4 ms·

You are moving the goalposts. 1. While chemical weapons are technically classified as WMDs, the pre-invasion claims were specifically about active production p

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.

breppp 1y ago
You might read that the Army has failed to notify the Senate, creating false reports on the amount of chemical weapons found in Iraq, thus reaching the conclusion the war had no valid pretext. While 5000 (an underestimate) warheads is enough to kill ten of thousands of people, by a country who had used these previously. The fact that the shells are corroded does not mean the material cannot be removed and reused, and it still means Iraq failed to destroy these properly, therefore breaching the UN mandate. I think this is a great example of how due to political unpopularity of actions, an entire false narrative can be disseminated for a decade, and two decades later it still has many dogmatic followers that will defend it. Maybe it's good food for thought about which false truisms we keep right now for political reasons that will be found out as lies in a decade.
- johnisgood 1y ago
  This is going to be my last response to this thread as it is quite unproductive because you work backward from conclusions, reshaping evidence to fit your predetermined beliefs rather than following where evidence actually leads, AND you are not engaging with my substantive points but instead you cycle through different justifications while mischaracterizing evidence. In fact, your "false truism" is ironic given your consistent misrepresentation of the very article you cited. Additionally, you wrongly accused me of following "false narratives" while actively misrepresenting your own cited source. The NYT investigation contradicts your interpretation at every turn, as noted. 1. You shifted the goalpost again. You moved from "WMDs proved invasion was justified" -> "chemical weapons are technically WMDs" -> "UN mandate violations justified invasion" and each argument abandons the previous when challenged. Boring. 2. You claim the Army's secrecy proves WMDs existed, when the NYT article explicitly states the secrecy was because these finds contradicted WMD claims. The Army hid them due to embarrassment, not validation. 3. Whether degraded chemical weapons could theoretically harm people doesn't address the core issue: there was no active WMD program as claimed pre-invasion. 4. Scattered remnants from chaotic 1990s dismantlement != active non-compliance with UN mandates. Many weapons were simply lost during the destruction process, not deliberately hidden. Have fun.
  - breppp 1y ago
    Chemical weapons are not "technically" WMD, the entire discussion around WMD at the time concentrated on chemical weapons. I suggest you read about UNSCOM and UNMOVIC, what they were looking for (hint: chemical weapons), their struggles at achieving their mandates due to Iraqi manipulations, and how it led to the 2003 war. I have not moved the goal posts, from the first reply to you I maintained Iraq had used WMDs in the past and was in breach of the 1991 terms by maintaining a very large stockpile, thus making the pretext valid (let's put aside laboratories that were not dismantled). You say these are "scattered" but 5,000 warheads (again underestimated) is a larger stockpile than most of the world, making Iraq in 2003 having one of the largest amount of WMD warheads in existence. Thus the conventional truth that you echoed "No WMDs were found in Iraq" is completely false

breppp 1y ago

You might read that the Army has failed to notify the Senate, creating false reports on the amount of chemical weapons found in Iraq, thus reaching the conclusion the war had no valid pretext. While 5000 (an underestimate) warheads is enough to kill ten of thousands of people, by a country who had used these previously. The fact that the shells are corroded does not mean the material cannot be removed and reused, and it still means Iraq failed to destroy these properly, therefore breaching the UN mandate. I think this is a great example of how due to political unpopularity of actions, an entire false narrative can be disseminated for a decade, and two decades later it still has many dogmatic followers that will defend it. Maybe it's good food for thought about which false truisms we keep right now for political reasons that will be found out as lies in a decade.

johnisgood 1y ago
This is going to be my last response to this thread as it is quite unproductive because you work backward from conclusions, reshaping evidence to fit your predetermined beliefs rather than following where evidence actually leads, AND you are not engaging with my substantive points but instead you cycle through different justifications while mischaracterizing evidence. In fact, your "false truism" is ironic given your consistent misrepresentation of the very article you cited. Additionally, you wrongly accused me of following "false narratives" while actively misrepresenting your own cited source. The NYT investigation contradicts your interpretation at every turn, as noted. 1. You shifted the goalpost again. You moved from "WMDs proved invasion was justified" -> "chemical weapons are technically WMDs" -> "UN mandate violations justified invasion" and each argument abandons the previous when challenged. Boring. 2. You claim the Army's secrecy proves WMDs existed, when the NYT article explicitly states the secrecy was because these finds contradicted WMD claims. The Army hid them due to embarrassment, not validation. 3. Whether degraded chemical weapons could theoretically harm people doesn't address the core issue: there was no active WMD program as claimed pre-invasion. 4. Scattered remnants from chaotic 1990s dismantlement != active non-compliance with UN mandates. Many weapons were simply lost during the destruction process, not deliberately hidden. Have fun.
- breppp 1y ago
  Chemical weapons are not "technically" WMD, the entire discussion around WMD at the time concentrated on chemical weapons. I suggest you read about UNSCOM and UNMOVIC, what they were looking for (hint: chemical weapons), their struggles at achieving their mandates due to Iraqi manipulations, and how it led to the 2003 war. I have not moved the goal posts, from the first reply to you I maintained Iraq had used WMDs in the past and was in breach of the 1991 terms by maintaining a very large stockpile, thus making the pretext valid (let's put aside laboratories that were not dismantled). You say these are "scattered" but 5,000 warheads (again underestimated) is a larger stockpile than most of the world, making Iraq in 2003 having one of the largest amount of WMD warheads in existence. Thus the conventional truth that you echoed "No WMDs were found in Iraq" is completely false