Summer Savings! Get unlimited digital access for 13 weeks for $13.
Readers Respond
News Opinion Readers Respond

Iraq's chemical weapons stocks were well documented

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 Park

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Why must media use the term ISIS?

    Why must media use the term ISIS?

    I was elated to see the article, "U.S.: Airstrikes in Syria, Iraq change Islamic State tactics" (Oct. 18), use the same terminology as President Barack Obama when referring to the Islamic State that we are currently combating. I wish I could say the same for the media. Prominent anchors and pundits...

  • Obama's window dressing in Iraq

    Obama's window dressing in Iraq

    President Barack Obama's announcement last week that he will send an additional 450 U.S. troops to Iraq to train and assist the Iraqi Army in its battle against the self-proclaimed Islamic State appears to be a futile gesture. The chances that a few hundred more American advisers can turn the situation...

  • Obama's costly foreign policy failures

    Obama's costly foreign policy failures

    Peter Morici produced a fine piece of writing and logic ("The poverty of Obama's foreign policy," May 20). But he should give some credit to President Barack Obama's self-proclaimed "successes" in Iraq, Yemen and Libya.

  • Iraqis give away U.S. weapons

    Iraqis give away U.S. weapons

    Observing the Iraqi forces fighting ISIS running away every time they engage ISIS is one thing, but it is entirely another thing for the Iraqis to abandon their American weapons every time they retreat in a panic ("Islamic State seizes part of ancient town of Palmyra in Syria," May 20).

  • Obama's incompetent foreign policy

    Obama's incompetent foreign policy

    "Alarmed about the growing threat from Islamic State, the Obama administration has dramatically stepped up warnings of potential terrorist attacks on American soil…."

  • In Iraq, a de facto U.S.-Iran alliance

    In Iraq, a de facto U.S.-Iran alliance

    In principle, the Obama administration's strategy for confronting the Islamic State made perfect sense: The U.S. would conduct military airstrikes against insurgent strongholds in Syria and Iraq in support of coordinated attacks on the ground by troops fielded by our regional allies. The goal was...

  • Obama takes radical Islam too lightly

    Obama takes radical Islam too lightly

    I give The Sun's editorial board credit for using the correct term — "radical Islam" ("Radical Islam in Africa," April 13) to describe the terrorist attack in Kenya. But you really can't expect the Obama administration to do one thing since President Barack Obama described al-Qaida as "one the...

  • Only Muslims can defeat radical Islam

    Only Muslims can defeat radical Islam

    Commentator Huma Munir offered an excellent portrayal of the Qur'anic vision that has been corrupted to justify a violent political reality ("Real Muslims don't terrorize," April 7).

Comments
Loading
88°