5 ms·

The Secret U.S. Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons

20 points by GabrielF00 12y ago

spikels 12y ago
According to this article the justification for the invasion of Iraq was not that Iraq "possesed WMDs" but that they had "active WMD programs". Wow - I somehow missed that distinction all these years. And when people say that "Iraq didn't have WMDs" they are wrong. In fact Iraq did have some but they were old and not that many of them. Nothing is ever simple.
- mikeyouse 12y ago
  > And when people say that "Iraq didn't have WMDs" they are wrong. In fact Iraq did have some but they were old and not that many of them. When (most) people said that we didn't find WMDs in Iraq, they're clearly talking about the secret nuclear programs or mobile chemical weapons labs that were so prominent in the rationale for war. At the time, Fox News et al. pumped the news every time an old shell was found, but there was zero active biological or nuclear program and the bulk of the chemical weapons were leftovers from the Gulf War. Factcheck has a nice summary: > Experts from the three nations failed to document any existent biological or nuclear weapons and discovered only a few random chemical weapons. The ISG concluded that contrary to what most of the world had believed, Iraq had abandoned attempts to produce WMDs. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/no-wmds-in-iraq/ http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/no-wmds-in-iraq/
  - spikels 12y ago
    I think we agree that at the time of the invasion Iraq had some chemical weapons, a type of WMD, but was no longer producing WMDs. Right? And this implies that the statement "Iraq did not have any WMDs" is false. Right? What you and the NYTimes seem to be saying is that all along this statement actually meant they weren't producing WMDs. Right? That's the distinction I missed. You don't need to be a prick about it.
    - mikeyouse 12y ago
      I apologize if my reply came off harsher than I intended, but there has been a lot of disingenuous press lately about Iraq having WMDs after all. It's all bullshit. > What you and the NYTimes seem to be saying is that all along this statement actually meant they weren't producing WMDs. Right? Exactly this. Part of the motivation for the Gulf War was Saddam's gassing of the Kurds and other ethnic groups. So we knew they had at one point manufactured and stored chemical weapons. The motivation for the 2003 Iraq War was a series of administration claims that they were still producing WMDs including Anthrax and Nuclear weapons -- contrary to international opinion / UN weapons inspector claims. Again, I apologize if this is more emotional than typical for HN, but the Iraq War led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, billions (trillions?) of taxpayer dollars flushed down the toilet, and the formation of ISIS. Here are some actual claims from the buildup to the Iraq War: Dick Cheney in 2002: > “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” GWB: > “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given.” Paul Wolfowitz: > [The Iraq WMD Program is] “just a series of evil weapons unaccounted for, huge quantities of anthrax that can kill millions of people, huge quantities of botulinum toxin that can kill millions of people, ricin that can kill millions of people.” Colin Powell: > “biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails,” an “extensive clandestine network” to supply “its deadly biological and chemical weapons programs,” and the obtaining of “sufficient fissile material to produce a nuclear explosion”—“facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.”
      - frankydp 12y ago
        We did find the mobile bio labs. They just happen to be fakes. Complete with crews, hoses, and NOS to give the appearance of cooling. Saddam was playing one serious game of RR.
        mikeyouse 12y ago
        No, they really didn't. Wikipedia sums it up well, but the Iraqis insisted all along that the 'labs' were facilities to fill weather balloons which is even more amusing since those very labs were bought from the British in the 1980's. Those balloons were eventually used to range artillery, but the only people claiming they were weapons labs were the Bush administration.. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_weapons_laboratory#Discovery_of_Iraqi_mobile_labs.3F http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_weapons_laboratory#Dis...
  - adventured 12y ago
    There seems to be a very common belief in the US that there were effectively zero WMD in Iraq at all. That perception was built up by the non-stop media assault by the left directed at George W. Bush and Republicans in general, proclaiming Iraq had no WMD period. It was used to tar and feather the right politically for being so gun-ho about the war. In fact, there were WMD in Iraq, just not an especially menacing arsenal, and they of course were not actively developing new weapons. I don't think the general public understands the distinction at all. For nearly a decade I've heard the same statement variation: 'well, there were no WMD in Iraq'
    - mikeyouse 12y ago
      When the administration repeatedly claims that Saddam could "Launch a chemical or biological attack in 45 minutes" and that the Iraqi WMD program is "just a series of evil weapons unaccounted for, huge quantities of anthrax that can kill millions of people, huge quantities of botulinum toxin that can kill millions of people, ricin that can kill millions of people." or when Colin Powell says that Iraq has obtained “sufficient fissile material to produce a nuclear explosion”, I think you can forgive people for not considering the handful of 30-year old chemical weapons as justification for the invasion. Though, I don't expect we're going to agree on much so I suppose HN isn't the place to discuss this anyway.
- aburan28 12y ago
  There was no justification for invading Iraq. Iraq acquired a lot of their chemical weapon equipment from the US to fight Iran.

20 points by GabrielF00 12y ago

According to this article the justification for the invasion of Iraq was not that Iraq "possesed WMDs" but that they had "active WMD programs". Wow - I somehow missed that distinction all these years. And when people say that "Iraq didn't have WMDs" they are wrong. In fact Iraq did have some but they were old and not that many of them. Nothing is ever simple.

mikeyouse 12y ago
> And when people say that "Iraq didn't have WMDs" they are wrong. In fact Iraq did have some but they were old and not that many of them. When (most) people said that we didn't find WMDs in Iraq, they're clearly talking about the secret nuclear programs or mobile chemical weapons labs that were so prominent in the rationale for war. At the time, Fox News et al. pumped the news every time an old shell was found, but there was zero active biological or nuclear program and the bulk of the chemical weapons were leftovers from the Gulf War. Factcheck has a nice summary: > Experts from the three nations failed to document any existent biological or nuclear weapons and discovered only a few random chemical weapons. The ISG concluded that contrary to what most of the world had believed, Iraq had abandoned attempts to produce WMDs. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/no-wmds-in-iraq/ http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/no-wmds-in-iraq/
- spikels 12y ago
  I think we agree that at the time of the invasion Iraq had some chemical weapons, a type of WMD, but was no longer producing WMDs. Right? And this implies that the statement "Iraq did not have any WMDs" is false. Right? What you and the NYTimes seem to be saying is that all along this statement actually meant they weren't producing WMDs. Right? That's the distinction I missed. You don't need to be a prick about it.
  - mikeyouse 12y ago
    I apologize if my reply came off harsher than I intended, but there has been a lot of disingenuous press lately about Iraq having WMDs after all. It's all bullshit. > What you and the NYTimes seem to be saying is that all along this statement actually meant they weren't producing WMDs. Right? Exactly this. Part of the motivation for the Gulf War was Saddam's gassing of the Kurds and other ethnic groups. So we knew they had at one point manufactured and stored chemical weapons. The motivation for the 2003 Iraq War was a series of administration claims that they were still producing WMDs including Anthrax and Nuclear weapons -- contrary to international opinion / UN weapons inspector claims. Again, I apologize if this is more emotional than typical for HN, but the Iraq War led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, billions (trillions?) of taxpayer dollars flushed down the toilet, and the formation of ISIS. Here are some actual claims from the buildup to the Iraq War: Dick Cheney in 2002: > “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” GWB: > “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given.” Paul Wolfowitz: > [The Iraq WMD Program is] “just a series of evil weapons unaccounted for, huge quantities of anthrax that can kill millions of people, huge quantities of botulinum toxin that can kill millions of people, ricin that can kill millions of people.” Colin Powell: > “biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails,” an “extensive clandestine network” to supply “its deadly biological and chemical weapons programs,” and the obtaining of “sufficient fissile material to produce a nuclear explosion”—“facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.”
    - frankydp 12y ago
      We did find the mobile bio labs. They just happen to be fakes. Complete with crews, hoses, and NOS to give the appearance of cooling. Saddam was playing one serious game of RR.
      - mikeyouse 12y ago
        No, they really didn't. Wikipedia sums it up well, but the Iraqis insisted all along that the 'labs' were facilities to fill weather balloons which is even more amusing since those very labs were bought from the British in the 1980's. Those balloons were eventually used to range artillery, but the only people claiming they were weapons labs were the Bush administration.. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_weapons_laboratory#Discovery_of_Iraqi_mobile_labs.3F http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_weapons_laboratory#Dis...
- adventured 12y ago
  There seems to be a very common belief in the US that there were effectively zero WMD in Iraq at all. That perception was built up by the non-stop media assault by the left directed at George W. Bush and Republicans in general, proclaiming Iraq had no WMD period. It was used to tar and feather the right politically for being so gun-ho about the war. In fact, there were WMD in Iraq, just not an especially menacing arsenal, and they of course were not actively developing new weapons. I don't think the general public understands the distinction at all. For nearly a decade I've heard the same statement variation: 'well, there were no WMD in Iraq'
  - mikeyouse 12y ago
    When the administration repeatedly claims that Saddam could "Launch a chemical or biological attack in 45 minutes" and that the Iraqi WMD program is "just a series of evil weapons unaccounted for, huge quantities of anthrax that can kill millions of people, huge quantities of botulinum toxin that can kill millions of people, ricin that can kill millions of people." or when Colin Powell says that Iraq has obtained “sufficient fissile material to produce a nuclear explosion”, I think you can forgive people for not considering the handful of 30-year old chemical weapons as justification for the invasion. Though, I don't expect we're going to agree on much so I suppose HN isn't the place to discuss this anyway.
aburan28 12y ago
There was no justification for invading Iraq. Iraq acquired a lot of their chemical weapon equipment from the US to fight Iran.