WMDs found in Iraq?

[Wrangor]

Sort of....Just an interesting article. I know this will bring the usual comments out of the woodwork, but wanted to share. Was on my feed this morning.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0

 

[TownieDeac]

Posted about it in the Iraq 3.0 thread. Dunno what to make of it really, the timeline is a little confusing, and I'm not sure I fully understand the coverup.

 

[Wrangor]

Ah - didn't see that. Me either. I am not sure what anyone has to gain from keeping it silent. The Bush administration certainly wouldn't have wanted to keep it silent (I wouldn't think).

 

[TownieDeac]

Exactly. My initial thoughts were that people got sick and/or died from the effects of the weapons and the military handled it poorly and tried to cover it up. Regardless, seems like the larger political narrative would have trumped any small mistake like this.

 

[silk]

I've talked to 3 or 4 soldiers who said chemical weapon residue was commonly found. They also said lots of areas were off limits from searches. None said serious amounts were found.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

I've talked to 3 or 4 soldiers who said chemical weapon residue was commonly found. They also said lots of areas were off limits from searches. None said serious amounts were found.

 

[RJKarl]

From the article:

"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."

The article clearly states Saddam didn't have an ongoing program as W and his cabal lied about to scare us into a war.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

From the article:

"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."

The article clearly states Saddam didn't have an ongoing program as W and his cabal lied about to scare us into a war.

 

[RJKarl]

It seems they found the WMDs Reagan and Daddy Bush gave Saddam.

 

[WakeandBake]

sigh

Saddam boasted of WMDs to stave off the Iranians. He had a few rinky-dink ones. It was a bluff to keep the Iranians, his immediate problem, guessing. Dumbfuck America swallowed it up when the Wolfowitz/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush cabal used that bluff to go into Iraq and liberate the worlds second-largest oil reserve for lucrative Production Sharing Agreements for Western-friendly firms. America was hurting from 9-11, and was ripe for a good bamboozling. Media hysteria worked for the cabal, that was easy, and the war was launched. Didn't hurt Halliburton and other firms who got no-bid contracts for supplies. Saddam Hussein was a piece of shit, so it was sold as a win-win for everyone, and lapped up. Except, you know, in the long run it really was a loss for the American taxpayer, the American soldier, over a hundred thousand innocent women, children, and non-military men in the region who were blasted to shit, hearts and minds, etc. It opened a power vacuum in the region that is now being filled by ISIS, etc.

But hey, he gassed the Kurds, so Iraq is "better off" now. Amiright???

 

[pourdeac]

It seems they found the WMDs Reagan and Daddy Bush gave Saddam.

Most of it came from Europe, in particular Germany. US universities sent Iranian counterparts biologicals.

Saddam boasted of WMDs to stave off the Iranians. He had a few rinky-dink ones. It was a bluff to keep the Iranians, his immediate problem, guessing.

the Wolfowitz/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush cabal used that bluff to go into Iraq and liberate the worlds second-largest oil reserve for lucrative Production Sharing Agreements for Western-friendly firms.

Hussein used real chemical weapons on the Iranians, he wasn't bluffing. And they weren't "rinky-dinky" ones. He gassed the Kurds as well as some Iraqi towns in the south IIRC. The bluff was pretending like the program still existed post 1992 to keep the Iranians from invading.

Can you point to those lucrative oil contracts? At the time we were also supposedly going in to "steal" their oil. That obviously never happened. Then it was lucrative contracts for western firms and that never happened. Now you're saying western friendly. I don't know much about the latter.

 

[WakeandBake]

Most of it came from Europe, in particular Germany. US universities sent Iranian counterparts biologicals.

Hussein used real chemical weapons on the Iranians, he wasn't bluffing. And they weren't "rinky-dinky" ones. He gassed the Kurds as well as some Iraqi towns in the south IIRC. The bluff was pretending like the program still existed post 1992 to keep the Iranians from invading.

Can you point to those lucrative oil contracts? At the time we were also supposedly going in to "steal" their oil. That obviously never happened. Then it was lucrative contracts for western firms and that never happened. Now you're saying western friendly. I don't know much about the latter.

Sure.

From 2012 -

According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), Iraq's oil reserves of 112 billion barrels ranks second in the world, only behind Saudi Arabia. The EIA also estimates that up to 90 per cent of the country remains unexplored, due to decades of US-led wars and economic sanctions.

"Prior to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, US and other western oil companies were all but completely shut out of Iraq's oil market," oil industry analyst Antonia Juhasz told Al Jazeera. "But thanks to the invasion and occupation, the companies are now back inside Iraq and producing oil there for the first time since being forced out of the country in 1973."

Juhasz, author of the books The Tyranny of Oil and The Bush Agenda, said that while US and other western oil companies have not yet received all they had hoped the US-led invasion of Iraq would bring them, "They've certainly done quite well for themselves, landing production contracts for some of the world's largest remaining oil fields under some of the world's most lucrative terms."

Dr Abdulhay Yahya Zalloum, an international oil consultant and economist who has spent nearly 50 years in the oil business in the US, Europe, Asia and the Middle East, agrees that western oil companies have "obtained concessions in Iraq's major [oil] fields", despite "there being a lack of transparency and clarity of vision regarding the legal issues".

Dr Zalloum added that he believes western oil companies have successfully acquired the lions' share of Iraq's oil, "but they gave a little piece of the cake for China and some of the other countries and companies to keep them silent".

In a speech at Fort Bragg in the wake of the US military withdrawal, US President Barack Obama said the US was leaving behind "a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people".

Of this prospect, Dr Zalloum was blunt.

"The last thing the US cares about in the Middle East is democracy. It is about oil, full stop."

It is widely understood that Iraq will require at least $200bn in physical and human investments to bring its production capacity up to 12m bpd, from its current production levels.

Juhasz explained that ExxonMobil, BP and Shell were among the oil companies that "played the most aggressive roles in lobbying their governments to ensure that the invasion would result in an Iraq open to foreign oil companies".


"They succeeded," she added. "They are all back in. BP and CNPC [China National Petroleum Corporation] finalised the first new oil contract issued by Baghdad for the largest oil field in the country, the 17 billion barrel super giant Rumaila field. ExxonMobil, with junior partner Royal Dutch Shell, won a bidding war against Russia's Lukoil (and junior partner ConocoPhillips) for the 8.7 billion barrel West Qurna Phase 1 project. Italy's Eni SpA, with California's Occidental Petroleum and the Korea Gas Corp, was awarded Iraq's Zubair oil field with estimated reserves of 4.4 billion barrels. Shell was the lead partner with Malaysia's Petroliam Nasional Bhd., or Petronas, winning a contract for the super-giant Majnoon field, one of the largest in the world, with estimated reserves of up to 25 billion."

You're right, the PSA's have been difficult to get signed, but no worries..

"The public is against privatisation, which is one reason why the law has not passed," added Juhasz. "The contracts are enacting a form of privatisation without public discourse and essentially at the butt of a gun - these contracts have all been awarded during a foreign military occupation with the largest contracts going to companies from the foreign occupiers' countries. It seems that democracy and equity are the two largest losers in this oil battle."

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/12/2011122813134071641.html


These are production sharing agreements. They didn't just steal the oil, they simply sign agreements to make a shit ton of money getting it out and to market. That's fine under normal circumstances, but when you lobby your government to fucking blast the country with the oil to shit with a trillion dollar military machine, its kinda fucked up.

Anyone who still 'supports' the war, in any way shape or form, needs to take a serious look at the facts again in retrospect. It was a colossal lie for profit. I know, blame Bush blame Bush, but this is really really bad. Perhaps he was duped too, I don't think he is very bright, but Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rumsfeld IMO are as bad as Saddam Hussein.

 

[WakeandBake]

And that shit Barack Obama is right there with it

 

[pourdeac]

Exactly. My initial thoughts were that people got sick and/or died from the effects of the weapons and the military handled it poorly and tried to cover it up. Regardless, seems like the larger political narrative would have trumped any small mistake like this.

Part of the justification was the existence of unaccounted for "old" chemical weapons. Powell even noted a then recent discovery of chemical shells by inspectors in his UN speech. But most of their justification and worry was about new weapons. When reports came out..relatively early on...that chemical weapons had been found, it was dismissed by most as meaningless and that the chemicals were harmless. There was no political advantage to finding them, it just dredged up the "they lied" response. I can see why they just thought it better to keep quiet.

 

[RJKarl]

If the "weapons" weren't usable, then their existence is irrelevant. It would by like finding a gun that couldn't shoot. W and his cabal's main issue was the "ongoing" chemical and nuclear programs. There was no evidence of their existence. The CIA, MI5, German intelligence, the Mossad and others knew Curveball was a fraud. It is impossible not to call out W and his cabal for telling those lies.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

If the "weapons" weren't usable, then their existence is irrelevant. It would by like finding a gun that couldn't shoot. W and his cabal's main issue was the "ongoing" chemical and nuclear programs. There was no evidence of their existence. The CIA, MI5, German intelligence, the Mossad and others knew Curveball was a fraud. It is impossible not to call out W and his cabal for telling those lies.

um

 

[pourdeac]

These are production sharing agreements. They didn't just steal the oil, they simply sign agreements to make a shit ton of money getting it out and to market. That's fine under normal circumstances, but when you lobby your government to fucking blast the country with the oil to shit with a trillion dollar military machine, its kinda fucked up.

Anyone who still 'supports' the war, in any way shape or form, needs to take a serious look at the facts again in retrospect. It was a colossal lie for profit. I know, blame Bush blame Bush, but this is really really bad. Perhaps he was duped too, I don't think he is very bright, but Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rumsfeld IMO are as bad as Saddam Hussein.

Thanks. I don't think anyone was hiding the fact that western companies would get back into Iraq and make money. At one time didn't they claim the war would pay for itself because of opening up oil?

IMO what happened in 2002 was just an extension of 1991-92. I think we were sort of backed into a corner and there was no easy way to unwind it other than go in and finish what we should have finished in 1992. Oil was absolutely a part of it, but I think there were a lot of other reasons that when combined almost made it necessary. That's not really "supporting" the war, but then again I don't see it as a one-off situation. If you supported 1991 then 2002 had to happen at some point, either in 1992 or in 2002. IMO it was all caused by adhering the balance of power doctrine more than anything else.

 

[THE DEUCE]

now wait.....I thought that all WMD were sent to Syria? (according to Repubs)

 

[RJKarl]

Thanks. I don't think anyone was hiding the fact that western companies would get back into Iraq and make money. At one time didn't they claim the war would pay for itself because of opening up oil?

IMO what happened in 2002 was just an extension of 1991-92. I think we were sort of backed into a corner and there was no easy way to unwind it other than go in and finish what we should have finished in 1992. Oil was absolutely a part of it, but I think there were a lot of other reasons that when combined almost made it necessary. That's not really "supporting" the war, but then again I don't see it as a one-off situation. If you supported 1991 then 2002 had to happen at some point, either in 1992 or in 2002. IMO it was all caused by adhering the balance of power doctrine more than anything else.

The weapons were degraded by 2002 and there was NO ongoing program for WMDs in Iraq in 2002. It is indisputable that there was no ongoing program.

 

[WakeandBake]

Thanks. I don't think anyone was hiding the fact that western companies would get back into Iraq and make money. At one time didn't they claim the war would pay for itself because of opening up oil?

IMO what happened in 2002 was just an extension of 1991-92. I think we were sort of backed into a corner and there was no easy way to unwind it other than go in and finish what we should have finished in 1992. Oil was absolutely a part of it, but I think there were a lot of other reasons that when combined almost made it necessary. That's not really "supporting" the war, but then again I don't see it as a one-off situation. If you supported 1991 then 2002 had to happen at some point, either in 1992 or in 2002. IMO it was all caused by adhering the balance of power doctrine more than anything else.

Fair enough. I believe the opportunity presented itself (9/11 emotion and WMD bluff) to control and exploit the largest untapped cheap-oil source in the world, human life and tax dollars be damned. Follow the money.