Links on WMD

jcoiii

New member
For those that care, and those that may actually stop spouting whatever they hear, try the following links about WMD. And for those who don't know WMD encompass more than just nuclear material. Chemical/Biological weapons are also WMD, check the definition.

here's one from 2003
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81935,00.html

2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html

There are many others, however, I know nothing about the particular websites and blogs, so I chose not to paste them. The two above however, and Fox News and the Washington Post.

I don't care whether you like Bush or not, but could we please knock off the "we didn't find WMD" nonsense? We did, several times. It doesn't really matter how many people say we didn't, we actually did.
 
From the second article:

Boylan said the suspected lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Bush administration cited evidence that Saddam Hussein's government was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for the invasion. No such weapons or factories were found.

Sort of removes the first one as an actual plant, doesn't it? The first one also says "suspected."

Now, then, we have the second article to discuss, which in the same paragraph says that this one came "some time after the invasion."

Ergo, we didn't find any WMD that was being made by Hussein's gov't.
 
gfen,

And you're one of the ones that believed that the Kurds and the Iranians used chemical weapons on themselves right :rolleyes: .

Lets see, found in Iraq:

Sarin gas
Mustard gas

(both found with Iraqi markings as they were made as an improvised bomb to kill our troops)

I forget how many tons, Yellow Cake. This is what is needed create enriched uranium for nukes.

Jets (which aren't WMD's) found buried. Took us about a year IIRC to find them, who says that nothing else is buried under that sand?

And this is what gets me:

Bush Lied right?

What about Kerry, Kennedy, and the multitude of other dems that said that SH had WMD's?

So, who lied? Everyone or no one?

The trouble that I have with people is the fact that they "hear" something and then start the chat. Had they done their research, maybe they could aquire some knowledge.

The libs answer to what was found was basically: Yeah, but it wasn't much :rolleyes: .

Wayne
 
Last edited:
Because the post-GulfW1, pre-GulfW2 presence of WMD in Iraq is still highly contested, it would help if you'd cite (relatively) reputable news sources when claiming that we did or did not find in Iraq any nukes, proscribed rockets, proscribed centrifuge tubes for uranium separation, sarin, vx, mustard gas, anthrax, botulinum toxin, ricin, firecrackers, or dave's insanity sauce.
 
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3722255.stm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Iraq+sarin+gas A simple search. Come on folks.

Now I know that many will say "alleged" or "maybe" or whatever. Give me proof that it wasn't.

Just to give more fuel to the fire:

http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html

http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

And to include the Iranian attacks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

And more of the Kurds....

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/IRAQ913.htm#5

So, I gave you my sources, where are yours?

Wayne
 
I've said this before, but this a good place to reiterate. In the 14 month run up (rush to) :rolleyes: war, there was a large amount of truck traffic between Iraq and syria. Now I know that 80 tons sounds like a huge amount to most folks, but between my partner and I, we could haul that amount of anything 500 miles in 12 hrs or so. We have found wmd's, if memory serves there was a mortar shell rigged with iether sarin or vx found. I know that sounds like nothing, but we aint talkin nestea powder here. So whos to say the stuff wasn't hidden or hauled out prior? jmho, its there it just aint been found yet. E
 
BR,

I gave the links just now... just waiting for the "but he got rid of them" excuses.

(sorry, I know that I am borderline right now on the rules.. but this stuff just ticks me off.... SH was such an angel and we were wrong. Being in the military, and protecting the little country that he invaded (remember that one folks? No, geez)... Sorry, disgusted with the apologist.

Wayne
 
Wikipedia.org said:
Reports of chemical weapons finds since 2003
Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, several reported finds of chemical weapons were announced. During the invasion itself, there were half a dozen incidents in which the US military announced that it had found chemical weapons. All of these claims were based on field reports, and were later retracted. After the war, many cases — most notably on April 7, 2003 when several large drums tested positive — continued to be reported in the same way.

Another such post-war case occurred on January 9, 2004, when Icelandic munitions experts and Danish military engineers discovered 36 120-mm mortar rounds containing liquid buried in Southern Iraq. While initial tests suggested that the rounds contained a blister agent, a chemical weapon banned by the Geneva Convention, [23] subsequent analysis by American and Danish experts showed that no chemical agent was present. [24] It appears that the rounds have been buried, and most probably forgotten, since the Iran-Iraq war. Some of the munitions were in an advanced state of decay and most of the weaponry would likely have been unusable.

The reason for the high false positive rates is that field tests using the ICAM (Improved Chemical Agent Monitor) are very inaccurate, and even the more time consuming field tests have shown themselves to be poor at determining whether something is a chemical weapon. According to Donald Rumsfeld, ""Almost all first reports we get turn out to be wrong," he said. "We don't do first reports and we don't speculate." [25]. Many chemicals used in explosives, such as phosphorus, show up as blister agents. Other chemicals, such as pesticides (especially organophosphates such as malathion), routinely show up as nerve agents. Chemically, they are quite similar — the main difference is that some organophosphates kill only insects, and are consequently used as insecticides.

On May 2, 2004 a shell containing mustard gas, was found in the middle of street west of Baghdad. The Iraq Survey Group investigation reported that it had been "stored improperly", and thus the gas was "ineffective" as a useful chemical agent. Officials from the Defense Department commented that they were not certain if use was to be made of the device as a bomb.[26]

On May 15, 2004 a 155-mm artillery shell was used as an improvised bomb. The shell exploded and two U.S. soldiers were treated for minor exposure to a nerve agent (nausea and dialated pupils).[27] [28] On May 18 it was reported by U.S. Department of Defense intelligence officials that tests showed the two-chambered shell contained the chemical agent sarin, the shell being "likely" to have contained three to four liters of the substance (in the form of its two unmixed precursor chemicals prior to the aforementioned explosion that had not effectively mixed them). [29].

The US abandoned its search for WMDs in Iraq on 2005 January 12.

The U.S. Iraq Survey Group Final Report
On September 30, 2004, the U.S. Iraq Survey Group Final Report concluded that, "ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn (sic) possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but the available evidence from its investigation—including detainee interviews and document exploitation—leaves open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant capability."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_a...#Reports_of_chemical_weapons_finds_since_2003

In short, a bunch of false positives and a couple chem/bio munitions which may or may not be indicative of such weapons being stockpiled after Desert Fox.
 
Doesn't Much Matter to Me.

I, like many others here, supported getting "proactive".
I, like many others here, understood that the persons who perpetrated 9-11 were not a "country" but a "cult".
I, like many others here, believed the intelligence that was believed by Bush, Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton, the UN, the Brits and the French.
I, like many others here, understood that Sadaam had repeatedly violated and flaunted agreements granted after Americans had bled and died to defeat his aggression.

In retrospect, I second guess my support.....but not the ground breaking that's occurring. Iraq enjoys more freedom than in the past 400 years. Afghanistan enjoys more freedom than in the past 400 years. Libya has caved. Syria is waffling. Saudi Arabia has been outed as duplicitous.

End result? This particular confrontation, inevitable due to forces out of our control, is taking place at our timing, according to our agenda.

Stay the Course and God Bless the brave Men, Women, Boys and Girls who are effecting that end. This is not a war we chose....we chose only the arena.
Rich
 
BCannell,

Out of eight sources on my part, you come up with one on yours. And that's suppose to change my mind on the war.

Lets debate what little that I've given, to find the truth. 8 to 1 isn't good gambling odds in any place of gambling so, lets attack each others post as you discredit mine, post to post or source to source, and I will do the same.

And the kurds and the iranians gassed themselves right? Think of it this way, you have something that is deemed illegal on your computer, you wipe the files, but unless you use the right programs (and norton is not one), it is picked up post haste.

I gave eight sources, you gave one, lets do better can't you?

Wayne
 
What? Why? Your sources regarding the chemically-enhanced IEDs coincide exactly with the description on Wikipedia. As for the attack on the Kurds, no one, anywhere, ever will dispute that President Hussein had chemical weapons in 1988. The issue is whether he had them in 2003.

I posted the Wikipedia article not as a supporting source for a debate but because it provides a convenient starting point on the issue for someone who knows little about the subject. Chill.
 
I am in the same boat with Rich.........

but having had time to look at stuff and do some reading I feel a little mislead about the urgency of starting the war so soon.

I still beleive that we need to stay the course but with different leadership.

Yes there was some WMD found in Iraq.....

However the premise that we attacked Iraq on was that they had WMDs capable of attacking the United States and causing mass destruction

However, a few 155 mm Howitzer shells, 500 lb bombs, planes, helicopters ect are not a intercontinental threat. Which is the premise that the Bush administration was pushing.

so USP show me the big WMD toys..........
 
I always thought that the strategic objective of the war in IRAQ was not WMD’s but the actual act of putting a force directly in the center of the Arab world. We were losing all our bases and our ability to influence that region. Iran is and has always been a threat since the 70’s. If they develop atomic weapons they will be a threat to the stability of the entire region. For better or for worse we are there to stay. To call this Bush’s war and insinuate that he woke up one morning and decided to kick Sadam’s a** without the input of the Pentagon and staff is to miss entirely that we are at war with Arab fundamentalist. (remember 911) I wonder how many of the thousands of Al Quida people trained in Afghanistan we have killed in since this has started. More than a thousand I would guess.
 
First, I must apologize for the posts of last night. I've been... err conversing with a "Hate America First Crowd". Sorry, can't get away from them, they are family.

Since you can't take it out on family, I stumbled upon this post at the wrong time.

I'm just glad that I held my tongue and didn't go over the line (rules). I know that I would have had a well deserved talking too, or worse if I had.

Again, I apologize and will remove myself from the post/thread. This one is too close to home (literally) and my civility upon the subject would probably go downhill.

I pulled myself out of the "do you support the war" thread, I should have hit the back button upon this one also before getting involved.

Thank you for your understanding.

Wayne
 
Back
Top