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

Last post 9 years ago by victor809. 17 replies replies.
I Told You So...
jpotts Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=Banner&module=span-ab-top-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0


The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons

By C. J. CHIVERS

The New York Times

From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.

The New York Times found 17 American service members and seven Iraqi police officers who were exposed to nerve or mustard agents after 2003. American officials said that the actual tally of exposed troops was slightly higher, but that the government’s official count was classified.

The secrecy fit a pattern. Since the outset of the war, the scale of the United States’ encounters with chemical weapons in Iraq was neither publicly shared nor widely circulated within the military. These encounters carry worrisome implications now that the Islamic State, a Qaeda splinter group, controls much of the territory where the weapons were found.

The American government withheld word about its discoveries even from troops it sent into harm’s way and from military doctors. The government’s secrecy, victims and participants said, prevented troops in some of the war’s most dangerous jobs from receiving proper medical care and official recognition of their wounds.

“I felt more like a guinea pig than a wounded soldier,” said a former Army sergeant who suffered mustard burns in 2007 and was denied hospital treatment and medical evacuation to the United States despite requests from his commander.

Congress, too, was only partly informed, while troops and officers were instructed to be silent or give deceptive accounts of what they had found. “ 'Nothing of significance’ is what I was ordered to say,” said Jarrod Lampier, a recently retired Army major who was present for the largest chemical weapons discovery of the war: more than 2,400 nerve-agent rockets unearthed in 2006 at a former Republican Guard compound.

Jarrod L. Taylor, a former Army sergeant on hand for the destruction of mustard shells that burned two soldiers in his infantry company, joked of “wounds that never happened” from “that stuff that didn’t exist.” The public, he said, was misled for a decade. “I love it when I hear, ‘Oh there weren’t any chemical weapons in Iraq,’ ” he said. “There were plenty.”






As for the rest of the article, despite the New York Times clinging to "but it doesn't justify the administrations justifications for going to war" leftist, idiotic pap they seem to forget that Iraq was supposed to hand over ALL of its munitions to UN inspectors. This was one of the specific points on the reasons for invading a second time.

Stuff was relabeled to "fool foreign inspectors."

Likewise, well after the invasion, some of these stockpiles were discovered as people were actively digging them up. Which means they were neither "forgotten" or "no longer dangerous."

I told you so. Did I mention that already?

Oh, and wait until the New York times decides to report on Iraq's covert nuclear weapons program. I got time...

The question everyone should ask is: why did they put a lid on this? It is clear that the Bush Administration knew all of this, and yet purposely sat on it.

Just like they sat on the covert nuclear program.
ZRX1200 Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,628
I have stated here multiple times that I saw first hand photos of 55gal drums of chemical agents. Lefties don't care, and I still don't think Iraq posed enough of a direct threat to justify the coat of blood treasure we've paid.

At least the last president got congressional approval unlike the Kenyan.
victor809 Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
These were all 1980s produced weapons. We all knew he had old chemical warheads. We sold them to him, or taught him how to make them.

The invasion was justified by an "active chemical warfare program".... not a 25 year old one. You're still wrong.
fishinguitarman Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2006
Posts: 69,152
victor809 wrote:
These were all 1980s produced weapons. We all knew he had old chemical warheads. We sold them to him, or taught him how to make them.

The invasion was justified by an "active chemical warfare program".... not a 25 year old one. You're still wrong.




And you're always right! Applause Applause Applause Applause Applause Applause Applause Applause
victor809 Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
fishinguitarman wrote:
And you're always right! Applause Applause Applause Applause Applause Applause Applause Applause



While I appreciate your faith in me, I have stated specific instances where I was wrong.
fishinguitarman Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2006
Posts: 69,152
victor809 wrote:
While I appreciate your faith in me, I have stated specific instances where I was wrong.





Get outta town! I just don't believe that!Speak to the hand
victor809 Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
fishinguitarman wrote:
Get outta town! I just don't believe that!Speak to the hand


You can choose not to believe that, but you'd be wrong.
fishinguitarman Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2006
Posts: 69,152
Sarcasm



ummmm.....duh?
nitro6526 Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 09-13-2010
Posts: 1,022
Actually you are wrong Victor.
victor809 Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
nitro6526 wrote:
Actually you are wrong Victor.


You're gonna have to expand upon that...
DrafterX Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,560
nitro6526 wrote:
A c t u a l l y _ y o u _ a r e _ w r o n g _ V i c t o r ......




ThumpUp
CruzJ Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 04-17-2014
Posts: 222
Anybody else ever stay at Camp Taji between those years? Military base just north of Baghdad. Anywho, it was huge with and had a ton of old buildings. One of those buildings was completely boarded up, fence and -tina wire thrown all around it. We were told back in '06 it was one of Chemical Ali's little playpens where he'd conjure up whatever craziness went through his head. Our guys found it, didn't have the resources to deal with it at the time, and just closed it off to everybody. Not sure how true it is, but it was one creepy ass building.
nitro6526 Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 09-13-2010
Posts: 1,022
I don't know. It was just fun to say you were wrong.
victor809 Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
nitro6526 wrote:
I don't know. It was just fun to say you were wrong.



:) fair enough.
cacman Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
victor809 wrote:
These were all 1980s produced weapons. We all knew he had old chemical warheads. We sold them to him, or taught him how to make them.

The invasion was justified by an "active chemical warfare program".... not a 25 year old one. You're still wrong.

These 1980 produced weapons could still be detonated? Yes?
These 1980 produced weapons could have been maintained and upgraded since we sold them to him, or taught him how to make them? Yes?
We still have active land-mines going off in Vietnam? Yes?


Just because they are "old" does this make them any less dangerous? Or more dangerous?

Would you feel safer if your disenfranchised neighbor began stock-piling old 1980 produced weapons?
We let Syria off the hook for their weapons.
HockeyDad Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,163
#blamejameis
victor809 Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
cacman wrote:
These 1980 produced weapons could still be detonated? Yes?
These 1980 produced weapons could have been maintained and upgraded since we sold them to him, or taught him how to make them? Yes?
We still have active land-mines going off in Vietnam? Yes?


Just because they are "old" does this make them any less dangerous? Or more dangerous?

Would you feel safer if your disenfranchised neighbor began stock-piling old 1980 produced weapons?
We let Syria off the hook for their weapons.


The argument (as I remember it... this was a decade ago) was that Iraq was not allowing UN inspectors in to its facilities. Bush used that to argue they must be manufacturing chemical, biological or nuclear weaponry. We invaded. We haven't had any indication they manufactured anything during that time yet.

From the article posted, it doesn't sound like any of the 80s weapons were maintained (read the article. they're being found buried in holes, rusty, leaking etc).

I don't care if my disenfranchised neighbor stockpiles 80s weaponry. I believe in the 2nd amendment rights. He has the right to a fully functioning 1980s nuke if he wants one.
Users browsing this topic
Guest