No WMDs in Iraq? Think again....and it's important now because of ISIS....

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-secret-victims-of-iraq%e2%80%99s-chemical-arms/ar-AA6QI8m

There might not have been "factories" of this stuff, but had Saddam got the cahones to use what he had buried or hidden during our offensive in 2003, it would have been a major catastrophe.

==============
It was August 2008 near Taji, Iraq. They had just exploded a stack of old Iraqi artillery shells buried beside a murky lake. The blast, part of an effort to destroy munitions that could be used in makeshift bombs, uncovered more shells.

Two technicians assigned to dispose of munitions stepped into the hole. Lake water seeped in. One of them, Specialist Andrew T. Goldman, noticed a pungent odor, something, he said, he had never smelled before.

He lifted a shell. Oily paste oozed from a crack. “That doesn’t look like pond water,” said his team leader, Staff Sgt. Eric J. Duling.

The specialist swabbed the shell with chemical detection paper. It turned red — indicating sulfur mustard, the chemical warfare agent designed to burn a victim’s airway, skin and eyes.
=============

From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

5000 and these are items WE DID FIND that Saddam didn't ship to Syria.

The New York Times found 17 American service members and seven Iraqi police officers who were exposed to nerve or mustard agents after 2003. American officials said that the actual tally of exposed troops was slightly higher, but that the government’s official count was classified.

================

'Nothing of significance’ is what I was ordered to say,” said Jarrod Lampier, a recently retired Army major who was present for the largest chemical weapons discovery of the war: more than 2,400 nerve-agent rockets unearthed in 2006 at a former Republican Guard compound.

5000 + 2400=7400

Yes my math is correct.


Here's more......

Many chemical weapons incidents clustered around the ruins of the Muthanna State Establishment, the center of Iraqi chemical agent production in the 1980s.

Since June, the compound has been held by the Islamic State, the world’s most radical and violent jihadist group. In a letter sent to the United Nations this summer, the Iraqi government said that about 2,500 corroded chemical rockets remained on the grounds, and that Iraqi officials had witnessed intruders looting equipment before militants shut down the surveillance cameras.

5000 + 2400 + 2500 more...hmmmmm 9900? Yep.
--------------

That's just what we have been able to find or stumble upon accidentally. So, what if they only killed ONE US soldier per chem weapon found? That's 9900 more KIA. More than double the current KIA stats for the entire Iraq War and those would all happen probably at the same time. Does ISIS have the capability to use these? Who knows? If we thought they were the JV and were wrong, I'm sure we can gaffe this off as well and screw the pooch. These are the same people willing to DIE and take you with them so even if they are inept and unprofessional at the use of said weapons, it won't matter once body bags start filling up and trenches get dug to bury the dead on foreign soil. Yes, you read that right. In a massive chem weapons attack on our troops, that is the contingency plan for the deceased. Those bodies are NOT coming back to CONUS. They will be buried head to toe in rows of ten each, each in a body bag and the body bag covered in lime. Don't believe me? Research it.

Yep, no WMDs....right.

If you are going to give Bush credit for creating a bunch of lies about weapons of mass destruction, you should give him credit for creating a few more....I suppose Bush created the Al Muthanna chemical weapons depot in Iraq that ISIS/ISL seized on June 12, 2014 and the weapons that Iraq was allegedly in the process of destroying? Did Bush create the 40 kilograms of uranium (enough for a dirty bomb) that ISIS/ISIL seized from Mosul University sometime before July 8, 2014?.

It might take a day or two until the kos or salon tell them what to think... but rest assured this won't matter.

Mustard agent is a terrible thing. My great grandfather,
a WW I vet, whom I never met had his life cut short from the after effects of this stuff.

The WMD deniers will just say these weapons weren't WMDs. It's easy for sheeple to ignore reality.

Sal wrote:I'm not sure what to do with this story ....

.... finding a bunch of moldy mustard gas shells buried in the desert does what? ...

... vindicates Dubya's excellent adventure which cost us 45,000 service men, $6 gazillion in treasure, killed and displaced countless Iraqis, and destabilized the entire region? ...

... is that it? ...

... or, is this the excuse we need to reinvade and reoccupy? ...

... sounds like a lovely place ...

... should be fun.

He was relying on the same intelligence sources that obama has used to bomb even more muslim countries than bush.

Yea team..!!

Sal wrote:It's incredible that you can't distinguish between invading and occupying countries, as opposed to bombing specific targets.

Don't get me wrong.

I'm for none of the above.

But, there is a difference.

Bush should not have invaded either Iraq or Afghanistan. That was not my point - the point was how many people said there were no WMDs when in fact there were? You discount the age of the munitions now but they were viable weapons years ago and are still dangerous on a smaller scale. Obama should not have bombed Libya among other places but at least he has yet to commit large force levels on the ground again. Whether the current anti-ISIS non-strategy will work and no large scale commitment of ground forces will remain part of the "plan" has yet to be seen. Various government agencies are certainly sending mixed signals about that.

I'll never forget this time back when I was probably 10 or 11 that I heard a commercial on the radio for Big Kahuna's in Destin.  The ad stated that Cindy Crawford would be there for an event during a particular weekend.   Being a fan of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue, I mentioned this to my parents and they agreed that we would all go.

When the day came, we showed up to Big Kahuna's and it was packed out, but there was no Cindy Crawford.  Well, not in the sense that everyone had been lead to believe. It was all a bullshit scam.  They had a new employee who coincidentally happened to be named "Cindy Crawford", and she was in fact there that day.  Most were pissed, save for a few rubes who could not distinguish the difference.  Some even had their pictures taken with "Cindy Crawford".  

Ignorance is bliss.

Looks like you got scammed and now are trying to disrupt the thread with innuendo and BS.

Old SIN tactic at work-

S- shift the blame

I- Ignore the facts

N- Name call

Funny how there were no WMDs, yet upwards of 9900 have been found intact. No threat there....
Move along.....doesn't matter that ISIS now controls those areas where most have been found.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Funny how there were no WMDs, yet upwards of 9900 have been found intact.  No threat there....
Move along.....doesn't matter that ISIS now controls those areas where most have been found.

But Sal said, the "stuff"was old and moldy.

Let's dump a truckload of it on his lawn and see what he thinks?

Hahahaha ...

... I just went and read the NY Times article in its entirety.

A few highlights ....

The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.

....

After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush insisted that Mr. Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program, in defiance of international will and at the world’s risk. United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims.

Then, during the long occupation, American troops began encountering old chemical munitions in hidden caches and roadside bombs. Typically 155-millimeter artillery shells or 122-millimeter rockets, they were remnants of an arms program Iraq had rushed into production in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war.

All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.

In case after case, participants said, analysis of these warheads and shells reaffirmed intelligence failures. First, the American government did not find what it had been looking for at the war’s outset, then it failed to prepare its troops and medical corps for the aged weapons it did find.

....

In five of six incidents in which troops were wounded by chemical agents, the munitions appeared to have been designed in the United States, manufactured in Europe and filled in chemical agent production lines built in Iraq by Western companies.

....

The publicly released information also skirted the fact that most of the chemical artillery shells were traceable to the West, some tied to the United States.

These shells, which the American military calls M110s, had been developed decades ago in the United States. Roughly two feet long and weighing more than 90 pounds, each is an aerodynamic steel vessel with a burster tube in its center …

The United States also exported the shells and the technology behind them. When Iraq went arms shopping in the 1980s, it found manufacturers in Italy and Spain willing to deal their copies. By 1988, these two countries alone had sold Iraq 85,000 empty M110-type shells, according to confidential United Nations documents. Iraq also obtained shells from Belgium.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?&_r=0

Now, I get what this all proves ...

1) ISIS shouldn't get those toys, they're ours!! We built them!!

2) PeeDawg is still an idiot.

I guess all these liberals lied too?


This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” — From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

“Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities” — From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Madeline Albright, 1998

“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983″ — National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

“Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.” — Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.” — Robert Byrd, October 2002

“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.” — Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

“What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.” — Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

“Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.” — Tom Daschle in 1998

“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

“The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

“I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.” — Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” — Bob Graham, December 2002

“Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction.” — Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.” — Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” — John Kerry, October 9, 2002

“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” — John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” — Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

“Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.” — Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

“Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 – 1994, despite Iraq’s denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq’s claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction.” — Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

“Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.” — Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources — something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

“Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

“Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.” — Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Of course, there were WMDs.

And, we've got the receipts to prove it!

lol

It is also funny how forum members, for years have denied and insisted Saddam did not have WMD.

Sal wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:It is also funny how forum members, for years have denied and insisted Saddam did not have WMD.

No, we denied and insisted that Saddam did not have mobile chemical weapon labs, an active nuclear weapons program, nor the capacity to produce a mushroom cloud over a major American city ...

... because he didn't.

If Bush wanted to make the case for war over some munitions we sold Saddam in the 80s that he buried in the desert, he should have made that case.

Oh I see......When you said no weapons of mass destruction, you meant chemical weapon labs...blah blah blah..


United States
Strategic
The most widely used definition of "weapons of mass destruction" is that of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons (NBC) although there is no treaty or customary international law that contains an authoritative definition. Instead, international law has been used with respect to the specific categories of weapons within WMD, and not to WMD as a whole. While nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are regarded as the three major types of WMDs .....some analysts have argued that radiological materials as well as missile technology and delivery systems such as aircraft and ballistic missiles could be labeled as WMDs as well.

Joanimaroni wrote:

Sal wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:It is also funny how forum members, for years have denied and insisted Saddam did not have WMD.

No, we denied and insisted that Saddam did not have mobile chemical weapon labs, an active nuclear weapons program, nor the capacity to produce a mushroom cloud over a major American city ...

... because he didn't.

If Bush wanted to make the case for war over some munitions we sold Saddam in the 80s that he buried in the desert, he should have made that case.

Oh I see......When you said no weapons of mass destruction, you meant chemical weapon labs...blah blah blah..


United States
Strategic
The most widely used definition of "weapons of mass destruction" is that of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons (NBC) although there is no treaty or customary international law that contains an authoritative definition. Instead, international law has been used with respect to the specific categories of weapons within WMD, and not to WMD as a whole. While nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are regarded as the three major types of WMDs .....some analysts have argued that radiological materials as well as missile technology and delivery systems such as aircraft and ballistic missiles could be labeled as WMDs as well.

Stand next to "Cindy Crawford" and smile, Joani! (Snaps photo as onlookers chuckle) Isn't "Cindy Crawford" wonderful?

Sal wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:It is also funny how forum members, for years have denied and insisted Saddam did not have WMD.

No, we denied and insisted that Saddam did not have mobile chemical weapon labs, an active nuclear weapons program, nor the capacity to produce a mushroom cloud over a major American city ...

... because he didn't.

If Bush wanted to make the case for war over some munitions we sold Saddam in the 80s that he buried in the desert, he should have made that case.

Let the qualifications begin. There is a precedent: "I didn't set a red line....."

Here is an interesting little article that explains the complexity of the deception.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/wartech091790.htm