patrick.net

I think there was a point in time when Saddam Hussein himself started believing that he had WMDs.

socal2 says

Hey WMD troofers. Are you now saying nerve agents don't count as WMDs?

[shrug]
Define mass destruction.
1 nuke can kill 100,000 people.
1 vial of bio weapon can kill a million.
1 ton of gas represents maybe a cube 10 meters wide, which once dissipated will affect on the order of 100 meters wide. It's stopped by windows and dissipated by wind. This may kill a few hundreds if you're lucky.
Nothing that couldn't be done more easily with bombs.

Heraclitusstudent says

Define mass destruction.

1 nuke can kill 100,000 people.

1 vial of bio weapon can kill a million.

And one false Republican president can kill over a million people.

Heraclitusstudent says

Define mass destruction.

1 nuke can kill 100,000 people.

1 vial of bio weapon can kill a million.

1 ton of gas represents maybe a cube 10 meters wide, which once dissipated will affect on the order of 100 meters wide. It's stopped by windows and dissipated by wind. This may kill a few hundreds if you're lucky.

Nothing that couldn't be done more easily with bombs.

And 16 box cutters from Home Depot can kill nearly 3,000 people.

It is not so much the weapons, but the ideology and people willing to use them.

Heraclitusstudent says

1 vial of bio weapon can kill a million.

What kind? That's a lot of killing power.

Blurtman says

Heraclitusstudent says

1 vial of bio weapon can kill a million.

What kind? That's a lot of killing power.

Probably ebola, it's exponential you know.

bob2356 says

Probably ebola, it's exponential you know.

Has it been weaponized?

socal2 says

Hey WMD troofers. Are you now saying nerve agents don't count as WMDs?

The article also makes it clear these munitions were abandoned long before the Iraq War:

These munitions were remnants of an Iraqi special weapons program that was abandoned long before the 2003 invasion, and they turned up sporadically during the American occupation in buried caches, as part of improvised bombs or on black markets.

US Soldiers not directly involved in removing rusty stockpiles did not deploy in NBC gear during the occupation is strong evidence that no functional WMDs remained in Iraq. Yes, you can get sick from handling dangerous chemicals that are ingredients of, but no longer functional as, WMDs. You can get real sick handling uranium, without it being part of a functional nuclear weapon.

Nothing in the article indicates these were active, effective weapons and not the rusty remnants of the stockpile the US, UK, France and West Germany helped Saddam develop, produce, and deliver in the 1980s when Reagan was President.

Finally, any evidence of "Good-to-Go" stockpiles known to the Saddam Regime would have been "Friendly Leaked" for absolute certain by the Bush regime, as well as touted by B-liar and the rest of the pro war bunch.

Speaking of everybody knowing, Self-servatives and NuLabourtards in Parliament have been fighting the public release of a report on the Iraq War lead up, and have just lost their final attempt against release. Stay tuned for more revelations about what the US-UK knew about WMDs and when they knew it.

thunderlips11 says

Nothing in the article indicates these were active, effective weapons and not the rusty remnants of the stockpile the US, UK, France and West Germany helped Saddam develop, produce, and deliver in the 1980s when Reagan was President.

Like I said. Some people just keep moving the goalposts to defend Saddam.

These specific weapons in the NYTimes article (400 Sarin tipped rockets) were some of the declared weapons we KNEW Iraq had. Let alone the THOUSANDS of other chemical shells (rusty or otherwise) found after 2003. Despite a decade of harsh sanctions (supposedly killing 500,000 Iraqi children) and numerous bombings, Saddam inexplicably refused to turn these "useless weapons" over to inspectors in 10+ years since 1991.

Lots of good arguments against the Iraq war. But morons who constantly screech "Bush lied about WMDs" is just fucking dumb and easily debunked.

socal2 says

These specific weapons in the NYTimes article (400 Sarin tipped rockets) were some of the declared weapons we KNEW Iraq had. Let alone the THOUSANDS of other chemical shells (rusty or otherwise) found after 2003. Despite a decade of harsh sanctions (supposedly killing 500,000 Iraqi children) and numerous bombings, Saddam inexplicably refused to turn these "useless weapons" over to inspectors in 10+ years since 1991.

Because an army of hundreds of thousands along a battlefield that moves back and forth for about a decade loses things. They are buried, and forgotten. Weapons caches are still found in Europe to this day, 70 years after the end of WW2:
http://gizmodo.com/5906168/this-secret-underground-bunker-is-full-of-world-war-ii-weapons-and-military-vehicles

Even in the middle of cities:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/12/wwii-weapons-found-berlin_n_4773461.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/legacy-of-world-war-ii-big-stash-of-weapons-found-at-berlin-building-site-a-570206.html

"The find contains hundreds, if not thousands of rounds of German infantry munitions," Charles Karwiese, spokesman for a company commissioned by the city of Berlin to secure and remove the weapons, told Berlin's Tagesspiegel newspaper. "The helmets we found probably came from Russian soldiers," he added.

He said equipment, which also includes rusted hand grenades were probably dumped in a shell crater at the end of Word War II and forgotten about. Berlin was the scene of ferocious fighting in the final weeks of the war as the Soviet Army fought itself into the city street by street.

Karwiese said the Islamic community constructing the mosque appears not to have ordered the required checks for munitions and bombs before construction work started at the site.

The mosque, with its dome and 12-meter minaret (40 feet), is due to open next year on the site of an old sauerkraut factory in the Berlin suburb of Pankow-Heinersdorf.

Barely a week goes by in Germany without wartime bombs and weapons being found during construction work.

Mines also:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/decaying-and-deadly-wwii-mines-pose-growing-risk-in-germany-a-804927.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/10611595/World-War-Two-sea-mine-detonated-on-Dutch-beach.html

And the Jersey Shore:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/world-war-ii-era-detonated-jersey-shore-article-1.1383147

socal2 says

Lots of good arguments against the Iraq war. But morons who constantly screech "Bush lied about WMDs" is just fucking dumb and easily debunked.

The arguments that Neocon apologists use to insist there were functional WMDs is fucking dumb and easily debunked.

Especially when Bush himself joked about not finding WMDs:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/nKX6luiMINQ

thunderlips11 says

Because an army of hundreds of thousands along a battlefield that moves back and forth for about a decade loses things. They are buried, and forgotten. Weapons caches are still found in Europe to this day, 70 years after the end of WW2:

These 400 Sarin filled rockets weren't buried or lost. They were in possession of someone who later sold them to the CIA.

And how many European countries after WWII had UN Inspectors scouring their country specifically looking for these weapons for 10+ years with the pain of sanctions, no-fly zones and the threat of regime change hanging over their head if they didn't turn them over?

There is simply no disputing that Iraq had THOUSANDS of declared WMDs from the Gulf War that they didn't turn over to UN inspectors. Where the US and World Intelligence was wrong was the degree of new programs.

I think that is a pretty big distinction as opposed to the ISIS and Russian prop saying America made the WMD thing up out of whole cloth.

You continue to avoid the fact, not opinion, that these weren't WMDs. They were the non functioning remains of WMDs.

You expect readers to believe that 2003-2008, the Bush Administration, Republicans in Congress, and the Neolib/Neocons didn't reveal or leak this evidence to the press as proof their intervention and occupation was necessary.

Except for Free Republic readers, nobody accepts that Saddam's Pre-War Iraq had functioning, working WMDs ready to be used against it's enemies.

YOUR OWN ARTICLE states these weapons were not employable and long predated the 2003 Invasion.

thunderlips11 says

Especially when Bush himself joked about not finding WMDs:

Yep, that video says it all. Bush should have been tried for mass murder.

Dan8267 says

America will be paying for Bush's war in direct costs for the next sixty years

The opportunity costs of 2001-2006 are simply staggering.

A conservative with a functioning mind would have to wall that reality away or they'd be reduced to the mental state of a blubbering idiot suitable only for a group living situation.

But humans of course are pretty good about bullshitting ourselves first and foremost.

The gross mismanagement of the previous decade may in fact kill this nation as a going concern yet.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/intinv/intinvnewsrelease.htm

is not the sign of a healthy macro economy.

Bellingham Bill says

The opportunity costs of 2001-2006 are simply staggering.

To me, a fiscal conservative who supported Bush's wars is like a scientist who believes in god. It makes no sense as the contradiction is apparent and direct.

Strategist says

We don't want to hurt anyones children, because children are innocent. We just want to hurt the terrorists. The terrorists, obviously want to target and hurt our children.

What is wrong with you? To even suggest we want to hurt children is sickening.

Do yourself a favor then. Don't talk to veterans who served in front line combat. Don't talk to anyone who was in Vietnam or Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere children are weaponized (which is pretty much anywhere.)

https://www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-child-soldiers

Never, ever talk to special forces sharpshooter who while covering an explosive ordinance team were under orders to eliminate ANYONE with a cellphone, man, woman or child. Or a veteran who was faced with a child rushing toward his squad screaming "help me GI!"

Seriously. DON'T.

I'm sure the Soviets were thinking the same thing - after all they love children too - when they dropped millions of these on Afghanistan against the taliban mushahadeen:

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-06-22/news/mn-4643_1_million-land-mines

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PFM-1
Note this soviet landmine was a copy of our own BLU-43 Vietnam era mine
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-43_Dragontooth

So if the Soviets targeted children in Afghanistan we would have been guilty of the same crime in Laos. Officially this mine was not targeted towards children but its design was purely dictated by aerodynamics.

IMO it does resemble a maple leaf which would have the desired aerodynamic properties. It also looks like something a poor third world kid might think to play with.
I'll let the conspiracy theorists here mull that one over.

Regardless, war sucks.

sbh says

Threats to children come only from those who threaten their children, never from us to others' children.

Well, duh!

Also: since 9/11, automobiles have killed 150x as many Americans - including children! - as were killed on 9/11.

That's why conservatives are calling for drone strikes on Toyota and Ford headquarters. Oh, wait.

This proves they're hypocrites for not calling for an automobile ban - by their rules, yes?

In "Bitter Lake" there's a good amount of time on footage of the Soviets distributing free medical care, removing bunyons and goiters, just like the good ol' USA int 2001-onwards.

Didn't stop the Afghans from attacking the Soviets either. Just like showing Sir Attleborough's Nature Specials didn't convince the local leaders that the warlord in the US-friendly Peshmurga wasn't a corrupt, nasty local dictator who regularly shook down the population and claimed all his opponents were "Taliban".

We need a good phrase for when countries try to justify occupation by claiming vaccinations for the kiddies.

"Polio-Deodorant Distraction" nah, not catchy enough.

Strategist says

No, not at all. We don't want to hurt anyones children, because children are innocent. We just want to hurt the terrorists. The terrorists, obviously want to target and hurt our children.

What is wrong with you? To even suggest we want to hurt children is sickening.

Then you are firmly against drone strikes then?

The Toll Of 5 Years Of Drone Strikes

In Pakistan alone, TBIJ [The Bureau of Investigative Journalism] estimates, between 416 and 951 civilians, including 168 to 200 children, have been killed.

So you are completely against drone strikes and consider the use of drones or Apache helicopters targeting civilians, even as "collateral damage", to be a war crime, right? So, Edward Snowden is a hero for revealing the helicopter attack that murdered civilians and injured two children, almost killing them as well.

Just imagine if a terrorist attack killed over a hundred children in America. We would be demanding the nuclear annihilation of the country behind the terrorist attack. Well, when America attacks civilians and kills 200 children, America is the terrorist and its victims want blood every bit as much as we would and for the exact same reasons. And that is the problem with conservative philosophy. It's based on the false assumption that Americans are somehow mystically different from all other human beings on the planet.

Dan8267 says

Just imagine if a terrorist attack killed over a hundred children in America. We would be demanding the nuclear annihilation of the country behind the terrorist attack. Well, when America attacks civilians and kills 200 children, America is the terrorist and its victims want blood every bit as much as we would and for the exact same reasons.

I don't have to imagine it. There have been roughly 300 school shootings since the invention of the atomic bomb with 281 fatalities since 1990 alone. Not a single nuke has been dropped, not even a figurative one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

New Renter says

I don't have to imagine it. There have been roughly 300 school shootings since the invention of the atomic bomb with 281 fatalities since 1990 alone. Not a single nuke has been dropped, not even a figurative one.

Yeah, but it wasn't Islamic foreigner killing white Christian Americans. If it were, I have little doubt that a third of this country would be calling for the nuclear option.

Dan8267 says

Yeah, but it wasn't Islamic foreigner killing white Christian Americans. If it were, I have little doubt that a third of this country would be calling for the nuclear option.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/15/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-fan-club-teen-girl-following_n_3275653.html

Yes, so I see.

New Renter says

Yes, so I see.

I remember when 9/11 happened people were all calling for blood all over the Internet. One of the most popular/viral flash animations of the time ended with the entire Middle East being blasted off the Earth with a nuke.

Dan8267 says

Then you are firmly against drone strikes then?

Still no answer.

Beautiful thing about the drone killing program is that the more innocent people they kill, the more radicals they make.

Good business if you've got a drone-program MOS.

Same thing with cops & prison guards. Cops' interests isn't aligned with less crime, the incentives point to more crime.

Same thing with prison guards. More prisoners, more guards, more of that sweet, sweet OT.

sbh says

The apologists contort within their minds to end up as they do. Their use of "innocence" with respect to children presumes only their children's world provides the context for such innocence. Threats to children come only from those who threaten their children, never from us to others' children.

We don't threaten children. Shame on you.

Dan8267 says

Then you are firmly against drone strikes then?

I am pro drone strikes. We only target terrorists.

sbh says

Dan8267 says

Then you are firmly against drone strikes then?

Still no answer.

Be kind to Strategist. He's in a moral and temporal dilemma: torture really. Those children killed by US drone strikes, had they not been killed, could have later become guilty of terrorism either by growing up and seeking vengeance, or by not seeking vengeance but being turned against the US when we tortured them in order to get information about their terrorist parents. Of course, the drone strikes themselves could have come about based on information derived from torturing the children of terrorist parents or even the parents themselves, the guilt of whom was never established without the torture itself, so there's that little bit of torment he has to face. So go easy on him, he suffers, and we do not.

Fools. Car accidents kill more children. So you are against driving cars?
It's the INTENT that matters. Drone strikes target terrorists who kill children. Killing terrorists SAVES LIVES. You guys just don't get it, do you?

Strategist says

We don't threaten children.

Every time a drone flies over a civilian town or city, it threatens children. For America to target civilian population centers is shameful. For anyone to deny this happens is utterly despicable as it condones the action and empowers those in government without a moral compass to engage in even more evil.

Strategist says

I am pro drone strikes.

Then you are every bit responsible for hurting, maiming, and killing children. You are shameful.

Strategist says

It's the INTENT that matters.

The intention behind drone strikes is to kill anyone who opposes the interest of the American government and big business, terrorist or not, regardless of how many children are killed. The intention is that profits and natural resources are worth more than the lives of foreign children. So, yes, the intent does matter and it is vile.

And the word terrorist is just a label used by people like you to justify any evil. Try to define the term and I'll show you how the term applies to people and organization you do not want labeled terrorist. The word terrorist is the new "nigger", a term whose only purpose is to dehumanize not delineate people and actions. Nigger, terrorist, communist, witch, witch, witch!!! The dumb love their buzzwords.

[Waiting for some dumb ass conservative to make the Straw Man argument that I'm saying terrorists are the good guys. You know they can't resist trying to twist the previous paragraph to suit their narrative.]