The Sun editorial board is prone to making stupid and inane statements, but the blanket statement that "Iraq had no nuclear, chemical or biological weapons nor any prospects for building them at the time of the invasion" ("Home for Christmas," Dec. 2) may be the stupidest and most easily refutable ever written.
UN experts confirmed in 1986 that Iraq had contravened the Geneva Convention by using chemical weapons against Iran.
On March 16, 1988, Iraq dropped bombs containing mustard gas, Sarin and Tabun on the Kurdish city of Halabja. Estimates of the number of civilians killed range from 3,200 to 5,000, with many survivors suffering long-term health problems.
Chemical weapons were also used during Iraq's "Anfal" offensive (1987-1988), in which an estimated 50,000 to 100,000 Kurdish villagers were killed or disappeared. According to International aid groups and subsequent trials, Iraq carried out more than 40 poison gas attacks on Kurdish townships from April 1987 until 1988.
Is it The Sun's contention that the Kurds were simply "faking it"? Are all of the chemical weapon attack photos available online doctored images? Or does The Sun believe that the Iraqi troops used up their entire supply of chemical weapons, then ate the instructions for making more, rendering them incapable of "having any prospects for weapons in the future"?
It's disgraceful that The Sun would so quickly write off tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, and so quickly excuse the regime that did it, ignoring mountains of evidence to the contrary.
There are Iraqi children alive today whose parents were killed by chemical weapons, and for The Sun to pretend that it didn't happen is both disgusting and reprehensible.
Seemingly unbeknownst to the editors, it's actually entirely possible to write an editorial pontificating against the rationale for the Iraq war without including asinine statements.
Michael DeCicco, Severna ParkCopyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun