• 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?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

DoctorPizza

Banned
Jun 4, 2001
106
0
0
Your joking right?
The Kurds are the ones that have been attacking the terrorist compounds.
They were in Iraqi government controlled territory, not Kurdish.
I said that the Kurds are the purported reason for the no fly zone and consequential lack of Iraqi control in the area. I did not say the Kurds were the ones fighting alongside various extremist groups.

In any case, there are certainly Kurdish groups who have been linked to al Qaeda ( http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/5539087.htm ) so to dismiss the idea out of hand is foolhardy.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: rchiu
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?
and what part of the resolutions didnt you understand, the BURDEN of proof that they were all gone IS ON SADDAM, if he had met that burden don't you think he would have provided the very evidence that would have saved his a*s????

apparently I'm not ignorant, but I'm quite certain you are uninformed.

WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT HE DOESNT HAVE THEM ANYMORE? WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVING THIS?
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
OT...did you see the citizens go beserk in Najaf when US troops even walked towards the mosque that some Rep Guard are hiding in? Thanks god we hadn't fired on it earlier,they hardly would have given us such a warm welcome.
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,850
0
0
and what part of the resolutions didnt you understand, the BURDEN of proof that they were all gone IS ON SADDAM, if he had met that burden don't you think he would have provided the very evidence that would have saved his a*s????

apparently I'm not ignorant, but I'm quite certain you are uninformed.

WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT HE DOESNT HAVE THEM ANYMORE? WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVING THIS?
I am not talking about if Iraq violated any resolution, that's for UN to decide. I am talking about your statement that Iraq HAS WMD because they HAD WMD and they USED WMD. How is that so?
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: rchiu
and what part of the resolutions didnt you understand, the BURDEN of proof that they were all gone IS ON SADDAM, if he had met that burden don't you think he would have provided the very evidence that would have saved his a*s????

apparently I'm not ignorant, but I'm quite certain you are uninformed.

WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT HE DOESNT HAVE THEM ANYMORE? WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVING THIS?
I am not talking about if Iraq violated any resolution, that's for UN to decide. I am talking about your statement that Iraq HAS WMD because they HAD WMD and they USED WMD. How is that so?


well its been decided by the way, he violated 17 resolutions a total of 333 times, the last 1441, required full compliance, even the slightest bit of resistance or deception would constitute a Material Breach.

How can I say they STILL have them. Pretty simple, the UN had required Saddam to state what he had, DESTROY it, and PROVE this was done. This was the whole point of the inspections.

Did he admit what he had, yes.

Did he destroy what he had and prove this? NO

Where are they then?

I nor anyone else has to prove he still has them, he willingly accepted that responsibility himself and failed to meet it's obligations.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
some people are so sure he doesnt, I guess they don't even understand what the inspections were about or what happened already, being aware of the facts you couldn't possibly suggest anything else.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Well I feel I answered all of your questions, still waiting for mine.....

I even managed to do so without attacking your intellect, try the same sometime.
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,850
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
some people are so sure he doesnt, I guess they don't even understand what the inspections were about or what happened already, being aware of the facts you couldn't possibly suggest anything else.
I am not sure if he does or does not have WMD. But one fact I know, UN weapon inspector has not found any before the war started.

What I am curious about is, what make you so sure that they have WMD?

I just thought before we go into someone's country and kill thousands of men, women and children, maybe we should have at least something to comfirm what we think Saddam has that endanger us? If this war if really about WMD, maybe the government should let us know how they arrived at the conclusion that Iraq has WMD and is endangering us PRIOR to the war?
 

blahblah

Member
Jun 3, 2001
125
0
0
The short answer is sort of.

No Weapon of Mass Destruction has been used so far. Does not mean it won't, and does not mean it will be used.

There are some Missiles that's used that is considered Banned weapon, but these restrictions are recently imposed, so there really not much there.

We have not seen any SCUD of similar weapons.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: Alistar7
some people are so sure he doesnt, I guess they don't even understand what the inspections were about or what happened already, being aware of the facts you couldn't possibly suggest anything else.
I am not sure if he does or does not have WMD. But one fact I know, UN weapon inspector has not found any before the war started.

What I am curious about is, what make you so sure that they have WMD?

I just thought before we go into someone's country and kill thousands of men, women and children, maybe we should have at least something to comfirm what we think Saddam has that endanger us? If this war if really about WMD, maybe the government should let us know how they arrived at the conclusion that Iraq has WMD and is endangering us PRIOR to the war?
Well apparently the UN resolutions that even SADDAM HGIMSELF agreed to that required the bruden of proof to be SOLELY his is not good enough for you, instead you feel the US should have to prove this.

Have you ever read ANY of the interviews from Iraqi scientists? How their daily life was very controlled with regards to time. They were required to spend half their time, 4 hours, developing WMD and delivery systems, the rest of the time was devoted to detrmining how to HIDE them. The same story over and over from people that never worked together knew each other..

Can you possibly understand how someone who violates resolutions he agreed to 333 times might ALSO be hiding things?

If he had destroyed everything he was supposed to, all he had to do was show the UN the evidence, end of inspections, end of sanctions, he stays in power with no international oversight and with the full spending power of the 2nd larget oil reserve in the world.

So you are saying he did destroy them, must have if he doesnt have them, but he didnt keep ANY evidence, guess his own death was more appealing than the above scenario....
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: Alistar7
some people are so sure he doesnt, I guess they don't even understand what the inspections were about or what happened already, being aware of the facts you couldn't possibly suggest anything else.
I am not sure if he does or does not have WMD. But one fact I know, UN weapon inspector has not found any before the war started.

What I am curious about is, what make you so sure that they have WMD?

I just thought before we go into someone's country and kill thousands of men, women and children, maybe we should have at least something to comfirm what we think Saddam has that endanger us? If this war if really about WMD, maybe the government should let us know how they arrived at the conclusion that Iraq has WMD and is endangering us PRIOR to the war?
Because you are slow I will rephrase the response for you. Saddam addmitting to having XXXX amount of Nerve gas after gulf war 1. He provided documentation and evidence of destruction of XXX amount of Nerve agent. The question is, where is the XXXX amount remaining? He said he had it, he hasn't proved he destroyed it and it didn't just evaporate. Logic dicates that we assume he still has XXXX amount of nerve agent until HE proves he destroyed it. The inspectors were not on an easter egg hunt, they were there to verify the destruction, Saddam never provided evidence of that destruction and thereby violated 1441.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,710
5
0
Ok Iraq has used missiles banned because their "allowable range as deemed by the USA" was exceeded by a slight 3%. Now how about America's usage of banned and controversial weapons?

  • Depleted Uranium Shells/Bombs

    Napalm

    Cluster Bombs

    Anti-personnel Mines
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,850
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: Alistar7
some people are so sure he doesnt, I guess they don't even understand what the inspections were about or what happened already, being aware of the facts you couldn't possibly suggest anything else.
I am not sure if he does or does not have WMD. But one fact I know, UN weapon inspector has not found any before the war started.

What I am curious about is, what make you so sure that they have WMD?

I just thought before we go into someone's country and kill thousands of men, women and children, maybe we should have at least something to comfirm what we think Saddam has that endanger us? If this war if really about WMD, maybe the government should let us know how they arrived at the conclusion that Iraq has WMD and is endangering us PRIOR to the war?
Well apparently the UN resolutions that even SADDAM HGIMSELF agreed to that required the bruden of proof to be SOLELY his is not good enough for you, instead you feel the US should have to prove this.

Have you ever read ANY of the interviews from Iraqi scientists? How their daily life was very controlled with regards to time. They were required to spend half their time, 4 hours, developing WMD and delivery systems, the rest of the time was devoted to detrmining how to HIDE them. The same story over and over from people that never worked together knew each other..

Can you possibly understand how someone who violates resolutions he agreed to 333 times might ALSO be hiding things?

If he had destroyed everything he was supposed to, all he had to do was show the UN the evidence, end of inspections, end of sanctions, he stays in power with no international oversight and with the full spending power of the 2nd larget oil reserve in the world.

So you are saying he did destroy them, must have if he doesnt have them, but he didnt keep ANY evidence, guess his own death was more appealing than the above scenario....
I asked a simple question: How do you know Iraq has WMD as you so confidently stated? And you give me all these run around about how resolutions is violated, and how he cannot prove he destroyed all.

I am not interest in debating with you if he violates the resolution because I admit I am just an ordinary Joe without expertise in interpreting international law. Maybe you are an expert, I don't know, since you so confidently declare that Iraq violated this and that when UN didn't seem to think so.

I also admitted that I don't know if Iraq has WMD or not, they may or may not. The ones Iraq couldn't accounted for may be expired/used, or maybe hidden somewhere. I don't know.

What I am wondering is, how do you know they have it? You said they have it in your statement, but now you say you don't have to prove they have it. It is two different thing. What are you saying?
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: Alistar7
some people are so sure he doesnt, I guess they don't even understand what the inspections were about or what happened already, being aware of the facts you couldn't possibly suggest anything else.
I am not sure if he does or does not have WMD. But one fact I know, UN weapon inspector has not found any before the war started.

What I am curious about is, what make you so sure that they have WMD?

I just thought before we go into someone's country and kill thousands of men, women and children, maybe we should have at least something to comfirm what we think Saddam has that endanger us? If this war if really about WMD, maybe the government should let us know how they arrived at the conclusion that Iraq has WMD and is endangering us PRIOR to the war?
Well apparently the UN resolutions that even SADDAM HGIMSELF agreed to that required the bruden of proof to be SOLELY his is not good enough for you, instead you feel the US should have to prove this.

Have you ever read ANY of the interviews from Iraqi scientists? How their daily life was very controlled with regards to time. They were required to spend half their time, 4 hours, developing WMD and delivery systems, the rest of the time was devoted to detrmining how to HIDE them. The same story over and over from people that never worked together knew each other..

Can you possibly understand how someone who violates resolutions he agreed to 333 times might ALSO be hiding things?

If he had destroyed everything he was supposed to, all he had to do was show the UN the evidence, end of inspections, end of sanctions, he stays in power with no international oversight and with the full spending power of the 2nd larget oil reserve in the world.

So you are saying he did destroy them, must have if he doesnt have them, but he didnt keep ANY evidence, guess his own death was more appealing than the above scenario....
I asked a simple question: How do you know Iraq has WMD as you so confidently stated? And you give me all these run around about how resolutions is violated, and how he cannot prove he destroyed all.

I am not interest in debating with you if he violates the resolution because I admit I am just an ordinary Joe without expertise in interpreting international law. Maybe you are an expert, I don't know, since you so confidently declare that Iraq violated this and that when UN didn't seem to think so.

I also admitted that I don't know if Iraq has WMD or not, they may or may not. The ones Iraq couldn't accounted for may be expired/used, or maybe hidden somewhere. I don't know.

What I am wondering is, how do you know they have it? You said they have it in your statement, but now you say you don't have to prove they have it. It is two different thing. What are you saying?
By using LOGIC, if he did not have them anymore and could prove it, there wouldnt have been any more inspections, sanctions, he would have been released from oversight and remained in power.
Why wouldn't he prove he didnt have them after agreeing to, when in doing so he would have walked away scot free? Why get rid of them (fully complying to the UN) but not save the evidence?

"I also admitted that I don't know if Iraq has WMD or not, they may or may not. The ones Iraq couldn't accounted for may be expired/used, or maybe hidden somewhere. I don't know."

The problem is THEY couldn't or WOULDN"T account for them, if they were used, where and how much, the inspectors can test the site and determine if this is true. They expired? Where is the waste? We went through this for 12 years, never a solid answer from them.


 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,850
0
0
By using LOGIC, if he did not have them anymore and could prove it, there wouldnt have been any more inspections, sanctions, he would have been released from oversight and remained in power.
Why wouldn't he prove he didnt have them after agreeing to, when in doing so he would have walked away scot free? Why get rid of them (fully complying to the UN) but not save the evidence?

"I also admitted that I don't know if Iraq has WMD or not, they may or may not. The ones Iraq couldn't accounted for may be expired/used, or maybe hidden somewhere. I don't know."

The problem is THEY couldn't or WOULDN"T account for them, if they were used, where and how much, the inspectors can test the site and determine if this is true. They expired? Where is the waste? We went through this for 12 years, never a solid answer from them.
OK, so you are still at the stage of "you think" they have it? Because by definition of by using LOGIC, you are thinking.

All I am asking is if you know for a fact that Iraq has WMD. I haven't got a straight answer yet, so I am assuming you don't?

So do you know Iraq has WMD, or do you think Iraq has WMD?
 

NesuD

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,999
106
106
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
Actually that Seersucker missle they shot into kuwait city was also a banned weapon which was not declared to the UN or ever found by the inspectors so i doubt very much that they were in the process of destroying much of anything.
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
0
0
Originally posted by: rchiu
By using LOGIC, if he did not have them anymore and could prove it, there wouldnt have been any more inspections, sanctions, he would have been released from oversight and remained in power.
Why wouldn't he prove he didnt have them after agreeing to, when in doing so he would have walked away scot free? Why get rid of them (fully complying to the UN) but not save the evidence?

"I also admitted that I don't know if Iraq has WMD or not, they may or may not. The ones Iraq couldn't accounted for may be expired/used, or maybe hidden somewhere. I don't know."

The problem is THEY couldn't or WOULDN"T account for them, if they were used, where and how much, the inspectors can test the site and determine if this is true. They expired? Where is the waste? We went through this for 12 years, never a solid answer from them.
OK, so you are still at the stage of "you think" they have it? Because by definition of by using LOGIC, you are thinking.

All I am asking is if you know for a fact that Iraq has WMD. I haven't got a straight answer yet, so I am assuming you don't?

So do you know Iraq has WMD, or do you think Iraq has WMD?
Get it through your head. Nobody has to prove that Saddam has WMD. Saddam has to prove he doesn't have them by accounting for all the WMD he had and possible still has. If he can't then it is reasonable to assume he still has them.
 

Morph

Banned
Oct 14, 1999
747
0
0
Forgetting about arguing with Alistar. He only hears what he wants to hear.

He continues to argue that because Saddam's regime has used chemical weapons in the past and admitted to once manufacturing anthrax, that this is sufficient proof that these WMD still exist. He continues to insist these things even though so many have pointed out to him how grossly flawed this logic is. Let me say it again, AListar:

Just because these WMD are known to have existed in the past, that does not necessarily mean that they exist at present.
It may be highly probable that they exist. You might say that the chances are 99.9% that they exist, if that's your opinion, but you cannot state it with 100% certainty until they are actually found.

I know you are smart enough to understand this, so please stop allowing your mind to be clouded with emotion.
 

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
0
0
I must admit, I am surprised that WMD's have not been used yet.



But this party aint over 'till the fat lady sings. ;)
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,850
0
0
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: rchiu
By using LOGIC, if he did not have them anymore and could prove it, there wouldnt have been any more inspections, sanctions, he would have been released from oversight and remained in power.
Why wouldn't he prove he didnt have them after agreeing to, when in doing so he would have walked away scot free? Why get rid of them (fully complying to the UN) but not save the evidence?

"I also admitted that I don't know if Iraq has WMD or not, they may or may not. The ones Iraq couldn't accounted for may be expired/used, or maybe hidden somewhere. I don't know."

The problem is THEY couldn't or WOULDN"T account for them, if they were used, where and how much, the inspectors can test the site and determine if this is true. They expired? Where is the waste? We went through this for 12 years, never a solid answer from them.
OK, so you are still at the stage of "you think" they have it? Because by definition of by using LOGIC, you are thinking.

All I am asking is if you know for a fact that Iraq has WMD. I haven't got a straight answer yet, so I am assuming you don't?

So do you know Iraq has WMD, or do you think Iraq has WMD?
Get it through your head. Nobody has to prove that Saddam has WMD. Saddam has to prove he doesn't have them by accounting for all the WMD he had and possible still has. If he can't then it is reasonable to assume he still has them.
I am not trying to debate if Saddam violates 1441, or what he needs or do not needs to prove.

All I want to establish is one simple fact. Nobady knows or confirms Iraq has banned weapon. I am not asking for assumption, opinion or what you think. I am only asking for fact and what you KNOW FOR SURE. Is that so hard to understand, or so hard to admit that this war is based on assumption?

Oh and if you want to debate if Saddam violates 1441, I don't think you or I are qualified to interpret what 1441 is about and if Iraq violates it. Last time I checked, 1441 stated the security council and only the security council, not you or US or UK has the power to determine if Iraq violates 1441. And the last time I checked, the security council did not determine that Iraq violated the resolution.
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,159
0
0
Originally posted by: lozina
Ok Iraq has used missiles banned because their "allowable range as deemed by the USA" was exceeded by a slight 3%. Now how about America's usage of banned and controversial weapons?

  • Depleted Uranium Shells/Bombs

    Napalm

    Cluster Bombs

    Anti-personnel Mines
1. The range limitation was imposed by the UN, not the United States.

2. Which of those are banned?

3. The U.S. does not use napalm.

4. U.S. mines, both anti-personnel and anti-tank, are designed to render themselves harmless after a certain period of time, quite unlike the millions of mines which Iraq has placed.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: Morph
Forgetting about arguing with Alistar. He only hears what he wants to hear.

He continues to argue that because Saddam's regime has used chemical weapons in the past and admitted to once manufacturing anthrax, that this is sufficient proof that these WMD still exist. He continues to insist these things even though so many have pointed out to him how grossly flawed this logic is. Let me say it again, AListar:

Just because these WMD are known to have existed in the past, that does not necessarily mean that they exist at present.
It may be highly probable that they exist. You might say that the chances are 99.9% that they exist, if that's your opinion, but you cannot state it with 100% certainty until they are actually found.

I know you are smart enough to understand this, so please stop allowing your mind to be clouded with emotion.
Morph, try to wrap your little troll brain around this fact. It was not the UN inspectors job to find banned weapons. It was Iraq's job to prove to the inspectors by full and complete cooperation that Iraq did not have any. Iraq did not do that. It was Iraq's last and final chance after twelve years of lies and deceit.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY