It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did you know WMD were found in Iraq?

page: 1
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 12:49 PM
link   
***As usual, I'll put a disclaimer here that most of the replies will ignore. My purpose here is to inform. Since I've started posting here, I've been shocked how many members are completely unaware that WMD were found in Iraq after the 2003 invasion. This thread is in no way meant to start a debate about whether we should have invaded Iraq or not.***

First some background:

We know for a fact Iraq had WMD. What are WMD? Some people think WMD are just nuclear weapons. However, this class of weapon also includes chemical, biological and radiological weapons, along with certain delivery systems, and are controlled by international treaties.

Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran in the 1980-1988 war
Iraq used chemical weapons against their own people

There is no dispute that they had chemical weapons. Also, despite a popular retort that "the US gave them to them", Iraq did at one time have their own chemical weapons production program. Iraq also had a biological warfare capability at one point. It even had a nuclear program that was attacked by Iran in 1980 and was later destroyed by Israel in 1981. Skip ahead a few years, following the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq declared that it had given up or destroyed all their WMD. This proved not to be true.

US soldiers exposed to chemical agents in Iraq - The Guardian

Even the government was forced to acknowledge this happened. I think most of us here know that the government, for years, denied the effects of Agent Orange on Vietnam vets and the existence of Gulf War Syndrome and the effects of Depleted Uranium on troops from the Gulf War. The effects of these weapons are much harder to deny, so the government was forced to accept this much quicker:

Army apologizes to soldiers exposed to chemical weapons in Iraq - New York Times
Army seeks to identify veterans exposed to chemical weapons in Iraq - military.com
VA program for exposed veterans to get help

Now that doesn't mean I think we got everything right. What we got wrong was that Iraq did not have an active WMD production program. One of the big charges leading up to the 2003 invasion was that Iraq had reconstituted their WMD production programs, which turned out to not be the case. There were indications that they planned to do so once they played us into lifting sanctions, which appears to be what Iran was trying to do recently. Iraq did not have an active production program when we invaded though. Our intelligence on that was wrong.

Usually at this point someone tries to argue "well so what if they had some leftover shells from the 80s. Chemical weapons have a shelf life." This is true, however, what that shelf life is and what it means depends on the weapon and how it is stored. Just because a chemical is past its shelf life doesn't make it harmless. Go take a bottle of expired aspirin and tell me what happens. Actually don't do that... But as the above-linked stories show, old chemical weapons past their shelf-life are hardly harmless. They can still be used in chemical weapons attacks, they will just not be as effective as newly produced agents.

Bottom line: These weapons did exist, they were found, some of our soldiers were injured by them. I hope I won't have to explain this in other threads as often anymore. You would think everyone on a site like this would already know this stuff.




posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785




posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 12:56 PM
link   
This isn't really part of the OP but it's related and I really don't want to do a separate thread on it. Interestingly, the "Iraq sent their chemical weapons to Syria" theory had some support in an unlikely place: James Clapper


Saddam Smuggled the Stockpile to Syria and Hoodwinked the World. Last night, a smug Victor Davis Hanson at Investors Business Daily said the media was wrong to so eagerly dismiss the story of Hussein's 11th hour smuggling adventure. "Although the story was met with general neglect or scorn from the U.S. media, the present director of national intelligence, James Clapper, long ago asserted his belief in such a weapons transfer," he writes. That's true. As director of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, Clapper said in 2003 that satellite images showing a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq to Syria "unquestionably" show that illicit weapons were moved out of Iraq. Another frequently cited believer in a Saddam smuggling effort is former Iraqi general George Sada, an adviser to the late dictator. "They were moved by air and by ground, 56 sorties by jumbo, 747, and 27 were moved, after they were converted to cargo aircraft, they were moved to Syria," he told Fox News in 2006. That account differed from Clapper's who said the smuggling occurred in March of 2003, not 2002, as Sada claimed. While Sada's story perhaps just adds more confusion to the theory, one thing is definitely clear: There was a large buildup of traffic between Syria and Iraq in March 2003. This week, journalist Harvey Morris opened up his old notes and gave corroborating facts to Clapper's claim in an account for The New York Times:

As I drove east from Damascus in mid-March 2003 to cross the border into Iraq, my Iraqi Kurdish companion said he had spoken to Kurdish truck drivers who regularly used the road.

They reported an unusual build-up of traffic out of Iraq in previous days. Closed convoys of unmarked trucks, which other drivers were forbidden from approaching or overtaking, had been streaming across the border into Syria.

My companion was a former Kurdish peshmerga militia leader. A survivor of thallium poisoning by agents of Saddam Hussein, he was returning from Europe in time for the impending war. What did he make of the truck drivers’ tales? Were the convoys carrying weapons? Who knew? The story died in the general plethora of war preparations.


The rebuttal to this is just silly:


One of those people is Kris Alexander, an officer in the U.S. Army, writing in Wired's Danger Room today. Alexander says if you think about this theory logically, it makes no sense..

First, it's illogical to think that in 2003 with the U.S. on the brink of invading, Saddam would give up the one thing that would raise the stakes of a U.S.-led invasion. But that's not the only reason this theory is illogical, he argues:

Second, let’s say that Saddam wasn’t so concerned about the Americans — a miscalculation that Saddam seems to have made. That’s actually not a rationale for transferring weapons to Syria. Just like in 1991, he faced the collapse of his regime. Except back then, he slaughtered jubilant Shiites and used chemical weapons on the Kurds. Why, in 2003, would Saddam give up the worst threat he could make against his people?

Third, the Iraqi Ba’athists and Syrian Ba’athists are far from allies. Syria’s Allawites are minority Shiites and proxies to Iraq’s arch-enemy Iran. They fought on the allied side against Iraq during Desert Storm. Why would Saddam turn over his deadliest weapons Iran’s best friend in the region? Remember: Saddam says he made his WMD threats to cower the Iranians.

Fourth, from a U.S. military perspective, the transfer would have been impossible to hide. I worked at U.S. Central Command’s Mideast headquarters before, during, and after the invasion, which gave me a good understanding of what was going on at the time. The region was blanketed by U.S. military assets. Operation Enduring Freedom was in full swing in Afghanistan, and Operations Northern and Southern Watch were still in place over Iraq. If something moved — like, say a convoy of Winnebagos of Death heading for Syria — it could be detected and killed.


First, Saddam's strategic calculations are notoriously bad. He thought nobody would care that he attacked Iran. He thought the US would side with him in that war. He thought nobody would care when he invaded Kuwait. He thought the Arab nations would side with him if the West responded. He thought attacking Israel would further force the Arab nations to abandon the allies during Desert Storm. He thought Bush was bluffing about the invasion even after it started. He's not the best strategic mind. So arguing that he'd never give up his chemical weapons because they were his best leverage against an invasion just makes no sense.

His second point is just illogical. Chemical weapons weren't the only way Saddam could terrorize his people.

His third point again assume Saddam has a good record of strategic thought. Don't forget, during Desert Storm, Saddam sent some of his most advanced planes to Iran, a country he had just gotten out of an 8-year war with, so the allies wouldn't destroy them. He actually thought the Iranians would give them back.

His fourth point just ignores the fact that Clapper and other intel people did indeed think they weren't able to hide the transfer, and think they know how, where and when it took place.

I don't necessarily believe this theory, but this rebuttal in this piece is just really weak.



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 12:58 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:01 PM
link   


Did you know WMD were found in Iraq?


Not only found, but Iraq used them. Here.

But, that whole WMD thing was all lies, just to get us into a war.



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: face23785



He was funny, although this is the wrong war.



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull



Did you know WMD were found in Iraq?


Not only found, but Iraq used them. Here.

But, that whole WMD thing was all lies, just to get us into a war.


That Iraq used them was actually covered in the OP.

The intel being cooked up is something I meant to cover in the OP too. A lot of people think that was cooked up by the Bush administration, however the intelligence used to justify the war actually originated in the mid to late 90s under Clinton.



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Yes I did.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


That's a good thread. Still baffles me how some people don't know this stuff. That was 4 years ago though so I guess it was time for a refresher thread.



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Nicely done. That's an excellent summary of the issue, IMHO.

One of the key points you bring up is the lack of an active WMD program at the time of the US invasion. The intel was incorrect, and some would argue there were plenty who knew that; the administration was hell bent to come up with something, though, and went with some pretty sketchy info from some pretty sketchy sources.

They did indeed have a large stash of chem/bio weapons they purchased/built in the 80s buried out there--mostly of Western design, from what I've read.
Several of our guys were exposed to that crap, and reports are that the military went to some lengths to cover it up. Newsweek did an excellent expose on this. Silence from the MSM, of course, because that would be an embarrassment to the Bush/Cheney admin.

I also recall reading somewhere (sorry, I can't recall the source offhand) that teams were looking for some of the rather incriminating documents from the 80s when the US was supporting Iraq as a convenient secular challenge to Iran--the satellite intel the US allegedly provided Saddam that was used in one of the WMD attacks they launched.



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785
Maybe this one is more apt.



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Yes it was, sorry. I blew right by that for some reason...



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

The people who hated the CIA for feeding lies to Bush took only 8 years to learn to love the CIA and believe that questioning them is somehow undermining them.

Its a helluva display of cognitive dissonance.

Yes, i knew they found WMD's. The narrative on that was they were "old and in poor condition". Or some nonsense.



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: neo96
Yes I did.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


That's a good thread. Still baffles me how some people don't know this stuff. That was 4 years ago though so I guess it was time for a refresher thread.


There's a lot they gloss over.

Like Europe,China were also Iraq's suppliers.

AND.

Real Murican history.

Like this video.

www.youtube.com...

People have a right to be outraged, but they need to spread that rage equally.



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Bush lied! People died!



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: caterpillage
Bush lied! People died!


And Bush critics need to READ.

en.wikipedia.org...

No single reason.



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: caterpillage
Bush lied! People died!


My favorite Twitter hashtag ever was #bushdid911. The more absurd, the more I love it.



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Yeah Face.

Bush lied, people died to make Cheney and Haliburton Rich.

Even though China got all the oil.


www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 23-7-2018 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:18 PM
link   
These where old weapons from 1991. After 1991 they where sealed up in bunkers.

The USA and international community knew about these and these were not WMD bush was referring to. Bush and his bandit blair where talking about new and ACTIVE WMD's which Iraq never had. The only WMD they had where the old deactivate weapons sitting in steel bunkers and rendered usable.

Chemical weapons have a short shelf like .When these stockpiles where found and unsealed they had all corroded there casings and the chemicals decomposed. Yes they where still toxic but not to the level of being usable Weapons.

Fact is No Active WMD's where found only decayed antique WMD that where leftovers from 1991 and everyone knew about these.



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan


Yes, i knew they found WMD's. The narrative on that was they were "old and in poor condition". Or some nonsense.


Thats not "nonsense" that is FACT.


These where relics of 1991 and the international community knew where these were.

edit on 23-7-2018 by DieGloke because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-7-2018 by DieGloke because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2018 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

There were WMD but not the kind the MSM lied to us about with "sources" from the intelligence agencies.

The whole thing was a globalist scam to take over the Middle East and 9/11 was the catalyst based on more lies.

These people are evil through and through.




top topics



 
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join