Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Well there was Weapons of Mass Destruction.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSumMediumMediaFloated&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

I've been saying this for a long time. No one here will believe.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I've been saying this for a long time. No one here will believe.

They will know, NYT confirms this.

It seems like a repeat of what has been said in here before in other threads. Old chemical weapons left over from the Iran/Iraq war; which were not the WMDs the United States went to war over.

Or as this story put it:

"All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.

In case after case, participants said, analysis of these warheads and shells reaffirmed intelligence failures. First, the American government did not find what it had been looking for at the war's outset, then it failed to prepare its troops and medical corps for the aged weapons it did find." -end snip

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
They will know, NYT confirms this.

Trust me, they will not believe. And they will still find some way to blame bush.

Originally posted by Robtard
It seems like a repeat of what has been said in here before in other threads. Old chemical weapons left over from the Iran/Iraq war; which were not the WMDs the United States went to war over.

Or as this story put it:

"All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.

In case after case, participants said, analysis of these warheads and shells reaffirmed intelligence failures. First, the American government did not find what it had been looking for at the war's outset, then it failed to prepare its troops and medical corps for the aged weapons it did find." -end snip

I dunno if you bee to Iraq, but old weapons can, still and are used regardless of when they were made. They can be used and are used to this day in that country.

Wait...


If these are chemical weapons that can cause large numbers of deaths (in their prime state, of course), these are ****ing WMDs.

What's there to debate?


Regardless, the Bush Administration had shitty intel and we know for a fact that based on that intel, Iraq didn't have WMDs (regardless of whether or not they did, we didn't have the proper intel to prove that).

So the debate is not really about Iraq actually having WMDs, it was the intel we used to justify the invasion of a sovereign nation that resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of INNOCENT citizens! The older I get, the more angry this makes me (because they were innocent...women, children, parents, etc.). Man, this makes me sad. I'll stay out of this thread.

Because the United States was essentially a blind squirrel finding a different sort of nut. Now I won't argue about the merits or demerits of toppling Hussein but the whole legitimization of going there in the first place were based on lies.

Originally posted by Based
Because the United States was essentially a blind squirrel finding a different sort of nut. Now I won't argue about the merits or demerits of toppling Hussein but the whole legitimization of going there in the first place were based on lies.


America shouldn't have placed their foot on Iraqi soil in the first place.

Now look at what they have done.
They have unleashed something worse than Saddam will ever be.

The IS will not easily be toppled like the Saddam regime.

NWO dictates that we must be against Islam for some reason.

Looks like IS are using Saddam's unused WMDs against the Kurds.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Looks like IS are using Saddam's unused WMDs against the Kurds.

I know its horrible!!

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Chem weapons can be reused..

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/10/15/isis-capable-of-making-dirty-bombs-with-abandoned-chemical-weapons-cache-in-northern-iraq-former-british-colonel-warns/

So what? Who cares? It is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.

These are not the WMD stockpiles on which the Bush administration made its case for invading Iraq.

These are chemical weapons leftover from Iraq's war with Iran. We have been aware of this particular stockpile since 1991.

The issue that is the subject of the New York Times article is that the military concealed that soldiers were exposed to these weapons during the second war in Iraq and not given adequate treatment.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
So what? Who cares? It is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.

These are not the WMD stockpiles on which the Bush administration made its case for invading Iraq.

These are chemical weapons leftover from Iraq's war with Iran. We have been aware of this particular stockpile since 1991.

The issue that is the subject of the New York Times article is that the military concealed that soldiers were exposed to these weapons during the second war in Iraq and not given adequate treatment.

I agree with you and understand that, but I still think differentiating between "these" and "those" is a bit brash. Weapons were used and they still can be.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I agree with you and understand that, but I still think differentiating between "these" and "those" is a bit brash. Weapons were used and they still can be.

Sadam certainly can't use them

Why not??

From TI's source



So yes, seems like both sides have to apologize, Democratic supporters that said there were no old WMDs at all, and supporters of the Bush administration that denied that the Bush administration lied knowingly to the American public to involve them in a war of aggression. TI proved both of those facts.

I guess you yourself have to judge which one is worse.

Originally posted by Bentley
Sadam certainly can't use them

Originally posted by Bardock42
So yes, seems like both sides have to apologize, Democratic supporters that said there were no old WMDs at all . . .

Democratic supporters did not say there were no OLD weapons stockpiles at all.

The weapons that are the subject of the article were built by Iraq in collaboration with U.S. so they could fight our common enemy, Iran.

We knew those particular stockpiles were there since 1991.

What Democratic supporters did say is that the WMDs the Bush administration claimed to exist as a justification for invading Iraq, NEW weapons stockpiles of nuclear material (remember the big deal made about supposed intelligence stating that Sadam Hussein had obtained weapons-grade plutonium from Africa?) did not exist.

6-BQussaccQ

Let's be clear that the reasons we went into Iraq were not just WMDs.


Here are the reasons:

1. Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.

2. Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."

3. Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."

4. Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".

5. Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.

6. Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.

7. Iraq's "continu to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.

8. Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.

9. The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.

10. The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.

11. The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.

12. Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.



Taken from here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

and here:

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archi...20021002-2.html

13. Iraq's oil and other natural resources.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
13. Iraq's oil and other natural resources.

Yes but are we directly gaining from them having oil or have we ever, Iraq is in complete dissary and ISIS has control of the oil and sells $3-5 million a day of it.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Yes but are we directly gaining from them having oil or have we ever, Iraq is in complete dissary and ISIS has control of the oil and sells $3-5 million a day of it.
Only because US failed to take control of Iraq after Saddam's death.

Their hidden agenda backfired on them.

Now the world is in chaos all thanks to the Bush administration.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Only because US failed to take control of Iraq after Saddam's death.

Their hidden agenda backfired on them.

Now the world is in chaos all thanks to the Bush administration.

But the decorates voted for it in 2009 when they had power in congress. Lets blame the government of Iraq, not the parties?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kristof-the-blame-for-iraq-is-shared.html

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
But the decorates voted for it in 2009 when they had power in congress. Lets blame the government of Iraq, not the parties?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kristof-the-blame-for-iraq-is-shared.html
The article is correct. All parties have a share of the blame for their failures.

But it was the Bush administration who initiated the occupation of Iraq. Whether the majority of congress was Democrat or Republican does not matter. Most of the blame is theirs.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
The article is correct. All parties have a share of the blame for their failures.

But it was the Bush administration who initiated the occupation of Iraq. Whether the majority of congress was Democrat or Republican does not matter. Most of the blame is theirs.

Touche,

However, watch how quickly Obama is and will be thrown into the wind as he is now a lame duck. He will go out as prolly the worst president in history and the democrats will hang everything including Obama care around his neck like a kettlebell.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Touche,

However, watch how quickly Obama is and will be thrown into the wind as he is now a lame duck. He will go out as prolly the worst president in history and the democrats will hang everything including Obama care around his neck like a kettlebell.

He's definitely the worst president in Modern history by approval ratings, for sure.


Honestly, had he not broken so many campaign promises from 2008 and actually tried his best to make them happen (even if the Republican retards thwarted his every move), I would have voted for him in 2012. He didn't so I didn't.



Also, I should note that, from my perspective, very objective about the facts in this thread: you don't take sides with the parties and call out bullshit from either side. If every American approached these topics like this, perhaps we would have better leadership...

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
However, watch how quickly Obama is and will be thrown into the wind as he is now a lame duck. He will go out as prolly the worst president in history and the democrats will hang everything including Obama care around his neck like a kettlebell.

Originally posted by dadudemon
He's definitely the worst president in Modern history by approval ratings, for sure.


Honestly, had he not broken so many campaign promises from 2008 and actually tried his best to make them happen (even if the Republican retards thwarted his every move), I would have voted for him in 2012. He didn't so I didn't.



Also, I should note that, from my perspective, very objective about the facts in this thread: you don't take sides with the parties and call out bullshit from either side. If every American approached these topics like this, perhaps we would have better leadership...

The Dems will toss him out like a wet sock. And soon, All the liberals here will do the same thing. Just you watch, Lestov, Robtard, Mindset and all them will follow suit. Mark my words, ther will be a massive turn and there already is one..

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/10/13/democrats-turn-on-obama/

Weren't they the ones USA sold them in the first place?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
The Dems will toss him out like a wet sock. And soon, All the liberals here will do the same thing. Just you watch, Lestov, Robtard, Mindset and all them will follow suit. Mark my words, ther will be a massive turn and there already is one..

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/10/13/democrats-turn-on-obama/

You're being weird again.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're being weird again.

Why?

What you're saying.

Originally posted by Robtard
What you're saying.

Thats a rude thing to say.

Wasn't intended.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
The Dems will toss him out like a wet sock. And soon, All the liberals here will do the same thing. Just you watch, Lestov, Robtard, Mindset and all them will follow suit. Mark my words, ther will be a massive turn and there already is one..

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/10/13/democrats-turn-on-obama/

Nope. Everything Obama has done, good and bad, in support of and against campaign promises, was done out of pragmatism and an honorable attempt to not supersede Congress to achieve his goals like Bush did. He's not history's most effective president, but he damn sure isn't near the worst. To blame the political problems of the country solely on the POTUS when there are other legislative bodies involved and unforeseeable circumstances and variables (many attributable to his predecessors) requiring a compromising response, is to completely lack an objective view of the situation. IMO, Obama will go down as history's hardest working president, as there are very few who have had to deal with the political problems he has, on both a national and international level.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Democratic supporters did not say there were no OLD weapons stockpiles at all.

correct. the case for war was that saddam was creating new wmd's. everyone knew he had old wmd's because he used them on the kurds quite brazenly.

also, this is not news but rehashing of old tired tactics, not only in the media but on kmc as well.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=409400&highlight=wmd+found

i know their reasons for going to war were faulty. still glad they took saddam out. that guy was a problem child that was going to have to be solved eventually. luckily they took him out before he crossed the Rubicon by becoming a nuclear power like north korea did. we're stuck with them mother****ers, we don't need any more eternal dystopic dictatorships with nukes.

Back in 2006: Originally posted by sithsaber408
This is the tip of the iceberg.

Another 3 or 4 years, and Bush will be vindicated.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
correct. the case for war was that saddam was creating new wmd's. everyone knew he had old wmd's because he used them on the kurds quite brazenly.

also, this is not news but rehashing of old tired tactics, not only in the media but on kmc as well.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=409400&highlight=wmd+found

One of the points in the Iraq Resolution was:

"2. Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."


I'm pretty sure that Iraq not turning over their WMDs was a violation of agreements made after their Kuwait mistake.


To be more direct/concise, one of the points for the Iraq Resolution was for the continued possession of WMDs and the continued production of WMDs. It wasn't just the continued production (which were lies).

even without old WMDs saddam never sacrificed the capability to produce them. i dunno how they define capability but basically as long as the science, infrastructure and know-how is there i don't think there is a really compelling obstacle that prevents the proliferation of said WMDs if push comes to shove.

I remember when Ron Paul opposed the Iraq War...


http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul51.html


This was before he was known. He was called a traitor to the GOP for going against his party....


This paragraph is especially telling of what happened after we invaded Iraq:

"My argument is when we go to war through the back door, we are more likely to have the wars last longer and not have resolution of the wars, such as we had in Korea and Vietnam. We ought to consider this very seriously."

the rhetoric behind the war really had no bearing on the outcome in terms of duration. even if they originally used the right talking points iraq would've devolved into a hellhole of sectarian violence. and if they had come to the conclusion not to act we would be left with saddam still in power until a very bloody revolution or some other unforeseen circumstance, most likely with the aftermath of the very same kind of sectarian violence spoken of above.

I'm more concerned of the government officials on CNN and FOX going on and on and on about WMDs in the follow up to the war and how they will be found and how Saddam supported Al Qaeda (even though he hated Bin Laden and was made dictator by the CIA in order to fend against Islamic extremist organisations like.....ISIS) encouraging uneducated people to fight in the army.