4
0

Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs


 invite response                
2015 May 17, 1:33pm   29,155 views  50 comments

by HydroCabron   ➕follow (1)   💰tip   ignore  

Yet, weirdly, Bush & Rubio are allowed to claim that Shrub acted on the best intelligence available. Is this because the New York Times and every other media outlet also knew there were no WMDs, but went along with the claims to preserve their access to officials?

Everyone knew the WMD claims were fake.

For example, Tony Blair – the British Prime Minister – knew that Saddam possessed no WMDs. If America’s closest ally Britain knew, then the White House knew as well.

And the number 2 Democrat in the Senate -who was on the Senate intelligence committee – admitted that the Senate intelligence committee knew before the war started that Bush’s public statements about Iraqi WMDs were false. If the committee knew, then the White House knew as well.

But we don’t even have to use logic to be able to conclude that the White House knew.

Specifically, the former highest-ranking CIA officer in Europe says that Bush, Cheney and Rice were personally informed that Iraq had no WMDs in Fall 2002 (and see this).

Former Treasury Secretary O’Neil – who was a member of the National Security Council – said:

In the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

The CIA warned the White House that claims about Iraq’s nuclear ambitions (using forged documents) were false, and yet the White House made those claims anyway.

#politics

Comments 1 - 40 of 50       Last »     Search these comments

1   Waitup   2015 May 17, 1:42pm  

It was for the oil foo.
When a big fat bully if after your candy, you really can't do anything about it.

2   HydroCabron   2015 May 17, 1:53pm  

CIC: Stay out of my threads, please.

3   curious2   2015 May 17, 3:54pm  

I hesitate to mention this here, but I have been somewhat puzzled by the intense focus on the WMD issue. At the time of the decision, there were several reasons for and against the war. Since then, we have seen that American mismanagement turned the war into a disaster. How does the self-delusion or dishonesty about WMD displace the more consequential self-delusion and venality in the planning and execution of the war itself?

The merchants of war scored a huge triumph as a result of 9/11, as the world has endured an endless "Global War on Terror" (GWOT) ever since: as long as Americans can be made to fear and/or loathe something, somewhere, the GWOT can continue. When conspiracy nuts claim 9/11 was perpetrated deliberately by American officials, or when partisans bicker over the evidence of WMD, it seems to me they distract from the larger issue: the merchants of war continue driving procurement by running the government, maximizing destruction, arming enemies, etc. WMD was only one tiny piece of a much larger puzzle: the GWOT, the endless "war on drugs" (Merida, "Fast & Furious," and so forth), etc. The strategy appears to be: antagonize people and arm them, then antagonize them some more, and repeat that process so "the homeland" needs more "defense", but it is the failures of defense that enable the whole thing.

ISIL results from de-baathification, which resulted from invading Iraq, which resulted from 9/11, which resulted from stationing military personnel in Saudi Arabia, which resulted from the previous war with Iraq, which resulted from misleading Iraq into invading Kuwait, after previously arming Iraq against Iran, which had become an enemy due to the Khomeini revolution against the Shah, who had been installed by America in the 1950's. It's a lifetime narrative, whole careers and fortunes have flowed from it. If the U.S. had not installed the Shah, or had installed a better one, or had managed better the one who was installed, then the whole series of world history might have gone much better.

There is a theme. Prior to the Iraq war, America had already committed to the enforcement of dysfunctional "no-fly" zones and sanctions, which could only end by removing Saddam Hussein from power. There might have been reasonably inexpensive ways to do that, but ultimately the most expensive way was chosen. That happens repeatedly with both major parties. The war in Iraq is one example, Obamneycare is another. Even in California, the $6bn+ Bay Bridge is like that too: the old eastern span could have been upgraded for 1/10th of what got spent, but the point was to spend 10x more. I don't really know what to say about it, or how to address it, but systematically the decisions are driven by revenue/spending maximization; the resulting "collateral damage" are consequences, the particular lies are distracting details, the issue resides in the process itself.

4   HydroCabron   2015 May 17, 4:27pm  

My take: a central part of "the process itself" is that political figures, past and current, have been allowed to skate using the phrase "what we know now."

The fact is that we did know then what we know now. I am not arguing that revenue maximization was not the key driver; I'm more interested here in the persistence of lies which allow our press and leaders to avoid blame for their venality.

The New York Times is currently pretending to care that neither Jeb nor Marco can gracefully answer questions about the war, when in reality the Times itself as well as most other politicians can't, because they did know. And they have to pretend that Condi and Bush and Megan McArdle could not have known either. It's the same collective free pass our corrupt political classes received for the housing bubble: "No one could have predicted... "

No-fly zones of the Clinton and Bush I era were not built on so gross a lie, inefficient as they were.

5   Strategist   2015 May 17, 6:54pm  

bgamall4 says

All the regime change that has happened in the Middle East has been the result of Zionism.

Like Hamas being elected.
President Assad coming to power.
Morsi getting elected.
If anything, I wish all the changes Were the result of Zionism. That way we would not have the Islamic problem, which no one wants.

6   Strategist   2015 May 17, 7:02pm  

sbh says

Both are venal manipulations created for the benefit of the creators. Of just two, Obamneycare and the Iraq war, I have less scorn for the former: at least it's spent within our borders instead of on the "hearts and minds" and the "shock and awe" of a distant piece of the human consequence we had a part in creating.

None are manipulations. When Bush went into Iraq, he genuinely felt he was doing the right thing. In hindsight we all have 20/20 vision.
Obamacare is the start of something our society needs. Maybe not in it's present form, but it's definitely attempting to address a need. Its too early for hindsight, and 20/20 vision.

7   Strategist   2015 May 17, 7:32pm  

sbh says

Strategist says

When Bush went into Iraq, he genuinely felt he was doing the right thing.

WTF? People you want shot in the back thought precisely the same way. Your concepts don't combine.

So what's your point? Terrorists that rape, murder and enslave people are no different than us? That they have a right to do their thing? We should let them?
What is wrong with you? Is it the hate for America? The White Man?
You are beginning to worry me more than Gary.

8   Strategist   2015 May 17, 7:49pm  

sbh says

Strategist says

So what's your point?

My point is you have no standard beyond your personal fear. A standard must be universal or it's just bullshit, the same way people felt fear of black people registering to vote so they killed them. The jihadists say exactly what you say. The only difference is they don't have your name. They have different children.

What you don't comprehend is this: I'M NOT SAYING THEY'RE RIGHT.

I'm saying this: THEY HAVE YOUR STANDARD.

WHEN YOUR STANDARD IS BETTER THAN THEIRS YOU'LL HAVE MY SUPPORT. Not that it matters to you.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. I really don't. :(

9   Strategist   2015 May 17, 8:00pm  

sbh says

Strategist says

I have no idea what you are trying to say. I really don't.

Yes, you do. You're being irrational because it suits your fear. Your standard is: torture and kill those who want to hurt our children. Their standard is: torture and kill those who want to hurt our children. Is that simple enough for you?

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.

10   Strategist   2015 May 17, 8:18pm  

sbh says

Strategist says

We don't want to hurt anyones children

But your standard wants to hurt children. They grow up to be terrorist like their mothers, they carry bombs and make cell phone calls that kill american soldiers overseas. Your impossible mobius has damned you. When you actually find a universal principle instead of one that simply derives from "Strategist" you'll have the proper right to devote yourself to.

My standard wants to hurt no one, except those who want to hurt others.
I don't care for universal standards, because universal standards include other peoples standards that are silly. e.g. 72 virgins.
I consider MY common sense as the best standard there is.

11   socal2   2015 May 18, 10:26am  

Libs pushing more jihadi pro-Baathists prop. Keep up the hard work guys, ISIS loves all your effort!

"The Central Intelligence Agency, working with American troops during the occupation of Iraq, repeatedly purchased nerve-agent rockets from a secretive Iraqi seller, part of a previously undisclosed effort to ensure that old chemical weapons remaining in Iraq did not fall into the hands of terrorists or militant groups, according to current and former American officials.

The extraordinary arms purchase plan, known as Operation Avarice, began in 2005 and continued into 2006, and the American military deemed it a nonproliferation success. It led to the United States’ acquiring and destroying at least 400 Borak rockets, one of the internationally condemned chemical weapons that Saddam Hussein’s Baathist government manufactured in the 1980s but that were not accounted for by United Nations inspections mandated after the 1991 Persian Gulf war."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/cia-is-said-to-have-bought-and-destroyed-iraqi-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0

12   socal2   2015 May 18, 10:27am  

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

13   Dan8267   2015 May 18, 12:29pm  

HydroCabron says

Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

Hell, I even knew it and I knew that Bush and his cabinet knew it as well, and I didn't need any insider information to tell that. It was obvious that the WMD accusation was a false pretense to enter war. The U.N. inspections showed absolutely no evidence despite a massive search effort. And when Bush claimed every rock must be turned over to be sure, the U.N. jumped up and said "yes sir, give us a month to do that" and Bush was like "oh no, that would take too long and we'll all be dead by then". Complete bullshit.

The only thing I can compare it to is a coward allegedly coming to Florida to meet someone, and then when that someone proposes a time and a place to meet, the coward runs and hides only to later bitch and moan that he never had a chance to meet up because, because, insert bullshit excuse here.

So there you have it. Bush was the Call It Crazy of presidents, completely incompetent, cowardly, and a compulsive liar. It was obvious he wanted to go to war no matter what. He thought he could oust an economic competitor -- and yes, that's why Bush was gunning for Saddam, not because he was a dictator; America loves dictators as long as they pledge allegiance to our government and our big corporations. But Bush ran the war incompetently as do all Republicans. For people who love war so much, conservatives sure suck at it.

Worst of all, America will be paying for Bush's war in direct costs for the next sixty years, and that's no exaggeration. In indirect costs, we'll be paying for this clusterfuck for centuries.

14   MisdemeanorRebel   2015 May 18, 1:46pm  

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.

Don't want and doing are two different things. We kill and maim children all the freakin' time. Not once in a blue moon, but pretty often.

Americans wouldn't be like "Oh well" if French Drones flying over to shoot at Hell's Angels sometimes killed whole families that weren't in Biker Gangs.

15   MisdemeanorRebel   2015 May 18, 2:04pm  

The Torture BS meme is all over. Zero Dark Thirty showing torture for OBL location information that never happened.

If any seriously useful piece of intel was gleaned from Torture, the CIA and WH would have leaked it years ago and not punished the leaker. Everytime somebody protested torture, Charles "*Sigh*" Krauthammer, Kristol, etc. would be waving that flag on TV daily.

Funny how Manning is in prison for decades for leaking a video of a strike against a news crew and then the good Sams (with children in car) who stopped to render aid, a year after the fact.

Meanwhile McChrystal, after mocking everybody in Civilian Leadership Positions over himself and resigning because of it, gives top secret info to his girlfriend-biographer, including names of agents and undercover personnel currently engaged in operations, and gets a misdemeanor allowing him to keep consulting and lobbying for millions.

He got to keep his 4-star retirement benefits despite not serving the 3 years required, to boot.

Part of our two-tier justice system.

16   Dan8267   2015 May 18, 2:10pm  

thunderlips11 says

Meanwhile McChrystal, after mocking everybody in Civilian Leadership Positions over himself and resigning because of it, gives top secret info to his girlfriend-biographer, including names of agents and undercover personnel currently engaged in operations, and gets a misdemeanor allowing him to keep consulting and lobbying for millions.

Yes, that shows just how much bullshit the charges against Manning and against Snowden are.

17   Heraclitusstudent   2015 May 18, 2:36pm  

Dan8267 says

Hell, I even knew it and I knew that Bush and his cabinet knew it as well, and I didn't need any insider information to tell that. It was obvious that the WMD accusation was a false pretense to enter war. The U.N. inspections showed absolutely no evidence despite a massive search effort. And when Bush claimed every rock must be turned over to be sure, the U.N. jumped up and said "yes sir, give us a month to do that" and Bush was like "oh no, that would take too long and we'll all be dead by then". Complete bullshit.

Exactly. It was always totally obvious:
Even forgetting for a minute that they told they *knew* Iraq had chemical weapons... Even more obvious lies:
- chemical weapons could easily be used by terrorists for mass destruction. (it takes tons of gas to have a local effect similar to a bomb carried in a backpack).
- chemical weapons in the hand of Iraq = a strategic threat to the US. - the word "WMD" was carefully chosen to implicitly link chemical weapons to much more dangerous weapons.
- link between Saddam - Al Qaeda & 9/11 ???

All this to create ISIS... great job!

18   socal2   2015 May 18, 2:38pm  

thunderlips11 says

Meanwhile McChrystal, after mocking everybody in Civilian Leadership Positions over himself and resigning because of it, gives top secret info to his girlfriend-biographer, including names of agents and undercover personnel currently engaged in operations, and gets a misdemeanor allowing him to keep consulting and lobbying for millions.

Don't you mean Patreus?

At any rate, Patreus WAS punished and removed from government. All the while Hillary is running for the Presidency after exposing all of her State Department emails to being hacked by foreign governments.

"Michael Morell: Foreign governments have Hillary's email"
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/michael-morrell-foreign-governments-have-hillarys-email-118007.html

A woman this clueless has no business being within a hundred miles of the White House.

19   socal2   2015 May 18, 2:42pm  

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

Amazing the level Libs will go to move the goal posts to defend Saddam and ISIS.

"The Central Intelligence Agency, working with American troops during the occupation of Iraq, repeatedly purchased nerve-agent rockets from a secretive Iraqi seller, part of a previously undisclosed effort to ensure that old chemical weapons remaining in Iraq did not fall into the hands of terrorists or militant groups, according to current and former American officials.

The extraordinary arms purchase plan, known as Operation Avarice, began in 2005 and continued into 2006, and the American military deemed it a nonproliferation success. It led to the United States’ acquiring and destroying at least 400 Borak rockets, one of the internationally condemned chemical weapons that Saddam Hussein’s Baathist government manufactured in the 1980s but that were not accounted for by United Nations inspections mandated after the 1991 Persian Gulf war."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/cia-is-said-to-have-bought-and-destroyed-iraqi-chemical-weapons.html

20   Waitup   2015 May 18, 2:58pm  

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

21   Heraclitusstudent   2015 May 18, 3:44pm  

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.

22   Dan8267   2015 May 18, 3:47pm  

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.

23   socal2   2015 May 18, 3:49pm  

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.

24   Blurtman   2015 May 18, 5:00pm  

Heraclitusstudent says

1 vial of bio weapon can kill a million.

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

25   bob2356   2015 May 18, 5:04pm  

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.

26   Blurtman   2015 May 18, 5:16pm  

bob2356 says

Probably ebola, it's exponential you know.

Has it been weaponized?

27   MisdemeanorRebel   2015 May 18, 7:04pm  

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/cia-is-said-to-have-bought-and-destroyed-iraqi-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0

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.

28   MisdemeanorRebel   2015 May 18, 7:09pm  

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.

29   socal2   2015 May 18, 7:20pm  

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.

30   MisdemeanorRebel   2015 May 18, 7:34pm  

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

31   MisdemeanorRebel   2015 May 18, 7:35pm  

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

32   socal2   2015 May 18, 7:47pm  

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.

33   MisdemeanorRebel   2015 May 18, 8:02pm  

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.

34   Dan8267   2015 May 18, 8:58pm  

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.

35   Bellingham Bill   2015 May 18, 9:06pm  

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.

36   Dan8267   2015 May 18, 9:13pm  

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.

37   New Renter   2015 May 19, 12:31am  

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.

38   HydroCabron   2015 May 19, 8:48am  

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?

39   MisdemeanorRebel   2015 May 19, 9:20am  

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.

40   Dan8267   2015 May 19, 9:44am  

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.

Comments 1 - 40 of 50       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions