[Grizzly]

There actually were chemical weapons in Iraq. It had to be kept secret 'cuz drawing attention to dangerous weapons in an politically unstable country is not a good idea.

The bad news is off course that IS is now in control of chemical weaponry.

[Mr. Vega]

We always knew he had some chemical weapons. He used them, at first against Iran with our support.

[Dragon]

Indeed. Once again, the US was hoist by it's own petard. I think that's why they kept it secret, someone would inevitably point out that not only they did know about them, they were very happy to see Iran getting hit by them... When they talked about "WMDs", most people (including me, at the time) thought "Nukes". Chemical weapons can be just as bad, though, and Iraq had a lot of them.

[Herra Tohtori]

Well, the casus belli that the US-led coalition presented prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq was not just that they had weapons of mass destruction (existing stockpiles leftover from Iraq-Iran war were more or less a fact), but that Saddam Hussein was actively running a programme to develop and produce new WMD's. The phrase "mobile weapons laboratory" was being thrown around a lot, as I recall. In particular, "Mobile Production Facilities" for biological agents, rather than chemical.

To my knowledge, no such weapons development programme was found, no mobile weapons laboratories were found, the intelligence reports that the whole thing was based have pretty much been shown to have been either inaccurate or outright falsified in order to generate a suitable justification for the war, and to top it all, the informant himself has openly admitted that he basically made up the whole thing.

In my opinion the only one who regained at least some dignity after the fiasco of Iraq war was Colin Powell, and that's because he had at least high enough ethical standards to resign and step off from daily politics.

[Dragon]

Ironically enough, this intervention is in a very large part responsible for the emergence of IS and causing those leftover WMDs to fall into the hands of dangerous terrorists... Go figure. Sometimes, I miss the times when nations went to war not to bring "freedom" (people need to be free after all, whether they want it or not...), "democracy" (everyone can vote! We'll likely soon find someone worth voting on) and "Western morality" (well, it's Western for sure, but that's about it...), but to simply annex each other. It wasn't really different from now, but at least it was more honest and less convoluted. It seems like we really didn't change or "evolve" much since 19th century, it's just that now, we've taken to convincing ourselves that we did.

[InsaneBaron]

There actually were chemical weapons in Iraq. It had to be kept secret 'cuz drawing attention to dangerous weapons in an politically unstable country is not a good idea.

The bad news is off course that IS is now in control of chemical weaponry.

... yikes.

[Klaustrophobia]

I have an internet friend who does CBRN stuff for the Air Force.  Not a field person herself, but told me way back when this was actually going on she personally knew people who had taken away stockpiles of chemical weapons.  Someone going off on the "WMDs are a lie" rhetoric back then really pissed her off.  I wonder if she's got a long list of I told you sos to dish out.

[Mars]

A good example of why, even when the stakes are nuclear level - going to war and  causing widespread political destabilization of a state isn't always the best option.

[Beskargam]

I think the dual invasions were a mistake, but even so once we committed that we half-assed it. Neither government that we propped up in Iraq or Afghanistan was ready or effective at doing their job.

[Dragon]

Indeed. The worst thing is, I don't think US was quite prepared to go all the way through even when they started. In fact, the very idea was badly conceived, and to actually subvert the region would likely require a lot more than the US will ever be willing to do. They essentially pulled in, ousted dictators and pulled out, hoping that "power of democracy" or something will make a stable, US-friendly government. It turned out Middle Eastern people don't quite work the same way as US people (same problem as with US and Russia - their way of thinking is different on a fundamental level), and the place reverted to what it was before the invasion, then quickly got worse because there was no single, strong leadership.

The US seems to be neither capable of playing by the local rules nor imposing their own with any degree of efficiency. The people in charge (nor the public, for that matter) either did not grasp what it'd take to truly "win" that war, or were not willing to go through with it (because that'd require doing some very "un-American" things). In a way, the situation was similar to what happened in Vietnam - "Let us declare victory and get the hell out". Only this time, the fallout is considerably worse.

[Phantom Hoover]

Someone going off on the "WMDs are a lie" rhetoric back then really pissed her off.

yeah, how ****ing dare the public get angry when the military lie to them

[Aardwolf]

Well, the casus belli that the US-led coalition presented prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq was not just that they had weapons of mass destruction (existing stockpiles leftover from Iraq-Iran war were more or less a fact), but that Saddam Hussein was actively running a programme to develop and produce new WMD's. The phrase "mobile weapons laboratory" was being thrown around a lot, as I recall. In particular, "Mobile Production Facilities" for biological agents, rather than chemical.

To my knowledge, no such weapons development programme was found, no mobile weapons laboratories were found, the intelligence reports that the whole thing was based have pretty much been shown to have been either inaccurate or outright falsified in order to generate a suitable justification for the war, and to top it all, the informant himself has openly admitted that he basically made up the whole thing.

+ the stuff about the aluminum tubes

[Klaustrophobia]

Someone going off on the "WMDs are a lie" rhetoric back then really pissed her off.

yeah, how ****ing dare the public get angry when the military lie to them

  

the point being, they were wrong, and she knew it.  but let no opportunity for a snide remark pass.

[Aardwolf]

Is it really wrong, though? "Chemical weapons" do not necessarily equal WMDs. What sort of scale are we talking about?



Edit: article says artillery shells for delivering mustard gas, x thousands.

A nuke is a WMD. A [whatever unit] of anthrax is a WMD.

An artillery shell of mustard gas is not a WMD. Even if they were all detonated as one, I don't think it's anywhere on the scale of the others.

[jr2]

I think the dual invasions were a mistake, but even so once we committed that we half-assed it. Neither government that we propped up in Iraq or Afghanistan was ready or effective at doing their job.

I agree that we half-assed it.  If you're going to do it, right or wrong, don't half-ass it, cause half-assing an invasion is always more wrong, even moreso than wrongly invading full force.  If you're going to kick some ass, then kick it to the curb until it pleads for mercy, don't play with it... because, unlike person vs person combat, in a war, innocent people always get hurt, and prolonging the fight means more casualties of war.

IMHO.

We did this already with Vietnam.  (Well, then we compounded that error by ditching the S Vietnamese instead of supporting them like we promised we would.)  Of course, back then we were afraid of provoking the Soviets.

[Scotty]

Is it really wrong, though? "Chemical weapons" do not necessarily equal WMDs. What sort of scale are we talking about?



Edit: article says artillery shells for delivering mustard gas, x thousands.

A nuke is a WMD. A [whatever unit] of anthrax is a WMD.

An artillery shell of mustard gas is not a WMD. Even if they were all detonated as one, I don't think it's anywhere on the scale of the others.

Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear.  Those are the categories of WMDs.  They are called such because they are utterly indiscriminate regarding who is affected.  The actual size of the payload is absolutely, totally irrelevent.

And before you get cheeky with technicalities regarding hazardous common household items and components, the key phrase here is weapons.  This equipment is constructed for the sole purpose of rendering uninhabitable an area by violent means.

[Mars]

. . . aren't bombs are utterly indiscriminate of who they kill, unless you're counting advanced guidance techniques? In which case, can't chemical agents have those too?

[Aardwolf]

Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear.  Those are the categories of WMDs.  They are called such because they are utterly indiscriminate regarding who is affected.  The actual size of the payload is absolutely, totally irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant; it is the defining property that makes a weapon into a WMD. Ask anybody which of these two definitions for WMD is more correct:

1. any weapon which causes destruction on a massive scale
2. a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapon, regardless of the scale of destruction it causes

[AtomicClucker]

Iraq and Syria, the gift that just keeps giving and giving...

[Scotty]

. . . aren't bombs are utterly indiscriminate of who they kill, unless you're counting advanced guidance techniques? In which case, can't chemical agents have those too?

Compared to WMDs, no.  You'll notice that all of the listed types are either devastation on a massive scale (nuclear), or are capable of spreading beyond ground zero with few it no methods of direction.  Chemical, biological, and radiological threats are all hugely dangerous because a stiff breeze contaminates a massive area.  That's why they're classed as WMDs to begin with.

Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear.  Those are the categories of WMDs.  They are called such because they are utterly indiscriminate regarding who is affected.  The actual size of the payload is absolutely, totally irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant; it is the defining property that makes a weapon into a WMD. Ask anybody which of these two definitions for WMD is more correct:

1. any weapon which causes destruction on a massive scale
2. a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapon, regardless of the scale of destruction it causes

I'm going to be blunt on this one because otherwise I don't think you'll realize how serious I'm being:

You are flat out, unequivocally, utterly wrong.  Most people not familiar with the field are wrong too.  Public perception is not a factor in the classification of WMDs.