Was Saddam Hussein a great man?

Jul 2016
9,562
USA
Where in this thread did you post the "exact wording of UN Security Council Resolution 687"? I don't see it. Where did it say that Saddam must get rid of all chemical weapons prior to 2003 even inactive ones?
An artillery round loaded with Sarin gas, or mustard gas, or buildings full of tanks of chlorine gas, are not inactive. They are chemical weapons. And they were not allowed. Because, even though your mind can't comprehend this, nothing was grandfathered in. The UN wasn't like, "Oh Saddam, I know you have chemical weapons now, and those are fine, but you can't make any more." I quoted the outright lines in the resolution that flat out say NOTHING IS ALLOWED.

Do you know what is more than nothing?

"5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs" were found scattered across Iraqi soil."

These weren't inactive. They were live ordnance. They worked. They were even used, when insurgents, often unknowingly, after having raided govt arsenals that Saddam purposely left open and unguarded right before and during the invasion, used them as IEDs, as artillery rounds were some of the most popular types. What happens when an artillery round full of mustard gas is detonated?




How did I move the goalpost? I asked for the type a specific type of evidence over a very specific thing. Where before did I ever ask for proof regarding UN inspectors? Nowhere? Then I couldn't have possibly move the goalpost. Doing so implies that I set a goalpost before, and THEN moved it. And since I didn't state a goalpost regarding this matter, what I did was set a goalpost, not move a goalpost.
LOL

This isn't as excruciatingly bad as every single crossbow thread you ever participate in, but its getting there.

Either way, I provided you what the UN website says, and clearly the one doing the actual investigating said Iraq cooperated eventually.
The Iraqis didn't cooperate. Saddam said they'd cooperate. After the deadline that the US gave them, which shifted the political and strategic objective away from "Will he allow the UN inspectors?" to "Saddam has got to go." So their chance to cooperate or not (and Saddam would still have jerked them around, because that is what he did) was gone. Poof. No longer in existence.
 
Feb 2011
6,455
So in other words, you brought a source which used discarded weaponry littered all over Iraq, weapons which happened to be poisonous, to spin a story as if Iraq had usable WMDs? And this is spun into a story about how the United States lied about how Iraq did NOT have nuclear weapons? You don't think that's fishy? So the United States claimed the Iraqis had WMDs, started a war over it, and then LIED about how Iraq didn't have WMDs? Why are the weapons scattered across the soil in the first place? What military does that?

“Two wars, sanctions and UN oversight reduced Iraqi’s premier production facility to a stockpile of old damaged and contaminated chemical munitions (sealed in bunkers), a wasteland full of destroyed chemical munitions, razed structures, and unusable war-ravaged facilities,”

No one denies that old damaged and contaminated chemical munitions could still hurt people, that doesn't mean they could be used as they were designed to be used.

Secondly, again I gave you sourcing directly from a UN source which showed that the Chief investigator said Iraq cooperated. I believe him over you repeating yourself over and over.

Thirdly, whatever other thread I participated in is irrelevant. Because you are mentioning them not to bring in additional information, but to inflame.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2016
9,562
USA
I think they were expecting another rollover like the first Gulf War.
Who is "they?"

The military planners involved in Operation Cobra II (that is the name of the invasion plan), nor the commanders at all levels, didn't think it was going to be a cake walk. They expected a few major battles on the way to Baghdad that never happened. Also expected to get hit with chemical weapons, which is why all ground forces wore in MOPP 2, going to MOPP 4 every time the Iraqis fired artillery or SCUD missiles. But they didn't get hit by chemical weapons, nor find any major Iraqi Army or Republican Guard formations to fight a major battle against and that actually surprised everyone, especially the brass, which is why they didn't react well to the Saddam Fedayeen attacks.
 
Jul 2016
9,562
USA
So in other words, you brought a source which used discarded weaponry littered all over Iraq, weapons which happened to be poisonous, to spin a story as if Iraq had usable WMDs? And this is spun into a story about how the United States lied about how Iraq did NOT have nuclear weapons? You don't think that's fishy? So the United States claimed the Iraqis had WMDs, started a war over it, and then LIED about how Iraq didn't have WMDs? Why are the weapons scattered across the soil in the first place? What military does that?

“Two wars, sanctions and UN oversight reduced Iraqi’s premier production facility to a stockpile of old damaged and contaminated chemical munitions (sealed in bunkers), a wasteland full of destroyed chemical munitions, razed structures, and unusable war-ravaged facilities,”

Secondly, again I gave you sourcing directly from a UN source which showed that the Chief investigator said Iraq cooperated. I believe him over you repeating yourself over and over.

Thirdly, whatever other thread I participated in is irrelevant. Because you are mentioning them not to bring in additional information, but to inflame.
So in other words...

You claimed no chemical weapons and I proved you wrong. Then you claimed no chemical weapons violated a resolution and I proved you wrong. Then you tried to act as if some chemical weapons were grandfathered in LOL) and I proved you wrong. Also, that quote you found only has to do with the Al Muthanna facility. Nice job generalizing an entire nation based on a single bunker complex. LOLOLOL

No one denies that old damaged and contaminated chemical munitions could still hurt people, that doesn't mean they could be used as they were designed to be used.
Real question. How do you think mustard gas artillery shells work?
 
Feb 2011
6,455
So in other words...

You claimed no chemical weapons and I proved you wrong.
If you can't give the exact post and quote where I said that then you better be ready to apologize.

Then you claimed no chemical weapons violated a resolution and I proved you wrong.
Again, if you can't give the exact post and quote where I said that then you better be ready to apologize.

Then you tried to act as if some chemical weapons were grandfathered in LOL) and I proved you wrong.
I don't even know what you mean by "chemical weapons were grandfathered". They were remnants of the pre-1991 weapons, corroded, rusted, can't be used as intended. You proved nothing but strawman over things I've never stated.

Also, that quote you found only has to do with the Al Muthanna facility. Nice job generalizing an entire nation based on a single bunker complex. LOLOLOL
Real question. How do you think mustard gas artillery shells work?
Fine, how about an actual soldier of the Iraq war who specialized in chemical warfare:

Chivers reports that the George W. Bush administration repressed reports of US troops being harmed by decaying, Gulf War-era chemical munitions — rather counterintuitive for an administration that expended great effort to convince Americans and the world Saddam Hussein had chemical and other unconventional weapons, but could not find traces of them.
This was not news to me. I served in Iraq in 2003 and again in 2005 as a specialist in chemical warfare, among other things. We were briefed more than once that a smattering of rusted chemical munitions had been unearthed or even used — ineffectively, probably mistakenly — in IEDs [IMPROVISED explosive device].
None of us took it as the "smoking gun" of Saddam's "WMD". Neither did the Bush administration.
However, the response to Chivers' article by many political partisans has been that Bush was right. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, it becomes necessary to rehash why and how the United States decided to go to war in Iraq — and why George W Bush is still wrong.


-https://www.businessinsider.com/president-bush-is-still-wrong-on-iraq-2014-10
 
Jul 2016
9,562
USA
If you can't give the exact post and quote where I said that then you better be ready to apologize.
Again, if you can't give the exact post and quote where I said that then you better be ready to apologize.
Its every quote I wrote before I got tired of repeating myself and gave up. Go back two pages, reread them.

I don't even know what you mean by "chemical weapons were grandfathered". They were remnants of the pre-1991 weapons, corroded, rusted, can't be used as intended. You proved nothing but strawman over things I've never stated.
So in this post you confirm that you think chemical weapons can be grandfathered into a resolution that forbids all, and you once again demonstrate you don't have the slightest clue how chemical weapons even work, to state they can't be used as intended.

Fine, how about an actual soldier of the Iraq war who specialized in chemical warfare
So glorious, this is truly the crossbow thread all over again. I post a picture of an actual US soldier with wounds sustained by Iraqi chemical weapons that shouldn't have existed, and your reply is an Op Ed piece written to move goal posts away from "No WMD" narrative to "Not those WMDs, we were talking about other ones."

LOLOLOL Thanks for the entertainment, this is better than the Godzilla movie.
 
Likes: Iraq Bruin
Feb 2011
6,455
So in other words, you made up what I said, can't prove I said it, refused to admit it, and instead of apologizing you tried to hide it behind ad hominin attacks, vagueness, and bringing in threads that have NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. You also unjustly dismiss the source presented to you in a way that disregards what the source actually said. The source, written by an US veteran of the Iraq war, specializing in chemical warfare, said very specifically that the weapons mentioned by Chivers were a smattering of rusted chemical munitions had been unearthed or even used — ineffectively, probably mistakenly — in IEDs [IMPROVISED explosive device].
So yes, these WERE chemical weapons, built prior to the 1991 and now very much degraded. I never denied this, so you shouldn't shove that into my mouth. They were too degraded to be used as intended, so they were used as IMPROVISED explosive devices. Airplanes and cars could also be used as improvised explosive devices too, was Iraq not allowed to have airplanes and cars?

Nor did I ever claim that I was a chemical weapons expert (and don't thinkI haven't caught how your attack is used to distract attention away from your strawman), but I don't need to be. I'm quoting from Chris Miller, so he's the one who needs to be a chemical weapons expert:
He [Chris Miller] is a nine year veteran of the U.S. Army where he served in chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear defense (CBRN). He is a two-tour veteran of the Iraq War where he helped to screen Iraqi police candidates, served as a Military Transition Team (MiTT) advisor to an Iraqi infantry battalion, and planned and led patrols and logistical operations. He received the Purple Heart, Combat Action Badge, 4 Army Commendation Medals, and 3 Army Achievement Medals, among other awards. After leaving the military, he served two years as a contractor for the U.S. Army at Camp Buehring, Kuwait.

Let's make it simple and start with the first strawman you made in post 104. You claimed I said that Iraq had no chemical weapons. Which post did I say that? Quote it, don't brush it off like what you are doing.

Your debating tactic is sliding more and more into the line of inflammatory, and less and less for the purpose of informing. If you're trying to get a rise out of me it's not going to work.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2011
13,599
Perambulating in St James' Park
Who is "they?"

The military planners involved in Operation Cobra II (that is the name of the invasion plan), nor the commanders at all levels, didn't think it was going to be a cake walk. They expected a few major battles on the way to Baghdad that never happened. Also expected to get hit with chemical weapons, which is why all ground forces wore in MOPP 2, going to MOPP 4 every time the Iraqis fired artillery or SCUD missiles. But they didn't get hit by chemical weapons, nor find any major Iraqi Army or Republican Guard formations to fight a major battle against and that actually surprised everyone, especially the brass, which is why they didn't react well to the Saddam Fedayeen attacks.
A pitched battle against coalition forces was always going to be suicide for the Iraqis, that's why they didn't do it and resorted to IEDs. 'They' refers to the politicians of the time. It's likely, imho, that Bush was following a policy of realpolitik post 9/11 to wage a quick and successful war against Iraq just like GW1. A successful war against the man his father fought would bring him greatness. Israel was also making a case that Iraq was a threat to them. Had democracy been able to take hold in Iraq then it would be another step towards the US imperial plan for a democratic world.

"In 2008, Kagan wrote an article titled "Neocon Nation: Neoconservatism, c. 1776" for World Affairs, describing the main components of American neoconservatism as a belief in the rectitude of applying US moralism to the world stage, support for the US to act alone, the promotion of American-style liberty and democracy in other countries, the belief in American hegemony,[30]the confidence in US military power, and a distrust of international institutions.[31] According to Kagan, his foreign-policy views are "deeply rooted in American history and widely shared by Americans"

...

"Kagan has been a foreign policy adviser to U.S. Republican presidential candidates as well as Democratic administrations via the Foreign Affairs Policy Board"

Robert Kagan - Wikipedia
 

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
9,245
here
In Iraq there is either strong central government willing to do what it must to keep the country together or there is national disintegration or internecine chaos. Shrub and the neocons were extremely naive and shortsighted to think they knew more than Saddam about how to govern Iraq.



I meant Saddam could have done much better from his point of view or Iraq’s, not America’s.
How about the point of view of the Kurds? The Iranians? The Kuwaitis? Doesn't matter to you, huh?

You are very critical of Israel both for its treatment of the Palestinians and its foreign policy regarding Israel's neighbors. Yet, here you are, seemingly giving Saddam a pass for his domestic and foreign transgressions. Why the inconsistency? You don't really seem to care about the plight of these people: Arab, Iranian or otherwise. No, it only becomes an issue when its Israel who is doing wrong. It's not about caring for people for you as much as its about hating a certain group of people.
 
Last edited:

Angelica

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,744
Angel City
Na, Saddam just tried to do what many others had done before--become a hegemon. He just didn't have the brains to do it right. It was stupid to invade Iran in 1980, because it was too strong. Likewise his timing in invading Kuwait was catastrophic. By 1990 he no longer had the USSR to back him up, so there was nothing to prevent the US and its allies from concentrating their forces against him, and then clobbering him. Had he refrained from attacking Iran, properly defended Osirak, built up his strength, and went after Kuwait (and maybe Saudi Arabia too) around 1985 he might well have turned Iraq into a superpower. I don't doubt Saddam was brutal on the domestic front but the alternative was/is the paradise we see today...Basically the only problem I have with him is his foreign policy. IMO he just didn't have a clue how to do things right and squandered great opportunities.
The man was borderline psychotic he gassed his own people. His autocratic system of governance gave him the power to rule with an iron fist. While there were no weapons of mass destruction he was twice dangerous. He imprisoned his own citizens who spoke against him. He ran country wherein, freedom of speech was costly......Hardly a man worthy of praise.
 

Similar History Discussions