I could give you the names and addresses of at 5 soldiers who were part of George W’s initial invasion who are suffering from neurological damage caused by the ‘non-existent’ chemical weapons.
A very startling claim, to say the least.
muzeuterpe, are you sure that your friends were injured by chemical weapons and not by bombs or depleted uranium? Bomb blasts can cause quite a bit of hidden neurological damage to people with no visible injuries.
Googling “neurological damage Iraq war” has led me to this news story, and a bunch of similar stories, about neurological damage from bomb blasts, not from chemical weapons. I also found some articles about the use of depleted uranium by the U.S. forces. The only article I found about neurological damage due to chemical weapons is this New York Times article, about veterans of the first Gulf War, not the most recent Iraq war. I then tried Googling “Iraq war neurological damage chemical weapons” and again found such reports pertaining only to the first Gulf war.
Are you aware of any actual news reports about U.S. soldiers having been injured by Iraqi chemical weapons in 2003? I’ve come across various reports of Iraqi WMD’s allegedly having been found in or after 2003, but not any reports about them having been used during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Can you point me to any reports of the latter?
If indeed Saddam Hussein really had WMD’s in 2003, one would expect him to have used them against an invading army. After all, what did he have to lose at that point by using them, if indeed he had them? Hence the absence of reports that he used chemical weapons is, in my opinion, evidence against the claim that he had them. So now my question is, do you have any evidence that he used them?
If indeed there were any such evidence, wouldn’t Bush be talking about it quite a bit, in defense of its own reputation, given that he has been widely accused of lying about the alleged WMD’s? Therefore, if indeed the Iraqis actually used any WMD’s in 2003, one would think there would be plenty of easy-to-find news coverage of this, and of such hard evidence as the resulting injuries to U.S. soldiers.
In any case, I am very sorry to hear about your friends’ injuries, whatever their actual cause.
muzeuterpe also wrote:
Why don’t you do something constructive like planning how to help the people who will be slaughtered by a pull-out. You waste time and energy arguing about something that can’t be changed. We’re in there, like it or not. Arguing about whether we should have gone is like debating birth control after the child is born.
No, it’s more like putting a rapist on trial after a child has been born as the result of rape. Is the latter not a reason to bring the rapist to justice? The point is that Bush, Cheney et al should be impeached and then tried for war crimes and possibly for treason.