Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq |
| Posted by: Marc Flemming | |
| quote: |
The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.
"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.
Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."
He added that the report warns about the hazards that the chemical weapons could still pose to coalition troops in Iraq.
"The purity of the agents inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal," Santorum read from the document.
"This says weapons have been discovered, more weapons exist and they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it shows that years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections did not uncover these munitions.
Hoekstra said the report, completed in April but only declassified now, shows that "there is still a lot about Iraq that we don't fully understand."
Asked why the Bush administration, if it had known about the information since April or earlier, didn't advertise it, Hoekstra conjectured that the president has been forward-looking and concentrating on the development of a secure government in Iraq.
Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.
"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."
The official said the findings did raise questions about the years of weapons inspections that had not resulted in locating the fairly sizeable stash of chemical weapons. And he noted that it may say something about Hussein's intent and desire. The report does suggest that some of the weapons were likely put on the black market and may have been used outside Iraq.
He also said that the Defense Department statement shortly after the March 2003 invasion saying that "we had all known weapons facilities secured," has proven itself to be untrue.
"It turned out the whole country was an ammo dump," he said, adding that on more than one occasion, a conventional weapons site has been uncovered and chemical weapons have been discovered mixed within them.
Hoekstra and Santorum lamented that Americans were given the impression after a 16-month search conducted by the Iraq Survey Group that the evidence of continuing research and development of weapons of mass destruction was insignificant. But the National Ground Intelligence Center took up where the ISG left off when it completed its report in November 2004, and in the process of collecting intelligence for the purpose of force protection for soldiers and sailors still on the ground in Iraq, has shown that the weapons inspections were incomplete, they and others have said.
"We know it was there, in place, it just wasn't operative when inspectors got there after the war, but we know what the inspectors found from talking with the scientists in Iraq that it could have been cranked up immediately, and that's what Saddam had planned to do if the sanctions against Iraq had halted and they were certainly headed in that direction," said Fred Barnes, editor of The Weekly Standard and a FOX News contributor.
"It is significant. Perhaps, the administration just, they think they weathered the debate over WMD being found there immediately and don't want to return to it again because things are otherwise going better for them, and then, I think, there's mindless resistance to releasing any classified documents from Iraq," Barnes said.
The release of the declassified materials comes as the Senate debates Democratic proposals to create a timetable for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq. The debate has had the effect of creating disunity among Democrats, a majority of whom shrunk Wednesday from an amendment proposed by Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts to have troops to be completely withdrawn from Iraq by the middle of next year.
At the same time, congressional Republicans have stayed highly united, rallying around a White House that has seen successes in the last couple weeks, first with the death of terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, then the completion of the formation of Iraq's Cabinet and then the announcement Tuesday that another key Al Qaeda in Iraq leader, "religious emir" Mansour Suleiman Mansour Khalifi al-Mashhadani, or Sheik Mansour, was also killed in a U.S. airstrike.
Santorum pointed out that during Wednesday's debate, several Senate Democrats said that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, a claim, he said, that the declassified document proves is untrue.
"This is an incredibly — in my mind — significant finding. The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction, is in fact false," he said.
As a result of this new information, under the aegis of his chairmanship, Hoekstra said he is going to ask for more reporting by the various intelligence agencies about weapons of mass destruction.
"We are working on the declassification of the report. We are going to do a thorough search of what additional reports exist in the intelligence community. And we are going to put additional pressure on the Department of Defense and the folks in Iraq to more fully pursue a complete investigation of what existed in Iraq before the war," Hoekstra said.
Source: FNC |
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: EUCLID | | It should be interesting to watch the media / political debate that is bound to ensue regarding whether or not these are WMD. Obviously they are.
Therefore, I think a distinction will hastily be created between WMD and the WMD in order to preserve the cornerstone of the anti war rhetoric that Bush lied about WMD. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Lawless | | Oh boy... here we go!!
*grabs a front row seat, to watch two countries ready to duke it out*
"Let's get reaaaaadddddyyyyy to rumble" | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Edward Teach | | They will Poo Poo it becaues they were old pre Gulf War. These are the same that we talked about back in .... let's see was it 2004. Yeah I think it was and everyone poo poo'd it then. The dems and anti-war crowd seem to think that because they are old then they don't count.
But if you think about the reasons we went in it was because Saddam said he didn't have any, they were all destroyed, they didn't exist. And just like back in 2004 we tried to say that it's still WMD.
Just like the buried pesticides, they all said didn't mean anything but pesticides are pre cursors to WMD but the Dems and Anti-war crowd said that didn't count either.
Then there was the old Nuclear plant which all the material was gone but that didn't count either.
Then there's those mobile labs. They were in camouflage military vehicles but those didn't count either becuse they believe they were used for Weather Balloons?
We said Saddam was in cahoots with Terrorist and they all said no way. We said yes way but they didn't believe us. Now we are finding out that yes way was more correct according to the papers now being translated. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: HECK! | | Lemme ask ya'...
If the WMD's are from the Gulf War, why didn't we take them when we had a chance over ten years ago? Moreover, if we're so concerned about the Iraqi people voting and porspering now why did we leave our 'allies' to be killed by Saddam's regime after Kuwait and their oil interests were secure? Cue the crickets.
Well, at least the administration is totally different now then it was back then... oh wait...
I know, it took an unrelated terrorist attack and bogus connections to Saddam with self-serving rhetoric and freedom molesting legislation to make right what once went wrong. Dubya, you are a patriot indeed. Keep twisting the nipple of democracy to our pals in the middle east. 
Not to mention Saddam was supplied with weapons from the U.S. during the Iran/Iraq war, but pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
-HECK! | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Edward Teach | | Pre Gulf War.
We were there to look back during the war. Except when UNSCOM started up but then they were buried by then. Unscom found a lot of stuff destroyed a lot but according to records couldn't account for a lot stuff. Unscom had a real hard time of it. Cooporation was bad. As they were walking into a building the Iraqi's were taking stuff out the back. They were tracked from the time they left their hotel and had to announce where they were going.
From Jan 10, 2004
http://www.inreview.com/topic-14915.html | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Edward Teach | |
| quote: |
HECK! said this in post #7 :
Lemme ask ya'...
If the WMD's are from the Gulf War, why didn't we take them when we had a chance over ten years ago? Moreover, if we're so concerned about the Iraqi people voting and porspering now why did we leave our 'allies' to be killed by Saddam's regime after Kuwait and their oil interests were secure? Cue the crickets.
|
I'm not sure what you are talking about on the second part of this
| quote: |
Well, at least the administration is totally different now then it was back then... oh wait...
I know, it took an unrelated terrorist attack and bogus connections to Saddam with self-serving rhetoric and freedom molesting legislation to make right what once went wrong. Dubya, you are a patriot indeed. Keep twisting the nipple of democracy to our pals in the middle east.
|
Here we go again, BOGUS is inaccurate.
| quote: |
Not to mention Saddam was supplied with weapons from the U.S. during the Iran/Iraq war, but pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
-HECK! |
Again not true, we provided training pre-cursor material for University FOR EDUCATION not for weaponization purposes. Again you are misinformed.
And that my friends is the probem, rather than finding out the real facts many just listen to those who don't really care about the facts as long as it makes their point.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: HECK! | | Just for giggles, what makes you think you're more informed than the next guy?
Let's say I through up tons of sources and cite this, that and the other... will it really budge that unflappable admiration for the administration and the smoke they try to blow up our collective smoke-holes?
There’s a difference between knowing the facts and arrogant presumption. You bring up skewing the truth to make a point, I volley it back to you good sir.
Warmly,
-HECK! | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Edward Teach | | I could go on and on but some how I don't think it matters anymore. What does matter is where you want to fight terrorist. If we pull out of Iraq now or even in the next year or two. Will we then have to fight them HERE or do we stay the course THERE and fight them there.
For some reason people believe that if we leave Iraq we leave the problem there. That's not going to happen, the problem will come to us. Is that what you want. Fight terrorism HERE???? That makes it easier for our guys, they won't have to go far. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: EUCLID | |
| quote: |
HECK! said this in post #10 :
Just for giggles, what makes you think you're more informed than the next guy?
Let's say I through up tons of sources and cite this, that and the other... will it really budge that unflappable admiration for the administration and the smoke they try to blow up our collective smoke-holes?
There’s a difference between knowing the facts and arrogant presumption. You bring up skewing the truth to make a point, I volley it back to you good sir.
Warmly,
-HECK! |
I don't get your point. It's not an argument about who is more informed. The facts are clear. It has been all over the news today. Oh well, I shouldn't say all over the news. ABC, CBS, and NBC couldn't seem to squeeze it into their news tonight what with all their other news such as girls who feel bad about the size clothes that department stores carry, etc. Not a peep from the networks. Not surprising either. Predictable in fact.
What is surprising or perhaps dismaying is that Bush offered not a peep either. In fact he classified the report to keep it quiet. There is a lot more that is going to come out on this topic as the rest of that report is made public soon.
The fact is that what has been found in Iraq is WMD. True, they dated from before the gulf war, but so what? Sadam and the U.N. both declared that there were no WMD. And since we went into Iraq with no news of WMD discovery, the anti-war faction has also declared that there are no WMD.
I think it is entirely reasonable to believe that there is a strong possibility that more modern WMD were moved to Syria to prevent their discovery during a U.S. invasion.
Facing an invasion, if Sadam had WMD, his first decision would be whether to use them or not. They would be his most powerful weapons, but if he used them and still lost, he would likely be in more trouble than if he had not used them.
So if he decided to not use them, then it certainly follows that he would hide them. He would know that if he lost, he would be in more trouble if he was found to have WMD than if he was found with none. Furthermore, he knew that the U.S. invasion was predicated on the presumption that he had WMD, so if he prevented their discovery, he would discredit the U.S. invasion.
So he had the strongest possible motive to hide the WMD if he had them. AND -- he certainly had the time to hide them. You will recall that we talked about the invasion for what, two years before we went in? He had time to hide things.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: lodgebo | | One thing that nobody has mentioned is that is you have found Sarin and MG and it has been left for 16 years then they are pretty musch useless in fact if you have bleach or sink cleaner under your kitchen sink then thats probbaly more dangerous than the sarin MG would probabbly give you a burn but no worse than a cigarette burn. Thats why Sadamm never fired them on the coalition forces because if he did they would have had no or minimal affect. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Edward Teach | | Yes the may have lost some of their potency but they are still dangerous and can kill.
A great many Iraqi's say we found and took care of the biggest WMD, Saddam.
Bush has moved on, he doesn't care if they find more WMD or not. That part of the war is long over. We are now fighting a different war, a different enemy called Islamic Extremist. Terrorist!
The montra of al Qaeda is kill the infidals, exterminate every man woman and child of not only Israel but the entire western civilization. They want a world of extreme Islam. THEY declared war on America.
I'm here to tell you, if we don't fight them there we will fight them here and I don't want that. If it takes 20 years I would rather they be there not here. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: EUCLID | |
| quote: |
lodgebo said this in post #18 :
One thing that nobody has mentioned is that is you have found Sarin and MG and it has been left for 16 years then they are pretty musch useless in fact if you have bleach or sink cleaner under your kitchen sink then thats probbaly more dangerous than the sarin MG would probabbly give you a burn but no worse than a cigarette burn. Thats why Sadamm never fired them on the coalition forces because if he did they would have had no or minimal affect. |
I doubt all that. I have heard that the weapons are unstable and perhaps unusable. But the instability means that they won't burn properly to release the agent as it was intended. But the agent is as deadly as it ever was. It may have been a reason why Sadam did not use them, but I think that decision was also based on his presumption that he could not win even if he did use them, and his expectation that we would level the country if he used them.
The point is that they are WMD in a significant quantity. And their existence refutes what a lot of people have said. Now all of those people will have to come to grips with that in their own special way.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: lodgebo | | It really depends on the type of weapon if it's MG or Sarin, but I pretty much gurantee that if these weapons are from the 80's or early 90s then they are useless because MG and Sarin have a limited shelf life and 16 years is 6 years past it's maximum use take into account thet they have probably not been maintained for 16 years and you can work out why nobody in the international community inckuding the UK who are America's biggest ally really gives a s***. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
Edward Teach said this in post #19 :
[B] We are now fighting a different war, a different enemy called Islamic Extremist. Terrorist! |
As far as Iraq goes, we (the coalition of the ever diminishing willing) are, or so we're told, trying to keep a lid on a country sliding into civil war, that's Sunni against Shiite against Kurd. Why are you ignoring this fact when even Bush has admited this is what is happening in Iraq?
| quote: |
| They want a world of extreme Islam. THEY declared war on America. |
Old news. Iraq is an entirely different story. You need to broaden your viewing and reading habits.
| quote: |
| I'm here to tell you, if we don't fight them there we will fight them here and I don't want that. If it takes 20 years I would rather they be there not here. |
You sound like you think it's okay for the United States to bring chaos, death and destruction, to other parts of the world just so it distracts attention from the US. Not much of a moral argument.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: EUCLID | |
| quote: |
lodgebo said this in post #21 :
...nobody in the international community inckuding the UK who are America's biggest ally really gives a s***. |
Nobody? Surely you exaggerate.
It seems like you are adding an awful lot of your own facts to this story about the WMD.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
EUCLID said this in post #17 :
[B]What is surprising or perhaps dismaying is that Bush offered not a peep either. |
For very obvious reasons: these are not the deadly WMD we started a war for and Bush doesn't want to look like a fool to try and claim otherwise.
| quote: |
| Facing an invasion, if Sadam had WMD, his first decision would be whether to use them or not. They would be his most powerful weapons, but if he used them and still lost, he would likely be in more trouble than if he had not used them. |
Ridiculous. How could he be in more trouble than being toppled from power and face trial and death?
| quote: |
| So if he decided to not use them, then it certainly follows that he would hide them. |
I don't understand what you're talking about. What idiot would save their best weapons just in case they lost? Not using your best weaons guaratees losing, don't you think?
| quote: |
| He would know that if he lost, he would be in more trouble if he was found to have WMD than if he was found with none. Furthermore, he knew that the U.S. invasion was predicated on the presumption that he had WMD, so if he prevented their discovery, he would discredit the U.S. invasion. |
I hardly think making the US look bad would have been top of his thinking, what with the US threatening to bomb him into oblivion.
| quote: |
| he certainly had the time to hide them. You will recall that we talked about the invasion for what, two years before we went in? He had time to hide things. |
Hans Blix said he needed six months to find anything. Bush couldn't allow that to happen because he knew that if all Blix found was some old useless sarin or mustard gas that we sold him anyway, what excuse could he use to start the war?
Forget the WMD lies. Strategically Iraq was a spent military force threatening no-one. As Wolvowitz has since said - I paraphrase - WMD were just some BS reason to get everyone to agree.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: lodgebo | |
| quote: |
EUCLID said this in post #23 :
Nobody? Surely you exaggerate.European government and you would have expected something from Italy or the UK wouldn't you. Have not heard anything from Bush though he might have said something after all WMDs were one of the main justifications for going to war and now we apparently have them surely he would be shouting from the rooftops, have heard nothing from Hans Blix to say he was wrong, nothing from the French when you just know Fox would have hounded them also intrestingly Fox has not had a lot to say. Now either this says a lot about the governments and news agencies of this world or a lot about what we have found.
Well I have heard nothing from the UN, EU or any
It seems like you are adding an awful lot of your own facts to this story about the WMD. |
Euclid you belive what ever you want to belive about what I have written but I can tell you that everything I have said about the WMD's are FACT. If you don't belive me do a little research about MG or Sarin warheads and thie lifesapn when left alone and not maintained.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Marc Flemming | |
| quote: |
US intelligence officials: Iraq chemical weapons too old to use
The chemical weapons that have been recovered by US forces in Iraq were all made before the 1991 Gulf War and were too degraded for their intended use, US intelligence officials said.
Republican lawmakers have cast the disclosure that about 500 chemical weapons have been found in Iraq as evidence that Saddam Hussein had a stockpile of the weapons before the March 2003 US invasion of Iraq.
But the intelligence officials, who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity, said the weapons were too degraded to have posed a threat to US forces in March 2003.
They said all chemical weapons found since 2003 were produced before the 1991 Gulf War and they had no evidence Saddam was producing or stockpiling chemical weapons after that.
"Generally they are in poor condition," one official said.
"We assess that they are not in condition to be used as designed. And detailed analysis of the toxic agents shows they are degraded and represent a much lower hazard," he said.
The munitions have been tested and computer simulation models created to determine what effect they might have under a variety of scenarios, the officials said.
Although not suitable for their intended purposes, the officials said such weapons remain a potential hazard if obtained by insurgents and modified in ways they would not discuss.
The officials, however, said they had no evidence that any element of the Iraqi insurgency has possession of chemical weapons.
"I would simply say we have seen a degree of improvisation on the part of the insurgency with regard to conventional munitions," said an official.
"They might apply that same degree of improvisation if in fact they came in contact with these types of munitions. And again we have no evidence that they have," the official said.
The weapons were found "in small numbers over time" since 2003, an official said. They were recovered in one, two or three at a time -- not in large caches, the officials said.
"We would characterize these recovered munitions as being consistent with weapons that have been not maintained, that have not been part of an organized inventory," he said.
Senator Rick Santorum and Representative Peter Hoekstra, both Republicans, on Wednesday made public information from a classified report prepared in April on the subject by the National Ground Intelligence Center that said 500 chemical weapons have been recovered.
The intelligence officials said "key points" from the report were declassified at the request of Hoekstra, who chairs the House Intelligence Committee.
The "key points," however, ommitted the fact that the 500 weapons all were of a pre-1991 vintage. The officials indicated that the age of the weapons was not considered classified but were unable to explain why it was not included in the key points given to the senators.
Source: AP
|
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: EUCLID | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #24 :
[B]
I don't understand what you're talking about. What idiot would save their best weapons just in case they lost? Not using your best weaons guaratees losing, don't you think?
Hans Blix said he needed six months to find anything. |
Even if Sadam had the most advance WMD, I don’t think he believed that he could defeat the U.S. with them. He would have known that if he used WMD, it would have only hastened his defeat and the likelihood of his death. Certainly you cannot believe that is not sound reasoning.
Hans Blix and the U.N were in bed with Sadam, ripping off the Iraqi people and lining their pockets with the oil-for-food program. It’s no wonder that the U.N. opposed the invasion, and no wonder that Hans Blix could not find any illegal weapons.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Edward Teach | | WMD is WMD and it's the reason we ousted Saddam. He said he didn't have any we said he did and guess what, He did.
Saddam had the ability to start up production within a very short amount of time. This has been said by Hans Blix, the guy in charge of the ISG and many others. He used it before and would use it again. He fired missles into Israel, invaded Kuwait, went to war with Iran and promised to use Chemical Weapons as we were going into Iraq. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
EUCLID said this in post #27 :
[B]Even if Sadam had the most advance WMD, I don’t think he believed that he could defeat the U.S. with them. He would have known that if he used WMD, it would have only hastened his defeat and the likelihood of his death. Certainly you cannot believe that is not sound reasoning. |
I'd agree that Hussein knew he was no match for the biggest military force in the world. I also think Bush knew how weak Iraq was - as Powell and Rice said in 2000 - Hussein is contained, and he isn't even a threat to his neighbours.
| quote: |
| Hans Blix and the U.N were in bed with Sadam, ripping off the Iraqi people and lining their pockets with the oil-for-food program. It’s no wonder that the U.N. opposed the invasion, and no wonder that Hans Blix could not find any illegal weapons. |
As far as I know neither Hans Blix nor the weapons inspectors have ever been accussed of being involved with the oilf for food scandal. Hans Blix made a very reasonable request - just months to check for WMD and war could have been avoided. Bush, a man who did all he could to avoid fighting in Vietnam himself thought war was better than waiting just a few months.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
Edward Teach said this in post #28 :
WMD is WMD and it's the reason we ousted Saddam. He said he didn't have any we said he did and guess what, He did.
|
There are lots of plausable reasons why the US attacked and invaded Iraq and WMD is perhaps the weakest. It's almost laughable that the US attacked Iraq because they actualy thought he was some kind of serious threat to anyone.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: lodgebo | | You know something Euclid it is becoming obvious that anybody that disagrees with yor thinking is making up facts wethre it be me talking about the effectiveness of the WMDs and the interntionl response or wthere it be H@ts saying that Hans Blix was never named as being involved in the oil or food program. These are all fcts and not made up but truthfull facts if you if you can proved diffrent go ahead so either put up or shut up. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Edward Teach | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #30 :
There are lots of plausable reasons why the US attacked and invaded Iraq and WMD is perhaps the weakest. It's almost laughable that the US attacked Iraq because they actualy thought he was some kind of serious threat to anyone. |
Suffering from short term memory I see. It was all about the WMD and UN Security Councel Resolutions. And how can you say he wasn't a threat to anyone. Tell that to Iran, Kuwait the Iraqi Kurds and Shi'ite's. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of his own people he starved so he could build up his own wealth build palaces . He was far from NOT being a threat.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: EUCLID | |
| quote: |
lodgebo said this in post #32 :
You know something Euclid it is becoming obvious that anybody that disagrees with yor thinking is making up facts wethre it be me talking about the effectiveness of the WMDs and the interntionl response or wthere it be H@ts saying that Hans Blix was never named as being involved in the oil or food program. These are all fcts and not made up but truthfull facts if you if you can proved diffrent go ahead so either put up or shut up. |
What I am referring to as made up facts are actually opinions, in my opinion.
Regarding the found WMD, I am not sure what to think now. Either they are still effective, but perhaps somehow compromised, or they are just so much scrap metal of no consequence whatsoever. I have heard it expressed both ways in news sources, and in opinions. I simply have no way of knowing. The matter is expressed both ways in the news posted in this thread with post #1 and #26. It is a little disconcerting that the Bush administration, which has the most to gain from the position that they are effectively WMDs, is not taking that position. So I just chalk it up to one more case where the information age delivers an ambiguity.
Regarding Hans Blix and the weapons inspectors, did they not work for the U.N.? When I said that Hans Blix and the U.N. were in bed with Sadam on the oil-for-food rip off, it seems like a red herring to say that I am wrong because the weapons inspectors were never charged with crimes in the oil-for-food rip off. Certainly my point is that the inspectors were being controlled by the U.N., and the U.N. was lining its pockets with oil-for-food revenue that was coming right out of the mouths of the Iraqi people. Sadam did not blow the whistle on them because they let Sadam line his pockets too. So of course, the U.N. did not want to kill the golden goose by finding a reason to topple Sadam. The only problem with their cozy, little secret was that they did not tell Bush, so he did not know about the golden goose, and therefore, saw no reason to cut Sadam slack.
The contention that Blix only needed a couple more months seems absurd. A couple of months to do what? Not find weapons? What were they doing for all the previous years of searching?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Edward Teach | | Mustard Gas has been known to still be good after 10 years in the ground. Weaponized Mustard Gas as those found by UNMOVIC in Iraq were found to be very lethal after 12 years
Sarin has a shelf life of about 10 years. So if it was developed in the 1990's it could still be lethal today.
In March 2003 UN report about Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction there is the following on page 77 (Page 79 of the pdf file), paragraph 1 of the report http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/6mar.pdf
Another very important fact to add is that Saddam had LIED to the UN inspectors and the world when he said that he had destroyed ALL his Chemical Weapons and other WMD. It does not matter whether these weapons were produced before or after 1991, his job was to destroy it ALL and not hide anything not a one ounce of these WMD, he DID NOT. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Whidden | | We don't take Chemical weapons that seriously in the United States. Our collective view of it, is old black and white images of World War One.
Japan got attacked awhile back, but all that is just images on the television to us. (Some feel more empathy than others)
But never having been attacked by Gas in the U.S., and not having that many movies about it, it don't really hit home. I think we can understand Nukes, the fire, the radiation, the blast, it scares the hell out of us. We can relate to all that stuff, knowing what burns feel like, seeing movies about Nukes, seeing footage of Japan in WW2.
Same to a lessor extent with Biological weapons. We have been sick, we see outbreaks over in Africa, we fear it.
If they had found nukes or Bio weapons in Iraq, I think people would have perked up more and thought it more big deal. Finding Gas, in my book just as dangerous, or more so, it don't really gell with the American people.
That would all change someday, if or when, we get hammered by Sarin or whatever in a subway, like happened in Japan. We will get images of dead people on the news for days and weeks, and maybe then we will take chemical weapons more seriously. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Edward Teach | | Our military takes it seriously, and conduct NBC training daily. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: EUCLID | | Yes chemical weapons are rather difficult to relate to. Some people have been exposed to tear gas or riot gas. Even that is a horrendous experience. But just the tiniest fly speck of the strongest nerve agents will kill within minutes or less. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: lodgebo | | What Edward is saying about the life of MG and Sarin is true but only if they are maintained. The reason that I personaly don't thinkn these weapons are effective is thatit appears that at the latest these weapons probably date to 1990 and as I said that is the very latest, which would make them ineefctive. I could be wrong but did one of them not go off when the militray trid to move them? I think I read that they troops suffered vomiting and headaches which would be consisitent with out of date weapons of this kind. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Edward Teach | | The reports are that SOME are still very potent. Irregardless it's the biggest reason we went in. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
EUCLID said this in post #34 :
[B]It is a little disconcerting that the Bush administration, which has the most to gain from the position that they are effectively WMDs, is not taking that position. So I just chalk it up to one more case where the information age delivers an ambiguity. |
Bush has nothing to gain but ridicule by claiming that he started a war costing billions of dollars and the lives of thousands of American troops for a few old obsolete weapons.
| quote: |
| Regarding Hans Blix and the weapons inspectors, did they not work for the U.N.? |
There are people who work for the UN who make tea and sandwiches for other people who work for the UN who clean the toilets etc. You get my point? The UN is huge.
| quote: |
| When I said that Hans Blix and the U.N. were in bed with Sadam on the oil-for-food rip off |
I know exactly what you're trying to say and it doesn't wash. Either Hans Blix has been accussed of something or he hasn't. Now post the proof or your accusations are baseless.
| quote: |
| The contention that Blix only needed a couple more months seems absurd. A couple of months to do what? Not find weapons? What were they doing for all the previous years of searching? |
Now you're getting it - Blix woudn't have found any WMD becaues there weren't any and Bush would then have had to find some other reason to start the war - shock horror maybe even a truthful reason.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
| Edward Teach: Irregardless it's the biggest reason we went in. |
Irregardless of both reality and facts, you will desperately cling to this view even when it's plainly obvious to everyone that Bush himself doesn't claim these were the WMD he waged war for. Sounds to me like your world view is in danger of crumbling and pretty fragile right now.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: lodgebo | | [QUOTE]Edward Teach said this in post #41 :
[B]The reports are that SOME are still very potent.
Well how many is some? if we have claimed to found hundred is some 1 or 2, 10, 20, 90, or 100's. I would be intrested to see how many is some espeicially when A. the powers that be are cominf to the realisation that these weapons are more than 1o years old and B. that we know that after 10 years they are not lethal or patuclarly potent. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Edward Teach | | Mustard Gas is still active after 10 years in the ground. Not in shells in bunkers. Raw in the ground. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: EUCLID | |
| quote: |
lodgebo said this in post #44 :
[B#41 :[/i]
we know that after 10 years they are not lethal or patuclarly potent. |
We don't know that.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: EUCLID | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #42 :
There are people who work for the UN who make tea and sandwiches for other people who work for the UN who clean the toilets etc. You get my point? The UN is huge.
B] |
No I don't get your point at all. What does the size of the U.N. have to do anything that I have said?
Apparently your news sources didn't cover the oil for food scandal.
So Hans Blix looked for WMD for years and found none. He concluded there were none, but Bush did not believe him. So Blix said that if he were given just a couple of months, he would prove there were no WMD by not finding any. I don't think you are thinking this through.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Sayzak | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #43 :
Irregardless of both reality and facts, you will desperately cling to this view even when it's plainly obvious to everyone that Bush himself doesn't claim these were the WMD he waged war for. Sounds to me like your world view is in danger of crumbling and pretty fragile right now. |
Didn't Bush claim to seek stockpiles (such as this?) to destroy them and end his "secret" WMD program? If Saddam had been able to prove he destroyed the weapons we just found, that would have hurt Bush's chances of waging war.
They were able to prove he had ambitions to start a wmd program (if only he could afford it) and they were able to prove he was lying when he said he destroyed his stockpiles.
What's the argument here?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: EUCLID | |
| quote: |
Sayzak said this in post #48 :
What's the argument here? [/B] |
It is the argument that I predicted in post #2.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
EUCLID said this in post #47 :
No I don't get your point at all. What does the size of the U.N. have to do anything that I have said?
Apparently your news sources didn't cover the oil for food scandal.
|
You obviously don't know anything about either the UN or the scandal, you just see the letters UN and conclude that anyone who worked for the organisation must automatically have been implicated in the scandal, which is a ludicrous assumption. I have not heard ANYTHING that suggests Hans Blix was involved in the scandal. Have you?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Whidden | | It's common sense. Scandal at the U.N. involving Oil from Iraq and bribes.
Han Blix can't find nada in Iraq.
Suddenly we get a report of boatloads of chemicals (although they are old) in Iraq.
Either the man is incompetent, or he was in on the oil money. He should have found the chemicals, it was his whole reason for being over there in the first place. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
Sayzak said this in post #48 :
[B]
Didn't Bush claim to seek stockpiles (such as this?) to destroy them and end his "secret" WMD program? If Saddam had been able to prove he destroyed the weapons we just found, that would have hurt Bush's chances of waging war. |
Bush claimed all kinds of things, but the fact that he is not claiming these are the WMD he started a war for should be a clue as to their relelvance, which is none, zilch, zero.
| quote: |
| They were able to prove he had ambitions to start a wmd program (if only he could afford it) |
We don't start a full scale war because a leader we don't like has "ambition" to do something. Originally we were looking for WMD and then mysteriously it changed to WMD programs. NOw apparently you think we should be able to start a war because someone has "ambitions" to start a WMD program. Name me a leader anywhere in the world that hasn't got "ambition" to be a nuclear bomb owning power!
| quote: |
and they were able to prove he was lying when he said he destroyed his stockpiles.
What's the argument here? |
There is no argument. These finds are old Iran/Iraq war stock, pre the last time the US attacked and started a war in Iraq.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
Whidden said this in post #51 :
It's common sense. Scandal at the U.N. involving Oil from Iraq and bribes.
|
Who or what do you think the UN is?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Whidden | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #53 :
Who or what do you think the UN is? |
A device that powerful nations use to beat other nations in the head with.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Sayzak | |
| quote: |
| Bush claimed all kinds of things, but the fact that he is not claiming these are the WMD he started a war for should be a clue as to their relelvance, which is none, zilch, zero. |
Although they aren't 'fresh out of the oven' weapons, I wouldn't call them irrelevant. They are WMDs that Saddam denied having. That's a fact.
| quote: |
| We don't start a full scale war because a leader we don't like has "ambition" to do something. |
Have you thought that statement through? Perhaps you meant something else by it.
| quote: |
| Originally we were looking for WMD and then mysteriously it changed to WMD programs. |
There's nothing mysterious about searching for everything related to WMDs.
| quote: |
| NOw apparently you think we should be able to start a war because someone has "ambitions" to start a WMD program. |
Umm, yeah. Especially when it's a jerk face like Saddam.
| quote: |
| Name me a leader anywhere in the world that hasn't got "ambition" to be a nuclear bomb owning power! |
I wish I could.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Edward Teach | | We're getting away from the facts here, the fact is that Saddam said it was all destroyed and it wasn't. He said he was in compliance with UNSC resolutions and he wasn't. Bush said he had WMD and he did. Bush said he was in bed with terrorist and he was. It's clear that if you can't see this then you don't want to see it and nothing anyone says will make a difference. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
Edward Teach said this in post #56 :
We're getting away from the facts here, the fact is that Saddam said it was all destroyed and it wasn't. He said he was in compliance with UNSC resolutions and he wasn't. Bush said he had WMD and he did. Bush said he was in bed with terrorist and he was. It's clear that if you can't see this then you don't want to see it and nothing anyone says will make a difference. |
Bush himself ordered an extensive report into Iraq weapons capabilities after Hussein was toppled. Bush himself said the report would represent the last word on the issue. The report is not my opinion. The report was the conclusion of Charles A. Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons inspector, the man Bush himself picked to carry out the investigation into Iraq weapons capabilities.
| quote: |
Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program."
The findings were similar on biological and chemical weapons.
...his stockpiles had been destroyed and research stopped years before the United States led the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5-2004Oct6.html |
On a visit to Cairo, 24 February 2001, Colin Powell said:
| quote: |
| He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. |
Read Powell's statement. Then read it again. Powell is saying Hussein isn't even a threat to his neighbours because not only does he not have anything significant in respect to WMD, he doesn't even have a conventional military strength with which to threaten anyone. Not my opinion - Colin Powell's actual words.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | | Here again is the wonderfully revealing photograph of Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddam Hussein in December 1983.
http://www.injusticebusters.com/index.htg/00001/saddam_Rumsfeld.jpg
| quote: |
| Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984; the same day the UN released a report that Iraq had used mustard gas and tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops. |
And what reaction from the US governement on learning that Hussein had used what 20 years later would conveniently become the very reason to start a war in Iraq?
| quote: |
| The NY Times reported from Baghdad on 29 March 1984, that "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name." |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_iraq_war | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: brochu13 | | Rumsfeld and Saddam is a great picture. That's insane to think what's happened now. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: lodgebo | |
| quote: |
Whidden said this in post #51 :
It's common sense. Scandal at the U.N. involving Oil from Iraq and bribes.
You are right there have been scandals that are being cleaned up but the UN is only as clean as it's members maybe you should remember that. Also while the UN was found to havev these problems the IAEA ( who Blix worked for) was found to be clean and honest in there approach to work.
Either the man is incompetent, or he was in on the oil money. He should have found the chemicals, it was his whole reason for being over there in the first place. |
Oh come on Whidden that is an outrageous statement when you consider the facts. Blix is the best in his field plain and simple you are probably the first person to call him incompotent in regards to his work. also ask yourself whose intel was Blix using? I t was of course US intel which at the time was poor to say the least so maybe the US should get the majority of the blame you are so quick to hand out. Also the US have found WMD's well they have been in Iraq for 3+ years Blix never even got a qaurter of that time. Finally Blix needed a few more weeks to search a few more areas to give the UN a defenitive answer but was refused by the UK and US for all we know the US found a place Blix was planning to look at 3 years ago
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: EUCLID | |
| quote: |
lodgebo said this in post #60 :
Finally Blix needed a few more weeks to search a few more areas to give the UN a defenitive answer but was refused by the UK and US for all we know the US found a place Blix was planning to look at 3 years ago [/COLOR] |
So Blix would have found the WMD that we found if he had only been given a few more weeks?
We invaded on the assumption that Sadam was hiding WMD. Are you saying that if Blix had been able to prove the assumption correct, we would not have had to invade?
It seems to me that the events that have transpired suggest that Blix was searching for the proof that there were no WMD.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
EUCLID said this in post #61 :
So Blix would have found the WMD that we found if he had only been given a few more weeks?
|
Did you conveniently pass over the post above about the report on Iraq's weapons capabilities that Bush himself ordered after the topple of Saddam Hussein? American did not start a war in Iraq because of some old mustard gas. The Bush administration were telling the US public about mushroom clouds over American cities and how Hussein was the most dangerous threat to world peace etc etc.
Donald Rumsfeld said sept 19th 2002
| quote: |
| "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." |
And here from Bush in October 2002
| quote: |
| "The regime has the scientists and facilities to build nuclear weapons, and is seeking the materials needed to do so." |
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: lodgebo | |
| quote: |
EUCLID said this in post #61 :
So Blix would have found the WMD that we found if he had only been given a few more weeks?
No in fact you are putting words in my mouth. I said for all we know he might have had plans tro check the building the Us checked. As I hope you can see now I did not say that he would have found the defunct WMD's.
We invaded on the assumption that Sadam was hiding WMD. Are you saying that if Blix had been able to prove the assumption correct, we would not have had to invade?
Oh now that is the daftest staement I think I have heard on this site. We all know that Blix was there to find if the weapons exsisted thus prove the point that the US and the UK wanted and as such get UN approval for the invasion.
It seems to me that the events that have transpired suggest that Blix was searching for the proof that there were no WMD. |
Well you seem to have it wrong. Blix was not there to prove thetre were no WMD's he was there to investiagte and report back on what he found. The guy and his organisation were not there to take sides they were there because of thier expertiese and to answer a question that was asked. The events that have transpired ahve come about because the Us have found in 3 years what they wanted to Blix to find in 3 weeks, he had a team of about 10 they have an army of thousands the thing they have in common is that they may have both been let down by US intel.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Whidden | | Well, I'm a little confused. And I'm not being sarcastic. I thought Blix was over there under Clinton. I thought we had Blix and guys like Blix over there since Gulf War One. Inspecting endlessly, month after month, year after year.
As a matter of fact, I thought Saddam kicked Blix out, and Clinton did nothing to stop it. I know Saddam kicked an inspection team out and Clinton did nothing, but I'm not 100% sure it was Blix now. I think I might be remembering it wrong. The inspection teams have been over there since Gulf War One, but maybe Blix was a recent appointee.
I know Blix wanted "3 more months", but he was around for some amount of time before that looking around and finding NADA. I guess I will get off my fat lazy *** and go do some research. 
Whatever the case, yeah it's harsh for me to criticize the man, but in all fairness, he didn't find ****, cause Saddam was stonewalling him, playing him for a fool. Whether it was because he had faulty intelligence, or not enough men, or whatever.
"Whatever" meaning being influenced in some way by the oil bribe scandal. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Edward Teach | | Under Clinton we had UNSCOM and remember Scott Ridder or was it Ritter ... I believe he was in charge. He is now working for Al Jazerra. I don't know if Blix was working for them then. He might have been. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Whidden | | I researched a little, seems like Blix was in Iraq for around 9 or 10 months, before the war started. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: oneofpeace | | After reading some of these postings, I see either a refresher course is needed or a chronic case of denial is embedded so deeply that you can’t distinguish the difference between truth and fantasy. .
It never ceases to amaze that you still have people here trying to defend Bush’s nonsense about WMD in Iraq. Some even have the gull to suggest that these agents found from nearly 2 decades earlier were sufficient grounds to launch an invasion.
You that believe this is the “smoking gun” ask yourself this question. If Bush had told America that those agents were most likely to degraded to be an effective WMD, do you think America would have agreed with his assertions?
What’s furthermore amazing is how some of you defending this seem to absolve your memories of what Bush actually told America, that fiasco of a display that Colin Powell put on in front of the UN and the world and the claims of “imminent danger” to the US and/or our allies.
Or how about the mobile labs, the decontamination trucks or the drone aircrafts cleverly devised to spray these same agents all over their neighbors or US troops. Or how about the on going active chemical weapons program we claimed were going on and how Saddam could give them to terrorist. Oh and lets not forget about the connections to Al Qaeda and how they asserted Saddam’s affiliations with this terror group.
For so many of you to want to hang your hats on this shows in my opinion how desperate some are to rationalize the obvious in their minds. And for the same reasons I mentioned above is exactly why Bush has the common sense not to mention this report because he knows it leaves more questions than answers.
As for these weapons “still being dangerous” so is Clorox bleach if you amass it in quantity and dump it on the enemy. However this does little to support Bush’s claims I mentioned above, none of which has been prove to be trustworthy. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Whidden | |
| quote: |
oneofpeace said this in post #67 :
It never ceases to amaze that you still have people here trying to defend Bush’s nonsense about WMD in Iraq. |
yeah, maybe it cause they found WMD in Iraq. 
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
Whidden said this in post #68 :
yeah, maybe it cause they found WMD in Iraq. |
That is stubborn dedication to a lost cause that even Bush no longer shouts about.
Move on, please, everyone else but you diehards have. The WMD were a ruse, a red herring, a way to scare gullible fools into supporting Americas attack on a country and starting a war. Not an easy task admittedly but one that Bush achieved with much success.
Would he get away with it next time. Lets hope there's less gullible fools in the US than there used to be.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: HECK! | |
| quote: |
Edward Teach said this in post #16 :
I could go on and on but some how I don't think it matters anymore. What does matter is where you want to fight terrorist. If we pull out of Iraq now or even in the next year or two. Will we then have to fight them HERE or do we stay the course THERE and fight them there.
For some reason people believe that if we leave Iraq we leave the problem there. That's not going to happen, the problem will come to us. Is that what you want. Fight terrorism HERE???? That makes it easier for our guys, they won't have to go far. |
Sometimes this war-drum thumping rhetoric makes me seriously wonder if there are those who actually dare look past the administrations cavalcade of crap.
I like your graphics, but your point escapes me... like Bin Laden throughout the Middle East  tee-hee.
So, you're worried about Iraqi "insurgents" fighting the US over HERE, are ye'? I wouldn't pull up the covers just yet.
Bush's chicken and the egg debacle is a simple equation: we go over there to topple Saddam because Saudi born terrorists led by a man with no connections to Iraq who the US gave arms to fight the USSR in Afghanistan back in the 80's attacked us... the Iraqi's + every gun toting malcontent in the area packs up their gun and makes a run for the border right our troops... the Iraqi people resume their bitter religious hatred for one another... the mess goes on this time without Saddam... and the U.S. says they can't leave until they clean up the mess they made worse? Whhhaaaaaaa? At least the Iraqi's have purple fingers though, eh?
If you believe the color-coded fear meter and that terror is around the corner and there is some lofty, intangible goal in Iraq that once achieved will defeat that terror, good luck. Because with that mentality it will never be enough. It's a slippery slope that will pluck your patriotic heart strings until you lay down every sensibility and pay with your freedom and if you're of age, the price will be your life.
I'm all for staying the course, but the captain needs to go overboard.
-HECK!
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: HECK! | |
| quote: |
Edward Teach said this in post #28 :
WMD is WMD and it's the reason we ousted Saddam. He said he didn't have any we said he did and guess what, He did.
Saddam had the ability to start up production within a very short amount of time. This has been said by Hans Blix, the guy in charge of the ISG and many others. He used it before and would use it again. He fired missles into Israel, invaded Kuwait, went to war with Iran and promised to use Chemical Weapons as we were going into Iraq. |
He had the "WMD" back during the scuffle with Iran, thanks in part to several countries, one of them... wait for it... the U.S. 
-HECK!
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: HECK! | |
| quote: |
Edward Teach said this in post #33 :
Suffering from short term memory I see. It was all about the WMD and UN Security Councel Resolutions. And how can you say he wasn't a threat to anyone. Tell that to Iran, Kuwait the Iraqi Kurds and Shi'ite's. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of his own people he starved so he could build up his own wealth build palaces . He was far from NOT being a threat. |
Means to an end. If we were so
|
|
