Report: United States kept secret its chemical weapons finds in Iraq

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

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.

**cincydooley**

Da Boss wrote:
[
I'd be okay with that FWIW.

I think you'd find yourself in a very small minority there, sadly.

**d-usa**

Iraq might be an interesting case study when deciding if a stable dictatorship is better for the country and region than an unstable democracy.

**whembly**

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".

**Frazzled**

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.

Yes indeed.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ouze wrote:
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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction#United_States

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.

Absolutely

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Boss wrote:
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.

And by sometimes I mean nearly all the time.
I'd be okay with that FWIW.

And how would Europe "deal with it"?

**Jihadin**

Cuba closer d-usa

**Ouze**

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.

**whembly**

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.

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
Ouze... I think it's participating in historical revisionism by claiming that Bush lied in order to conduct this war..

Don't make up strawmans. Nowhere in this thread did I make such a claim.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
whembly wrote:
Ouze... I think it's participating in historical revisionism by claiming that Bush lied in order to conduct this war..

Don't make up strawmans. Nowhere in this thread did I make such a claim.

My apologies, got you mixed up with MGS.

Bad whembly.

**Ouze**

Fair enough.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
Fair enough.

Thanks...

I don't mind have a debate about this...

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.

**d-usa**

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.

**whembly**

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.

**Ouze**

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

Led the country into a war based on faulty intelligence. This is not a matter of opinion. Whether it was dishonesty with ulterior motives, or simply rank incompetence, neither one are acceptable,
Vilified critics who gave advice they didn't want to hear,
Prosecuted the war based on poor planning, such as no plan to secure the museums, stop looting, and so on,
Had no system for accountability which led to uncountable American dollars being pissed away,
Disbanded the Iraqi army which fueled the insurgency,
and now, apparently, covered up the chemical weapons it DID find for at least 6 years.

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.

**Co'tor Shas**

Only one good thing came out of the Valerie Plame affair. A song.

**Ouze**

... I consider myself pretty politically aware, generally, but I must confess that I was ignorant of that song until your post.

**Co'tor Shas**

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.

**Dreadclaw69**

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?

**Hordini**

Ouze wrote:
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.

I would tend to agree with this.

**Orlanth**

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, .

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:

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.

**Hordini**

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, .

Saddam wasn't cooperating with UN inspectors.

And what does the US have from Iraq?

**whembly**

Orlanth wrote:

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, .

Then I eagerly wait evidence supporting this.

**Jihadin**

Kill zone for a 155mm HE shell I believe is 150m radius
Two Chamber 155mm Chem round kill radius is better if its persistent

Last extreme use of mustard gas was WWI but that's not WMD since I guess it was chemical warfare.

Think the US get like 5% of its oil from Iraq
Actually 15K as of Jul 2014

2013
Canada 1.4B
Saudi 485M
Mexico 335M
Venezula 291M
Russia 168M
Colombia 142M
Iraq 124M
Kuwait 120M
Nigeria 103M
Ecuador 85M

Talking barrels here.
Shell is in Iraq
BP is in Iraq

Don't be a knucklehead and tell me we're in Afghanistan for its oil

Well whoever has a oil coorparation is in Iraq

**Firehead158**

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.

**Jihadin**

Anyone else catch word on five Kurd's fighters with chem burns? (mustard gas)

**Ouze**

Jihadin wrote:
Kill zone for a 155mm HE shell I believe is 150m radius
Two Chamber 155mm Chem round kill radius is better if its persistent

Last extreme use of mustard gas was WWI but that's not WMD since I guess it was chemical warfare.

I look forward to Dreadclaw strenuously arguing abut this.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
You can ignore the definition all you want.

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.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
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?

**Dreadclaw69**

Ouze wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Kill zone for a 155mm HE shell I believe is 150m radius
Two Chamber 155mm Chem round kill radius is better if its persistent

Last extreme use of mustard gas was WWI but that's not WMD since I guess it was chemical warfare.

I look forward to Dreadclaw strenuously arguing abut this.

About the effective range, or the idea that mustard gas is not a WMD?

Ouze wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
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?