The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons

"Lets not wait for the Mushroom cloud" Perhaps not to you but that sounds like the threat is pretty imminent in the minds of most people listening to that justification for war.

This is like Bill Clinton debating the meaning of the word "is".

In any case such talk of acting on something that might be "perceived as a possible threat" was a departure from previous ideology on what justified war.

This doctrine was developed under the Bush Sr. admin by Wolfowitz and Pearls. It sought to justify "preemptive strikes against potential enemies"

The idea that one should invade a foreign nation on what "might" be a threat is shaky ground IMO. You are welcome to a different opinion of course but this is a departure from previous global ideology and international convention.

Almost anything can construed as something that "might be a threat" or a "potential enemy".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

The idea that we go to war over promoting democracy is a platitude.

The doctrine was updated in 2006:

Apparently we do use pre-emption as a pretext for aggression.... in fact that is our modus operandi these days.

Again you might agree with this and that is fine. What I notice (and so does the international community) is the hypocrisy.

One day we are supporting a regime before and after using chemical weapons and the next day we are claiming that this regime having such weapons justifies us making war on them.

 

He wasn't supposed to have ANY of it, per UN sanctions, but we gave it to him anyway. Yep, NeoConCo screwed the little doggie on this one.

 

And of course that wasn't the reason and what we discovered after his removal proved the threat was far more than your attempts to marginalize it.

We did listen and followed the UN resolutions an we did not spend trillions of dollars to remove Saddam, that only took 3 weeks of war.

Suggest you go listen to what Hillary Clinton had to say about it and read the ILA and the ATUMF acts. Then go read about what we did find after we removed him, I posted an extensive list earlier.

Oh yes there was as I listed earlier and the fact it would be a growing threat once the sanctions were lifted as he was ready able and willing to rebuild and rearm in a matter of weeks.

 

Well I would suggest you go look up the meaning of imminent, what we couldn't wait for was for it to BECOME imminent for then it would be too late.

Hardly, the fact he was under a cease fire agreement and UN sanctions and resolution to which he was raising his middle finger and was bribing the UN to get out of the sanctions which we could not allow.

It wasn't premptive, Saddam had invaded two countries already using WMD in one of them and against his own people. Clinton should have removed him but his plan failed.

There was no might about it as we discovered.

We didn't support Iraq, we supported a stalemate in the Iraq/Iran war and supported both sides to that end.

 

You avoided the main points of my post in order to focus on the meaning of the word "is" or in this case "might" in context.

Humorous and ridiculous. The UNSC had good reason for not approving war against Saddam.

Saddam had already been punished for that. Irrelevant other than the fact that we were supporting Saddam while using WMD so clearly it was not a problem back then.

 

Abject nonsense .. as usual. "Rebuild and rearm in a matter of weeks" ? This is so mind-bogglingly incorrect it is not worth addressing

Just because you have some made up fantasy version of the events does not mean they reflect reality.

We did not get approval from the UN, in fact our request was "rejected" by the UNSC. That we only spent 3 weeks in Iraq is again, mind-bogglingly incorrect.

 

No I addressed them directly and your use of the word "imminent" and how you misrepresented what the Bush administration said, along with Hillary too I might add.

They approved all necessary to force by any member state to bring Iraq into compliance.

ROFL it wasn't a punishment of Saddam. And again do you really think we were going to support Iran in the Iran/Iraq war? We gave aid and assistance to both sides so that NEITHER side would win. We also supported Stalin in WW2 you know.

 

Showing far more integrity that was see from many conservatives here.[/QUOTE]

There is no point in debating with someone who's made up fantasies (we were only in Iraq for 3 weeks - in the context of costs of that action) are this far off reality. The self delusion required in order to state such things is indicative of a state that is beyond repair.

 

Because you can't refute it.

What's made up, our military defeated Saddam and the Iraq army within a matter of weeks and Iraq had elections within a year, the two goals of the war.

1441 going back through all the resolutions authorized any necessary force, but then since Saddam was bribing the UN to get the sanctions removed the UN became a moot point as it remains today.

Where did I say such a thing, now THAT is mind-bogglingly incorrect. You actually believe we were fighting Saddam and his military all those years? Talk about mind-bogglingly incorrect.

 

Well why do you try reading more slowly as to what I posted instead of posting fantasy statements. Or do you struggle with reading comprehension?

The war with Iraq and Saddam ended quickly, he was removed and an interim government set up and elections held. THAT was the goal, that was a success. Yes much came afterwards due to al Qaeda moving the front of it's war against us to Iraq and forming and supporting insurgent groups. But that was a strategic mistake on their part because we had the advantage fighting them there as opposed to the main effort being in Afghanistan. And they suffered a serious defeat.

So instead of thinking being snarky wins the debate try dealing with the facts.

 

I did not mention Hillary ? and you have not stated how I misrepresented anything so one can only be let to guess what on earth your made up fantasy is this time ?

Saddam was in compliance for the most part. His airspace was controlled and there were weapons inspectors roaming around his country.

Regardless, at the time when Bush brought is request for war to the UNSC it was not granted and that is all that matters.

The US made a unilateral decision to attack Iraq that was not supported by the UNSC despite your made up fantasies.

I did not say the war was for punishment of Saddam. Why do you continually make things up and attribute these fantasies to others ?

The fact that Saddam had previously gone into Kuwait had been dealt with. It is not justification for going in a second time.

 

It is not about being snarky. It is about disingenuous ignorance. In the context of defense spending the action against Iraq took far more three weeks.

Rather than cede the point and move onto something that actually relates to the conversation .. you continue to try and defend the defenseless.

It is like someone stating "the sky was blue" with the intent of showing that " it was not raining" in relation to the effect of weather conditions on driving conditions and you wanting to debate whether or not the "sky is actually blue" claiming that is only through human perception that the sky is blue and human perception is subjective as if this has something to do with the effect of the weather on driving conditions on a particular day.

 

That tired old crap about 'sovereign nation' isn't going to wash,Saddam signed a cease fire agreement after the gulf war that he continuously violated,and you seem to blithely ignore the fact he wasn't even supposed to have those 'old rusty shells',which despite your amateur opinion,were VERY much viable,and still potent


We know better now about the status of WMD in Iraq,despite people like you scrambling to marginalize them....

 

Potent to who ? How would you ever fire old degraded corroded shells without a high likelihood of killing yourself. The WMD justification for war was not on the basis of Saddam having a few old, buried shells around.

You claiming that it did is abject nonsense.

I am not surprised that you think things such as international law in relation to national sovereignty issues is "tired old crap".

You are entitled to your opinion but this has little to do with the justification for war. "Lets go to war because international sovereignty is "tired old crap". might fly in the more uneducated of the hillbilly crowd .....

Part of the justification for war was that Saddam had active WMD programs that were such significant and immanent threat to the US " that might come in the form of a mushroom cloud" that we should go to war.

The evidence for programs presented buy Powell was a litany of fabrications, misrepresentations, and information that was known to be false.

Saddam was completely contained at the time. We controlled his airspace and there were weapons inspectors running around the country.

The "Rush to War" was completely unjustified and is certainly no more justified by finding some old corroded shells that were buried as part of Saddam dismantling his weapons programs.

 

Wishfull thinking. Bush Sr. knew it was about kicking Sadham back out of Kuwait, such that after cutting Sadham's nuts off all Sadham could do was continue to maintain order between all the nutcase subcultures in Iraq, like ISIS.

The troops were "alerted to someone digging with a backhoe". Were they also alerted to someone wiping his ass because he might be (*)(*)(*)(*)ting out dynamite capsules?

Alright, fine... let's take it your way. In the first place, for trivia, did you know that in France, 35 farmers per year get killed by accidently plowing unexploded German ordinance? The French solution has been to stop reporting it.

In the second place, it can't possibly be that bad... that someone gets so promoted beyound his rank-ability that he thinks the way to deal with reports of someone digging a trench with a machine is to order soldiers to jump in and inspect the dirt under the hole in case the subsoil is a threat?

So... what really happened?

 

No it wasn't.

No it wasn't.

Of course not.

You dodged proving your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claim before just like you are dodging it now.

Repetitive. False question. There was no "WMD threat." He had no WMD.

Abandoned? At least you're not trying to make the bogus claim that that rusted out pile of junk was "hidden WMD". Congratulations. Maybe you can be more reasonable.

Yes. After spending months combing Iraq, he instead concluded:

On January 23, 2004, Kay resigned, stating that Iraq did not have WMD and that "I think there were stockpiles at the end of the first Gulf War and a combination of U.N. inspectors and unilateral Iraqi action got rid of them." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kay

Rusted old piles of junk doesn't change anything. Ask your hero, George W. Bush.


Bush, Aug 2006:
Now look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq, at the time, was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, ....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/21/AR2006082100469.html

Dec 2008:
Looking back on his eight years in the White House, President Bush pinpointed incorrect intelligence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction as the "biggest regret of all the presidency."
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/story?id=6354012

Nov 2010:
Former US President George W Bush still has "a sickening feeling" about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, US media report.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-11680239

I know it really didn't make the RW propaganda circuit.

LOL! He said it in 2006, 2008, and 2010 and never changed his position.

The one man in the world with the most to gain doesn't try to claim that that rusted out pile of junk is WMD.

Thereby showing a lot more credibility than many conservatives here.

 

Apparently not:

On January 23, 2004, Kay resigned, stating that Iraq did not have WMD and that "I think there were stockpiles at the end of the first Gulf War and a combination of U.N. inspectors and unilateral Iraqi action got rid of them." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kay
Bush, Aug 2006:

Now look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq, at the time, was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, ....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/21/AR2006082100469.html

Dec 2008:
Looking back on his eight years in the White House, President Bush pinpointed incorrect intelligence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction as the "biggest regret of all the presidency."
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/story?id=6354012

Nov 2010:
Former US President George W Bush still has "a sickening feeling" about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, US media report.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-11680239

I know it really didn't make the RW propaganda circuit.

 

I vote we let the neocons here trying to claim that pile of rusty junk is WMD put that rusty old crap in a howitzer and try to fire it off, so they can show us how these are real honest to goodness "weapons of mass destruction" LOL

 

Saddam's WMD were hurriedly moved to Syria as CNN news video showed prior to the Gulf War and according to the testimony of Hussein's own
Air Force head general.

 

Apparently the fact now coming out that he DID have them isn't budging the LW excuse curcuit....



You were wrong,Man up and admit it..

 

The "fact now coming out"? Is that what the RW propaganda mislead you to believe? They found these old junky abonded rusted out old shells in 2003-06. Not now.

The Bush administration knew about this junk when they were saying Iraq didn't have WMD.

And thereby showing far more integrity than many conservatives here. Man up, and admit it.

 

Why not strap a bit of C-4 to them with a cell phone detonator and make an IED,like anyone with a lick of sense would do?


Too easy?

 

More are still being found by ISIS as we speak,and this 'junk' can still kill,and liberals should know this....but then what do they know of integrity?

After all they spent most of the last 8 years claiming Bush 'lied',but now he's telling the truth...

 

Who are you talking about? Iraqis? ISIS? US demolition guys?

Problem is when you blow that stuff up it gets all over, including potentially the guys who blow it up. Didn't you read the article?

- - - Updated - - -

Prove your claim that "more is being found by ISIS" I call bull(*)(*)(*)(*). It's more likely to kill the people handling it than anyone else. And it's certainly not a weapon of mass destruction.

Funny, conservatives spent the last 8 years claiming Bush was telling the truth, but now claim he's been lying.