New York Times Reports WMD Weapons Were Found During The Iraq War And......

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

lots of them. I have been saying this for years.

The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons
By C. J. CHIVERS


A controlled detonation of recovered mustard shells near Taji, Iraq, on Aug. 17, 2008. John Paul Williams

Published: October 14, 2014

The soldiers at the blast crater sensed something was wrong.

From 2004 to 2011, American and Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and at times were wounded by, chemical weapons that were hidden or abandoned years earlier.

It was August 2008 near Taji, Iraq. They had just exploded a stack of old Iraqi artillery shells buried beside a murky lake. The blast, part of an effort to destroy munitions that could be used in makeshift bombs, uncovered more shells.

Two technicians assigned to dispose of munitions stepped into the hole. Lake water seeped in. One of them, Specialist Andrew T. Goldman, noticed a pungent odor, something, he said, he had never smelled before.

He lifted a shell. Oily paste oozed from a crack. “That doesn’t look like pond water,” said his team leader, Staff Sgt. Eric J. Duling.

The specialist swabbed the shell with chemical detection paper. It turned red — indicating sulfur mustard, the chemical warfare agent designed to burn a victim’s airway, skin and eyes. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?smid=tw-nytimes&_r=1

 

[Webster]

*reads the Times article* Pfft...we still shouldn't gone into Iraq in 2003; as bad as Saddam Hussein was - and no one's arguing the opposite - the fact remains that Iraq posed no threat to the United States at the time; they were contained and they had nothing to do with 9/11...instead of focusing on Afghanistan, which is where the plans for 9/11 were actually hatched, we instead decide to waste American blood & treasure on a fool's errand of a war. It was wrong to go then and it still is wrong to go back now.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

*reads the Times article* Pfft...we still shouldn't gone into Iraq in 2003; as bad as Saddam Hussein was - and no one's arguing the opposite - the fact remains that Iraq posed no threat to the United States at the time; they were contained and they had nothing to do with 9/11...instead of focusing on Afghanistan, which is where the plans for 9/11 were actually hatched, we instead decide to waste American blood & treasure on a fool's errand of a war. It was wrong to go then and it still is wrong to go back now.

I would hardly say he posed no threat. But I will agree no more troops in that region.

 

[Webster]

*reads the Times article* Pfft...we still shouldn't gone into Iraq in 2003; as bad as Saddam Hussein was - and no one's arguing the opposite - the fact remains that Iraq posed no threat to the United States at the time; they were contained and they had nothing to do with 9/11...instead of focusing on Afghanistan, which is where the plans for 9/11 were actually hatched, we instead decide to waste American blood & treasure on a fool's errand of a war. It was wrong to go then and it still is wrong to go back now.

I would hardly say he posed no threat. But I will agree no more troops in that region.

At best, Saddam was contained; he could've been dealt with at a time & place of our choosing...but no, we had to go in like we did.

 

[Webster]

 

[DrLeftover]

We all know that Saddam was a nice guy and a fine upstanding member of the community who was just misunderstood and had been picked on when he was a teenager.

Right?

 

[Webster]

We all know that Saddam was a nice guy and a fine upstanding member of the community who was just misunderstood and had been picked on when he was a teenager.

Right?

Oh, that's nice...throw some snark into the issue, why don'tcha?

 

[+paradox]

iraq (country) attacking kurds (land settlers)...

isreal (country) attacking palestinians (land settlers)...


what's the difference?

 

[Webster]

iraq (country) attacking kurds (land settlers)...

isreal (country) attacking palestinians (land settlers)...


what's the difference?

*deadpans* Only that the Israelis' (and the Jewish populations before them) have about a 2-3 millennium older claim on the land than the Palestinians do...and given the nature of the region, I'd still rather side with the region's only major functioning democracy (i.e. Israel) than with the various crackpot, tinhorn autocratic regimes surrounding them.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Those thousands of chemical weapons were being used as road side bombs on many occasions against our troops. There are years of stories with of our troops talking about it.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

iraq (country) attacking kurds (land settlers)...

isreal (country) attacking palestinians (land settlers)...


what's the difference?

Iraq had a dictator who enjoyed killing the Kurds. Israel is defending themselves from a bunch of radicals who never ever want peace with any Jew ever.

 

[Webster]

Those thousands of chemical weapons were being used as road side bombs on many occasions against our troops. There are years of stories with of our troops talking about it.

The fact still remains, Liberty that the weapons were ones we gave the Iraqis'..and furthermore, we still should've never gone into Iraq in the first place.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Those thousands of chemical weapons were being used as road side bombs on many occasions against our troops. There are years of stories with of our troops talking about it.

The fact still remains, Liberty that the weapons were ones we gave the Iraqis'..and furthermore, we still should've never gone into Iraq in the first place.

Yes we gave them to him during a whole different time and a whole different enemy we were fighting. We used a smaller threat at the time to fight against a bigger enemy.

I had no problem going into Iraq I just had a problem on how we fought the war.

 

[Webster]

Those thousands of chemical weapons were being used as road side bombs on many occasions against our troops. There are years of stories with of our troops talking about it.

The fact still remains, Liberty that the weapons were ones we gave the Iraqis'..and furthermore, we still should've never gone into Iraq in the first place.

Yes we gave them to him during a whole different time and a whole different enemy we were fighting. We used a smaller threat at the time to fight against a bigger enemy.

I had no problem going into Iraq I just had a problem on how we fought the war.

Still didn't justify us either (a)going into Iraq into 2003 or (b)supporting one evil (Iraq) against another evil (Iran)...when are we going to learn that we flat just shouldn't get involved in that part of the world (other than keeping a tight leash on Israel, of course...)..

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Those thousands of chemical weapons were being used as road side bombs on many occasions against our troops. There are years of stories with of our troops talking about it.

The fact still remains, Liberty that the weapons were ones we gave the Iraqis'..and furthermore, we still should've never gone into Iraq in the first place.

Yes we gave them to him during a whole different time and a whole different enemy we were fighting. We used a smaller threat at the time to fight against a bigger enemy.

I had no problem going into Iraq I just had a problem on how we fought the war.

Still didn't justify us either (a)going into Iraq into 2003 or (b)supporting one evil (Iraq) against another evil (Iran)...when are we going to learn that we flat just shouldn't get involved in that part of the world (other than keeping a tight leash on Israel, of course...)..

I disagree. He had used chemical weapons. He had tons and tons of yellow cake for either a nuke or dirty bomb and had no reason to believe he would not have used with past experience with chemical weapons. He was still shooting at our planes. He was paying families if a family member would kill and blow themselves up to kill Jews and Americans. He had training camps in Iraq Saddam was funding for the acts of terrorism.

 

[Webster]

Those thousands of chemical weapons were being used as road side bombs on many occasions against our troops. There are years of stories with of our troops talking about it.

The fact still remains, Liberty that the weapons were ones we gave the Iraqis'..and furthermore, we still should've never gone into Iraq in the first place.

Yes we gave them to him during a whole different time and a whole different enemy we were fighting. We used a smaller threat at the time to fight against a bigger enemy.

I had no problem going into Iraq I just had a problem on how we fought the war.

Still didn't justify us either (a)going into Iraq into 2003 or (b)supporting one evil (Iraq) against another evil (Iran)...when are we going to learn that we flat just shouldn't get involved in that part of the world (other than keeping a tight leash on Israel, of course...)..

I disagree. He had used chemical weapons. He had tons and tons of yellow cake for either a nuke or dirty bomb and had no reason to believe he would not have used with past experience with chemical weapons. He was still shooting at our planes. He was paying families if a family member would kill and blow themselves up to kill Jews and Americans. He had training camps in Iraq Saddam was funding for the acts of terrorism.

So? Saddam, as bad a dictator as there came in that part of the world, still had nothing to do with 9/11...but hey, anytime we can spend American blood & treasure on a fool's errand such as invading Iraq is a good thing, right, Liberty?

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Those thousands of chemical weapons were being used as road side bombs on many occasions against our troops. There are years of stories with of our troops talking about it.

The fact still remains, Liberty that the weapons were ones we gave the Iraqis'..and furthermore, we still should've never gone into Iraq in the first place.

Yes we gave them to him during a whole different time and a whole different enemy we were fighting. We used a smaller threat at the time to fight against a bigger enemy.

I had no problem going into Iraq I just had a problem on how we fought the war.

Still didn't justify us either (a)going into Iraq into 2003 or (b)supporting one evil (Iraq) against another evil (Iran)...when are we going to learn that we flat just shouldn't get involved in that part of the world (other than keeping a tight leash on Israel, of course...)..

I disagree. He had used chemical weapons. He had tons and tons of yellow cake for either a nuke or dirty bomb and had no reason to believe he would not have used with past experience with chemical weapons. He was still shooting at our planes. He was paying families if a family member would kill and blow themselves up to kill Jews and Americans. He had training camps in Iraq Saddam was funding for the acts of terrorism.

So? Saddam, as bad a dictator as there came in that part of the world, still had nothing to do with 9/11...but hey, anytime we can spend American blood & treasure on a fool's errand such as invading Iraq is a good thing, right, Liberty?

As I said before we should have wiped out the enemy and gone home. We lost the overwhelming amount of our troops being peace keepers while we rebuilt a country. We should have completely finished it during the first gulf war though.

 

[Webster]

We should have completely finished it during the first gulf war though.

Not even Dick Cheney - as much as it pains me to say it - was that stupid, Liberty...

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

We should have completely finished it during the first gulf war though.

Not even Dick Cheney - as much as it pains me to say it - was that stupid, Liberty...

He is talking about a occupation. I am talking about wiping out the enemy and going home. If a new enemy rises up and threatens us you go back and level baghdad or whatever capital city in the country we are fighting. You make it clear we will level everything to keep us safe. And do it over and over again.

 

[Webster]

We should have completely finished it during the first gulf war though.

Not even Dick Cheney - as much as it pains me to say it - was that stupid, Liberty...

He is talking about a occupation. I am talking about wiping out the enemy and going home. If a new enemy rises up and threatens us you go back and level baghdad or whatever capital city in the country we are fighting. You make it clear we will level everything to keep us safe. And do it over and over again.

Doesn't matter, Liberty, we still should not have gone into Iraq in the first place.