Will Saddam’s WMDs Fall into the Hands of Al Qaeda?

[VanceMack]

Yea.... :roll: Uhh hows that regime go from the get go? Opened up the door to terrorists, civil war happened (some argue its still going on). Hows that regime change working out in Iraq right now? Averaging a terrorist attack a day, human rights are still ****ty, Iraq is a failed state.

Saddam Huessein DID have weapons in the 80's and early 90's but dismantled them and got rid of them, he did not have any during the 2000's and during the invasion this is a well known fact and to argue otherwise is ridiculous.

And why do you 'know' that?

 

[Wiseone]

In Iraq there was; Scientists were forced to bury plans and parts in their yards to hide from the UN Inspecteurs.

CNN.com - Nuke program parts unearthed in Baghdad back yard - Jun. 26, 2003
CNN.com - U.S. nearly ignored Iraqi nuclear scientist, intermediary says - Jun. 27, 2003

From your own article:

The parts, with accompanying plans, were unearthed by Iraqi scientist Mahdi Obeidi who had hidden them under a rose bush in his garden 12 years ago under orders from Qusay Hussein and Saddam Hussein's then son-in-law, Hussein Kamel.

U.S. officials emphasized this was not evidence Iraq had a nuclear weapon -- but it was evidence the Iraqis concealed plans to reconstitute their nuclear program as soon as the world was no longer looking.

Hahahahahhaha

This is too funny man, you see a story about a bunch of rusty parts to a centrifuge that have been buried under a guy's ROSE BUSHES for TWELVE YEARS and think "nuclear weapon program." Are you serious man? I bet when a dog takes a **** in a park you think its a biological attack.

Could we have waited until after Saddam decided, if ever, to dig up his roses bushes before invading? I think we still would have time to react before he shot a nuclear ICBM at New York.

 

[johnny_rebson]

And why do you 'know' that?

Vance, you are wasting your time arguing with these libs who lack common sense.

Even now they want to do absolutely nothing even though we have solid proof that Assad has WMD in Syria.

 

[Wiseone]

Vance, you are wasting your time arguing with these libs who lack common sense.

Even now they want to do absolutely nothing even though we have solid proof that Assad has WMD in Syria.

Everyone agrees Assad has WMDs, but we are talking about Saddam's.

 

[VanceMack]

Everyone agrees Assad has WMDs, but we are talking about Saddam's.

Everyone agreed Saddam had WMDs prior to Bush forcing the issue. Bush's cited reason was Saddams refusal to account for his WMDs...a citation confirmed by NUMEROUS democrats including past presidents and vice presidents.

 

[Wiseone]

Everyone agreed Saddam had WMDs prior to Bush forcing the issue. Bush's cited reason was Saddams refusal to account for his WMDs...a citation confirmed by NUMEROUS democrats including past presidents and vice presidents.

I know, I thought so too and even the war dissenters didn't argue that he didn't have them as a reason not to invade they just wanted to go a different route to address the issue. Doesn't change the fact that he didn't have any after all.

 

[VanceMack]

I know, I thought so too and even the war dissenters didn't argue that he didn't have them as a reason not to invade they just wanted to go a different route to address the issue. Doesn't change the fact that he didn't have any after all.

We still dont know what we dont know about Saddams WMD program. he began developing them in the 60's, we sold him spores int he 80s and there are entire UN inspected catalogs that were unaccounted for. We cant pretend that Saddam put them all in one aspirin factory and Clinton destroyed them with one bomb. We dont know if he ferried them out to Syria via the Russians or dumped them into the desert. We just dont know and as long as it doesnt fit peoples paradigm we dont CARE...we just have to pretend he never had them.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

And why do you 'know' that?

Know what?

 

[Wiseone]

We still dont know what we dont know about Saddams WMD program. he began developing them in the 60's, we sold him spores int he 80s and there are entire UN inspected catalogs that were unaccounted for. We cant pretend that Saddam put them all in one aspirin factory and Clinton destroyed them with one bomb. We dont know if he ferried them out to Syria via the Russians or dumped them into the desert. We just dont know and as long as it doesnt fit peoples paradigm we dont CARE...we just have to pretend he never had them.

Well firstly Saddam wasn't even in power until the 70s, so I don't think he was developing any WMDs in the 60s. I guess we could go on and on about all these what ifs but the fact remains that the reason we went to war in Iraq was completely wrong in the end, he didn't have any when we invaded and we never recovered any government documents that said he moved them anywhere. Of course hindsight is 20/20 but it shows a harsh lesson on the need to be careful and not too hasty in situations like this.

 

[VanceMack]

Know what?

"did not have any during the 2000's and during the invasion this is a well known fact"

I can cite you quote after quote from democrat after democrat including Gore, Clinton(s), Kerry, Pelosi et al that showed they ALL believed the intel that Saddam HAD WMDS and had been dishonest and deceptive about their whereabouts and disposition. We 'know' Saddam rebuffed 17...17 Un resolutions demanding compliance. We 'know' what we know because Bush forced compliance. Democrats...Clinton...Gore...cited his possession of WMDs and his present threat and danger. Kinda tough to worm out of that reality. Better to just ignore it.

 

[VanceMack]

Well firstly Saddam wasn't even in power until the 70s, so I don't think he was developing any WMDs in the 60s. I guess we could go on and on about all these what ifs but the fact remains that the reason we went to war in Iraq was completely wrong in the end, he didn't have any when we invaded and we never recovered any government documents that said he moved them anywhere. Of course hindsight is 20/20 but it shows a harsh lesson on the need to be careful and not too hasty in situations like this.

Saddam was the finger behind the trigger in the Baath coup in 68. They began immediately developing chemical weapons. But you are right...we can play history games all day long. The fact is, every democrat in congress believed the exact same thing Bush believed. They knew he had unaccounted for chemical weapons and he refused to provide an accounting. Bush, like every democrat, had every reason to believe he still possessed and no one can still account for them. Kerry believed. Kennedy believed. Hilary believed. Pelosi believed. Albright believed. Clintons sec of Defense believed. Perhaps everyone else believed because Saddam wanted them to believe. That was probably a 'bad' call.

 

[Wiseone]

Saddam was the finger behind the trigger in the Baath coup in 68. They began immediately developing chemical weapons. But you are right...we can play history games all day long. The fact is, every democrat in congress believed the exact same thing Bush believed. They knew he had unaccounted for chemical weapons and he refused to provide an accounting. Bush, like every democrat, had every reason to believe he still possessed and no one can still account for them. Kerry believed. Kennedy believed. Hilary believed. Pelosi believed. Albright believed. Clintons sec of Defense believed. Perhaps everyone else believed because Saddam wanted them to believe. That was probably a 'bad' call.

I can see you're interested in disseminating blame, which is exactly the wrong thing to do after something like this happens. If you see thousands of American lives thrown away and trillions of dollars wasted in a war that we didn't need to fight, the response shouldn't be to make sure as little blame as possible gets on you or your party or favorite politicians, the response needs to be to learn from it to make sure it never happens again.

 

[VanceMack]

I can see you're interested in disseminating blame, which is exactly the wrong thing to do after something like this happens. If you see thousands of American lives thrown away and trillions of dollars wasted in a war that we didn't need to fight, the response shouldn't be to make sure as little blame as possible gets on you or your party or favorite politicians, the response needs to be to learn from it to make sure it never happens again.

Disseminating blame? Pshaw. Im simply speaking truth. Bush 'knew' what every democrat 'knew' and acted accordingly. The UN passed 17 resolutions attempting to force Saddam into compliance and accountability for his WMDs. Do you know why they passed 17? Because he said '**** you' to the prior 16 and the world did nothing.

 

[Wiseone]

Disseminating blame? Pshaw. Im simply speaking truth. Bush 'knew' what every democrat 'knew' and acted accordingly. The UN passed 17 resolutions attempting to force Saddam into compliance and accountability for his WMDs. Do you know why they passed 17? Because he said '**** you' to the prior 16 and the world did nothing.

I agree. Everything pointed towards him having them, and everyone agreed that he did but disagreed on how to deal with.

 

[Zalatix]

I like how your own source admits no WMD's have been found, but blames a democratic conspiracy as for why instead of you know "They didn't exist." And to prove they exist it cites a book apparently written in 2006, so if this secret came out in 2006, why didn't the government at the time shout it from the roof tops that they'd finally found those WMD's we went into Iraq for?

To you know what Bush was saying about Iraqi WMDs in 2006? He's admitting during press conferences that he had none at all.



Parasite Nation is pretty devious right?

You killed the thread right there. Game over.

 

[VanceMack]

I agree. Everything pointed towards him having them, and everyone agreed that he did but disagreed on how to deal with.

Well...no...actually. There were a whole lot of dems that had a pretty clear idea of how to deal with him. It wasnt until it became politically expedient that they suddenly found outrage. And they all seemed to get amnesia about their own comments throughout not just the Bush presidency but also the Clinton presidency.

 

[Wiseone]

Well...no...actually. There were a whole lot of dems that had a pretty clear idea of how to deal with him. It wasnt until it became politically expedient that they suddenly found outrage. And they all seemed to get amnesia about their own comments throughout not just the Bush presidency but also the Clinton presidency.

See this is what I mean about focusing on party politics. I didn't say anything about Dems or Reps, I said everyone agreed he had WMDs, but some disagreed on how to deal with him. Some people, again not talking politics, didn't want to handle the problem with war. Do I really have to say "both Dems and Reps" each time I write the word people, do you forget that people is a word that crosses both party lines?

You're so paranoid that I'm trying to blame the Republicans without blaming Dems enough you aren't even reading what I'm writing.

 

[VanceMack]

See this is what I mean about focusing on party politics. I didn't say anything about Dems or Reps, I said everyone agreed he had WMDs, but some disagreed on how to deal with him. Some people, again not talking politics, didn't want to handle the problem with war. Do I really have to say "both Dems and Reps" each time I write the word people, do you forget that people is a word that crosses both party lines?

You're so paranoid that I'm trying to blame the Republicans without blaming Dems enough you aren't even reading what I'm writing.

Well...perhaps its the comment re 'blame' that you insist on bringing up. People can hash and rehash this thing all day long but the facts are straightforward and undeniable. Bush gave three reasons for attacking Iraq. 1-Support of global terrorism, 2-genocide, and 3-Refussal to provide an accounting of his WMDs as per UN resolution. All undeniable and with regard to the WMDs, Bush believed the exact same thing every elected democrat believed both during his administration and throughout the Clinton administration.

Dont you think the disposition of those weapons is a relevant question, even today?

 

[Wiseone]

Well...perhaps its the comment re 'blame' that you insist on bringing up. People can hash and rehash this thing all day long but the facts are straightforward and undeniable. Bush gave three reasons for attacking Iraq. 1-Support of global terrorism, 2-genocide, and 3-Refussal to provide an accounting of his WMDs as per UN resolution. All undeniable and with regard to the WMDs, Bush believed the exact same thing every elected democrat believed both during his administration and throughout the Clinton administration.

Dont you think the disposition of those weapons is a relevant question, even today?

Holy Christ you just won't quit harking on the politics, do you not understand I'm completely uninterested in the politics leading up to the invasion, the who supported what and what time means next to nothing. If you look at the pre-invasion decision making and all you think about is how some Dems supported the war the start and then later tried to pretend they didn't, if all you care about is making sure everyone knows about that hypocrisy than your priorities are completely out of whack.

What matters is how supposedly good intelligence turned out to be bad and in the end resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, thousands of which were Americans, trillions of wasted dollars, and an Iraq dominated by Iran. What's literally completely meaningless compared to that is which politicians said what when.

As for your three reasons, they aren't as bullet proof as you may think. Firstly, Saddam didn't support global terrorism and didn't support Al-Qaeda as was claimed several times. Secondly, genocide had occurred but its hardly a unique situation in the world and by itself doesn't provide justification for military invasion and occupation, it may sound cruel but the United States can't afford the costs of wars like Iraq every time some tinpot dictator starts going on a killing spree. Lastly, its true Saddam did not live up to the UN resolutions in the sense that he didn't cooperate with UN inspectors and did not fully account for the WMDs we believed he had. However, this isn't reason enough to go to war either as it turned out he didn't have any WMDs. Was the cost of the Iraq War worth forcing a point about UN WMD inspectors when there were not WMDs? I think not. The intelligence pointed towards the idea that he had WMDs pre invasion, however that proved to be completely wrong and whats important is to avoid that mistake in the future not worry about some politicians hypocrisy.

I think the question of the disposition of those weapons has been solved, they were not found nor used in Iraq and no relating documents discovered in Iraqi government buildings showed they had been moved anywhere or that they even existed.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

reposted from here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/archi...da-iraqs-al-zarqawi-killed-10.html#post327957

http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/DuelferRpt/Addendums.pdf
Addendums to the Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD

ISG formed a working group to investigate the possibility of the evacuation of WMD-related material from Iraq prior to the 2003 war. This group spent several months examining documents, interviewing former Iraqi officials , examining previous intelligence reports, and conducting some site investigations. The declining security situation limited and finally halted this investigation. The results remain inconclusive, but further investigation may be undertaken when
circumstances on the ground improve.

The investigation centered on the possibility that WMD materials were moved to Syria. As is obvious from other sections of the Comprehensive Report, Syria was involved in transactions and shipments of military and other material to Iraq in contravention of the UN sanctions. This indicated a flexibility with respect to international law and a strong willingness to work with Iraq—at least when there was considerable profit for those involved. Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined. There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation.

ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war. It should be noted that no information from debriefing of Iraqis in custody supports this possibility. ISG found no senior policy, program, or intelligence officials who admitted any direct knowledge of such movement of WMD. Indeed, they uniformly denied any knowledge of residual WMD that could have been secreted to Syria.
Nevertheless, given the insular and compartmented nature of the Regime, ISG analysts believed there was enough evidence to merit further investigation.
It is worth noting that even if ISG had been able to fully examine all the leads it possessed, it is unlikely that conclusive information would have been found.
At best, barring discovery of original documentary evidence of the transfer, reports or sources may have been substantiated or negated, but firm conclusions on actual WMD movements may not be possible.
Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials.​

Note that "WMD-related materials" ≠ WMDs

But as WMD to Syria devotees and Bigfoot devotees are apt to say, "Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. "
And of course, they're both right. However, in the meantime, folks in the reality-based community have to deal with the facts that are available and make the best decisions in light of what's known. And, based on the evidence available at present, the WMD to Syria transfer theory seems unlikely. But, so does Bigfoot, so who's to say.​

012345679

 

[VanceMack]

Holy Christ you just won't quit harking on the politics, do you not understand I'm completely uninterested in the politics leading up to the invasion, the who supported what and what time means next to nothing. If you look at the pre-invasion decision making and all you think about is how some Dems supported the war the start and then later tried to pretend they didn't, if all you care about is making sure everyone knows about that hypocrisy than your priorities are completely out of whack.

What matters is how supposedly good intelligence turned out to be bad and in the end resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, thousands of which were Americans, trillions of wasted dollars, and an Iraq dominated by Iran. What's literally completely meaningless compared to that is which politicians said what when.

As for your three reasons, they aren't as bullet proof as you may think. Firstly, Saddam didn't support global terrorism and didn't support Al-Qaeda as was claimed several times. Secondly, genocide had occurred but its hardly a unique situation in the world and by itself doesn't provide justification for military invasion and occupation, it may sound cruel but the United States can't afford the costs of wars like Iraq every time some tinpot dictator starts going on a killing spree. Lastly, its true Saddam did not live up to the UN resolutions in the sense that he didn't cooperate with UN inspectors and did not fully account for the WMDs we believed he had. However, this isn't reason enough to go to war either as it turned out he didn't have any WMDs. Was the cost of the Iraq War worth forcing a point about UN WMD inspectors when there were not WMDs? I think not. The intelligence pointed towards the idea that he had WMDs pre invasion, however that proved to be completely wrong and whats important is to avoid that mistake in the future not worry about some politicians hypocrisy.

I think the question of the disposition of those weapons has been solved, they were not found nor used in Iraq and no relating documents discovered in Iraqi government buildings showed they had been moved anywhere or that they even existed.

its funny how you first level blame, then when it is pointed out that 'blame' was mutually assured, you decry the evidence (and politics) of 'blame'.

Sorry...but there is ample evidence Saddam hosted terrorists, terrorism, and paid for terror attacks in Palestine. Genocide did not once occur it was an ongoing event. And Saddam proved 17 times his refusal to comply with UN requirements to disclose the disposition of his helical weapons.

And the question IS relevant that since they were no found, where then must they be? The OP postulates they might be in the hands of terrorists. Some researchers document caravans going from and coming to known chemical storage facilities and crossing into Syria. We only know what we know. And we only know THAT because Bush acted.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

And the question IS relevant that since they were no found, where then must they be?

Inorite? Since we haven't found Bigfoot, where is he?

Some researchers document caravans going from and coming to known chemical storage facilities and crossing into Syria.

As I posted above, to date, the best information available indicates that this is not likely to be true.

Of course, ymmv.

 

[VanceMack]

Inorite? Since we haven't found Bigfoot, where is he?

As I posted above, to date, the best information available indicates that this is not likely to be true.

Of course, ymmv.

Perhaps...perhaps not. On the plus side, Syria has its own chemical weapons so this admin has a built in excuse for a decision to wage combat operations.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

"did not have any during the 2000's and during the invasion this is a well known fact"

Yes this is a well known fact.
Remember Colin Powell in 2001 with Condoleza Rice?
Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice - Iraq Has No WMD's And Is Not A Threat - YouTube

In 2002 UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter claimed "as of 1998, 90–95% of Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical capabilities, and long-range ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons, had been verified as destroyed. Technical 100% verification was not possible,not because Iraq still had any hidden weapons, but because Iraq had preemptively destroyed some stockpiles and claimed they had never existed. "

The International Institute of Strategic Studies in 2002 stated that Ira could build WMD's if they wanted to but would take years and years to do so but Iraq was no pursuing this and they had no WMDS.

In early 2003 UN weapons insepctors found no indidcation that Iraq possessed WMDS or had an active program.

I can cite you quote after quote from democrat after democrat including Gore, Clinton(s), Kerry, Pelosi et al that showed they ALL believed the intel that Saddam HAD WMDS and had been dishonest and deceptive about their whereabouts and disposition. We 'know' Saddam rebuffed 17...17 Un resolutions demanding compliance. We 'know' what we know because Bush forced compliance. Democrats...Clinton...Gore...cited his possession of WMDs and his present threat and danger. Kinda tough to worm out of that reality. Better to just ignore it.

Cool just because Democrats thought so doesn't magically make it true..

 

[VanceMack]

Yes this is a well known fact.
Remember Colin Powell in 2001 with Condoleza Rice?
Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice - Iraq Has No WMD's And Is Not A Threat - YouTube

In 2002 UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter claimed "as of 1998, 90–95% of Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical capabilities, and long-range ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons, had been verified as destroyed. Technical 100% verification was not possible,not because Iraq still had any hidden weapons, but because Iraq had preemptively destroyed some stockpiles and claimed they had never existed. "

The International Institute of Strategic Studies in 2002 stated that Ira could build WMD's if they wanted to but would take years and years to do so but Iraq was no pursuing this and they had no WMDS.

In early 2003 UN weapons insepctors found no indidcation that Iraq possessed WMDS or had an active program.



Cool just because Democrats thought so doesn't magically make it true..

Democrats thought so including the former president, vice president, and secretaries of state and defense based on intel they had. The worlds intel agencies believed it to be true. The UN passed 17 resolutions attempting to force compliance. Facts are what they are....stubborn things, I know.