4 ms·

A New York Times investigation by C.J. Chivers revealed that the dismantlement of Iraq’s CW program was not as clear-cut as originally thought. The investigatio

by breppp 1y ago

A New York Times investigation by C.J. Chivers revealed that the dismantlement of Iraq’s CW program was not as clear-cut as originally thought. The investigation revealed that approximately 5,000 chemical warheads, shells, or aviation bombs were recovered following the 2003 Iraq war. [15] Although all of these munitions were produced before 1991, they did pose serious hazards; at least 17 American soldiers and seven Iraqi police officers were exposed to CW agents. [16] A subsequent investigation by Chivers and Eric Schmitt revealed a major CIA-run effort, Operation Avarice, to purchase old chemical weapons that were on the Iraqi black market. The program purchased and destroyed over 400 Borak rockets, many of which contained sarin. [17] https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/iraq-chemical/ https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/iraq-chemical/

johnisgood 1y ago
Gotta save face so they could say the war was justified. No news here. I will never know the truth, and nor will you.
- breppp 1y ago
  Let me summarize: 5,000 chemical warheads were found in Iraq after the war according to the New York Times, backed by video testimonials and documents. Also, ISIS stole part of the Iraqi chemical stockpile and used it against the Kurds. Sounds to me like there was a huge misconception that no WMDs had been found in Iraq https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middlee...
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - johnisgood 1y ago
    I read the article (that you cited and misrepresented to fit your predetermined narrative). The article discusses chemical weapons, not nuclear warheads. These are fundamentally different. And the reporting actually contradicts the original WMD justification. It explicitly states these were abandoned 1980s-era weapons, not an active program as claimed pre-invasion. So your summary is WRONG. The reporting actually undermines government credibility rather than supporting it. You want to know something funny? Many shells were manufactured by European companies using American designs, an embarrassing detail the Pentagon apparently wanted to suppress. In fact the article shows officials understood these weren't the weapons they'd claimed existed, which is why they wanted to keep the findings a secret. To reiterate: the weapons found were remnants of Iraq's 1980s chemical program (which the West had helped build), not proof of post-1990s WMD development. Let me summarize based on the article: these were 1980s-era weapons, many manufactured before 1991, not evidence of the "active WMD program" claimed in 2003, and they were chemical weapons, not nuclear warheads. By the way, your response to my WMD comment was "You are of course aware that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds killing thousands of people" which is absurd. There is a fundamental difference between chemical weapons and "WMD" as-is claimed by the US Government to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Those 1980s attacks (which you are talking about) were already known and didn't constitute the "active WMD program" claimed as justification for the 2003 invasion. In fact, the gap between the pre-war intelligence claims and post-war findings was so significant that it started multiple investigations, including the Senate Intelligence Committee Report and the Butler Review in the UK, both of which found serious intelligence failures. So no, there doesn't appear to have been an active WMD program in Iraq in 2003, despite the claims used to justify the invasion. ... so yeah. Back to my original comment.
    - breppp 1y ago
      You'd might want to recheck the definition of WMD, which includes chemical weapons and was mainly the focus of the UN disarmament program in Iraq, which was the pretext of the invasion. Furthermore, the conventional wisdom that you echoed, is that no WMD were found in Iraq, this was found a decade later to be completely false. Iraq did not disarm and had huge stockpiles during and after the 2003 war. Iraq did not only undertake to disarm the program (which was also partially active), but also to destroy all chemical weapons, it breached the UN disarmament program by not disarming, which makes the pretext valid. We can discuss whether it was smart for the US to invade Iraq, due to the subsequent changes in the Middle East that was also a plausibly correct move, but that's more complex than I can discuss in a single paragraph
      - johnisgood 1y ago
        You are moving the goalposts. 1. While chemical weapons are technically classified as WMDs, the pre-invasion claims were specifically about active production programs and imminent threats. Finding scattered 1980s remnants doesn't validate those specific claims. 2. Describing these as "huge stockpiles" misrepresents what was found. The NYT article YOU cited describes degraded, corroded weapons that were often non-functional, hardly the operational arsenal implied by "stockpiles". 3. You conflate the 1980s chemical weapons program with post-1991 disarmament obligations. The remnants weren't evidence of ongoing non-compliance but rather weapons that had been lost/missed during the chaotic dismantlement process. 4. The NYT investigation explicitly states these finds "did not support the government's invasion rationale" and shows officials kept them secret because they contradicted WMD claims. 5. There's a significant difference between "no WMDs found" and "degraded chemical remnants from the 1980s found." The latter doesn't constitute the "reconstituted WMD program" claimed pre-invasion. My previous comment already addressed all of this, that these discoveries actually undermined rather than supported the invasion narrative / rationale. Your response does not counter the fundamental point, it just reframes the debate around technical definitions while ignoring the substance of what the intelligence claims actually were vs. what was found. I am not interested in continuing this conversation. Thanks.
        1y ago

by breppp 1y ago

johnisgood 1y ago

Gotta save face so they could say the war was justified. No news here. I will never know the truth, and nor will you.

breppp 1y ago
Let me summarize: 5,000 chemical warheads were found in Iraq after the war according to the New York Times, backed by video testimonials and documents. Also, ISIS stole part of the Iraqi chemical stockpile and used it against the Kurds. Sounds to me like there was a huge misconception that no WMDs had been found in Iraq https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middlee...
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- johnisgood 1y ago
  I read the article (that you cited and misrepresented to fit your predetermined narrative). The article discusses chemical weapons, not nuclear warheads. These are fundamentally different. And the reporting actually contradicts the original WMD justification. It explicitly states these were abandoned 1980s-era weapons, not an active program as claimed pre-invasion. So your summary is WRONG. The reporting actually undermines government credibility rather than supporting it. You want to know something funny? Many shells were manufactured by European companies using American designs, an embarrassing detail the Pentagon apparently wanted to suppress. In fact the article shows officials understood these weren't the weapons they'd claimed existed, which is why they wanted to keep the findings a secret. To reiterate: the weapons found were remnants of Iraq's 1980s chemical program (which the West had helped build), not proof of post-1990s WMD development. Let me summarize based on the article: these were 1980s-era weapons, many manufactured before 1991, not evidence of the "active WMD program" claimed in 2003, and they were chemical weapons, not nuclear warheads. By the way, your response to my WMD comment was "You are of course aware that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds killing thousands of people" which is absurd. There is a fundamental difference between chemical weapons and "WMD" as-is claimed by the US Government to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Those 1980s attacks (which you are talking about) were already known and didn't constitute the "active WMD program" claimed as justification for the 2003 invasion. In fact, the gap between the pre-war intelligence claims and post-war findings was so significant that it started multiple investigations, including the Senate Intelligence Committee Report and the Butler Review in the UK, both of which found serious intelligence failures. So no, there doesn't appear to have been an active WMD program in Iraq in 2003, despite the claims used to justify the invasion. ... so yeah. Back to my original comment.
  - breppp 1y ago
    You'd might want to recheck the definition of WMD, which includes chemical weapons and was mainly the focus of the UN disarmament program in Iraq, which was the pretext of the invasion. Furthermore, the conventional wisdom that you echoed, is that no WMD were found in Iraq, this was found a decade later to be completely false. Iraq did not disarm and had huge stockpiles during and after the 2003 war. Iraq did not only undertake to disarm the program (which was also partially active), but also to destroy all chemical weapons, it breached the UN disarmament program by not disarming, which makes the pretext valid. We can discuss whether it was smart for the US to invade Iraq, due to the subsequent changes in the Middle East that was also a plausibly correct move, but that's more complex than I can discuss in a single paragraph
    - johnisgood 1y ago
      You are moving the goalposts. 1. While chemical weapons are technically classified as WMDs, the pre-invasion claims were specifically about active production programs and imminent threats. Finding scattered 1980s remnants doesn't validate those specific claims. 2. Describing these as "huge stockpiles" misrepresents what was found. The NYT article YOU cited describes degraded, corroded weapons that were often non-functional, hardly the operational arsenal implied by "stockpiles". 3. You conflate the 1980s chemical weapons program with post-1991 disarmament obligations. The remnants weren't evidence of ongoing non-compliance but rather weapons that had been lost/missed during the chaotic dismantlement process. 4. The NYT investigation explicitly states these finds "did not support the government's invasion rationale" and shows officials kept them secret because they contradicted WMD claims. 5. There's a significant difference between "no WMDs found" and "degraded chemical remnants from the 1980s found." The latter doesn't constitute the "reconstituted WMD program" claimed pre-invasion. My previous comment already addressed all of this, that these discoveries actually undermined rather than supported the invasion narrative / rationale. Your response does not counter the fundamental point, it just reframes the debate around technical definitions while ignoring the substance of what the intelligence claims actually were vs. what was found. I am not interested in continuing this conversation. Thanks.
      - 1y ago