Do you believe there are/were WMDs in Iraq?

[Firethorn]

Rebar, you might want to edit your post. No personal insults, remember?

Please, let's keep this on the highroad, or it's going to be quickly locked.

Google:iraq syria truck wmd

First three links have articles from the Washingtontimes and Worldnet Daily

 

[jefnvk]

Don't forget, from outside the US, you guys are all americans, not redstaters and bluestaters.

That would explain the hostility, at least.

We know he had them at the end of the first war. He refused to prove to us that they were destroyed. What would a reasonable person conclude?

If he were honestly innocent, why not just com e out and say here is what we had, here is what we did to destroy them, here are those tubes you are wondering about, they're being used to build a water pipe to a school?

EDIT: Rebar, you could give some people the shipping invoice signed by Saddam himself, and they wouldn't believe you.

 

[Rebar]

Rebar, you might want to edit your post. No personal insults, remember?

I didn't insult him, he insulted himself.

Rebar, you could give some people the shipping invoice signed by Saddam himself, and they wouldn't believe you.

That about sums it up.

 

[Sparks]

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

That'd be the part where you quoted what I said and then responded to it.

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.

You're presupposing that they existed as was claimed. That's not yet been proven.

We squashed an enemy before he had the tools to hurt us.

And the other six billion people who might one day under concievable circumstances hurt you? When are you getting about to squashing them?

If he were honestly innocent, why not just com e out and say here is what we had, here is what we did to destroy them, here are those tubes you are wondering about, they're being used to build a water pipe to a school?

I believe michael moore once showed up at a US facility and asked similar questions. Oddly enough, he didn't get a tour of the facility or answers to the questions, and probably for similar reasons, namely soverignity.

I didn't insult him, he insulted himself.

Actually, you did insult him. You also claimed that a google search would turn up proof. It doesn't. The google search turns up speculation. And the day you can order the invasion of another country and accept the subsequent deaths (now in the 100,000 region for Iraq, don't forget - and those are just the civilians), is the day you need to go recheck your credentials as a human being.

Rebar, you could give some people the shipping invoice signed by Saddam himself, and they wouldn't believe you.

No, that'd do quite nicely thanks. Do you happen to have it on you?
Or were you trying to imply that it was ethical to cause death and destruction on speculation? Because there's this whole undercurrent here of "don't go asking akward questions, get with the programme" and frankly, it's rather disturbing. It's like a lot of people just suddenly forgot morality alltogether.

 

[Dorian]

If you have evidence to back up your belief, please share it.

common sense.

I voted option number three.

 

[AZLibertarian]

You're presupposing that [Iraqi WMDs] existed as was claimed. That's not yet been proven.

No, I'm not presupposing anything. That Iraq had WMDs pre-war is a fact. What is now unknown is what happend to them. Iraq signed a post-Gulf War obligation to destroy them and show the world proof of such destruction. He failed to do this.

Regarding preemptive attacks on enemies likely to produce WMDs.

And the other six billion people who might one day under concievable circumstances hurt you? When are you getting about to squashing them?

Well, we attack them too. But I think the Iraq War has paid dividends in many areas. Libya turned their WMD program over to us without a shot. Democracy--the real way to peace--is sprouting in the most unlikely of places. But there's a difference between an adversary with a WMD and an enemy with a WMD. France has nukes and doesn't like us much. We're not too fond of the Russians or the Chinese either. But we can work with these countries. Saddam's Iraq was--one way or the other--going to eventually hurt us. I don't lose sleep at all for supporting taking him down. It needed to be done, and I think there are many more thankful for what we've done than there are those who don't like the way we've done it.

 

[griz]

I did the recomended search and got a bunch af articles that had a lot in common. Most quoted either Clapper, who said he had "an educated hunch" that WMD were trucked to Syria a few months before the war started, or unnamed syrian spy/s. All the articles are dated post invasion about the time that we got around to wondering where the WMDs were, and quote sources that say the intel showed that a couple months before the invasion we saw an "uptick" in truck traffic.

So an honest question is why did we invade Iraq if we knew the WMDs were in Syria? I realize intel is not precise, but if you change your interpetation to suit your new theroy it gives the impression that you are just guessing instead of relying on real evidence. I believe that is DW's point.

 

[Maverick]

Time will show the truth. I personally believe that China poses much greater
threat to us than Iraq did several years ago. And the problem is that we sponsor the "sleeping giant" by bying "Made In China" goodies.

 

[Rebar]

Or were you trying to imply that it was ethical to cause death and destruction on speculation?

Where's your proof that the weapons didn't exist? Why aren't you using the same burden of evidence for your position?

This isn't some kind of academic discussion in a perfect world. This was a life or death decision Bush had to make, he made it based on the best intelligence that was available. That intelligence was believed not just by Bush, but by just about everyone. These weren't ping-pong balls that were missing, these were weapons that could kill tens, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions. Absolute proof is not needed in such a case.

You demand 100% certitude that the weapons were shipped to Syria. Yet you offer zero evidence as to if they were destroyed or not, or where they are exactly. Explain why that is, why your theory is somehow exempt from the same rigorous, or indeed any, examination? I provided a perfectly plausable scenario that they were shipped to Syria. You just whine about "100,000" civilians being killed (where the proof of that?), as if Saddam wasn't murdering or letting starve the same number every year, and give no evidence whatsoever as to where the weapons are.

And don't say it's up to Bush to prove that there were WMD, the UN resolutions clearly stated it was up to Saddam to prove here didn't have them, which he failed to do. Repeat - FAILED TO DO.

So tell us all exactly where the weapons are, with hard evidence, not the speculation you spurn with such contempt.

 

[ctdonath]

(Skipping 5 pages and just explaining my answer.)

Right before the USA invaded Iraq, nobody seriously doubted the presence of WMDs. Many differed over what constituted adequate proof, but few when pressed claimed they did not, deep down, believe Saddam had WMDs.

 

[DigitalWarrior]

WooHoo I have seen what passes for evidence!!!

Speculation of a guy who admits it is "an educated guess" is not evidence.

"Blah Blah Blah" said a Pentagon official who asked not to be named - washington times Aug 16, 2004

Gen. Clapper, who heads the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency. "I'll call it an 'educated hunch.' "; "I think there are any number of things that they would have done." - washington times Aug 16, 2004

I have however found some really neat stuff. I am certainly wrong about the WMDs being eliminated in good faith. I now believe number 2 that they were destroyed and going to be rebuilt after the sancions were lifted. My evidence is here. http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf

I am not sure why I didn't know about this report (Must be my nine-year old's research skills). These guys did WAY more research than I could, and I am pretty convinced they are right. Their 19 page summary states a couple of interesting things:

1. Nuclear research was demolished in 91. There was no organized plan to bring it back.
2. Chemical Weapons were destroyed (page 13). But Saddam wanted them back badly. (mustard gas 3 months after sanctions were lifted, and nerve gas inside of 2 years)
3. Saddam believed that Chemical weapons had saved iraq a number of times.
4. Saddam's real concern was Iran, not the US.
5. the truck movement to syria has alternate plausable explenations. (page 15)
6. No bioweapons after '96. Dual-use research continued. Bioweapons are apparently the easiest WMD to make. A bunch of assasination poison done by IIS, and they suck.

The most chilling sentence:

The IIS Program included the use of human subjects for testing purposes.

Damn. That is cold trash right there.

I think that the best evidence we have to present was right there on the CIA web-site. Thank you all, Your mention of the trucks drug up a google. I was reading a few pages deep when I came across an article, which had Charles Duelfer's name (he didn't rule out the trucks transporting WMD). I googled for statements by him and discovered this good stuff. I am excited about the final report coming this spring. Thank you THR.

DigitalWarrior

 

[Sparks]

Where's your proof that the weapons didn't exist? Why aren't you using the same burden of evidence for your position?

That would be Blix's report. And the results from the Iraq Survey Group. And the reports from the UN inspectors for the ten years prior to the invasion.

Absolute proof is not needed in such a case.

Only by those for whom morality is little more than an obscure entry in a dictionary.

You just whine about "100,000" civilians being killed (where the proof of that?)

That'd be the Lancet survey. And "whine"? Are you saying they don't count or something?

as if Saddam wasn't murdering or letting starve the same number every year

Actually, the annual death toll under Hussein was lower. Scary, huh?

And don't say it's up to Bush to prove that there were WMD, the UN resolutions clearly stated it was up to Saddam to prove here didn't have them, which he failed to do. Repeat - FAILED TO DO.

Can I just point out the irony here? In other threads, the UN is portrayed as an evil organisation attempting to be a world government and who wants to grab your guns and which must be resisted at all costs - in fact the current US UN representative is the same guy who remarked that he didn't think it'd make any difference if they were destroyed. And yet here, you're making the point that failure to comply with a UN resolution is sufficent grounds to invade and occupy another soverign state, even if the UN disagrees with your interpretation?

Right before the USA invaded Iraq, nobody seriously doubted the presence of WMDs.

That's simply untrue.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I believe the WMD exist, and were probably moved out of Iraq.

What I don't understand is why we are not still looking for them elsewhere.

If we were at risk when Saddam had them, we are at even more risk now that they are in the hands of unknown, unlocatable terrorists.

As to the issue of democracy in Iraq, maybe it will be good, or maybe it won't be. The Iranians voted for their government afterall.

 

[Randall53]

If it was possible, you could bury an aircraft carrier full of WMD in a desert like Iraq, and after the first sandstorm, all traces of any activity would be gone. Did Saddam have nuclear weapons? Probably not, but he sure wanted them bad. He also had plenty of gold and U.S. dollars to buy them. Did Saddam have Bioweapons? Sure he did...and lots of them. He used them several times didn't he? I think there are plenty of them still there, but practically impossible to find due to the area of the country and how easily it is to bury them there. No I don't have proof, but we are all speculating here. REGARDLESS....I have absolutely no sympathy for the bastard and I think Bush did the right thing with the information he had, whether Saddam proved to still have these weapons or not. Sitting on our hands and waiting on 100% proof/verification on an issue of this importance to the security of this country gives criminals like Saddam more time to conjure up the weapons they need to attack this country. The U.S. is the crosshair of all the terrorist groups. What would everyones opinon be if we'd waited and Saddam had armed terrorists with a BioBomb that spread anthrax over half of this nation killing millions of people? I'm 100% sure everyone would be asking "why did Bush let this happen?" In a decision like Bush had to make, one thing is certain. You are going to piss a lot of people off either way. We have been conditioned to expect a military attack by our enemies. Terrorists don't fight that way. 9/11 is proof of that. They are not organized as a military unit, and use whatever weapons they can find or buy. The threat created by terrorism and the ability of terrorist to blend in is much more dangerous than the cold war ever was. These people have no fear of death and will endure anything to commit a strike against our country. If we love our families, then we can't sit back and let renegade leaders of these countries that support terrorists gain momentum. Terrorism is a very special threat and as a country requires special consideration when it comes to issues like Saddam Hussein. Personally, I'm more concerned with what could have happened if we had NOT attacked Iraq. Yes...American lives have been lost and that is sad. My heart goes out to the people that have lost loved ones. But that is war, whether it's WWI, WWII, Vietnam or the war on terror. I firmly believe that the terrorist are going to prove to be the most dangerous enemy this country has ever faced.....and it's going to be a battle in our own cities, not a foreign country.

 

[Rebar]

That'd be the Lancet survey.

The Lancet survey? They made up those numbers:

"The methods that they used are certainly prone to inflation due to overcounting," said Marc E. Garlasco, senior military analyst for Human Rights Watch, which investigated the number of civilian deaths that occurred during the invasion. "These numbers seem to be inflated."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html

This site (no friend to the US) puts the total between 17,000 and 19500:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

And they include civilians killed by the insurgents! So you can stop quoting that rediculous made up number now.

Actually, the annual death toll under Hussein was lower. Scary, huh?

Less than 20,000 killed by accident in more than a years time, vs. 60,000 Kurds killed by poison gas in a week? I guess my definition of "scary" is different than yours.

As for Blix:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002975
which also includes a list of the unaccounted for weapons. Which is genuinely scary.

And yet here, you're making the point that failure to comply with a UN resolution is sufficent grounds to invade and occupy another soverign state

When it involves hundreds of tons of unaccounted for WMD, yes indeed.

To sum up, your argument that the weapons didn't exist is specious. The weapons did exist, and there is no evidence that they were destroyed.

 

[DigitalWarrior]

Rebar

The CIA said they were destroyed in the PDF I posted above. The CIA.

It also says the madman was hell-bent on getting them the moment sanctions were lifted. But for use against Iran.

The CIA said that in the report I posted above.

If you have evidence they do not, please share it with them, otherwise I think this thread should probably be closed.

 

[Rebar]

The CIA said they were destroyed in the PDF I posted above.

No, they don't.

They say that "Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991". "Essentially" does not mean "totally", it's one of those bureaucratic weasel words so they can avoid blame when some are found. It's also necessary to point out, that a lot of the information in the report comes from inspectors, and it's common knowledge that the Iraqis played the inspectors as fools. Also, there is evidence that Saddam bought chemical weapons from the Russians with some of the billions he made from the oil-for-food scandal.

A bunch of trucks were loaded up at the weapon sites and moved to Syria, and promptly buried. I doubt very much that they were pirated copys of "Bambi" DVDs. The Israelis say they were WMD, the Turks say they were WMD, Syrian defectors say they were WMD. You think maybe... they were WMD? If they weren't, name one thing they might have been that was worth all that effort, and how all these different sources could be wrong.

 

[AZLibertarian]

To reinforce Rebar's point (not that you need help, but only because I stumbled on this at Instapundit), I offer this.

That'd be the Lancet survey.

The Lancet survey? They made up those numbers:

 

[buzz_knox]

And the reports from the UN inspectors for the ten years prior to the invasion.

Wrong. Ritter, one of those UN inspectors, testified in 1998 that Iraq possessed WMD. The other inspectors stated that they didn't see weapons, but they were denied access to some areas and watched trucks transporting materials from the areas they couldn't get into.

 

[Sparks]

The Lancet survey? They made up those numbers:

I read those links. And I read this one. I also know a little about statistics because of my PhD work. So frankly, I'll take the lancet numbers - they, at least, have an estimate of their accuracy. And since the US decided not to count the Iraqi death toll, there's no more authoritative source out there at the moment.

This site (no friend to the US) puts the total between 17,000 and 19500:

I know they do - they're counting by a wholly different method, one well known to under-estimate the death toll significantly.

And they include civilians killed by the insurgents!

I think you'll find you need an occupying force before you can have insurgents...

Ritter, one of those UN inspectors, testified in 1998 that Iraq possessed WMD. The other inspectors stated that they didn't see weapons, but they were denied access to some areas and watched trucks transporting materials from the areas they couldn't get into.

Which lead to airstrikes which destroyed the estimated 3% that was remaining of the Iraqi chemical weapons stockpiles.

The Israelis say they were WMD, the Turks say they were WMD, Syrian defectors say they were WMD.

So the Israelis who consider Iraq a threat, the Turks who consider the Kurds a threat, and Syria, who's not any special friend of Iraq despite their similarities (honestly, saying Syria and Iraq were best friends because they had similar leading parties is like saying Germany and Russia were best friends in WW2 because they both had totalitarian leaders). I'll give Hans Blix's report more weight thanks. He didn't have any particular axe to grind against Iraq.

Terrorism is a very special threat and as a country requires special consideration when it comes to issues like Saddam Hussein.

Excuse me, but we have documented proof that US citizens and organisations gave aid and munitions to the IRA over the last thirty-odd years, so your hands aren't clean either. To say nothing of the US record throughout south america and south-east asia.

And please don't start talking like terrorism is something only the US understands, pretty much all of europe has had to live with it in one form or another for the past few decades. And frankly, we've learnt the hard way that the course the US is now pursuing is neither good for the US nor good for fighting terrorism. Seriously. Torturing suspects? Tried it. Internment without civil rights? Tried it. Shooting suspected terrorists in military actions? tried it. It just doesn't work folks, because everytime a soldier kills someone's father, even if he was a terrorist, you create a few sons who will definitely go on to become terrorists themselves. It's like trying to douse a fire with petrol.

Yes...American lives have been lost and that is sad.

See, this is what gets my back up. No-one is claiming that the loss of US lives is in any way a cheap thing - but it seems that that level of respect is not mutual. 2752 people were killed on 9/11 - nearly 2,500 civilians were then killed in Afghanistan, and the numbers in Iraq will never be known for certain but 98,000 is the best estimate to date. Unless you count the lives of innocent people who happen not to be innocent americans to be in some way cheaper than those of innocent americans, there's an imbalance here that shouldn't ever sit well with anyone who wants to claim to be a human being.

 

[macavada]

Lives are lives. They all have value. Iraqi citizens, Afghan citizens, American citizens, all equal in my view.



So much for the "culture of life".

 

[buzz_knox]

Which lead to airstrikes which destroyed the estimated 3% that was remaining of the Iraqi chemical weapons stockpiles.

Huh? There's a new one. Our air strikes were limited to military facilities such as air defense positions. The accepted way to destroy chemical stockpiles is mass incendiary strikes, and those didn't happen.

Besides, the new mantra is that there what little WMD survived the Gulf War was destroyed by Husseing long ago, not by the US.

 

[buzz_knox]

So the Israelis who consider Iraq a threat, the Turks who consider the Kurds a threat, and Syria, who's not any special friend of Iraq despite their similarities (honestly, saying Syria and Iraq were best friends because they had similar leading parties is like saying Germany and Russia were best friends in WW2 because they both had totalitarian leaders). I'll give Hans Blix's report more weight thanks. He didn't have any particular axe to grind against Iraq

Well, the Russians didn't have an axe to grind. In fact, Russia was a nominal ally of Iraq, as was France and Germany. The interesting thing is that all these allies essentially agreed that Iraq had WMD and that the issue was whether military action was the solution, versus another decade or so of those nations getting sweet heart deals, UN officials getting kick backs, and payments to journalists, politicians and weapons inspectors to argue for the elimination of sanctions.

But hey, let's not let little facts get in the way, shall we?

 

[Sparks]

Well, the Russians didn't have an axe to grind. In fact, Russia was a nominal ally of Iraq, as was France and Germany. The interesting thing is that all these allies essentially agreed that Iraq had WMD and that the issue was whether military action was the solution

Actually, the argument was over giving Blix sufficent time to complete his inspections and submit his report. Funnily enough, though there was no time at all prior to the invasion, the amount of time available for the search seems to have become infinite after the invasion...

versus another decade or so of those nations getting sweet heart deals, UN officials getting kick backs, and payments to journalists, politicians and weapons inspectors to argue for the elimination of sanctions.
But hey, let's not let little facts get in the way, shall we?

Why not? You just sidestepped them by quite a margin, after all!

 

[DigitalWarrior]

Rebar

I know it is an effort, but get past page 1.

You have the gall to accuse me of being blind. Read all 19 pages of the summary report. The reason it is "essentially" is because the knowledge was maintained, and biological weapons for assasination were still being developed.

Please tell me that you do not believe that you have better information from watching foxnews and reading freerepublic, than the CIA, which is there interviewing a lot of people and examining documents. Please tell me that. Please. I really want to respect you. Please tell me that you know being half a planet away handicaps you in the information department. Especially when compared to professional analysts in the region who understand their alien culture and speak the local language fluently.

THE CIA SAID HE WAS WAITING FOR SANCTIONS TO END!
THE CIA SAID HE WAS WAITING FOR SANCTIONS TO END!
THE CIA SAID HE WAS WAITING FOR SANCTIONS TO END!
What I say three times is true.