WMD in iraq.

S

serbianpower

Active member
WMD was main reason for invasion of iraq. we havent seen anything about it for some time. did iraq really had it? if they had it where is it? is it posible that this was lie?
 
My friend, WMD was actually initially one thing among a list of reasons that were responsible for having the US go in.
But the WMD issue got the most headline and it escallated inside the UN debates. The US screwed up here.
As for "illegal," well Saddam DID violate 1441. So if the US just said that they went to enforce 1441 since the UN isn't capable of doing it itself, then it could have been very very different.

It is possible that they're still hidden in the sand. You know, it's EXTREMELY difficult to detect stuff that are buried in sand because sand is an excellent reflector of energy. Not to mention... hard to see because well, it's underground! lol. But I'm not really banking on this.
I think that Saddam Hussein did destroy all his WMDs. Fvck knows why he kept acting like a guy with something to hide.
-------------------------------------

Serb, do the search and look for this topic and read up on our arguments.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
My friend, WMD was actually initially one thing among a list of reasons that were responsible for having the US go in.
But the WMD issue got the most headline and it escallated inside the UN debates. The US screwed up here.
As for "illegal," well Saddam DID violate 1441. So if the US just said that they went to enforce 1441 since the UN isn't capable of doing it itself, then it could have been very very different.
Click to expand...

I am avare that WMD was only one among a list of reasons, but it was MAIN reason.
has anybody from state department or any other government official said that they screwed up there? it would be fair to admit mistake to us tax payers.
 
chewie_nz said:
this thread has been done TO DEATH.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. Although there has been no official thread on WMD's in Iraq, the people of the forums have really hacked this issue out. I believe one thread is name Was Bush right to invade Iraq (or something along those lines). I know there are a few more out there.

About the posts pertaining to the dead horse theme. I am deleting them because they have nothing to do with this subject. If you cannot contribute to a thread, do not post at all. This goes for everyone, including the mods and Emperor Redleg.

SGT Doody
 
Re-WMD in iraq

I think that WMD´s still was in Saddam`s hands, but with some help from the outside, including Europe I think they just disappeared in someone elses sandbox. Free-Media have reported that several officials (agents, diplomats) from different European embassys did help Iraqis to burn alot of sensitive evidence material before U.S troops got their orders to secure different Iraqi governmental buildings in Bagdad 2003.

Regarding to eye witnesses on the ground and in the buildings themself togheter with left-wing reporters there was news about Europes involvement in this WMD cover-up thingy. But as with all sensitive material that main-stream media and different gov leaders dont want to get out in the air, this story was discreet keep sth. from becoming known to the general public.

For once I have to believe in the free-media reporters on the ground. After all they are the same ppl that pounds the Iraqi war reason with the harshest criticism, and getting even more ppl to walk out on the streets to demonstrate against the war.

Doc.S
:viking:
 
I will add my 2 cents worth to the WMD debate. This will be the first time I have done so. Before, I stayed on the sidelines and kept the peace.

As most of you know, I spent 7 months driving in the sands of Iraq. That gives me a different perspective on Iraq than the political warriors who give their opinions from the comfort of home (I ain't hating on anyone, just stating a point). With that said, here are my thoughts on the issue.

I still believe that Saddam had possessed WMD's before OIF. His actions were definitely one of suspicion. President Clinton bombed him in 95 (give or take) because the US firmly believed that we was stock piling WMD's. The Air Force hit all areas that may have had WMD's. There is no way in hell that we could have hit all of Saddam's stockpiles in that raid. Can anyone seriously think that Saddam would have a change of heart between the Gulf War and OIF. I do not think he would have destroyed his WMD's to appease the world. Come on, he used them against the Kurds and Iran.

The battle cry of the anti war people is "WHERE ARE THE WMD's." I have no clear answer to that. I did hear on CNN that a few months after the war, the US found migs still buried in the sand. If we are still finding large weapons in the sand, how are we to find 55-gallon barrels? There is the Syria card. Did Saddam move his stuff over there? I am not sure. HOWEVER, Saddam did move a lot of military equipment to Iran during the Gulf War. The UN's investigation came up inconclusive. They admitted that there were many discrepancies with the paper work that Iraq handed over. To me, that is like asking a suspected bank robber to hand over all his account statements to see where the stolen money is. That just does not make sense to me.

Now this Buck Sergeant has been wrong. Therefore, if I am wrong, I might as well make a statement about that too. If Saddam never had WMD's, I firmly believe he would have developed them a few years down the road. Again, can you actually trust a leader who gases, murder and torture his political enemies, invade Kuwait because he can, launch weapons at Israel to rally Arabs against the Zionists, ignore a rash of UN resolutions and pay Palestinian suicide bombers for their deeds. If a criminal commits multiple crimes after you have tried everything possible to rehab the bastard, it is time to lock him away and throw the key.
 
If a criminal commits multiple crimes after you have tried everything possible to rehab the bastard, it is time to lock him away and throw the key.
Click to expand...

To extend the cop vs. criminal analogy; if a cop sees a felon brandishing what appears to be a gun and shoots the felon dead nobody faults the cop if the felon is found to have been pointing a cap pistol. The cop had every reason to believe the cap pistol was a gun and the felon's actions gave every reason to believe that he intended to harm. Saddam's actions are no different. He had harmed many people, he acted as if he had WMDs and we had every reason to believe he had them. He got "shot" for being a felon who was brandishing WMDs.

For my part, I think he had them and indeed the desert is a very big place. They may yet be found like the MIGs were. They may show up in Syria or Iran as well. We may never know. What we did though was right and certainly called for by the circumstances.
 
And to further Charge 7's analogy. The people doing the NaySaying are the same ones who would say. The Cop should have been sure the gun was real before shooting. Which amounts to saying he should have let the criminal shoot him first. So this amounts to saying that the US & UK should have waited until Saddam used his WMD's again or God forbid sold them to some terrorist organization.
 
Doody said:
About the posts pertaining to the dead horse theme. I am deleting them because they have nothing to do with this subject. If you cannot contribute to a thread, do not post at all. This goes for everyone, including the mods and Emperor Redleg.

SGT Doody
Click to expand...

Emperor Redleg? :shock:
 
Charge_7 said:
If a criminal commits multiple crimes after you have tried everything possible to rehab the bastard, it is time to lock him away and throw the key.
Click to expand...

To extend the cop vs. criminal analogy; if a cop sees a felon brandishing what appears to be a gun and shoots the felon dead nobody faults the cop if the felon is found to have been pointing a cap pistol. The cop had every reason to believe the cap pistol was a gun and the felon's actions gave every reason to believe that he intended to harm. Saddam's actions are no different. He had harmed many people, he acted as if he had WMDs and we had every reason to believe he had them. He got "shot" for being a felon who was brandishing WMDs.

For my part, I think he had them and indeed the desert is a very big place. They may yet be found like the MIGs were. They may show up in Syria or Iran as well. We may never know. What we did though was right and certainly called for by the circumstances.
Click to expand...


XXXXWARNING; DEVILS ADVOCATE XXXXX


but a cop wouldn't blow up the surounding neibourhood in arresting the crim...
 
The Other Guy said:
Emperor Redleg? :shock:
Click to expand...

Come over to the dark side The Other Guy ... :lol:

I also believe it's highly possible that the WMDs are hidden in the sand. I said it before, it's very hard to detect stuff under sand.
But for the sake of argument I will assume there were none... since if you don't find it, there's a bigger case of them not being there than being there.
 
Very interesting comments here.

I have been having my nose buried in this subject foir the past years.
Apparently, Saddam had destroyed all of his non conventional armaments within 1995, I'm talking about the weapons he used on the Kurds and on Iran.
The point is that like Charge said he was pretending he had dangerous weapons and did nothing to prove he didn't. Like I said many times before, the burden of the proof was on him.
His scientists now admit it would take him not too long before he made other weapons. And he deliberately had all intentions to do so.
We stopped him in time, and had we done this to NK we wouldn't have a nuclear threat hanging on our head now.

On the other hand, it is entirley possible that some chemical or biological agents be still stored somewhere under the sands, given the mistakes and blunders by the Cia in the past 4 years that wouldn't surprise me.
 
We're not even sure if the North Koreans have a nuke. They're calling the bluff and we're being safe about it.

Anyways about Iraq.
I did say that Saddam ACTED like he had WMDs. Which is why when there were conflicting evidence, the Americans preferred the ones that suggested the presence of WMDs. Why Saddam acted like a guilty man (of WMDs) I am really puzzled.
I say DO NOT discount the possibility of that stuff being out there buried in the sand but perhaps even more importantly, I wouldn't put any money on that statement and I think it's safe for all of us to assume that Saddam didn't have WMDs when the US went in... and perhaps while the whole mess at the UN was going on.
 
uh...

I can understand where Doody is coming from.

The cop analogy is a bit off if look into magnitude of the matter and given conditions.

Cop, under the law, has rights to protect themselves if dangerous situation arised. Whereas, Iraq is not the US and it is a foreign country. You can't just attack a foreign country under uncleared presumptions. Eventually, it is upto the UN to determine who need/must be toppled by sheer force.
 
Re: uh...

Boobies said:
I can understand where Doody is coming from. The cop analogy is a bit off if look into magnitude of the matter and given conditions.

Cop, under the law, has rights to protect themselves if dangerous situation arised. Whereas, Iraq is not the US and it is a foreign country. You can't just invade a foreign country under uncleared presumptions. It is upto the world council to determine who need/must be toppled by sheer force.
Click to expand...

No, it is not up to anyone when there is no world government able to enforce laws.
Anarchy rules and there's nothing above the single States sovereignty.
 
Hmmmm....

Italianguy, base on what you said, I assume you mean the western power uses the facade of "Law and Order" to exercise worldly anarchies? I hate to believe in that and for sure, I don't support that neither.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top