you care about is your goddamned team. We get it. We really do.
Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Why would Saddam fly jet fighters to iran? But not illegal WMD to Syria , on the eve of a war which was brought on by him denying he had WMD... Talk about delusion being drilled into someone's head. Wow!!!! The delusion is strong in those you refer to. Can you be both stupid and racist? Don't forget homophobic and a misogynist. Point of all this is that there WERE WMD in Iraq. WMD that Saddam did NOT report, that Hans Blix and company did NOT find. Quote: 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs Not just a few random shells, lying around in some forgotten back room or closet. And this was covered up by OUR OWN GOVERNMENT !!!! THe question I have is WHY ?? I'm assuming this is an actual question, although it seems you are asking of the sort with no clue. If you have not already considered this answer, I offer it for you to marinate in. On the Eve of Invasion, the start of the combat campaign was delayed for several hours. I do remember at the time that there was an announcement of when the engagement had happened, but then following reports about how it was delayed. The delay was while our forces waited before crossing the border, watching the almost endless convoys leaving, going into Syria. The on-scene Commander had decided that those weapons did not need to be in his combat theater, as long as the Iraqis were so helpful in removing them. This event later proved politically aggravating to Bush43, who likely didn't care that much about the politics. This let the "proof" out the barndoor, but saved countless servicemember lives. Perhaps not wanting to argue about it, drag the details through the dirt, was what motivated the toning down of the chatter on Chemical Weapons. Does this provide perspective you had not considered? Or do you think this concept has no merit? Ummmm, and by "think" I am clearly referring to the likes of RapKnight, Jongs, and such with that question.
Thursday, October 16, 2014 6:49 PM
Quote:Originally posted by second: The Iraq Study Group has long documented the existence of these decrepit and corroded weapons stocks in Iraq, something which has precisely nothing to do with the “Weapons of Mass Destruction” claims purveyed by war supporters. Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: No , LIES are what Obama constantly tells Americans. Bush didn't lie. Bush did lie. Bush's entire justification for war was built on what Curveball said about WMDs. The story of Curveball is well known. Why does AURaptor still not know? Does AURaptor have some problem about knowing? www.cbsnews.com/news/faulty-intel-source-curve-ball-revealed/ www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-na-curveball20nov20-story.html http://tinyurl.com/pv47v
Thursday, October 16, 2014 6:56 PM
Quote:Originally posted by kpo: These guys are nothing if not team players. I only hope other conservatives across the country are as active in promoting the righteousness of the Iraq war, with the midterm elections coming up. .
Thursday, October 16, 2014 7:22 PM
Quote:Our troops, however, who DID do the right thing, should be proud. At least all Americans should recognize that, and reject any sort of notion that Iraq was " for nothing " , as the Left tries to claim.
Thursday, October 16, 2014 8:14 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: You're wrong. Bush didn't lie.
Thursday, October 16, 2014 8:25 PM
Thursday, October 16, 2014 8:59 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Well, the definition of what a lie is seems to change as the Left deems necessary.
Quote:I guess we all should have left Saddam to his rape and torture rooms, and scamming the UN. Sure, his 2 sons were even worse than Saddam, but 20,000 ISIS goons are even worse still.
Quote: But the underlying fact remains - Iraq had WMD. Period.
Thursday, October 16, 2014 9:29 PM
MAGONSDAUGHTER
Thursday, October 16, 2014 9:45 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Magonsdaughter: Always interested me why Iraq having WMD was excuse enough to invade them? Why not invade North Korea, India, China, Russia, Pakestan?
Thursday, October 16, 2014 10:55 PM
Quote:On the Eve of Invasion, the start of the combat campaign was delayed for several hours. I do remember at the time that there was an announcement of when the engagement had happened, but then following reports about how it was delayed. The delay was while our forces waited before crossing the border, watching the almost endless convoys leaving, going into Syria. The on-scene Commander had decided that those weapons did not need to be in his combat theater, as long as the Iraqis were so helpful in removing them.
Quote:Sure, his 2 sons were even worse than Saddam, but 20,000 ISIS goons are even worse still.
Quote:But the underlying fact remains - Iraq had WMD.
Thursday, October 16, 2014 11:14 PM
Friday, October 17, 2014 12:18 AM
ELVISCHRIST
Friday, October 17, 2014 12:25 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: So, speaking of delusions Quote:On the Eve of Invasion, the start of the combat campaign was delayed for several hours. I do remember at the time that there was an announcement of when the engagement had happened, but then following reports about how it was delayed. The delay was while our forces waited before crossing the border, watching the almost endless convoys leaving, going into Syria. The on-scene Commander had decided that those weapons did not need to be in his combat theater, as long as the Iraqis were so helpful in removing them. Cites please? Quote:Sure, his 2 sons were even worse than Saddam, but 20,000 ISIS goons are even worse still. OMG, a fucking glimmer. Bush I (daddy Bush) stopped short of Baghdad because he realized what a fucking nightmare would be unleashed. Daddy was way smarter than junior. Quote:But the underlying fact remains - Iraq had WMD. You're like the kid pointing to a puddle on the driveway and saying "But there WAS a snowman there! There WAS!!" Yes, but the operative word is "was". Just as the operative word for Saddam's WMD is "was". WMD inevitably deteriorates. Even nuclear bombs deteriorate, which is why they keep testing them fuckers. You really need to develop a greater appreciation for the natural world. Maybe learn some science, or something. Objects don't remain pristine forever. Eventually, you wind up grubbing in the dirt for some corroded shell that has some goop in it, even tho it was once a might arsenal. -------------- You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
Friday, October 17, 2014 3:47 AM
Quote:Anyone who has read the text of the authorization of the use of military force in Iraq would see that among the reasons listed for using that force was that Saddam was "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability..."
Quote: While some politicians [ie- GWB] have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said: “[T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.
Friday, October 17, 2014 7:57 AM
Friday, October 17, 2014 8:32 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: second - I'll take the word of the guys who were there, saw the 5,000+ chemical shells and rockets , and who got injured. You need to read the article in full, or do so again, because clearly you missed some parts. They DID ( try ) to destroy some of the ammo dumps, and that's how they discovered the SURPRISE ! chemical weapons. I do agree, W has some explaining to do as to why ALL weren't destroyed, and why NO ONE in the frelling media were told about these 1000's ( that we know of ) shells. Be it Obama or Bush , it seems, we can't trust the govt.
Quote:Perpetually, the Leftist distort the word 'wrong' for 'lie'. The childish ,robotic, repetitious claims the 'Bush lied' us into war are nothing short of insanity.
Friday, October 17, 2014 12:52 PM
Friday, October 17, 2014 2:04 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: What Bush & Rove lied about were that WMD DID exist, and for that we all should be furious. Rove made an asinine , unbelievably inexplicable stupid political call to NOT defend W or the admin over WMD we KNEW existed !!!!
Friday, October 17, 2014 3:14 PM
Friday, October 17, 2014 3:28 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: That supports my point . Thanks for posting.
Friday, October 17, 2014 4:51 PM
Friday, October 17, 2014 4:54 PM
Friday, October 17, 2014 6:38 PM
Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: this should help expose the fact that Rove and his establishment Republicans are liberals . . .
Friday, October 17, 2014 7:10 PM
Quote:( And so what if ISIS has those weapons now ? They were ' depleted and degraded ' even before the war, in 2002, so why should there be any concern now, + 12 more years ? )
Friday, October 17, 2014 7:13 PM
Quote:Originally posted by second: Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: That supports my point . Thanks for posting.
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL