WMD's in Iraq: Fact or Fiction?

[oldreliable67]

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

And you know the North Koreans have actual nuclear weapons how?

 

[dragonslayer]

Are there WMD's in Iraq?

Were there WMD's in Iraq?

I've heard many arguements for and against each of these.

I now ask the people of DP to post their reasoning for or against the idea that WMD's were and/or are in Iraq.

I personally think that there were WMD's in Iraq, that there still are WMD's in Iraq, and that there will be WMD's in Iraq untill they are found and destroyed or removed by either the insurgents or the US & friends military forces.

We fought a war with Iraq, called the Gulf War. After that war any WMD and Missiles were destroyed by the UNited Nations inspectors for the first 4 years after the war the UN inspectors talked to anyone they wanted and went where they wanted in Iraq. If the WMD ever existed, and WMD, is terrible label for a few cannisters of poison Gas, which were mostly used against Iranians and the Kurds in the 1980s. Rumors also state that the reason that the USA was worried bout WMD, is because the USA gave them the cannisters of Gas, during the Iran--Iraq war. Sadam kicked the UN out after 5 years and them invited them back. in 2000. He gave the inspectors the right to go where ever they wanted and look at anything. He was trying to defuse Bush from invading Irag. it did not work.

Do you really believe that even a mad man like Bush and his military commanders would put the cream of the US Navy in the Persian Gulf and put bases in Saudi Arabia, and American troop into Iraq, if they really thought Sadam actually had WMD and the means to deliver them. Not on your life. Bush attacked Iraq only when he was sure there were no more WMD in Iraq.

 

[26 X World Champs]

And you know the North Koreans have actual nuclear weapons how?

Are you serious??????

How can anyone debate someone who thinks 2+2=5?

 

[ProudAmerican]

And you know the North Koreans have actual nuclear weapons how?

the same way the rest of us knew Iraq had them. go figure!!!

make no mistake. If we went after NK and couldnt find nukes, the same partisans screaming about how we should be doing something about NK would then start screaming "Bush lied, Koreans died"

 

[aquapub]

500 artillery shells filled with mustard gas and sarin gas tells me....there probably WERE WMD. :lol:

 

[cherokee]

Are you serious??????

How can anyone debate someone who thinks 2+2=5?

How can you make the statement NK has nukes? Did you see them for yourself?

Now if you MF want something to really worry about think on this...

Pakistan HAS nukes. Ask yourself this, just how close are they to becoming an Islamic state.

 

[Goobieman]

After that war any WMD and Missiles were destroyed by the UNited Nations inspectors for the first 4 years after the war the UN inspectors talked to anyone they wanted and went where they wanted in Iraq.

First, thw inspectors did not have unlimited access to everything and everyone.
Second, UNSCOM themselves said that not all the known quantities of WMDs and related chemical agents were not destroyed.

in 2000. He gave the inspectors the right to go where ever they wanted and look at anything. He was trying to defuse Bush from invading Irag. it did not work.

Hans Blix:
"Iraq has not made the fundamenta decision to disarm"
26 FEB 2003

Do you really believe that even a mad man like Bush and his military commanders would put the cream of the US Navy in the Persian Gulf and put bases in Saudi Arabia, and American troop into Iraq, if they really thought Sadam actually had WMD and the means to deliver them.

Yes. Why not?

Bush attacked Iraq only when he was sure there were no more WMD in Iraq.

Prove it.

 

[Stinger]

We fought a war with Iraq, called the Gulf War. After that war any WMD and Missiles were destroyed by the UNited Nations inspectors for the first 4 years after the war the UN inspectors talked to anyone they wanted and went where they wanted in Iraq.

Then you should have no problem posting a cite from UNSCOM or Blix stating that they found everything they were looking for and Saddam gave them complete cooperations.

We await your post.

If the WMD ever existed,

There is no if about it.

and WMD, is terrible label for a few cannisters of poison Gas, which were mostly used against Iranians and the Kurds in the 1980s.

So sarin and mustard gas are not WMD when they are used against Iran or the Kurds. Intersesting concept there although I don't agree. What is your premise for that conclusion?

Rumors

Why not deal with facts instead of unsubstaniated rumours?

Sadam kicked the UN out after 5 years

Yes, why did he do that? They were not finished and had lots or work remaining.

and them invited them back. in 2000.

:rofl where on earth did you get that? It took 300,000 troops on his border and 3 carrier fleets off his coast to get them back in and even then he refused to cooperate.

He gave the inspectors the right to go where ever they wanted and look at anything.

No he did not, he fought the process from day one.

He was trying to defuse Bush from invading Irag. it did not work.

Do you really believe that even a mad man like Bush and his military commanders would put the cream of the US Navy in the Persian Gulf and put bases in Saudi Arabia, and American troop into Iraq, if they really thought Sadam actually had WMD and the means to deliver them. Not on your life.

We did so in Gulf War 1 didn't we?

 

[oldreliable67]

Are you serious??????

How can anyone debate someone who thinks 2+2=5?

Of course I'm serious. Its one thing to suspect that NK has nuclear weapons. Its yet another to believe that NK has the raw material with which to construct nuclear weapons and has an ongoing program to do so. And still another to know that NK has an inventory of actual weapons.

So what makes you so positive that NK has an inventory of actual nukes?

 

[Hoot]

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.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I hold Bush personally responsible for every single one of our dead and wounded in Iraq...It was Bush's direct and deliberate manipulation of the evidence that got us into this war.

A truely unforgiveable and disgraceful action since Bush had evidence that Saddam's wmd program was destroyed, yet he used "fear" to lead us into believing Saddam was an immediate threat.

( Oops...I shouldn't said "immediate...Stinger will have nightmares..LOL)

I blame Bush for every single one of our dead in Iraq.

 

[Hoot]

500 artillery shells filled with mustard gas and sarin gas tells me....there probably WERE WMD. :lol:

We all know there were wmd, Aquapub, but sarin only has a shelf life of a few weeks...and that's only if the elements are kept separate so the combined lethal element isn't achieved. If it's already combined, the shelf life can be counted in days...do the research on "shelf life of sarin,' if you don't believe me...certainly sarin dating back to pre 1991 is NOT the reason Bush led us into this God-forsaken war.

 

[Stinger]

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I hold Bush personally responsible for every single one of our dead and wounded in Iraq...

And not the ones who actually killed them. So which side do you support?

It was Bush's direct and deliberate manipulation of the evidence that got us into this war.

An assertion totally rebutted by the facts as all the committees and hearings proved. Your continued baseless assertion otherwise does not make it so. Why don't you just admit that the evidence didn't matter to you that you would have opposed the war no matter what.

A truely unforgiveable and disgraceful action since Bush had evidence that Saddam's wmd program was destroyed, yet he used "fear" to lead us into believing Saddam was an immediate threat.

And you have no proof what-so-ever that he had such evidence and there is ample proof the intelligence he had to base his decission on said otherwise. We know for a fact that UNSCOM said quite clearly he was not cooperating and they had yet to find everything they knew existed.

So try to be honest about the evidence the decission was based on. Was it true, of course not. When is intelligence ever 100%? But it was mostly true and what we have found out since adds further justification.

I note you have yet to refute just the small cite from Deulfers report which on it's own justifies the action we took.

( Oops...I shouldn't said "immediate...Stinger will have nightmares..LOL)

Pardon me but YOU are the one that harps on that phoney premise which no one here has ever shown to be true.

I blame Bush for every single one of our dead in Iraq.

And do you blame Roosevelt for all the deaths in WW2? Lincoln for all the deaths in the Civil War? Truman for all the deaths in Korea? Exactly what does that mean anyway?

You would have preferred a Saddam as Duelfer and Kay go into great detail in describing, with the ties to terrorist the documents we translate every day detail. Without sanctions. Without inspections. With all the WMD materials and equipment we know he had. Free to do as he pleased? Free to continue his reign of terror on his people and his neighbors?

 

[Hoot]

Look Stinger...it's been proven over and over and over again in these forums that Bush lied to us. Here's just one example from one of your own republicans, no less...http://www.debatepolitics.com/war-iraq/5626-why-do-so-many-people-have-hate-bush-6.html

And here's a few words from your post that addressed my comments from yesterday...

"Iraq worked hard to retain the capability to RESUME production at sometime..."
"Saddam wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his wmd WHEN sanctions were lifted."

You see? ( No, you probably don't) But even your use of the Duelfer report proves that Saddam was no immediate threat...just someone who wanted to be a bad dude when sanctions were lifted, thus, proving, the sanctions were working, since Duelfer, himself, concludes..."We were all wrong about Iraq."

We had inspectors on the ground in Iraq before the war...who asked Bush for three more lousy months to finish their inspections, but Bush pulled them out!

You think not waiting 3 more months is justification for a 9 trillion diollar debt and close to 2,500 of our soldiers dead?!

It truely makes me sick to my stomach, so yes, I blame Bush for every single solitary one of our dead in Iraq...this is blood on his hands.

And Duelfer does not prove your point...believing Saddam might be a bad dude again one day is NOT justification for the ruin he's brought our nation and the world because of his arrogance.

 

[26 X World Champs]

How can you make the statement NK has nukes? Did you see them for yourself?

I love how the whacky NEO-CONS in this forum are completely convinced that Saddam had WMDs and that he was going to use them on us BUT they do NOT believe that Kim has Nukes or that he would use them on us!

You guys are totally and completely out of your minds.

 

[ProudAmerican]

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I hold Bush personally responsible for every single one of our dead and wounded in Iraq...It was Bush's direct and deliberate manipulation of the evidence that got us into this war.

no, it wasnt. Bush was misled by Bill Clintons administration....the first people to make the claims of Saddams WMDs.

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

so really, the blood of those soldiers is on the hands of Clinton (I dont really believe this. I am just trying to point out how completely ridiculous your assertions are)

A truely unforgiveable and disgraceful action since Bush had evidence that Saddam's wmd program was destroyed, yet he used "fear" to lead us into believing Saddam was an immediate threat.

see the above quote from Bill Clinton.

I blame Bush for every single one of our dead in Iraq.

which is truly pathetic. its too bad this country cant come together and fight a common foe. terrorists.

they are the ones responsible for the deaths of American soldiers, along with American civilians.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Look Stinger...it's been proven over and over and over again in these forums that Bush lied to us.

nonsense. if that could be proven, I would agree with you.

unlike many, Im not a partisan when it comes to the war on terror. I would support a Democrat doing the same things Bush is doing.

I supported Bill CLintons fiasco in Somalia before it became a fiasco.

 

[oldreliable67]

I love how the whacky NEO-CONS in this forum are completely convinced that Saddam had WMDs and that he was going to use them on us BUT they do NOT believe that Kim has Nukes or that he would use them on us!

You guys are totally and completely out of your minds.

It is a simple question: what has you so convinced that NK has an inventory of nukes?

NK was apparently a customer of A Q Khan and certainly has made no bones about working to develop nukes. Rather like Iran, the only questions seem to be: exactly where are they in the program? Have they succeeded in mfg one or more, or are they still a bit away from that?

So, it is a simple question: what has you so convinced that NK has completed one or more nuclear weapons?

I'm not a neo-con and even though my wife somtimes accuses of it, I really don't think I'm whacky.

 

[Stinger]

Look Stinger...it's been proven over and over and over again in these forums that Bush lied to us. Here's just one example from one of your own republicans, no

Chill.

And no such assertion has ever been proven by any stretch but more importantly than what the anti-bush side asserts here, no official investigation has ever shown such a thing. Bush acted on the intelligence he was given, period. And the vast majority of it WAS true, and what we have found out since only reinforces that.

But even your use of the Duelfer report proves that Saddam was no immediate threat...

So what? Read what Duelfer said about the threat he was posed to become and had every intention of becoming and had Bush not stopped him would have.

just someone who wanted to be a bad dude when sanctions were lifted, thus, proving, the sanctions were working, since Duelfer, himself, concludes..."We were all wrong about Iraq."

They did not as the UN scandals prove and YOUR side wanted them lifted so don't try to preach sanctions to anyone here. Had we listened to the Anti-Bush side who believed we should have heeded the UN and France and Russia the sanctions would have been gone in short order.

But maybe I'm mistaken, maybe in fact you did support keeping sanctions on Saddam. If so please explain why they were needed then.

We had inspectors on the ground in Iraq before the war...who asked Bush for three more lousy months to finish their inspections, but Bush pulled them out!

Who weren't there for long term Keystone Kops chases around the desert as Saddam had led them previously and continue to. Blix reported that Saddam was not in compliance as was required.

And let's not forget that it took over 300,000 troops posed on his border able to come over in less than 24 hours, the most power Air Force in the world and 3 carrier battlefleets JUST to get the inspectors in. How long were you prepare to have those troops stationed in middle eastern countries, the very reason OBL claimed he attacked us?

You think not waiting 3 more months is justification for a 9 trillion diollar debt and close to 2,500 of our soldiers dead?!

There is absolutely no reason to believe 3 more months would have produced anymore than the previous 10 years.

But you're saying this is all about 3 months, that's it. That's your whole position, 3 more months of fruitless inspections THEN it would have been OK to remove him. You would have supported Bush. Or is that just an empty arguement?

It truely makes me sick to my stomach, so yes, I blame Bush for every single solitary one of our dead in Iraq...this is blood on his hands.

And Roosevelt and Lincoln? How about an answer?

And Duelfer does not prove your point...believing Saddam might be a bad dude again one day is NOT justification for the ruin he's brought our nation and the world because of his arrogance.

He most certainly does and if you expect us to believe the you still oppose removing Saddam after all that is in that report then admit that you would not have supported it under ANY circumstances.

 

[Stinger]

We all know there were wmd, Aquapub,

bout time you admitted that.

but sarin only has a shelf life.......

Let's let the authoritative voice which has inspected the specific evidence we are discussing.

"Col. John Chiu, commander of the National Ground Intelligence Center, which is conducting the WMD search in Iraq, told the Armed Services committee that, "The munitions that we're finding, the agents within those munitions are still toxic, and if exposed to enough of a degree, would prove to be lethal. ... They do constitute weapons of mass destruction.""

When you have something of a higher authority to rebut that post it, until then the fact that we are finding lethal chemicals is not a point of contention.

The "they're 20 years old" arguement went out the window a long time ago.

 

[cherokee]

I love how the whacky NEO-CONS in this forum are completely convinced that Saddam had WMDs and that he was going to use them on us BUT they do NOT believe that Kim has Nukes or that he would use them on us!

You guys are totally and completely out of your minds.

Ahh we dont read very well do we?..


Just what the hell makes you think I'm a neo-con? (Strike one)
Now if you READ my posts you’ll find I never did support going into Iraq in the manner we did. BUT now that we are in country we have to clean up the mess we made. (Strike two)

Look maybe if just doesn’t penetrate your skull but when chest-thumping morons like Iran and NK develop weapons they’re proud of they have to show the rest of the world this.
Have you seen or heard of a nuke test in Iran or NK? (Strike three)

 

[Stinger]

I love how the whacky NEO-CONS in this forum are completely convinced that Saddam had WMDs

So your position is that Saddam never had WMD?

Or is it he did have? If that is the case when did he get completely rid of them?

 

[aquapub]

So your position is that Saddam never had WMD?

Or is it he did have? If that is the case when did he get completely rid of them?

In 2004, when we found and destroyed them.

 

[ProudAmerican]

In 2004, when we found and destroyed them.

actually, it was a couple of weeks ago. those were the very VERY VERY LAST 500.

 

[Stinger]

actually, it was a couple of weeks ago. those were the very VERY VERY LAST 500.

so far...........................................

 

[Blitz]

What was left over from the Iranian/Iraq war is not what we went into Iraq for. The way Iran and North Korea are now was what Iraq was portrayed to be and wasn't. The American people were tricked. It was a tactic used as a reason to stay in office. The republicans new it would be near next to impossible to detrown them once they were in office. any party would look feeble going up against the President. They were able to use the fear card. It was a very well thought out plan and tactic to revive the southern states and religious fanatics from the days of the Cilvil War. To highjack both the good name of Christian religion and the Whitehouse is pure evil and communistic. They must be stopped at all cost.:bomb: