So... Iraq *did* have WMD, but they were old

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by VulchR, Oct 15, 2014.

  1. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #1
    Weird. After all the flak about Iraq not having WMD, it appears that old chemical warfare shells were indeed littered around Iraq (see link). I wonder if the whole WMD thing arose from the US & Europe knowing that Iraq had these weapons, while Iraq was not able to document that they had been decommissioned.
     
  2. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #2
    Often times lies don't come from thin air, they're loosely based on truth.
     
  3. Meister, Oct 15, 2014
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2014

    Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #3
    Well, at least the Iraq war was a great success and not a disaster at all. :p
     
  4. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #4
    Even if you accept that these old artillery shells are major WMD, the fact remains that the evidence the Colin Powell presented to the UN was based on a lie.

    The White House even went to the extreme measure of outing a CIA assent to discredit a source, that Yellow Cake Uranium was not being used.

    Plus now we know that these old artillery shells were not seen as a danger, so no prior intelligence.
    Then the US covered up the evidence because US troops got injured.:(
     
  5. ElectronGuru macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    #5
    Have to agree, this reduces neither the 'pretext gate' nature of why it was done nor the horrific unintended consequences of how it was done. Complete cluster ****, up, down, and sideways. Worst decision in my lifetime.
     
  6. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #6
    Can we all take a second to recognize that the weapons that were found, and the troops injured in destroying them were kept completely secret for an entire decade?

    I wonder if it had anything to do with them being designed in the USA, manufactured in Europe, and finalized in Iraq.

    ****ing shameful.
     
  7. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #7
    Not only ****shameful.
    But not quite the smoking gun that it first appears.
    From the article.
    US troops DID find chemical weapons in Iraq - but Pentagon kept it secret:
    Discovery of 5,000 warheads and shells 'was hushed up because they were not weapons of mass destruction'

    An estimated 5,000 chemical weapons were found in Iraq between 2004 and 2011, it has been revealed
    Pentagon chose not to release the information to the general public for several embarrassing reasons
    The weapons did not meet George W. Bush's rationale that Saddam Hussein had a program of 'mass destruction'
    Most had been developed by Saddam's forces during the 1980s and had been built in close collaboration with the West
    At least 17 American military personnel were injured due to the mishandling of the weapons
    George W Bush has described the 'intelligence failure' over Iraq as the greatest failure of his presidency

    About 5,000 chemical weapons were recovered or destroyed in Iraq following the 2003 invasion but the Pentagon chose to keep the findings top secret, it has emerged.
    Hidden: Between 2004 and 2011 soldiers found thousands of rusty chemical munitions throughout Iraq, most of them buriedAn investigation by The New York Times has revealed that U.S. forces happened across the hidden caches of warheads, shells and aviation bombs between 2004 and 2011.
    But the information wasn't made public as embarrassingly the weapons, many of which had been built in close collaboration with the West, had been sitting dormant since the 1980s and so didn't support President George W. Bush's rationale for going to war.
    At least 17 American troops were also seriously injured discovering and attempting to destroy the deteriorating shells filled with nerve and mustard agents.

    Cache: Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal technicians prepare unexploded ordnance for demolition at a safe disposal area near Baghdad in 2003. 5,000 chemical weapons




    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...am-hushed-soldiers-injured.html#ixzz3GDxesJj2
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
     
  8. VulchR thread starter macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #8
    Agreed, which is why I find the story weird. Why didn't they spin the story that these were the weapons they were looking for? Maybe they thought it bending the truth too much....

    I admit I believed that Iraq had WMD at the time (erm... the kind of WMD that actually was a threat). I didn't believe the British crap about missiles potentially attacking Cyprus. However, I never trusted the Hussein's regime (they played games with the UN inspectors) and they were hostile (locking radar on coalition planes in the no-fly zones, etc.). I knew that they did have WMD at one point, and used them, and nobody convinced me that these weapons had been destroyed. What I didn't know then, but wish I knew, was that these weapons have a notoriously short shelf life.

    I find it depressingly ironic that we went to war with Iraq on the basis of WMD that did not exist, but did not go to war with Syria after Assad's regime used WMD and later confirmed they had large stockpiles of WMD (after years of denial, just like Iraq).
     
  9. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #9
    Old mustard gas shells developed by the United States in collaboration with Saddam Hussein.

    That's why the Administration didn't want this news to "leak".
     
  10. Huntn, Oct 15, 2014
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2014

    Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #10
    Exactly, the Bush Administration misrepresented the facts, the WMDs they referenced did not even exist.
     
  11. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #11
    Chemical weapons are not WMD. There is no "mass destruction" involved with a chemical weapon. In fact, some have a smaller lethal radius that a high-explosive shell.

    Sure, they are nasty but their effects decline exponentially with distance from the point of impact.

    Nuclear weapons are WMD and biological weapons can be WMD.

    But not chem.

    So there.
     
  12. TheAppleFairy macrumors 68020

    TheAppleFairy

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2013
    Location:
    The Clinton Archipelago unfortunately
    #12

    Maybe you should edit this wiki with your opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction
     
  13. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #13
    Maybe we should recognize that there has been a SERIOUS definition drift of both WMD and terrorism since 9/11, and that wiki only reflects popular interpretation thus reflecting that drift.
     
  14. TheAppleFairy macrumors 68020

    TheAppleFairy

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2013
    Location:
    The Clinton Archipelago unfortunately
    #14

    I have no problem with that, the person I responded to claimed chemical weapons are not WMDs. He stated it with certainty, clearly not everyone agrees with him.
     
  15. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #15
  16. TheAppleFairy macrumors 68020

    TheAppleFairy

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2013
    Location:
    The Clinton Archipelago unfortunately
    #16

    Yeah, so anyway you are sticking with your opinion that a chemical weapon isn't a WMD. Well it is.

    So there :rolleyes:
     
  17. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #17
    Yes, chemical weapons are not WMD because they do not provide mass destructive effects.

    You can believe everything you read in Wikipedia or you can use your brain and consider the facts.
     
  18. TheAppleFairy macrumors 68020

    TheAppleFairy

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2013
    Location:
    The Clinton Archipelago unfortunately
    #18


    Seem you are thinking of mass destruction of building. How many lives can one chemical weapon destroy?
     
  19. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #19
    What kind are we talking about? An artillery shell with mustard gas or something larger like a Trident with a warhead?
     
  20. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #20
    Oh, so you don't like his stinky wikipedia facts? How about those from the American Institute of Chemists:

    Within U.S. civil defense organizations, the category is now Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE), which defines WMD as:

    (1) Any explosive, incendiary, poison gas, bomb, grenade, or rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces [113 g], missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce [7 g], or mine or device similar to the above. (2) Poison gas. (3) Any weapon involving a disease organism. (4) Any weapon that is designed to release radiation at a level dangerous to human life.[26]​
     
  21. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #21
    Chemical weapons including mustard gas and sarin are considered weapons of mass destruction.

    That said, it's clear that the weapons found in Iraq were not part of a continuing program to develop weapons of mass destruction, but were rather old stocks sitting around from the 1980s.

    The Bush administration invaded Iraq on the cause that Iraq had a continuing program and not only was this false, but they hid the evidence of injuries to US soldiers.
     
  22. TheAppleFairy macrumors 68020

    TheAppleFairy

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2013
    Location:
    The Clinton Archipelago unfortunately
    #22
    What does it matter, the person I replied to said chemical weapons are not WMDs period. It is clear they can be.
     
  23. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #23
    Clarification for the sake of having a reasoned discussion, that's why it matters.
     
  24. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #24
    They were artillery shells. Big ones.
     
  25. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #25
    It does matter certainly and it's clear from the article that US soldiers found sarin gas and mustard gas in old, leaking artillery shells. These are tactical weapons and similar to those used against Iran during the Iran-Iraq War.

    These were also the weapons that caused so much concern during the Gulf War and why US soldiers often donned NBC gear during a SCUD attack—everyone worried that Saddam Hussein was going to use these weapons.

    However, by 2003 this program had faltered. My understanding from this story wasn't that Iraq had some chemical weapons laying about, but rather that the Pentagon hid some evidence especially when handling these weapons injured US soldiers. The Bush administration let US soldiers twist in the wind to suit their own political objective to protect the necessity of the Iraq War.
     

Share This Page