• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Since no WMDs were found the justification for attacking quickly reverted to Saddam being such an evil person and we were freeing the Iraqi people. So why aren't we invading the Sudan and countless other countries where people are killed by the hundreds of thousands, making Saddam look like an amature at such endeavors. Oh, I forgot, none of those countries have oil or any other natural resources that would interest the Bush regime.
 
Originally posted by: glenn1

Actually, token quantities of extremely old and abandoned weapons have been found, like the shell with Sarin used in the improvised explosive device that Conjur referred to. But for all practical purposes and to any reasonable person, saying "no" is accurate enough.

Agreed.
 
Are you telling me that you don't even surf the net for news or have yahoo's front page or any other major website with some form of news links bookmarked or set as your home page ?
 
Originally posted by: NetGuySC
Still waiting for the verification of destruction of Husseins declared WMD's, until he does I could care less if we find anything ... if their destruction cannot be verified then they did not get destroyed ... enough reason to invade for me.

Bush in 2004

I agree.. Fully.

17 Resolutions later.
 
Originally posted by: NetGuySC
Still waiting for the verification of destruction of Husseins declared WMD's, until he does I could care less if we find anything ... if their destruction cannot be verified then they did not get destroyed ... enough reason to invade for me.

Bush in 2004

Interesting logic you have there. If they can't verify they were destroyed, then they weren't? If they were destroyed back after the Gulf war, and it wasn't verified properly then, how would they go about verifying it now?

Think of it this way. I have a glass, I am ordered to break it. The proper way to do this is to break the glass, then have someone verify the glass is broken, then dispose of it. Let's say I skip the verification step for whatever reason, how would I prove it later if the pieces were disposed of long ago?

Just because they weren't destroyed in the proper manner (verified by the inspectors), that does not mean it was never done.
 
Winston,
Here is a chance to say 'YUP'... heheheheh

We went to war not only because it was alleged that Iraq had WMD but that they also had the delivery systems necessary to attack the US or its possessions AND that Iraq having both of these conditions met were in the posture of launching this attack - the immanent attack on the US as required under Article 51 of the UN Charter which we finally settled on as the basis for the invasion.
 
Well, I know this is going to be flamed, to death, by the hordes of angry Liberals on this board...but last I checked this is America and should be able to say my piece against the will of the masses without being too grossly persecuted. So here I go.......

Saddam undoubtedly had WMD in '91. This is known.

After the Gulf War, the U.N. enforced sanctions against any future WMD activities. This is known....something like 18 different times in all, if I'm not mistaken.

'96 the head of Saddams WMD program, Camel (sp?), helped inspectors find illegal stockpiles of weapons that Saddam denied having. More sanctions were levied, inspections increased, and by the end of it all Qusay, Saddam?s son, had Camel's head on a golden plate for treason. Qusay begins to take over Camels duties.

97-98 Saddam played cat and mouse and kicked the inspectors out of his country.

Current American president, Bill Clinton, along with the U.N. decided to validate force against Saddam for yet again violating his obligations.

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

Bombings commenced.

More U.N. sanctions were levied.

Qusay still leads Saddams military programs.

Inspectors begin inspecting, again?..

One?..

Two?.

Skip a few??.(numerous American targets attacked by terrorists)

1999- Saddam defies U.N. sanctions, again, by creating Al Summod II missiles, which surpassed his allotted distance quota.

2001---WTC attacked, again, but this time successful in killing thousands of Americans. (not by Saddam's doing apparently)

Either way, panick commences..............

War on terror begins...................

Somewhere on the way to Afghanistan Iraq gets brought up, again.............


"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

Operation ?Enduring Freedom? commences?????

One year later partisan bickering and hindsight 50/50 initiated?????

Now the country is divided like some type of Super Bowl sporting event????

Mockery thoroughly confused.

For any info on Iraq WMD profiles please visit http://www.iraqwatch.org

Thank you
 
Originally posted by: sapiens74
Btw a sarin filled shell was fired as our troops and 2 soldiers were treated for exposure.

The exposure was self-inflicted.. it happened when WE tried to defuse it and were not successful.

And the shell pre-dated the the first gulf war and was used during the Iran-Iraq war... Gen. Kimmett said he believed the insurgents who planted the 155mm shell did not know it contained any nerve agents.
 
I am curious to know how many countries have actually started producing WMD's because they think GWB is unstable and they need to better defend themselves?
 
it's been over a year now... surely enough time for the fearless leader GWB to 'arrange' some WMD's to be found ... or wait - isn't there an election coming up soon?
 
After all this debating, the real answer is NO we didn't find anything. A few shells with gas in them or whatever do NOT count as WMD.

But either way the incredible intelligence failure (negligence?) before the war is well documented and only the ignorant or willfully blind (see: NetGuySC) will be able to overlook this fact in November.
 
Originally posted by: conehead433
Since no WMDs were found the justification for attacking quickly reverted to Saddam being such an evil person and we were freeing the Iraqi people. So why aren't we invading the Sudan and countless other countries where people are killed by the hundreds of thousands, making Saddam look like an amature at such endeavors. Oh, I forgot, none of those countries have oil or any other natural resources that would interest the Bush regime.

No, your memory seems to be faulty, in both of Bush speeches to US citizens right before the conflict the freedom of the Iraqi people was a main point as was the connection to terrorism. He neglected to mention Putin had given him intel that Saddam was planning terrorist attacks on US soil and interests globally, but you would dismiss that anyway. You might want to look at the numbers from the Sudan compared to Saddams reign, he is surely no trainee in the mass murder department.

Don't forget Saddam accepted the burden of proof you are trying to shift on the US, where's the evidence of full compliance he was required to provide? That must have gotten mixed up in all the checks flowing into the UN from Iraq at the time.....
 
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: conjur
Yeah! They found them!

Oh wait...that turned out to be a lone shell that caused no damage when it blew up.



OH! Then they found over a dozen more!!

Oh wait...those turned out to be empty



OH!! But there were two found then!!

Oh wait...those were found to be badly corroded and unusable as a weapon. The only threat they posed was an environmental one.

so just because it caused no damage, its not a WMD? i dont follow.

OMFG!!!! LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


OH SH!T!!! OMG!!! LOL!!!!


oh sh*t....stop....my sides!!!




Ok...whew...damn, man...I spit my drink all over the place!


Did you actually read what you wrote???

LMAO!!!!!!




because it caused no damage, its not a WMD?

😕

so if i blow up a nuke, but it doesnt kill anyone, its not a WMD? i dont see what is so funny.


If you blow up a nuke and it does less damage then a fire cracker then it sin't a WMD. Hell it isn't even a weapon.

Ahh, kinda like owning a shotgun is okay because it's not a weapon until it kills someone!
I see the connection!
 
Just because they weren't destroyed in the proper manner (verified by the inspectors), that does not mean it was never done

These were Sadam's weopons declared by Sadam after the Gulf War part I.

Sadam had millions of chances to come clean and he chose to squander those chances.

Inspectors were there to witness the destruction of these weopons, but Sadam chose to destroy some of them and just decided to not invite the inspectors?

Bottom line, I trust Bush a multitude of times more than I trust Sadam .. enough said
 
Bottom line, I trust Bush a multitude of times more than I trust Sadam .. enough said

So what if you don't trust Saddam. That should not be grounds to invade a country, while spending over 100 billion doing it. Stick to the Nascar races, they might be a little easier to understand.
 
Originally posted by: NetGuySC
Just because they weren't destroyed in the proper manner (verified by the inspectors), that does not mean it was never done

These were Sadam's weopons declared by Sadam after the Gulf War part I.

Sadam had millions of chances to come clean and he chose to squander those chances.

Inspectors were there to witness the destruction of these weopons, but Sadam chose to destroy some of them and just decided to not invite the inspectors?

Bottom line, I trust Bush a multitude of times more than I trust Sadam .. enough said



http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/12/07/iraq_declares021207

Iraq supplied 11,000 pages accounting for the weapons. We pulled inspectors out prematurely and when Saddam made gestures to leave Iraq, we decided to call any country that would habored him a terrorist state. Basically we closed the door to everything not leading to war.
 
It was never really about WMDs. If they wanted to go after WMDs, we would be in N. Korea now.

What they were really looking for was oil and a way to control the supply of it for years to come. Do you think it's coinky-dink that Libya is now one of our best buddies. They pay the fine for the Lockerbie bombing and make a couple of gestures and after 17 years of being on the USA bad list - it is now open for business!!!!

Maybe, just maybe - Shell and Exxon/Mobil should be paying the costs for this diversion. CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS don't count.
 
Back
Top