America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 13 years ago by ZRX1200. 24 replies replies.
WiKi Leaks
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
DrMaddVibe Offline
#1 Posted: Mon, Oct 25 2010, 11:58 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,394

Go to the article to click on the hyperlinks....




By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

But for years afterward, WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins, and uncover weapons of mass destruction.

An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.

In August 2004, for instance, American forces surreptitiously purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard, a toxic “blister agent” used as a chemical weapon since World War I. The troops tested the liquid, and “reported two positive results for blister.” The chemical was then “triple-sealed and transported to a secure site” outside their base.

Three months later, in northern Iraq, U.S. scouts went to look in on a “chemical weapons” complex. “One of the bunkers has been tampered with,” they write. “The integrity of the seal [around the complex] appears intact, but it seems someone is interesting in trying to get into the bunkers.”


Meanwhile, the second battle of Fallujah was raging in Anbar province. In the southeastern corner of the city, American forces came across a “house with a chemical lab … substances found are similar to ones (in lesser quantities located a previous chemical lab.” The following day, there’s a call in another part of the city for explosive experts to dispose of a “chemical cache.”

Nearly three years later, American troops were still finding WMD in the region. An armored Buffalo vehicle unearthed a cache of artillery shells “that was covered by sacks and leaves under an Iraqi Community Watch checkpoint. “The 155mm rounds are filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard.”

In WikiLeaks’ massive trove of nearly 392,000 Iraq war logs, there are hundreds of references to chemical and biological weapons. Most of those are intelligence reports or initial suspicions of WMD that don’t pan out. In July 2004, for example, U.S. forces come across a Baghdad building with gas masks, gas filters, and containers with “unknown contents” inside. Later investigation revealed those contents to be vitamins.

But even late in the war, WMDs were still being unearthed. In the summer of 2008, according to one WikiLeaked report, American troops found at least 10 rounds that tested positive for chemical agents. “These rounds were most likely left over from the [Saddam]-era regime. Based on location, these rounds may be an AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq] cache. However, the rounds were all total disrepair and did not appear to have been moved for a long time.”

A small group — mostly of the political right — has long maintained that there was more evidence of a major and modern WMD program than the American people were lead to believe. A few Congressmen and Senators gravitated to the idea, but it was largely dismissed as conspiratorial hooey.

The WMD diehards will likely find some comfort in these newly-WikiLeaked documents. Skeptics will note that these relatively small WMD stockpiles were hardly the kind of grave danger that the Bush administration presented in the run-up to the war.

But the more salient issue may be how insurgents and Islamic extremists (possibly with the help of Iran) attempted to use these lethal and exotic arms. As Spencer noted earlier, a January 2006 war log claims that “neuroparalytic” chemical weapons were smuggled in from Iran.

That same month, then “chemical weapons specialists” were apprehended in Balad. These “foreigners” were there specifically “to support the chemical weapons operations.” The following month, an intelligence report refers to a “chemical weapons expert” that “provided assistance with the gas weapons.” What happened to that specialist, the WikiLeaked document doesn’t say.



Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/#ixzz13OGw3W4s
tweoijfoi Offline
#2 Posted: Mon, Oct 25 2010, 12:52 PM EST
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
Nice.

Chemical weapons are not equal to WMDs. In case you've forgotten "WMD" is actually an acronym. It stands for "Weapons of Mass Destruction." i.e. nukes or large quantities of biological/chemical weapons.

"10 rounds that tested positive" does not qualify as a serious threat. Until they unearth something which could wipe out part of a city, no WMDs have been found.
gringococolo Offline
#3 Posted: Mon, Oct 25 2010, 1:14 PM EST
Joined: 02-04-2006
Posts: 4,626
tweoifoi,

So you think we went to war because we thought they had actual nukes? LMAO. I don't know if that was what the public was sold on. Most of the chemical weapon stockpiles were supposed to have been destroyed after the first gulf war (you were probably about 12, by my guess).

Saddam led the world to believe he had greater quantities of chemical weapons. His bluff proved fatal.

The reasons we went to war with Iraq were weak. America was ready to kill someone after 9/11. Don't act like the majority of America wasn't complicit.


The real problem is that America had actually forgotten (as a whole) what a war costs and what a realistic picture would be. I think they thought we could just bomb a few "ragheads" and wash our hands.
jguthner Offline
#4 Posted: Mon, Oct 25 2010, 9:54 PM EST
Joined: 05-15-2007
Posts: 585
Maybe I missed a thread somewhere talking about this, but...

I can't help but feeling like you're missing the real point of the WikiLeaks fiasco.

This represents the largest (and unfortunately, only the most recent) classified data breach in the digital age. This data, and more like it focused on Afghanistan several months ago WILL cost U.S. servicemen and women their lives. Let that sink in.

And we're content to quibble over whether or not chemical weapons meet the definition of WMDs? This is one of the most visible manifestations of the absurd notion that everyone has an obligation to know some of the most intimate details of our nation's staunchest protectors.
rfenst Offline
#5 Posted: Mon, Oct 25 2010, 11:42 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,255
I simply still cannot belive the enormity of this, despite knowing for a while now that publication of the leaked papers was comming. Think Sick
DrMaddVibe Offline
#6 Posted: Tue, Oct 26 2010, 6:20 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,394
jguthner wrote:
Maybe I missed a thread somewhere talking about this, but...

I can't help but feeling like you're missing the real point of the WikiLeaks fiasco.

This represents the largest (and unfortunately, only the most recent) classified data breach in the digital age. This data, and more like it focused on Afghanistan several months ago WILL cost U.S. servicemen and women their lives. Let that sink in.

And we're content to quibble over whether or not chemical weapons meet the definition of WMDs? This is one of the most visible manifestations of the absurd notion that everyone has an obligation to know some of the most intimate details of our nation's staunchest protectors.


The magnitude and gravity of the situation demands treason charges be filed on anyone that dispersed this info to a 3rd party. The the 3rd party should face aiding and abetting charges for posting this for the world to see instead of turning it over to the proper officials.
tweoijfoi Offline
#7 Posted: Tue, Oct 26 2010, 3:13 PM EST
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
jguthner wrote:

This represents the largest (and unfortunately, only the most recent) classified data breach in the digital age. This data, and more like it focused on Afghanistan several months ago WILL cost U.S. servicemen and women their lives. Let that sink in.
And we're content to quibble over whether or not chemical weapons meet the definition of WMDs? This is one of the most visible manifestations of the absurd notion that everyone has an obligation to know some of the most intimate details of our nation's staunchest protectors.


He posted an article which claimed we found "WMDs" in Iraq and didn't publish it until it was released through WikiLeaks.

This is not quibbling. If we HAD found WMDs, the losses we've sustained in the lives of our soldiers would be [more] justified. So yes, that is a major issue and point.

WikiLeaks is an issue, I do not disagree with you on that.
richokeeffe Offline
#8 Posted: Tue, Oct 26 2010, 3:19 PM EST
Joined: 12-07-2004
Posts: 7,020
DrMaddVibe wrote:
The magnitude and gravity of the situation demands treason charges be filed on anyone that dispersed this info to a 3rd party. The the 3rd party should face aiding and abetting charges for posting this for the world to see instead of turning it over to the proper officials.


Wouldn't that depend on where they are located? There are countries where the sort of activities WikiLeaks engages in are legal.
jpotts Offline
#9 Posted: Tue, Oct 26 2010, 3:37 PM EST
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
tweoijfoi wrote:
Nice.

Chemical weapons are not equal to WMDs. In case you've forgotten "WMD" is actually an acronym. It stands for "Weapons of Mass Destruction." i.e. nukes or large quantities of biological/chemical weapons.

"10 rounds that tested positive" does not qualify as a serious threat. Until they unearth something which could wipe out part of a city, no WMDs have been found.


Iraq was supposed to have zero (none) after 12 years, and 12 UN resolutions.

Furthermore, this is in addition to the 500 rounds of Mustard Gas collected in 2004, and two other rounds that were discovered as re-wired IEDs in 2005(?).

Iraq was big into chemical weapons, and their known stockpiles was the main focus of the weapons inspection violations, namely :sarin, mustard gas, and VX derivatives. To say that the focus was on nuclear and biological weapons, and not chemical weapons points to a profound ignorance of the issue.

As far as anyone knew, they did not have ANY nuclear weapons (though much of the material they smuggled into Iraq was classified as having "dual use"), and their biological weapons capability was all speculative. However after gassing Iranians and Kurds, no one had any doubt that Saddam both had nuclear weapons, and was more than willing to use them.

Once more, you should really try reading a few books before you come onto this board and show all of us how very little you actually know on any given subject.
jpotts Offline
#10 Posted: Tue, Oct 26 2010, 3:41 PM EST
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
Thus far, WikiLeaks has just independantly confirmed that there were indeed WMDs in Iraq post-invasion, and has also confirmed that Iran was training "insurgents" post-occupation. In my estimation, WikiLeaks has dome more in the last year to prove Bush 43 right than any Bush supporter.

And what's more ironic is that the guy behind WikiLeaks is trying to "undermine" the credibility of the Iraq war. Frankly speaking, he's either a paid operative for the Bush family, or one of the biggest dumba**es I've seen to date.
donutboy2000 Offline
#11 Posted: Tue, Oct 26 2010, 11:04 PM EST
Joined: 11-20-2001
Posts: 25,000
CIA
tweoijfoi Offline
#12 Posted: Wed, Oct 27 2010, 12:49 AM EST
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
I posted a thorough reply but got an error and my reply was lost.. so I'll make this shorter.

jpotts wrote:
Iraq was supposed to have zero (none) after 12 years, and 12 UN resolutions.


It is true, Iraq was supposed to have none. Saddam lied. There is no doubt.

jpotts wrote:
Furthermore, this is in addition to the 500 rounds of Mustard Gas collected in 2004, and two other rounds that were discovered as re-wired IEDs in 2005(?).


You are referring to Sen. Rick Santorum's announcement. Here's the article from Fox:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

And the declassified article they quoted: http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

The most inflammatory phrases are underlined naturally.

FOX's report chose the most excitable title: "Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq"

Of course, you and 90% of their readership stopped after the 3rd paragraph. If you kept reading you'd find the quote:

"Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war.""

NOT IN USABLE CONDITIONS

...

Let's look at a better article from a source less biased:

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

The Department of Defense

Quote from the article: "The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added."

The 1980s? Odd. That's about the time of the Iran-Iraq war.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=9e4aAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TEcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5645,1273436&dq=mustard+chemical+weapons&hl=en

Oh yeah... Iraq attacked Iran with chemical weapons (mustard gas) while we were their ALLIES. Did we try to stop them then? No. Oo...

Quote: "While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s."

The Japanese subway attacks in the 1990s? TWELVE people died. It is tragic no doubt, but a FAR cry from a "weapon of MASS destruction." Maybe a weapon of localized destruction.

The American public was led to believe that weapons comparable to nukes were at the disposal of Saddam Husein. They were not. While the technical definition of "WMD" was satisfied by these findings, they were not truly capable of "mass destruction."

jpotts wrote:
Iraq was big into chemical weapons, and their known stockpiles was the main focus of the weapons inspection violations, namely :sarin, mustard gas, and VX derivatives. To say that the focus was on nuclear and biological weapons, and not chemical weapons points to a profound ignorance of the issue.


By the way, did you know mustard gas was used during the FIRST World War? Man, they sure loved their WMDs back then. It is a dangerous chemical, but surely not the most by today's standards. And no article differentiated--which of the 500 "WMDs" had mustard gas and which had the more dangerous sarin gas? And If this was such a huge discovery, why was it not more publicly announced?

jpotts wrote:
As far as anyone knew, they did not have ANY nuclear weapons (though much of the material they smuggled into Iraq was classified as having "dual use"), and their biological weapons capability was all speculative. However after gassing Iranians and Kurds, no one had any doubt that Saddam both had nuclear weapons, and was more than willing to use them.

Huh? First you say Iraq didn't have any nukes and then there was no doubt that they did?

I never said Iraq had nukes, merely that WMDs encompassed nukes and so the public believed the term "WMD" to include weapons which were comparable in destructive power to nuclear weapons. They are not.

jpotts wrote:
Once more, you should really try reading a few books before you come onto this board and show all of us how very little you actually know on any given subject.


You have yet to cite a single article or book.

Please, enlighten me, cite some books you've read which support your point of view.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#13 Posted: Wed, Oct 27 2010, 12:02 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
tweoijfoi

joined a moth or so ago and you finally realize putzpersone if full of s h i t.


this is the fox channel's board. look for miller, angle, and dipsydoodle to win their races in alaska, neveda, and delaware.


and boner will be the speaker of the house.

the next few years will be interesting.
tweoijfoi Offline
#14 Posted: Wed, Oct 27 2010, 9:41 PM EST
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
Oh jpotts, where are you? I would love to have some intellectual discourse with you on this matter, but after my last post you have been silent.
snowwolf777 Offline
#15 Posted: Fri, Oct 29 2010, 8:15 AM EST
Joined: 06-03-2000
Posts: 4,082
I suppose you could just ask the Kurds in Halabja if Saddam ever had WMDs, or what their opinion is regarding what qualifies as a legitimate quantity of WMD material. Their results may differ from yours.

As for "boner" being the speaker of the House, the real boner is sitting in the White House. Instead of worrying about the economy and jobs, he's busy polishing his stand-up comedian skills on the Jon Liebowitz show.
tweoijfoi Offline
#16 Posted: Fri, Oct 29 2010, 12:18 PM EST
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
Oh please!

Was the fire-bombing of Dresden a WMD attack? Just because of a lot of people died does not mean a WMD was used. It means many many conventional weapons were used. A variety of chemical weapons were used in Halabja and it was a tragedy to be sure. About 4,000 human beings were killed in the attack and involved multiple bombings and about 7 jet aircraft. You would compare that to tens of thousands being killed from the use of a single weapon? THAT is what a WMD is.

And all that is besides the point. Those attacks happened over 20 years ago and we did absolutely nothing about it. 20 years later we go to war because we were lead to believe a country was producing or about to produce WMDs, in possession of WMDs, able to use them, and perhaps willing to use them. What did we find? 20-year-old chemical weapons.

We've now lost more soldiers and killed many times as many civilians as those that died at Halabja to find this?
snowwolf777 Offline
#17 Posted: Fri, Oct 29 2010, 6:41 PM EST
Joined: 06-03-2000
Posts: 4,082
So based on your definition, only a massive atomic bomb would qualify as a WMD. Apparently only the people who instantly die count, not the many thousands who died later or were forever sickened and disabled by the weapons. And it was primarily mustard gas used on the Kurds, in spite of what your sole source of all info and education - Wikipedia - tells you.

I imagine you can't get Potts to further engage you for the same reason you bore me. We did freshman debate club 35 years ago. PIck up a book and read it instead of doing all your research on Google and Wiki.
tweoijfoi Offline
#18 Posted: Mon, Nov 1 2010, 6:29 AM EST
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
snowwolf777 wrote:
So based on your definition, only a massive atomic bomb would qualify as a WMD. Apparently only the people who instantly die count, not the many thousands who died later or were forever sickened and disabled by the weapons.


Nukes or weapons with comparable destructive power. Chemical weapons strong enough with a complex enough distribution mechanism would qualify. Biological weapons, such as engineered viruses could qualify as well.

A single nuclear weapon can kill 80,000 and up easily, give long last effects similar to the chemical weapons at Halabja to countless more, not to mention the immediate physical devastation and long-lasting irradiation of the area.

And you want to put that weapon in the same category as the use of hundreds of weapons used together that kill 5,000--and yes, they had long lasting effects, not helped by the fact that it is a poor region and do not have access to many doctors?

snowwolf777 wrote:
And it was primarily mustard gas used on the Kurds, in spite of what your sole source of all info and education - Wikipedia - tells you.


I have read more than Wikipedia and have never seen any sort of breakdown which denoted mustard gas as the primary gas. What is your source?

snowwolf777 wrote:

I imagine you can't get Potts to further engage you for the same reason you bore me. We did freshman debate club 35 years ago. PIck up a book and read it instead of doing all your research on Google and Wiki..


You are right, I did most of my research on Wikipedia and its sources. I debate to help myself learn. You keep saying to go read a book... which books have you read on this topic? I may pick them up to read them.

You know what the difference between someone who knows what they are talking about and someone who makes it up? SOURCES. "Read a book" is not a source. Cite me where you get your facts (sorry: fact, singular, ... well, actually now that I think about it you haven't really said much at all), I will go read it, and then perhaps agree with you. If you ask me the same for any of my assertions, I will provide you with sources.
snowwolf777 Offline
#19 Posted: Mon, Nov 1 2010, 1:31 PM EST
Joined: 06-03-2000
Posts: 4,082
New York Times
Washington Post
Christian Science Monitor
BBC
Book - "A Modern History of the Kurds"

Lots of good information and pictures out there regarding what happened.

Not in my interest to debate the fine details, other than it happened, and to keep from losing my only real point in this: I think it's crazy to say that because "only" 5,000 died instantly and thousands more suffered ill effects didn't qualify this as using a weapon of mass destruction. Saddam rained down silver canisters of whatever you choose to believe was loaded in them with one intent - to exterminate as many Kurds as possible. Whether that was instantly or through long-term illness due to poisoning of soil, air and water. I don't think anyone could look at the way this was carried out and determine it was a surgical strike aimed at a solid millitary target that had a few unfortunate civillian casualties. I'm sure it broke his heart that "only" 5,000 died. That was no the intent. Saddam referred to the Kurds as "rubbish" who had no intrinsic value to his country and they simply needed to be exterminated.

Why? Long-term pissing contest with them over independence, and punishment specifically for helping Iran.

tweoijfoi Offline
#20 Posted: Mon, Nov 1 2010, 3:24 PM EST
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
Thanks snowwolf. I'll check out that book when I get home. I saw many pictures and read some first-person anecdotes from survivors of the attack on Sunday. It was a horrific attack.

I understand words like "only" when speaking of mass losses of human life and dignity can seem uncaring, particularly given the way these people died. Speaking of human life as a number is hard enough. But sometimes it is neccessary and important to do so. I remember after the tsunami in 2004 when 240,000 people died and I thought about how the media and many people more closely follow and are more greatly impacted by the story of a missing girl and yet not terribly upset by that loss of life.

Sometimes I feel you do need to use the word "only", though. While every life is precious, difference between 5,000 and 50,000 precious lives are very different. And you can be glad Saddam wasn't able to get true WMDs--nukes or more potent chemical/biological weapons--or the entire population of Kurds may have been wiped out.

Saddam was a very evil man, and I am glad he is gone, but I wonder at what price to the U.S. does this come, and what are we to do about Kim in North Korean now that he actually has nukes, but we are already busy elsewhere.
HockeyDad Offline
#21 Posted: Mon, Nov 1 2010, 3:58 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,119
Yet you see how that turned out. That girl is still missing but we found the 240,000 bodies from the tsunami.
HockeyDad Offline
#22 Posted: Mon, Nov 1 2010, 4:00 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,119
The problem with Saddam not wiping out the Kurds is now the Turks will have to do it.
ZRX1200 Offline
#23 Posted: Mon, Nov 1 2010, 5:57 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,582
Le Hockey dad needs a rimshot emoticon......
ZRX1200 Offline
#24 Posted: Mon, Nov 1 2010, 6:25 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,582
BTW it wasn't just art. Rounds......I have seen pics of barrels that were found. Not from a website or source, but 1st hand from someone who had BTDT.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top