ISIS seizes Saddam's chemical weapons

[bendog]

ISIS seizes Saddam's chemical weapons
Ok let me get this straight. The US has been searching for Saddam's WMD's for over 10 years and failed to find them now ISIS has been in Iraq for less than a month and they find the hidden cache of WMDs. Someone is trying to blow smoke up someone's ass here. Looks like they are stoking the fires of fear in the US to get justification for more US involvement.

Iraq crisis: Isis jihadists 'seize Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons stockpile' - live - Telegraph

No one disputed Saddam had stockpiles of mustard and sarin gas. However, all that was disclosed, cataloged in accordance with UN and US agreements. Bushii contended Saddam had ongoing nookler (the nonexistent Niger Uranium and centrifuges) and biological programs (colin powell's fantasy "mobile labs" that in effect were weather balloon units). That was all bullshit spin by cheney, libby and Judith Miller being willingly fooled.

Isis apparently has overrun a stockpile. The gas is enclosed in concrete vaults, and it was very unstable in 2003, and probably is more so now. It's more dangerous to Isis than anyone else at this pt.

Nah it's just an old factory from the 80's, got blown up in the first Gulf War in the 90's.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/iraq-isis...emical-weapons-storage-163210340.html#eAJhlfo

"The majority of the Al Muthanna complex was bombed during Desert Storm, completely incapacitating Iraq's chemical weapon production capabilities, however, large stockpiles of chemical weapons and bulk agent survived," a 2004 CIA report read.
Most of Iraq's chemical munitions were then destroyed and disposed under the supervision of the UN. Some partially destroyed contents were left over and sealed in two bunkers at Al Muthanna.
The complex has now fallen into the hands of Isis, which has conquered large swathes of Iraq in a lightning campaign backed by Baathists and other former loyalists to Hussein.
US Military officials said that they would have not left chemical material there after the 2011 pull out, if it represented a security threat.

Just a bunch of degrading, but still poisonous, chemicals. The OP is just "blowing smoke."

Zanders said any effort by the militants to access the materials -- believed to include sarin and mustard gas -- would be "extremely difficult" and would likely put them at more risk than anyone else. "It is a very delicate operation (which) one has to undertake fully protected."

Zanders also notes that any sarin still at the complex would almost certainly be degraded to the point of uselessness, as the weaponized gas Iraq once had was "highly unstable... (it) broke down very fast."

Zanders, and a second chemical weapons expert and former British military official, Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, agreed there was no evidence at present to suggest ISIS has the sort of protective gear required to safely handle the materials at the al-Muthanna complex.

Even if they were able to access the degraded chemical agents, it's unlikely they could do much with them as they have no known means of dispersing the materials.

While ISIS could theoretically try and spread a chemical agent using an improvised bomb, Zanders and de Bretton-Gordon agreed that the explosion would effectively destroy much of the agent on impact.
ISIS battles for Iraq's Baiji refinery; experts play down significance of al-Muthanna chemical complex capture - CBS News

 

[Plasmaball]

Carbie use to sing that mantra as if he was the author of it personally. LOL What's wrong? Not having a good year? ;-)

You were more interesting when you were complaining about menopause ad nauseum.

wait i thought she was in her 20's? At this rate i think she's a sock

 

[Plasmaball]

The 6 freed Jihadists including Berghdal should attend the DNC convention in 2016 and pop off a few of those canisters to prove Den contention of diminished efficacy were correct

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

only if i get to use the 1500 missiles Reagan traded on the RNC

 

[Plasmaball]

Like the last time we had to go over this. Chemical weapons have a shelf life. Saddam's chemicals have expired awhile ago..

Also your title is a lie.

You would think if we thought the weapons where dangerous we would have removed them when we were there.

But then you would need a brain to think of this logically and the op doesn't have this

The so called "coalition of the willing" may have 'accomplished' little but the banner, and execution of Saddam. But the articles on the latest ISIS "victory" mention long abandoned factories; chemical weapons degrade quickly, as you noted. ISIS appears to be well funded though, with Saudi money involved, the group may start up the manufacture again. No point in endless repeats of "Bush started it!". Obama has the job of stopping ISIS.

i heard they robbed some bank ( central?) and they took 400 million.....they dont need the saudis

 

[NYcarbineer]

Carbie use to sing that mantra as if he was the author of it personally. LOL What's wrong? Not having a good year? ;-)

You were more interesting when you were complaining about menopause ad nauseum.

wait i thought she was in her 20's? At this rate i think she's a sock

There are human years, there are dog years, and there are internet years.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It never happened.

Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction.

The liberals have been insisting on it for years.

He had no wmd's whose smoking gun would be a Mushroom Cloud....that could hit us in 45 minutes....etc etc etc.

We knew he had chemical weapons, we supplied him with some of them, decades back, and he USED chemical weapons more than once on his own people....

but there was never a threat that he possessed nuclear wmds............ that the Smoking Gun would be us waking up to a Mushroom Cloud, as was said by the administration and its talking heads.


and on the topic...I wonder why when we were in Iraq, and before we left, we would not have destroyed any and all of the chemical weapons manufacturing facilities before we left?

I don't ever remember anyone suggest he did have nuclear weapons.

Nor do I remember anyone suggesting that he could fire an ICBM and hit the US in 45 minutes.

Bush, and Clinton before him, both were worried that Saddam would pass on what WMD he had to non-state actors, like a terrorist group. That was the danger. That is why we went to Iraq.

Then why didn't Bush invade Iran and North Korea?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't ever remember anyone suggest he did have nuclear weapons.

Nor do I remember anyone suggesting that he could fire an ICBM and hit the US in 45 minutes.

Bush, and Clinton before him, both were worried that Saddam would pass on what WMD he had to non-state actors, like a terrorist group. That was the danger. That is why we went to Iraq.

I remember the talk about mushroom clouds. The bushies were worrying more, supposedly, what the bad guys would do to us than the rest of the world.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't ever remember anyone suggest he did have nuclear weapons.

Nor do I remember anyone suggesting that he could fire an ICBM and hit the US in 45 minutes.

Bush, and Clinton before him, both were worried that Saddam would pass on what WMD he had to non-state actors, like a terrorist group. That was the danger. That is why we went to Iraq.

I remember the talk about mushroom clouds. The bushies were worrying more, supposedly, what the bad guys would do to us than the rest of the world.

And the lies about the aluminum tubes.

There was a carefully orchestrated effort to sell the war in a way that didn't use blatant easily debunked lies,

but they were lies nonetheless.

It's what I call using the truth to tell a lie.

 

[Andylusion]

He had no wmd's whose smoking gun would be a Mushroom Cloud....that could hit us in 45 minutes....etc etc etc.

We knew he had chemical weapons, we supplied him with some of them, decades back, and he USED chemical weapons more than once on his own people....

but there was never a threat that he possessed nuclear wmds............ that the Smoking Gun would be us waking up to a Mushroom Cloud, as was said by the administration and its talking heads.


and on the topic...I wonder why when we were in Iraq, and before we left, we would not have destroyed any and all of the chemical weapons manufacturing facilities before we left?

I don't ever remember anyone suggest he did have nuclear weapons.

Nor do I remember anyone suggesting that he could fire an ICBM and hit the US in 45 minutes.

Bush, and Clinton before him, both were worried that Saddam would pass on what WMD he had to non-state actors, like a terrorist group. That was the danger. That is why we went to Iraq.

Then why didn't Bush invade Iran and North Korea?

Your question does not follow. Why didn't Bush invade Russia then?

How does this even apply?

Saddam had signed a cease fire agreement, which he was continually violating. He broke UN resolutions, continuously.

We had numerous intelligence reports indicating he was trying to establish a working relationship with known terrorist groups, and had a long history with WMDs.

Bush did what he should have done. What anyone in that situation would have done. It was the right move, and it solved a lot of problems.

 

[HenryBHough]

How, little libbies, does a group get their hands on weapons you swore upon your ancestors sainted graves never existed?

 

[candycorn]

How, little libbies, does a group get their hands on weapons you swore upon your ancestors sainted graves never existed?

The were not weapons; they had long lived their useful lives.

We invaded in 2003, fact.
We found the cache shortly after that, fact.
Bush had 5 years to remove, destroy, eject, evac, take care of, etc... them. HIS pentagon considered them such a threat that they left them in place.

So now, of course, you blame Obama for this? Of course. This is Conservistan and reasoning doesn't matter.

 

[HenryBHough]

How, little libbies, does a group get their hands on weapons you swore upon your ancestors sainted graves never existed?

The were not weapons; they had long lived their useful lives.

We invaded in 2003, fact.
We found the cache shortly after that, fact.
Bush had 5 years to remove, destroy, eject, evac, take care of, etc... them. HIS pentagon considered them such a threat that they left them in place.

So now, of course, you blame Obama for this? Of course. This is Conservistan and reasoning doesn't matter.

Please show me where I blamed Obama for "this". When you can't then I require a groveling apology. Y'know, just emulate Your New Messiah on one of his best days.

 

[Rozman]

Like the last time we had to go over this. Chemical weapons have a shelf life. Saddam's chemicals have expired awhile ago..

Also your title is a lie.

You would think if we thought the weapons where dangerous we would have removed them when we were there.

But then you would need a brain to think of this logically and the op doesn't have this

Since they're not dangerous I guess it's not a problem if these guys take them
out and spread that shit around.

 

[Andylusion]

I don't ever remember anyone suggest he did have nuclear weapons.

Nor do I remember anyone suggesting that he could fire an ICBM and hit the US in 45 minutes.

Bush, and Clinton before him, both were worried that Saddam would pass on what WMD he had to non-state actors, like a terrorist group. That was the danger. That is why we went to Iraq.

I remember the talk about mushroom clouds. The bushies were worrying more, supposedly, what the bad guys would do to us than the rest of the world.

And the lies about the aluminum tubes.

There was a carefully orchestrated effort to sell the war in a way that didn't use blatant easily debunked lies,

but they were lies nonetheless.

It's what I call using the truth to tell a lie.

They were not lies. You idiots who have never worked in the intelligence business think that gathering intel is like doing math problems.

In the real world, you are bombarded with millions of bits of data, and you have no idea what you are even looking for.

One ex-CIA officer suggested that working in the Intel field, is like doing 50 puzzles at the same time, except that each puzzle is thousands of pieces, and each piece can fit seamlessly with any other piece from any of the other puzzles, and you have no idea what any of the puzzles look like at the start, and lastly there are false pieces that don't go to any puzzle tossed in with the rest to intentionally mess you up.

You have no idea before hand, what any of the information given means, or even if it means nothing.

And then you idiots on the left, look in from the outside, and say "you should have known that was wrong!!" or "Why didn't you catch that? It was so obvious" with your 20/20 hind sight.

 

[Peach]

How, little libbies, does a group get their hands on weapons you swore upon your ancestors sainted graves never existed?

The were not weapons; they had long lived their useful lives.

We invaded in 2003, fact.
We found the cache shortly after that, fact.
Bush had 5 years to remove, destroy, eject, evac, take care of, etc... them. HIS pentagon considered them such a threat that they left them in place.

So now, of course, you blame Obama for this? Of course. This is Conservistan and reasoning doesn't matter.

We found remnants of the WMDs destroyed in 1991, the facilities may be useless. In any case, chemical weapons are not as difficult to manufacture as nukes. Meaning, the US may be up a creek without a paddle if we do not stop ISIS.

 

[Plasmaball]

Like the last time we had to go over this. Chemical weapons have a shelf life. Saddam's chemicals have expired awhile ago..

Also your title is a lie.

You would think if we thought the weapons where dangerous we would have removed them when we were there.

But then you would need a brain to think of this logically and the op doesn't have this

Since they're not dangerous I guess it's not a problem if these guys take them
out and spread that shit around.

if they can break the seal we left them in...besides the point that there really isnt anything left anyways

 

[Plasmaball]

How, little libbies, does a group get their hands on weapons you swore upon your ancestors sainted graves never existed?

oh you mean the ones the U.N already knew about and was taking care of the issue? you mean those ones?

The ones that were degraded and worthless anyways. I love how stupid you people are

 

[Pete7469]

It never happened.

Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction.

The liberals have been insisting on it for years.

He had no wmd's whose smoking gun would be a Mushroom Cloud....that could hit us in 45 minutes....etc etc etc.

Notice how hastily the liberals "change" what they had been screaming for years?

They weren't lying back then. Oh, no. In fact, they never said they things they said. Or they meant something else, not what they said. And on and on.....

No wonder they are lying so blithely about the reasons their incriminating emails are suddenly "missing". They are so used to years of lying, it comes naturally to them, and they do it without even thinking about it.

They're incapable of thinking.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right are indeed "incapable of thinking."

"They were not lies" about the bushies' claims of WMDs were indeed lies.

No doubt about it.

 

[Vigilante]

The far right are indeed "incapable of thinking."

"They were not lies" about the bushies' claims of WMDs were indeed lies.

No doubt about it.

You have to be the dumbest, or, at least, the biggest WHORE for the subversive party.... You KNOW nothing, BUT General Sada said there were plenty of WMD that he personally flew into Syria... He was there, were you Rep Frog Boy II?