- Joined
- Feb 4, 2021
According to today’s NYT article, he does. We should invade.
Does Saddam really have WMDs?
- Thread starter Gone Ham
- Start date
Solution
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2018
Did you just wake up from a 19 year coma?
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2021
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2018
Dude, I wish it was 2003.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2019
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2021
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2017
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2019
What if the real WMDs were the friends we made along the way?
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2019
Product Placement
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2020
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2020
He did. Capability for prompt manufacture of VX and Tabun and stockpiles of artillery-based chlorine and mustard gas that had been hidden from the inspectors were simply deemed insufficiently Weapon of Mass Destruction©-ish once the public mania wore off and the media market shifted from promoting the invasion to criticizing it.
The whole yellowcake debacle has always been a smokescreen for the fact that Saddam could have had people doing the Atropine Jerk in matter of a few months.
The whole yellowcake debacle has always been a smokescreen for the fact that Saddam could have had people doing the Atropine Jerk in matter of a few months.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2020
People with WMDs don't end up swingin' from a rope or with a bayonet stuck up their colon, they clap as their grandkids graduate from Berkeley. Something to keep in mind if you ever end up running some sandy shithole.
DiscoRodeo
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2020
First, define WMDs.
Did he have them? Depends on the definition. In some sense, people do tend to lump chemical weapons, chlorine gas, and similar things in the definition of WMDs, but what Western people really gave a shit about and what was used to justify selling the war should be framed as "did Saddam have WMDs that he could of used to attack the US"?
The answer to that, is no, not really. Sure, its always possible to use sarin gas or some other chemical weapon on a public subway, but thats something that even more non-government actors can do.
Now, before someone screams about "well the US can and does have WMDs, other countries have them, whats the problem with Saddam having them!?"
Part of the terms of surrender after the Gulf War were that Saddam basically neuter his military, including the chemical weapons department (something he made very vigorous use of against both the Kurds and Iranians in the 80s). Him producing or stockpiling WMDs after would be in violation of that.
Normally, that should just require something like more sanctions, or other actions outside of a war, but thats where the warhawks came into play.
On Iraq/the Warhawk question, did Saddam have chemical weapons? Id argue that there is little doubt that he had the capability of making chemical weapons, that even had he gotten rid of a multitude of cannisters of chlorine gas, he almost certainly would reactivate his chemical weapons program at some point or the other, and its something that could not actually be enforced. Should we have invaded Iraq over chemical weapons is a better question to pose overall. The way the situation was portrayed in the media was that Saddam had chemical weapons, that he could use them for another 9/11 attack across the Atlantic, and we had legitimate reason to worry that he would be actively planning this. I think that this lie greatly exaggerated Saddam's capabilities or likelihood of him ever doing something like this. The way this was further framed was that "maybe he wont launch a chemical attack, but who knows if in 2 years he will produce sarin gas and give it to Al-Qaeda or some other terrorist group".
Certainly this was a possibility, he had actually attempted to assassinate George HW Bush during the Clinton administration with a car bomb, but as a pretext for war, its still loose.
The pretext of chemical weapons was, imo, irresponsible and basically people wanted a second war with Iraq after Bin Laden got away to potentially continue the mandate, we're already in the hood' so why not, and we need to shift attention away from our fuckups from the start in Afghanistan (its key to remember that the Iraq invasion happened after the invasion of Afghanistan and the complete fuckup where Bin Laden was surrounded, where we decided to not go in and send the Afghan army in instead, and he got away).
Did he have them? Depends on the definition. In some sense, people do tend to lump chemical weapons, chlorine gas, and similar things in the definition of WMDs, but what Western people really gave a shit about and what was used to justify selling the war should be framed as "did Saddam have WMDs that he could of used to attack the US"?
The answer to that, is no, not really. Sure, its always possible to use sarin gas or some other chemical weapon on a public subway, but thats something that even more non-government actors can do.
Now, before someone screams about "well the US can and does have WMDs, other countries have them, whats the problem with Saddam having them!?"
Part of the terms of surrender after the Gulf War were that Saddam basically neuter his military, including the chemical weapons department (something he made very vigorous use of against both the Kurds and Iranians in the 80s). Him producing or stockpiling WMDs after would be in violation of that.
Normally, that should just require something like more sanctions, or other actions outside of a war, but thats where the warhawks came into play.
On Iraq/the Warhawk question, did Saddam have chemical weapons? Id argue that there is little doubt that he had the capability of making chemical weapons, that even had he gotten rid of a multitude of cannisters of chlorine gas, he almost certainly would reactivate his chemical weapons program at some point or the other, and its something that could not actually be enforced. Should we have invaded Iraq over chemical weapons is a better question to pose overall. The way the situation was portrayed in the media was that Saddam had chemical weapons, that he could use them for another 9/11 attack across the Atlantic, and we had legitimate reason to worry that he would be actively planning this. I think that this lie greatly exaggerated Saddam's capabilities or likelihood of him ever doing something like this. The way this was further framed was that "maybe he wont launch a chemical attack, but who knows if in 2 years he will produce sarin gas and give it to Al-Qaeda or some other terrorist group".
Certainly this was a possibility, he had actually attempted to assassinate George HW Bush during the Clinton administration with a car bomb, but as a pretext for war, its still loose.
The pretext of chemical weapons was, imo, irresponsible and basically people wanted a second war with Iraq after Bin Laden got away to potentially continue the mandate, we're already in the hood' so why not, and we need to shift attention away from our fuckups from the start in Afghanistan (its key to remember that the Iraq invasion happened after the invasion of Afghanistan and the complete fuckup where Bin Laden was surrounded, where we decided to not go in and send the Afghan army in instead, and he got away).
