T Nation

Chemical Weapons Were Found in Iraq


#1

Looks like all of the Left wing Democrats who have been constantly shouting, "we went to war for NO REASON, cuz they didn't find the WMD's" can shut the fuck up now.

Turns out they found THOUSANDS of chemical weapons warheads.

Perhaps Colin Powell can show his face again...

The turd in the punch bowl is that ISIS now controls most of the territory where the stockpile of weapons was found. I heard on the radio this morning that there is security footage of ISIS militants over running a warehouse that had some of these weapons. Ooooops...

Two questions:
1) Why the fuck did the Pentagon keep this a secret when we openly declared this was the REASON for going to war?

2) Why the fuck are they telling us about it now?


#2

Lawsuits. Remember depleted uranium and “Gulf War syndrome?”


#3

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

  1. Why the fuck did the Pentagon keep this a secret when we openly declared this was the REASON for going to war?

[/quote]

Because the Pentagon is Democrat, just like everyone else in Washington DC, and wanted to harm Bush for political purposes. So they did not push it.

Because the same generals didn’t protect USA troops.

Bush didn’t fight back because he had bad advisers (who advised him to keep quiet), then it was too late because he fucked up and most of the weapons made it to Syria.

Finally, the worst danger (nukes) became moot when my country blew up Saddam’s breeder nuclear facility that got moved to the Beqaa Valley in Syria.

(Your welcome, BTW. All part of the services we provide for that military aid you complain about.)

Because it can’t be hidden now that both Assad and ISIS have the stockpiles and are both using them.


#4

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

(Your welcome, BTW. All part of the services we provide for that military aid you complain about.)[/quote]

Got a good chuckle out of that.

And the Media Darling already won a second term, and the radio silence until now, when the vast majority of letter voters won’t pay attention, and Jon Stewart will ignore it, won’t stop the Blue Tide they all expect to take over the government for the next generation.


#5

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

Looks like all of the Left wing Democrats who have been constantly shouting, “we went to war for NO REASON, cuz they didn’t find the WMD’s” can shut the fuck up now.

Turns out they found THOUSANDS of chemical weapons warheads.

Perhaps Colin Powell can show his face again…

The turd in the punch bowl is that ISIS now controls most of the territory where the stockpile of weapons was found. I heard on the radio this morning that there is security footage of ISIS militants over running a warehouse that had some of these weapons. Ooooops…

Two questions:

  1. Why the fuck did the Pentagon keep this a secret when we openly declared this was the REASON for going to war?

  2. Why the fuck are they telling us about it now?

[/quote]

From the article, “The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an ACTIVE weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of LONG-ABANDONED programs, built in CLOSE COLLABORATION with the West.” (Capitalization added for emphasis)

Even if Iraq had an active chemical weapons program, this would not be a sufficient reason to use military force. The Iraq war was preventative, as opposed to preemptive. One is not equipped to discuss the merits of the war if they do not know the difference between the two. Even if we set the discussion of what constitutes a “just war”, the fact of that matter is that Iraq was neither necessary nor prudent. Foreign policy should be based on Realpolitik, not normative idealism. The decision to invade Iraq is arguably the moment that the war in Afghanistan was lost. You know, the war that actually had something to do with al-Qa’ida.

I have written ad nauseum that the term “weapons of mass destruction” is a emotive misnomer that lacks analytical rigor. Weapons of mass destruction was frequently employed securitizing speech acts post-9/11 to justify the proliferation of the state security apparatus and the invasion of Iraq.

Unconventional munitions are more accurately described as chemical, biological, nuclear, or radiological(CBRN) weapons. Chemical weapons are not particularly effective weapons. They are highly dependent of geographical and weather conditions, are costly to produce, hazardous to store, and have profound political and security repercussions as their unconventional nature is antithetical to several nearly universal international norms. This is not an uncommonly held position in the intelligence and defense communities.

The “turd in the punch bowl” is that a foreign terrorist organization in the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham was facilitated by the destabilizing effect of American adventurism in Iraq. Who cares if they possess antiquated and ineffectual chemical weapons besides ignorant Joe Citizen? They already possess a prodigious quantity of conventional weapons, which have killed and will continue to kill exponentially more people than the Iraqi chemical phantasms could ever hope to do.

Do you honestly believe that American and international security would not be better served if the Iraq war genie could be put back in the bottle?


#6

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

  1. Why the fuck did the Pentagon keep this a secret when we openly declared this was the REASON for going to war?

[/quote]

Because the Pentagon is Democrat, just like everyone else in Washington DC, and wanted to harm Bush for political purposes. So they did not push it.

Because the same generals didn’t protect USA troops.

Bush didn’t fight back because he had bad advisers (who advised him to keep quiet), then it was too late because he fucked up and most of the weapons made it to Syria.

Finally, the worst danger (nukes) became moot when my country blew up Saddam’s breeder nuclear facility that got moved to the Beqaa Valley in Syria.

(Your welcome, BTW. All part of the services we provide for that military aid you complain about.)

Because it can’t be hidden now that both Assad and ISIS have the stockpiles and are both using them.
[/quote]

The military is a decidedly Republican institution. There are numerous studies in civil-military relations that indicate that the “Grand Army of the Republic” is the “Grand Army of the Republicans”. Painting D.C. blue is also indicative that you do not possess an accurate understanding of Washington’s political landscape in general and the American foreign policy establishment in particular.

Syria had no need for antiquated and degraded Iraqi chemical weapons as that state already possessed them in spades. To date, their has been no credible intelligence indicating that Saddam Hussein transferred his chemical arsenal to Syria. I am acquainted with several retired military intelligence officers who were in service at the time of the Iraq invasion who see such an assertion as empirically untenable.

The prospect of an Iraqi nuclear weapon state was dealt a death blow in the aftermath of the Gulf War.

Again, Syria’s chemical weapons arsenals cannot be cogently linked to those of Iraq circa 2002. ISIS is now using the remnants of the long dead Iraqi chemical weapons program? WHat evidence do you have of this?


#7

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

  1. Why the fuck did the Pentagon keep this a secret when we openly declared this was the REASON for going to war?

[/quote]

Because the Pentagon is Democrat, just like everyone else in Washington DC, and wanted to harm Bush for political purposes. So they did not push it.

Because the same generals didn’t protect USA troops.

Bush didn’t fight back because he had bad advisers (who advised him to keep quiet), then it was too late because he fucked up and most of the weapons made it to Syria.

Finally, the worst danger (nukes) became moot when my country blew up Saddam’s breeder nuclear facility that got moved to the Beqaa Valley in Syria.

(Your welcome, BTW. All part of the services we provide for that military aid you complain about.)

[/quote]Well don’t I feel like the fucking asshole now! Hey, if that’s the deal that is going on, then I’m going to shut the fuck up about that topic from here on out. I hope you can forgive my ignorance. For the record, I’ve always been pro-Israel about most things. I’m just sensitive about how the US government spends our tax dollars on things that don’t bring us benefit (and the MEDIA has portrayed some things about Israel that pissed me off, but I’m beginning to see through that bullshit). I was probably hasty in my judgement about the arrangement with Israel, so I’m sorry about that. Consider my position changed on the matter.[quote]

Because it can’t be hidden now that both Assad and ISIS have the stockpiles and are both using them.
[/quote]


#8

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

  1. Why the fuck did the Pentagon keep this a secret when we openly declared this was the REASON for going to war?

[/quote]

Because the Pentagon is Democrat, just like everyone else in Washington DC, and wanted to harm Bush for political purposes. So they did not push it.

Because the same generals didn’t protect USA troops.

Bush didn’t fight back because he had bad advisers (who advised him to keep quiet), then it was too late because he fucked up and most of the weapons made it to Syria.

Finally, the worst danger (nukes) became moot when my country blew up Saddam’s breeder nuclear facility that got moved to the Beqaa Valley in Syria.

(Your welcome, BTW. All part of the services we provide for that military aid you complain about.)

[/quote]Well don’t I feel like the fucking asshole now! Hey, if that’s the deal that is going on, then I’m going to shut the fuck up about that topic from here on out. I hope you can forgive my ignorance. For the record, I’ve always been pro-Israel about most things. I’m just sensitive about how the US government spends our tax dollars on things that don’t bring us benefit (and the MEDIA has portrayed some things about Israel that pissed me off, but I’m beginning to see through that bullshit). I was probably hasty in my judgement about the arrangement with Israel, so I’m sorry about that. Consider my position changed on the matter.[quote]

Because it can’t be hidden now that both Assad and ISIS have the stockpiles and are both using them.
[/quote]
[/quote]

Israeli nuclear monopoly primarily benefits Israel. That is not to say that it only benefits Israel.


#9

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

Looks like all of the Left wing Democrats who have been constantly shouting, “we went to war for NO REASON, cuz they didn’t find the WMD’s” can shut the fuck up now.

Turns out they found THOUSANDS of chemical weapons warheads.

Perhaps Colin Powell can show his face again…

The turd in the punch bowl is that ISIS now controls most of the territory where the stockpile of weapons was found. I heard on the radio this morning that there is security footage of ISIS militants over running a warehouse that had some of these weapons. Ooooops…

Two questions:

  1. Why the fuck did the Pentagon keep this a secret when we openly declared this was the REASON for going to war?

  2. Why the fuck are they telling us about it now?

[/quote]

From the article, “The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an ACTIVE weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of LONG-ABANDONED programs, built in CLOSE COLLABORATION with the West.” (Capitalization added for emphasis)
[/quote]I’m pretty sure that the average American would have been pretty happy to have found a bunch of chemical warheads - regardless of how old they were. I know I would have hated Bush a little less if that were to have been made public. At least I would have felt as if they didn’t LIE about it. They may not have gotten it “right”, but at least it would have been better than a big fat nothing.[quote]

Even if Iraq had an active chemical weapons program, this would not be a sufficient reason to use military force. The Iraq war was preventative, as opposed to preemptive. One is not equipped to discuss the merits of the war if they do not know the difference between the two. Even if we set the discussion of what constitutes a “just war”, the fact of that matter is that Iraq was neither necessary nor prudent. Foreign policy should be based on Realpolitik, not normative idealism. The decision to invade Iraq is arguably the moment that the war in Afghanistan was lost. You know, the war that actually had something to do with al-Qa’ida.

[/quote]I agree that we “should” have just stuck to Afghanistan. But we didn’t. Hindsight 20 fucking 20.[quote]

I have written ad nauseum that the term “weapons of mass destruction” is a emotive misnomer that lacks analytical rigor. Weapons of mass destruction was frequently employed securitizing speech acts post-9/11 to justify the proliferation of the state security apparatus and the invasion of Iraq.

Unconventional munitions are more accurately described as chemical, biological, nuclear, or radiological(CBRN) weapons. Chemical weapons are not particularly effective weapons. They are highly dependent of geographical and weather conditions, are costly to produce, hazardous to store, and have profound political and security repercussions as their unconventional nature is antithetical to several nearly universal international norms. This is not an uncommonly held position in the intelligence and defense communities.

The “turd in the punch bowl” is that a foreign terrorist organization in the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham was facilitated by the destabilizing effect of American adventurism in Iraq. Who cares if they possess antiquated and ineffectual chemical weapons besides ignorant Joe Citizen?

[/quote]Well, I care. Our border is so porous and our intelligence/security agencies are so weak under this pathetic POTUS I feel that we ARE vulnerable to an attack on American soil. Imagine the pandemonium if the bad guys actually successfully used chemical weapons here… Regardless of how “effective” you say they are, it’s still a weapon of terror. Look at how our lifestyle has changed over the last ten years as a result of box cutters and a few airline tickets… Life would seriously start to suck if they actually used chemical weapons.[quote]

They already possess a prodigious quantity of conventional weapons, which have killed and will continue to kill exponentially more people than the Iraqi chemical phantasms could ever hope to do.

Do you honestly believe that American and international security would not be better served if the Iraq war genie could be put back in the bottle? [/quote]

Do you think the world would be better off if the Hitler genie could be put back in the bottle? How about the Viet Nam genie? While we’re at it, can we give frogs wings so that they don’t bump their ass every time they jump?

Instead of pointing fingers and playing the blame game, how about talking about what to do NOW? Not that this president has the balls to ANYTHING remotely correct. But it is a discussion “worth” having.


#10

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I know I would have hated Bush a little less if that were to have been made public. At least I would have felt as if they didn’t LIE about it. They may not have gotten it “right”, but at least it would have been better than a big fat nothing[/quote]

Agreed, and it also makes the dead and wounded soldiers a bit easier pill to swallow.

And “Well shit, turns out this weapons program was abandoned, and it wasn’t the particular threat our intelligence suggested. AT least we prevented any programs that might be currently running” is infinitely better than “well shit.”


#11

[quote] angrychicken wrote:

I agree that we “should” have just stuck to Afghanistan. But we didn’t. Hindsight 20 fucking 20.

[/quote]

Keep in mind that opening a two front war necessitated al Qaeda splitting their forces. For example, Abu Musab al-Zaqawi and his followers came from Afghanistan to Iraq. No Iraq and we’d have been facing him in Afghanistan anyway.


#12

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote] angrychicken wrote:

I agree that we “should” have just stuck to Afghanistan. But we didn’t. Hindsight 20 fucking 20.

[/quote]

Keep in mind that opening a two front war necessitated al Qaeda splitting their forces. For example, Abu Musab al-Zaqawi and his followers came from Afghanistan to Iraq. No Iraq and we’d have been facing him in Afghanistan anyway.[/quote]

The same holds true for the division of U.S. forces and resources. Why would America limit itself to one hydra when it could have two?


#13

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I know I would have hated Bush a little less if that were to have been made public. At least I would have felt as if they didn’t LIE about it. They may not have gotten it “right”, but at least it would have been better than a big fat nothing[/quote]

Agreed, and it also makes the dead and wounded soldiers a bit easier pill to swallow.

And “Well shit, turns out this weapons program was abandoned, and it wasn’t the particular threat our intelligence suggested. AT least we prevented any programs that might be currently running” is infinitely better than “well shit.”[/quote]

If we follow that logical paradigm, the U.S. should invade Iran. Better safe than sorry given how poorly containment of Iraq functioned after the Gulf War.


#14

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I know I would have hated Bush a little less if that were to have been made public. At least I would have felt as if they didn’t LIE about it. They may not have gotten it “right”, but at least it would have been better than a big fat nothing[/quote]

Agreed, and it also makes the dead and wounded soldiers a bit easier pill to swallow.

And “Well shit, turns out this weapons program was abandoned, and it wasn’t the particular threat our intelligence suggested. AT least we prevented any programs that might be currently running” is infinitely better than “well shit.”[/quote]

If we follow that logical paradigm, the U.S. should invade Iran. Better safe than sorry given how poorly containment of Iraq functioned after the Gulf War. [/quote]

I agree. Those fuckers are funding all kinds of terrorist and trying like hell to develop nuclear weapons. The country is run by a bunch of crazy muslims who refer to us as the great satan. We should bomb the fuck out of them.


#15

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

Looks like all of the Left wing Democrats who have been constantly shouting, “we went to war for NO REASON, cuz they didn’t find the WMD’s” can shut the fuck up now.

Turns out they found THOUSANDS of chemical weapons warheads.

Perhaps Colin Powell can show his face again…

The turd in the punch bowl is that ISIS now controls most of the territory where the stockpile of weapons was found. I heard on the radio this morning that there is security footage of ISIS militants over running a warehouse that had some of these weapons. Ooooops…

Two questions:

  1. Why the fuck did the Pentagon keep this a secret when we openly declared this was the REASON for going to war?

  2. Why the fuck are they telling us about it now?

[/quote]

From the article, “The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an ACTIVE weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of LONG-ABANDONED programs, built in CLOSE COLLABORATION with the West.” (Capitalization added for emphasis)
[/quote]I’m pretty sure that the average American would have been pretty happy to have found a bunch of chemical warheads - regardless of how old they were. I know I would have hated Bush a little less if that were to have been made public. At least I would have felt as if they didn’t LIE about it. They may not have gotten it “right”, but at least it would have been better than a big fat nothing.[quote]

Even if Iraq had an active chemical weapons program, this would not be a sufficient reason to use military force. The Iraq war was preventative, as opposed to preemptive. One is not equipped to discuss the merits of the war if they do not know the difference between the two. Even if we set the discussion of what constitutes a “just war”, the fact of that matter is that Iraq was neither necessary nor prudent. Foreign policy should be based on Realpolitik, not normative idealism. The decision to invade Iraq is arguably the moment that the war in Afghanistan was lost. You know, the war that actually had something to do with al-Qa’ida.

[/quote]I agree that we “should” have just stuck to Afghanistan. But we didn’t. Hindsight 20 fucking 20.[quote]

I have written ad nauseum that the term “weapons of mass destruction” is a emotive misnomer that lacks analytical rigor. Weapons of mass destruction was frequently employed securitizing speech acts post-9/11 to justify the proliferation of the state security apparatus and the invasion of Iraq.

Unconventional munitions are more accurately described as chemical, biological, nuclear, or radiological(CBRN) weapons. Chemical weapons are not particularly effective weapons. They are highly dependent of geographical and weather conditions, are costly to produce, hazardous to store, and have profound political and security repercussions as their unconventional nature is antithetical to several nearly universal international norms. This is not an uncommonly held position in the intelligence and defense communities.

The “turd in the punch bowl” is that a foreign terrorist organization in the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham was facilitated by the destabilizing effect of American adventurism in Iraq. Who cares if they possess antiquated and ineffectual chemical weapons besides ignorant Joe Citizen?

[/quote]Well, I care. Our border is so porous and our intelligence/security agencies are so weak under this pathetic POTUS I feel that we ARE vulnerable to an attack on American soil. Imagine the pandemonium if the bad guys actually successfully used chemical weapons here… Regardless of how “effective” you say they are, it’s still a weapon of terror. Look at how our lifestyle has changed over the last ten years as a result of box cutters and a few airline tickets… Life would seriously start to suck if they actually used chemical weapons.[quote]

They already possess a prodigious quantity of conventional weapons, which have killed and will continue to kill exponentially more people than the Iraqi chemical phantasms could ever hope to do.

Do you honestly believe that American and international security would not be better served if the Iraq war genie could be put back in the bottle? [/quote]

Do you think the world would be better off if the Hitler genie could be put back in the bottle? How about the Viet Nam genie? While we’re at it, can we give frogs wings so that they don’t bump their ass every time they jump?

Instead of pointing fingers and playing the blame game, how about talking about what to do NOW? Not that this president has the balls to ANYTHING remotely correct. But it is a discussion “worth” having.[/quote]

Was the invasion of Iraq necessary and prudent?


#16

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I know I would have hated Bush a little less if that were to have been made public. At least I would have felt as if they didn’t LIE about it. They may not have gotten it “right”, but at least it would have been better than a big fat nothing[/quote]

Agreed, and it also makes the dead and wounded soldiers a bit easier pill to swallow.

And “Well shit, turns out this weapons program was abandoned, and it wasn’t the particular threat our intelligence suggested. AT least we prevented any programs that might be currently running” is infinitely better than “well shit.”[/quote]

If we follow that logical paradigm, the U.S. should invade Iran. Better safe than sorry given how poorly containment of Iraq functioned after the Gulf War. [/quote]

Please point out where I said “good thing we went in”.

oooh right, I didn’t.

All I said was “this makes it a much less bitter pill to swallow.”

Battle caliber!


#17

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I know I would have hated Bush a little less if that were to have been made public. At least I would have felt as if they didn’t LIE about it. They may not have gotten it “right”, but at least it would have been better than a big fat nothing[/quote]

Agreed, and it also makes the dead and wounded soldiers a bit easier pill to swallow.

And “Well shit, turns out this weapons program was abandoned, and it wasn’t the particular threat our intelligence suggested. AT least we prevented any programs that might be currently running” is infinitely better than “well shit.”[/quote]

If we follow that logical paradigm, the U.S. should invade Iran. Better safe than sorry given how poorly containment of Iraq functioned after the Gulf War. [/quote]

Please point out where I said “good thing we went in”.

oooh right, I didn’t.

All I said was “this makes it a much less bitter pill to swallow.”

[/quote]

It doesn’t in the least to the informed. Even an active chemical weapons program wouldn’t have made the invasion neither necessary nor prudent. Hundreds of thousands of lives lost and trillions of dollars later, what fruits did the war yield?


#18

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote] angrychicken wrote:

I agree that we “should” have just stuck to Afghanistan. But we didn’t. Hindsight 20 fucking 20.

[/quote]

Keep in mind that opening a two front war necessitated al Qaeda splitting their forces. For example, Abu Musab al-Zaqawi and his followers came from Afghanistan to Iraq. No Iraq and we’d have been facing him in Afghanistan anyway.[/quote]

The same holds true for the division of U.S. forces and resources. Why would America limit itself to one hydra when it could have two?[/quote]

True. BTW, do you think Mearsheimer’s “bait and bleed” strategy might be an effective way of approaching the Sunni-Shia civil war over yonder?


#19

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I know I would have hated Bush a little less if that were to have been made public. At least I would have felt as if they didn’t LIE about it. They may not have gotten it “right”, but at least it would have been better than a big fat nothing[/quote]

Agreed, and it also makes the dead and wounded soldiers a bit easier pill to swallow.

And “Well shit, turns out this weapons program was abandoned, and it wasn’t the particular threat our intelligence suggested. AT least we prevented any programs that might be currently running” is infinitely better than “well shit.”[/quote]

If we follow that logical paradigm, the U.S. should invade Iran. Better safe than sorry given how poorly containment of Iraq functioned after the Gulf War. [/quote]

Please point out where I said “good thing we went in”.

oooh right, I didn’t.

All I said was “this makes it a much less bitter pill to swallow.”

[/quote]

It doesn’t in the least to the informed. Even an active chemical weapons program wouldn’t have made the invasion neither necessary nor prudent. Hundreds of thousands of lives lost and trillions of dollars later, what fruits did the war yield? [/quote]

Jesus fuckign Christ.

Dude, whatever. Continue ignoring what other people are saying and arguing your pet cause strawmen. I’m not up to it today.


#20

[quote]Bismark wrote:
what fruits did the war yield? [/quote]

It pissed off the left. That’s gotta be worth something.