• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The WMD We've Found Thus Far...

Which of these WMDs found in Iraq demonstrate that Saddam was a WMD threat?


  • Total voters
    13
1. Uranium - The Uranium had been placed in barrels, locked up, and sealed in a storage facility at Tuwaitha by the IAEA in 1992. The IAEA checked it every year to count all of it and make sure it was still there and it was. It wasn't until the United States blew open storage building and the Iraqis starting looting it that anyone other than the IAEA had access to it.

2. 500 artillery shells - As the ISG noted, they were no longer wmd due to the fact that they were degraded to such an extent as to be rendered useless as cw muinitions. They were leftovers from the Iran-Iraq war that Saddam didn't know still existed and had expired decades ago.

3. Botulism - Courtesy of the Reagan Administration. As the ISG noted, Saddam's regime never aquired the technology needed to preserve weaponized biological agents thanks to the sanctions. A vile of botulism is NOT a wmd.

4. Cyanide - Again, not weaponized and therefore not a wmd.

5. Equiptment - Unused by Saddam's regime after 1991.

1) Saddam expelled inspectors for over a decade. But he would never have defied the international community in this case?

Weak.

2) Some were viable, some weren't. The ones that were could've still been used to kill thousands...war justified.

3) The Iraqi government wasn't storing live vials of botulism for fun. A low level peon of a terrorist could still use vials of botulism to poison hundreds, if not thousands of people.

4) Again, the Iraqi government wasn't storing blocks of concentrated cyanide for fun, and "weaponized" can just mean putting it into an artillery shell.

5) From the news sources listed in the intro:

"The 13-page document, compiled from the reports of 1,200 arms experts who have been scouring Iraq for two months, says Saddam was determined to resume building nukes.

And he was already negotiating with rogue state North Korea to buy long-range rockets that could have launched nuclear AND chemical warheads at UK bases in the Med.

The experts also unearthed secret bio-weapons labs, new strains of lethal diseases, a deadly bug hidden in a scientist’s home — and evidence of possible chemical weapon tests on human victims
."
 
1) There's more to think about here than body count. If we find enough WMD to justify saying Saddam could've killed millions, THEN will it be ok to do something about foreign threats?
I highlighted the 'if' for you. Remember, the Bush admin knew where they were without a doubt. 4 years later, and after admission of not finding them, you're still holding out for the impossible. How noble.

Peace
 
Also, Aquapub;

War is not the first option. It is (or should be) the absolute last option.

Sanctions, inspections, and missile strikes degraded Saddams ability to be a real threat to anyone.

Iraq is puny in the scheme of global threats. Why not go for China, or Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran (that'll be soon)? Why not the former Soviet? They don't know where half their WMD's are.

Ask yourself why Iraq?

I don't understand you extreme liberal haters. IMO, you are either severely brainwashed/conditioned, or you are only here to diffuse logical debate...

Peace
 
Hatuey:
Theory without any actual meat. Your source is from 2004. Here is mine from 2005.

How about 2006 :2razz:

Ex-Official: Russia Moved Saddam's WMD

Ex-Official: Russia Moved Saddam's WMD
Kenneth R. Timmerman
Sunday, Feb. 19, 2006

A top Pentagon official who was responsible for tracking Saddam Hussein's weapons programs before and after the 2003 liberation of Iraq, has provided the first-ever account of how Saddam Hussein "cleaned up" his weapons of mass destruction stockpiles to prevent the United States from discovering them.

"The short answer to the question of where the WMD Saddam bought from the Russians went was that they went to Syria and Lebanon," former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John A. Shaw told an audience Saturday at a privately sponsored "Intelligence Summit" in Alexandria, Va.

(www.intelligencesummit.org).
"They were moved by Russian Spetsnaz (special forces) units out of uniform, that were specifically sent to Iraq to move the weaponry and eradicate any evidence of its existence," he said.

Shaw has dealt with weapons-related issues and export controls as a U.S. government official for 30 years, and was serving as deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security when the events he described today occurred.

Mod: Edited per request
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And this also from 2006:

CNN.com - On tape, Hussein talks of WMDs - Feb 19, 2006

On tape, Hussein talks of WMDs
Former Iraqi leader heard saying he warned U.S. of terrorism
Sunday, February 19, 2006; Posted: 12:42 p.m. EST (17:42 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein told his Cabinet in the mid-1990s that the U.S. would fall victim to terrorists possessing weapons of mass destruction but that Iraq would not be involved, tapes released Saturday at an intelligence summit reveal.

Hussein also can be heard speaking with high-ranking Iraqi officials about deceiving United Nations inspectors looking into Iraq's weapons program, which his son-in-law, Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel, oversaw.

The tapes, which U.S. officials have confirmed are authentic, are part of a much larger cache of information on the nation's weapons programs. Six translators listened to the recordings for CNN. (Watch how the tapes show Hussein discussed terrorism with Cabinet -- 2:46)

Former U.N. weapons inspector Bill Tierney, who translated the tapes for the FBI, provided the recordings to a nongovernmental meeting in Arlington, Virginia, called Intelligence Summit 2006.

U.S. officials who have reviewed the tapes said Hussein was "fixated" on acquiring weapons of mass destruction and preventing U.N. inspectors from finding out.

On the tapes, Kamel and Hussein discuss whether Iraq should disclose information about its biological weapons program to U.N. inspectors. Iraq had previously denied having any such program.

"The question becomes, do we have to disclose everything or continue to keep silent?" Kamel said to Hussein. "I think it would be in our interest not to, because we don't want the world to know about what we possess because it has become clear to the countries who are forced to be allies of the U.S. that our position is untenable."

Kamel defected to Jordan in August 1995, the highest ranking member of Saddam's inner circle to do so. He returned to Iraq in February 1996 and was executed on the orders of Saddam's son, Uday.

The date of the recording is not known. But Kamel told CNN in September 1995: "No, Iraq does not possess any weapons of mass destruction. I am being completely honest about this."

Kamel acknowledged that he was told to keep secrets from U.N. inspectors.
"The order was to hide much of it from the start, and we hid a lot of that information, he told CNN. "These were not individual acts of concealment but as a result of direct orders from the top."

In another recording, an unidentified man tells Hussein that the U.N. weapons inspections are meaningless because the regime still maintains the intent and the technical knowledge to reconstitute its weapons programs.

"Sir, they cannot deprive us our will, and despite the pressures they bring to bear on us through monitoring, and despite the fact we were not able to put to use our missile technology, the time is not their side," the unidentified man said.

"No matter how much they take from us, the factories will be in our brains and souls, and the people who can make missiles out of stones and use them with success in four days can certainly achieve a great deal in one, two, or five years."

He tells Hussein "when it comes to time, they will be the losers."
Hussein also said on one of the tapes that he warned British and U.S. officials of an imminent attack employing weapons of mass destruction.

"Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans a long time before August 2 and I told the British as well, I think," Hussein tells then-Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz. "I told them that in the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction."

He added, however, that Iraq would have no part in it. August 2 is believed to be a reference to the date of the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which sparked the Gulf War the following year.

"This is coming. This story is coming, but not from Iraq," Hussein said.
Aziz is currently in U.S. custody and facing charges of crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes.

A U.S. official said the tapes "do not change the story" on Saddam's weapons programs in any substantive way.

"We already knew he had them in the early '90s and wanted to get them again after he lost them but was not able to," the official said.

A spokeswoman for Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte said the tapes were "fascinating," but they "do not reveal anything that changes their postwar analysis of Iraq's weapons programs, nor do they change the findings contained in the comprehensive Iraq Survey Group report."

The Survey Group report, written by Charles Duelfer and published in October 2004, concluded that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction when the United States invaded in March of 2003, but the regime intended to resume its WMD programs once U.N. sanctions were lifted.

Of the tapes, Duelfer said, "The tapes tend to reinforce, confirm, and to a certain extent, provide a bit more detail, the conclusions which we brought out in the report."

The tapes, which were obtained by the U.S. government sometime after the invasion of Iraq, are part of about 35,000 additional boxes of material on Iraq's weapons programs and efforts, said an aide to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra, R-Michigan, who has reviewed the tapes.

The material is awaiting translation, the aide said, and the Bush administration is contemplating making all the material public for journalists and academics to translate and review.

The International Intelligence Summit describes itself on its Web site as a nonpartisan, nonprofit forum that promotes an exchange of ideas among members of the international intelligence community.

The summit's main sponsor is the Michael Cherney Fund, whose Web site describes the fund's main objective as "helping realize the intellectual potential of the post-Soviet emigres to Israel."

The summit Web site states that the group supports the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, which have prompted widespread violence across the globe.

"In solidarity with the people of Denmark and in support of freedom of speech, the Intelligence Summit offers free conference admission to Danish passport holders," it states.

Tierney told ABC News, which first reviewed portions of the tapes, that he provided the tapes to the Intelligence Summit because it is wrong for the U.S. government to keep them from the public.

"Because of my experience being in the inspections and being in the military, I knew the significance of these tapes when I heard them," Tierney told ABC.
Former Justice Department prosecutor John Loftus, the president of the Intelligence Summit with whom Tierney shared the tapes, is now a private attorney and works pro bono "to help hundreds of intelligence agents obtain lawful permission to declassify and publish the hidden secrets of our times," according to Loftus' Web site.

CNN's David Ensor, Octavia Nasr, Justine Redman and David de Sola contributed to this report.
 

Sigh.

John A. Shaw - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John A. "Jack" Shaw served as Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for International Technology Security. Shaw became the subject of an FBI investigation when he conducted unauthorized investigations of Iraq reconstruction efforts, using the results of these unauthorized probes to direct multimillion dollar government contracts to his friends and associates. In one instance he impersonated a Halliburton employee in order to conduct the unauthorized investigation.[1] Shaw was asked to resign for "exceeding his authority" in such probes. Among other unsubstantiated claims, Mr. Shaw accused Russian special forces of helping Saddam removed his WMD prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He was asked to resign shortly after these accusations, prompting him to call the accusations by the Pentagon "spurious." Shaw said he made the accusations as a political move to help candidate George W. Bush, who he felt was being "crucified" by the revelations that over 350 tons of explosives had gone missing in Iraq as a result of the U.S. invasion. Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Larry DiRita called Shaw's charges "absurd and without any foundation." DiRita noted that Shaw "has been directed on several occasions to produce evidence of his wide-ranging and fantastic charges and provide it to the DoD inspector general. To my knowledge, he has not done so."[2] Senior Defense Department officials told the Washington Post that Shaw's claims regarding the al-Qa'qaa facility had "no basis in fact."[3] Since the election, all reports have indicated the explosives at al-Qa'qaa were removed after U.S. forces captured the facility. See Al Qa'qaa high explosives controversy.

Good Game? Alright.
 
1) Saddam expelled inspectors for over a decade. But he would never have defied the international community in this case?

He never defied the international community in that case. ALL of the uranium was accounted for and Saddam's regime never touched it after it was sealed by the IAEA.

Some were viable, some weren't. The ones that were could've still been used to kill thousands...war justified.

First of all, Saddam's regime never weaponized botulism. Second, Saddam's regime had no intention of weaponizing botulism because they had no method of preserving it long enough for storage. Third, viles of botulism were not banned by the sanctions. War not justified.

4) Again, the Iraqi government wasn't storing blocks of concentrated cyanide for fun, and "weaponized" can just mean putting it into an artillery shell.

The fact remains that it wasn't weaponized.


The experts also unearthed secret bio-weapons labs, new strains of lethal diseases, a deadly bug hidden in a scientist’s home — and evidence of possible chemical weapon tests on human victims[/I]."


I'd be interested in hearing who those "experts" are considering the FACT that the only experts which conducted a thorough investigation into the matter came to different conclusions.
 
I highlighted the 'if' for you. Remember, the Bush admin knew where they were without a doubt. 4 years later, and after admission of not finding them, you're still holding out for the impossible. How noble.

Peace

This might make sense if this thread hadn't been started out with proof that we have in fact found several different kinds of WMD, WMD material, and WMD infrastructure.
 
Also, Aquapub;

1) War is not the first option. It is (or should be) the absolute last option.

2) Sanctions, inspections, and missile strikes degraded Saddams ability to be a real threat to anyone.

3) Iraq is puny in the scheme of global threats. Why not go for China, or Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran (that'll be soon)? Why not the former Soviet? They don't know where half their WMD's are.

4) I don't understand you extreme liberal haters. IMO, you are either severely brainwashed/conditioned, or you are only here to diffuse logical debate...

1) Which is why we went through 15 years of failed diplomacy and expelled inspectors first.

2) Tell that to the countless victims of the suicide bombers he was sponsoring.

3) Those countries are mostly nuclear AND they hadn't been through 15 years of failed diplomacy over WMD, sponsored terrorism openly, tried to assassinate one of our presidents, attacked nearly all their neighbors, etc.

4) Or we just think beyond the glaringly flawed hype you people use to lie about and smear any and all U.S. national security measures.
 
He never defied the international community in that case. ALL of the uranium was accounted for and Saddam's regime never touched it after it was sealed by the IAEA.

I'm glad you have the intellectual honesty and objectivity to find so much faith in the lawfulness of a notoriously defiant terror-sponsor with a fixation on WMD.

:roll:

This point is just not going to fly no matter how you sell it.
 
1) First of all, Saddam's regime never weaponized botulism.

2) Second, Saddam's regime had no intention of weaponizing botulism because they had no method of preserving it long enough for storage.

3) Third, viles of botulism were not banned by the sanctions. War not justified.

1) Saddam wouldn't have to "weaponize" botulism (which is a fancy way of saying, "put it in an artillery round like he did thousands of times'). All he would have to do is have it poured into the food supply.

2) The fact that we found the organism alive after all this time alone disproves this assertion.

3) You may be looking to disqualify weapons that can kill thousands based on a technicality, but those of us looking for the Truth here see that Bush's assertions about the threat Saddam posed were valid.
 
The fact remains that it wasn't weaponized.

Yes, of the thousands of agents Saddam HAD put into artillery shells and fired at people, this one hadn't been put in a shell yet.

You say this as if not finding the chunks of cyanide placed in the shells means Saddam was innocent.

Nice logic. :notlook:
 
I'd be interested in hearing who those "experts" are considering the FACT that the only experts which conducted a thorough investigation into the matter came to different conclusions.

The "experts" this article is referring to, which you would know if you were actually concerned enough with the Truth here to even bother looking at the evidence in question, is the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group.

Another excerpt from the cited source:

"The report, from America’s Iraq Survey Group,...ISG chief Dr David Kay says in the report: “We have discovered dozens of WMD-related programme activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the UN.”

Helps if you actually read reports rather than just reciting what liberals tell you they say.

:lol:
 
How far do you really want to go with this? The CIA, The President, The UN all say there were no WMDs. You're still claiming they are. Who should I believe? :)

We didn't find ready to go stockpiles of nerve gas or biologicals. So what? Look what we did find.

Are you denying Saddam was WMD threat either before, then or in the future?
 
I'm glad you have the intellectual honesty and objectivity to find so much faith in the lawfulness of a notoriously defiant terror-sponsor with a fixation on WMD.


I find it interesting that you only tout the findings of the ISG when they support your opinion but discard those findings which do not. I believe that is reffered to as intellectual dishonesty.

1) Saddam wouldn't have to "weaponize" botulism (which is a fancy way of saying, "put it in an artillery round like he did thousands of times'). All he would have to do is have it poured into the food supply.

Again, Botulism wasn't banned by the sanctions and Saddam's regime never weaponized it. A vile of botulism is not a wmd.


2) The fact that we found the organism alive after all this time alone disproves this assertion.

We've known he's had it since Reagan gave it to him. It doesn't disprove the assertion.


3) You may be looking to disqualify weapons that can kill thousands based on a technicality, but those of us looking for the Truth here see that Bush's assertions about the threat Saddam posed were valid.

Saddam didn't pose a threat to the United States nor did he pose a PRESENT threat, as far as wmd are concerned, to anyone else for that matter.
 
We didn't find ready to go stockpiles of nerve gas or biologicals. So what? Look what we did find.

Are you denying Saddam was WMD threat either before, then or in the future?

Yep. He had that stuff and more for 20 years and never gave it to terrorists. What was the big threat that he was going to start doing so in 2003?
 
Yep. He had that stuff and more for 20 years and never gave it to terrorists. What was the big threat that he was going to start doing so in 2003?

Come on, let's not go confusing them with the facts or anything.
 
Yep. He had that stuff and more for 20 years and never gave it to terrorists. What was the big threat that he was going to start doing so in 2003?

Yeah, he was too busy using them himself to commit genocide on Kurds and on his enemies.

Nice logic. :lol:

I guess Kurds are less worthy of rescuing from genocide than people from Darfur.
 
I find it interesting that you only tout the findings of the ISG when they support your opinion but discard those findings which do not. I believe that is reffered to as intellectual dishonesty.

Common sense is actually a better term to describe the act of not believing the "Saddam had no WMD" conclusion of a report that catalogues numerous WMD Saddam had.
 
We've known he's had it since Reagan gave it to him. It doesn't disprove the assertion.

Your assertion was that Saddam couldn't keep the organism alive. Then you claim he's had it since the 1980s. Obviously he COULD and DID keep it alive.

That completely disproves your assertion.

:roll:
 
1) Saddam didn't pose a threat to the United States nor did he pose a PRESENT threat,

2) as far as wmd are concerned, to anyone else for that matter.

1) Sure, unless you count trying to assassinate one of our presidents, being one of the world's most prolific terror-sponsors, seeking and possessing WMD in a post-9/11 world, attacking nearly all of his neighbors, including our very close nuclear ally, who he routinely fired SCUDS at-Israel.

Yeah, nothing he was doing could've threatened us. :notlook:

2) Tell that to the Kurds he used WMD on, the Iranians he used WMD, the Israelis he routinely fired SCUDS at.

But you want something done about genocide in Darfur, right? :lol:

What, so liberals can force us to hand that country over to genocidal terrorists before we can fix the problem there too?
 
Again, Botulism wasn't banned by the sanctions and Saddam's regime never weaponized it. A vile of botulism is not a wmd.
From the ISG interim report. And later findings by Duelfer noted they were working on means of delivery that were suited for terrorist attacks.

" A very large body of information has been developed through debriefings,
site visits, and exploitation of captured Iraqi documents that confirms
that Iraq concealed equipment and materials from UN inspectors when they
returned in 2002. One noteworthy example is a collection of reference
strains that ought to have been declared to the UN. Among them was a vial
of live C. botulinum Okra B. from which a biological agent can be
produced.
This discovery - hidden in the home of a BW scientist -
illustrates the point I made earlier about the difficulty of locating
small stocks of material that can be used to covertly surge production of
deadly weapons. The scientist who concealed the vials containing this
agent has identified a large cache of agents that he was asked, but
refused, to conceal. ISG is actively searching for this second cache.
Additional information is beginning to corroborate reporting since 1996
about human testing activities using chemical and biological substances,
but progress in this area is slow given the concern of knowledgeable Iraqi
personnel about their being prosecuted for crimes against humanity.
We have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile BW
production effort. Investigation into the origin of and intended use for
the two trailers found in northern Iraq in April has yielded a number of
explanations, including hydrogen, missile propellant, and BW production,
but technical limitations would prevent any of these processes from being
ideally suited to these trailers. That said, nothing we have discovered
rules out their potential use in BW production."





We've known he's had it since Reagan gave it to him. It doesn't disprove the assertion.

The US Government gave strains to many countries back then through a WHO program of the UN.


Saddam didn't pose a threat to the United States nor did he pose a PRESENT threat, as far as wmd are concerned, to anyone else for that matter.

Yes he did.
 
Originally Posted by Iriemon
Yep. He had that stuff and more for 20 years and never gave it to terrorists. What was the big threat that he was going to start doing so in 2003?

Yeah, he was too busy using them himself to commit genocide on Kurds and on his enemies.

Nice logic. :lol:

I guess Kurds are less worthy of rescuing from genocide than people from Darfur.

As you concede, Hussein was not a threat to the US. Hussein hadn't used them on the Kurds since the CIA inspired insurgency in 1991. The US attack was in 2003.

Nice logic. :lol:
 
As you concede, Hussein was not a threat to the US. Hussein hadn't used them on the Kurds since the CIA inspired insurgency in 1991. The US attack was in 2003.

It's it sad to see the desperate measures some people will go to in order to keep their beliefs alive? I expect another ridiculous excuse coming up any post now about how Saddam really was a terrorist threat to the United States, even though none of the evidence even remotely supports the claim.
 
Back
Top Bottom