NYT Long Form: The Secret Casualties of Iraq's Abandoned Chemical Weapons

[zoogs]

NYT Long Form: The Secret Casualties of Iraq's Abandoned Chemical Weapons

 

The United States had invaded Iraq to reduce the risk of the weapons of mass destruction that it presumed Mr. Hussein still possessed. And after years of encountering and handling Iraqs old chemical arms, it had retroactively informed the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in 2009 that it had recovered more than 4,500 chemical weapons.

 

But it had not shared this data publicly. And as it prepared to withdraw, old stocks set loose after the invasion were still circulating. Al Muthanna had still not been cleaned up.

 

...

 

The Iraqi troops who stood at that entrance are no longer there. The compound, never entombed, is now controlled by the Islamic State.

[NUance]

In case after case, participants said, analysis of these warheads and shells reaffirmed intelligence failures. First, the American government did not find what it had been looking for at the war’s outset, then it failed to prepare its troops and medical corps for the aged weapons it did find.

 

 

U.S. Intelligence failures. Par for the course.

[carlfense]

^^^basically what StPaulHusker's acquaintance said.

[StPaulHusker]

^^^basically what StPaulHusker's acquaintance said.

Thank you for the recognition. Tschu is unusually quiet.

[tschu]

 

^^^basically what StPaulHusker's acquaintance said.

Thank you for the recognition. Tschu is unusually quiet.

 

 

Several things.

 

1. I'm picky about sources. I don't get my information from *some dude that poster StPaulHusker talked to* - basically thirdhand information through two people I have never met. So no, I had no reason to take that information at face value.

 

2. Yes, it appears we did find chemical weapons.

 

3. Yes, I am still correct that we did not find weapons of mass destruction. These weapons were buried, stashed away, degraded, corroded, essentially destroyed. Non-functional. We did not find weapons of mass destruction. We found a junkyard of broken warheads. They were deadly to those who encountered them or tried to clean them up, but could never be fired against an enemy.

 

4. I'm not so stupid that I entrench myself in positions like I see many others do. So yes, when I get proper evidence from a credible source that we found some old chemical weapons, sure. It appears that your acquaintance was absolutely correct. But given that my previous statements were based on our intelligence of alleged weapons of mass destruction, which we did not find, I am still correct on that count.

 

 

lol @ your "unusually quiet" shot. Yeah, between that ENTIRE stretch between midnight last night and 8:00AM this morning I both did not see this thread and did not post in it. WHERE WERE YOU AT TSCHU??? BENGHAZIIIIIII

[zoogs]

I'm not sure where all that is coming from, but the article is very clear on the point that all weapons manufactured predated the 1991 First Gulf War, and suggests the inconvenience of that particular fact is what led to these soldiers getting swept under the rug.

[carlfense]

I'm not sure where all that is coming from, but the article is very clear on the point that all weapons manufactured predated the 1991 First Gulf War, and suggests the inconvenience of that particular fact is what led to these soldiers getting swept under the rug.

And the added inconvenience that we might know something about the origin of those weapons . . .

[tschu]

Yeah...

 

Case #1000000 of the citizen/ground troops paying the price for the shenanigans of their superiors

[StPaulHusker]

 

 

^^^basically what StPaulHusker's acquaintance said.

 

Thank you for the recognition. Tschu is unusually quiet.

Several things.

 

1. I'm picky about sources. I don't get my information from *some dude that poster StPaulHusker talked to* - basically thirdhand information through two people I have never met. So no, I had no reason to take that information at face value.

 

2. Yes, it appears we did find chemical weapons.

 

3. Yes, I am still correct that we did not find weapons of mass destruction. These weapons were buried, stashed away, degraded, corroded, essentially destroyed. Non-functional. We did not find weapons of mass destruction. We found a junkyard of broken warheads. They were deadly to those who encountered them or tried to clean them up, but could never be fired against an enemy.

 

4. I'm not so stupid that I entrench myself in positions like I see many others do. So yes, when I get proper evidence from a credible source that we found some old chemical weapons, sure. It appears that your acquaintance was absolutely correct. But given that my previous statements were based on our intelligence of alleged weapons of mass destruction, which we did not find, I am still correct on that count.

 

 

lol @ your "unusually quiet" shot. Yeah, between that ENTIRE stretch between midnight last night and 8:00AM this morning I both did not see this thread and did not post in it. WHERE WERE YOU AT TSCHU??? BENGHAZIIIIIII

I'm sure it doesn't matter to you but my comment was just a joke. We are all going to have differing opinions about all topics. You have no reason to believe my colleague since you don't know either of us. But I will trust the word of someone that was there.