I thought Iraq didn't have any WMD

August · 07-31-12, 02:23 PM

I guess that was all just a lie?

http://news.yahoo.com/uk-experts-hel...144204378.html

Quote:

BAGHDAD (AP) — Britain will help the Iraqi government dispose of what's left of deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons, still stored in two bunkers in north of Baghdad, the British embassy in Baghdad announced Monday.The British Defense Ministry will start training Iraqi technical and medical workers this year, an embassy statement said. The teams will work to safely destroy remnants of munitions and chemical warfare agents left over from Saddam's regime. He was overthrown in 2003 following an American-led invasion.

Takeda Shingen · 07-31-12, 02:42 PM

If they were usable, he would have used them against the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_an...09_Declaration

Quote:

The declaration contained no surprises, OPCW spokesman Michael Luhan indicated. The production facilities were "put out of commission" by airstrikes during the 1991 conflict, while U.N. personnel afterward secured the chemical munitions in the bunkers. Luhan stated at the time: "These are legacy weapons, remnants." He declined to discuss how many weapons were stored in the bunkers or what materials they contained. The weapons were not believed to be in a usable state.

August · 07-31-12, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

If they were usable, he would have used them against the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_an...09_Declaration

Quote:

These munitions meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, according to the commander of the National Ground Intelligence Center. "These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee. The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, though agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said.[114]

We were told there were no WMD's in Iraq. Obviously that isn't true.

Takeda Shingen · 07-31-12, 02:55 PM

So our postwar justification is now down to residual material in a pair of bunkers that were destroyed beyond futher use twenty years ago. Okay.

My question is why we didn't do anything to help clean those up while we were there all this time? It sounds like an environmental disaster waiting to happen. Seems to me that it would be the decent thing to do in both nation building and winning the hearts and minds of the people.

vienna · 07-31-12, 03:05 PM

Quote:

So our postwar justification is now down to residual material in a pair of bunkers that were destroyed beyond futher use twenty years ago. Okay.

My question is why we didn't do anything to help clean those up while we were there all this time? It sounds like an environmental disaster waiting to happen. Seems to me that it would be the decent thing to do in both nation building and winning the hearts and minds of the people.

Agreed on both points. To even imply that previously secured remnants justifies the conduct of the Iraq action is straw grasping in the desperate extreme by Bush apologist. The American people were lied to and our military servicemen have paid the price...

As for cleaning up, that is a very good question. In all the Bush years in Iraq and in the Obama years it does appear there was "no rush" to neutarlize what, as Takeda points out, is a potential environmental disaster. Particularly given the Bush administration's fervent frenzy about AMDs and the possibility of them falling into the wrong hands, it is indeed curious the AMD remnants were not destroyed/neutralized as a top priority. Also, why is the UK taking point on the disposal? It seems the US would bee the more likely entity to take the lead...

...

Herr-Berbunch · 07-31-12, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vienna

. Also, why is the UK taking point on the disposal? It seems the US would bee the more likely entity to take the lead...

...

Probably because we were the first to use WMDs in modern(ish) warfare, and that was against Iraqis.

Or because we sold them to them in the first place, when they were good guys against Iran.

Catfish · 08-01-12, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

We were told there were no WMD's in Iraq. Obviously that isn't true.

Well you should know what Iraq had at that time, he received it all from you and the NATO. And how we liked Saddam very much while he kept on attacking his neighbours, until he turned towards Saudi Arabia. Also Iraq and Turkey had tried to gas the Curds, along their frontiers. Is that gas a weapon of mass destruction ? I think it depends on whether you are a weapons contractor, the UN or a Marine, or an ordinary man with common sense.
Indeed i think the normal population had a more civilized life back then, than it has now. Saddam did not care about religion at all, he was a good, dependable dictator for decades, all doing business with him and sending him weapons of all kinds. Just like with Ghaddafi. Ahem.

"We were told .."
Exactly, you know people are always being told instead of thinking and making proof themselves. What about middle/south America back then

Now, for Iran ...

MH · 08-01-12, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catfish

Indeed i think the normal population had a more civilized life back then, than it has now. Saddam did not care about religion at all, he was a good, dependable dictator.
.

You must be kidding right?

Now they have democracy....is that good?

Catfish · 08-01-12, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MH

You must be kidding right?

Right.

Quote:

Now they have democracy....is that good?

At least no one is tortured anymore, at least not that i know of. However daily life and a civilian society will take time to be established, along with the avarage standard of living as it was before .. if those religious weirdos do not ruin it all again.

JU_88 · 08-01-12, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MH

Now they have democracy....is that good?

In a bitter sweet sort of way, I guess the question is would you like to live though almost a decade of war, in order to be able to cast a ballot?
If you have lost your livelyhood and/or home and/or loved ones, im guessing the answer is probably maybe not.

An invasion of Iraq had been on the cards since 2000 (feel free to look it up)
I do not believe for a second we went in to iraq to spread democracy or to find WMDs, those were 'excuses' not legitimate reasons.
And even if theywere, if foreign troops invaded our nations to disarm us and replace our Political leadership? How would we feel about it?
We'd be somewhere between 'outraged' and 'a bit skeptical' I imagine.

However you dress it up, its still a case 'We think our system is superior to yours. so we will force you to live like us AND! expect you to thank us for it.
Now how democratic is that? And where in the U.S consitution does it say this is acceptable?

Bottom line is, if Iraq wanted democracy, that was something they needed to do by themselves.

kraznyi_oktjabr · 08-01-12, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catfish

Indeed i think the normal population had a more civilized life back then, than it has now. Saddam did not care about religion at all, he was a good, dependable dictator. Ahem.

Except those poor girls who got Uday Hussein's interest.

I general I agree. I would like to point out that Iraq is mostly Shia nation (figure vary but 65% is quite common). This means that in religious point of view there is one natural ally - Iran. Besides I'm quite sure that Iraq will collapse into civil war within next 20-30 years.

August · 08-01-12, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catfish

Well you should know what Iraq had at that time, he received it all from you and the NATO.

What exactly did the US Government supply them?

JU_88 · 08-01-12, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

What exactly did the US Government supply them?

Google "United States support for Iraq during the Iran - Iraq war"
And scour through the 69,900 results until you can find a source you like.
But dont expect articals from major US main stream media outlets
(for obvious reasons)

The major superpowers (past and present) play smaller nations off against each other for their own advantage, its nothing new or surprising we have been doing it for decades. Or in our case (The UK) for centuries.

mookiemookie · 08-01-12, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

What exactly did the US Government supply them?

Economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct involvement in warfare against Iran.

This fact isn't exactly secret, new or in doubt.

Herr-Berbunch · 07-31-12, 02:59 PM

I had a friend in the weapons inspection team, he said that it was futile, the Iraqis knew when they were turning up and moved it. They knew it, we knew it, but what can you do?

Here's my friend next to a waxwork of Saddam, can't think why he was chosen for the team.

07-31-12, 02:59 PM	#15
Herr-Berbunch Kaiser Bill's batman Join Date: May 2010 Location: AN72 Posts: 13,203 Downloads: 76 Uploads: 0	I had a friend in the weapons inspection team, he said that it was futile, the Iraqis knew when they were turning up and moved it. They knew it, we knew it, but what can you do? Here's my friend next to a waxwork of Saddam, can't think why he was chosen for the team. __________________

07-31-12, 02:55 PM	#4
Takeda Shingen Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2000 Posts: 8,643 Downloads: 19 Uploads: 0	So our postwar justification is now down to residual material in a pair of bunkers that were destroyed beyond futher use twenty years ago. Okay. My question is why we didn't do anything to help clean those up while we were there all this time? It sounds like an environmental disaster waiting to happen. Seems to me that it would be the decent thing to do in both nation building and winning the hearts and minds of the people.