4 ms·

Maybe someone can explain this one to me ... about WMD in Iraq. 1) Iraq kills > 500 civilians using chemical weapons (google Ali Chemicali, Halabja, ...) (docu

by waps 13y ago

Maybe someone can explain this one to me ... about WMD in Iraq. 1) Iraq kills > 500 civilians using chemical weapons (google Ali Chemicali, Halabja, ...) (documented, amongst others, by the UN) 2) it is known that for at least a decade after that, Iraq was producing chemical weapons. (again, documented by the UN) 3) US invades 4) finds no weapons Apparently the conclusion after this series of events is "there never were any chemical weapons", with a subtext of "Bush/CIA was not wrong, just lying". I find it VERY hard to honestly draw that conclusion. The obvious conclusion is that those weapons were moved, the question is where.

vacri 13y ago
Regarding 'WMDs in Iraq', chemical weapons were never really considered WMD before the US needed to justify the Iraq invasion. WMD meant 'nuclear' to the general public, and chemical weapons were added to make them bathe in the 'reflected glory' of nuclear weapons' destructiveness. Before this time, the term 'NBC' was used for these unconventional weapons; Nuclear, Biological, Chemical. Chemical weapons are horrific (as are smallarms, really), but are difficult to use and do not cause mass destruction.
mixmastamyk 13y ago
They had it in the 80's and a bit later. After twenty years of sanctions they had little left but residual infrastructure. The inspector conclusions at the end of Gulf II weren't that there was zero evidence of WMD, just that no stockpiles of it were found. It was not found in neighboring countries either. Turns out Saddam was bluffing, which he admitted to later. He could not appear to be weak before US and Iran, literally surrounded by enemies. Everyone was wrong on WMD, he had fooled them with his elaborate games. Saddam's mistake was that he misjudged American govt resolve to oust him after 9/11. That they fabricated the reasons may have even surprised him.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

by waps 13y ago

vacri 13y ago

Regarding 'WMDs in Iraq', chemical weapons were never really considered WMD before the US needed to justify the Iraq invasion. WMD meant 'nuclear' to the general public, and chemical weapons were added to make them bathe in the 'reflected glory' of nuclear weapons' destructiveness. Before this time, the term 'NBC' was used for these unconventional weapons; Nuclear, Biological, Chemical. Chemical weapons are horrific (as are smallarms, really), but are difficult to use and do not cause mass destruction.

mixmastamyk 13y ago

They had it in the 80's and a bit later. After twenty years of sanctions they had little left but residual infrastructure. The inspector conclusions at the end of Gulf II weren't that there was zero evidence of WMD, just that no stockpiles of it were found. It was not found in neighboring countries either. Turns out Saddam was bluffing, which he admitted to later. He could not appear to be weak before US and Iran, literally surrounded by enemies. Everyone was wrong on WMD, he had fooled them with his elaborate games. Saddam's mistake was that he misjudged American govt resolve to oust him after 9/11. That they fabricated the reasons may have even surprised him.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]