3 ms·

I don't know what Netanyahu said so he may have perjured himself, but Iraq technically had WMD. They weren't nukes, but the chemical variety and most of them we

I don't know what Netanyahu said so he may have perjured himself, but Iraq technically had WMD. They weren't nukes, but the chemical variety and most of them weren't stored properly.

eastbound 1y ago
Chemicals are usually less efficient than normal bombs. They’re too local. You can do the same with explosives. “Iraq had explosives.”
- motorest 1y ago
  If you read up on Iraq's history of WMDs, the relevance of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons was that Saddam's regime had already a long history of developing and using these types of weapons both against neighbors and its own civilians. When Saddam decided to invade and annex Kuwait, half the world united to act, drive him out, and eliminate Iraq's WMD programmes. After the first gulf war, the UN was in charge of verifying that Saddam's regime destroyed it's existing stockpile and WMD programmes, but Saddam not only actively prevented the UN from doing any form of verificarion but also outright antagonized the UN. It was with this backdrop that the "Iraq has WMDs" campaign managed to get traction. If you learn history and pay attention to the events, you'll quickly understand that Saddam's antagonism and mockery of the whole UN institution, specially when they self-isolated, was an easy sell even with weak evidence. Making this out to be a simple matter exclusively and bounded to the existence of WMDs is naive and outright ignorant.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - eastbound 1y ago
    Seems like Saddam didn’t use his WMD even after being attacked to death. So, theoretical projections aside, - Saddam factually didn’t have WMD to use, - If he had, they were not powerful anyway, - Not a reason for groundbreaking safekeeping invasion, - We all know it was a matter of petrol, not humanitarian causes. I’m literally all ok with invasions caused by power struggles; I’m not ok with lying. Colin Powell lied and the UN Security Council validated, …proving the UNSC is a shitbag, and irremediable, hopeless, handicapped pile of corrupt officials.
idiotsecant 1y ago
Sure glad we spent a generation of lives and treasure, and maybe the golden years of the American hegemony on that boondoggle to take care of a few crappy chemical weapons in some dusty sand pit of a country.
motorest 1y ago
I don't know who is downvoting PP but here's Wikipedia's article on Iraq WMDs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destr...
- normie3000 1y ago
  Perhaps because the article you linked says things like: > U.S.-led inspections later found that Iraq had ceased active WMD production and stockpiling.
  - motorest 1y ago
    > Perhaps because the article you linked says things like: The article says an awful lot more, such as pointing out the fact that Saddam's regime not only ran WMD development programmes for decades but also had a long and verified track record of using them in military engagements and even against civilians. The article also points out the fact that once Saddam's regime was defeated in it's botched attempt at invading and annexing Kuwait, it rejected and outright antagonized the UN's programme that foresaw terminating Saddam's WMD programmes. Trying to spin the issue as a simplistic "they had no WMDs" is ignorant to the point of being nearly disingenuous. You need to ignore everything and the whole history to make such a simplistic and superficial observation.
    - dreghgh 1y ago
      The problem with this argument is that the case for war with Iraq was repeatedly made as "Iraq has WMDs that they are willing and ready to use".
      - motorest 1y ago
        > The problem with this argument is that the case for war with Iraq was repeatedly made as "Iraq has WMDs that they are willing and ready to use". It's not s problem at all. It's actually the whole point. Following Saddam's botched invasion of Kuwait, the regime was ordered to destroy it's WMD stockpile. The UN was mandated to foresee Saddam's WMD programmes were destroyed. Saddam spent the following years outright preventing the UN to do any form of verification, and went to the extent of outright antagonizing them. So you reach a point where a totalitarian regime with a long and proven track record of developing and using WMDs refuses to show it got rid of it's WMDs. How can you tell if they still have it if they actively prevent the UN from checking? You instead receive intel that suggests Saddam is indeed not only stockpiling WMDs but also actively developing them. Do you think it's unreasonable to enforce the decision? It's tempting to look back and take the simplistic and ignorant path of saying "there were no WMDs". This however denies all facts and state of affairs. In fact, the whole WMD talk is a red herring.
rsingel 1y ago
They had jack. Zero. Nada. It was ginned up BS that led to the worst foreign policy blunder in 100 years, directly creating ISIS, deaths of 500k Iraqis and kicking off the migrant crisis.
- stickfigure 1y ago
  The Kurds would beg to differ.
  - jeromegv 1y ago
    The same Kurds the US government fucked over in Syria?
    - ImJamal 1y ago
      Why does it matter if the US screwed them?
- ImJamal 1y ago
  > They had jack. Zero. Nada. > It was ginned up BS This is just not true. You can view the documents on wikileaks and other organizations. > that led to the worst foreign policy blunder in 100 years, directly creating ISIS, deaths of 500k Iraqis and kicking off the migrant crisis. Perhaps, but completely irrelevant to whether or not they had WMD. I don't get why people who are on the right side of this refuse to admit this.
  - lIl-IIIl 1y ago
    Wikipedia says they had no WMDs: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_des.... What are these documents you are referring to?
    - ImJamal 1y ago
      https://www.wired.com/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/ https://www.wired.com/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-contin... Some of the chemicals qualified as WMD. Almost none of them were properly stored and weren't usable, but a little bit were usable. Also, I'm not making the claim they were trying to make new ones, just that they had some.
samrus 1y ago
youre still falling for it? these guys knew exactly what they were doing when they said WMDs; they meant nukes and to exploit post 9/11 fears. then they moved the goalposts after their lie was discovered to make bombs "WMDs"
- matt-attack 1y ago
  What was the real motivation?
- ImJamal 1y ago
  I know they meant nukes. Both Bush and Netanyahu explicitly said nukes. I am strictly talking about potential perjury. If in official testimonies they only said WMD then they did not commit perjury.
  - samrus 1y ago
    They lied. Being pedantic about it only helps them do it again now. The spirit of the matter is that they keep lying and keep getting away with it

I don't know what Netanyahu said so he may have perjured himself, but Iraq technically had WMD. They weren't nukes, but the chemical variety and most of them weren't stored properly.

eastbound 1y ago

Chemicals are usually less efficient than normal bombs. They’re too local. You can do the same with explosives. “Iraq had explosives.”

motorest 1y ago
If you read up on Iraq's history of WMDs, the relevance of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons was that Saddam's regime had already a long history of developing and using these types of weapons both against neighbors and its own civilians. When Saddam decided to invade and annex Kuwait, half the world united to act, drive him out, and eliminate Iraq's WMD programmes. After the first gulf war, the UN was in charge of verifying that Saddam's regime destroyed it's existing stockpile and WMD programmes, but Saddam not only actively prevented the UN from doing any form of verificarion but also outright antagonized the UN. It was with this backdrop that the "Iraq has WMDs" campaign managed to get traction. If you learn history and pay attention to the events, you'll quickly understand that Saddam's antagonism and mockery of the whole UN institution, specially when they self-isolated, was an easy sell even with weak evidence. Making this out to be a simple matter exclusively and bounded to the existence of WMDs is naive and outright ignorant.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- eastbound 1y ago
  Seems like Saddam didn’t use his WMD even after being attacked to death. So, theoretical projections aside, - Saddam factually didn’t have WMD to use, - If he had, they were not powerful anyway, - Not a reason for groundbreaking safekeeping invasion, - We all know it was a matter of petrol, not humanitarian causes. I’m literally all ok with invasions caused by power struggles; I’m not ok with lying. Colin Powell lied and the UN Security Council validated, …proving the UNSC is a shitbag, and irremediable, hopeless, handicapped pile of corrupt officials.

idiotsecant 1y ago

Sure glad we spent a generation of lives and treasure, and maybe the golden years of the American hegemony on that boondoggle to take care of a few crappy chemical weapons in some dusty sand pit of a country.

motorest 1y ago

I don't know who is downvoting PP but here's Wikipedia's article on Iraq WMDs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destr...

normie3000 1y ago
Perhaps because the article you linked says things like: > U.S.-led inspections later found that Iraq had ceased active WMD production and stockpiling.
- motorest 1y ago
  > Perhaps because the article you linked says things like: The article says an awful lot more, such as pointing out the fact that Saddam's regime not only ran WMD development programmes for decades but also had a long and verified track record of using them in military engagements and even against civilians. The article also points out the fact that once Saddam's regime was defeated in it's botched attempt at invading and annexing Kuwait, it rejected and outright antagonized the UN's programme that foresaw terminating Saddam's WMD programmes. Trying to spin the issue as a simplistic "they had no WMDs" is ignorant to the point of being nearly disingenuous. You need to ignore everything and the whole history to make such a simplistic and superficial observation.
  - dreghgh 1y ago
    The problem with this argument is that the case for war with Iraq was repeatedly made as "Iraq has WMDs that they are willing and ready to use".
    - motorest 1y ago
      > The problem with this argument is that the case for war with Iraq was repeatedly made as "Iraq has WMDs that they are willing and ready to use". It's not s problem at all. It's actually the whole point. Following Saddam's botched invasion of Kuwait, the regime was ordered to destroy it's WMD stockpile. The UN was mandated to foresee Saddam's WMD programmes were destroyed. Saddam spent the following years outright preventing the UN to do any form of verification, and went to the extent of outright antagonizing them. So you reach a point where a totalitarian regime with a long and proven track record of developing and using WMDs refuses to show it got rid of it's WMDs. How can you tell if they still have it if they actively prevent the UN from checking? You instead receive intel that suggests Saddam is indeed not only stockpiling WMDs but also actively developing them. Do you think it's unreasonable to enforce the decision? It's tempting to look back and take the simplistic and ignorant path of saying "there were no WMDs". This however denies all facts and state of affairs. In fact, the whole WMD talk is a red herring.

rsingel 1y ago

They had jack. Zero. Nada. It was ginned up BS that led to the worst foreign policy blunder in 100 years, directly creating ISIS, deaths of 500k Iraqis and kicking off the migrant crisis.

stickfigure 1y ago
The Kurds would beg to differ.
- jeromegv 1y ago
  The same Kurds the US government fucked over in Syria?
  - ImJamal 1y ago
    Why does it matter if the US screwed them?
ImJamal 1y ago
> They had jack. Zero. Nada. > It was ginned up BS This is just not true. You can view the documents on wikileaks and other organizations. > that led to the worst foreign policy blunder in 100 years, directly creating ISIS, deaths of 500k Iraqis and kicking off the migrant crisis. Perhaps, but completely irrelevant to whether or not they had WMD. I don't get why people who are on the right side of this refuse to admit this.
- lIl-IIIl 1y ago
  Wikipedia says they had no WMDs: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_des.... What are these documents you are referring to?
  - ImJamal 1y ago
    https://www.wired.com/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/ https://www.wired.com/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-contin... Some of the chemicals qualified as WMD. Almost none of them were properly stored and weren't usable, but a little bit were usable. Also, I'm not making the claim they were trying to make new ones, just that they had some.

samrus 1y ago

youre still falling for it? these guys knew exactly what they were doing when they said WMDs; they meant nukes and to exploit post 9/11 fears. then they moved the goalposts after their lie was discovered to make bombs "WMDs"

matt-attack 1y ago
What was the real motivation?
ImJamal 1y ago
I know they meant nukes. Both Bush and Netanyahu explicitly said nukes. I am strictly talking about potential perjury. If in official testimonies they only said WMD then they did not commit perjury.
- samrus 1y ago
  They lied. Being pedantic about it only helps them do it again now. The spirit of the matter is that they keep lying and keep getting away with it