(CNN) -- The U.S. government suppressed information about chemical weapons it found in Iraq, and several servicemembers were injured by their exposure to those weapons, The New York Times is reporting.
In an article published late Tuesday, the newspaper says it found 17 American servicemembers and seven Iraqi police officers who were exposed to mustard or nerve agents after 2003. They were reportedly given inadequate care and told not to talk about what happened.
"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.
"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," the newspaper reported.
It quoted a former Army sergeant who suffered mustard burns in 2007 and was reportedly denied hospital treatment.
"I felt more like a guinea pig than a wounded soldier," he told the Times.
Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby on Wednesday addressed the allegations at a press briefing in Washington.
When asked whether injured U.S. servicemembers were denied treatment, or told to keep quiet, he said he couldn't speak to "what guidance or decisions their unit commanders or medical staff may have given them at the time."
He added: "I just don't have that level of detail. This happened a long time ago and it was on an individual basis."
Kirby estimated that about 20 U.S. servicemembers were exposed to material from chemical munitions, from around the mid-2000s to 2010 or 2011.
"The Secretary's expectation is that servicemembers and their families are going to get the care and support that they need, and if they aren't, he wants to make sure that leadership address that," Kirby said about U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.
"But this is an issue for their chains of command to deal with, leadership at all levels to deal with. There's no need for -- and I don't expect that there's going to be -- a Pentagon-level review of these particular cases," Kirby said.
The newspaper suggested several reasons why the U.S. government might have wanted to suppress the chemical weapons finds.
For one, in five of the six cases 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 newspaper reported.
For another, the weapons were old -- made before 1991 -- and therefore did not back up U.S. intelligence that at the time suggested Iraq had an active weapons of mass destruction program.
"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," the Times reported.
(CNN)
"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," the newspaper reported."
This just in, the Bush Administration lied about Iraq and sent US and allied troops in there without justifiable cause, weakening it's war effort in Afghanistan, eroding the reputation of the US by ignoring the United Nations and sacrificing the lives of thousands and thousands of Western servicemen and women and Iraqi civilians.
(CNN) "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," the newspaper reported."
This just in, the Bush Administration lied about Iraq and sent US and allied troops in there without justifiable cause, weakening it's war effort in Afghanistan, eroding the reputation of the US by ignoring the United Nations and sacrificing the lives of thousands and thousands of Western servicemen and women and Iraqi civilians.
Nope... you're participating (and NYT a bit too) in history revisioning...
That war was never about an active weapons program, as NYT asserts, but rather, it was the same problems Bush had identified in numerous speeches: old stockpiled weapons, the demonstrated ambition to develop new ones as soon as our backs were turned, and the possibility that Hussein could pass them to terrorists with anti-Western aims.
He pounded that in speech-after-speech during the runup of that war.
But, if you insist the "Bush Lied" because of he's the reincarnate of Hitler... you keep carpping that.
(CNN)
"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," the newspaper reported."
This just in, the Bush Administration lied about Iraq and sent US and allied troops in there without justifiable cause, weakening it's war effort in Afghanistan, eroding the reputation of the US by ignoring the United Nations and sacrificing the lives of thousands and thousands of Western servicemen and women and Iraqi civilians.
Nope... you're participating (and NYT a bit too) in history revisioning...
That war was never about an active weapons program, as NYT asserts, but rather, it was the same problems Bush had identified in numerous speeches: old stockpiled weapons, the demonstrated ambition to develop new ones as soon as our backs were turned, and the possibility that Hussein could pass them to terrorists with anti-Western aims.
Ummm.... no. Colin Powell's presentation before the U.N. was about a suspected active program. Hence those pictures of "mobile chem wepaons labs" and such. The fact that Hussein was denying inspectors access to potential chem production sites was used as "evidence" that he was *currently* up to something, not that he might get up to something if we didn't bomb him immediately.
Ummm.... no. Colin Powell's presentation before the U.N. was about a suspected active program. Hence those pistures of "mobile chem wepaons labs" and such. The fact that Hussein was denying inpectors access to potential chem production sites was used as "evidence" that he was currently* up to something, not that he might get up to something if we didn't bomb him immediately.
Ummm.... no. Colin Powell's presentation before the U.N. was about a suspected active program. Hence those pistures of "mobile chem wepaons labs" and such. The fact that Hussein was denying inpectors access to potential chem production sites was used as "evidence" that he was currently* up to something, not that he might get up to something if we didn't bomb him immediately.
So where's the evidence that he actively lied just to give him casus belli for the Iraq War?
So the fact that line #2 of the resolution specifically says that Iraq possess an active chemical weapons program refutes me how? There were a lot of reasons we went to war with Iraq; the one Bush pushed the hardest in the media and before the UN was the "active" program. Which we know was not active at all.
Ummm.... no. Colin Powell's presentation before the U.N. was about a suspected active program. Hence those pistures of "mobile chem wepaons labs" and such. The fact that Hussein was denying inpectors access to potential chem production sites was used as "evidence" that he was currently* up to something, not that he might get up to something if we didn't bomb him immediately.
So where's the evidence that he actively lied just to give him casus belli for the Iraq War?
So the fact that line #2 of the resolution specifically says that Iraq possess an active chemical weapons program refutes me how? There were a lot of reasons we went to war with Iraq; the one Bush pushed the hardest in the media and before the UN was the "active" program. Which we know was not active at all.
So how is that a "lie" when it could neither be confirmed either way?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: There were also the stories that Bush was lied to by the people who gave him the data.
That was the intelligence failures between the US & UK.
Basically both sides thought the other side "confirmed" it.
Basically, it was the classic finger pointing excuse.
Relapse wrote: There were also the stories that Bush was lied to by the people who gave him the data.
I think this is probably a likely thing. I don't have any malice towards Bush for starting the war (how he handled it, I have problems with) because I think he may have been given the information he wanted to see. I think a fair number of people in the military and intelligence communities saw the first Iraq war as unfinished business, and saw a President who was sympathetic to finishing the job, and they gave him whatever they thought he wanted to hear to make him more likely to take action. I don't think Bush ever said "I only want to see evidence of chem weapons so I can freedombomb Iraq" but I think certain people thought that if they only gave him info that confirmed his bias against Hussein, he would be more likely to let them go into Iraq and finish what they started in Desert Storm.
So where's the evidence that he actively lied just to give him casus belli for the Iraq War?
I never said he lied. I said you were wrong when you said the war "was never about an active weapons program" when line #2 of the resolution clearly calls out Saddam's "active weapons program". Were they wrong about the program being active? Yes. Was it one of the reasons for starting the war? Also yes.
Did they lie about the program? Well, somebody did, but it may not have been Bush (he may have been lied to).
(CNN)
"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," the newspaper reported."
This just in, the Bush Administration lied about Iraq and sent US and allied troops in there without justifiable cause, weakening it's war effort in Afghanistan, eroding the reputation of the US by ignoring the United Nations and sacrificing the lives of thousands and thousands of Western servicemen and women and Iraqi civilians.
Nope... you're participating (and NYT a bit too) in history revisioning...
That war was never about an active weapons program, as NYT asserts, but rather, it was the same problems Bush had identified in numerous speeches: old stockpiled weapons, the demonstrated ambition to develop new ones as soon as our backs were turned, and the possibility that Hussein could pass them to terrorists with anti-Western aims.
He pounded that in speech-after-speech during the runup of that war.
But, if you insist the "Bush Lied" because of he's the reincarnate of Hitler... you keep carpping that.
The repeated issue was a claim that Iraq was undertaking a current weapons program and intended direct harm to the West/Israel. It formed part of the claim of material breach of ceasefire... Superguns, lions, tigers etc etc. It was a false claim. We knew they had a lot of chemical weaponry and other nasties because we sold them to him. What was being claimed was a direct new threat, an assemblage of new weaponry.
It was baseless. We do have testimony that the head of the CIA was ordered by the Bush admin to produce a report with certain results.
But grats on the deploying of nazi reference so early in the thread...
And don't ever accuse me of carping, Benghazi Boy...
So either the US was stupid enough to lie about the reason to go to war, or it was stupid enough to lie about evidence that would have made redeemed it from looking like idiots to the rest of the world?
I mean, I was alive at the time, and I remember the arguments being put forward. It was definitely a major argument that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. I remember because I was there. It's amazing to me that you remember things differently.
Guess it says something about the inherently subjective nature of perception.
Yet more evidence that the Iraq war was a colossal and tragic blunder which killed thousands to make the region less safe than it had been before the intervention for no particularly good reason.
If only we hadn't destoryed the regime of that murdering dictator who killed thousands of his own citizens daily, dropped gas on the Kurds and had fun torture parties on the shiites.
Anyone who claims the reason we went to war in 2003 was to locate and dismantle the decaying chemical weapons that Iraq had stockpiled from the war with Iran - the most recent of which were 13 years old at the time the arguments were being made - is either a partisan toolbox who is engaging in historical revisionism in pursuit of a score of their team, or a complete fool. Neither one is with engaging with on this topic.
I've seen this argument floated a few times before and it's just such laughable, bald-faced lying it hurts to read. Smoking mushroom cloud, yellowcake uranium, centifuge tubes - those were all to make more mustard gas and sarin they already had? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
Frazzled wrote: If only we hadn't destoryed the regime of that murdering dictator who killed thousands of his own citizens daily, dropped gas on the Kurds and had fun torture parties on the shiites.
Da Boss wrote: Fraz: Thousands of his own citizens every day? Come on!
As you can see, Iraq is SO MUCH BETTER OFF today! Good job guys.
Other estimates as to the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam's regime vary from roughly a quarter to half a million, including 50,000 to 182,000 Kurds and 25,000 to 280,000 killed during the repression of the 1991 rebellion. Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.
Frazzled wrote: If only we hadn't destoryed the regime of that murdering dictator who killed thousands of his own citizens daily, dropped gas on the Kurds and had fun torture parties on the shiites.
America, truly the most evil nation in history.
Thousands daily?
And it's our fault he was there in the first place. We didn't invade because he was a horrible person, but to protect our own economic interests. In the process, we managed to destabilize the region, and cause what is happening now.
That doesn't lessen our evil. And yet, as the world's most evil nation we just kept going didn't we. We helped topple that Libyan dictator. Thankfully we didn't provide any aid to topple that Syrian guy. Man that could have turned out bad...
Well, you guys are clearly in the lead then, since there's only been roughly 100,000 deaths from your invasion. And of course the destabilisation of the region to the point where an organisation like IS can get their hooks in is completely unrelated, so any deaths that result from their actions is certainly nothing to do with any cack handed intervention.
Edit to add: Sometimes the US is an awesome force for good in the world But as the most powerful nation on the planet, when you guys mess up, your mistakes are catastrophic. With great power great responsibility and all that jazz. The US is by no means the "greatest monster" in the world or anything close (a fight I have with my more anti US girlfriend regularly when we discuss Ukraine) but for God's sake would it kill yez to admit a fault every now and then.
Da Boss wrote: I mean, I was alive at the time, and I remember the arguments being put forward. It was definitely a major argument that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. I remember because I was there. It's amazing to me that you remember things differently.
Do me a favor... read Powell's UN speech:
Here's the transcript.
The war wasn't made solely based on claims of an active Iraqi weapons program. It was made because, as Bush explained repeatedly to the American public: Among the litany of reasons... Saddam Hussein possessed old weapons of mass destruction, desired to evade inspections so as to keep them, hoped to restart his weapons programs in the future, and could pass weapons to terrorist groups with ambitions to harm the West. Over, and over again.
Keep in mind that Bush got UN/Congressional approval for this.
Powell, in that famous "regret" interview over his UN speech, still supports the decision, that the intelligence was flawed:
"There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at that time that some of these sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up. "
Guess it says something about the inherently subjective nature of perception.
That is it's definition.
Yet more evidence that the Iraq war was a colossal and tragic blunder which killed thousands to make the region less safe than it had been before the intervention for no particularly good reason.
That argument does have merits... but, it's too much of "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" to me...
cincydooley wrote: Sometimes I'd wish we'd simply say, "feth you" to that sandy wasteland and let those of you much closer (see: europeans) deal with it.
Da Boss wrote: Well, you guys are clearly in the lead then, since there's only been roughly 100,000 deaths from your invasion. And of course the destabilisation of the region to the point where an organisation like IS can get their hooks in is completely unrelated, so any deaths that result from their actions is certainly nothing to do with any cack handed intervention.
Edit to add: Sometimes the US is an awesome force for good in the world But as the most powerful nation on the planet, when you guys mess up, your mistakes are catastrophic. With great power great responsibility and all that jazz. The US is by no means the "greatest monster" in the world or anything close (a fight I have with my more anti US girlfriend regularly when we discuss Ukraine) but for God's sake would it kill yez to admit a fault every now and then.
I agree. We should pull everything back immediately, including our forces in Africa.
d-usa wrote: Iraq might be an interesting case study when deciding if a stable dictatorship is better for the country and region than an unstable democracy.
As long as you can get reliable data/metrics... sure, I'd dive into that.
I mean, that's what we did during the Iraq-Iran war... right?
Saddam was still a bastard then... but, then... he was "our bastard".
d-usa wrote: Iraq might be an interesting case study when deciding if a stable dictatorship is better for the country and region than an unstable democracy.
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,[14] 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.[14]
The abbreviations NBC (for nuclear, biological and chemical) or CBR (chemical, biological, radiological) are used with regards to battlefield protection systems for armored vehicles, because all three involve insidious toxins that can be carried through the air and can be protected against with vehicle air filtration systems.
However, there is an argument that nuclear and biological weapons do not belong in the same category as chemical and "dirty bomb" radiological weapons, which have limited destructive potential (and close to none, as far as property is concerned), whereas nuclear and biological weapons have the unique ability to kill large numbers of people with very small amounts of material, and thus could be said to belong in a class by themselves.
The NBC definition has also been used in official U.S. documents, by the U.S. President,[15][16] the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency,[17] the U.S. Department of Defense,[18][19] and the U.S. Government Accountability Office.[20]
Other documents expand the definition of WMD to also include radiological or conventional weapons. The U.S. military refers to WMD as:
Chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass casualties and exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part from the weapon. Also called WMD.[21]
. . .
Military[edit]
For the general purposes of national defense,[27] the U.S. Code[28] defines a weapon of mass destruction as:
any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of:
toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors
a disease organism
radiation or radioactivity[29]
For the purposes of the prevention of weapons proliferation,[30] the U.S. Code defines weapons of mass destruction as "chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and chemical, biological, and nuclear materials used in the manufacture of such weapons."[31]
That would seem to cover both mustard gas and nerve agents
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Iraq might be an interesting case study when deciding if a stable dictatorship is better for the country and region than an unstable democracy.
cincydooley wrote: Sometimes I'd wish we'd simply say, "feth you" to that sandy wasteland and let those of you much closer (see: europeans) deal with it.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: That would seem to cover both mustard gas and nerve agents
That doesn't really cover "mass" though, especially when it's loaded into shells that have a 14 mile range - can't be too big a mass, nor a "high order of destruction" as using the military definition. They were built and intended for use against massed troops on the Iranian border - lets not screw around and pretend otherwise, we're neither one of us morons.
And again, I'm not getting into the semanitcs - it's a red herring ton get into this argument because, as I previously stated, only a fool or a partisan hack could try arguing with a straight face that when Condoleeza Rice referenced that we don't want "the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud", that when George W. Bush stated that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa", and when Dick Cheney said that Saddam was trying to "acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium -- specifically, aluminum tubes"... that they were referring to the moldering stockpiles of mustard gas and sarin, last produced 14 years before any one of those statements.
Seriously, it's just embarrassing and shameful to see people make this argument.
Ouze... I think it's participating in historical revisionism by claiming that Bush lied in order to conduct this war.
All the things that happened afterwards is absolutely fair game, such as the surge and that embarrassing Abu Gharib incident.
But to sit there and truly believe Bush & his administration conspired in such a way to go war in some sort of Manchurian manner or line big business' pockets, is the worst kind of Monday Morning Quarter backing.
The actual casus belli for the Iraq War remains to this day, very misunderstood.
Now, of course, he didn't have an active, ready to be fired wmds sitting on his missiles aimed at his neighbors. As, he was under UN sanctions after the first war to disarm.
However, in 2002, Hussein was doing everything he could to foil the UN weapons inspections teams about his existing weapons caches (the ones the NYTimes article yesterday just "found"). You might recall, the U.S. was enforcing no-fly zones over Iraq at the time and attempting to ensure that Hussein remained disarmed. Hussein, for his part, was attempting to obscure both what he was capable of doing and what WMD, particularly biological and nuclear, remained to him. He was well-known, of course, for using chemical weapons against his own people and against the Iranians. Of particular concern going forward were his nuclear plans and the possibility that he would sell or give weapons to terrorists with Western ambitions.
So... you keep discounting the old stockpiles, activities of attempts to acquire nuke materials/supplies as nothing more than chatter.
What we can give faults is that the intelligence agency failed him.
We can debate the merits of Bush being aggressive in pursuing this based on the information he understood at the time. I'd argue that had 9/11 not happen, Saddam would likely still be in power and we'd have President Gore.
My opinion is all this angst against Bush is purely partisan rather than the merits to the war itself, which the media played a huge part. Because of that, we have this current partisan bickering.
I think Iraqhazi and Benghazi, and by extension the "Bush lied" and "Obama lied", are pretty similar when it comes to being wrong about what actually happened.
I think both were wrong, but I don't think either of them lied.
I do think that the Bush Administration was wrong about what they thought they knew about what was going on in Iraq, and I do think that the Obama Administration was wrong about what was going on in Benghazi.
But i don't think that the Bush Administration decided to make up a bunch of crap because he wanted to invade Iraq for some random reason, and I don't think that the Obama Administration decided to make up a bunch of crap because he had an election to win.
I think both instances are a classic case of either thinking that you know the answer before you get any data, or deciding on the answer when you only have very limited amount of data. And once that answer is in your head then you get tunnel-vision and develop a confirmation bias that makes you unconsciously ignore data that tells you the complete opposite and latch on any piece of intelligence that confirms what you already "know".
I don't think they did it because they wanted to "lie" to the public, I think that these were two classic cases of putting the cart before the horse.
d-usa wrote: I think Iraqhazi and Benghazi, and by extension the "Bush lied" and "Obama lied", are pretty similar when it comes to being wrong about what actually happened.
I think both were wrong, but I don't think either of them lied.
I do think that the Bush Administration was wrong about what they thought they knew about what was going on in Iraq, and I do think that the Obama Administration was wrong about what was going on in Benghazi.
But i don't think that the Bush Administration decided to make up a bunch of crap because he wanted to invade Iraq for some random reason, and I don't think that the Obama Administration decided to make up a bunch of crap because he had an election to win.
I think both instances are a classic case of either thinking that you know the answer before you get any data, or deciding on the answer when you only have very limited amount of data. And once that answer is in your head then you get tunnel-vision and develop a confirmation bias that makes you unconsciously ignore data that tells you the complete opposite and latch on any piece of intelligence that confirms what you already "know".
I don't think they did it because they wanted to "lie" to the public, I think that these were two classic cases of putting the cart before the horse.
Good post d.
I'm so stealing that "Iraqhazi and Benghazi" phrase.
whembly wrote: My opinion is all this angst against Bush is purely partisan rather than the merits to the war itself, which the media played a huge part. Because of that, we have this current partisan bickering.
The problem with that line of thought is that you didn't allow one more option, just blind partisan hate, and media-led partisan hate. There is a third option, which is that the George W. Bush administration
I mean, I'm not going to go into a point by point argument of each; the thrust of what I am saying is that there are plenty of reasons to be pretty unhappy with the George W. Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war regardless of how we got there other than the two you have listed. It was probably the most incompetent presidential administration in my lifetime, which is pretty foreseeable because the focus on the top was more on "loyal Bushies" than competent people.
whembly wrote: What we can give faults is that the intelligence agency failed him.
For a guy who has argued pretty strenuously that President Obama holds ultimate authority for the IRS scandal, Benghazi, and Fast & Furious... you seem pretty willing to absolve Mr. Bush of responsibility for the failings of the intelligence apparatus that he was responsible for.
Ouze wrote: ... I consider myself pretty politically aware, generally, but I must confess that I was ignorant of that song until your post.
It's from this sort of indie-rock/folk rock/randomly hard rock/randomly chaging band. The Decembersits.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Now that I think about it, they actully have alot of political songs. 16 Military Wives is about the medias response to the invasion.
Ouze wrote: That doesn't really cover "mass" though, especially when it's loaded into shells that have a 14 mile range - can't be too big a mass, nor a "high order of destruction" as using the military definition. They were built and intended for use against massed troops on the Iranian border - lets not screw around and pretend otherwise, we're neither one of us morons.
You can ignore the definition all you want. That does not invalidate it. Nor does the original purpose of the shells (your claim that it was for use against a specific enemy) somehow render there continued existence null and void
Ouze wrote: And again, I'm not getting into the semanitcs - it's a red herring ton get into this argument because, as I previously stated, only a fool or a partisan hack could try arguing with a straight face that when Condoleeza Rice referenced that we don't want "the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud", that when George W. Bush stated that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa", and when Dick Cheney said that Saddam was trying to "acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium -- specifically, aluminum tubes"... that they were referring to the moldering stockpiles of mustard gas and sarin, last produced 14 years before any one of those statements.
Seriously, it's just embarrassing and shameful to see people make this argument.
So was the resolution about just nuclear weapons, or WMDs?
Jihadin wrote: But no WMD's were found in Iraq though.......
Yes, that is correct. There were no WMD's found. 155mm shells loaded with mustard gas or nerve agents are not WMDs.
Kind of a side note, but would you consider nuclear 155mm shells to be WMDs? Serious question.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I think Iraqhazi and Benghazi, and by extension the "Bush lied" and "Obama lied", are pretty similar when it comes to being wrong about what actually happened.
I think both were wrong, but I don't think either of them lied.
I do think that the Bush Administration was wrong about what they thought they knew about what was going on in Iraq, and I do think that the Obama Administration was wrong about what was going on in Benghazi.
But i don't think that the Bush Administration decided to make up a bunch of crap because he wanted to invade Iraq for some random reason, and I don't think that the Obama Administration decided to make up a bunch of crap because he had an election to win.
I think both instances are a classic case of either thinking that you know the answer before you get any data, or deciding on the answer when you only have very limited amount of data. And once that answer is in your head then you get tunnel-vision and develop a confirmation bias that makes you unconsciously ignore data that tells you the complete opposite and latch on any piece of intelligence that confirms what you already "know".
I don't think they did it because they wanted to "lie" to the public, I think that these were two classic cases of putting the cart before the horse.
Casualties can occur from chemical weapons even post dismantling due to carelessly discarded spent casings, trench salvage, forgotten individual items and general war debris.
They would indeed be Saddams weapons and yet not indicative of non compliance.
The indicators are the Saddam complied with the UN weapons inspectors because he knew the consequences of not doing so were fairly dire, unbeknowing that he would suffer said consequences anyway.
Infrastructure was generally poor and it is not the least bit surprising that Iraq could not account for every source of contamination, whether an active chemical warhead or something else.
Bush wanted his war and big business wanted the oil.
Blair also wanted his war, but didnt get any oil contracts either. The US has something from Iraq, .
whembly wrote: What we can give faults is that the intelligence agency failed him.
For a guy who has argued pretty strenuously that President Obama holds ultimate authority for the IRS scandal, Benghazi, and Fast & Furious... you seem pretty willing to absolve Mr. Bush of responsibility for the failings of the intelligence apparatus that he was responsible for.
Ouze... I'm going to reject this premise strenuously.
I believe he took the information he had and made the best decision as President as he possibly could.
Vastly fething different than Obama's decisions.... as most were done as what's politically expedient, rather than the right decision.
FWIW, I would've been happy had Bush accepted Rumfeld's resignation.
But the gak that went down with the IRS / F&F / ghazi / Obamacare / General Foreign Policy / Droning / Stimulous / Pigford is just as bad if not worst than anything that Bush did...
There I again... my ODS streak is manifesting itself again.
Orlanth wrote: I dont think the article is being honest.
Casualties can occur from chemical weapons even post dismantling due to carelessly discarded spent casings, trench salvage, forgotten individual items and general war debris.
They would indeed be Saddams weapons and yet not indicative of non compliance.
The indicators are the Saddam complied with the UN weapons inspectors because he knew the consequences of not doing so were fairly dire, unbeknowing that he would suffer said consequences anyway.
Infrastructure was generally poor and it is not the least bit surprising that Iraq could not account for every source of contamination, whether an active chemical warhead or something else.
Bush wanted his war and big business wanted the oil.
Blair also wanted his war, but didnt get any oil contracts either. The US has something from Iraq, .
Bush wanted his war and big business wanted the oil.
Blair also wanted his war, but didnt get any oil contracts either. The US has something from Iraq, .
I've been saying this for years and years. Just because we didn't know about it, doesn't mean it didn't exist. The government isn't required to tell us every single bit of information, as much as we may want it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Personally, I think that the reason why we didn't tell the world is because the rest of the world, the bad parts, could have potentially flocked to Iraq and tried to get their hands on as much as they could.
I'm not ignoring, but at all. I'm using the article you linked to explain my stance.
there is no treaty or customary international law that contains an authoritative definition
So I am free to pick to use the US Military definition
Chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass casualties and exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part from the weapon. Also called WMD.[21]:
I don't consider a chemical shell with a 500 foot kill range to be capable of a high order of destruction. So, you can decide on a different definition if you like, but you won't be any more right than I am.
Ouze wrote: And again, I'm not getting into the semanitcs - it's a red herring ton get into this argument because, as I previously stated, only a fool or a partisan hack could try arguing with a straight face that when Condoleeza Rice referenced that we don't want "the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud", that when George W. Bush stated that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa", and when Dick Cheney said that Saddam was trying to "acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium -- specifically, aluminum tubes"... that they were referring to the moldering stockpiles of mustard gas and sarin, last produced 14 years before any one of those statements.
Seriously, it's just embarrassing and shameful to see people make this argument.
So was the resolution about just nuclear weapons, or WMDs?
Yes or no: In your opinion, were the 3 statements in my quote references to mustard gas shells from the 80s?
Ouze wrote: And again, I'm not getting into the semanitcs - it's a red herring ton get into this argument because, as I previously stated, only a fool or a partisan hack could try arguing with a straight face that when Condoleeza Rice referenced that we don't want "the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud", that when George W. Bush stated that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa", and when Dick Cheney said that Saddam was trying to "acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium -- specifically, aluminum tubes"... that they were referring to the moldering stockpiles of mustard gas and sarin, last produced 14 years before any one of those statements.
Seriously, it's just embarrassing and shameful to see people make this argument.
So was the resolution about just nuclear weapons, or WMDs?
Yes or no: In your opinion, were the 3 statements in my quote references to mustard gas shells from the 80s?
Your cherry picked quotes are immaterial to the contents of the resolution.
Yes or no; did the UN resolution specify nuclear weapons, or WMDs?
Yes or no; did the UN resolution specify nuclear weapons, or WMDs?
It depends on how you read it.
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and
complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its
programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a
range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such
weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all
other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not
related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,
The latter half of "as all other nuclear programs" to me that they clearly intend nuclear weapons as the thrust of the first statement. This resolution established a UN inspection agency that worked in co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Do you think they were looking for mustard gas?
Additionally, the resolution specifies WMDS and missiles with a range of greater than 150km (about 93 miles), and these mustard gas shells only have a range of about 14 miles. So, according the the UN resolution you so stridently demanded, you're wrong either way.
So, I answered your question, answer mine, yes or no: Are references to uranium acquisition, mushroom clouds, and aluminum tubes for enriching uranium - all phrases used by the Bush administration as the basis for our casus belli - references to mustard gas shells?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote: Kind of a side note, but would you consider nuclear 155mm shells to be WMDs? Serious question.
Mmm.. Kind of a sticky one. See, the problem with the phrase "WMD" is that it's a political word, not a technical one, so there really isn't a clear, universally agreed upon definition. Clearly Dreadclaw considers mustard gas to be a WMD, and I do not, but we both have compelling arguments as to who is right.
US criminal law 18 U.S. Code § 2332a defines a "weapon of mass destruction" as, among other things, "any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title" Destructive devices include, but are not limited to, 4a - grenades. So, someone who throws a hand grenade into a crowd in the US could be charged with "Use of a weapon of mass destruction".
I think most people probably don't think of hand grenades as a WMD.
I like the US military definition best:
Chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass casualties and exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part from the weapon. Also called WMD.[21]
I don't consider mustard gas, as conventionally deployed, a WMD because I don't consider it to be capable of a high order of destruction or mass casualties. Those terms are both undefined, unfortunately - but I don't think a 500 foot radius weapon that disperses by itself pretty quickly counts.
Our smallest nuclear weapon that will fit in a 155mm shell was a W48, which has a pretty big kill ratio, and will dump a lot of radiation* - it would kill nearly everyone in a half-mile radius. As such I think any nuclear weapon would qualify as a WMD.
I don't want to exclude some theoretical chemical agent that is capable of a high order of destruction, so (personally) I would say always nuclear, usually biological, and possibly chemical.
*you can see the effects here - you want .072 for a W48.
A nuke though would deny an area to both sides (tactical nuke). We had those (W48) in South Korea which of three battalions of 2ID were capable firing it out of a M109/M198. We later removed them from South Korea to Japan on a deal with North Korea. Round was to be used at major intersections/choke points of a North Korean advance if the combat was going down south in a Hershey Squirt way. So getting vaped and radiated to death is pretty much it
Mustard gas being quite interesting will clog and overwhelm an entire area forcing a stall being we just flooded the North Koreans with mass chem burn causalties that needs to be removed from the battle field and into the medical units. not only that but they need to De-Con everything that was effected by mustard with STB.
STB is Super Tropical Bleach. That will take a couple layers of skin off on de-con
Think everyone not thinking a chemical weapon has two forms. Persistent and Non-Persistent
North Korea though have I think an Anthrax program. We were vaccinated in 95 in South Korea first before CONUS and Europe were vaccinated.
Jihadin wrote: A nuke though would deny an area to both sides (tactical nuke). We had those (W48) in South Korea which of three battalions of 2ID were capable firing it out of a M109/M198. We later removed them from South Korea to Japan on a deal with North Korea. Round was to be used at major intersections/choke points of a North Korean advance if the combat was going down south in a Hershey Squirt way. So getting vaped and radiated to death is pretty much it.
You know, I always think of nuclear weapons as, you know, kind of a theoretical weapon. Yeah, they're a real thing obviously, but I never think of practical... actual deployments, I just think of them in the mutually-assured-destruction, never actually gonna happen way.
Reading what you said, It's got to keep you up at night if you're deployed in an area that it's an actual possibility.
Jihadin wrote: A nuke though would deny an area to both sides (tactical nuke). We had those (W48) in South Korea which of three battalions of 2ID were capable firing it out of a M109/M198. We later removed them from South Korea to Japan on a deal with North Korea. Round was to be used at major intersections/choke points of a North Korean advance if the combat was going down south in a Hershey Squirt way. So getting vaped and radiated to death is pretty much it.
You know, I always think of nuclear weapons as, you know, kind of a theoretical weapon. Yeah, they're a real thing obviously, but I never think of practical... actual deployments, I just think of them in the mutually-assured-destruction, never actually gonna happen way.
Reading what you said, It's got to keep you up at night if you're deployed in an area that it's an actual possibility.
Actually drinking is what keeps you up at night or FTX. Dec and Jan are the "watch the border" being its so cold the ground (rice paddies) are frozen hard enough to support armor weight. Also the tunnels under the DMZ makes thing's lively to when they get found. 2nd ID sits in the Western Corridor. Across the DMZ is nine North Korean divisions
Been awhile since I was last there in 98-99
2 regular Infantry Divisions
3 Mech Infantry Divisions
3 armored divisions
1 Artillery divison
I was one of the few that pulled the last full rotation at Four Papa Three (live fire base) on the DMZ before South Koreans took over
Yes or no; did the UN resolution specify nuclear weapons, or WMDs?
It depends on how you read it.
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and
complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its
programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a
range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such
weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all
other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not
related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,
The latter half of "as all other nuclear programs" to me that they clearly intend nuclear weapons as the thrust of the first statement. This resolution established a UN inspection agency that worked in co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Do you think they were looking for mustard gas?
Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to
international peace and security
So, the opening paragraphs mentions WMDs, not limited to nuclear devices
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as
a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international
peace and security in the area
Resolution 687 reminded Iraq of its obligations under the Geneva Protocol and to unconditionally remove and destroy all chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150km. Again, making mention of WMDs beyond just nuclear devices
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and
complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its
programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a
range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such
weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all
other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not
related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,
You may recognize this, you quoted it. And again it mentions WMDs. It does not limit it's scope to nuclear devices
Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international
monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of
weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council’s repeated
demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the
United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC),
established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM,
and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region
and the suffering of the Iraqi people,
More mention of WMDs, and not limited to solely nuclear devices.
It only "depends on how you read it" if you are "either a partisan toolbox who is engaging in historical revisionism in pursuit of a score of their team, or a complete fool.". The text of Resolution 1441 plainly speaks of weapons of mass destruction.
So let me get this straight, you guys are claiming that the invasion of Iraq, that the waste of trillions of US dollars, not to mention the death of hundreds of US servicemen and possibly hundreds of thousands of Iraqis was actually not because of a nuclear and biological threat that Saddam posed, but because he still had a few thousand CW shells lying around since the 90's? And that the discovery of those shells somehow vindicates the reasons for the invasion?
That does rather seem to be the argument, doesn't it?
It's pretty amazing, the levels of cognitive dissonance on display here.
Claiming Obama's tax scandal (which is btw a pretty shady and bad thing) is on the same scale as an invasion of another country with hundreds of thousands wounded and dead...
It is your responsibility, if you are deciding to declare war, to ensure that your intelligence is NOT faulty. There is no excusing going to war on "faulty intelligence", all of those involved are simply wrong.
I have more sympathy for those in the general pop or the military who supported the invasion, since they were mislead, but at this stage I reckon we should just be admitting - that invasion was a pretty huge mistake.
I disagree. The invasion was the right decision. The aftermath was handled poorly and the decision to completely pull out was a terribly one.
Sadam had a demonstrated history of being a really bad dude and being a threat to his neighbors. He had dangerous chemical weapons he had used against his own people and other countries. He had ambitions for more. He was thwarting inspections as much as possible. Just because some intelligence was inaccurate doesn't take away from all the other stuff that was true.
The problem is you don't know what disasters are averted by taking an action, only those that occur following the action. Had we invaded Afghanistan before 9/11 it may have prevented 9/11, but no one would have known and the perception would be that it was a bad descison. So we have to wait to get punched in the face before doing anything.
The way you end up with really nasty, drawn out, horrific wars is by ignoring early warning signs and failing to act when the enemy is weak. If you wait until they are strong and start perpetrating serious atrocities, the conflict appears more justified than early intervention would have, but the casualties suffered are much greater. Better to stop that stuff early when the costs are relatively low.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: I said invasion of Afghanistan may have been able to stop 9/11. Saddam is Iraq. It is an illustration of the point I'm trying to make.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: Sadam had a demonstrated history of being a really bad dude and being a threat to his neighbors. He had dangerous chemical weapons he had used against his own people and other countries. He had ambitions for more. He was thwarting inspections as much as possible. Just because some intelligence was inaccurate doesn't take away from all the other stuff that was true.
Saddam was a toothless old dictator to anyone not already in Iraq. He had literally 0 chance against any foe in the area, and certainly was no danger to the US.
His actions inside Iraq were certainly deplorable, but the US is not the world police. Our unilateral action against Iraq should be recognized for what it was: a terrible decision based on terrible intelligence, with a horrific aftermath leagues worse than anything that was already going on there. The amount of straight up fraud that went into "rebuilding" Iraq borders on treason.
There are dictators in countries all over the world; many doing worse than Saddam ever did. It is not the sole business of the US to fix these situations. Our interference anywhere in the middle east has almost always ended up making the entire situation worse than it already is.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: Sadam had a demonstrated history of being a really bad dude and being a threat to his neighbors. He had dangerous chemical weapons he had used against his own people and other countries. He had ambitions for more. He was thwarting inspections as much as possible. Just because some intelligence was inaccurate doesn't take away from all the other stuff that was true.
Saddam was a toothless old dictator to anyone not already in Iraq. He had literally 0 chance against any foe in the area, and certainly was no danger to the US.
His actions inside Iraq were certainly deplorable, but the US is not the world police. Our unilateral action against Iraq should be recognized for what it was: a terrible decision based on terrible intelligence, with a horrific aftermath leagues worse than anything that was already going on there. The amount of straight up fraud that went into "rebuilding" Iraq borders on treason.
There are dictators in countries all over the world; many doing worse than Saddam ever did. It is not the sole business of the US to fix these situations. Our interference anywhere in the middle east has almost always ended up making the entire situation worse than it already is.
It wasn't unilateral.
Afghanistan was an even more toothless country, yet it produced the deadliest attack on the continental United States in the last century.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: Sadam had a demonstrated history of being a really bad dude and being a threat to his neighbors. He had dangerous chemical weapons he had used against his own people and other countries. He had ambitions for more. He was thwarting inspections as much as possible. Just because some intelligence was inaccurate doesn't take away from all the other stuff that was true.
Saddam was a toothless old dictator to anyone not already in Iraq. He had literally 0 chance against any foe in the area, and certainly was no danger to the US.
His actions inside Iraq were certainly deplorable, but the US is not the world police. Our unilateral action against Iraq should be recognized for what it was: a terrible decision based on terrible intelligence, with a horrific aftermath leagues worse than anything that was already going on there. The amount of straight up fraud that went into "rebuilding" Iraq borders on treason.
There are dictators in countries all over the world; many doing worse than Saddam ever did. It is not the sole business of the US to fix these situations. Our interference anywhere in the middle east has almost always ended up making the entire situation worse than it already is.
It wasn't unilateral.
Afghanistan was an even more toothless country, yet it produced the deadliest attack on the continental United States in the last century.
I do stand corrected on unilateral. Forgot we roped the UK and a few others into it.
@bolded I was unaware that Afghanistan and Al Qaeda were the same thing. Oh wait...
Lol, I'll stand corrected as well at least as far as I oversimplified. Al Qaeda from the safe haven it enjoyed in Afghanistan under the sympathetic Taliban government planned the attack.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: Lol, I'll stand corrected as well at least as far as I oversimplified. Al Qaeda from the safe haven it enjoyed in Afghanistan under the sympathetic Taliban government planned the attack.
I readily agree that the Afghani Taliban definitely had 0 issues with OBL and AQ hanging out in their territory.
I think the point is supposed to be "if the US had invaded Afghanistan prior to 9/11, 9/11 might not have happened. In the same sense, invading Iraq before Saddam did something stupid could have been the lesser evil". The problem, of course, being that we can't know.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I think the point is supposed to be "if the US had invaded Afghanistan prior to 9/11, 9/11 might not have happened. In the same sense, invading Iraq before Saddam did something stupid could have been the lesser evil". The problem, of course, being that we can't know.
PhantomViper wrote: So let me get this straight, you guys are claiming that the invasion of Iraq, that the waste of trillions of US dollars, not to mention the death of hundreds of US servicemen and possibly hundreds of thousands of Iraqis was actually not because of a nuclear and biological threat that Saddam posed, but because he still had a few thousand CW shells lying around since the 90's? And that the discovery of those shells somehow vindicates the reasons for the invasion?
No. I respectfully suggest that you re-read the posts as you seem to have omitted some vital context when you were attempting to frame your retort
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I think the point is supposed to be "if the US had invaded Afghanistan prior to 9/11, 9/11 might not have happened. In the same sense, invading Iraq before Saddam did something stupid could have been the lesser evil". The problem, of course, being that we can't know.
Ok, I see where you are going.
The problem is, I'm sure how much of legal basis we had for going into Afghanistan. I don't buy the idea of attacking a country just because their leaders are bad people doing bad things because, frankly, that's like a large part of the world and the American people elect a government aimed at trying to make America better, not be the world police.
There are a lot of valid arguments for why the invasion of Iraq was a bad decision, and even more that it was poorly handled, but I think it's much tougher to argue that the invasion of Afghanistan wasn't justified.
I think it's more easy to argue that an invasion of Saudi Arabia would have been justified. (I am being a bit flippant)
Most people don't complain so much about Afghanistan, though. People can understand that war. And if you'd stuck to that one, perhaps you'd have been more successful.
Bundling Iraq in on top of that is where a lot of people start drawing their lines.
Da Boss wrote: I think it's more easy to argue that an invasion of Saudi Arabia would have been justified. (I am being a bit flippant)
Most people don't complain so much about Afghanistan, though. People can understand that war. And if you'd stuck to that one, perhaps you'd have been more successful.
Bundling Iraq in on top of that is where a lot of people start drawing their lines.
You mean easier to justify than Afghanistan? I'm glad you're being flippant about the Saudi Arabia comment, because that's ridiculous.
We could have nailed Osama Bin Laden in 2001 in Tora Bora, but they fethed that up. I sometimes wonder if we'd got him in 2001 if the Iraq invasion would have even happened.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I think the point is supposed to be "if the US had invaded Afghanistan prior to 9/11, 9/11 might not have happened
We didn't even need to invade. If we had just helped out with infrastructure a bit after helping push out the Russians the climate that allowed the Taliban to rise to power probably wouldn't have happened either.
Yeah but if Bin Laden hadn't found shelter in Afghanistan, he would have found it elsewhere I think. I mean, look at how long he managed to hide out on Pakistan.
I wonder though those individuals who were affected by a chemical warhead have it documented. Including the Gag Order, and/or documentation to actually back up the chem claims for the servicemembers so they can get treated ASAP
Hordini wrote: And if we hadn't bailed on the Iraqis that resisted against Saddam in 1991 that might have helped too.
Man, the world would probably be a lot better if we had done some stuff differently.
I'm too pessimistic to believe this. The problems that came to pass may not have, but other problems would probably have arisen in their stead. The world is a messed up place and always will be.
Hordini wrote: There are a lot of valid arguments for why the invasion of Iraq was a bad decision, and even more that it was poorly handled, but I think it's much tougher to argue that the invasion of Afghanistan wasn't justified.
I was responding to the idea of invading Afghanistan pre-9/11.
Hordini wrote: There are a lot of valid arguments for why the invasion of Iraq was a bad decision, and even more that it was poorly handled, but I think it's much tougher to argue that the invasion of Afghanistan wasn't justified.
I was responding to the idea of invading Afghanistan pre-9/11.
I do think that the Bush Administration was wrong about what they thought they knew about what was going on in Iraq, .
Isn't that because they were receiving information from a source in Iraq previously discounted by German intelligence as somewhat of a "crank" that was regarded as unreliable.
Jihadin wrote: Bush Sr. did not want to create a power vacuum by removing Saddam from power in the region.
And that is arguably one of the better reasons for not invading.
Agreed, power vaccums that are half filled by governments that most likely looked on as collaborators by the people don't seem to help matters. Funny that the first iraqi president (after the war) was of the same tribe that the brits helped put into power a long time ago.
Chiver's article in the NYT isn't unearthing anything anyone didn't already know in terms of the metagame going on with OIF. The Gov't disclosed finding WMDs in 2006, and Iraq itself turned over more munitions in 2009. I even remember reading about the latter in the news. They all were legacy munitions, and because of that no one gave two gaks. Mostly because it was readily apparent Saddam hadn't pursued WMD programs since his beat down in '91, which is essentially the big evil story that was sold to the world before the invasion. (Colin Powell's presentation to the UN, for instance.)
But that article isn't really about the politics about it, it's about how the pentagon dealt with the situation, along with the actions of yesman officers and the very real effect it had on the guys on the ground who dealt with them. Those guys went untreated for sometimes weeks because they classified what they were exposed to instead of someone walking those guys down to medical and saying Hey doc, these guys were exposed to mustard gas, can you treat them but not tell anyone.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I think the point is supposed to be "if the US had invaded Afghanistan prior to 9/11, 9/11 might not have happened
We didn't even need to invade. If we had just helped out with infrastructure a bit after helping push out the Russians the climate that allowed the Taliban to rise to power probably wouldn't have happened either.
Why do you say that? The Mujihadeen movement started with the Russians. It didn't die with them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote: And if we hadn't bailed on the Iraqis that resisted against Saddam in 1991 that might have helped too.
Man, the world would probably be a lot better if we had done some stuff differently.
Or it would have just started what is going on now in the 90s...
if only the British had broken up the Ottoman Empire...
If only the Ottomans didn't get sick on their way to Vienna
If only I had convinced the others that the wheel was just a fad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Bush Sr. did not want to create a power vacuum by removing Saddam from power in the region.
Based on history that appeared to have been a good idea.
Based on history that appeared to have been a good idea.
Just like Irans' revolution wasn't. and russias invasion of afganistan. and the creation of most african states along european posession lines rather than along the tribal lines inherent in those states. and .....
Is it just me or does power politics seem not to work out well too often?
Based on history that appeared to have been a good idea.
Just like Irans' revolution wasn't. and russias invasion of afganistan. and the creation of most african states along european posession lines rather than along the tribal lines inherent in those states. and .....
Is it just me or does power politics seem not to work out well too often?
Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.
Those who do know history are doomed to watch others repeat it
good quote dreadcaw. I think the world would be served better by instead of kids learning jingoistic crap in schools as history, we learned the effect of imperialistic policies on "client" countries
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I think the point is supposed to be "if the US had invaded Afghanistan prior to 9/11, 9/11 might not have happened
We didn't even need to invade. If we had just helped out with infrastructure a bit after helping push out the Russians the climate that allowed the Taliban to rise to power probably wouldn't have happened either.
Why do you say that?
Because the options were for us to fill the vacuum (and be a pal) or for another less savory group to fill the void, and we chose the latter. They were there, sure, but they didn't really hate us at that point (we were giving them support after all) and if we hadn't pulled out the moment Russia left it is very likely we would have a different relationship with the country. Afghanistan wasn't in the best shape to begin with and the war really tore it up. We helped out Europe after WWII so it isn't as if we don't know that war causes infrastructure problems and can lend a helping hand. Building schools is less sexy than smuggling in firearms but it probably would have made a bigger difference in the long run.
The key word of course is 'probably'. We can't change the past and we can't know exactly what would have happened if things had gone differently.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I think the point is supposed to be "if the US had invaded Afghanistan prior to 9/11, 9/11 might not have happened
We didn't even need to invade. If we had just helped out with infrastructure a bit after helping push out the Russians the climate that allowed the Taliban to rise to power probably wouldn't have happened either.
Maybe, but that might have messed up US-Soviet relations because building schools can lead to building airbases, and having US bases that close to the Russian border would make the soviets understandably nervous.
The U.S. had bigger things on its mind than the future of Afghanistan, it was just a tool in "winning" the Cold War
That is it's definition. 
good quote dreadcaw. I think the world would be served better by instead of kids learning jingoistic crap in schools as history, we learned the effect of imperialistic policies on "client" countries
