Iraqi WMDs revisited

[Happy Times]

Geopolitics, Energy, China, Russia, India, Iran, Saudi-Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Islam, Terrorism. Someone thought it would be good to have a democratic state in the region to spread the idea to the rest of them. A loyal ally from where to conduct diplomacy and possible operations in the region. A reliable supplier of energy, and from where you could control and observe the energy supply of your rivals. These may have been miscalculatons of different levels. I honestly dont care. Im tired of this discussion, in the future everybody have to think really hard what their best interest is. I have chosen my side, it wasnt hard to do when you look at this facked up world. Some call me a pessimist, i consider myself a realist.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Abraham

Well actually they were there in the first place.

Of course, we have the receipts.

They were there when Kurds were gassed by Saddam.

Right, the revolt the US encouraged but then stood by and did nothing when it occured or was subsequently brutally surpressed. In any case, it predates the disarmament inspections so it doesn't prove that Iraq still had them.

They were there when Iranian soldiers were gassed in the Iraq-Iran war.

Well we know gas was used, that this war went on for 8 years, but we don't know for certain who (first) used gas. Let's assume that only Iraq used gas though, an ironic assumption considering the current debate to pre-emptively nuke Iran to prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But I guess we can give them the benefit of the doubt when it suits us. However its irrelevant since this also predates the disarmament inspections.

They were there when Iraqi Scud's were fired at Israel - although they were not used (I have a gut feeling I know why).

See above.

They were there during the First Gulf War - although they were not used (I have a gut feeling I know why).

See above.

They were there when many were found and destroyed after the First Gulf War.

Found and destroyed after the first Gulf War. Now we seem to be getting somewhere.

And it turned out that there was a widespread WMD-program on it's way after the First Gulf War.

Which, like the WMD, was destroyed after the first Gulf War.

And yes, with hindsight it seems that they are not there anymore - although only a small part of all the confiscated Iraqi documentation on the subject is translated yet.

History will eventually teach us how far the WMDs were develloped or ready or non-existant.
History also teaches us to err preferrably on the safe side...

I guess we have very different opinions as to what erring on the safe side is. My opinion at the time, and to this day, was that it was safer to remain focused on the people who actually had something to do with 9/11 (Bin Laden, remember that guy?) rather than spend enormous resources invading a country that had no connection; that it was safer to continue the ongoing weapons inspections than it was to inflame the already volatile region by invading a sovereign country on the most transparent of pretexts and thereby motivating a new generation of extremists for absolutely no gain whatsoever; that a disarmed and contained Iraq was safer than the terrorist breeding ground that, to date, has claimed the lives of over 2,300 service personnel - and counting.

[Abraham]

This is a surrealistic discussion.

Stage 1: About weapons of mass destruction

Originally Posted by Mike 'Red October' Hense

they may have never been there at all in the first place.

I read the word "never".

Stage 2: I found this too much honour for Saddam Hussein, whom as we all known was elected by an overwhelming majority, used to caress little blond children over their hair, loved his German shephard dog and hated Jews, in other words: a guy who tried to karaoke Herr Adolf Hitler. Even played with poisoned gas, mind you.
So I gave Mike some facts about WMDs.

Stage 3: Scandium seems not to like my facts so he tells me that my facts don't count because Mike's statement that Saddam "never" had WMDs in the first place suddenly means only during UN inspections. So we should never complain about Saddam or anybody having WMDs - and using them - as long as there are no inspections.

O.K., now I see why Saddam disliked those inspectors so much...

History will teach us in the future about these WMDs.

[Onkel Neal]

Friendly suggestion: if you want to argue against someone, steady pressure with facts and level assertions work better than nuking them with hyperbole about rapid dogs and Nazi comparisons.

This topic is perilously close to being locked, let's state our opinions and agree to disagree, please.

If I do lock this topic, could we resist the urge to start another just like it, for say a few days?

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Abraham

Stage 3: Scandium seems not to like my facts so he tells me that my facts don't count because Mike's statement that Saddam "never" had WMDs in the first place suddenly means only during UN inspections. So we should never complain about Saddam or anybody having WMDs - and using them - as long as there are no inspections.

It had rather more to do with the thread title and the speculation that the WMD must have been moved, than whether he ever had them at any point in time years before the invasion. I remind you that the invasion was predicated on disarmament by force, which implies that he had WMD at the time the US invaded; it was not predicated on whether or not he ever possessed them in the past, since nobody disputed that he once possessed them. That's a non-arguement, a moot point.

On edit: I read Mike's quote "they may have never been there at all in the first place" to mean they were not found because they were destroyed in accordance with UN resolutions and the disarmament inspections. Why you would assume, given the thread title and the debate, that he meant Saddam had never possessed them at any time I don't know other than that its an easy way to score debate points off an ambiguous phrase while ignoring the whole context of the debate.

In any case, if you're asserting that because he had them in 1990 that he must, after a decade of sanctions, years of monitoring and inspections, still possess them in 2003 then I doubt any of us will change your mind. You should allow for the at least as likely possibility though that they were not found simply because they had already been destroyed prior to the invasion taking place.

[Happy Times]

Like i said, the WMDs were not the reason for the invasion. They were a reason given for the public. But you have to remember, the countries in that neigbourhood are allmost all dictatorships. They are outlaws in my wiew, and depending on our interests we can do what ever is required. Now that every thing isnt going as planned, plan B would be good to have. If one waits, he can loose the upperhand. When China grows in power, it will start to openly defend its energy supply. And the most important and reliable supply for China could in the future be the middle east. The new domino theory could be that these countries fall for the Islamists. These two might find each other and common interests. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200509...or-energy.html

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Happy Times

Like i said, the WMDs were not the reason for the invasion. They were a reason given for the public. But you have to remember, the countries in that neigbourhood are allmost all dictatorships. They are outlaws in my wiew, and depending on our interests we can do what ever is required. Now that every thing isnt going as planned, plan B would be good to have. If one waits, he can loose the upperhand. When China grows in power, it will start to openly defend its energy supply. And the most important and reliable supply for China could in the future be the middle east. The new domino theory could be that these countries fall for the Islamists. These two might find each other and common interests. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200509...or-energy.html

Odd how you juxtapose a reason that was not a real reason, but only a reason to be "given to the public", with proclaiming the ME a neighbourhood of dictatorships and outlaws who we'd be justified in doing whatever our "interests" dictate to. Whatever happened to consent of the people? Isn't this one of the pillars of democracy?

I assume the irony of bringing the people to do the government's bidding, through Pravda style propaganda, for the purposes of bringing "democracy" - at gunpoint no less - to the ME is lost on you.

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by scandium

Odd how you juxtapose a reason that was not a real reason, but only a reason to be "given to the public", with proclaiming the ME a neighbourhood of dictatorships and outlaws who we'd be justified in doing whatever our "interests" dictate to. Whatever happened to consent of the people? Isn't this one of the pillars of democracy?

I assume the irony of bringing the people to do the government's bidding, through Pravda style propaganda, for the purposes of bringing "democracy" - at gunpoint no less - to the ME is lost on you.

I didnt say i except the method used, i just understand the reasoning behind it. My wiew is that it should be openly told to the puplic what are the realities of international politics. Wonder how many would shait themselfs? It pisses me constantly when people comment about news events when they dont have knowledge about the the history or interests behind the events.

[Abraham]

Originally Posted by scandium

In any case, if you're asserting that because he had them in 1990 that he must, after a decade of sanctions, years of monitoring and inspections, still possess them in 2003 then I doubt any of us will change your mind. You should allow for the at least as likely possibility though that they were not found simply because they had already been destroyed prior to the invasion taking place.

I think any further discussion on this subject is repeating the same moves.

I am certainly not convinced that there were no WMDs in Iraq in 1943, but I fully agree that that it is a possibility.
If they were not there it is because of international (mostly US) pressure and not because Saddam Hussein had a change of heart like South African P.M. De Klerk in the early '90 (or Libyan Gadaffi lately). On the contrary; Saddam Hussein did his utmost to hide WMDs and harras the UN inspection teams.
Who can be sure and who could at the time, be sure about WMDs not being there after the inspections when you have a record of lying and cheating like Saddam Hussein?
:hmm:

As Happy Times wrote, WMDs were used but hardly necessary as a justification for a regime change. The Kurds and the Shiítes are better off today, and yes, the Sunni's have to swallow the bitter pill of losing their strongman. And however bad the situation is with almost daily suicide attacks, it still doesn't compare with state organised terror and suppression of complete ethnic groups, punishing the male population of a village where an assasination attempt was made, organised rape, enfin, whatever a real bad dictatorship brings to its subjects...


About changing my mind, well, that sometimes happens during the discussions on this board. But not by politically coloured wild guessing about subjects that are not yet fully investigated. Historic proof can change my mind, so I will leave the final outcome of this question to historic research, which will take some more time.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by micky1up

i dont think the truth will ever get out about WMD's and the extent but i would love it to be made public when they find them for i think they do exist because alot of people on this forum would be force to accept they were wrong,i always look back at the weapons search's in ireland to find ira arms caches and in over 30 years of searching and hunting down these caches they only ever found a hand full and iraq is alot bigger than ireland. as a matter of historical fact it has always been easier to disprove than to prove and unfortunatley the proof may be a chemical attack in a major city by terroist that got there weapons from iraq

Ok.



What?

Equating the Troubles with the war in Iraq isn't helpful. Two very different scenarios that dont apply to each other. Hiding guns and explosives is very different to hiding a small chemical plant.

A loyal ally from where to conduct diplomacy and possible operations in the region. A reliable supplier of energy, and from where you could control and observe the energy supply of your rivals. These may have been miscalculatons of different levels. I honestly dont care. Im tired of this discussion, in the future everybody have to think really hard what their best interest is.

Fair enough. But why the need to lie about it? Why the need to deceive and blind people?

AlQaeda-Saddam-9/11-AlQaeda-Saddam-9/11-AlQaeda-Saddam-9/11-AlQaeda-Saddam-9/11-AlQaeda-Saddam-9/11-AlQaeda-Saddam-9/11-AlQaeda-Saddam-9/11-AlQaeda-Saddam-9/11-


Say it enough times and it becomes the truth. Lesson courtesy of Bush-Cheney

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

I've found the site: FMSO.

Someone found this document in the FMSO archive. (The IP address is the current FMSO archive address - this is not hosted somewhere else).

Note the document is dated 2002 in the Arabic header.

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

all of this fog... this fog of wmds... all of this, along with the other twisting of intelligence information... all of it seems be evaporating right before the eyes of a shocked and awed public...

the recent events concerning the cia leaks, and much, much more, will be quite revealing over the next couple of days (weeks)...


a lot of you people must really learn to recognize when you are being prospected... when you are being fed a line of bs... for that is one of the tools of the trade for the forces of ignorance and stupidity... to put up a fog in an attempt to blind you to the facts, and therefore, to the truth of the matter...

you must also learn to recognize the subtle racism and bias that also rears it's head during times like this... they are different, therefore it is ok to see them all as the enemy... god is on our side...

every proponent of hate and intolerance has used this sort of thing to seduce the weak of mind into their legion... don't be victims of this sort of stuff... see through the fog... don't let unfounded fears be your guide... don't always accept everything at face value, especially if it is on tv... try and quantify the source of facts, as well as the information that those sources present as facts...

don't fall willing victim to someone elses agenda...

at the very least, if you are gonna be wrong about something... be wrong because that is your choice, and not someone elses...

one wmd... just one... that's all i wanna see...

--Mike

[The Avon Lady]

Wow! Almost like Shakespeare.

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

almost like Shakespeare you say... obviously you haven't read Shakespeare... or at least you haven't understood what you've read...


--Mike

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense

almost like Shakespeare you say... obviously you haven't read Shakespeare... or at least you haven't understood what you've read...

You're right.

More like Jackie Collins.

But let's backtrack.

all of this fog... this fog of wmds...

What fog?

Other than some cache's of sarin filled shells and several missiles, overall WMDs were not found.

This thread's topic is discussing whether there were any and if so, what happened to them. Now indeed that's foggy.

all of this, along with the other twisting of intelligence information...

Who is twisting what exactly?

all of it seems be evaporating right before the eyes of a shocked and awed public...

It's been quite a while since Bush's administration has admitted that they cannot find anything. This didn't happen yesterday.

the recent events concerning the cia leaks, and much, much more, will be quite revealing over the next couple of days (weeks)...

Which leaks are you referring to? Let us in on the Beltway gossip.

a lot of you people must really learn to recognize when you are being prospected... when you are being fed a line of bs... for that is one of the tools of the trade for the forces of ignorance and stupidity... to put up a fog in an attempt to blind you to the facts, and therefore, to the truth of the matter...

That's very foggy on it own.

you must also learn to recognize the subtle racism and bias that also rears it's head during times like this... they are different, therefore it is ok to see them all as the enemy... god is on our side...

Gee..... what do we do with the right wing aethiests?

every proponent of hate and intolerance has used this sort of thing to seduce the weak of mind into their legion... don't be victims of this sort of stuff... see through the fog... don't let unfounded fears be your guide... don't always accept everything at face value, especially if it is on tv... try and quantify the source of facts, as well as the information that those sources present as facts...

So when documents are made public indicating that something was being covered up by Iraq, we should ignore these sources?

Are you claiming the FMSO document archive is phoney?

don't fall willing victim to someone elses agenda...

at the very least, if you are gonna be wrong about something... be wrong because that is your choice, and not someone elses...

one wmd... just one... that's all i wanna see...

At the end of 2002, the UN itself still reported tons of WMDs as unaccounted for, including:

• Nearly four tons of VX nerve agents
  
  Growth media for 20,000 litres of biological warfare agents
  
  15,000 shells for use in biological warfare
  
  6,000 chemical warfare bombs
  
  Unspecified amounts of nuclear material and information

Source: Iraq's 'unaccounted for' weapons.

Who was lying then? The UN? The US government? The BBC? Who?