WMDs & The UN Inspectors... (1 Viewer)

[cnredd]

I posted this to a response in "Bias In The Media", but it has more relevance in this forum...This is in response to all of those who happily cry "No WMDs!"

In 1998, the UN weapons inspectors found WMDs...That is fact...What does that have to do with the war?...keep reading...

The inspectors were then kicked out by Cindy Shee....whoops!...wrong thread!...I mean, "Saddam"...:2wave:

In 2002/3 the new team of weapons inspectors showed up...Before we get any further, an explanation must be made...

Do not confuse the term "inspector" with "hunter"...The UN inspection team was NOT there to look for weapons...That his one of the biggest things some people latch onto, but it is completely false...

Guess what the UN inspection team was there to do?...Any guesses???....To INSPECT!...not "look for"..not "hunt"....simply to INSPECT....

And what were they there to inspect? They were there to inspect the inventory and facilities that were ALREADY known through the 1998 team...So when they showed up and said "Where's the stuff the previous team saw?", Saddam said "Uhhhh...we don't know what you're talking about."

So the Inspection team said, "Yes you do...we have positive proof that you HAD them...what happened to them?"...Saddam's reply?..."uhhhhh...We destroyed them."

Now...as stated, the inspection team was NOT there to look for anything...they were only there to inspect...and this is VERY important...

The burden of proof was on Saddam and his regime...NOT the inspection team!

I will say it again because some of the forum members are not up to speed with this...

The burden of proof was on Saddam and his regime...NOT the inspection team!

This part is really important, so I will type slower....

The fact that they weren't found IS the problem!...The 1998 inspection team PHYSICALLY saw them...So the question is "Where are they NOW?"...The burden of proof fell on Saddam to PROVE what happened to them...NOT for the inspection teams to FIND them.

Remember...According to the 1991 cease-fire agreement with Iraq, the U.N. had agreed not to lift sanctions until Iraq's full compliance had been verified.

Anyone want to guess why the sanctions were STILL on Iraq at the time of the war?...Simple...Iraq was not in FULL COMPLIANCE. If the 2003 inspection team was allowed to continue, would "full compliance" have been met?...Nope...Saddam didn't grant them "unfettered access", which means the actual inspections would never have been complete...Just like the previous inspection team's...THAT is what Saddam was counting on...another "shell-game" that would've ended with the UN giving in...

You may want to believe otherwise, but history has shown this to be the case...The term "This time we mean it!" has been used by the UN before, and every single time Saddam laughed at them...

If the US didn't throw in the monkey wrench, the UN would've lifted sanctions WITHOUT full compliance, and this would be more proof to the world that the UN is toothless...Their resolutions are meaningless...

So the question still remains....What happened to them?...This is a question that may take years, if ever, to actually find the truth...There are many possibilities, but "He never had them" is not one of those possibilities...

Saddam's burden of proof was not met...He provided no sources for his claim that everything was destroyed...And when some people say "There were no WMDs", they are saying, "Even though Saddam didn't prove that he got rid of them...I believe him when he says that he did."

Congratulations!...I'm sure you will all make great character witnesses at his trial.

 

[Occam's Butter Knife]

Excellent post!

:applaud

 

[cnredd]

Excellent post!

:applaud

Thank you, but I can't take full credit...I have this thing called "reality" on my side...

It's a crazy little concoction that some people can't or refuse to identify with...

 

[FinnMacCool]

yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah. Maybe we'll find them 5 years from now in Israel. bullshit. And then maybe you can somehow show that it was a good thing we invaded cause of that.

If Bush really believed that they actually had WMDs he would seek to remind us of that instead of banging on about freedom and liberation etc.

 

[cnredd]

yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah. Maybe we'll find them 5 years from now in Israel. bullshit. And then maybe you can somehow show that it was a good thing we invaded cause of that.If

Bush really believed that they actually had WMDs he would seek to remind us of that instead of banging on about freedom and liberation etc.

The yeah yeah yeah part is exactly how I expected some to respond..."Keeping eyes closed" is a response I see from more than one member of this forum...

As stated, there are many possibilities..."They never had them", as some people claim, has been disproved and is not an option...The 1998 Insprection Team tagged the weapons themselves, so the question of "What happened to them" is still unanswered...That the weapons were physically there at one point cannot be refuted...

Not once on this thread did I say it was a good thing or not...

It is only to dispel the WMD fabrications & inaccuracies...

Debates are a lot easier when you have the correct information...That is all this thread is meant to provide...

 

[FinnMacCool]

Until I actually see some evidence that Saddam actually had wmds then maybe I'll believe it.

But you ignore the fact that Bush has completely changed his focus and is now going on about liberation and freedom instead of wmds.

 

[cnredd]

Until I actually see some evidence that Saddam actually had wmds then maybe I'll believe it.

But you ignore the fact that Bush has completely changed his focus and is now going on about liberation and freedom instead of wmds.

Time to open the eyes...and readily admit that you now see what you've refused to in the past..

Before leaving Iraq in 1998, United Nations weapons inspectors tagged equipment they thought needed to be destroyed, including some that may have been used for legitimate civilian purposes but could be converted for use in making biological weapons. That exercise has paid off as a second group of U.N. inspectors combs the country for evidence that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.

Previously, inspectors reportedly had been finding little amiss. For instance, in December a team found a dozen artillery shells just as inspectors had left them in 1998, filled with mustard gas, sealed and tagged for destruction.

After reviewing the 12,000-page declaration of weapons programs that Iraq presented the U.N. in early December, analysts reportedly said its major omissions include a failure to explain the fate of 550 mustard-gas shells and 150 bombs containing biological agents that were unaccounted for in the 1990s.

Among the missing: the remnants of warheads for 50 long-range missiles that Iraq said it had destroyed; quantities of deadly biological agents Iraq produced, including botulinum toxin, (which causes botulism), anthrax; gangrene gas (which rots flesh) and aflatoxin (which causes liver cancer).

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/nation-world/usiraq/crisis/

Now before you start changing the subject to something about Bush or reasons to go to war or anything else, just realize that this thread is ONLY to refute claims that he never had them...

This is the part where you say "OK...I now understand that Saddam DID have them and was less than forthcoming...I will not use anything that states otherwise in debating about the war in other threads."

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Do not confuse the term "inspector" with "hunter"...The UN inspection team was NOT there to look for weapons...That his one of the biggest things some people latch onto, but it is completely false...

Guess what the UN inspection team was there to do?...Any guesses???....To INSPECT!...not "look for"..not "hunt"....simply to INSPECT....

And what were they there to inspect? They were there to inspect the inventory and facilities that were ALREADY known through the 1998 team...So when they showed up and said "Where's the stuff the previous team saw?", Saddam said "Uhhhh...we don't know what you're talking about."

UNSCOM was charged with making their own determinations in re what needed to be inspected.
Per S/RES/687 (1991) 8 April 1991 RESOLUTION 687 (1991)

9. (b)(i) The forming of a Special Commission, which shall carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile capabilities, based on Iraq's declarations and the designation of any additional locations by the Special Commission itself;
​

UNMOVIS was charge w/ the indentical discretionary power.
Per S/RES/1284 (1999) 17December 1999 RESOLUTION 1284 (1999)

A. 2. Decides also that UNMOVIC will undertake the responsibilities mandated to the Special Commission by the Council with regard to the verification of compliance by Iraq with its obligations under paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of resolution 687 (1991) and other related resolutions, that UNMOVIC will establish and operate, as was recommended by the panel on disarmament and current and future ongoing monitoring and verification issues, a reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification, which will implement the plan approved by the Council in resolution 715 (1991) and address unresolved disarmament issues, and that UNMOVIC will identify, as necessary in accordance with its mandate, additional sites in Iraq to be covered by the reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification;
​

Given that both sets of inspectors were to figure what else in addition to and outside of Iraq's declarations also needed inspection, (and given that the US repeated gave the inspector's "hot tips" on where else to inspect,) it seems that the distinction drawn between 'inspectors' and 'hunters' is merely semantics.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by cnredd:
Thank you, but I can't take full credit...I have this thing called "reality" on my side...

You have nothing of the kind. That is only your perception. What you have is "your world" reality, as opposed to "real world" reality.

 

[Hoot]

The yeah yeah yeah part is exactly how I expected some to respond..."Keeping eyes closed" is a response I see from more than one member of this forum...

As stated, there are many possibilities..."They never had them", as some people claim, has been disproved and is not an option...The 1998 Insprection Team tagged the weapons themselves, so the question of "What happened to them" is still unanswered...That the weapons were physically there at one point cannot be refuted...

Not once on this thread did I say it was a good thing or not...

It is only to dispel the WMD fabrications & inaccuracies...

Debates are a lot easier when you have the correct information...That is all this thread is meant to provide...

I'd be interested in any proof you can provide that UN Weapons Inspectors expected "tagged" WMD's in 1998, or they themselves tagged WMD in 1998. Thank you. After all, I'm merely giving you a chance to provide "the correct information."

 

[FinnMacCool]

Ok here we go:
Scott Ritter
http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/03/4.3.03/Ritter_cover.html
Hans Blix: He actually wrote an entire book on the subject
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,895882,00.html
http://www.randomhouse.com/pantheon/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780375423024&view=excerpt

Scott Ritter's Resignation Letter where he writes "The Special Commission was created for the purpose of disarming Iraq. As part of the Special Commission team, I have worked to achieve a simple end: the removal, destruction or rendering harmless of Iraq's proscribed weapons. The sad truth is that Iraq today is not disarmed ... UNSCOM has good reason to believe that there are significant numbers of proscribed weapons and related components and the means to manufacture such weapons unaccounted for in Iraq today ... Iraq has lied to the Special Commission and the world since day one concerning the true scope and nature of its proscribed programs and weapons systems. This lie has been perpetuated over the years through systematic acts of concealment. It was for the purpose of uncovering Iraq's mechanism of concealment, and in doing so gaining access to hidden weapons components and weapons programs, that you created a dedicated capability to investigate Iraq's concealment activities, which I have had the privilege to head."http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/08/980826-ritter.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/25/sprj.nirq.kay/

This shows no possibilty of weapons in Syria now http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501554_pf.html

I know you feel like you can "open my eyes" but, despite what you might think, I don't come up with these arguments for no reason. Your going to have to do better then that I'm afraid.

 

[cnredd]

I'd be interested in any proof you can provide that UN Weapons Inspectors expected "tagged" WMD's in 1998, or they themselves tagged WMD in 1998. Thank you. After all, I'm merely giving you a chance to provide "the correct information."

If you asking me to directly find a source that used the word "tagged", I doubt I could because that is just the term used by the writer...However, if you would like proof of what WAS there and what was not, here is the ACTUAL UNSCOM REPORT...No political spin...no rhetoric...actual findings...

Hopefully THIS will close the case...

49. The Commission has a certain degree of confidence in the accounting for proscribed items declared by Iraq as having been destroyed during the 1991 Gulf war. The Commission has accepted through its verification the destruction of 34,000 special munitions and 823 tonnes of key precursors. Outstanding issues remain. These include the accounting for 2,000 unfilled and 550 filled special munitions.

50. The Commission has a lesser degree of confidence in accounting for proscribed items declared by Iraq as having been destroyed unilaterally. These include 15,900 unfilled and 100 filled special munitions, the CW agent VX and 50 tonnes of a precursor for the production of VX. Nevertheless, the Commission has accepted through its verification the destruction of 13,660 special munitions and about 200 tonnes of key precursors. However, residual questions remain with respect to proscribed items destroyed unilaterally. The presentation by foreign suppliers of information on the delivery of munitions and precursors requested by UNSCOM could be helpful in the verification of this area.

51. The priority should be given to the resolution of the most important outstanding issues. These include: material balance of chemical munitions (including verification of the expenditure of special munitions in the 1980s, which is required to increase a degree of confidence with respect to Iraq's declarations of chemical weapons remained in Iraq in 1991; the accounting for 550 artillery shells filled with mustard; verification of the unilateral destruction of R-400 chemical and biological aerial bombs); accounting for the production of the chemical warfare agent VX, and; verification of the completeness of declarations provided by Iraq on the material balance of CW production equipment removed from the Muthanna State Establishment (MSE) prior to the UNSCOM inspections.

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/

This is just a sampling...Why?...go to the website and see...This report is a freakin' BEAR!...If you want to read the whole thing, bring coffee and a pack of No-Doz.:2razz:

I went directly to the "Chemical Weapons"...My snippets are taken from the bottom under "Assessment"...

Just start reading at the top on what UNSCOM DID see and supervise the destruction of and your eyes will pop out of your sockets...Read my first snippet...34,000 special munitions and 823 tonnes of key precursors...823 ton(nes)?!?!?!...WTF?!?!?!? And this was JUST the "chemical" aspects!!

Remember...they were kicked out by IRAQ BEFORE the completion of the inspections, so they didn't get to supervise the remaining weapons DECLARED by Iraq...Even if Iraq omitted things in their summary, there isn't any evidence that they destroyed everything that WAS in the summary.

What next?...Do I have to go to the inspectors houses for interviews?:doh

Now, for your question of the 2002 Inspection team seeing the "tagged" WMD destined for destruction but not actually destroyed because they were kicked out, look no further than the first paragraph from the December, 2002 update taken DIRECTLY from the International Atomic Agency's website...

6 December 2002 -- Based on reports from the UN, inspectors visited Al-Mutanna, north of Baghdad, where Iraq once had a chemical weapons (CW) warfare programme. During past visits to the site before the 1998 suspension of the UN arms probe, thousands of CW shells and agents had been destroyed by the UN. Dimitri Perricos, the leader of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) inspection team, told reporters today that experts wanted to know if some shells containing mustard gas, which were left out at the site, were still stored there. Mr. Perricos said that in fact the team had found the shells stored at the site.

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/MediaAdvisory/2002/ma_iraq_0612.shtml

PLEASE tell me you're convinced now!....I'm doing WAY too much research investment and the payout has not been commensurate.

 

[cnredd]

Ok here we go:
Scott Ritter
http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/03/4.3.03/Ritter_cover.html
Hans Blix: He actually wrote an entire book on the subject
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,895882,00.html
http://www.randomhouse.com/pantheon/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780375423024&view=excerpt

Scott Ritter's Resignation Letter where he writes "The Special Commission was created for the purpose of disarming Iraq. As part of the Special Commission team, I have worked to achieve a simple end: the removal, destruction or rendering harmless of Iraq's proscribed weapons. The sad truth is that Iraq today is not disarmed ... UNSCOM has good reason to believe that there are significant numbers of proscribed weapons and related components and the means to manufacture such weapons unaccounted for in Iraq today ... Iraq has lied to the Special Commission and the world since day one concerning the true scope and nature of its proscribed programs and weapons systems. This lie has been perpetuated over the years through systematic acts of concealment. It was for the purpose of uncovering Iraq's mechanism of concealment, and in doing so gaining access to hidden weapons components and weapons programs, that you created a dedicated capability to investigate Iraq's concealment activities, which I have had the privilege to head."http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/08/980826-ritter.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/25/sprj.nirq.kay/

This shows no possibilty of weapons in Syria now http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501554_pf.html

I know you feel like you can "open my eyes" but, despite what you might think, I don't come up with these arguments for no reason. Your going to have to do better then that I'm afraid.

I believe the extensive report from both UNSCOM & the IAEA SHOULD convince you....

As pertaining to your Syria comment...2 points...

1)As per your own article(which is veering off topic, I might add)...

Although Syria helped Iraq evade U.N.-imposed sanctions by shipping military and other products across its borders, the investigators "found no senior policy, program, or intelligence officials who admitted any direct knowledge of such movement of WMD." Because of the insular nature of Saddam Hussein's government, however, the investigators were "unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials."

2)I said "many possibilities"...if you would like to rule one out in your head, I'm not stopping you...The only "possibility" I discount is the one where people claim that no WMDs were found...The 1998 UNSCOM Team has seen them AND reported them, destroyed a huge amount of them, and reported that there were some still stored when they left...The 2002 UNMOVIC team, headed by Dimitri Perricos, finding them STILL stored there is proof.

That is all this discussion was about...

Are you convinced of this ONE POINT yet or will you attempt to redirect again?:roll:

 

[cnredd]

Almost 2 hours to respond to two posts...

I gotta start gettin' paid for this...:doh

 

[FinnMacCool]

sorry I'm not. And too be quite honest, I don't think I ever will until we actually find these weapons of mass destruction.

There are so many different people saying different things that I don't suppose we'll ever know.

One does have to wonder though why Bush hasn't taken heart in the facts that you have stated and I know you will say this is off topic but I consider it very much related. The fact that Bush changed his focus from wmds to liberation means to me that he has lost hope that we will ever find those wmds. Hell even if you prove that they did exist back in 1998 and hey they might have been I'm not denying it, it doesn't make any difference because they weren't found when we went there. Our army has pretty much gave up on the search for wmds so I think if your trying to hold on wmds for a reason your mistaken. Focus on liberation from tyranny instead lol.

 

[MSgt]

sorry I'm not. And too be quite honest, I don't think I ever will until we actually find these weapons of mass destruction.

There are so many different people saying different things that I don't suppose we'll ever know.

One does have to wonder though why Bush hasn't taken heart in the facts that you have stated and I know you will say this is off topic but I consider it very much related. The fact that Bush changed his focus from wmds to liberation means to me that he has lost hope that we will ever find those wmds. Hell even if you prove that they did exist back in 1998 and hey they might have been I'm not denying it, it doesn't make any difference because they weren't found when we went there. Our army has pretty much gave up on the search for wmds so I think if your trying to hold on wmds for a reason your mistaken. Focus on liberation from tyranny instead lol.

Nobody can speculate (though many try) what goes on in the President's head. Politically, though, for him to continue to hammer WMD after not immediately finding them would not be wise. Focusing on another reason for invasion was logical.

Personally, since we have found bunkers full of ammo and the last bunker found a few months ago was three football fields long, they are there somewhere. There is also the Syria location. There is no way Syria would come forward now and admit that all of those trucks that crossed their border before we attacked had WMD. They want nothing to do with this.

 

[MSgt]

Almost 2 hours to respond to two posts...

I gotta start gettin' paid for this...:doh

Damn, you really do you homework. Good job. Others merely smash a few things together and paint a picture that they want to show.

 

[cnredd]

sorry I'm not. And too be quite honest, I don't think I ever will until we actually find these weapons of mass destruction.

There are so many different people saying different things that I don't suppose we'll ever know.

One does have to wonder though why Bush hasn't taken heart in the facts that you have stated and I know you will say this is off topic but I consider it very much related. The fact that Bush changed his focus from wmds to liberation means to me that he has lost hope that we will ever find those wmds. Hell even if you prove that they did exist back in 1998 and hey they might have been I'm not denying it, it doesn't make any difference because they weren't found when we went there. Our army has pretty much gave up on the search for wmds so I think if your trying to hold on wmds for a reason your mistaken. Focus on liberation from tyranny instead lol.

Finn...I'll be honest with you...

I know there are many on this forum that refuse to believe what they don't want to see...They are hopeless cases that will spew forth whatever they feel like as long as their particular affiliation is made to look good...

Until now, I've never believed that you were one of them...

But instead of looking at all of the research provided and seeing that debates start with getting your "ducks in a row", you would like to only fog the issues discussed with whatever will make the "other side" look bad...You once again try to redirect the topic to Bush when that is the farthest from the issue at hand...The fact that you believe I am the one harping on this issue instead of criticizing those who repeatedly bring the issue of "no WMDs" up is a perfect example of seeing only what you wish instead of bowing to the truth...I've sourced the actual UNSCOM report and the IAEA, yet you would rather believe otherwise, and it pains me that a young person such as yourself would readily tow the party line instead of admitting that the party line may conflict with what really happened...

I still have some faith in you, although it has deteriorated...I implore you to break from what seems like the easy route of following the leaders of your affiliation for the only purpose of political power, and instead stand on your own two feet and make objective opinions unrelated to the end result of gaining said power. Many young people have been inducted and subjected to thought which claims you must have certain beliefs....

Don't be one of them.

 

[cnredd]

Damn, you really do you homework. Good job. Others merely smash a few things together and paint a picture that they want to show.

Right after I finished, I realized that at the age of 35, I probably did more work in those two posts than I've ever did at any one night of High School homework.:doh

The only explanation I have is "motivation"...When you feel strongly about a certain subject, you tend to focus more and feel personally involved with the outcome of the research you've done...Welcome to Debate Politics, cnredd!

A "Good job" coming from someone that I have previously thanked for their unselfish service in the continued profession of protection and service, I'm not that "macho" to not say publicly that I am honored to see those words.

That doesn't mean I'm going to hug you anytime soon...or anytime farther from "soon" for that matter!:2wave:

 

[monoblanco]

cnredd
Thank you for taking the time to bring this research forward.
Impressive.

My problem with this is that even though we had been unable verify dissarmament and force Saddam to fully comply with UN resolutions I believe that he was contained and posed no threat to the region.

The no fly zone continued to be patrolled by our fighter jets who continued to take out whatever target they deemed as a threat.

cnredd your argument seems to be the fundamental and only piece of intelligence the administration had. They knew Iraq had them (WMDs) back in 1991 and we haven't been able to verify they've been destroyed.

This is a reasonable and it should have been stressed more.
Yet what followed still makes me cringe.

We heard Saddam and 9/11 mentioned in the same sentence so much that 70 percent of Americans thought there was a tie between Iraq and the attacks.

We heard that a shipment of high-strength aluminum tubes that was intercepted on its way to Iraq had been meant for the construction of centrifuges that could be used to produce enriched uranium.

We heard that between 1999 and 2001, Iraq had attempted to buy five hundred tons of uranium oxide from Niger.

We saw our most trusted diplomat Collin Powell stand before the UN making the case for war. His top aid Greg Thielmann would later characterize that moment as the lowest point of his career.

cnredd, I do hope we're able to figure out what heppened to those weapons.
Unlike some Americans I do happen to believe that our credibility is one of our most valuable assets. I espect my leaders to be wise enough to recognize this. It does matter what the rest of the world thinks about us.
To think otherwise is foolish.

I believe president Bush intended to do the right thing when he decided to remove Saddam. I also believe he failed to recognize the risks involved and the potential for disaster.

I'm glad to see serious people participating on this forum.
Thank you for.

 

[cnredd]

monoblanco...first of all, seeing as how this was your first post...

Now...I understand your position and arguments about the war, but please keep this in mind...I will reference previous posts in this thread...

Post #5...

Not once on this thread did I say it was a good thing or not...

It is only to dispel the WMD fabrications & inaccuracies...

Debates are a lot easier when you have the correct information...That is all this thread is meant to provide...

Post #7...

Now before you start changing the subject to something about Bush or reasons to go to war or anything else, just realize that this thread is ONLY to refute claims that he never had them...

Your post, whether agreeable or not, is legitimately debatable...but this thread was only to dispel the myth that Iraq did not have WMDs, like some proclaim...There are many threads that discuss the reasons, or lack of, for war...or the circumstances leading to it...

This thread was just a "precursor" for members to get the information correct before entering into your debatable comment.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

What the best info currently available re the WMD to Syria theory says.

Addendums to the Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD (pdf) page1 (page 4 of the pdf)

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.

 

[MiamiFlorida]

I posted this to a response in "Bias In The Media", but it has more relevance in this forum...This is in response to all of those who happily cry "No WMDs!"

In 1998, the UN weapons inspectors found WMDs...That is fact...What does that have to do with the war?...keep reading...

The inspectors were then kicked out by Cindy Shee....whoops!...wrong thread!...I mean, "Saddam"...:2wave:

In 2002/3 the new team of weapons inspectors showed up...Before we get any further, an explanation must be made...

Do not confuse the term "inspector" with "hunter"...The UN inspection team was NOT there to look for weapons...That his one of the biggest things some people latch onto, but it is completely false...

Guess what the UN inspection team was there to do?...Any guesses???....To INSPECT!...not "look for"..not "hunt"....simply to INSPECT....

And what were they there to inspect? They were there to inspect the inventory and facilities that were ALREADY known through the 1998 team...So when they showed up and said "Where's the stuff the previous team saw?", Saddam said "Uhhhh...we don't know what you're talking about."

So the Inspection team said, "Yes you do...we have positive proof that you HAD them...what happened to them?"...Saddam's reply?..."uhhhhh...We destroyed them."

Now...as stated, the inspection team was NOT there to look for anything...they were only there to inspect...and this is VERY important...

The burden of proof was on Saddam and his regime...NOT the inspection team!

I will say it again because some of the forum members are not up to speed with this...

The burden of proof was on Saddam and his regime...NOT the inspection team!

This part is really important, so I will type slower....

The fact that they weren't found IS the problem!...The 1998 inspection team PHYSICALLY saw them...So the question is "Where are they NOW?"...The burden of proof fell on Saddam to PROVE what happened to them...NOT for the inspection teams to FIND them.

Remember...According to the 1991 cease-fire agreement with Iraq, the U.N. had agreed not to lift sanctions until Iraq's full compliance had been verified.

Anyone want to guess why the sanctions were STILL on Iraq at the time of the war?...Simple...Iraq was not in FULL COMPLIANCE. If the 2003 inspection team was allowed to continue, would "full compliance" have been met?...Nope...Saddam didn't grant them "unfettered access", which means the actual inspections would never have been complete...Just like the previous inspection team's...THAT is what Saddam was counting on...another "shell-game" that would've ended with the UN giving in...

You may want to believe otherwise, but history has shown this to be the case...The term "This time we mean it!" has been used by the UN before, and every single time Saddam laughed at them...

If the US didn't throw in the monkey wrench, the UN would've lifted sanctions WITHOUT full compliance, and this would be more proof to the world that the UN is toothless...Their resolutions are meaningless...

So the question still remains....What happened to them?...This is a question that may take years, if ever, to actually find the truth...There are many possibilities, but "He never had them" is not one of those possibilities...

Saddam's burden of proof was not met...He provided no sources for his claim that everything was destroyed...And when some people say "There were no WMDs", they are saying, "Even though Saddam didn't prove that he got rid of them...I believe him when he says that he did."

Congratulations!...I'm sure you will all make great character witnesses at his trial.

We all know Saddam had WMD's. He used them on his own people.

There are none so blind as those who don't want to see.

 

[monoblanco]

Sorry about steering away from the original topic.

good thread.

 

[Tashah]

Very good thread! Big thanx to cnredd and Simon for the excellent document presentations.