The Myth of no Chemical Weapons in Iraq

[C L Palmer]

Why does the myth persist that there were no WMDs in Iraq prior to our invasion when, in fact, the opposite is true? While buried and in bad shape, we found a great many, and our soldiers suffered from being in contact with them.

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/takeaway/segments/report-reveals-chilling-wmd-revelations-iraq

Also, why don't more people know about the moving of a great many WMDs from Iraq to its ally Syria as the invasion was beginning to ramp up?

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/syria-chemical-weapons-came-from-iraq/

Does the U.S. simply enjoy self-flagellation so much that our media will ignore when we were right about things? I constantly hear the myth that there were no WMDs in Iraq repeated by both the Right and the Left. It's frustrating when you know better.

 

[+and-then]

There were also weeks worth of truck convoy traffic from Iraq into Syria prior to the first bombs being dropped.  I wonder if Syria still has some of that arsenal and what Israel would do if ANY of those WMDs fell on Israeli cities.

That brings this prediction to mind:

"Then behold, at eventide, trouble! And before the morning, he is no more. This is the portion of those who plunder us, And the lot of those who rob us."

This^ is called the "Burden of Damascus"

[Piney]

@Grim Reaper 6

Your MOS was finding and handling them at this time. What's your opinion?

[Grim Reaper 6]

1 hour ago, Piney said:

@Grim Reaper 6

Your MOS was finding and handling them at this time. What's your opinion?

Morning Piney, the first article is accurate however the munitions discovered were mainly damaged munitions that had been disposed of after Operation Desert Storm. The Iraqis didn't have a demilitarization facility like the United States had at Johnson Atoll. Instead, the Iraqis just took damaged munitions and buried them throughout Iraq. I retired in 2003 and didn't start working as a US Contractor until 2006 and as these damaged stockpiles were discovered myself and my teams would come in and properly dispose of what was found. Biological weapons laboratories were also discovered where the Iraqis were producing Anthrax, and we also neutralized them, over the years we demilitarized two biological weapons laboratories.

The second article is also accurate, some chemical munitions were sent to Syria, however I have no idea what quantities were sent. The Russians were also involved just like the article said, they helped the Syrians store and deploy these MWDs. Starting as early as 2010, the Syrians used some of these munitions on their own civilian population. These Chemical weapons included G-series nerve, and H-series blister agents. The Syrians also used chlorine barrel bombs through this time frame. To my knowledge the last Chemical Agent attacks occurred in 2018. So, with some discrepancies I would certainly say that both articles are based in truth.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) investigated these attacks and their investigations found that Nerve Agents, Blister Agents and Chlorine was used against Syria's civilian population and the Russian involvement was documented.

Hope this helps Piney

4 hours ago, C L Palmer said:

Why does the myth persist that there were no WMDs in Iraq prior to our invasion when, in fact, the opposite is true? While buried and in bad shape, we found a great many, and our soldiers suffered from being in contact with them.

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/takeaway/segments/report-reveals-chilling-wmd-revelations-iraq

Also, why don't more people know about the moving of a great many WMDs from Iraq to its ally Syria as the invasion was beginning to ramp up?

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/syria-chemical-weapons-came-from-iraq/

Does the U.S. simply enjoy self-flagellation so much that our media will ignore when we were right about things? I constantly hear the myth that there were no WMDs in Iraq repeated by both the Right and the Left. It's frustrating when you know better.

 

 

[+DieChecker]

14 hours ago, C L Palmer said:

Why does the myth persist that there were no WMDs in Iraq prior to our invasion when, in fact, the opposite is true? While buried and in bad shape, we found a great many, and our soldiers suffered from being in contact with them.

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/takeaway/segments/report-reveals-chilling-wmd-revelations-iraq

Also, why don't more people know about the moving of a great many WMDs from Iraq to its ally Syria as the invasion was beginning to ramp up?

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/syria-chemical-weapons-came-from-iraq/

Does the U.S. simply enjoy self-flagellation so much that our media will ignore when we were right about things? I constantly hear the myth that there were no WMDs in Iraq repeated by both the Right and the Left. It's frustrating when you know better.

 

No one wants to hear about it. Its considered ancient history though the victims still walk among us. 

Even Pres. Biden says his son died due to inhaling poisonous smoke that caused cancer.

The same people who say there were no WMD found in Iraq, will tell you that Bush set up 9-11. And rigged the buildings to fall. 

People believe either what they want to, or what they are told. Depending on their percentage of sheeple-ness. Some are correct, most are not.

[simplybill]

14 hours ago, C L Palmer said:

Why does the myth persist that there were no WMDs in Iraq prior to our invasion when, in fact, the opposite is true?

It’s baffling, for sure. Hussein made it clear to the world that he had chemical weapons when he attacked the Kurds with mustard gas in the Halabja Massacre in March 1988. 

“The incident was the largest chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history, killing between 3,200 and 5,000 people and injuring 7,000 to 10,000 more, most of them civilians. Preliminary results from surveys of the affected region showed an increased rate of cancer and birth defects in the years afterward.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_massacre

[Grim Reaper 6]

27 minutes ago, simplybill said:

It’s baffling, for sure. Hussein made it clear to the world that he had chemical weapons when he attacked the Kurds with mustard gas in the Halabja Massacre in March 1988. 

“The incident was the largest chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history, killing between 3,200 and 5,000 people and injuring 7,000 to 10,000 more, most of them civilians. Preliminary results from surveys of the affected region showed an increased rate of cancer and birth defects in the years afterward.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_massacre

I am very aware of this situation, and it certainly was the worse chemical attack in history against a civilian population!!

[Gromdor]

Yeah, we totally knew Iraq had chemical weapons and even helped them use it against Iran: Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran – Foreign Policy

I think that the question of whether or nor Iraq had it is moot as everyone knew that he did.  The real reason why it was an issue was that Bush used his possession of chemical weapons as an excuse to attack Iraq rather than it being a true threat to America.  After the war, it was plain to see that it wasn't in the condition or amounts enough to cause worry in comparison to say Syria or any other country with chemical weapons.

I personally think the reason why Baby Bush attacked Iraq was because they tried to kill his daddy: How Do We Know that Iraq Tried to Assassinate President George H.W. Bush? | History News Network

It's kind of like Putin using the "Nazis" excuse to attack Ukraine.

 

edit to add: That at the neocon mindset that they can "Regime change" a country into a better place.

Edited April 13 by Gromdor

[+DieChecker]

I'd agree Iraq War 2 should never have happened. Saddam wasnt really a threat IMHO. 

[C L Palmer]

On 4/13/2024 at 4:21 PM, Gromdor said:

Yeah, we totally knew Iraq had chemical weapons and even helped them use it against Iran: Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran – Foreign Policy

I think that the question of whether or nor Iraq had it is moot as everyone knew that he did.  The real reason why it was an issue was that Bush used his possession of chemical weapons as an excuse to attack Iraq rather than it being a true threat to America.  After the war, it was plain to see that it wasn't in the condition or amounts enough to cause worry in comparison to say Syria or any other country with chemical weapons.

I personally think the reason why Baby Bush attacked Iraq was because they tried to kill his daddy: How Do We Know that Iraq Tried to Assassinate President George H.W. Bush? | History News Network

It's kind of like Putin using the "Nazis" excuse to attack Ukraine.

 

edit to add: That at the neocon mindset that they can "Regime change" a country into a better place.

I wonder why the interventionist tendency has changed so much? The more right-wing folks want to stay out of everything now, especially in Europe. The only thing they want to get involved with now is defending Israel, which has been a staunch US ally in the region and has strategic importance for staging US operations. Everything else, from what I hear on the blogosphere, is "stay out--none of our business." It's almost like the poles flipped on that issue.

[Gromdor]

50 minutes ago, C L Palmer said:

I wonder why the interventionist tendency has changed so much? The more right-wing folks want to stay out of everything now, especially in Europe. The only thing they want to get involved with now is defending Israel, which has been a staunch US ally in the region and has strategic importance for staging US operations. Everything else, from what I hear on the blogosphere, is "stay out--none of our business." It's almost like the poles flipped on that issue.

I think they are finally learning.  Vietnam, Korea, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.  Every time we tried a regime change, we just made things worse with nothing to show for it except dead soldiers.  

Israel is different because we have a few religions that believes Israelis have to fight and die before the apocalypse happens and everyone goes to heaven.  A permanent peace would ruin that.

[C L Palmer]

27 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

I think they are finally learning.  Vietnam, Korea, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.  Every time we tried a regime change, we just made things worse with nothing to show for it except dead soldiers.  

Israel is different because we have a few religions that believes Israelis have to fight and die before the apocalypse happens and everyone goes to heaven.  A permanent peace would ruin that.

I don't think the religious right is opposed to a permanent peace in Israel. I think they just want to preserve the state. Ideally, peacefully, but that option isn't being given. Now, I know the Ayatollah believes he can hurry-up the end times by creating a huge conflagration with Israel. From what the right-wing voices I'm seeing have to say, they just want to protect Israel. However, you are correct that it likely stems from religious motives. Christians do worship a Jew, after all, so an emotional kinship with Israel makes sense.

[Mr.United_Nations]

On 4/15/2024 at 9:31 AM, DieChecker said:

I'd agree Iraq War 2 should never have happened. Saddam wasnt really a threat IMHO. 

To the kurds and Iran, yes he was

[+DieChecker]

17 hours ago, Mr.United_Nations said:

To the kurds and Iran, yes he was

True as far as that goes. But to Middle America, he wasnt a threat.

[Trelane]

No one can say how much Iraq was actually in possession of prior to the invasion. A lot of pieces were moving the months leading up to the US led invasion. It's anyone's guess really. My hunch is there were significant stockpiles that were moved and we'll never really know that amount. I only know what the average Iraqis I interacted with stated they definitely had stockpiles of various items. Saddam had a 3 pronged problem he developed the weapons for. Internally to deal with the Shia if they became a serious problem. Of course the Kurds were a persistent target. Lastly, he maintained stockpiles for any future conflicts with Iran. 

[Michelle]

On 4/13/2024 at 4:21 PM, Gromdor said:

That at the neocon mindset that they can "Regime change" a country into a better place.

Forget Jimmy Carter did we? Iran was a very progressive country until his "regime change".

Why Jimmy Carter Owes the Iranian People an Apology | Opinion (newsweek.com)

I won't go into the ones before my lifetime.

[Gromdor]

6 hours ago, Michelle said:

Forget Jimmy Carter did we? Iran was a very progressive country until his "regime change".

Why Jimmy Carter Owes the Iranian People an Apology | Opinion (newsweek.com)

I won't go into the ones before my lifetime.

Atta girl, Michelle!

How can we forget one of our earlier and greater failures in regime change?  Eisenhower utilized our CIA to have a coup in Iran in 1953 and place the Shah in power: 1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia

But stuff like the Jaleh Square Massacre and the killing of his own people led to a rift that no amount of American assistance could fix: Black Friday (1978) - Wikipedia

Iran is what it is today due to our direct actions (as is their hatred towards us).

 

Edited May 7 by Gromdor

[DarkHunter]

7 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Atta girl, Michelle!

How can we forget one of our earlier and greater failures in regime change?  Eisenhower utilized our CIA to have a coup in Iran in 1953 and place the Shah in power: 1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia

But stuff like the Jaleh Square Massacre and the killing of his own people led to a rift that no amount of American assistance could fix: Black Friday (1978) - Wikipedia

Iran is what it is today due to our direct actions (as is their hatred towards us).

 

Just going to ignore how it was the UK who destroyed the Iranian economy by blockading their ports over Iran nationalizing their oil industry due to UK cheating Iran and breaking deals.  Also going to ignore how the Iranian prime minister was turning full dictator by going after political opponents, disbanding the Iranian parliament after his party lost an election, then holding another quick election where his political party won over 95% of the vote along with building stronger relations with the USSR.  Also leaving out how American involvement was largely just getting the Shah to exercise his power granted to him by the Iranian constitution to remove the prime minister.

[Gromdor]

1 hour ago, DarkHunter said:

Just going to ignore how it was the UK who destroyed the Iranian economy by blockading their ports over Iran nationalizing their oil industry due to UK cheating Iran and breaking deals.  Also going to ignore how the Iranian prime minister was turning full dictator by going after political opponents, disbanding the Iranian parliament after his party lost an election, then holding another quick election where his political party won over 95% of the vote along with building stronger relations with the USSR.  Also leaving out how American involvement was largely just getting the Shah to exercise his power granted to him by the Iranian constitution to remove the prime minister.

None of that detracts from my point- which is our regime change efforts have been failures that created some of our greatest enemies.  

[DarkHunter]

18 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

None of that detracts from my point- which is our regime change efforts have been failures that created some of our greatest enemies.  

For Iran not backing the Shah is what created the enemy not the regime change that cemented the Shah's power and removed a prime minister turning dictator.

Regime change in Germany and Japan worked out rather well post WW2.  For just about every example of failed regime change their is an example of successful regime change.

The issue isn't regime change the issue is frequently being idealistic and ignoring the reality of the situation.  For Afghanistan trying to set up a democratic government and build a western style military in an area with essentially zero national identity with multiple ethnic groups and cultures and countless tribes and clans that hate each other and have blood feuds going back centuries or millenia was going to fail.  It would of been better to find the strongest and most powerful warlord who was accepting to tolerant of the western world and supply him with whatever it required for him to maintain control over most if not all of Afghanistan.  For Iraq it was a mistake to think decades to centuries of sectarian repression and violence could be made to go away with a few years of democracy and ideas of personal rights and freedom.  

[Gromdor]

14 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

For Iran not backing the Shah is what created the enemy not the regime change that cemented the Shah's power and removed a prime minister turning dictator.

Regime change in Germany and Japan worked out rather well post WW2.  For just about every example of failed regime change their is an example of successful regime change.

The issue isn't regime change the issue is frequently being idealistic and ignoring the reality of the situation.  For Afghanistan trying to set up a democratic government and build a western style military in an area with essentially zero national identity with multiple ethnic groups and cultures and countless tribes and clans that hate each other and have blood feuds going back centuries or millenia was going to fail.  It would of been better to find the strongest and most powerful warlord who was accepting to tolerant of the western world and supply him with whatever it required for him to maintain control over most if not all of Afghanistan.  For Iraq it was a mistake to think decades to centuries of sectarian repression and violence could be made to go away with a few years of democracy and ideas of personal rights and freedom.  

That's like saying for Afghanistan it wasn't the regime change that we did that was the problem, but rather the fact that we didn't stay and support the Afghan government we created.

I do think you have touched the crux of the problem when you mention successful regime changes that happened because of war.  When was the last time we actually declared war?  The very reason why we don't declare war is the reason why we fail.  We lack standing and conviction.  

Take the topic of this thread- Iraq.  What have we accomplished?  We still have troops there who's job is to literally sit there and be target practice for the local Iraqis armed with Iranian missles and drones.  They aren't there to create a successful regime change, they never were.  

[C L Palmer]

8 hours ago, Gromdor said:

That's like saying for Afghanistan it wasn't the regime change that we did that was the problem, but rather the fact that we didn't stay and support the Afghan government we created.

I do think you have touched the crux of the problem when you mention successful regime changes that happened because of war.  When was the last time we actually declared war?  The very reason why we don't declare war is the reason why we fail.  We lack standing and conviction.  

Take the topic of this thread- Iraq.  What have we accomplished?  We still have troops there who's job is to literally sit there and be target practice for the local Iraqis armed with Iranian missles and drones.  They aren't there to create a successful regime change, they never were.  

I do agree that we shouldn´t commit long standing ground troops without a declaration of war. Most of the reason we fail is lack of unity at home, and a declaration of war (and the ability to punish sedition) helps maintain that unity. If we are not technically at war, it´s hard to argue that sedition is legally punishable because we don´t technically have an ¨enemy.¨