• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Do we have a confirmed report of Iraq using banned weapons in this war?

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,583
430
126
It's been hinted at fairly broadly over the last week or two, but I have to admit I've been too busy to scour the Web and see if there are any definitive reports about whether Iraq's regime has used weapons that they should not have possession of in battle so far.

Do we have any proof yet of banned weapons, chemicals, factories, etc etc in our possession? I'm not looking for a flamewar, just links to proof. Thanks.
 

zer0burn

Golden Member
Jan 30, 2002
1,485
0
0
a lot of the missiles fired into kuwait were banned weapons, nevertheless they were in the process of destroying them before the war although they never shouldve even have had them
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,583
430
126
Originally posted by: zer0burn
a lot of the missiles fired into kuwait were banned weapons, nevertheless they were in the process of destroying them before the war although they never shouldve even have had them
Hmm, I wonder at the implications of that. Going from having missiles ready to be destroyed to loaded on launchers and ready to be used likely isn't a one-step process. That implies they were standing ready for use for a while now.
 

DeeKnow

Platinum Member
Jan 28, 2002
2,470
0
71
I was supporting Bush all the way until now it begins to look a little dicey ... he's claimed all along Iraq's got the WMD stuff. First he cant provide proof... ok so you have to protect yr sources. then the proof he provides looks rather lame. now he's got half the damn country occupied, and the boys are almost at Baghdad airport - so if we still cant find the damned weqpons, where the hell are they ?

he's beginning to lose little credibility here, don't you think ?

 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,431
82
91
Originally posted by: DeeKnow
I was supporting Bush all the way until now it begins to look a little dicey ... he's claimed all along Iraq's got the WMD stuff. First he cant provide proof... ok so you have to protect yr sources. then the proof he provides looks rather lame. now he's got half the damn country occupied, and the boys are almost at Baghdad airport - so if we still cant find the damned weqpons, where the hell are they ?

he's beginning to lose little credibility here, don't you think ?
No. The iraqis didn't stock nerve agent antidote just for the hell of it.

 

Chadder007

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,560
0
0
Originally posted by: DeeKnow
I was supporting Bush all the way until now it begins to look a little dicey ... he's claimed all along Iraq's got the WMD stuff. First he cant provide proof... ok so you have to protect yr sources. then the proof he provides looks rather lame. now he's got half the damn country occupied, and the boys are almost at Baghdad airport - so if we still cant find the damned weqpons, where the hell are they ?

he's beginning to lose little credibility here, don't you think ?
Umm...no. We haven't really taken over totally, there are still major fights in the citys that the forces are in. Do you think we would just go in and look with inspection teams with it being such a battle zone at the moment?
If anything his credibility has gone up because of findings of torture chambers, biological suits, the killing of our POWs, antidotes to toxins...etc.
 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Originally posted by: rudder
Originally posted by: DeeKnow
I was supporting Bush all the way until now it begins to look a little dicey ... he's claimed all along Iraq's got the WMD stuff. First he cant provide proof... ok so you have to protect yr sources. then the proof he provides looks rather lame. now he's got half the damn country occupied, and the boys are almost at Baghdad airport - so if we still cant find the damned weqpons, where the hell are they ?

he's beginning to lose little credibility here, don't you think ?
No. The iraqis didn't stock nerve agent antidote just for the hell of it.
Don't you think the U.S. stocks it? If they do stock it, do you think it is because they plan on using the nerve agent or because someone else might use the nerve agent?
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
2
81
They've found Al-Samouds, but they weren't hiding the fact that they had those and they had just recently agreed to destroy them so it's not really a smoking gun.

And I do agree that having chem suits and nerve gas antidotes isn't really proof either.

Time will tell, but I find it impossible to believe they don't have any after all the deception and lack of cooperation with weapons inspectors.

On the other hand, the connection to Al-Qaeda is becoming very obvious. There have been numerous Al-Qaeda members killed and captured at the terrorist compounds in the North. They were fighting side by side with Iraqi extremist groups.
 

DoctorPizza

Banned
Jun 4, 2001
106
0
0
Some have claimed they fired Scuds, which are disallowed (their range is above the arbitrary limit), but I've not seen any concrete confirmation or denial.

Al Samouds may or may not be illegal. There are questions over their range (the claim is that in an unguided configuration they can go beyond the arbitrary limit -- which would certainly explain why they keep missing Kuwait and landing in the sea) -- and diameter (if they're too wide they can be fitted with other motors). They were going to be destroyed, but then someone decided to invade the f'ing country. @_@.

As for stockpiling anti-nerve agents, frankly, that seems like plain good sense to me. The UK has attempted to stockpile immunizations for various biological agents, for instance; does this mean that the UK is going to use such agents itself? I don't think so.
 

DoctorPizza

Banned
Jun 4, 2001
106
0
0
On the other hand, the connection to Al-Qaeda is becoming very obvious. There have been numerous Al-Qaeda members killed and captured at the terrorist compounds in the North. They were fighting side by side with Iraqi extremist groups.
Unfortunately, the Iraqi government had little control over northern Iraq; the northern no fly zone (ostensibly to protect the Kurds in the area) has meant that the area is essentially Kurdish-run. The Iraqi government had little ability to police it. A link between the government and al Qaeda is extremely unlikely (simply because al Qaeda want to remove the Iraqi government just as much as the Americans do), but with the extremists in the north, it seems much more plausible -- for they too would like to remove the Iraqi government.

 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: zer0burn
a lot of the missiles fired into kuwait were banned weapons, nevertheless they were in the process of destroying them before the war although they never shouldve even have had them
I wasnt aware they were destroying Seersucker missilles and Russina anti tank weapons....just AL Samoud IIs
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: DoctorPizza
On the other hand, the connection to Al-Qaeda is becoming very obvious. There have been numerous Al-Qaeda members killed and captured at the terrorist compounds in the North. They were fighting side by side with Iraqi extremist groups.
Unfortunately, the Iraqi government had little control over northern Iraq; the northern no fly zone (ostensibly to protect the Kurds in the area) has meant that the area is essentially Kurdish-run. The Iraqi government had little ability to police it. A link between the government and al Qaeda is extremely unlikely (simply because al Qaeda want to remove the Iraqi government just as much as the Americans do), but with the extremists in the north, it seems much more plausible -- for they too would like to remove the Iraqi government.
And what will your excuse be for Saddam when its shown they have been there before the no-fly zone?

Harboring terrorsists...not too wise.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Why is there still doubt Saddam has WMD? He used them, he DECLARED TO THE UN HE HAD THEM AND WHO CONTRIBUTED TO HIS EFFORTS.

He was also REQUIRED to destroy them and PROVE this as well, are you going to suggest he destroyed them, and then "lost" the evidence?
 

Windi

Junior Member
Jun 19, 2000
21
0
0
And what will your excuse be for Saddam when its shown they have been there before the no-fly zone?

Harboring terrorsists...not too wise.
But is he harboring them? Does he even know they're there? Remember, the fanatical muslims have always hated Saddam.

So they where in the country? There are/where al-Qaeda terrorists in the US as well, yet no one is accusing it of harboring them.
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
2
81
Originally posted by: DoctorPizza
On the other hand, the connection to Al-Qaeda is becoming very obvious. There have been numerous Al-Qaeda members killed and captured at the terrorist compounds in the North. They were fighting side by side with Iraqi extremist groups.
Unfortunately, the Iraqi government had little control over northern Iraq; the northern no fly zone (ostensibly to protect the Kurds in the area) has meant that the area is essentially Kurdish-run. The Iraqi government had little ability to police it. A link between the government and al Qaeda is extremely unlikely (simply because al Qaeda want to remove the Iraqi government just as much as the Americans do), but with the extremists in the north, it seems much more plausible -- for they too would like to remove the Iraqi government.
Your joking right?
The Kurds are the ones that have been attacking the terrorist compounds.
They were in Iraqi government controlled territory, not Kurdish.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: DoctorPizza
Some have claimed they fired Scuds, which are disallowed (their range is above the arbitrary limit), but I've not seen any concrete confirmation or denial.

Al Samouds may or may not be illegal. There are questions over their range (the claim is that in an unguided configuration they can go beyond the arbitrary limit -- which would certainly explain why they keep missing Kuwait and landing in the sea) -- and diameter (if they're too wide they can be fitted with other motors). They were going to be destroyed, but then someone decided to invade the f'ing country. @_@.

As for stockpiling anti-nerve agents, frankly, that seems like plain good sense to me. The UK has attempted to stockpile immunizations for various biological agents, for instance; does this mean that the UK is going to use such agents itself? I don't think so.
"They were going to be destroyed, but then someone decided to invade the f'ing country. @_@."

Lets see they found 100, they destroyed maybe 35-40 of those over a 2 week period, since you imply there was compliance and disarmament going on that was interupted by this war, explain to me how something that can be destroyed at a rate of 100 every 3 months (giving PLENTY of time) was still around after TWELVE YEARS?

There is your "compliance". Why was he not allowed to have them? Because he couldn't stop using them on his neighboors, what has he done AGAIN?
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,850
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Why is there still doubt Saddam has WMD? He used them, he DECLARED TO THE UN HE HAD THEM AND WHO CONTRIBUTED TO HIS EFFORTS.

He was also REQUIRED to destroy them and PROVE this as well, are you going to suggest he destroyed them, and then "lost" the evidence?
Look at your grammer and see if that makes sense.

Why people doubt Saddam has WMD

He used them, he declared that he had them.

Does what he had before says anything about what he has now? Does what he had before post danger to US, and justify the killing of Iraqis?
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: Shanti
Originally posted by: DoctorPizza
On the other hand, the connection to Al-Qaeda is becoming very obvious. There have been numerous Al-Qaeda members killed and captured at the terrorist compounds in the North. They were fighting side by side with Iraqi extremist groups.
Unfortunately, the Iraqi government had little control over northern Iraq; the northern no fly zone (ostensibly to protect the Kurds in the area) has meant that the area is essentially Kurdish-run. The Iraqi government had little ability to police it. A link between the government and al Qaeda is extremely unlikely (simply because al Qaeda want to remove the Iraqi government just as much as the Americans do), but with the extremists in the north, it seems much more plausible -- for they too would like to remove the Iraqi government.
Your joking right?
The Kurds are the ones that have been attacking the terrorist compounds.
They were in Iraqi government controlled territory, not Kurdish.
He's not interested in fact, he is only going to believe what suits his bias.....
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Why is there still doubt Saddam has WMD? He used them, he DECLARED TO THE UN HE HAD THEM AND WHO CONTRIBUTED TO HIS EFFORTS.

He was also REQUIRED to destroy them and PROVE this as well, are you going to suggest he destroyed them, and then "lost" the evidence?
Look at your grammer and see if that makes sense.

Why people doubt Saddam has WMD

He used them, he declared that he had them.

Does what he had before says anything about what he has now? Does what he had before post danger to US, and justify the killing of Iraqis?
Funny what you posted isnt even what I wrote..... nice of you to change my sentence, THEN criticize "my" grammar....lol

Why is there still doubt Saddam has WMD?

Why people doubt Saddam has WMD

not even close

He used them

yes he did, many times.

he DECLARED TO THE UN HE HAD THEM AND WHO CONTRIBUTED TO HIS EFFORTS.

would you like to see a portion of what Saddam submitted?
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,497
1
81
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: zer0burn
a lot of the missiles fired into kuwait were banned weapons, nevertheless they were in the process of destroying them before the war although they never shouldve even have had them
Hmm, I wonder at the implications of that. Going from having missiles ready to be destroyed to loaded on launchers and ready to be used likely isn't a one-step process. That implies they were standing ready for use for a while now.
What would you do if your the Iraqi leadership and the US were about to invade your country?
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
The 12,000-page weapons declaration that Iraq delivered to the United Nations in December identifies 31 major foreign suppliers for its chemical weapons program, including 2 companies based in the United States that are now defunct, 14 from Germany, 3 each from the Netherlands and Switzerland and 2 each from France and Austria.


take your "doubt" and.....

21 in Europe, 2 US............;)
 

TheNinja

Lifer
Jan 22, 2003
12,207
1
0
Originally posted by: DoctorPizza
Some have claimed they fired Scuds, which are disallowed (their range is above the arbitrary limit), but I've not seen any concrete confirmation or denial.

Al Samouds may or may not be illegal. There are questions over their range (the claim is that in an unguided configuration they can go beyond the arbitrary limit -- which would certainly explain why they keep missing Kuwait and landing in the sea) -- and diameter (if they're too wide they can be fitted with other motors). They were going to be destroyed, but then someone decided to invade the f'ing country. @_@.

As for stockpiling anti-nerve agents, frankly, that seems like plain good sense to me. The UK has attempted to stockpile immunizations for various biological agents, for instance; does this mean that the UK is going to use such agents itself? I don't think so.
I mentioned this before, but for those who don't get it I'll say it again. Do you honestly believe that Saddam was going to destroy all of his illegal missles? What, he all of a sudden had a change of heart and said, "hey, I'll do what the UN tells me they are right". NO!!!, it is a delay tactic that he used so well over the past 12 years. He felt the heat coming hard this time and started to destroy a couple of make the UN back off and believe he was complying. Get it through your head, Saddam is not a victim here, he never has and will never comply to the UN ultimatums. Next thing you are going to tell me is that after Saddam destroyed all his illegal weapons he was going to bake cookies for everyone, ya that's it, but now he has all this batter he can't use and has no way to get his succulent baked goods to all the people in his country that he so dearly loves b/c we invaded him.
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,850
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Why is there still doubt Saddam has WMD? He used them, he DECLARED TO THE UN HE HAD THEM AND WHO CONTRIBUTED TO HIS EFFORTS.

He was also REQUIRED to destroy them and PROVE this as well, are you going to suggest he destroyed them, and then "lost" the evidence?
Look at your grammer and see if that makes sense.

Why people doubt Saddam has WMD

He used them, he declared that he had them.

Does what he had before says anything about what he has now? Does what he had before post danger to US, and justify the killing of Iraqis?
Funny what you posted isnt even what I wrote..... nice of you to change my sentence, THEN criticize "my" grammar....lol

Why is there still doubt Saddam has WMD?

Why people doubt Saddam has WMD

not even close

He used them

yes he did, many times.

he DECLARED TO THE UN HE HAD THEM AND WHO CONTRIBUTED TO HIS EFFORTS.

would you like to see a portion of what Saddam submitted?

Are you ignorant or just trying to avoid the question?

My point is, yes Saddam USED WMD in Iran-Iraq war 10+ years ago, and he declared he HAD WMD.

But you are saying Iraq HAS (note: has meaning now) WMD. What does Iraq had before got anything to do with what they have now?

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY