If WMD existed, evidence would be widespread

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

AnImuS

Senior member
Sep 28, 2001
939
0
0
Originally posted by: DukeFan21
What I don't understand is that if Iraq did not have any WMD, why did they have such a tough time allowing the inspectors to do what they wanted to, both a few months ago, and back in 1998?

Duke: Hope you read the replies to your answer. they are all lame excuses for their agenda...

Favorite one was: MoonBeam; "Iraq was afraid that if the US knew it didn't have WMD that it would attack them as per the Doctrine of the New American Century. They had to pretend casualties would be so great on the American side that we wouldn't risk invasion. Naturally, the UN weapons inspectors cleared up that fear and allowed Bush to give the go ahead. I wish I could show you the internal memo's for this, but I have to protect my sources.
"

thats just great...

Obviously he had somehting to hide. And the inspectors never would of found anything because they never had "free access" to Iraq like which the US has now...

So who knows...
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,407
8,595
126
Originally posted by: etech
BOBDN

The USA used chemical weapons in the Iraq invasion. The Iraqis stockpiled chemical weapon suits and geiger counters to fend off the US attack.

What have you been smoking boy?

well technically conventional bombs use a chemical reaction to release energy, just as nuclear bombs use a nuclear reaction to release energy. so, in that sense, a conventional bomb is a chemical weapon just as a nuclear bomb is a nuclear weapon ;)
 

DukeFan21

Senior member
Jan 15, 2002
948
0
0
Yeah...it doesn't make much sense. I know Hussein was an ego freak, but I think that he would rather save his regime than lose it. He could've simply shown where the WMD were, or if he had none, hand of the records of their disposal.
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
I'm also quite surprised no WMD bombshell (literally) has been discovered by now. Given the concreteness of Bush and Powell's claims intel you'd think at least one weapons cache would have made news by now. Still, it's too early to count anything out, on that I agree.

But how long should we wait to find them? On the order of months? Perhaps a year or more? Ten years? I suppose the cynic in me says until 2004 or 2008. By then even if nothing is discovered, Americans will have long forgotten Iraq especially since the major media will have all but stopped covering it. In fact I would imagine the entire R party will be safe from political damage by then...and quite a few Ds voted for war as well and might not want that wound re-opened so they conveniently may forget to remind us of any treachery.

Post 2008, even with foul play suspected, I guarantee you if Bush ends his final term naturally, the next R or D President will not investigate him. The press secretary will deflect all questioning and say, "we're looking foward, not backward".

So again while it's too early to rule anything we need a due date on this assignment, given the WMD angle was the main rationale for invasion.
 

skylark

Senior member
Feb 24, 2001
798
0
0
Originally posted by: etech
Did you ever consider Saddam runs Iraq like an iron fist?

Not any more.


Hmm.. Consider the possibility that top policymakers don't always make decisions on sound reasons and observations. Mr. Bush is more of a pathocentric leading the soapbox.



 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
I have a couple of thoughts on why Sadaam gave the inspectors a hard time even if he didn't have anything. One is that to remain an influence in the eyes of the Arab world he could not be seen to have wussed out and caved in to the demands of the West. Screwing around with the inspectors was the equivalent of hauling his balls around in a wheelbarrow. It was probably also a play that he might be a very dangerous opponent and no one would try to overthrow him or invade Iraq. He may also have enjoyed tweaking Bush's nose knowing that he could count on enough opposition in the U.N. to any request by Bush for military action.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: etech
BOBDN

The USA used chemical weapons in the Iraq invasion. The Iraqis stockpiled chemical weapon suits and geiger counters to fend off the US attack.

What have you been smoking boy?

There ain't no boys here son.

I'm paraphrasing the statement of doctors and nurses from hospitals where chemical suits were found.

The US did use chemical weapons in the Iraq invasion. Bush and Co. referred to them as crowd control agents. The UN refers to them as chemical weapons because that's what they are.

No one, including the links that jackschmittusa supplied has proven that any form of chemical was used by Allied troops in Iraq.

as for this,

I'm paraphrasing the statement of doctors and nurses from hospitals where chemical suits were found.

provide the link or where you got that "information".

Can't find the original story. It was in major newspapers after Baghdad fell. The US used chemical crowd control agents that the UN lists as chemical weapons. Here is another link with an interesting insight into conventional weapons which use radioactive material (Uranium 238) with a half life of 4.46 billion years. These are the so called "bunker buster" bombs and armor piercing shells the US used all over Iraq and very heavily in Baghdad, a city of 5 million people. It's our own little dirty bomb secret.

Link

NATURAL SELECTIONS

DEPLETED-URANIUM AMMO
Radioactive fallout courtesy of U.S.

By ROWAN HOOPER

In 1789, a German chemist, Martin Heinrich Klaproth, announced that he had discovered a new element in the dull black mineral pitchblende. He named it after the planet Uranus, itself discovered only eight years earlier.
Little interest was shown in uranium for more than 100 years, until in 1896 the French physicist Antoine Becquerel found that it caused a sealed photographic plate to become exposed, a phenomenon that Marie Curie, a young doctoral student from Poland working in Paris, named "radioactivity."

Curie found that pitchblende contained two further new elements. Working with her husband, Pierre, the Curies announced the discovery of polonium in 1898 ("from the name," they wrote in their paper, "of the original country of one of us."). Showing dedication to match anything seen in science, the Curies spent a further four years isolating another new, radioactive element from pitchblende: radium. But it was the element discovered by Klaproth, the dense metal uranium, that would become the most sought after and have the greatest historical impact.

The uranium found naturally in pitchblende is in two forms: uranium-235 and uranium-238 (the different numbers refer to the number of neutrons in each atom). Uranium-235 is far more radioactive. It is the one that the governments of the United States and Germany raced to extract during World War II, and is the one that was used to make the nuclear bombs that were dropped on Japan. It's what fuels nuclear power stations and what terrorists around the world would love to get their hands on. When the metal is composed of mainly uranium-235, it is said to be "enriched."

The other isotope, uranium-238, is what is left over, and is known as "depleted" uranium (though it still contains small amounts of uranium-235).

Despite its derogatory-sounding name, depleted uranium is no namby-pamby element. It is nearly 2.5 times more dense than steel and 1.7 times more dense than lead. It is this immense hardness that makes it attractive to the military: Shells tipped with uranium make short work of Iraqi tanks.

But its use is controversial. On impact, the uranium tips of shells disintegrate and ignite. DU shrapnel becomes embedded in anything nearby: people, buildings, soil; uranium oxide dust is spread into the air. The bombs dropped on a restaurant in Baghdad where Saddam Hussein was thought to be contained several tons of DU.

In the first Gulf War, in 1991, the U.S. and Britain fired around 350 tons of DU at Iraqi tanks. This time around, an estimated 1,000 to 2,000 tons has been used. But since 1991 there has been an increase in cancers and birth defects in Iraq, and many doctors put the blame on DU-contaminated farmland.

There is also a growing suspicion among scientists that DU is more dangerous than it would appear to be in theory. DU is only weakly radioactive, but it is genotoxic, meaning that it chemically damages DNA, and it causes genes to be switched on that shouldn't be. DU dust that is inhaled increases the danger from radiation. The chemical toxicity combined with radioactivity might be the reason for the rise in cancers in Iraq.

A recent study on the possible effects of DU by The Royal Society, the U.K. national academy of science, concluded: " There is a possibility of damage to DNA due to the chemical effects being enhanced by the effects of the alpha-particle irradiation."

The report also stated that some soldiers might suffer kidney damage and an increased risk of lung cancer if they breathe in substantial amounts of DU dust.

Last month the British defense secretary, Geoff Hoon, denied that DU was a health risk, but last week The Royal Society challenged that view and urged the Ministry of Defense to publish details of where and how much DU was used.

"It is highly unsatisfactory to deploy a large amount of a material that is weakly radioactive and chemically toxic without knowing how much soldiers and civilians have been exposed to it," said Brian Spratt, chairman of the society's working group on DU.

"It is only by measuring the levels of DU in the urine of soldiers that we can understand the intakes of DU that occur on the battlefield, which is a requirement for a better assessment of any hazards to health. It is vital that this monitoring takes place and that it takes place within a matter of months."

The Royal Society recommended that milk and water samples in Iraq should be monitored for DU.

"The question of who carries out the initial monitoring and clean-up is a political rather than scientific question," Spratt said. "Monitoring, however, is likely to be a long-term task, spanning many years, so it is vital that Iraq acquires the capabilities to undertake this itself.

"The coalition needs to acknowledge that depleted uranium is a potential hazard and make inroads into tackling it by being open about where and how much depleted uranium has been deployed."

Spratt added: "We also need to know the exposures of Iraqis living in any residential areas where DU munitions were deployed. We believe that exposures to DU will be low for most individuals, but we need to take measurements.

"Fragments of DU penetrators are potentially hazardous, and a recent Royal Society study recommended that they should be removed, and areas of contamination around impact sites identified, and where necessary made safe."

Uranium-238 has a half-life of 4.46 billion years. This isn't a problem that's going to go away soon.

Rowan Hooper welcomes comments at rowan.hooper@tcd.ie

The Japan Times: May 1, 2003

 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
3
0
yes but who is saying they actually did use them in iraq. that's what you have the onus of proving. I said myself they were wanting to change rules to allow it. furthermore there is the debate on if they did use it, was it during warfare or post-war law enforcement, under which it is allowed.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Lucky
yes but who is saying they actually did use them in iraq. that's what you have the onus of proving. I said myself they were wanting to change rules to allow it. furthermore there is the debate on if they did use it, was it during warfare or post-war law enforcement, under which it is allowed.

The US has been destabilizing the chemical weapons ban by stretching the limits. One limit they stretched was the claim that these weapons can be used in law enforcement situations - BUT ONLY IN OUR OWN COUNTRY FOR OUR OWN LAW ENFORCEMENT - NEVER AGAINST A FOREIGN POWER.

Real heartening to know they can use these agents against us - or have used them and will continue.
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
3
0
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Lucky
yes but who is saying they actually did use them in iraq. that's what you have the onus of proving. I said myself they were wanting to change rules to allow it. furthermore there is the debate on if they did use it, was it during warfare or post-war law enforcement, under which it is allowed.

The US has been destabilizing the chemical weapons ban by stretching the limits. One limit they stretched was the claim that these weapons can be used in law enforcement situations - BUT ONLY IN OUR OWN COUNTRY FOR OUR OWN LAW ENFORCEMENT - NEVER AGAINST A FOREIGN POWER.

Real heartening to know they can use these agents against us - or have used them and will continue.




Your argument is tenous as best, that issue has not been fully resolved until a meeting at the Hague (later this year?) Also questionable is what exact state our army is at right now-war against a foreign power or peacekeeping and quelling rebellion?
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Even if postwar, it assumes that our army constitutes a legal police authority and it is peacetime.

And by whose authority do we constitute the legal police authority in Iraq? The UN?

The invasion was purported to be necessary to end an imminent threat from Iraq regarding NBC (nuclear, chemical, biological) weapons. It is becoming apparent there were none of these weapons in Iraq and our intelligence community knew it. So did Bush.

So along with duping the American public Bush and Co. have conducted an illegal military operation during which thousands of innocent civilians were murdered. How can we now declare "peacetime" and move on to becoming a "police authority" using chemical weapons for crowd control that are banned by international convention and which Bush claimed Hussein had and used for a motive to begin his invasion in the first place?

We are now in the position of using the same agents we accused Hussein of having. And what of the Uranium 238 shells and bombs? Do you have any opinion on their use?
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Lucky
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Lucky
yes but who is saying they actually did use them in iraq. that's what you have the onus of proving. I said myself they were wanting to change rules to allow it. furthermore there is the debate on if they did use it, was it during warfare or post-war law enforcement, under which it is allowed.

The US has been destabilizing the chemical weapons ban by stretching the limits. One limit they stretched was the claim that these weapons can be used in law enforcement situations - BUT ONLY IN OUR OWN COUNTRY FOR OUR OWN LAW ENFORCEMENT - NEVER AGAINST A FOREIGN POWER.

Real heartening to know they can use these agents against us - or have used them and will continue.



Your argument is tenous as best, that issue has not been fully resolved until a meeting at the Hague (later this year?) Also questionable is what exact state our army is at right now-war against a foreign power or peacekeeping and quelling rebellion?

How can we be quelling a rebellion? It's their country. We are the invaders - and invaded under false pretences.




 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
3
0
I wont argue the wider issues of whether the war was right or wrong. I'm just arguing the finer points of crowd control chemical agents, which AFAIK have not been used.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Lucky
I wont argue the wider issues of whether the war was right or wrong. I'm just arguing the finer points of crowd control chemical agents, which AFAIK have not been used.

They have been used in the past and I read the reports of their use in Iraq. I'll find some link - probably long before Bush finds any WMD.