• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ISIS in Iraq seizes control of Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons facility

Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

Dayton3 said:
ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant - Worldnews.com

Reportedly the ISIS has seized control of Saddam Hussein's best chemical weapons plant and it STILL has stockpiles of Sarin, VX, and mustard gas.

What happened what we've been hearing about for 12 years about "Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq".

Now, you can say "oh they're old" (20 years plus).

Who gives a damn. Lots of old weapons still work fine. The U.S. was using bombs built in WW2 during the Vietnam War.

The U.S. was firing 16 inch gun rounds from the Iowa class battleship forty years later in Desert Storm.

At any rate, supposedly, Iraq had NO WMDs which means NO CHEMICAL WEAPONS. And in fact supposedly had NO ABILITY to build them.

Lots of people owe Bush/Cheney a big apology.​
Click to expand...


What we owe Bush/Cheney is a couple of middle fingers. They lied us into a war in Iraq with the threat that Iraq was trying to develop nuclear weapons and that they had biological weapons. The nerve gas that they had used on the Kurds was not considered a "weapon of mass destruction" at least as far as the US was concerned. So, please, don't try to revise history to fit you little narrative.
 
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

zip98053 said:
What we owe Bush/Cheney is a couple of middle fingers. They lied us into a war in Iraq with the threat that Iraq was trying to develop nuclear weapons and that they had biological weapons. The nerve gas that they had used on the Kurds was not considered a "weapon of mass destruction" at least as far as the US was concerned. So, please, don't try to revise history to fit you little narrative.
Click to expand...


Nonsense, they did not " Lie ".

If they lied then so did the Democrats in the late 90s, and up to 2003.

Obviously Saddam had WMDs
 
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

zip98053 said:
What we owe Bush/Cheney is a couple of middle fingers. They lied us into a war in Iraq with the threat that Iraq was trying to develop nuclear weapons and that they had biological weapons. The nerve gas that they had used on the Kurds was not considered a "weapon of mass destruction" at least as far as the US was concerned. So, please, don't try to revise history to fit you little narrative.
Click to expand...

Chemical weapons are part of the "NBC" group of weapons. Nuclear, Biological, Chemical. Along with the hypothetical "dirty bomb" (Radiological) those are definitively considered Weapons of Mass Destruction
 
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

Fenton said:
Nonsense, they did not " Lie ".
If they lied then so did the Democrats in the late 90s, and up to 2003.
Obviously Saddam had WMDs
Click to expand...
The pro-war crowd mis-represented the assessment of how likely Iraq was to attack the US (or our interests) either directly or by proxy.

Did you know that the US Intelligence Community said Iraq was not likely to attack us either directly or by proxy anytime in the foreseeable future?

We went to war to prevent an attack which wasn't coming.

Everyone who sold the war as a means of protecting the US from an attack from Iraq (directly or by proxy) is potentially a liar.
imho
ymmv
 
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

A couple of things:

1) Lying to justify a war is not a crime and is amply precedented in U.S. history (James K. Polk as one example).
2) Exaggerating the case for war is also not a crime nor immoral any more than a prosecutor emphasizing parts of their case against a defendant that support their guilt is not immoral or a crime.

3) Once again, the CIA Director George Tenet (a Clinton appointee with no loyalty to the Bush Admin.) exclaimed after a direct question from President Bush about the evidence in favor of WMDs that it was a "slam dunk". He repeated it.

If your CIA Director says the evidence is a "slam dunk" then what was President Bush supposed to believe.
 
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

Simon W. Moon said:
The pro-war crowd mis-represented the assessment of how likely Iraq was to attack the US (or our interests) either directly or by proxy.

Did you know that the US Intelligence Community said Iraq was not likely to attack us either directly or by proxy anytime in the foreseeable future?

We went to war to prevent an attack which wasn't coming.

Everyone who sold the war as a means of protecting the US from an attack from Iraq (directly or by proxy) is potentially a liar.
imho
ymmv
Click to expand...

The Pro war crowd ?

It was a bipartisan effort to go into Iraq.
 
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

Dayton3 said:
A couple of things:
1) Lying to justify a war is not a crime and is amply precedented in U.S. history (James K. Polk as one example).
2) Exaggerating the case for war is also not a crime nor immoral any more than a prosecutor emphasizing parts of their case against a defendant that support their guilt is not immoral or a crime.
Click to expand...
War is the most serious matter for a nation.
It is indeed un-ethical to risk a nation, while expending that nation's blood and treasure, based on "mis-representations."

I find it rather shocking that you see sort of behavior as morally sound.
It's a fairly well established principle that gaining someone's consent via "mis-representations" is unethical.
To each his own I s'pose.
:shrug:

Dayton3 said:
3) Once again, the CIA Director George Tenet (a Clinton appointee with no loyalty to the Bush Admin.) exclaimed after a direct question from President Bush about the evidence in favor of WMDs that it was a "slam dunk". He repeated it.
If your CIA Director says the evidence is a "slam dunk" then what was President Bush supposed to believe.
Click to expand...
He could have believed the National Intelligence Estimate put together by the US intelligence Community when it said that they had no reason to believe that Iraq was going to attack us directly or by proxy with WMD or conventional weapons. Even if Iraq had the WMD, the USIC was saying that Iraq had no intention of using the WMD (directly nor by proxy) against us or our interests.

As I said before, the war was sold as protecting us from an attack from Iraq. But the best info at the time said that no such attack was likely.
 
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

Fenton said:
The Pro war crowd ?
It was a bipartisan effort to go into Iraq.
Click to expand...
Not sure what your point is.
Is you mind blown by my post's the lack of partisanship?

"pro-war crowd" doesn't seem to exclude anyone based on their party affiliation.
It seems to describe the folks who were promoting the war. That's how I meant it anyway.

Can you re-phrase your question? Maybe I can give a better answer it if I hear the question phrased differently.
 
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

Dayton3 said:
A couple of things:

1) Lying to justify a war is not a crime and is amply precedented in U.S. history (James K. Polk as one example).
2) Exaggerating the case for war is also not a crime nor immoral any more than a prosecutor emphasizing parts of their case against a defendant that support their guilt is not immoral or a crime.

3) Once again, the CIA Director George Tenet (a Clinton appointee with no loyalty to the Bush Admin.) exclaimed after a direct question from President Bush about the evidence in favor of WMDs that it was a "slam dunk". He repeated it.

If your CIA Director says the evidence is a "slam dunk" then what was President Bush supposed to believe.
Click to expand...


First, NO one lied.

The whole " Bush lied people died " false narrative was just partisan motivated rhetoric used by the Democrats to malign Bush.

It only influenced and appealed to the same people who equated platitudes and bumper sticker slogans to Presidential qualifications in 2008.

Morons

Honestly, the Democrats from the late 90s into and upt to 2003 said he HAD WMD and was pursuing missle and nuclear capabilities.
 
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

Simon W. Moon said:
Not sure what your point is.
Is you mind blown by my post's the lack of partisanship?

"pro-war crowd" doesn't seem to exclude anyone based on their party affiliation.
It seems to describe the folks who were promoting the war. That's how I meant it anyway.

Can you re-phrase your question? Maybe I can give a better answer it if I hear the question phrased differently.
Click to expand...

No, I just don't buy into generic and lazy descriptions like " the pro war crowd "
 
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

Unitedwestand13 said:
there was also a lot of talk about Iraq possessing yellow cake uranium.
Click to expand...
And it did. The UN weapons inspectors confirmed that.
 
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

Fenton said:
No, I just don't buy into generic and lazy descriptions like " the pro war crowd "
Click to expand...
Feel free to enumerate them all by name in any post you wish to.
 
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

Unitedwestand13 said:
and what about the aluminum tubes?
Click to expand...
What about them? A shipment of the tubes were seized. And yes, they could have been used to make centrifuges.

Just as Powell said.
 
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

Dayton3 said:
ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant - Worldnews.com

Reportedly the ISIS has seized control of Saddam Hussein's best chemical weapons plant and it STILL has stockpiles of Sarin, VX, and mustard gas.

What happened what we've been hearing about for 12 years about "Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq".

Now, you can say "oh they're old" (20 years plus).

Who gives a damn. Lots of old weapons still work fine. The U.S. was using bombs built in WW2 during the Vietnam War.

The U.S. was firing 16 inch gun rounds from the Iowa class battleship forty years later in Desert Storm.

At any rate, supposedly, Iraq had NO WMDs which means NO CHEMICAL WEAPONS. And in fact supposedly had NO ABILITY to build them. ​
Click to expand...


The OP article had a link to their source and it pretty much says the opposite of what you're claiming.....



ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant | Stuff.co.nz


Islamist militants in Iraq have occupied Saddam Hussein's former chemical weapons production facility, which contains a stockpile of old chemical weapon, the US government says. US military officials don't believe the militants from the group also known as ISIL would be able to create a new weapon from the stockpiles left behind at the Muthanna complex about 60 kilometres northwest of Baghdad, according to the Wall Street Journal....<snip>...

The claim the former Iraqi leader possessed weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat to world security was the basis for the 2003 US invasion of Iraq.

The weapons at Muthanna had been found by UN inspectors but were dismantled with chemical stocks militarily useless and closed off in bunkers.

"The entire Al Muthanna mega-facility was the bastion of Iraqi's chemical weapons development program," the Central Intelligence Agency wrote in a document published in 2007.

"During its peak in the late 1980s to early 1990s, it amassed mega-bunkers full of chemical munitions, and provided Iraq with a force multiplier sufficient to counteract Iran's superior military numbers."

"Two wars, sanctions and UNSCOM [United Nations Special Commission] oversight reduced Iraqi's premier production facility to a stockpile of old damaged and contaminated chemical munitions (sealed in bunkers), a wasteland full of destroyed chemical munitions, razed structures, and unusable war-ravaged facilities." .....read....
Click to expand...

The chemical plant is defunct and has been for several decades.


Lots of people owe Bush/Cheney a big apology.
Click to expand...

They should be in prison.
 
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

Muhammed said:
What about them? A shipment of the tubes were seized. And yes, they could have been used to make centrifuges.
Just as Powell said.
Click to expand...
That's not what the people who deal with these sorts of centrifuges said.
http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/DuelferRpt/Volume_2.pdf#page=159

Although ISG also uncovered inconsistencies that raise questions about whether high-specification aluminum tubes were really needed for such a rocket program, these discrepancies are not sufficient to show a nuclear end use was planned for the tubes.
 
Last edited:
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

Let's be honest, the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. I believe that Bush/Cheney were sincere in their belief that Iraq had WMD's, but in the end the intelligence failure that caused them to come to this conclusion resulted in the US invading Iraq under false pretenses. This in no way helped our international standing and removed our moral high ground. This initial terrible decision was compounded by the continued policy failures, from the open-ended nature of the invasion to the removal of all facets of the existing Iraqi government. These mistakes, and others, have resulted in the situation we are in now, with Iraq slipping towards anarchy. It is ludicrous to blame Obama for the current situation, for he inherited a war in which to many damaging mistakes had already been made to create any kind of stability. Anyways, the Iraqi practically pushed us out in 2011. In my opinion, with the delicate political situation and instability in Iraq it is our best interest to keep out of it as much as possible. We cant solve all the world's problems, and our attempt to in Iraq has only made things worse. We could not and cant babysit them forever, we need to let them deal with their own problems. We have our own to deal with.
 
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

Simon W. Moon said:
That's not what the people who deal with these sorts of centrifuges said.
http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/DuelferRpt/Volume_2.pdf#page=159

Although ISG also uncovered inconsistencies that raise questions about whether high-specification aluminum tubes were really needed for such a rocket program, these discrepancies are not sufficient to show a nuclear end use was planned for the tubes.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. They were controlled items because they could be used to make centrifuge rotors.
 
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

Democrat152 said:
Let's be honest, the invasion of Iraq was a mistake.
Click to expand...
:roll:

That is simply monday Morning quarterbacking. You're not psychic, therefore you have no clue what the situation would be like today if we did not invade. It could be a lot worse. There could have been simultaneous mushroom clouds in NYC, Washington and Chicago as far as you know.
 
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

Muhammed said:
Irrelevant. They were controlled items because they could be used to make centrifuge rotors.
Click to expand...
You mean missiles. They were suitable for making missiles, not centrifuges.
 
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

Dayton3 said:
A couple of things:

1) Lying to justify a war is not a crime and is amply precedented in U.S. history (James K. Polk as one example).
2) Exaggerating the case for war is also not a crime nor immoral any more than a prosecutor emphasizing parts of their case against a defendant that support their guilt is not immoral or a crime.

3) Once again, the CIA Director George Tenet (a Clinton appointee with no loyalty to the Bush Admin.) exclaimed after a direct question from President Bush about the evidence in favor of WMDs that it was a "slam dunk". He repeated it.

If your CIA Director says the evidence is a "slam dunk" then what was President Bush supposed to believe.
Click to expand...

You are correct: incompetence is not a crime. Unfortunately the harm is worse than any crime I have heard about. Consider:

- $4 to 6T in money spent (one third of our current national debt)
- the 4,000+ American lives
- the 2.5 million American service members whose lives (and the lives of their families) will never be the same because they have been tainted with the smell of death
- the 50,000+ Iraqi lives lost
- millions of displaced Iraqi familiers
- Iraq national treasures stolen or destoryed....all to remove a two bit dictator that was of little threat to US National security.

http://costsofwar.org/article/economic-cost-summary
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...2a5dce-97ed-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_story.html
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/03/29/Harvard-study-IraqAfghan-war-tab-4T-6T/UPI-70971364571298/

Not to mention that our actions most likely furthered the problem we were trying to solve...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?_r=0

Iraq was as stupid as stupid gets..... The people that got us into this mess were as incompetent as incompetent gets.

Though incompetence is not criminal, these people (the one's that got us into this mess) were undoubtedly bad people...
 
Last edited:
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

Imported from Capitol Hill Blue:

Iraq revisionism | Foreign Policy & News | ReaderRant

At the time the Iraq adventure began I had already been called back into active service when my reserve unit was mobilized after 9/11. Because I was in operations, I am quite familiar with the planning process and knew people in the planning cells for Iraq. There had been plans in place since Desert Storm for just such a contingency. THE most important part of any such operation is post-invasion security - it's an international law requirement - and always requires the most robust manning and planning. The existing civil/security structure (police/military/civil administration) was always a part of the post-invasion plan. My friends were told, however, that no planning was required because "we wouldn't be there that long." Any military man knows such thinking is nuts. When Jay Garner waa appointed to lead the "transition", being a military man, he knew that the existing assets had to be a part of the recovery - so, naturally, he was axed.

The blood of tens of thousands of Allies and Iraqis are on the hands of Donald Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bremer, Cheney Bush and the lot, as well as Kristol Kagan and their cabal because they put rank amateurs in charge of military operations and broke every protocol established since the lessons learned in WWII. I, and every military planner, knew Iraq was lost as soon as the looting of the national museum was excused as "boys will be boys" and they need to let off steam. Gross incompetence coupled with hubris and ideology leads to catastrophe. All of it could have been prevented.
Click to expand...

---by "Northwest Ponderer
 
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

Utility Man said:
So Bush Inc tried to eliminate the threat of WMDs and failed miserably. Doesn't surprise me at all.
Click to expand...

Mission accomplished. :roll:
 
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

upsideguy said:
You are correct: incompetence is not a crime. Unfortunately the harm is worse than any crime I have heard about. Consider:

- $4 to 6T in money spent (one third of our current national debt)
- the 4,000+ American lives
- the 2.5 million American service members whose lives (and the lives of their families) will never be the same because they have been tainted with the smell of death
- the 50,000+ Iraqi lives lost
- millions of displaced Iraqi familiers
- Iraq national treasures stolen or destoryed....all to remove a two bit dictator that was of little threat to US National security.

Economic Cost Summary | Costs of War
Study: Iraq, Afghan war costs to top $4 trillion - The Washington Post
Harvard study: Iraq, Afghan wars will cost $4 trillion to $6 trillion - UPI.com

Not to mention that our actions most likely furthered the problem we were trying to solve...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?_r=0

Iraq was as stupid as stupid gets..... The people that got us into this mess were as incompetent as incompetent gets.

Though incompetence is not criminal, these people (the one's that got us into this mess) were undoubtedly bad people...
Click to expand...

I don't know, I think I'd like to see dubya in an orange jumpsuit, with numbers stenciled on it.
 
TheNextEra said:
In 2003 there wasn't anything of high value. Even the article says they don't believe there is anything in there of military value. That doesn't mean they can't use the material in there to make some dirty type of chemical weapon that could affect a small amount of people.
Click to expand...

And, of course, the fear mongers will ramp up talk of terrorists getting their hands on a dirty bomb and, as such, come out of the woodworks in droves proclaiming, "I told you so". :roll:

I've read the published reports concerning the level of chemical weapons found during the War in Iraq and talked with many soldiers who returned from Iraq - some of whom are my neighbors - who themselves were on patrols looking for such weapons. I firmly believed both the reports themselves and the eyewitness accounts that there were no WMD in Iraq. However, that doesn't mean that Saddam did not ship those weapons to Syria. Reports of him having done so have never truly been verified. However, once reports starting coming out of Syria that chemical weapons were used I'd say the dots were connected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom