15 Oct 2014, 2:12 pm
"A few"????
Um.
5,000 chemical warheads
Um.
26 posts •
Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
-
- Adjutant
- Posts: 3741
- Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm
15 Oct 2014, 3:01 pm
Ok. There were a lot of decaying and unusable shells. Does that sound better?
-
- Dignitary
- Posts: 3536
- Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am
15 Oct 2014, 3:06 pm
Doctor Fate wrote:"A few"????5,000 chemical warheads
Um.
I don't understand where your head is at. Where did you think they went??? We knew they were there, did you think they just disappeared if a puff of smoke? Seriously, what did you think happened to them?
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
15 Oct 2014, 11:48 pm
I thought you'd opposed the war, DF?
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
16 Oct 2014, 6:41 am
geojanes wrote:Doctor Fate wrote:"A few"????5,000 chemical warheads
Um.
I don't understand where your head is at. Where did you think they went??? We knew they were there, did you think they just disappeared if a puff of smoke? Seriously, what did you think happened to them?
You used the word "destroyed." Again, what does that mean? I find no definition of "destroy" saying something like "to be hidden underground."
Further, with all the "cooperation" (not your word) that Saddam allegedly gave the UN inspectors, surely spots like these should have come up.
My head is here: they were not destroyed; they were hidden.
-
- Statesman
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
16 Oct 2014, 11:26 am
fate
easily done:
The NY Times says this ....
How do you find that the toxic residue of "long abandoned programs" is an "active weapons of mass destruction program"?
There was an old joke at the time. The CIA Director was heard to say" Of course we know he has weapons of mass destruction. We still have the reciepts."
This joke referred to the mustard gas, which everyone at the CIA knew Saddam had used against Kurdish villages. And everyone also knew that the weapons were no longer viable by the mid 90s.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... assed_iran
.Read the NYT and sort it out for yourself
easily done:
The NY Times says this ....
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.
How do you find that the toxic residue of "long abandoned programs" is an "active weapons of mass destruction program"?
There was an old joke at the time. The CIA Director was heard to say" Of course we know he has weapons of mass destruction. We still have the reciepts."
This joke referred to the mustard gas, which everyone at the CIA knew Saddam had used against Kurdish villages. And everyone also knew that the weapons were no longer viable by the mid 90s.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... assed_iran
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
16 Oct 2014, 11:51 am
rickyp wrote:fate.Read the NYT and sort it out for yourself
easily done:
The NY Times says this ....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.
How do you find that the toxic residue of "long abandoned programs" is an "active weapons of mass destruction program"?
5,000 is quite a number for a "long abandoned program."
Oh, and ISIS controls the area wherein these "long abandoned" weapons lie.
If they are no longer viable, then one wonders why the NYT wasted electrons and reporters on it.
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
16 Oct 2014, 12:48 pm
Just read this in WaPo. Now, there are a few anti-Bush sentiments included, which some here may choose to seize on. However, they are opinion in a news piece.
But, there are many salient facts:
Gee, that almost sounds like Husein had a chemical weapons "site." Maybe that's because it's what it says.
Sigh. One wonders why we did not hunt this stuff with vigor while we were there.
But, there are many salient facts:
While U.S. troops may have destroyed most of those weapons, U.S. officials acknowledge that at least some chemical materials may remain in Iraq, including at a Hussein-era chemical weapons site that extremists seized in June.
Gee, that almost sounds like Husein had a chemical weapons "site." Maybe that's because it's what it says.
The renewed reports about Iraq’s lingering chemical stockpile may intensify anxiety in Congress about Obama’s Islamic State strategy, which now is centered upon airstrikes on militant positions in Iraq and parts of Syria. Some lawmakers are pushing for more direct U.S. military involvement in the fight against the group, which has beheaded hostages — including Westerners — and threatened to launch further attacks against the West.
“There are caches of this stuff clearly out there — it would be folly just to assume there aren’t,” an aide to the House Armed Services Committee said, referring to the possibility of the Islamic State seizing chemical materials in Iraq or Syria. “It’s a contingency you have to be prepared for.” The aide spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record.
Sigh. One wonders why we did not hunt this stuff with vigor while we were there.
-
- Adjutant
- Posts: 3741
- Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm
16 Oct 2014, 1:12 pm
I think there is some merit to the concern that ISIS might be able to use these weapons--a few of them may be usable. The New York Times gave one reason for the reluctance to actively search and destroy this stuff--embarrassment that these were weapons were tied to the US in some fashion. As for these weapons (in their dilapidated condition with an unknown amount being viable) being the basis for a war ( or even just showing that Bush did not lie or was deceptive about the threat)I think we have to agree to disagree on that one. Concern that ISIS could use some of those weapons within Iraq is one thing--concern that these weapons posed a significant threat to the US in 2003 is quite another.
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
16 Oct 2014, 2:06 pm
freeman3 wrote:I think there is some merit to the concern that ISIS might be able to use these weapons--a few of them may be usable. The New York Times gave one reason for the reluctance to actively search and destroy this stuff--embarrassment that these were weapons were tied to the US in some fashion. As for these weapons (in their dilapidated condition with an unknown amount being viable) being the basis for a war ( or even just showing that Bush did not lie or was deceptive about the threat)I think we have to agree to disagree on that one. Concern that ISIS could use some of those weapons within Iraq is one thing--concern that these weapons posed a significant threat to the US in 2003 is quite another.
I'm not claiming the latter. I've never believed Saddam was a threat to the US. That did not mean, however, that he could not have given WMD to those who might--if he desired to do so.
However, that it's even a consideration that ISIS might get access tells us something about the WMD situation. The truth is probably somewhere between the CIA/Mossad/MI-6 estimates pre-war and the naysayers. That's still a slightly scary truth.
-
- Emissary
- Posts: 3405
- Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am
17 Oct 2014, 2:46 pm
Chemical weapons are a nasty way to go, but ultimately they're just weapons like any other. Using them as a pretext for an invasion was always ridiculous, and even supporters of the war like me could see that at the time. To try and pretend that the existence of these weapons offers some kind of post-facto justification for Bush's argument doesn't wash. I don't believe that he ever gave a damn about Saddam's mustard gas shells and I don't think you do either Steve.
26 posts •
Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
