42% of Americans still believe Iraqi WMD were found

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
So half of Republicans and a third of Democrats still believe things that are totally true. Sweet!

So, since your panties are in a wad this....care to post some proof?

Or can you only troll threads? You call me an idiot, but I don't see one speck of evidence for your claim here.

Seems like you can admit you lied and are trolling (which I believe is against forum rules), or you can post evidence supporting your position if you actually think what you posted is true.

Kind of a bind you are in, aren't you? You have to either admit to trolling, or admit you are totally ignorant for believing in birtherism. Don't really have any good choices do you?

Can't wait to see what you decide.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Yep. http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2404151

They just covered up the whole affair - both the substantial findings and the injured service members.

We went into Iraq on the premise of a **new** weapons program, not based on old stockpiles. But for some reason, it doesn't surprise me if there are a substantial number of misinformed people.

Bush definitely upped the ante over the usual claims most politicians at the time were making.
 

ttown

Platinum Member
Oct 27, 2003
2,412
0
0
In other words: Never believe anything Hillary Clinton ever says.

check
 

Black Octagon

Golden Member
Dec 10, 2012
1,410
2
81
I want so badly for this poll to be a mistake, or a pack of lies, or something. I was appalled enough to see so many people duped by the WMD lies back in 2002-2005, but surely only the most brainwashed and blind right-wingers could possibly still believe it today? If not then we are all utterly screwed.

It would be bad enough if it were just America that was screwed, but the fact is that this means a major precedent has been set for the invasion of other countries on utterly false and fabricated pretences.

If humankind survives through its own stupidity, I truly hope that we one day manage to evolve, achieve genuine civilisation, and look back on these times as the primitive and barbaric days that they truly are.

To anyone reading this who still believes the WMD lies that the Bush Administration sold the world: please, for the love of all things decent, never vote again. Don't breed. Don't even breathe unless you really must. Thousands of innocent lives, and quite possibly the entire future, have been taken away under YOUR watch.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,517
15,399
136
Yep. http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2404151

They just covered up the whole affair - both the substantial findings and the injured service members.

We went into Iraq on the premise of a **new** weapons program, not based on old stockpiles. But for some reason, it doesn't surprise me if there are a substantial number of misinformed people.

That thread shows that there are still plenty of uninformed people on Iraq and wmd's.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
In other words: Never believe anything Hillary Clinton ever says.

check

Hillary, Bill, John Kerry, there were many telling the same tale. He had them, we all knew he had them, everyone around the world knew he had them. The problem is with what Bush claimed he had and what he was after like the yellow cake Uranium. It's pretty clear Bush lied. Even if the world is a better place without Saddam, the ends do not justify the means. If you can't use the truth to get what you want, then maybe what you want isn't worth fighting for.
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
Hillary, Bill, John Kerry, there were many telling the same tale. He had them, we all knew he had them, everyone around the world knew he had them. The problem is with what Bush claimed he had and what he was after like the yellow cake Uranium. It's pretty clear Bush lied. Even if the world is a better place without Saddam, the ends do not justify the means. If you can't use the truth to get what you want, then maybe what you want isn't worth fighting for.


:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
 

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
11,514
4,301
136
It's pretty clear Bush lied. Even if the world is a better place without Saddam,

That s saying that the war was positive, it takes a republitards as you call them to try to ultimately legitimate this fascist war, the world, and moreover Iraq, would be better if this war didnt occur even if this meant that Saddam Hussein was in charge since Iraq was under harsh UNO control at the time and had very limited sovereignty, the geostrategical situation is what it is and it s the only reason Bush doesnt have to fear to be trialed for crimes against humanity.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
That s saying that the war was positive, it takes a republitards as you call them to try to ultimately legitimate this fascist war, the world, and moreover Iraq, would be better if this war didnt occur even if this meant that Saddam Hussein was in charge since Iraq was under harsh UNO control at the time and had very limited sovereignty, the geostrategical situation is what it is and it s the only reason Bush doesnt have to fear to be trialed for crimes against humanity.

I used even if, not even though. "Even though is used to introduce a condition which currently is true, while even if introduces a hypothetical condition that is not yet true." Either way, I invite you to use the search feature and count how many times I have used the term "repulitards". I will give you a hint, it's a number between -1 and 1.
 

schmuckley

Platinum Member
Aug 18, 2011
2,335
1
0
Whoa, let me stop you right there buddy...ISIS says hi!

Thanks, Bush!
World was a better place WITH Saddam.
^This is true.
Saddam kept Iran in check? check!
Saddam kept terrorists in check? check!
War was started under false pretenses.
Big mess.
Not good.
 

cbrunny

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 2007
6,791
406
126
"active program" vs. "actual WMD's in launchable/fireable setups" vs. "stockpiles of weapons grade radioactive material(s)"

Very different things. It's a near certainty that Hussein wanted nuclear weapons and had an active program trying to get them. It's also a near certainty that it didn't get very far.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
So, since your panties are in a wad this....care to post some proof?

Or can you only troll threads? You call me an idiot, but I don't see one speck of evidence for your claim here.

Seems like you can admit you lied and are trolling (which I believe is against forum rules), or you can post evidence supporting your position if you actually think what you posted is true.

Kind of a bind you are in, aren't you? You have to either admit to trolling, or admit you are totally ignorant for believing in birtherism. Don't really have any good choices do you?

Can't wait to see what you decide.
WMD were found in Iraq...deal with it.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,890
5,516
136
I used to know a couple Kurdish guys that were pretty convinced that Iraqi had WMD. They're dead now, from WMD.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Shit son you got served! Don't you know that Doc Savage Fan is divine? Everything he says is true. It is expected to be taken on faith. You better do what he says and deal with it.
No, I'm not divine...but I'm not incredibly ignorant either. Although relatively old, thousands of chemical weapons were found in Iraq.

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

The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons
Published: October 14, 2014

The soldiers at the blast crater sensed something was wrong.

It was August 2008 near Taji, Iraq. They had just exploded a stack of old Iraqi artillery shells buried beside a murky lake. The blast, part of an effort to destroy munitions that could be used in makeshift bombs, uncovered more shells.

Two technicians assigned to dispose of munitions stepped into the hole. Lake water seeped in. One of them, Specialist Andrew T. Goldman, noticed a pungent odor, something, he said, he had never smelled before.
He lifted a shell. Oily paste oozed from a crack. “That doesn’t look like pond water,” said his team leader, Staff Sgt. Eric J. Duling.

The specialist swabbed the shell with chemical detection paper. It turned red — indicating sulfur mustard, the chemical warfare agent designed to burn a victim’s airway, skin and eyes.

All three men recall an awkward pause. Then Sergeant Duling gave an order: “Get the hell out.”

Five years after President George W. Bush sent troops into Iraq, these soldiers had entered an expansive but largely secret chapter of America’s long and bitter involvement in Iraq.

From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.


The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.

The New York Times found 17 American service members and seven Iraqi police officers who were exposed to nerve or mustard agents after 2003. American officials said that the actual tally of exposed troops was slightly higher, but that the government’s official count was classified.

The secrecy fit a pattern. Since the outset of the war, the scale of the United States’ encounters with chemical weapons in Iraq was neither publicly shared nor widely circulated within the military. These encounters carry worrisome implications now that the Islamic State, a Qaeda splinter group, controls much of the territory where the weapons were found.

The American government withheld word about its discoveries even from troops it sent into harm’s way and from military doctors. The government’s secrecy, victims and participants said, prevented troops in some of the war’s most dangerous jobs from receiving proper medical care and official recognition of their wounds.

“I felt more like a guinea pig than a wounded soldier,” said a former Army sergeant who suffered mustard burns in 2007 and was denied hospital treatment and medical evacuation to the United States despite requests from his commander.

Congress, too, was only partly informed, while troops and officers were instructed to be silent or give deceptive accounts of what they had found. “ 'Nothing of significance’ is what I was ordered to say,” said Jarrod Lampier, a recently retired Army major who was present for the largest chemical weapons discovery of the war: more than 2,400 nerve-agent rockets unearthed in 2006 at a former Republican Guard compound.

Jarrod L. Taylor, a former Army sergeant on hand for the destruction of mustard shells that burned two soldiers in his infantry company, joked of “wounds that never happened” from “that stuff that didn’t exist.” The public, he said, was misled for a decade. “I love it when I hear, ‘Oh there weren’t any chemical weapons in Iraq,’ ” he said. “There were plenty.”


(See link for map of locations where chemical weapons were found)

Rear Adm. John Kirby, spokesman for Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, declined to address specific incidents detailed in the Times investigation, or to discuss the medical care and denial of medals for troops who were exposed. But he said that the military’s health care system and awards practices were under review, and that Mr. Hagel expected the services to address any shortcomings.

“The secretary believes all service members deserve the best medical and administrative support possible,” he said. “He is, of course, concerned by any indication or allegation they have not received such support. His expectation is that leaders at all levels will strive to correct errors made, when and where they are made.”

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.

<snip>
 
Last edited:
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
So, since your panties are in a wad this....care to post some proof?

Or can you only troll threads? You call me an idiot, but I don't see one speck of evidence for your claim here.

Seems like you can admit you lied and are trolling (which I believe is against forum rules), or you can post evidence supporting your position if you actually think what you posted is true.

Kind of a bind you are in, aren't you? You have to either admit to trolling, or admit you are totally ignorant for believing in birtherism. Don't really have any good choices do you?

Can't wait to see what you decide.
So now I'm a birther? In addition to being incredibly stupid, you're a liar to boot ("which I believe is against forum rules"). You're pathetic...and if you weren't such an arrogant asshole, I'd feel sorry for you.
 
Last edited:

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
So those WMD's were still capable of being used?

Exactly. The way the war was sold, Saddam had weapons and he was prepping to unleash them on the west.

Iraq was never a threat to America until after we toppled Saddam.
 
Dec 10, 2005
24,960
8,170
136
I don't know...but I imagine some of them were.

Yeah, they were found - lots of old stockpiles that were from the Iran-Iraq war era. They weren't the ones we were looking for or the ones we went in to stop. And then we kept it a secret and told everyone who was injured because of them to keep hush about it. Real issues that Congress should be holding hearings on instead of holding a ninth investigation into the Benghazi "scandal".

The premise of the war was a farce. We could have saved hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives by not going after the imaginary new WMD program.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Yeah, they were found - lots of old stockpiles that were from the Iran-Iraq war era. They weren't the ones we were looking for or the ones we went in to stop. And then we kept it a secret and told everyone who was injured because of them to keep hush about it.

The premise of the war was a farce. We could have saved hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives by not going after the imaginary new WMD program.
Again...I'm not arguing this point. And, for the record, I agree with you.
 

cabri

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2012
3,616
1
81
So those WMD's were still capable of being used?

If they caused injury to those that uncovered them; yes.

Also, becuase they were hidden; someone else felt that they were of some potential down the road.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
So now I'm a birther? In addition to being incredibly stupid, you're a liar to boot ("which I believe is against forum rules"). You're pathetic...and if you weren't such an arrogant asshole, I'd feel sorry for you.

Well, you are either trolling, or have listened to Fox News and believe things which aren't true.

So which is it? WMD were NOT found, there was also no WMD program either. Yes, old obsolete, not-usable as weapons old forgotten caches found, but no one counts those (including Bush himself). Also, Obama was born in the US.

So again, you are either admitting to being a troll, or admitting to being totally ignorant. Tough call for you. I'll go with option C, "all of the above".

How's that "Democrats are moving to the left" meme going for you? LOL.