The Iraq War Ends,

WoollyRedHat · 22-10-2011 02:34AM

I found it very telling that one of the U.S demands was to keep on enjoying the same immunity to prosecution which is being afforded to them at the moment in Iraq past December, one which has been denied by the Iraqi government.

Manic Moran · 22-10-2011 05:15AM

Where were the weapons of mass destruction?

None of any significance were found that I am aware of. The odd stash here and there but not likely to be the result of anything more nefarious than clerical errors given their size and condition.

The most significant period was when the insurgents started using the shells as bodies for bombs, the traces of the chemicals would set off alarms at the least though some ill effects were reported. There was a period about a month long in 2004 that it was mandatory for us to be in possession of our masks.

Any details greater than that have not been publicly released that I am aware of.

NTM

Manic Moran · 22-10-2011 05:24AM

RichieC wrote: »

you're biased though.

I am not convinced that the search which resulted in those youtube links was entirely without bias either.

I suggested that the questions be posed to any Boardsies with first hand experience, not anyone you deem biased or unbiased. We have people on this site who have been there since 2003 in uniform of various militaries, some who have been as part of either civil aid organizations or NGOs, and it's possible there may be a resident. Though there is no way of verifying that any resulting testimony be true, but that's a problem with youtube testimony so well, so what's the worst that can happen? People will civilly and calmly respond? It would be interesting to see the range of responses from personal exposure, as opposed to second hand reporting.

NTM

RichieC · 22-10-2011 05:26AM

In other words there were none. you felt you had to bulk that paragraph up didn't you manic?

By the way are you sure those masks weren't to protect you's from your own white phosphorous and other illicit weapons used by the US in the Iraq "war"?

Manic Moran · 22-10-2011 05:31AM

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

I found it very telling that one of the U.S demands was to keep on enjoying the same immunity to prosecution which is being afforded to them at the moment in Iraq past December, one which has been denied by the Iraqi government.

Apologies for the multiple responses, I'm on a mobile. The above is fairly standard, and tends to keep politics out of the equitation. (I, a local official, can appeal to the electorate by putting Americans on trial!). It is also not often noted that a Status of Forces agreement tends to work both ways. Iraqi military trainees in the US are similarly immune from prosecution by US bodies for incidents which occur in the course of duty.

Manic Moran · 22-10-2011 05:34AM

RichieC wrote: »

In other words there were none. you felt you had to bulk that paragraph up didn't you manic?

By the way are you sure those masks weren't to protect you's from your own white phosphorous and other illicit weapons used by the US in the Iraq "war"?

I didn't say there were none, because some did exist and were found. They were not, however, indicative of a government plot to keep them, which I presume was the point of the question.

There is nothing illicit about WP.

NTM

RichieC · 22-10-2011 06:53AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

There is nothing illicit about WP.

NTM

Certainly in its application as illumination and troop cover. That using it as a weapon is still debatable (only because the US and Israel use it though). It's use in civilian areas is illegal though, which is were you boys were using it.

"No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.

"If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use.

"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4442988.stm

The irony of invading a country because it allegedly has WMD and then using them in civilian areas... not lost on me.

Oranage2 · 22-10-2011 07:27AM

Anyone else find it sort of suspicious Sadam died a week before the 31-10-11?

Now i'm no conspritor but has the Obama administration have ties with the costume shop?

OS119 · 22-10-2011 09:31AM

Oranage2 wrote: »

Anyone else find it sort of suspicious Sadam died a week before the 31-10-11?

Now i'm no conspritor but has the Obama administration have ties with the costume shop?

eh?

saddam has been dead for years.

Crazy Horse 6 · 22-10-2011 09:35AM

Hopefully one day the United States will feel karma for the wrong doings they have commited in Iraq.

TwoShedsJackson · 22-10-2011 09:37AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

I didn't say there were none, because some did exist and were found. They were not, however, indicative of a government plot to keep them, which I presume was the point of the question.

There is nothing illicit about WP.

NTM

Why are you signing your posts NTM and what does the fact you feel the need to sign your posts on an internet forum say about you?

NTM

NTM

NTM

NTM

NTM

NTM

Benny_Cake · 22-10-2011 09:40AM

It didn't take them too long to clear up a few loose end since the "end of major combat operations"....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzrJwzYBUkU

pickarooney · 22-10-2011 09:55AM

4leto wrote: »

Its definably a victory for Obama, it will give him some browning points for the up coming election.

A hollow victory.

Richard Hillman · 22-10-2011 09:58AM

Iraq has democracy and saddam hussein is gone. The vast majority of people killed were killed by fellow Iraqis.

Killer Pigeon · 22-10-2011 12:03PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

None of any significance were found that I am aware of. The odd stash here and there but not likely to be the result of anything more nefarious than clerical errors given their size and condition.

The most significant period was when the insurgents started using the shells as bodies for bombs, the traces of the chemicals would set off alarms at the least though some ill effects were reported. There was a period about a month long in 2004 that it was mandatory for us to be in possession of our masks.

Any details greater than that have not been publicly released that I am aware of.

NTM

The only weapons of mass destruction used in Iraq since the Gulf War were the ones used by the US Army. Isn't the infant mortality rate higher in Fallujah than any other place in Iraq due to the use of depleted uranium munitions on the city?

Killer Pigeon · 22-10-2011 12:09PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

I am not convinced that the search which resulted in those youtube links was entirely without bias either.

I didn't go out with the expressed purpose of looking for those particular videos, apart from the wikileaks one ... the rest just appeared under related videos in the sidebar. But the fact is, those soldiers' testimonies are fact and nothing will take away from that. Asking a boardsie on here about their purported experiences in Iraq might be even less valid because much of the time users on here are anonymous and we don't know who they actually are.

Mike 1972 · 22-10-2011 12:19PM

4leto wrote: »

“After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over,” Mr Obama said in a statement he delivered in the White House press room.

Didnt Bush claim victory in Iraq a few years back about ten minutes before the $hit really hit the fan

4leto · 22-10-2011 12:28PM

I think it ironic that this war was started under the pretence of getting the weapons of mass destruction out of a tyrants hands, there were no weapons of mass destruction, the war was started on a lie. A lie first propagated by the Iraqi opposition, who are now in power.

But as a direct consequence of the war, it emboldened Iran, who ARE making weapons of mass destruction and their Ashoura missile with a range of 2000KMs which are well capable of carrying a nuclear payload. I believe Iran is a true menace but as another consequence of this iraqi war dealing with that threat would be impossible.

Killer Pigeon · 22-10-2011 12:32PM

4leto wrote: »

I think it ironic that this war was started under the pretence of getting the weapons of mass destruction out of a tyrants hands, there were no weapons of mass destruction, the war was started on a lie. A lie first propagated by the Iraqi opposition, who are now in power.

But as a direct consequence of the war, it emboldened Iran, who ARE making weapons of mass destruction and their Ashoura missile with a range of 2000KMs which are well capable of carrying a nuclear payload. I believe Iran is a true menace but as another consequence of this iraqi war dealing with that threat would be impossible.

Well, we don't really know if they are making weapons of mass destruction, that's just based on assumptions.

4leto · 22-10-2011 12:43PM

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Well, we don't really know if they are making weapons of mass destruction, that's just based on assumptions.

Then why doesn't Iran clear up the assumptions and allow inspectors. Also we know they have the Uranium gas centrifuges, they showed us them, even the president unveiled them in a ceremony They are making them alright Uranium gas centrifuges have one use the enrichment of U238 to U235.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8611864.stm

Killer Pigeon · 22-10-2011 12:59PM

4leto wrote: »

Then why doesn't Iran clear up the assumptions and allow inspectors. Also we know they have the Uranium gas centrifuges, they showed us them, even the president unveiled them in a ceremony They are making them alright Uranium gas centrifuges have one use the enrichment of U238 to U235.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8611864.stm

So what? U238 and U235 are used in nuclear reactors. Even Ireland has a small supply of U238, U235 and other nuclear material including weapons grade plutonium (for use in universities). You're just assuming they're using this material to make nuclear weapons.

shampon · 22-10-2011 01:13PM

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

"Success" and the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians on their hands. Yes, something to be proud of indeed. :rolleyes:

sap.

Killer Pigeon · 22-10-2011 01:17PM

shampon wrote: »

sap.

Elaborate.

Mike 1972 · 22-10-2011 01:51PM

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

So what? U238 and U235 are used in nuclear reactors. Even Ireland has a small supply of U238, U235 and other nuclear material including weapons grade plutonium (for use in universities). You're just assuming they're using this material to make nuclear weapons.

Other than universities/hospitals/industry Why does the fourth largest oil producer in the world want uranium anyways

Manic Moran · 22-10-2011 01:56PM

RichieC wrote: »

Manic Moran wrote: »

There is nothing illicit about WP.

NTM

Certainly in its application as illumination and troop cover. That using it as a weapon is still debatable (only because the US and Israel use it though). It's use in civilian areas is illegal though, which is were you boys were using it.

"No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.

"If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use.

"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4442988.stm

The irony of invading a country because it allegedly has WMD and then using them in civilian areas... not lost on me.

Two points here. Firstly, the primary weapons effect of WP is as an incendiary, not a toxin (technically, WP's chemical effects are classified as an irritant anyway), and though the results are often gruesome (like wars aren't?) there are no general prohibitions on burning the enemy into crispy critters. Secondly, neither are there any general prohibitions on the use of incendiaries in urban areas as long as they are not delivered by aircraft, which, as far as I know, they were not.

NTM

karma_ · 22-10-2011 01:58PM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Other than universities/hospitals/industry Why does the fourth largest oil producer in the world want uranium anyways

Why does the third largest producer?

karma_ · 22-10-2011 02:01PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Two points here. Firstly, the primary weapons effect of WP is as an incendiary, not a toxin (technically, WP's chemical effects are classified as an irritant anyway), and though the results are often gruesome (like wars aren't?) there are no general prohibitions on burning the enemy into crispy critters. Secondly, neither are there any general prohibitions on the use of incendiaries in urban areas as long as they are not delivered by aircraft, which, as far as I know, they were not.

NTM

Says a lot about the desensitisation of modern military training to hear it described this way, strikes me as callous.

Manic Moran · 22-10-2011 02:02PM

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Manic Moran wrote: »

I didn't say there were none, because some did exist and were found. They were not, however, indicative of a government plot to keep them, which I presume was the point of the question.

There is nothing illicit about WP.

NTM

Why are you signing your posts NTM and what does the fact you feel the need to sign your posts on an internet forum say about

I'm a little old fashioned and have always signed my electronic correspondence. It was a good way of validating complete transmission of a message and is a habit I have never gotten out of. Plus I think it polite. What does the fact that you focus on that and not the topic say about you?

Killer Pigeon · 22-10-2011 02:02PM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Other than universities/hospitals/industry Why does the fourth largest oil producer in the world want uranium anyways

So they can sell their all their oil, make more cash, and not waste it on domestic use.

Manic Moran · 22-10-2011 02:10PM

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Isn't the infant mortality rate higher in Fallujah than any other place in Iraq due to the use of depleted uranium munitions on the city?

Unless there was a tank battle that somehow has been kept secret, then no. DU is primarily used as an armour penetrating munition and would have had little practical application in such a fight. Indeed, an organization named "the international coalition to ban depleted uranium" put in an FOIA request for ammunition expenditures.

http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/a/406.html

Whatever is causing the unusually high rates of cancers and mortality in Fallujah, it is not DU. Indeed, unless there were some munitions specifically used there which have not been used anywhere else, it seems unlikely that any munitions at all were the direct cause.

NTM

The Iraq War Ends,

Comments