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.

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.

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...

...

CCIP · 07-31-12, 03:06 PM

There is a slight difference between weapons and materials remaining from them. If these are weapons, then so are all the B-52s sitting at Davis-Monthan with their wings cut off, flagrantly in violation of previous treaties regarding them. Cause, you know, they'll be up and flying in no time...

Either way, the fact that Saddam DID have WMDs and did use them is not a question. The question is when. This doesn't add any evidence to the idea that he had any in 2003.

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.

CCIP · 07-31-12, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herr-Berbunch

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.

LOL

Did he ever dress up as Saddam to gain access into their facilities and/or Iraq's finest pubs?

Herr-Berbunch · 07-31-12, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCIP

LOL

Did he ever dress up as Saddam to gain access into their facilities and/or Iraq's finest pubs?

That's the only pic of him with Saddam that I've seen, I've not seen him dress up, but surely it's only a matter of time. Maybe he was waiting for the threat of assassination to move on.

Takeda Shingen · 07-31-12, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herr-Berbunch

PHOTO

Wow. It's almost a perfect double.

vienna · 07-31-12, 03:19 PM

"BUMMER OF A BIRTHMARK, HAL"

EDIT:

Got the picture, but the caption didn't come with...

...

August · 07-31-12, 03:24 PM

Who said anything about justifying a war? The claim was made that Iraq had no WMD's. Not "No new WMD's", no WMD's. Obviously this is not true whether you want to admit it or not

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCIP

There is a slight difference between weapons and materials remaining from them. If these are weapons, then so are all the B-52s sitting at Davis-Monthan with their wings cut off, flagrantly in violation of previous treaties regarding them. Cause, you know, they'll be up and flying in no time..

Invalid comparison. There's a big difference between the remains of an aircraft and the remains of a Chemical weapon munition. For one thing just walking by the aircraft isn't likely to kill you...

CCIP · 07-31-12, 03:27 PM

Well, there's lots of things that can kill you when you walk by them. Spent nuclear fuel, industrial waste and large farm animals among these. The issue is whether you can put it in a warhead and launch it at a target. My understanding is that these did not qualify as WMDs anymore by that definition.

August · 07-31-12, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herr-Berbunch

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.

What WMD's did we use against the Iraqis?

07-31-12, 02:59 PM	#5
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, 03:06 PM	#7
CCIP Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Waterloo, Canada Posts: 8,700 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 2	There is a slight difference between weapons and materials remaining from them. If these are weapons, then so are all the B-52s sitting at Davis-Monthan with their wings cut off, flagrantly in violation of previous treaties regarding them. Cause, you know, they'll be up and flying in no time... Either way, the fact that Saddam DID have WMDs and did use them is not a question. The question is when. This doesn't add any evidence to the idea that he had any in 2003. __________________ There are only forty people in the world and five of them are hamburgers. -Don Van Vliet (aka Captain Beefheart)

07-31-12, 03:19 PM	#12
vienna Navy Seal Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Anywhere but the here & now... Posts: 7,711 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	"BUMMER OF A BIRTHMARK, HAL" EDIT: Got the picture, but the caption didn't come with... ... __________________ __________________________________________________ __

07-31-12, 03:27 PM	#14
CCIP Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Waterloo, Canada Posts: 8,700 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 2	Well, there's lots of things that can kill you when you walk by them. Spent nuclear fuel, industrial waste and large farm animals among these. The issue is whether you can put it in a warhead and launch it at a target. My understanding is that these did not qualify as WMDs anymore by that definition. __________________ There are only forty people in the world and five of them are hamburgers. -Don Van Vliet (aka Captain Beefheart)

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.