Time to rename ISIS/ISIL

[CaptainNJ]

I think its a shame that so much time is even spent discussing "wmd's." who cares? bottom line is that in Iraq we spent trillions of dollars and lost more then 4,000 American lives over a war that nobody honestly believes accomplished anything positive.

[cachibatches]

Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge

Wrong.

Qatar - 1997
Iraq - 1980
Jordan - 1974
Yemen - 1967/1970
Libya - 1964
Iran - 1963
Egypt - 1956
Lebanon - 1952

Women also have full voting rights in the Palestinian National Authority elections.

It is noteworthy that most of these are not Arab counties, but yes, I am wrong about this one. I always admit when I am wrong.

Since I am not trying to change anyone's opinion about the war per se, it is a minor point. The point of this thread is that we have to tell the truth about WMD when discussing this in the future. There are several other oft repeated myths which are also worth busting:

1) There was indeed viable WMD in Iraq, and in no small amount.

A couple of others that have come up:

2) Existing stockpiles are absolutely one of the stated causes of the war in the face of weapons inspectors being kicked out.

3) "We" did not "give them" chemical weapons.

Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge

Read the New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...pons.html?_r=0 .

I have read this article. The facts that the author cite disproves his contention that these are not active WMD. It is from this article that I got the quote that several of the shells were still up to 84% pure.

Let us be clear on this- THE FACTS IN THIS ARTICLE SUPPORT WHAT I AM SAYING.

Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge

A) The weapons programs were abandoned, the munitions mothballed and non-operational (though some were still dangerous to handle).

But facts quoted within the article (which I have already quoted) say that they are operational. As for there not being an active program: irrelevant. As we have showed you, existing stockpiles in the light of the expulsion of weapons inspectors was a cases belli of the war.

It does not reflect well that you apparently read the article and did not catch this inconstancy. You have to read critically and take facts over opinions.

Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge

B) From the article: "Others pointed to another embarrassment. In five of six incidents 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."

Petty weak sauce. Another poster repeated the claim that we "gave them" WMD, I have refuted it, and you quote something that shows that we indeed did not give them weapons.

You are again proving my point for me (as you often do). The United States did not manufacture these shells, Europe did. Europe is not the United States, and it bellies those who are saying: "We gave it to him."

"Designed by the United States," is not the same as giving it to them, and obviously not. What even is the context of this? Note how the author, who is dishonest about the facts in the first place, does not elaborate. It is no secret that the US had chemical weapons at one point- is this an old design? Could they be used for tear gas? I don't know and neither do you...but it doesn't matter because we did not manufacture the weapons as stated.

Thanks for pointing out the truth.

Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge

Iraq was an ally of the United States in the 1980s while it fought the Iran-Iraq war. From the Foreign Policy article I posted before, declassified CIA documents specifically show that the United States provided airborne reconnaissance in support of Iraq's use of chemical weapons during that war.

Yes, allies change. It happens all of the time.

In could be, and if so, then shame on us. It still does not address the central fallacies we are discussing, but it does provide and interesting contextt. Post the documents and we will read through it together.

Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge

Look who's talking. You are trying to argue that the Iraq invasion was justified by weapons that were known and abandoned in the early 90s.

Actually I am not exactly doing that. For me, it was justified just by the removal of weapons inspectors. I need no other evidence of anything and never did. You can feel any way you want and I respect that. But we have to agree on what is factual. What I want it for the truth to be told about it. We did find plenty of viable WMD as proven by the very article you cited. Given how the author tries to slant it, I can understand how you misunderstood. But given that I have printed the quotations from it that show the real truth, we must speak honestly from here on in.

Beyond that, if you still think that the war was a waste, I respect that. But no more "Bush lied, kids died" and that kind of nonsense.

Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge

That is not what Powell, Bush, Rice, Cheney, and others in the administration were talking about when they used WMDs as a justification.

As I have already showed you, it indeed was. This thread now exists in cyber space forever, and anyone reading through can see that you have already been corrected on this point. Please concede the point.

Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge

The United States approved the sale of dual-use materials to Iraq.

Yup. No where in the same ballpark as "we gave it to them."

Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge

The US gave Iraq targeting and intelligence assistance during the Iran-Iraq war.

Sure did. That is not the same as giving them chemical weapons.

Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge

The United States blocked and opposed Security Council Resolutions that would have condemned Iraq's use of chemical weapons during the war.

U.S. Senate Commitee on Banking, Housing and Urban Development (take a look at Findings #3, 4, and 5)

Senator Riegle's Report (first paragraph of the introduction section)

Licensing Mass Destruction

To what extent did the US supply Iraq with materials used to create weapons of mass destruction? - US - Iraq War - ProCon.org

This could be...I don't know enough about this aspect of it. It still is not giving them WMD, which we did not do. there is an international ban on chemical weapons, and it is not like the UN was going to go in and take them, so other than a nasty symbolic gesture, I am not sure what we were blocking.


If true, shame on us. It still does not prove anything that you are trying to sell about us "giving them" weapons."

Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge

I'll summarize the second article for you:

I appreciate that. I don't have time to read through all of these tonight although I would like to tackle them later.

Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge

Declassified CIA documents show that U.S. intellegence gave Iraq information about Iranian troop locations knowing that Iraq would use chemical weapons to attack those Iranian troops. The U.S. knew of Iraqi chemical attacks in the war dating back to 1983, but did not disclosed them and continued to support Iraq. Senior U.S. officials were regularly informed about the extent of the nerve gas attacks.

Could be, and shame on us if so. I would have to see the actual de-classified documents, not a reference in an article. In any event, it is still not building the weapons for them and and it still has nothing to do with the first premise that there was viable WMD in Iraq.

Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge

In late 1987, Defense Intelligence Agency analysts determined that Iran was prepping for a spring 1988 offensive that would capture Basrah and tilt the war in favor of Iran. President Reagan read the report and wrote a note on it to the Secretary of Defense that said, "An Iranian victory is unacceptable." After that report was shared, DIA shared its intelligence on Iranian troop positions with Iraq, knowing that Iraq would use its chemical stocks (because they had proven effective against Iran's "human wave" attacks). Iraq was using Sarin in the 1988 attacks.

Interesting, but that is certainly no smoking gun against Reagan, if that was the point.

so whereas you have provided a lot of interesting context, we are left with the same three fallacies:

A) There was viable WMD in Iraq.

B) Stockpiles where an important stated reason for going into war

C) We did not "give them" chemical weapons. Europe might have, but we did not.

[cachibatches]

Originally Posted by boxus

Besides all of that, the premises for the Iraqi invasion was not a chem attack on the Kurds, nor violation of an agreement, IT WAS THAT IRAQ HAD AN ACTIVE WMD PROGRAM.

Talk about being obtuse to the facts, reading would do you well.

This is completely bogus, as I have already demonstrated. It is a pure fantasy. Stockpiles, and the expulsion of weapons inspectors to check them, was a stated reason.

You are thoughtlessly re-stating something which is a proven fiction.

[cachibatches]

Originally Posted by NickB1967

SO WHAT? Under the terms ending the First Gulf War in 1991, they were not supposed to be retained.

This is exactly correct and I have already demonstrated stockpiles were explicitly referenced as a cause of the war.

[cachibatches]

Originally Posted by CaptainNJ

I think its a shame that so much time is even spent discussing "wmd's." who cares? bottom line is that in Iraq we spent trillions of dollars and lost more then 4,000 American lives over a war that nobody honestly believes accomplished anything positive.

Nothing to do with what we are talking about.

This is your opinion and you are welcome to it. It has zero to do with the untruthful positions on the matter that have been taken on the left.

And if your observations are so universally truthful and apparent, then why has the left spent so much time lying about:

A) no WMD in Iraq, when there indeed was?

B) bush's rational was ongoing programs, when he explicitly referenced stockpiles?

C) We built them WMD, when we never did?

Please answer the question with the knowledge that I have already proven these things in the thread and that repeating silliness will only get my proofs repeated.

[Forest_Hills_Daddy]

I think ISIS will eventually be turned back - maybe slowly and too late for their many victims. The question then becomes how to administer justice for acts of brutality? How do you track down the culprits? Should there be a war crimes system set up or should the world let the Kurds and Shiites take care of administering justice?

[lchoro]

It's been refuted many times. The stockpiles were entombed as part of the weapons inspection program. The chemical shells are already well past their useful lifespan as weapons. The idiots keep bringing this up, adhering to the mantra that a lie should be repeated over and over until it becomes ingrained as the "truth".

The very small Islamic State WMD threat | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Al Nusra, ISIS, and other US-sponsored terrorist militias have been in possession of chemical agents well before al-Muthanna facility was overrun. They were maintaining stockpiles in Turkey and bringing them into Syria where they've used them in attacks. It's been confirmed that these are not military-grade shells. Any government or its clandestine operation would be stupid to do a terrorist attack where it could be traced back to them.

[cachibatches]

Originally Posted by lchoro

It's been refuted many times. The stockpiles were entombed as part of the weapons inspection program. The chemical shells are already well past their useful lifespan as weapons. The idiots keep bringing this up, adhering to the mantra that a lie should be repeated over and over until it becomes ingrained as the "truth".

The very small Islamic State WMD threat | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Al Nusra, ISIS, and other US-sponsored terrorist militias have been in possession of chemical agents well before al-Muthanna facility was overrun. They were maintaining stockpiles in Turkey and bringing them into Syria where they've used them in attacks. It's been confirmed that these are not military-grade shells. Any government or its clandestine operation would be stupid to do a terrorist attack where it could be traced back to them.

We have already refuted this any number of time son this thread with facts.

It is best not to call others idiots when you have not bothered to read through the thread you are commenting on.

[boxus]

Originally Posted by cachibatches

This is completely bogus, as I have already demonstrated. It is a pure fantasy. Stockpiles, and the expulsion of weapons inspectors to check them, was a stated reason.

You are thoughtlessly re-stating something which is a proven fiction.

Not fiction at all, straight from the former Sec of Defense:

From Gates' book Duty: ISBN 978-0-307-95947-8, page 568;

"However, the question is ultimately answered, the war will always be tainted by the harsh reality that the public premise for invasion - Iraqi possession of chemical and biological weapons as well as an active nuclear program - was wrong"

Now, this is the Sec of Defense under Bush and later Obama, tell me, what evidence do you have to draw a different conclusion than the former Sec of Defense?

From Rumsfeld's 2011 interview: Rumsfeld: WMD issue was "the big one" in Iraq invasion - CNN.com

"However, intelligence reports -- now shown to have been false -- that Iraq possessed WMDs were the main reason for going in, Rumsfeld said."

"No question it was the big one," he said. Asked if the United States would not have invaded if the administration hadn't believed Iraq had the weapons of mass destruction, Rumsfeld said: "I think that's probably right."

I am just wondering how much more you need to understand this simple concept?

I voted for Bush twice, I think he was a relatively pretty good president, but I always disagreed from the start, even before the start, of the Iraq War, and I will not blindly defend his decision along with supporters of it, no matter the party, over some partisan party political BS in a lame effort to make someone look right even though all evidence supports otherwise.

[CaptainNJ]

what a joke. yeah, they found out that people are training to fly these jets but don't know where the jets are. unbelievable the lies our government will come up with to push us towards war.