This is quoted directly from the New York Times article you cite.

*not_secure_link*www.nytimes.com/in...casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0

No usable weapons of mass destruction. Just old junk piles of abandoned munitions that unfortunately were still toxic to people who handled them or were exposed to them. If anything this story is an indictment of the US military and government's failure to train and protect the personnel who were likely to encounter them.

 

@randy Yeah its true they found some chem weapons but if you read the whole article not just the cherry picked section this clown posted you see they were from the fucking 1980s not some massive wmd program...

 

The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale.

After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush insisted that Mr. Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program, in defiance of international will and at the world’s risk. United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims.

Then, during the long occupation, American troops began encountering old chemical munitions in hidden caches and roadside bombs. Typically 155-millimeter artillery shells or 122-millimeter rockets, they were remnants of an arms program Iraq had rushed into production in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war.

All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.

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.

Participants in the chemical weapons discoveries said the United States suppressed knowledge of finds for multiple reasons, including that the government bristled at further acknowledgment it had been wrong. “They needed something to say that after Sept. 11 Saddam used chemical rounds,” Mr. Lampier said. “And all of this was from the pre-1991 era.”

Others pointed to another embarrassment. In five of six incidents in which troops were wounded by chemical agents, the munitions appeared to have been designed in the United States, manufactured in Europe and filled in chemical agent production lines built in Iraq by Western companies.

From that same article.

 

Now Hardrive you didn't read the actual article yourself did you? No you got sucked into some brainwashed parrot right wing false propaganda and just plastered it up on the form without even bothering to check to see if it was bullshit or not. Because once again here is what the actual article says.

*not_secure_link*www.nytimes.com/in...casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0

Now, I would be embarrassed if I were you.

 

Sorry. I had no way of knowing you were going to post this comprehensive take down. If I had instead of posting my very similar post and just said; "Yeah what he said."

 

lol Its ok ...no one listens to me anyways..

 

Oh, no no nooooo. It's much easier to lol and keep calling people clowns for actually having the balls to state what they believe than it is to tell you the (alleged) real reasons. In other words, "I know but I'm not telling. Nyah nyah!" And let's put gum in Lisa's hair when we go out for recess.

 

Someone that tries to spin that nyt article into justifying the iraq war has no interest in the real reasons we invaded...

 

Saddam trying to move off the petrodollar , war profits and Israel are the reasons...

 

I really cant believe in the year 2015 you cons are still pretending youre retarded about the war....yall are not this stupid..

 

I wasn't using the NYT article to justify the war in Iraq. If you look at the original post you'll find I was just asking for the forum readers to look into the report and comment on the article. I was looking for dialogue, not combat.

However I did post a list of the reasons we invaded Iraq. (You'll find it at the end of the first page of this thread.) The reasons had to do with Hossain's non compliance with the cease-fire agreement he signed to end our attack on his troops while we were driving him out of Kuwait. That list included his refusal to allow UN inspections from doing their job and making sure he had no WMD. Therefore it was not unreasonable for us to conclude that the reason Hossain stopped the inspections was because he had something to hide.

You've concluded that because we found no WMD after the war, they never existed. Considering that Hossain used Chemical Weapons on the Kurds and his own people before the war, it is more likely that Hossain hid or got rid of the evidence during his many interruptions of the UN inspections before the war.

Even without absolute proof that Hossain had WMDs, we had sufficient reason to go in after him. The main reasons were his violation of the terms of the cease-fire that he signed with the coalition and his refusal to abide by the UN resolutions. That and the fact that we could not back away from his defiant challenge to come and get him if we dared. Hossain defied, not only us, but the international community and the UN when he refused to abide by the terms of the cease-fire. Letting him get away with that would have dangerous consequences for the region and the world. Hossain was a war criminal who had attacked or threatened his own people and almost all his neighbors. The US could not back down from that fight.

Of course I understand that you see things differently and consider my opinions stupid and silly, but that's okay. You have a right to your opinion.

HD

 

Dont give me that bs...you either A. Didnt even read the nyt article..or ..2. you were being misleading on purpose...i suspect number 2

 

No its more likely those were the fucking chem weapons we supplied him with in the 80s...not part of the massive active wmd program (that didnt exist) that bush used to scare you chumps into supporting the war.

 

So Bush made it all up? Hmmmmmmmmm. I seem to recall that THE WHOLE FUCKING WORLD (INCLUDING THE DEMS) said that he had them.

You can't rewrite history, you fucking libs and tin foil hatters! YOUR OWN GUYS said that he had them too, you lying hypocrites!

 

I never said he had fucking wmds...and even if he did lots of countries have wmds big deal..

 

We fucking supplied him with wmds in the 80s

 

The conswervitives are the ones trying to rewrite history and claim we found his wmds ...

 

Yes, I think you are right. Your suspicions about my motives are number 2. In fact, your whole argument is number 2... and that's because you seem to have a great deal of difficulty understanding what I am trying to say. That's probably because your mind is already made-up and you can't see anything but your point of view. That is a pity because the whole point of academic debate is to arrive at the truth, and in doing so improve our understanding.

You keep harping on the NYT article and what WMDs were found and when, as if that were the whole reason for the Iraqi war. The world is a far more complicated place then you think. I posted my short list of the things I thought triggered the Iraqi war. There are, of course, many more reason... most of which we will never know. That would include the greed and manipulative power of those special interest groups that profit from war. I don't presume to know everything... or understand everything. How can I when so much is hidden and so many lies are being told. (Not by you and I but by those who know the truth but wish to cover it up.)

Keep searching for the truth, but keep an open mind. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." W.S.

HD
.

 

Bullshit. First, your motivations were obvious from the beginning because you posted totally false, already debunked, right wing propaganda. Nothing more than another out and out right wing lie. But your desire to keep pushing false right wing talking points was even more obvious when you came up with your"other" reasons for going to war in Iraq.

Because you see that is a case of going to war with another country and then making up the reasons for it afterwards. None of those reasons were the ones given to talk the nation and congress into going to war with Iraq. The reasons given were Saddam having ACTIVE WMD programs and weapons, including nuclear, and a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq. Both of those turned out to be totally false claims by the Bush Administration and so we went to war for a pack of lies.

And now you come along spreading those lies, and making up phony reasons and excuses for a war that killed 4491 Americans for a pack of lies, and try to pass yourself off as being objective with an open mind?

Like I said; bullshit.

 

I dont mean to come off as a dick but i dont take lightly to people trying to downplay or white wash this war and the lies it was built on....shit aint a game people died and had their fucking arms and legs blown off...your motives seem pretty transparent to me and i find it fucking disgusting and disrespectful.