Do you believe there are/were WMDs in Iraq?

[moa]

My understanding of the two Sarin gas rounds is that they had no special markings. They looked like conventional artillery shells. That is why the BGs were using them as IEDs.

Iraq is one giant munitions dump. So far 8,600 dumps have been found, some of them covering many square kilometers. If there WMDs still around in Iraq, it may take quite a while to find them, especially if they are not labeled as WMDs.

 

[DigitalWarrior]

Moa

We stopped looking in January.

 

[Sparks]

You are a liar, or you didn't even bother looking. The most basic google search turned up this:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/art.../2/230625.shtml

"According to a former top Bush administration official, Russian special forces teams moved weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq to Syria."
In other words, no evidence, just the word of a former administration offical that he saw evidence. Well, Powell swore black and blue that he had evidence too. Turned out to be bunk.

http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php

A letter from an ex-syrian journalist saying that he knows where the WMD are. Again, no actual WMD, no actual evidence, just another person saying "oh, I know where they are".

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/...gi?ArtNum=86742

Same as the first link.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai.../ixnewstop.html

"Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved". In other words it's not evidence, it's an idea that maybe there was evidence but it got moved before we could see if it was evidence or not.

http://www.worldthreats.com/russia_...oved WMDs.htm

Same story as above, quotes from someone saying they saw evidence, but no actual evidence is presented.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/...1340941,00.html

"Iraqi chemical and biological weapons may be hidden in Syria". We might find evidence in syria, in other words, but we don't really know for sure. No actual evidence presented.

http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?...&storyid=670123

Same as above, accusations, but no actual evidence presented.

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/052258.php

Same as the second link.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/aug/16iraq.htm

Statements that stuff was smuggled in both directions across the syrian border back when Hussein was in charge and prior to the invasion. No actual evidence presented, nor any explanation as to where anything smuggled in went to (the activity they're talking about happened well before the invasion so the weapons, if that's what was smuggled in, were still in Iraq during the invasion).

http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_...Iraqi WMD.htm

Er, an essay done by someone in their english class? What, swiping people's homework and using it to justify invasions of foreign countries? I thought that was just a british thing?

Yet you posted this topic as a poll, the poll overwelmingly supports my view

In times past, polls would have shown overwhelming support for the theory that the earth was flat, that heavier objects fall faster, that drilling holes in the skull let out the demons inside that caused headaches, that the earth was at the centre of the universe, or that Saddam had WMDs which could be deployed against the west within 40 minutes of the order being given...
Unfortunately, finding out the actual truth of a situation requires more legwork.

what part of 60,000 gassed Kurds and 100,000 gassed Iranians didn't you understand?

I'd suspect the confusion might arise over the bit about how the WMDs used in those attacks (paid for with US currency, btw) managed to remain viable for over 25 years when they have a ten-year shelf life; or possibly the bit about how they survived at all given that following the first gulf war, UN weapons inspectors systematically destroyed 97% of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and the remaining 3% were targeted by US air strikes.

 

[Sean Smith]

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
• President Bush, 7/17/03

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Verification: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Yep, it was all a big put-on by the Bush administration. That's why all his POLITICAL ENEMIES went along with it.

 

[Rebar]

What Scott Ritter says is taken at face value, but what anyone else says that supports Bush needs a written note from God Almighty to be considered.

Funny how that works. Funny how the words of a pedophile who accepted bribes from Saddam, and now works as a propaganist for the Islamofacists, are accepted as gospel. Funny how respected intelligence and journalists words are dismissed out of hand because they might show that Bush was right.

 

[DigitalWarrior]

Civil Title Created

One. Clinton has nothing to do with this.

Two. I examined his argument and it is logical. Ritter offers a possible explenation of evidence and it is testable (was the shell fired).

Three. Evidence is testable. Testimony is conjecture. There is sworn testimony of people saying they saw witches flying on broomsticks in the middle ages. Testimony may point us towards evidence, but is not evidence itself.

 

[Firethorn]

Do I believe that Iraq had NBC, after the first phase of the Gulf War, after the inspectors? Yes, I view that as about 80% likely. Do I believe that, given the opportunity, that Saddam would have produced NBC weapons? Yes, 100%. What do I think he did with any WMD's in the period before the invasion? I think he hid some of it(most likely the basic research), might of shipped some of it to 'friendly countries', and destroyed what he couldn't hide or ship off.

As for the funds, by "WMDs used in those attacks (paid for with US currency, btw) " do you mean that the USA paid for them, which I find ridiculous, unless he diverted aid money from it's intended purporse*. Or do you simply mean that he paid for the supplies in US Dollars, one of the most highly valued currencies out there*? It's accepted in more places than gold. Easier to transport too.


*One of the reasons that I support severe limits on cash givaways. Far too much of it goes to corruption.
* Though I admit, not quite worth as much today, but in many ways that's a good thing, encourages exports for one thing.

 

[Sparks]

do you mean that the USA paid for them, which I find ridiculous

I'm referring to the underwriting of loans to Iraq by the US agriculture department's Commodity Credit Corporation to the tune of $2 billion in the 1980s. That money, meant for economic aid by purchasing food and basic goods, was used to buy military hardware, dual-use chemicals and other raw materials for chemical weapons, all bought on licences issued by Regan and Bush Sr. In fact those loans weren't stopped until the day Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. That is part of the money I'm talking about (there were other loans arranged off-the-books in the CCC and others - on a smaller scale - through other organisations).

 

[Rebar]

There is evidence, the satlillite photos of the truck convoys, which are understandably classified. There is also testimony, which IS evidence BTW, from several sources, including Israeli intelligence, which is a top-notch organization.

Is it "beyond a reasonable doubt" 100% irrefutable evidence? No. Or at least not yet. But you must at least consider that, in fact, the WMD were moved. It's a much better possiblility then the weapons just dissapiering into thin air like most of the Bush-haters seem to think happened.

You CANNOT call Bush a liar, while the possiblility (IMO an excellent possiblility) exists that they were moved just prior to the war. Unless, of course, your purpose is to spew out Bush-hate rather than knowing the truth.

 

[Sergeant Sabre]

He had them.

It didn't get much press at the time. However, the 2 sarin gas rds that were popped off as IED's was total proof that he had them.

Yes. I remember this and it proves that artillery rounds filled with nerve agent were/are in Iraq.

As far as having "proof" they were there: I was in a position with the Marine Corps from Jul 1999 to Dec 2003 to review such secret and top secret evidence as our administration referred to. To me, the most incriminating things occured after the return of UNMOVIC weapons inspectors just prior to the war. For example: UNMOVIC inspectors had a planned list of sites to visit every day. When UNMOVIC rolled out in the morning on the way to the first site each day, amazingly, photographs from classified sources showed Iraqis burying thigns at the site. Not little stuff, either. I mean using heavy equipment to hastily bury entire shipping containers. This didn't happen every time, but enough to be very suspicious activity. So, the Iraqis were trying to hide something from people who were looking for WMD. Let me see, what would you want to hide from people who are looking for WMD? Hmmm. I dunno. WMD, maybe? That's the only thing I could think of. Personally, having been privy to much of the "evidence" I was postively shocked that we didn't find tons and tons of really nasty stuff very early on in the invasion.

 

[Sparks]

A photo of a truck taken from orbit is a photo of a truck taken from orbit; it is not proof that the truck is carrying weapons of mass destruction. As to testimony, there's this little thing called "perjury" that you have to account for. We're not talking here about whether to get peanuts at the bar or not, the invasion is estimated to have cost nearly a hundred thousand civilian lives so far. You cannot go about causing that amount of damage without solid proof! It's just wrong.

 

[Sean Smith]

You cannot go about causing that amount of damage without solid proof! It's just wrong.

Funny how both Bush AND HIS POLITICAL ENEMIES thought they had that proof, but now only Bush is the liar.

 

[Rebar]

A photo of a truck taken from orbit is a photo of a truck taken from orbit; it is not proof that the truck is carrying weapons of mass destruction. As to testimony, there's this little thing called "perjury" that you have to account for.

A photo of a truck going to a weapons site, being loaded, then tracked to Syria, is not "just" a truck. Especailly when it's part of a large convoy of trucks doing the same exact thing.

As far a "purjury", you haven't a shred of proof that any of these people are lieing, ever mind all of them as you imply.

Lets look at the evidence:
-Knowledge that Iraq had WMD.
-Imagery of large truck convoys being loaded at suspected WMD sites.
-Imagery of those same convoys going to Syria.
-Testimony from several reliable sources that WMD were on the trucks.
-Several hundred tons of Iraqi WMD unaccounted for.
-No WMD at the suspected sites.

All the above is incontrovertible. It doesn't take a genius to see where this evidence is pointing. Unless you think the trucks were transporting sand, since there's such a sand-shortage in Syria.

 

[Sparks]

Funny how both Bush AND HIS POLITICAL ENEMIES thought they had that proof, but now only Bush is the liar.

Excuse me, but where did I say there was a lie? I said there is no proof, no accusation of lying nor one against a specific party was made. Don't forget, from outside the US, you guys are all americans, not redstaters and bluestaters.
And frankly, I'd judge the lives lost more important than who planks his ass in the seat behind the desk in the oval office.

 

[Dmack_901]

I consider much of what they found WMDs. Highly radioactive substances in dust form(great for a dirty bomb), chemical weapons, a few biological ones ect. Sure there wasn't one large stockpile of them, but theere were a significant number if wepons which cause mass destruction, even if the media didn't call them WMDs.

 

[Sparks]

A photo of a truck going to a weapons site, being loaded, then tracked to Syria, is not "just" a truck.

Nope, it's not. It's a photo of a truck that was loaded at a weapons site. It's not proof of what was loaded though.

As far a "purjury", you haven't a shred of proof that any of these people are lieing, ever mind all of them as you imply.

I am neither saying nor implying that they lied. I'm saying that because the possibility exists that they lied, that you have to have solid proof before risking peoples lives through military action.

Lets look at the evidence:

That's precisely what I'd like to do, yes.

-Knowledge that Iraq had WMD.

We have none. We know they had them in the mid-to-late eighties. That doesn't mean they had them prior to the invasion. We do know the UN inspectors destroyed 97% of those that were known about and the reminder were targeted by the USAF in air strikes. We do not know, nor did we know, that they had any in the last few years.

-Imagery of large truck convoys being loaded at suspected WMD sites.
-Imagery of those same convoys going to Syria.

That's not proof, we have no proof that there were WMDs there to begin with, nor that they were loaded on the trucks.

-Testimony from several reliable sources that WMD were on the trucks.

We don't have that either. We don't know (with one exception, an ex-syrian journalist who had no offical source of information) who's giving that testimony.

-Several hundred tons of Iraqi WMD unaccounted for.

Excuse me? Where's that figure coming from?

-No WMD at the suspected sites.

Equally explainable by there never having been any there to begin with.

All the above is incontrovertible.

Not only is it controvertible, it's easily so.
That's not enough evidence to recommend killing people over.
If you tried to have someone convicted of murder in the US with evidence like that, you'd last all of two minutes in the courtroom.

 

[Sparks]

I consider much of what they found WMDs. Highly radioactive substances in dust form(great for a dirty bomb), chemical weapons, a few biological ones ect. Sure there wasn't one large stockpile of them, but theere were a significant number if wepons which cause mass destruction, even if the media didn't call them WMDs.

First off, the radioactive substances were known about and sealed by the IAEA. No chemical weapons (at least, none that weren't over two decades old) were found. No biological weapons were found. If you know different, please post the links.

 

[Rebar]

If you tried to have someone convicted of murder in the US with evidence like that, you'd last all of two minutes in the courtroom.

Nonsence. The recent case of Scott Peterson, for example, the man was found guilty and sentenced to death on far less evedence then I presented.

Simply put, your standard of proof is rediculously high for the real world. Especially considering the immense danger of the weapons in question. It's a good thing you're not in a leadership position where decisions must be made without the luxury of 100% certitude.

But even you must admit the possibility that those trucks were carrying WMD. If you're 100% sure that they were not, site your source explaining how you can be so sure.

 

[DigitalWarrior]

Would someone please post links to evidence of the trucks

It seems as if the presence and activity of the trucks was not contested. I would like to see evidence of what was claimed. Showing me proof of these trucks doing what was said will bring into question my beliefs. I have not seen photos of convoys of trucks doing this stuff.

I do not believe that they went to known weapons sites. If they had been known, we would have directed inspectors or missles there. We sure as hell would not have lost track of those trucks.

Sometimes you have to go on a best guess. But admit you are going on a best guess. Do not claim certainty. And keeping the justification for 1500 dead american kids a secret is a sin. If they have pictures they need to show us. If we cannot fact check our public servants on such an important issue, then they are actually our rulers.

Rebar: I also admit to the poissibility that you sent the anthrax letters. I have seen you use mail, and have evidence that you communicate with second amendment extremists, who had the capability to teach you how to make anthrax. Please prove to me that you have destroyed your anthrax generating capabilities. Also I saw you transport something from your manufacturing lab, to several locations including work and grocery store. If you cannot prove you destroyed them, and if we find nothing, it is obviously because you moved the equipment to the freezer aisle.

 

[Rebar]

Rebar: I also admit to the poissibility that you sent the anthrax letters... blah blah blah

If I had been convicted in the past of sending anthrax letters, you might have a point. Since I haven't, it's just another baseless attack by you towards me because your argument hangs in shreds.

Since you're blinded by Bush-hate, it's pointless to continue, since it's amply evident that your only purpose is to propagandize against Bush rather than engage in a real discussion.

If you're really interested, the information is out there, take a look rather than expect me to spoon-feed it to you, even the research skills of a 10 year old can find it.

 

[Sean Smith]

Excuse me, but where did I say there was a lie?

Excuse me, but tell me again where I said I was addressing you?

 

[DigitalWarrior]

I am still looking for evidence of the trucks doing what is claimed.

Anyone,
I bow before you superior research skills. I have looked for evidence, and have not found it. I apparently have the research skills of a nine year old. Just please show me the evidence.

I am guessing it turns out that it was never shown that the Sarin Shell was unfired, or part of a "stockpile".

I am the one who thinks Bush Lied. I have seen no reason to believe otherwise yet. Just find 1/16lb of evidence, and I will personally write Bush an apology and also send it as a letter to the editor. I believe that Wild Alaska called it "eating crow".

 

[coylh]

As much as I enjoy poking fun at Bush, I think this thread is off topic and straying into religious obstinance. Can we get back to talking about gun related legal and political issues?

 

[AZLibertarian]

Why we're here beating this dead horse is more than I know. This is more "Bush Lied. People Died." from apparently the last guy still interested in this line of argument.

OK. Here's how it is. Bush didn't lie. To lie, one must know the truth, then actively tell something else. DigitalWarrior, in your belief that Bush lied, you have not put up one shread of evidence that Bush knew that Saddam did not have the WMD and then falsely told the world that he did. The world--with very few exceptions--believed Saddam had WMD. Personally, I think Saddam himself believed he had them. [I admit I'm doing exactly what everyone else is doing here--speculating on the basis of news reports/analyses.] To monday-morning-quarterback this thing now misses the point--the most reasonable and widely held assumption at the time of our decision to go to war in Iraq was that Saddam had the WMD.

Where the WMD are is a troubling question. The most likely culprit is Syria, and they're about to implode if they're not careful.

Whether or not Iraq had WMD misses another central point--that Saddam was slow-dancing the world and the UN until we forgot about how dangerous he was...and then he'd get back into the WMD business. This is the central issue of a preemptive war. Saddam was an active and unapologetic supporter of terrorists, and a sworn enemy of the US. To ignore him after 9/11 would have been irresponsible. [I am making no connection here between Iraq and the 9/11 perpetrators.] We squashed an enemy before he had the tools to hurt us. End of story.

DigitalWarrior, you ask repeatedly for evidence of one thing or another. Why must the evidence be put before the public before a leader acts? Admittedly, a leader must have credibility, but throwing everything out on the table just doesn't make sense to me. Are we not allowed to have secrets at all?

 

[Rebar]

I have looked for evidence, and have not found it. I apparently have the research skills of a nine year old.

Are you seriously stating you're so stupid you can't put "Iraq Syria Truck Weapons" into google and do a search? You expect anyone to take you seriously when you can't muster the 50 IQ points to do a simple google?

But somehow you found that pedophile Scott Ritter's defense against the artillery shell. How's that? It's amazing that you can find that piece of information, but somehow putting a few simple words into a search engine eludes you. Go figure.

Frankly, if you can't muster the intelligence to do basic grade-school research, then any facts or explanations that might have educated you would go right over your head anyway, so what's the point?

Go back to watching cartoons, because matters of National Security and International Relations is obviously way too much for you to handle.