WMD in Iraq?

[Miles]

Just to pose one thought to those that have vehemently claimed the Iraq has none, and the we have found none.

I have noticed on at least 3 occasions, a highly suspicious find was made of chemical weapons stashes, then the story seems to dissapear. At first I was dissapointed, and figured that they turned out to be bogus, but as I think about it more, I have reconsidered that position.

Our top priority in this war is to protect as many American and Iraqi civilian lives as possible. Right now, Saddam does not want to use WMD because he wants to remain the victim in woruld opinion. If we announced that we had found WMD, then he would be busted and would have no more restraint in using them.

Could it be possible that we have found them already, but have put a hush on the story for the sake of saving lives? It seems strange to me that in these cases of suspicious finds, that the government has not actually come out to say that they were false leads. Could they be sitting on this evidence until after the war. I don't think ANY announcements will be made until we know that Saddam's regime has no opportunity to use them. Otherwise we eliminate Saddam's hope for martyrdom which would release any restraints of his using WMD.

[Acriku]

It is very suspicious of where the stories went, and what of all the stashes of gas masks the military found? Were the Iraqi soldiers going to use them in case the US forces use the chemical/biological weapons on them, or were they going to use them when they pour gasses all over the military and civilians?

It seems the media is doing their job pretty well so far.

[Miles]

The media has done a fantastic job, although there have been some serious screw ups like Peter Arnette and Rivera. Overall, I think it has given us an incredible insight to both the danger, unpredictability and heroism in war.

I also saw that a captured colnel in Basra was giving us information on where to dig for WMD. The fact is that the weapons inspectors would NEVER have found these sites, and WHEN these weapons are found we will be vindicated while FrancoGermoRussia will eat their words.

[Gobalopper]

If you look at the maps of where the WMD plants were during the first round of inspections almost all were in central Iraq, most around Baghdad. So I suspect that as the Coalition forces gain a stronger foothold in the area we will hear more.

Yesterday I heard mention of high levels of cyanide or something similar in one of the rivers. And they have also been exploring tunnels underneath the airport. The Iraqi's are most likely hiding the stuff underground or inside Palace's that have already been destroyed so it will take a lot time to find unless as you mentioned higher ups provide intel.

[Miles]

It still makes absolutely no sense to disclose the information if we find it. Once Saddam is busted, and his martyrdome is shattered, he has nothing left to keep him from using them. I really hope they don't announce it until after the war.

[Acriku]

I think they should show the information found after Saddam is attained/killed.

[SurlyPIG]

The fact is that the weapons inspectors would NEVER have found these sites, and WHEN these weapons are found we will be vindicated while FrancoGermoRussia will eat their words.

That is what SHOULD happen, but the super-leftist America-haters will probably just say that the coalition fabricated such findings.

[Egeides]

ACE, do you see as a possibility that someone may be against US policy and not hate Americans? And is it wrong to be left instead of right?

[Nyarlathotep]

ACE, I'm no America hater, but I believe that IF no WMD's are found, the US will loose a lot of credit in the worlds opinion. This was one of the main reasons why they started this war. Do you really think they will tell the world that they can't find any WDM ? IMHO Bush and his buddies will never state that they couldn't find any WMD.

I leave it up to everyone's mind to figure out if the find is real or not...

[nampigai]

hmmmm.... why don't they just find their reciept? then they'll have their proof.

[Nyarlathotep]

hmmmm.... why don't they just find their reciept? then they'll have their proof.

Most likely it's "mis-placed"...

[Anathema]

Come on NaM, we all know that they were used for "civilian" purposes.

[nemafakei]

Any WMDs 'found' by the US army must be looked on with some suspicion, and some questions must be raised as to the credibility of the evidence.

Firstly, considereing that Saddam Hussein is as evil as we are told, we deduce that he will use any means to slow the US advance. A very effective means from his point of view wuld be these very WMDs. Therefore, why wouldn't he use them, when backed into a corner?

Secondly, if the WMDs are found quickly by the military, then this begs the question why on earth didn't the inspectors find them, given that the inspectors were well-trained to fing them, and indeed in Iraq for that very purpose, with total access?

Thirdly, how can we be remotely sure that they are not planted there by the US to justify the war?

Fourthly, are these WMDs in fact supplies that Iraq has declared, and were awaiting destruction as recorded by the UN? (I wouldn't put twisting the truth beyond politicians and the armies' spin doctors).

[Acriku]

I believe reports are just in that they found a lone truck with rocket launchers, with mustard gas. I will check up on the news to validate any of this.

A very effective means from his point of view wuld be these very WMDs. Therefore, why wouldn't he use them, when backed into a corner?

Hussein is an arrogant man. After all, he kept off the UN and US for over 10 years! He might still believe it isn't over. So, why would he risk getting everybody against him (which he must come to the fact that this would mean it is over for him) by using WMDs? But, he has used SCUD missiles, which were one of the banned weapons, even though it didn't hurt him with support. Using the WMDs must be a last resort.

Secondly, if the WMDs are found quickly by the military, then this begs the question why on earth didn't the inspectors find them, given that the inspectors were well-trained to fing them, and indeed in Iraq for that very purpose, with total access?

The UN inspectors were not given complete access. That is, they were not taken to places they didn't know about. There are tunnel systems under the airport they took over (although small resistance is found every now and then), did the UN know about them? No. Did the UN inspectors know about the chemical factory (even though it contained no trace of weapons, it was not on the list)? The UN inspectors were played, and fooled.

Thirdly, how can we be remotely sure that they are not planted there by the US to justify the war?

With strict protocol these days, and the intense media coverage, it will be hard to plant evidence. Also, remember that if there are WMDs, they most likely will be in huge stockpiles (although it isn't necessary to find huge stockholds to justify the war). We might never be 100% sure, but we can only hope that the truth comes out.

Fourthly, are these WMDs in fact supplies that Iraq has declared, and were awaiting destruction as recorded by the UN? (I wouldn't put twisting the truth beyond politicians and the armies' spin doctors).

The regime has had enormous amounts of time, it is not acceptable that they would not be destroyed by now. With the al-Samud II missiles, they only destroyed half with the given amount of time, and it's not that long to destroy them.

[nemafakei]

The relevance of your answers depends entirely on the nature of the WMDs found - insofar as the findings are confirmed.

We shall see...

[SurlyPIG]

ACE, do you see as a possibility that someone may be against US policy and not hate Americans? And is it wrong to be left instead of right?

No, I see it as a reality. And, upon finding the weapons, these people will realize that they were there all along and the UN failed to find them. As to the political question, did you not notice how I said SUPER-leftist? I'm not talking about liberals or Sweden or Norway, I'm talking about the red-flag waving communists that SUPPORT Hussein and think the world would have been a better place if the likes of Stalin were still in power.

[Egeides]

I met many communist and none of them were pro-Stalin. I didn't even ever HEARD of a pro-Stalin modern communist. Most of them are still chewing lessons from Russia and China, trying to figure out how it could work otherwise.

For anti-americanism, I also saw people saying that "American people are this and that" as I saw Americans (or else) saying "French/Arab/dissidents are this and that". There is always a part of people thinking they can generalize, wether dissident or not. But most people are against US administration, and the ones that became anti-you-name-it in many case became like this by being anti-administration and thinking all were alike (they still had a reason for dissidence, even if they threw the baby with the bath's water).

Would you agree with these two paragraphs ACE?

[Miles]

Any WMDs 'found' by the US army must be looked on with some suspicion, and some questions must be raised as to the credibility of the evidence.

Within reason Nema. I can't see Edric ever being convinced.

Firstly, considereing that Saddam Hussein is as evil as we are told, we deduce that he will use any means to slow the US advance. A very effective means from his point of view wuld be these very WMDs. Therefore, why wouldn't he use them, when backed into a corner?

Because as long as he doesn't, he has the chance of rallying support from the world. I don't really think that he will use them at any time. In defeat his martyrdome is secure unless he uses WMD. I think his reputation, from what I've read and heard, plays a bigger role in his decision making than you give credit for.

Secondly, if the WMDs are found quickly by the military, then this begs the question why on earth didn't the inspectors find them, given that the inspectors were well-trained to fing them, and indeed in Iraq for that very purpose, with total access?

Because we now have access to military leaders who have surrendered and therefore no longer coerced by Saddam Hussein, and we have over 100 times the number of people in country. Do you really think that the weapons inspectors would have found 10 foot deep bunkers buried in the middle of the desert filled with chemical agents? I think you give them far too much credit. That is exactly why we deemed it futile and moved to the next stage. If we find them, then we will be proven right to deem it futile.

Thirdly, how can we be remotely sure that they are not planted there by the US to justify the war?

Serial numbers can be traced, Neutral parties can investigate etc...

But when it boils down to it you can't be 100% sure. Conspiracy theorists will probably abound, but if you go where the evidence is, then you can be pretty sure.

Fourthly, are these WMDs in fact supplies that Iraq has declared, and were awaiting destruction as recorded by the UN? (I wouldn't put twisting the truth beyond politicians and the armies' spin doctors).

Who's spinning again? Iraq has declared that it has NONE, and it has destroyed ALL of their WMD. If ANY are found, then they are in violation.

[Egeides]

"Within reason Nema. I can't see Edric ever being convinced."

Nor do I see you, me, emprworm or ACE being convinced just because the other is talking. It is normal for people who have complete bases to their argumentation to not just be convinced by someone else because he talks, sicne all the bases have to be changed to see an opinion that'll change. Did you change your opinion more than Edric? Guess not...

[Miles]

"Within reason Nema. I can't see Edric ever being convinced."

Nor do I see you, me, emprworm or ACE being convinced just because the other is talking. It is normal for people who have complete bases to their argumentation to not just be convinced by someone else because he talks, sicne all the bases have to be changed to see an opinion that'll change. Did you change your opinion more than Edric? Guess not...

If solid evidence came forth that the US had planted the chemical weapons then I would change my stance. If is concrete evidence in the future that the US will oppress the Iraqis rather than free them, then I would change my stance. If there is concrete evidence that Santa Claus is actually real, then I would consider it.

However, if all the evidence in the world said that the US discovered WMD in Iraq and the serial numbers matched up with what they declared or bought, and Iraqi generals admitted to them being there, and we found Saddam's freakin fingerprints on the barrels, you anti-american morons will never be convinced. So when it really boils down do it-- who cares?

[Egeides]

Miles, if you're here to treat me of "anti-american", then I am allowed to treat you of anti-everything that you treat of anti-American (80% of Europe, lots of Canada, lots of UK, lots of...). If you wanna treat people of moron and such, understand that people are not interested into discussing with all this.

NOW, I'm not saying Iraq doesn't have WMD, I say USA SHOULDN'T HAVE MOVED THIS WAY. Of course, if they do not use their positions for oil, I'll be happy and it'll be ok. But they never did this in all history.

Is being against UK during colonialism "anti-english"? If so, I am anti-european, anti-canadian, anti-american, anti-russian, anti-japanese-, anti-chinese, anti-latino, anti-... I'm against someone doing this or that, not against the people. Is it THAT hard to say so??

[Miles]

Miles, if you're here to treat me of "anti-american", then I am allowed to treat you of anti-everything that you treat of anti-American (80% of Europe, lots of Canada, lots of UK, lots of...). If you wanna treat people of moron and such, understand that people are not interested into discussing with all this.

NOW, I'm not saying Iraq doesn't have WMD, I say USA SHOULDN'T HAVE MOVED THIS WAY. Of course, if they do not use their positions for oil, I'll be happy and it'll be ok. But they never did this in all history.

What the hell are you talking about. Uh.... how about Japan, Germany, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Kuwait and South Korea? In fact, why don't you cite me a case contrary?

Is being against UK during colonialism "anti-english"? If so, I am anti-european, anti-canadian, anti-american, anti-russian, anti-japanese-, anti-chinese, anti-latino, anti-... I'm against someone doing this or that, not against the people. Is it THAT hard to say so??

Oh, stop with your politically correct whining. Obviously I don't think that you, Edric and Lowezee hate all Americans, but We are talking about politics and governments, not individuals. I am anti-French because I hate what their government is doing and what the people are saying. Does that mean I hate all French? Hell I don't know any French, so how could I say that I hate all French. Their government pisses me off, as ours pisses Edric off.

But, Edric's and Loweezee's information is so pathetically scewed into the fanatical that it must be exposed. You at the very least, seem a little more open, so I apologize for lumping you with those fanatical haters. What seperates those "morons" from the rational is the question I'll ask you. If we find WMD and if Iraqi oil is turned over to the Iraqi's (after we use it for their reconstruction), are you going to change your tune. Now we might profit from this, since a new regime may be more open to foreign corporations, and the fanatical will see this as our ultimate goal to war ignoring the WMD that we found, and ignoring the fact that Iraqi's lives are emmensly better. So what are you, fanatical, or rational?

[Egeides]

If it's to get your approbation, I'll answer like I answer to everyone that is asking me to conform. If I am extreme to you, remember that by your own definition of "extreme" you'll also be extreme to me. The same way communism is extreme to capitalism and vice versa.

For your "politically correct" thing, I believe it is very important even in vocabulary to be clear on something like this. Like everyone saying "anti-american" at everything disagreeing to them.

For the case you named where USA helped, I in each case see US administration interest. I also see the same damn thing in many many countries. It is the nature of politics from the moment corporations can lobby to be influenced since $$ is useful in campaigns. So parties are running for it. But for showing you a case, I showed many on these forums and it takes some time each time... If you want a professional (it's his job thus "professional") on the question, a reknowned work is "Year 501" by Noam Chomsky, which is a few hundred pages (300). You could even just read a part, who cares, up to you. He's one of the US history books cited in "Will Hunting" movie :P

Edit: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm for reference

[Gobalopper]

Noam Chomsky hates America why should I listen to what he says?

[SurlyPIG]

People will believe what they want to believe, and they'll only listen to those who say what they want to hear. It doesn't matter to Egidies that Chomsky is perhaps the worst place to learn about US foreign policy, it only matters that Chomsky gives exactly what he wants him to; 'reasons' (everything from total hyperbole to outright lies) to hate the US.

You'll have to do a lot better than Chomsky in your sources. Look through all of Gob's post 'Iraq Issues'. Those are the kinds of things you should use to back yourself up.