'Dragon's Egg': Marines who guarded Saddam's mysterious bunker fear weapons unleashed

These stories were reported by the media. If you recall the big deal was not that Saddam had chemical weapons, he had tons of the stuff left over from the Iran Iraq war that had been reported to the UN and the UN was very slowly getiing rid of. The deal was he was suppose to have an active modern chemical warfare program he was keeping hid from the UN inspecters. That old stuff is not worth much as weapons any longer and more of threat to whomever is trying to store it than the people it would be used on. I find it interesting this attempt to rewrite history where the claim is Iraq has no chemical weapons when the claim was he was not admitting to all he had. Some massive amount that has never been found.

2003 CNN UN destroys mustard shells

2004 Fox Sarin, Mustard gas found

That's because it was the United States that provided those chemical weapons to Iraq. That's the reason those Iraq stockpiles were so hush-hush among the military. The last thing the Bush admin or Pentagon leaking out was that those were our chemical weapon shells.

a reply to: watchitburn

Hi watchItburn,

Why were these Mustard IEDs, chemical weapons bunkers and caches not reported on by the media?

Because it was US issue? Whatever, the reason for going in was moot now. Don't look to close at those VX Nerve rounds the US supplied where used on Kurds and Iran without the media crying to loud.

Once we got the mandate, the less said about the hypocrisy the better.

a reply to: watchitburn

Well to answer the question on why there was alot of unsecured chemical weapons locals would direct us to them all the time. The other reason is they all were not secured alot went into Syria and even Iran. See if they went public than comes the next question where did they go and that requires the admission that terrorist organization could get access to chem weapons. Imagine what would have happened if the white house had to admit that terrorists they were fighting could make a chemical attack. Instead they installed detectors on streets and airports and even the new york subway. goes back to people are easily panicked look at the ebola scare.

a reply to: watchitburn

Why were these Mustard IEDs, chemical weapons bunkers and caches not reported on by the media?

Because they were weapons that the US helped Saddam attain and manufacture. That would not fit in with they way the war was spun, so better to keep it hushed up.

Why did our forces not destroy these bunkers ourselves?

You can't just blow up a bunker full of nerve agents. You would contaminate everything with nerve agents and God knows what else.. There are special ways to dispose of chemical weapons that are expensive and could not be done without letting the cat out of the bag so to speak.

Who in the blue hell would trust the Iraqi Govt. or military to do anything let alone trust them to dispose of these weapons?

Maybe destroying these weapons was never the intention. Better to keep them in the bunker out of sight and out of mind.

originally posted by: ArmyOfNobunaga
a reply to: watchitburn

I have a hard time believing the stockpile wasn't moved to a secure location.

I feel the same. Unless of course the plan all along was to leave them there for later seizure by ISIS. Pre-positioning of fear assets. Uncle Sam can legitimately say "boo" once again. Or maybe that's a gift leftover from Uncle Rummy.

Why would Bush embarrass his father and Reagan for supplying chemical weapons and WMD to Iraq .... this FACT was downplayed by Repukes and Demwits alike because they are both responsible for the WMD Saddam had .....

and the continuing arming of Middle east radicals ...

only a moron could not see the escalation time and time again as the US supplies Islamist fighters with weapons ....

a reply to: watchitburn

a reply to: watchitburn

there might be some useful info at this website
look for the mp3 called "what happened at camacia" by dave riddell
(it's labeled part 21 in my series, but everything seems to have been scattered over there?)

a reply to: watchitburn

Don't want to burst your bubble... but that's Canadian Oil you're exporting. And that's only because our government is too stupid to set up more refineries in Canada, forcing us to buy our own product back at a VERY inflated cost.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: watchitburn


Easy.... (Let me initiate a Huff Po drinker spitting with venom while I say the next 3 words /names)

Halliburton!

Bush!

Cheney!

(wipe drool off mouth)

There aren't any WMD's, they just want the oil

See, now if ISIS uses anything like this, we have Bush to blame... LOL

I'm curious, how is it you know there aren't any WMD's in IRAQ?
See, you are believing what the media has told you!

a reply to: watchitburn

2. Why did our forces not destroy these bunkers ourselves?

3. Who in the blue hell would trust the Iraqi Govt. or military to do anything let alone trust them to dispose of these weapons?

What do you think ATS?

I think the WMDs were left there (with the excuse the artillery shells were too decrept to handle)
so that the USA could leverage any future Iraqi leadership with possession of gas & nerve agents to be used in a clandestine way by rogue cells in the Iraqi govt.

the whole idea finally backfired now that an unknown 'black swan' element (is - isis) has come upon the scene...
so now the think-tanks need to draw up a new plan of Colonialism (disguised as something else)& dominance in destroying IS by a committee-of-war

)

originally posted by: whyamIhere
We knew Saddam had chemical weapons...

We had the receipts.

Yeah, i mean, a lot of the Republicans seem to not know any history, i.e. that we helped Saddam get his chemical weapons. There was even a major story run that the US military provided targeting coordinates for Saddam to target Iranians with chemical weapons during the Iran/Iraq war.

But this doesn't address whether he still had functional chemical weapons a decade or two later, as they degrade quickly.

Third point, even if he did, this isn't cause to invade a sovereign country under international law. Fact.

I can't attest for mustard rounds luckily never found one of them. But we recovered all sorts of rounds we couldn't detonate. I.e. 100 kg russian air force incendiary rounds and bleach bombs and any other hme and they would all go to a mass controlled detonation site. But we rocovered yellow cake foam from saddams osiraq site that israel hit back in the 90's and had to form a mass convoy to bring samples back to biap to have it tested. Not sure what the results were but I know we had control of the area a while and it was a #hole. Then they heard about the foam and a week later the place had a dfac and mwr and contractors manning gates for us they we had to move down river haha.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: whyamIhere
We knew Saddam had chemical weapons...

We had the receipts.

Yeah, i mean, a lot of the Republicans seem to not know any history, i.e. that we helped Saddam get his chemical weapons. There was even a major story run that the US military provided targeting coordinates for Saddam to target Iranians with chemical weapons during the Iran/Iraq war.

But this doesn't address whether he still had functional chemical weapons a decade or two later, as they degrade quickly.

Third point, even if he did, this isn't cause to invade a sovereign country under international law. Fact.

Actually you dont know history the italians first gave Iraq the ability to produce chemical weapons in mid-1970s when the Ibn-al-Haytham Research and Studies Center was established.In 1979 Iraq built the first factory to produce insecticides with the help of Italian engineers. it was built in a region of Akashat at a cost of $50 million. This factory had a huge amount of problems mostly caused by sabotage efforts from the mosad. They bought materials from the Australian and the dutch. For example the Dutch firm KBS sold Iraq large quantities of Thiodilyco its a yellow liquid used in mustard gases. Than next Italian firms supplied Iraq with 60 tons of Phosphorus oxychloride a precursor to chemical weapons. Thaan there was the Germans through a German engineering company NPI in Frankfurt. This supply was so large that the West German government filed an official lawsuit in the spring of 1991 and the criminal court charged seven senior officials in NPI. The Karl Kolb company, that has been under judicial investigation and prosecution since October 1985, also built a camp near Baghdad to test six laboratory units specialized in producing chemical materials to protect plants from locusts. These were sent to the complex in Al-Samarra. It was later learned Saddam established two German companies that were part of a network of hundreds of fictitious companies to conceal Iraq's purchases and to oversee the exportation of suspect materials to Iraq. These companies are TDG-SEG-Industrieanlagen, Krefeld, RFA and H + H Metalform, Drensteinfurt, RFA.

Now the us involvement President Ronald Reagan initiated a strategic opening to Iraq, signing National Security Study Directive (NSSD) 4-82 and selecting Donald Rumsfeld as his emissary to Hussein. Reagan and Bush administrations approved at least 80 direct exports to the Iraqi military. These included computers, communications equipment, aircraft navigation and radar equipment. It is assumed in many places the US gave chemical weapons to Iraq not true internet rumors besides the germans had this wrapped up. What they didnt have though was whats called dual use technology stuff that could be used for manufacturing or chemical weapons. The executive branch of the US government (Reagan , Bush)approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. Knowing that it could and probably would be used in chemical weapon production. question is did they know the purpose yeah probably but we cant know for sure. The chemical weapons they had were all produced in Iraq with outside help from Turkey,Australia,france,Germany,Netherlands and the US as i mentioned above. But i say again the US was not the Iraqi chemical supplier largely because the Israelis were dead set against it .

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: whyamIhere
We knew Saddam had chemical weapons...

We had the receipts.

Yeah, i mean, a lot of the Republicans seem to not know any history, i.e. that we helped Saddam get his chemical weapons. There was even a major story run that the US military provided targeting coordinates for Saddam to target Iranians with chemical weapons during the Iran/Iraq war.

But this doesn't address whether he still had functional chemical weapons a decade or two later, as they degrade quickly.

Third point, even if he did, this isn't cause to invade a sovereign country under international law. Fact.

Actually you dont know history the italians first gave Iraq the ability to produce chemical weapons in mid-1970s when the Ibn-al-Haytham Research and Studies Center was established.In 1979 Iraq built the first factory to produce insecticides with the help of Italian engineers. it was built in a region of Akashat at a cost of $50 million. This factory had a huge amount of problems mostly caused by sabotage efforts from the mosad. They bought materials from the Australian and the dutch. For example the Dutch firm KBS sold Iraq large quantities of Thiodilyco its a yellow liquid used in mustard gases. Than next Italian firms supplied Iraq with 60 tons of Phosphorus oxychloride a precursor to chemical weapons. Thaan there was the Germans through a German engineering company NPI in Frankfurt. This supply was so large that the West German government filed an official lawsuit in the spring of 1991 and the criminal court charged seven senior officials in NPI. The Karl Kolb company, that has been under judicial investigation and prosecution since October 1985, also built a camp near Baghdad to test six laboratory units specialized in producing chemical materials to protect plants from locusts. These were sent to the complex in Al-Samarra. It was later learned Saddam established two German companies that were part of a network of hundreds of fictitious companies to conceal Iraq's purchases and to oversee the exportation of suspect materials to Iraq. These companies are TDG-SEG-Industrieanlagen, Krefeld, RFA and H + H Metalform, Drensteinfurt, RFA.

Now the us involvement President Ronald Reagan initiated a strategic opening to Iraq, signing National Security Study Directive (NSSD) 4-82 and selecting Donald Rumsfeld as his emissary to Hussein. Reagan and Bush administrations approved at least 80 direct exports to the Iraqi military. These included computers, communications equipment, aircraft navigation and radar equipment. It is assumed in many places the US gave chemical weapons to Iraq not true internet rumors besides the germans had this wrapped up. What they didnt have though was whats called dual use technology stuff that could be used for manufacturing or chemical weapons. The executive branch of the US government (Reagan , Bush)approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. Knowing that it could and probably would be used in chemical weapon production. question is did they know the purpose yeah probably but we cant know for sure. The chemical weapons they had were all produced in Iraq with outside help from Turkey,Australia,france,Germany,Netherlands and the US as i mentioned above. But i say again the US was not the Iraqi chemical supplier largely because the Israelis were dead set against it .

Did we not arrange for Iraq to get chemical precursors. And, we did provide targeting coordinates for some of Saddam's chemical weapons attacks. What this means is that our whole cries about WMD's and all that were obviously hypocritical lies to get a stupid populace to sign on to a war of aggression.

Nothing you have said actually supports the US' right to attack Iraq, under international law. Even the mere presence of WMD's does nothing to necessitate nor allow a preemptive war of aggression. If it did, ever country in the world could attack the US right now, or Russia, or many other countries. Saddam posed no threat and had no interest at the time in attacking the US. Hence we engaged in a war of aggression for geo-political purposes, in itself a war crime.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Once again someone rewriting history the first gulf war was fought because Saddam attacked other gulf states specifically Kuwait but was also launching missiles at Saudi Arabia and even Israel. In fact this was tense times for US Israeli relations because the US told them stay out of it yet they continually were bombarded by scuds obvious act of war. But Saddam hoped if he could get Israel to enter other gulf states would abandon the coalition. When his armies were decimated instead of removing him they allowed him to make a deal. Bush sr made a huge mistake here. Look he dumped millions of gallons of oil into the gulf and lit oil wells on fire he obviously was a vengeful person.

No his defeat put restrictions in place he agreed to and everyone thought he would quite down and leave everyone alone. But no he played games with us weapons inspectors from the very start of the agreement including expelling them from the country again not allowed in the agreement he signed. In October 1998, removing the Hussein regime became official U.S. foreign policy with enactment of the Iraq Liberation Act. This provided 98 million for democracies in Iraq and really the start of the US deciding Saddam was to unstable to remain in power in the middle east. Wont go through all the reasons but there were many. As for an invasion no ones fooled it was planned since Bush took office his father knew he made a mistake and so did he. Was violations of the terms used for the invasion of course it was however was there a reason to do it again of course there was. Ultimately Saddam was unstable and well its bad for business when someone thinks there a great general going to lead the Irqi army to world domination. Where you aware just how big there army was? And why everyone in the gulf feared him ??

A sizeable army yes, but the numbers don't help when tanks and bradleys storm to your capital and the only way to avoid death is to be out in the desert naked.

Once again, nothing you have said justified another invasion.

Even though you know history, you seem to not know what are the stipulations of international law, which I do very well, having studied with people on the United Nations Security council.

None of what you just said would make legal the second Iraq War.

To be legal requires not only a Chapter VII UNSC resolution beforehand, but also a real military action on the part of Saddam against the US first.

Preemptive unilateral military actions are completely illegal, fact.

It doesn't matter if it was official US policy since 1998. That means we were conspiring to commit the war crime of aggression since 1998.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Once again someone rewriting history the first gulf war was fought because Saddam attacked other gulf states specifically Kuwait but was also launching missiles at Saudi Arabia and even Israel. In fact this was tense times for US Israeli relations because the US told them stay out of it yet they continually were bombarded by scuds obvious act of war. But Saddam hoped if he could get Israel to enter other gulf states would abandon the coalition. When his armies were decimated instead of removing him they allowed him to make a deal. Bush sr made a huge mistake here. Look he dumped millions of gallons of oil into the gulf and lit oil wells on fire he obviously was a vengeful person.

No his defeat put restrictions in place he agreed to and everyone thought he would quite down and leave everyone alone. But no he played games with us weapons inspectors from the very start of the agreement including expelling them from the country again not allowed in the agreement he signed. In October 1998, removing the Hussein regime became official U.S. foreign policy with enactment of the Iraq Liberation Act. This provided 98 million for democracies in Iraq and really the start of the US deciding Saddam was to unstable to remain in power in the middle east. Wont go through all the reasons but there were many. As for an invasion no ones fooled it was planned since Bush took office his father knew he made a mistake and so did he. Was violations of the terms used for the invasion of course it was however was there a reason to do it again of course there was. Ultimately Saddam was unstable and well its bad for business when someone thinks there a great general going to lead the Irqi army to world domination. Where you aware just how big there army was? And why everyone in the gulf feared him ??

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

International law is irrelevant because there is no laws regarding UN enforcement. In fact no means to do so it is up to individual countries to enforce UN resolutions. The only question is was it legal according to US law? Well thats debatable but bush did get his resolution as required by the constitution. The only question becomes can the US openly require regime change as a valid US policy?? Internationally speaking resolution 1441 gave the background and the loop hole. Meaning the resolution indeed warned of serious consequences for non compliance and did not restrict any member state from acting on enforment of the UN resolutions. Was it legal well probably not was it illegal depends since there is no direct laws we can only decide if it fir into certain categorizes. Since nothing like that has ever occurred it will require a security council resolution to prevent this in the future which i highly doubt would happen without several vetos.

Not true.

The UNSC is the enforcement mechanism. The UNSC often is inhibited in doing its job precisely because countries like Russia, China, and the US have veto power, a vestige of WWII politics. However, the UNSC is charged with enforcing threats to international peace.

And, in no way shape or form is it "up to individual countries to enforce UN resolutions." In their own countries, yes. ABSOLUTELY no country is allowed to unilaterally attack or interfere with another country, excepting in direct self-defense. No preemptive attacks are allowed either.

There ARE direct laws outlawing everything we did. Perhaps revisit the history of the UNSC, Chapter V - VII of the UNSC, Responsibility to Protect, and so on.

No, there is no UNSC resolution nor law that allows for us to execute regime change. That is not only explicitly illegal but also a violation of another country's sovereignty.

I am always shocked by Americans who claim that there either isn't international law addressing all of this OR that the US doesn't have to follow any of it.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

International law is irrelevant because there is no laws regarding UN enforcement. In fact no means to do so it is up to individual countries to enforce UN resolutions. The only question is was it legal according to US law? Well thats debatable but bush did get his resolution as required by the constitution. The only question becomes can the US openly require regime change as a valid US policy?? Internationally speaking resolution 1441 gave the background and the loop hole. Meaning the resolution indeed warned of serious consequences for non compliance and did not restrict any member state from acting on enforment of the UN resolutions. Was it legal well probably not was it illegal depends since there is no direct laws we can only decide if it fir into certain categorizes. Since nothing like that has ever occurred it will require a security council resolution to prevent this in the future which i highly doubt would happen without several vetos.