WMD's in Iraq: Fact or Fiction?

[Alastor]

And we have documented the clandistine labs and facilities Saddam had. So what is your point? We discovered the basic chemicals needed to produce more concentrated nerve gases hidden in storage at his muntions dumps where he also had the shells to load with them.

No, we documented what we suspected were labs and facilities, and that upon invasion turned out to have been empty, or not have been in use since the first Gulf War (for illegal chemical manufacturing at least).

You can produce an illegal chemical gas with clorox and lime-away. Just because you have the components doesn't mean you're using it for that, and those same chemicals are often needed for certain things. For example, chlorine is needed to treat water, but can also be used to create a deadly gas.

But no, upon entering the facilities we found no illegal chemicals. We also found that the "clandestine" (which is an inaccurate term by the way since he declared where they were and we knew where they were as part of the agreement to end the first Gulf War) factories had not been used for those purposes since before Desert Storm.

If you have a credible source that states otherwise, feel free to share it with the White House as even they state they were wrong about the WMD.

 

[Stinger]

No, we documented what we suspected were labs and facilities, and that upon invasion turned out to have been empty, or not have been in use since the first Gulf War (for illegal chemical manufacturing at least).

You are factually wrong. Read my cite in post #23

You can produce an illegal chemical gas with clorox and lime-away. Just because you have the components doesn't mean you're using it for that, and those same chemicals are often needed for certain things. For example, chlorine is needed to treat water, but can also be used to create a deadly gas.

So what? Saddam was require by the cease-fire agreement and UN resolutions and inspections to disclose ALL dual use facilities and no you don't store benign chemicals in munitions dumps buried and covered with camo.

Read my cite in post#23

But no, upon entering the facilities we found no illegal chemicals.

Once again you are factually wrong, see my previous cite.

We also found that the "clandestine" (which is an inaccurate term by the way since he declared where they were and we knew where they were as part of the agreement to end the first Gulf War) factories had not been used for those purposes since before Desert Storm.

Once again you are factually wrong. Both Kay and Duelfer found undeclared labratories and research.

If you have a credible source that states otherwise, feel free to share it with the White House as even they state they were wrong about the WMD.

Sir I cited you the two authoritative official investigations. If YOU have something to rebut their findings then post it, but THEY are far higher authorities in the matter and your dismissals out of hand do not rebut their findings.

 

[Stinger]

We've never found anything in Iraq that meets the definition of WMD.

By your self-serving baseless definition. But we have found plenty to warrant his removal and prove he had every intention to increase and enhance his WMD capabilities.

Finding 20 year old chemical weapons about as strong as what is under your sink, sold to Sadam by Rumsfeld & friends does not constitute WMD.

WMD don't stop becoming WMD after 20 years. That we found anything he had not declared warranted his removal. But we found lots more than that as the two investigations showed and we continue to find. If everything in the Kay and Duelfer reports was OK with you then just say and defend that position, but posting factual inaccuracies over and over don't make them come true.

 

[Joby]

Are WMD there now? Were they there 10 years ago? Did Saddam have them? Did Saddam want them? Could Saddam have gotten them? What would Saddam done with them? Is it worse than what al-Qaeda might have done with them? Does al-qaeda want them? Are they close to getting them? Did they almost get them from Saddam? Would Saddam wanted them to have them? Did Saddam give them to Syria? Does he like that Syria has them? Does Syria need them? Does Syria want to use them? Does Syria want more? Is Syria serious with their Scud D production from Iran? Does Syria want to give them to al-Qaeda? To Iran? Does Iran want them? Does Iran want Nukes? Does Iran want al-Qaeda to have Nukes? Is Iran angry at al-Qaeda for Osama calling on Sunnis to fight Shiites? Does Iran support al-Qaeda at all?

Does any nation have the balls to use them?

I don't know. neither do you.

 

[Alastor]

I lack the energy for a lengthy reply. I do stand corrected on the clandestine labs however, and I have the character to admit it.

I'd point out however, that even Duelfer says there were no WMD present in Iraq nor was there an active WMD program in Iraq.

So okay, sure. There were hidden labs. Labs that did nothing.

I'll be back tomorrow.

 

[tecoyah]

....Other....


A Weapon of Mass Destruction, must have the capability of causing, well....Massive Destruction. The way the question is asked here makes a simple answer impossible. Yes, I believe there were once such weapons in Iraq, as has been shown on numerous occasions. No, I do not think there are such weapons in Iraq at this point, nor have there been since the end of Gulf War I.
Iraq is a very large country, with many places to hide weapons. If however, after many years of searching, by the UN inspection teams, and now by US forces with far more access we have found no credible evidence....I say there are no WMD's of consequence to be found.
In other words, if we wish to use this as reasoning for the invasion, it is a very sorry excuse. Thus we dont use it as justification anymore.

 

[tecoyah]

WMD don't stop becoming WMD after 20 years.

Actually...yes they do, though its actually more like 3 years in this case before the compounds degrade to the point of becoming useless. So....what do you do with useless chemical warfare agents? I dont know about Iraq....but here in the US we Bury them.....Oh....Wait.

 

[Stinger]

Actually...yes they do, though its actually more like 3 years in this case before the compounds degrade to the point of becoming useless. So....what do you do with useless chemical warfare agents? I dont know about Iraq....but here in the US we Bury them.....Oh....Wait.

Actually no they don't, as one General stated they could take the sarin out of the shells they found and use it. The fact is they have been sitting around in the desert unattended to for the last 5 years, since we removed him. YOu don't know what conditiont they were in when they were hidden nor when they were hidden. Reference strains of biologicals were found, precursor chemicals found, research labs found, documentation proving Saddam had not given up on WMD, all of this undeclared as required.

 

[Stinger]

....Other....


A Weapon of Mass Destruction, must have the capability of causing, well....Massive Destruction. The way the question is asked here makes a simple answer impossible. Yes, I believe there were once such weapons in Iraq, as has been shown on numerous occasions. No, I do not think there are such weapons in Iraq at this point, nor have there been since the end of Gulf War I.

Where on earth do you get the idea that there were no, none, zip, nada, WMD in Iraq at the end of Gulf War I when we have ample evidence to the contrary?

Iraq is a very large country, with many places to hide weapons. If however, after many years of searching, by the UN inspection teams, and now by US forces with far more access we have found no credible evidence....

We have barely scratched the surface and will probably never ever search every square inch. But we have found plenty of crediable evidence as has been through cited. Why do you keep denying otherwise?

In other words, if we wish to use this as reasoning for the invasion, it is a very sorry excuse. Thus we dont use it as justification anymore.[/quote]

I say there are no WMD's of consequence to be found.

Athought that was not the requirement placed on Saddam we found plenty of consequence as any reading of the Kay or Duelfer reports confirms.

 

[Stinger]

I lack the energy for a lengthy reply. I do stand corrected on the clandestine labs however, and I have the character to admit it.

I'd point out however, that even Duelfer says there were no WMD present in Iraq nor was there an active WMD program in Iraq.

So okay, sure. There were hidden labs. Labs that did nothing.

I'll be back tomorrow.

They didn't find HUGE piles with flashing lights on them saying "Saddam's WMD Stuff". We found plenty and the things you do accept were reason enough, now go through the rest of it and the case becomes even more compelling. And read again the labs were active and run by his intellience (read spy) agencies. Along with the reference strains of biologicals he hid and the very powerful chemical precursors he hid and along with the missle research he was engaged in and on and on and on.

 

[26 X World Champs]

They didn't find HUGE piles with flashing lights on them saying "Saddam's WMD Stuff". We found plenty and the things you do accept were reason enough, now go through the rest of it and the case becomes even more compelling. And read again the labs were active and run by his intellience (read spy) agencies. Along with the reference strains of biologicals he hid and the very powerful chemical precursors he hid and along with the missle research he was engaged in and on and on and on.

We didn't find jack squat and even more importantly and to the point Saddam was not a threat to the USA, period.

It's ironic isn't it? Saddam had no capabilities to produce or dispense WMDs and we invade his country.

Iran is on the road to nuclear weapons and we want to negotiate with them....

North Korea HAS nuclear weapons and we've done nothing since Bush's been in office to deter their making more nukes.

So how come all of the Bush apologists are so damn focused on WMDs in Iraq years after having been proven that there was ZERO THREAT?

Is it because you just can't allow yourself to accept the truth? Even Moron Bush has stated many times in public that we never found the WMDs that we went to Iraq to find yet some of you refuse to even accept his statements.

It's quite an interesting social study of denial and how pride interferes with cognizant ability to reason even in the face of overwhelming evidence...

 

[The Mark]

We didn't find jack squat and even more importantly and to the point Saddam was not a threat to the USA, period.

An incorrect statement. Show me the proof that we found nothing. I have seen proof that we found something, and already linked it several times.

It's ironic isn't it? Saddam had no capabilities to produce or dispense WMDs and we invade his country.

That statement is completely incorrect. I read at least part of the documents available to anyone just by doing a few simple google searches, and in those documents, there is plenty that is in direct opposition to what you say here.

Iran is on the road to nuclear weapons and we want to negotiate with them....

Well, yeah, we negotiated with Saddam before invading Iraq, and if Iran does not negotiate, we will probably invade them.

North Korea HAS nuclear weapons and we've done nothing since Bush's been in office to deter their making more nukes.

I'm not sure about this, but I am inclined to say that this statement is completely false, except for NK having nukes. Prove it.

So how come all of the Bush apologists are so damn focused on WMDs in Iraq years after having been proven that there was ZERO THREAT?

Is it because you just can't allow yourself to accept the truth? Even Moron Bush has stated many times in public that we never found the WMDs that we went to Iraq to find yet some of you refuse to even accept his statements.

It's quite an interesting social study of denial and how pride interferes with cognizant ability to reason even in the face of overwhelming evidence...

I am not a "Bush apologist". As I have previously stated.

I am a person who is worried that this country and the world have too quickly dismissed the possibility of WMDs in Iraq (after looking into it, I now say the FACT of WMDs in Iraq), for various reasons.

And your statement that there was "ZERO THREAT", is, from what I have seen, and IMO, absolutely, completely, and utterly incorrect.

And as for President Bush (yes, I am going to treat him with respect, no matter what I think of him, anything else lowers me to the level of a child calling names.), I do not agree with some things he does, and agree with others. I do not agree with him if he stated that there were no WMDs in Iraq.

 

[Stinger]

We didn't find jack squat and even more importantly and to the point Saddam was not a threat to the USA, period.

Have already cite just a part of what the Duelfer report states. You can't rebut those findings. Your baseless dismissals are empty rhetoric.

When you are prepared to offer concrete proof that the cite I posted in message #23 is false let me know.

It's ironic isn't it? Saddam had no capabilities to produce or dispense WMDs and we invade his country.

You don't know what in all he had but what we found was enought to warrant our actions. That point remains unrefutted and confirmed by all the commissions which looked into it. If you think we take your out of hand dismissals as fact I got a bridge to sell you.

Iran is on the road to nuclear weapons and we want to negotiate with them....

At this point.

North Korea HAS nuclear weapons and we've done nothing since Bush's been in office to deter their making more nukes.

You don't know what we have done and yes thanks to the inept handling by the previous administration that situation is complicated by the fact that they do have a nuclear capability. Thankfully we aren't face with a Saddam too.

So how come all of the Bush apologists are so damn focused on WMDs in Iraq years after having been proven that there was ZERO THREAT?

Which is a false statement.

Is it because you just can't allow yourself to accept the truth? Even Moron Bush has stated many times in public that we never found the WMDs that we went to Iraq to find yet some of you refuse to even accept his statements.

Concentrate on what we did find. Convince me that everything in the Kay and Duelfer reports was OK.

It's quite an interesting social study of denial and how pride interferes with cognizant ability to reason even in the face of overwhelming evidence...

Yes it is especially for those like you who refuse to read the evidence and accept the facts.

 

[Hoot]

I don't know why the Duelfer report is cited as evidence of Iraq's WMD program, since Duelfer himself concludes..."We were almost all wrong about Iraq." Meaning... we were wrong about Iraq's wmd.

20 year old degraded wmd's are not the reason we invaded Iraq.

3 more of our soldiers dead in Iraq today, and Bush stands on the bodies of each one. Makes you proud, doesn't it?

 

[26 X World Champs]

I don't know why the Duelfer report is cited as evidence of Iraq's WMD program, since Duelfer himself concludes..."We were almost all wrong about Iraq." Meaning... we were wrong about Iraq's wmd.

20 year old degraded wmd's are not the reason we invaded Iraq.

3 more of our soldiers dead in Iraq today, and Bush stands on the bodies of each one. Makes you proud, doesn't it?

We're dealing with forum members who refuse to accept the truth because to this day they're trying to justify in their minds the horrors of the Iraqi War. Since almost 70% of Americans now believe that the decision to go to Iraq was bad and wrong this makes these hard core denialists more resolute as they attempt to grasp at straws in order to try to convince THEMSELVES that Saddam was a threat to the USA.

They cite Duelfer as proof when in fact Duelfer's report effectively stated that Saddam was not a threat and that post 1991 he had no weapons that threatened anyone. Their standard comeback to this is that he INTENDED to reconstitute his programs if sanctions were lifted but that's like saying that Neo-Nazis are a threat to the USA because they intend to reconstitute the ideals of Nazi Germany in modern day America....their intent and REALITY are quite different as was Saddam's intent and REALITY.

 

[Stinger]

I don't know why the Duelfer report is cited as evidence of Iraq's WMD program...............

Then go and read the whole report or at least show what I posted from the report in post #23 is false.

 

[Stinger]

We're dealing with forum members who refuse to accept the truth ..................................

Are you saying on the record that the cite in post #23 is false?

They cite Duelfer as proof when in fact Duelfer's report effectively stated that Saddam was not a threat

Post it from the report. Post where Duelfer states Saddam was in compliance and had nothing hidden and would never be a threat, just a peaceful law abiding dictator.

Their standard comeback to this is that he INTENDED to reconstitute his programs if sanctions were lifted but that's like saying that Neo-Nazis are a threat to the USA because they intend to reconstitute the ideals of Nazi Germany in modern day America....

It's nothing of the sort and your baseless assertions do not refute the FACTS I and others have posted here. And it wasn't a matter of "if" the sanctions were lifted it was "when". And both reports go into great detail what his plans were when that happened. And exactly as the Clinton adminsitration stated, he would ALWAYS be a threat, he would NEVER give up his goal to enhance his WMD capabilities.

Refute the Duelfer and Kay reports if you can else your post ring hollow. Then we can discuss what we have found in the meantime.

 

[Stinger]

I don't know why the Duelfer report is cited as evidence of Iraq's WMD program, since Duelfer himself concludes..."We were almost all wrong about Iraq." Meaning... we were wrong about Iraq's wmd.

Post from the report, in context. Your assertions do no pose as evidence.

20 year old degraded wmd's are not the reason we invaded Iraq.

They were part of the reason, especially what was inside of them and the fact they were hidden and undeclared.

3 more of our soldiers dead in Iraq today, and Bush stands on the bodies of each one. Makes you proud, doesn't it?

Why on earth would you think that? Is that suppose to refute what I have posted or something? Does that make the Duelfer and Kay findings go away? If you can't have a reasonable conversation..................

 

[Hoot]

Post from the report, in context. Your assertions do no pose as evidence.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.

In fact, the long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/

There...does that do it for you, Stinger?!

We DID NOT go into Iraq based on the supposed chance of Saddam resuming his wmd programs...sheesh! From the words of Duelfer, himself, yet you still refuse to believe it.

They were part of the reason, especially what was inside of them and the fact they were hidden and undeclared.

Blah, blah blah... 20 year old degraded wmd? That is not why we went into Iraq, or even part of the reason of why we went into Iraq, and everyone in these forums knows this. ( Well..not everyone...LOL)

Why on earth would you think that? Is that suppose to refute what I have posted or something? Does that make the Duelfer and Kay findings go away? If you can't have a reasonable conversation..................

You're the one who cites Duelfer as some sort of evidence to justify this war, yet I've shown you where Duelfer, himself, concluded that we were all wrong about Iraq and wmd.

I don't know what more I can say to someone who refuses to acknowledge the conclusions of the exact same report that disproves your contentions. Your contentions about Iraq being a threat that neccesitates our adding to a 9 trillion debt, and losing the lives of over 2400 of our soldiers based on the "chance" that Saddam might one day be a threat again?!

 

[Stinger]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.

We all stipulated that we have not found "stockpiles", the fact I never thought we would since he had ample time to dispearse any materials he had and we find those quite regularly. So why do you keep harping on that?

[/quote] In fact, the long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/

There...does that do it for you, Stinger?![/quote]

Nope, because you left out

"The massive report does say, however, that Iraq worked hard to cheat on United Nations-imposed sanctions and retain the capability to resume production of weapons of mass destruction at some time in the future."[Saddam] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted," a summary of the report says."



And you did nothing to rebut the cites FROM THE ACUTAL REPORT that I posted.

We DID NOT go into Iraq based on the supposed chance of Saddam resuming his wmd programs...sheesh! From the words of Duelfer, himself, yet you still refuse to believe it.

WE DID go into Iraq based on the threat Saddam did/could/would post vis-a-vis WMD then/now/later. And from the words of Duelfer, which you refuse to acknowledge, that threat was real and growing and hidden and undeclared.

Blah, blah blah... 20 year old degraded wmd? That is not why we went into Iraq, or even part of the reason of why we went into Iraq, and everyone in these forums knows this. ( Well..not everyone...LOL)

The 20 years is specious if the sarin is still lethal and it was and when you can prove that Saddam had disclosed all of these to UNSCOM then your point may have some validity.

You're the one who cites Duelfer as some sort of evidence to justify this war, yet I've shown you where Duelfer, himself, concluded that we were all wrong about Iraq and wmd.

It's what we were wrong about that you don't mention. We were wrong about how far along in his missle program he was, we were wrong about how his intelligence service we developing means for terrorist to use WMD against us. See my post #23. Such as from YOUR cite

"Duelfer, testifying at a Senate hearing on the report, said his account attempts to describe Iraq's weapons programs "not in isolation but in the context of the aims and objectives of the regime that created and used them.""

Doesn't sound to me like Duelfer is saying Saddam was not a threat as far as WMD and you have yet to post any such thing.

From the actual report

"
Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable:

Saddam and many Iraqis regarded CW as a proven weapon against an enemy’s superior numerical strength, a weapon that had saved the nation at least once already—during the Iran-Iraq war—and contributed to deterring the Coalition in 1991 from advancing to Baghdad. "

And he never would have.

I don't know what more I can say to someone who refuses to acknowledge the conclusions of the exact same report that disproves your contentions.

You don't because when it comes down to what we discovered Saddam was a threat that wasn't going to go away and the conclusions clearly show that.

Your contentions about Iraq being a threat that neccesitates our adding to a 9 trillion debt, and losing the lives of over 2400 of our soldiers based on the "chance" that Saddam might one day be a threat again?!

It wasn't a chance and you can post nothing to show that it was only a chance, it was his dedicated plan as stated by the Clinton adminsitration, which you continue to ingnore, the Bush adminsitration and every commission that has looked into the matter and further proven by the documents we continue to find and translate.

I don't know what else it would have taken to convience you why don't you just admit that no matter what Saddam was up to you did/do not support his removal. That is your bottom line. It has nothing to do with WMD or anything else.

 

[ProudAmerican]

3 more of our soldiers dead in Iraq today, and Bush stands on the bodies of each one. Makes you proud, doesn't it?

such a ludicrous statement proves you are unworthy of intellectual debate.

I think Bill Clinton is a moron, but he isnt the person responsible for those dead soldiers being dragged through the streets of somalia. scum sucking terrorists and the enemies of America are responsible for that.

 

[ProudAmerican]

I don't know what else it would have taken to convience you why don't you just admit that no matter what Saddam was up to you did/do not support his removal. That is your bottom line. It has nothing to do with WMD or anything else.

absolutely!!!!


The people that werer/are against us being in Iraq dont truly care about WMDs. If we found an entire warehouse full of nukes in Bagdad tomorrow, they would have another excuse.

There are two sides to this war.......The side that agrees with the MULTIPLE reasons listed for Saddams removal, and the side that does not.

This war was never ONLY about WMDs, but the other side has done a superb job of turning it into that.

The biggest failure of the Bush administration to date is combating the politics of the other side.

 

[Blitz]

First of all, those weapons left over from the Iranian/Iraq war was not, and still isn't the reason why we went into Iraq in the first palce. The intelligence was a huge screw-up, which makes me very uneasy about past beliefs and intelligence information from the Cold War and other hot bed areas and issues. It means we sit in a very vulnerable position in the World, meaning trusting allies and friends that you thought you new, and being able to allienate everybody in the World with the lousy, childish, pre-emptive policy we have in place right now, isn't the way to go. We are going to find ourselves alone in the world and without any trust or help from other allied Nations in this lousy struggle. That's not totally our fault by any stretch of the imagination but we are partly to blame that's for sure. :damn

 

[Stinger]

First of all, those weapons left over from the Iranian/Iraq war was not, and still isn't the reason why we went into Iraq in the first palce.

First of all it was preciesly one of the reasons we sent to war. Those are the materials that were undeclared and hidden from inspectors since the end of the first Gulf War when he was required to turn them over. He did not.

The intelligence was a huge screw-up,

As in ALL things to do with intelligence it is not an exact science, but for the most part they were correct. He just didn't have huge huge stockpiles and that was not surprising. He didn't need to keep stockpiles around, only keep his ability to produce them.

which makes me very uneasy about past beliefs and intelligence information from the Cold War and other hot bed areas and issues.

What" The Soviets didn't have nukes or something? They weren't actively trying to cause our downfall?

It means we sit in a very vulnerable position in the World, meaning trusting allies and friends that you thought you new,

Yes too bad the French and the Russians and to an extent the Germans were supporting our enemy Saddam. Fortuniately we had a President that said enough it's time to do as the previous adminstration predicted would have to be done in the end, force Saddam out.

and being able to allienate everybody in the World with the lousy, childish, pre-emptive policy we have in place right now, isn't the way to go.

I think your statement is childish. And enforcing signed cease-fire agreements, UN resolutions to cooperate FULLY with inspections and cease ALL matters to do with WMD is not "pre-emptive". He ruled at our pleasure.

We are going to find ourselves alone in the world and without any trust or help from other allied Nations in this lousy struggle.

If other countries choose to side with those that will kill us so be it. They will suffer too.

That's not totally our fault by any stretch of the imagination but we are partly to blame that's for sure. :damn

[/QUOTE]

For what??

 

[oldreliable67]

We said we knew where they were. They aren't there. That means something to me.

The USIC said they knew where they were and listed, IIRC about 130 locations as possible repositories. The USIC got some things right about Iraq; they got some things wrong about Iraq. The locations of WMDs is one they got wrong.