Wait One Damn Minute!!- Saddam Hussein Had A Chemical Weapons Plant!!

Sure there are.

They could've decided that the facilities were too dangerous to blow up. And that they had no interest in spreading a cloud of poison gas over Iraq.

You do know that despite anti war people trying to make it look like the U.S. led invasion was brutal, in fact the U.S. military went out of there way to cause as little damage to Iraq as possible.

Still waiting for a response on why a Google search for "never declare Iraq in violation of UN resolutions" as a quote returns 0 results.

Too obscure probably. Not everything ever said makes it onto the internet you know.

I would laugh my ass off if Obama used WMD's, well supposed WMD since the ones here are apparently shit, as an excuse to send more troops back into Iraq.

Chicken coop.

Well, I'm glad this plant is no longer any danger whatsoever.

After all,

the invasion happened with sufficient information on Iraq's WMDs,

and it was a useful way to secure Iraq's WMDs.

Therefore, all these WMDs are now secure. Great!

Wait, so you're saying that when the US turned Iraq upside down for years looking for WMD's to justify the invasion they didn't find this plant but ISIS found it no problem?

Several people at other sites have posted stuff saying that the U.S. has known about it for years.

I assumed the U.S. never bombed it or destroyed it to avoid spreading nerve gas into the atmosphere. I have no idea what else is near the bunker/factory.

While I appreciate you telling us about what several people on the internet have posted about, why have we never heard of this alleged smoking gun - that the US was desperately searching for - until now?

Yet they all end up in your chicken coop.

Well hot damn, I guess the Iraq War was a runaway success then!

Risible.

You know, the more discerning retard has been claiming for some time that the WMD had been moved to Syria. Keep up, Dayton.

Well then, just tell us when and where it was said, and how it happens that you have this information that none of the rest of us know about.

Which is why you send in the paratroopers. If you're worried that blowing a facility up will spread clouds of poison gas (though using a MOAB or a FAE bomb, as we did in many places in Iraq, would make it less likely that there'd be enough gas left to cause problems), paratroopers are the best solution. Rather than just ignoring the facilities and hoping that you can get to them before someone has a chance to smuggle the contents out of there.

Nobody's talking about that, except you.

Dayton quite possibly does.

So obscure that no newspaper quoted him? So obscure that Fox News didn't notice? So obscure that not a single political commentator noticed and quoted him in an opinion piece?

Here's the question, if it's apparently so obscure, how did you find it out?

The Chicken Coop News Journal, of course.

Yes, because its impossible to destroy chemical weapons. Oh, wait.

Gee, if we could figure out how to do in it a war torn country where we don't even have soldiers, then there's no excuse for it not being done in Iraq.

It's a big chicken coop.

It's a lot easier to do something like that when you're already at war. Also, a mission like that is more justified when you're already at war. Look, I don't really care if Sadam had WMD's or not, it still doesn't justify the war. I believe in defensive wars only. I mean direct attacks, not perceived threats, but direct attacks from a country or group that has control of a country. All I'm saying is that it is entirely possible that the WMD's were there, but either moved or destroyed.

I don't get it.

1) People say the chemicals in those bunkers are degraded and useless.

2) They also say that it would be too dangerous for ISIS soldiers to even go in those bunkers.

3) How can the chemicals be both "degraded & useless" AND "too dangerous to handle" at the same time?

I'm on the same page as you, but there is an answer to this question. I'm not a chemist, but I could imagine a scenario in which chemicals could be dangerous when concentrated but have lost potency and not be dangerous when dispersed in aerosol form, for example.

So.

Would they be dangerous if terrorist tried something like the Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway?

When George Bush left office Iraq was a peaceful democracy. Now that we have a Muslim president there are Muslims in control of most of Iraq.

Coincidence?

Since we apparently knew about this location and it's condition 10 years ago (see my earlier post quoting the Iraq Study Group), does it seem likely at all that the US military would have left it alone if it contained anything useful to a would be terrorist?

Hint: There were Muslims in control before that.

You are really reaching here. You are so blindly partisan, you are to the right what Liet is to the left. And no, that is not a compliment.

As I recall, a lot of chemical munitions are binary agents. That is to say, there are two components that have to mix before the thing is lethal. The individual components may be nasty in their own right but they're not weapons-grade nasty.

Of course there are also unitary chemical weapons - your sarin, mustard gas, phosgene, like that. So depending on what's actually in this Iraqi facility, it could be nothing but barrels of binary agents that by themselves are not terribly dangerous.

Anything I could say would be speculation. As this story develops, we'll no doubt here experts and Democrats give opinions on the issue.