US did find Iraq WMD

[=RTM=]

http://m.nypost.com/p/news/international/us_did_find_iraq_wmd_AYiLgNbw7pDf7AZ3RO9qnM

There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all.

The massive cache of almost 400,000 Iraq war documents released by the WikiLeaks Web site revealed that small amounts of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and continued to surface for years after the 2003 US invasion, Wired magazine reported.

The documents showed that US troops continued to find chemical weapons and labs for years after the invasion, including remnants of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons arsenal -- most of which had been destroyed following the Gulf War.

In August 2004, American troops were able to buy containers from locals of what they thought was liquid sulfur mustard, a blister agent, the documents revealed. The chemicals were triple-sealed and taken to a secure site.

Also in 2004, troops discovered a chemical lab in a house in Fallujah during a battle with insurgents. A chemical cache was also found in the city.

[admiralsnackbar]

Those would be weapons of destruction, not mass destruction.

Saddam didn't have the requisite delivery system to make any chemical agent a threat.

[DarrinS]

Those would be weapons of destruction, not mass destruction.

Saddam didn't have the requisite delivery system to make any chemical agent a threat.


The Kurds would tend to disagree.

[boutons_deux]

The stuff was probably sold by USA to Saddam in the 1980s when Rummy and dickhead were doing business with Iraq as counter to Iran.

Delivery systems to USA? none.

[admiralsnackbar]

The Kurds would tend to disagree.
The Kurds don't live on another continent.

[hater]

Not a weapon unless there's a way to deliver it.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Not a weapon unless there's a way to deliver it.

you're such a stickler for details..

[DarrinS]

Not a weapon unless there's a way to deliver it.


Suitcase?

[ElNono]

Looks like Wikileaks finished translating the documents!

[boutons_deux]

USA is really vulnerable to suitcase weapons. after spending $100B/year on NSA/DHS/FBI for 10 years.

And $2T and 5000+ military dead, to stop suitcase weapons?

[DarrinS]

How the US military defines a WMD.

Chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass casualties and exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part from the weapon.

[ElNono]

Under that definition basically almost every single country has a WMD.

How the US military defines it is really irrelevant. What matters is what the world as a whole sees WMD as.

[RandomGuy]

http://m.nypost.com/p/news/international/us_did_find_iraq_wmd_AYiLgNbw7pDf7AZ3RO9qnM

There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all.

The massive cache of almost 400,000 Iraq war documents released by the WikiLeaks Web site revealed that small amounts of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and continued to surface for years after the 2003 US invasion, Wired magazine reported.

The documents showed that US troops continued to find chemical weapons and labs for years after the invasion, including remnants of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons arsenal -- most of which had been destroyed following the Gulf War.

In August 2004, American troops were able to buy containers from locals of what they thought was liquid sulfur mustard, a blister agent, the documents revealed. The chemicals were triple-sealed and taken to a secure site.

Also in 2004, troops discovered a chemical lab in a house in Fallujah during a battle with insurgents. A chemical cache was also found in the city.

Meh, "small amounts" were bound to be around in a country as corrupt/inept as Iraq, after having a massive stockpile that was actively used in the Iran-Iraq war.

Such small amounts lost or pilfered or whatever do not constitute anything that approaches what we attempted to say he has. Only an idiot would believe that.

The picture that most agree on based on all the available evidence is that Saddam got rid of all of his weapons, but kept the baseline capabilities that would have allowed him to ramp up had the sanctions been lifted.

Did Saddam have enough capability to justify the trillions of dollars we spent on the invasion/occupation? Fuck no.

Not that this will stop the usual idiots from saying the usual stupid things about how justified this was, just because a Republican president wanted it.

[Halberto]

LOL

This topic clearly has some hidden agenda that fails miserably. If the government ever found weapons that satisfied their first justification to invade Iraq they wouldn't hesitate to let the whole world know.

[ElNono]

LOL

This topic clearly has some hidden agenda that fails miserably. If the government ever found weapons that satisfied their first justification to invade Iraq they wouldn't hesitate to let the whole world know.

Basically. It's the smoking gun they've been looking for years.

[admiralsnackbar]

How the US military defines a WMD.

Chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass casualties and exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part from the weapon.

I wonder who wrote that little clause in :lol
By this definition, then, I suppose having a drum of nitrogen-based fertilizer or an anthrax-saturated goat is enough. In which case my gramps' ranch was probably part of the axis of evil.

[ChumpDumper]

Not even Cheney would cite this as justification.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Not even Cheney would cite this as justification.

apparently you should ask the kurds about the wmds that were used against them... **




** the one's that we provided saddam

[admiralsnackbar]

Not even Cheney would cite this as justification. Yeah... not his style.

He'd have petroleum classified as a WMD and contract Halliburton to dispose of the haz-mat.

[Wild Cobra]

Any of the mainstreams reporting this?

Go to 5:06, or go here (GvliUuXjbL4&feature=player_detailpage#t=306s)

GvliUuXjbL4

[DMX7]

:lol

[ElNono]

Any of the mainstreams reporting this?

You found it on YouTube. Not mainstream enough for you?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Any of the mainstreams reporting this?

Go to 5:06, or go here (GvliUuXjbL4&feature=player_detailpage#t=306s)

GvliUuXjbL4

Is this where he joked about finding wmds under the lectern? hilarious.. as GIs were dying in Iraq... my tummy hurt so bad after bush's funny..

[Wild Cobra]

You found it on YouTube. Not mainstream enough for you?
I'm talking about the current release of information that shows it was there.

[RandomGuy]

i'm talking about the current release of information that shows [that small amounts were] there.

fify.

[ElNono]

I'm talking about the current release of information that shows it was there.

What was there?

[Wild Cobra]

What was there?
LOL...

Didn't realize that was already a year old. However, it does confirm what many of us said. That he had it.

[RandomGuy]

LOL...

Didn't realize that was already a year old. However, it does confirm what many of us said. That he had it.

A few isolated shells here and there that escaped destruction after the decision to destroy them, hardly reaches the level we were given to believe he had.

Still doesn't justify the trillions spent on the war/occupation, does it?

[Halberto]

LOL shut up WC. Stop reaching.

[Wild Cobra]

Still doesn't justify the trillions spent on the war/occupation, does it?
That was only one of several reason we went there.

Keep making it a single issue war, and you look to be a fool.

[boutons_deux]

WMD was the BIG LIE chosen by the neocons to have Powell spew at the UN for the resolution.

WMD was the MAIN, FIRST, TOP justification for the war, "mushroom clouds", mobile weapons labs, aluminum tubes, etc, etc, were all WMD lies.

dickhead pimping Saddam's non-link to WTC for 2 or 3 years after the invastion was another LIE, dickhead icing the WMD cake.

[Vici]

That was only one of several reason we went there.

Keep making it a single issue war, and you look to be a fool.

I had written a long response to this but decided it's not worth it.

If you believe that the American people were led to believe that the war was about anything else besides WMDs or 9/11 connections then you're simply an idiot.

The justification for war was about SH giving up his f'ing WMDs. It's elementary at this point and pathetic that anyone would argue otherwise.

[Wild Cobra]

I had written a long response to this but decided it's not worth it.

If you believe that the American people were led to believe that the war was about anything else besides WMDs or 9/11 connections then you're simply an idiot.

The justification for war was about SH giving up his f'ing WMDs. It's elementary at this point and pathetic that anyone would argue otherwise.
I see...

You believe what the media tells you to believe.

Tell me. Where were you during Desert Storm? I was in the Army at the time. There was more to Saddam than WMD.

Let me guess. You also support our help in Libya. Is it because of who was president when by chance?

Consider this:

Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq)

[Halberto]

I see...

You believe what the media tells you to believe.




LOL

YOU... OF ALL PEOPLE.... claiming someone isn't voicing an independent view.

[Vici]

I see...

You believe what the media tells you to believe.

Tell me. Where were you during Desert Storm? I was in the Army at the time. There was more to Saddam than WMD.

Let me guess. You also support our help in Libya. Is it because of who was president when by chance?

Consider this:

Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq)

lol grats on being in the first gulf war but unfortunately for you that has NOTHING to do with the U.S. invading. Were you even overseas? My entire family that was of age was also in the military, more then half serving in Iraq including both my parents, grandfather, and all of my aunts and uncles. And not all of them were hiding behind a desk or on base like I'm guessing you were. Tell me what you know that they don't because not a single one of them supported the last war.

There was NOTHING more to this invasion outside of oil and WMDs. And yes I took what the media told me because believe it or not the media WAS PRO WAR heading into the invasion. Everyone was on board because everyone was told by our government that Iraq had WMDs and was willing to give them to terrorists.

If the purpose was not WMDs then what was? Nation building? Atrocities?
Try again.

[Vici]

I see...

You believe what the media tells you to believe.

Tell me. Where were you during Desert Storm? I was in the Army at the time. There was more to Saddam than WMD.

Let me guess. You also support our help in Libya. Is it because of who was president when by chance?

Consider this:

Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq)

And for not having an independent view, what can you possibly base that on? Is it because I'm not acting like a dumb ass and spouting off something retarded just to say I think differently?

[RandomGuy]

That was only one of several reason we went there.

Keep making it a single issue war, and you look to be a fool.

Ok, I'll bite, what were the other reasons?

(edit)

Talking like mouse will not help your case.

[RandomGuy]

I see...

You believe what the media tells you to believe.

Tell me. Where were you during Desert Storm? I was in the Army at the time. There was more to Saddam than WMD.

Let me guess. You also support our help in Libya. Is it because of who was president when by chance?

Consider this:

Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq)

I was a stateside intelligence analyst in the Army during the first DS. What were you doing for the Army?

You harp on human rights when it suits, then abandon it when not, not unlike our own government.

I don't find the WMD allegations and human rights violation to have been worth the trillions of dollars spent.

Anything else?

[Nbadan]

lol grats on being in the first gulf war but unfortunately for you that has NOTHING to do with the U.S. invading. Were you even overseas? My entire family that was of age was also in the military, more then half serving in Iraq including both my parents, grandfather, and all of my aunts and uncles. And not all of them were hiding behind a desk or on base like I'm guessing you were. Tell me what you know that they don't because not a single one of them supported the last war.

There was NOTHING more to this invasion outside of oil and WMDs. And yes I took what the media told me because believe it or not the media WAS PRO WAR heading into the invasion. Everyone was on board because everyone was told by our government that Iraq had WMDs and was willing to give them to terrorists.

If the purpose was not WMDs then what was? Nation building? Atrocities?
Try again.

Good ole fashion American Imperialism....


David Harvey says there has emerged a new type of imperialism due to geographical distinctions as well as uneven levels of development.[31] He says there has emerged three new global economic and politics blocs: the United States, the European Union, and East Asia centered around China and Japan.[32] He says there are tensions between the three major blocs over resources and economic power, citing the 2003 invasion of Iraq, whose goal was to prevent rivals from controlling oil.[33] Furthermore, Harvey argues there can arise conflict within the major blocs between capitalists and politicians due to their opposing economic interests.[34] Politicians, on the other hand, live in geographically fixed locations and are, in the U.S. and Europe, accountable to the electorate. The 'new' imperialism, then, has led to an alignment of the interests of capitalists and politicians in order to prevent the rise and expansion of possible economic and political rivals from challenging America's dominance

David Harvey (born 31 October 1935, Gillingham, Kent, England) is the Distinguished Professor of Anthropology at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY). He received his PhD in Geography from University of Cambridge in 1961. He is among the top 20 most cited authors in the humanities.[1] He is a leading proponent of the idea of The Right to the City.

[ElNono]

LOL...

Didn't realize that was already a year old. However, it does confirm what many of us said. That he had it.

He had what? There were no WMD in Iraq.

[ElNono]

I see...

You believe what the media tells you to believe.

:lmao

[scott]

You want WMD in Iraq you shoulda hit the men's room right after Saddam during a presidential feast... BADABING!

[scott]

And yes, that's the level of response this stupid thread deserves

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

LOL

This topic clearly has some hidden agenda that fails miserably. If the government ever found weapons that satisfied their first justification to invade Iraq they wouldn't hesitate to let the whole world know.
This ruins the whole thread.

If Iraq had WMDs, Bush and his gang of neocons would have used them as their main justification for invading Iraq.

[resistanze]

Bush just doesn't like bragging, unlike OBAMA

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

^:lmao:lmao:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

LOL...

Didn't realize that was already a year old. However, it does confirm what many of us said. That he had it.That he had what? Small amounts of expired mustard gas?

You're an idiot.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You believe what the media tells you to believe.

:rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin

You don't even know what an original thought is. You gave us sales material from a gas boiler manufacturer in a discussion on climate.

[Wild Cobra]

lol grats on being in the first gulf war but unfortunately for you that has NOTHING to do with the U.S. invading.

What about the multitude of conditions we struck up with Saddam back then for the cease fire? I say cease fire, because we never officially declared an end to the war.


Were you even overseas?

I was at the net control station of a nuclear theater communications site for NATO, JCS, and USEUCOM.


Tell me what you know that they don't because not a single one of them supported the last war.

Saddam kept violating the conditions of our withdraw and continues attacking his own people.


There was NOTHING more to this invasion outside of oil and WMDs.

No, those were the reasons that were popular. they were not alone.


And yes I took what the media told me because believe it or not the media WAS PRO WAR heading into the invasion. Everyone was on board because everyone was told by our government that Iraq had WMDs and was willing to give them to terrorists.

Do you realize the extent of the WMD that Saddam failed to account for? He agrees to the conditions set out by UN resolutions, and violates them. There was every reason in the world to believe he still had substantial WMD.

He continues, over and over, to violate the No Fly zones. He previously attacked a neighboring country.


If the purpose was not WMDs then what was? Nation building? Atrocities?
Try again.
What I already mentioned above, and more I would have to look up to account well. We have discussed these issues in the past, and I see little point in saying things over and over again that go in one ear and out the other.

I was a stateside intelligence analyst in the Army during the first DS. What were you doing for the Army?

Then you know several reasons. Why do you support Libya and not Iraq?


You harp on human rights when it suits, then abandon it when not, not unlike our own government.

Are you saying Saddam treated Iraqis better than Qaddafi treated Libyans? I think not.


I don't find the WMD allegations and human rights violation to have been worth the trillions of dollars spent.

I don't like the price tag either. But once we started, I don't think it proper to run away with tails tucked. Is that what you do? Maybe you would have approved of another Viet Nam.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't like the price tag either. But once we started, I don't think it proper to run away with tails tucked. Is that what you do? Maybe you would have approved of another Viet Nam.Why is Vietnam no longer an enemy?

[ElNono]

Obviously, having the world perceive 'we won' a war after starting it unilaterally and based on flawed intelligence is much more important than any deficits... that's until blue team is at the helm.

Then deficits matter and we shouldn't even be assisting NATO allies to comply with UN resolutions...

But, but, you all believe what the media tells you to believe :cry :cry

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Obviously, having the world perceive 'we won' a war after starting it unilaterally and based on flawed intelligence is much more important than any deficits... that's until blue team is at the helm.

Then deficits matter and we shouldn't even be assisting NATO allies to comply with UN resolutions...

But, but, you all believe what the media tells you to believe :cry :cry
:lmao:lmao:lmao


Wild Chodebrah is a classic example of a dumbfuck Republican who didn't give two shits about the national deficit from 2001-2008 then once Obama took office and picked up where Bush left off, the national deficit all the sudden became a giant issue.

[RandomGuy]

Why do you support Libya and not Iraq?

Are you saying Saddam treated Iraqis better than Qaddafi treated Libyans? I think not.

I don't like the price tag either. But once we started, I don't think it proper to run away with tails tucked. Is that what you do? Maybe you would have approved of another Viet Nam.

Libya had a much more limited mandate, and did not require trillions of dollars to fix/occupy.

Saddam v. Qadaffi

Qadaffi's intelligence services ACTIVELY participated in terrorism, in case the people that died over Lockerbie and the other bombings escaped you. Since I can only presume you know about this, I can only guess you are against terrorism when the guy in the white house is a Republican? You used the rather thin saw that one of Saddams low ranking intel guy met once with a low ranking Al Qaeda member as part of your arguments for invading Iraq, btw.

I didn't want to go into Iraq because it was patently obvious that the Bush administration had no idea what to do afterwards. That and the fact that any post-war Iraq was going to be a playground for Iran.

The fucking soup sandwich that was 2003-2006 occupation was something I could see coming a mile away, and it was frustrating as hell to see partisan asshats like Yonivore and yourself blind to that, no matter how clearly and logically it was explained.

Bottom line is that the only real reason you supported Iraq and not Libya appears to be the political party of the President in office at the time.