WMD's in Iraq: Fact or Fiction?

[Stinger]

What was left over from the Iranian/Iraq war is not what we went into Iraq for.

And where in the UN resolutions, the Authorization to Use Force in Iraq, or any of Bush's speeches before the war does it say that?

You have made a factual claim, let's see you back it up. Where was it stated any pre-1994 and still existing WMD were OK?

 

[Blitz]

Does bush or any other leader for that matter know exactly how much weapons and ammunitions they have lying around in thier country. I don't think so. If the IAEA was to inspect us, I just wonder how much crap they would find. I'm not at all saying that Sadam was a good little boy, infact he should have been tied to a nuke and launched into North Korea. But to say that he had to know every nook and cranny of his big fat desert land was pushing it a little. Like I said before the left over Iranian/Iraq war junk was NOT the reason we went in and not because Sadam couldn't remember where some of the left over rotting weapons cache was wasn't the reason either. The way both North Korea and Iran are now and how they are a threat to the U.S., allies, and potential destabilization they will cause was the major mislead reason. So enough with the :spin:

 

[ProudAmerican]

sounds to me like you are saying saddam should have been given the bennifit of the doubt.

I believe he was given that, over countless resolutions and years.

 

[Blitz]

Kiss off!!!:rwbdonkey

 

[Hoot]

bout time you admitted that.



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.

Authoratative voice? Is Chiu a chemical biologist?

Here's something else you left out about about Chiu...either that or the area you're getting your info from is not telling you the whole story...

Two briefers for the Defense Intelligence Agency explained that the recovered weapons were too degraded to serve their original purpose and too delicate to be used as roadside explosives. "These munitions that were found were badly corroded in most cases," said DIA analyst Col. John Chiu. "Some were deliberately dismantled, if you will, to prevent them from being used." To make matters worse, Terence Taylor, a former member of the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq, testified that the warheads' designs made the nerve gas almost impossible to use outside of its original purpose. "I think it would be very difficult to extract the nerve agent from these weapons," he said.

It's been nearly three years since Charles Duelfer said Iraq did not possess, or have concrete plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. The weapons just aren't there to be found.

Everything you've used to attempt to justify this war, has been shot down by the very same people that you believe support your premise!?

Is there any possible explanation that Kay, Duelfer, and Chiu do not agree with your conclusions? Other then you, conveiniently picking and choosing only the info you want to post, much as Bush picked and chose only the evidence he wanted to use to justify war?!

 

[Stinger]

The Iraqi's were very good at record keeping, especially for such materials a sarin gas and mustrad gas.

You dodged the question, where in the UN resolutions did it way he could keep 500 chemical munitions filled with sarin gas because they were made before 1993. It only took three of such shells in one of his attacks that killed thousands.

 

[Stinger]

Authoratative voice? Is Chiu a chemical biologist?

Here's something else you left out about about Chiu...either that or the area you're getting your info from is not telling you the whole story...

ROFL you use him to confirm what I said. Which confirms what I previously posted

""We do assess that the chemical munitions that have been found are
hazardous, and potentially they could be lethal," Lt. Gen. Michael D.
Maples, director of the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency,
testified. "The chemicals that are contained in the munitions that are
referred to in this report are capable of creating mass casualties."

Two briefers for the Defense Intelligence Agency explained that the recovered weapons were too degraded to serve their original purpose and too delicate to be used as roadside explosives.

But still lethal. And they have been buried for at least 5 years, since we invade and removed Saddam. You don't know what condition they were in 5 years ago. ALL the degrage to the SHELL CASINGS could have happened since then. And it's not the gas that has degraded as much as the shells.

It's been nearly three years since Charles Duelfer said Iraq did not possess,

In large quantities

or have concrete plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. The weapons just aren't there to be found.

False he said the opposite. And proved they were researching WMD.

Everything you've used to attempt to justify this war, has been shot down by the very same people that you believe support your premise!?

Hardly. You have yet to rebut post #23, why not?

Nor have you rebutted

"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.""

Is there any possible explanation that Kay, Duelfer, and Chiu do not agree with your conclusions? Other then you, conveiniently picking and choosing only the info you want to post, much as Bush picked and chose only the evidence he wanted to use to justify war?!

Yoyr hyperbole such as the above does not rebut anything.

How about answering the question. If Saddam had gotten rid of ALL his WMD prior to 1993 then where did these come from? Obviously he was producing them. Else he lied to the inspectors and hid these. Either way he was in violation of the ceasefire and UN resolutions. And both reports and the evidence we have found since prove beyond a doubt that he was chomping at the bit to ramp up all his WMD programs.

 

[Hoot]

Let me just ask you this, Stinger....where did you get this quote? Because every single search I've done on Chui does not support the belief that he felt Iraq was a threat. Please...I'm just curious? Newsmax? Who? Where?

"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.""

 

[American]

Less than 1% of known weapons caches have been looked at, that's why they haven't found anything.

 

[Hoot]

How about answering the question. If Saddam had gotten rid of ALL his WMD prior to 1993 then where did these come from?

I never said Saddam had gotten rid of all his wmd. LOL!

I've said many times that Iraq is roughly the land mass size of California, and I certainly don't believe Arnold Schwarnegger has his pulse on every area of the state, however, you believe Saddam was such a mastermind that he was aware of every single happening in every single corner of Iraq?! It's laughable if it wasn't so sad.

I have no doubt that Saddam missed a stockpile or two of wmd...BUT....old degraded, pre first Gulf war munitions WERE NOT the reasons given to us for this war!!! We were led (lied) to believe Saddam had an active wmd program!!!!

"We know where the wmd are...in the area around Tikrit...etc...blah blah.." Saddam is seeking uranium!! Saddam bought aluminum tubes!!! Duck and cover!!!! It's Armageddon!:rofl Saddam is an ally with those who attacked us on 9/11!!!!! We can't wait for a mushroom cloud!! :rofl

It was all a big game of fear to lead us into this war. An unforgiveable act of arrogance, assumptions and contradictions.

Just sit back and relax and imagine Bush making the case for the Iraq war this way....

Bush' imaginary speech:

"To the American people...I believe war is neccessary with Iraq because we have not found all the 20 year old degraded wmd...we don't really have any concrete evidence linking Saddam with Al Qaeda, but we think they could have held meetings at one time or another? We have some evidence that Saddam has mobile chemical labs, but other evidence that shows Saddam has nothing in the way of a current wmd program. I assure the American people that if they let me go to war, that this war will be a cakewalk. I'm asking the American people to allow me to spend 5 billion a month, put some of our soldiers in the grave, and many more permanently handi-capped to stop a madman who may one day resume his wmd programs. Thank you and God Bless America. Oh by the way...God told me to invade Iraq."

 

[American]

Hey clown, let me tell you that former WMD inspectors have come on TV and stated that those old WMDs can still kill plenty of people. Don't act the fool by blabbering things you know nothing about. Some terrorist puts a pound of that crap in a subway car you're riding in, you're just as dead as if it were made yesterday. You might as well have Howard Dean's picture tattooed to you forehead. Come on!

 

[Hoot]

Hey clown, let me tell you that former WMD inspectors have come on TV and stated that those old WMDs can still kill plenty of people. Don't act the fool by blabbering things you know nothing about. Some terrorist puts a pound of that crap in a subway car you're riding in, you're just as dead as if it were made yesterday. You might as well have Howard Dean's picture tattooed to you forehead. Come on!

Considering you only have 57 posts and are still relatively new to these forums, I forgive your name calling and lack of civil discussion.

When you gain enough maturity to present your opinions in a respectful manner, then, by all means, get back to me. Until then, it is you who is proving the only thing you bring to these forums is "blabbering things you know nothing about."

 

[ProudAmerican]

Considering you only have 57 posts and are still relatively new to these forums, I forgive your name calling and lack of civil discussion.

I must agree with Hoot here. (and you wont see that often)

IMO, what makes this forum so enjoyable is that 99% of the people here know how to dissagree and debate without insulting one another.

If you want to namecall theres a few here that are willing to ablidge. PM me and I will give you a name or two.

 

[Stinger]

I never said Saddam had gotten rid of all his wmd. LOL!

So I;m correct, it didn't matter to you that he had WMD in the first place. Why don't you just admit it. but the fact is he was in violation of the cease fire agreement and UN resolutions and you confirm one of the reasons we removed him.

I've said many times that Iraq is roughly the land mass size of California,.....

Which is a totally baseless arguement on your part, they kept impeciable records and you have not a shred of evidence to support your absurd contention he just lost 500 chemical weapons shells. UNSCOM had a very complete listing of what he had, it was never accounted for and much was moved around before they could find it. THAT is what we continue to find and
of course the evidence which documents beyond debate his plans to ramp it all back up as soon as the sanctions were lifted as YOUR side was demanding supports what the adminsitration said all along.

But it is interesting to watch your side flounder around. First it was he had not WMD he had destroyed them all or used them all up, now it's well he just had some that were a few years old and those were OK, to now you just don't care that he had WMD.

 

[Stinger]

Let me just ask you this, Stinger....where did you get this quote? Because every single search I've done on Chui does not support the belief that he felt Iraq was a threat. Please...I'm just curious? Newsmax? Who? Where?

"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.""

:rofl yep it proves my point and rebuts your statement, you can't refute it so it's attack the messenger. Do you really think the simple dismissal of the source will change the facts at hand?

Washington Times specifically but just search his name and WMD.

When are you guys going to give this up? With all we have found from completed chemicals, mass inventories of highly toxic pecursor chemicals (buried and camoflagued at his munitions dumps), research into terroristic dispersal methods (once again I am still waiting for you to refute my message #23), just the everyday documents for the reigem talking about keeping stuff hidden from inspectors. The reasons we removed him, as was the official policy of the United States, were clear and they have been vindicated.

 

[Hoot]

:rofl yep it proves my point and rebuts your statement, you can't refute it so it's attack the messenger. Do you really think the simple dismissal of the source will change the facts at hand?

Washington Times specifically but just search his name and WMD.

When are you guys going to give this up? With all we have found from completed chemicals, mass inventories of highly toxic pecursor chemicals (buried and camoflagued at his munitions dumps), research into terroristic dispersal methods (once again I am still waiting for you to refute my message #23), just the everyday documents for the reigem talking about keeping stuff hidden from inspectors. The reasons we removed him, as was the official policy of the United States, were clear and they have been vindicated.

Oh no...the dreaded post #23 again! LOL!

Look Stinger I'm tiring of arguing with someone who is so far to the right you can't possibly have a fair and reasonable grasp of anything regarding the Iraq war, or anything concerning Bush.

Why don't you tell me why Duelfer, as the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, said Saddam Hussein posed a diminishing threat when the United States invaded? Duelfer also said that Saddam had the desire but not the means to make nuclear weapons.

You're using a few paragraphs, out of context, as though that's justification for this war. Tell that to the loved ones of the over 2400 American dead.

The bottom line, if Bush had been honest with us, we never would've supported this war. That's something you just can't face or accept. That's your problem, not mine. Remember...over 60% of Americans now believe this war was a mistake...you belong to an ever decreasing minority.

 

[ProudAmerican]

The bottom line, if Bush had been honest with us, we never would've supported this war. That's something you just can't face or accept. That's your problem, not mine. Remember...over 60% of Americans now believe this war was a mistake...you belong to an ever decreasing minority.

Bush was lied to By the Clinton administration. It is their fault we fought this war!!

and Poll numbers mean squat. Dems rested all hopes in 2004 on poll numbers, and look what happened.

the next accurate poll will be in 2008. we will see what the real poll numbers are at that time!!

 

[Stinger]

Oh no...the dreaded post #23 again! LOL!

I guess you do dread it when it illustrates beyond doubt the threat Saddam was and you have no way to refute it. YOUR cherry picking of Duelfer has been exposed. Let me know when you can prove his report is wrong.