"U.S. Nerve Gas Hit Our Own Troops in Iraq" Topic

"During and immediately after the first Gulf War, more than 200,000 of 700,000 U.S. troops sent to Iraq and Kuwait in January 1991 were exposed to nerve gas and other chemical agents. Though aware of this, the Department of Defense and CIA launched a campaign of lies and concocted a cover-up that continues today.

A quarter of a century later, the troops nearest the explosions are dying of brain cancer at two to three times the rate of those who were farther away. Others have lung cancer or debilitating chronic diseases, and pain.

More complications lie ahead…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

TMP link

Obviously that can't be true as this same magazine claimed there was no WMD weapons in Iraq.

Rolls Eyes Dramatically.

Different wars, a decade apart.

Doug

All of them need to be tried and locked up if this is true. The media should undergo the same scrutiny.

"No information…indicates that chemical or biological weapons were used in the Persian Gulf," wrote Secretary of Defense William Perry and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs John Shalikashvili in a 1994 memo to 20,000 Desert Storm veterans. Strictly speaking, they were right: No weapons were used. The nerve agent sarin was in the fallout from the U.S. bombing or detonating of Iraq's weapons sites.

That's what passes for honesty from people like that.

I'm so old that I can remember when .
-Kle.

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

I found the article's link to top think-tank RAND Corporation's analysis on the ill-conceived invasion much more interesting and informative:

link

I know Marines that where exposed and had issues for months and the Pentagon refused to acknowledge it. They and the civilians leaders should be held accountable.

Service personnel get hurt in wars. It's not the Boy Scouts.
-Kle.

Right but it is the service is to treat the soldiers and acknowledge what is wrong. Does the govt hide cancer as the reason someone is sick? Bush took a lot of flak for no weapons of mass destruction being found. Chemical weapons are a weapon of mass destruction. The fact tens of thousands of our troops were exposed should be proof they existed and used.

Chemical weapons are a weapon of mass destruction. The fact tens of thousands of our troops were exposed should be proof they existed and used.

But by Gulf War II the chemical weapons *weren't* used, or even *usable*. The shells couldn't be fired because they were corroded and leaking and more dangerous to anyone handling them than to enemy troops – except when those enemy troops (that would be the US and its allies) unknowingly handled them, or were exposed to them after someone else handled them, or tried to dispose of them improperly.

The whole argument for GWII was that there were *usable* WMDs, ready for use at a moment's notice. And that simply wasn't the case, as almost everyone involved acknowledges now.

Bill, if this post is too political – I obviously don't think it is, because I think it's a simple discussion of weapons tech and viability – feel free to delete this post.

Service personnel get hurt in wars. It's not the Boy Scouts.

No one is arguing that. In fact, it's the main reason I think the US should have damn good, solid reasons before committing troops to battle. Otherwise you're just wasting good men and women to no realistic end.

But shouldn't part of the whole "I've got your back" ethos that pervades the military really mean "I've got your back, even after you get home, even if you're horribly wounded physically or mentally"?

Shouldn't it extend through every echelon of every branch, from the rawest recruit to the Joint Chiefs, and, yes, to the Commander in Chief?

We ask soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, and their families, to sacrifice so much, even when they return from war relatively unscathed. Shouldn't we guarantee that those who *don't* return unscathed receive the best care, from the moment they enlist until the final taps is blown?

I think we owe them that much, no matter the monetary cost.

Did anyone know that the rounds where corrosive and unable to fire? My guess is they did not since troops went in with chemical gear. I think any military force would have to assume the weapons existed at one time and would be still viable.

The soldiers should be covered in every way. Bringing them home and not taking care of them is criminal.

I guess that helps to explain Gulf War Syndrome.

I remember troops were drilled in biological and chemical warfare during Desert Storm and equipped with gas masks, but there is no evidence the Iraqis actually employed biological or chemical weapons in battle, even though they possessed stockpiles.

At any rate, the question isn't whether Iraq had WMD's in 1991 (Gulf War I) but whether Iraq had them in 2003 (Gulf War II) that was used as justification to invade Iraq in Gulf War II. By 2003, there were no evidence of WMD's in Iraq and it was believed that whatever stockpiles remained were destroyed.

This article states that US troops were exposed to sarin after US bombing of Iraqi weapon sites containing chemical weapons. This occurred in 1991 during Gulf War I, when there was no question that Iraq had chemical weapons.

@28mm Fanatik: Too bad that all the chem weapons weren't destroyed. They might not have been militarily usable, but that didn't stop the insurgents from using them in IEDs.

Fanatik, I was one of those who drilled in MOPP gear and spent the entire ground war + a few days after in said gear.

A lot has been said, retracted, hinted at and refuted on this subject over the years.

I know where I was, what I was doing and what was going on (by and large) around me during the shooting part of the war and the afterward parts.

I know some of what I was exposed to…. and I know some of the placed we went after airstrikes on cache sites had no life anywhere around them.

I was also downwind of more than a few EOD jobs on found weapons and the like. Some of them explosions were interesting. I remember one had green-tinged smoke and another be something of a fizzle when they expected a really large boom- big enough to shake us a few kilometers away.

In Hindsight, makes one wonder… especially as various ailments with no sensible source-cause descend on my system.

I'm more than willing to believe info was withheld… because of either innocent or nefarious or political reasons. This happens all the damn time and will continue to happen.

It just might happen less if children of important people were in the positions we po' bastards who volunteered to serve our country were in.

Just sayin'.

I'm starting to think that we need to start holding those who order cover-ups financially responsible for the injuries their coverups have caused/aggravated.

I'm starting to think that we need to start holding those who order cover-ups financially responsible for the injuries their coverups have caused/aggravated.

I've been thinking that since I first heard about the cover-ups. Hit 'em in their pockets, even if it bankrupts 'em.

Archer, to clarify, are you talking about Gulf War I or Gulf War II?

Desert Storm…. so GW1

Cool. There's definitely no argument about Desert Storm, Iraq definitely had usable chemical weapons then.

Yep…. unfortunately, Official Word is none were used or found.

Meanwhile…. we have all these ailments. :P