Following Iraq's bioweapons trail

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

Here is what I truely believe.

Iraq had WMD's which were moved out of the country and burried at locations to still be found throughout the country (you can hide anything there and it will never be found). Captured Iraqi Generals have even stated that the WMD's were moved to Syria just prior to the invasion.

I dont think the ammount of WMD's was as much as we thought before the war started and I believe that most of it was of deteriorated state and would not have worked anyway.

But he still had them. If there were none then there would not have been a need for the Chem units that were found, the chem protective gear that had been used along with the atropine injectors that had been used.

That being said, he did have them and even if he did not he led the world to believe that he did.

Click to expand...

And with that said, you didn't need to be a chemical engineer or scientist to figure it all out!!

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

Here is what I truely believe.

Iraq had WMD's which were moved out of the country and burried at locations to still be found throughout the country (you can hide anything there and it will never be found). Captured Iraqi Generals have even stated that the WMD's were moved to Syria just prior to the invasion.

I dont think the ammount of WMD's was as much as we thought before the war started and I believe that most of it was of deteriorated state and would not have worked anyway.

But he still had them. If there were none then there would not have been a need for the Chem units that were found, the chem protective gear that had been used along with the atropine injectors that had been used.

That being said, he did have them and even if he did not he led the world to believe that he did.

Click to expand...

I agree with you fully. That was what I was trying to get at with my post earlier - saying that because the anticipated number has not been found, does not mean they never existed...

You can believe what you want, fine by me, but it seems a bit of a weak case.
You found some degraded leftovers and you conclude that there's more to be found.
You don't find what you want so you assume it has been smuggled out of the country.
You find some suits so you assume they had WMDs ready.

That's like finding a coin in your backyard and conluding there's a treasure under your house...
Kris

As a third neutral party....I thought that was funny post.

Civettone said:

You can believe what you want, fine by me, but it seems a bit of a weak case.
You found some degraded leftovers and you conclude that there's more to be found.
You don't find what you want so you assume it has been smuggled out of the country.
You find some suits so you assume they had WMDs ready.

That's like finding a coin in your backyard and conluding there's a treasure under your house...
Kris

Click to expand...

Kris, at the start of the whole mess the ground rules for Iraq was NO WMDs. They were supposed to remove ALL of them, and as stated they did retain several Skuds that were used at the start of the war. Again, if they had one or 100 WMDs they were in violation.

Take all the circumstantial evidence and real evidence and it shows there were WMDs there.

If Saddam Hussein fully complied he'd still be in power today; raping, pillaging, and murdering members of his sports teams for not winning medals in international competitions...

Civettone said:

You can believe what you want, fine by me, but it seems a bit of a weak case.
You found some degraded leftovers and you conclude that there's more to be found.
You don't find what you want so you assume it has been smuggled out of the country.
You find some suits so you assume they had WMDs ready.

That's like finding a coin in your backyard and conluding there's a treasure under your house...
Kris

Click to expand...

No it is not weak at all. You have not provided anything that proves that there were none at all, absolutely none at all. You dont know that there were none.

The only thing I can tell you is this. Get out of your safe environment go to Iraq and see it for yourself...

Adler, were those atropine injectors found together with the mustard gas you guys found? Could it have been that those injectors dated back from the 80s? Could it have been that the mustard gas was no longer active? You said those experts identified them as mustard gas. Does that mean they hadn't degraded yet?



90 to 95% of the plants which produced WMDs were taken out of action by 1998. Now this doesn't mean that those 5 to 10% is still working. Making WMDs is a complex affair and needs a large infrastructure. Several plants need to work to make others work. Just imagine destroying 90% of the factories in the US. Not one factory would still be working as one of their subcontractors would surely be out of action. Another option is restructuring the industry but reports later showed that this did not change, no flow in scientists from one sector to another.
I don't see anyone claiming that Iraq still had the capbility to produce so I'm not going to go on about this.

Iraq did not tell the UN all what it destroyed. Later investigations showed that Iraq had destroyed weapons and material without telling this to the UN. 90 to 95% of the WMDs on the list were accounted for.

As production was discontinued before 1998, those few WMDs unaccounted for would have become degraded.

These are facts. You may have your own opinion and your own theories but please start from facts.
Kris

Civettone said:

Adler, were those atropine injectors found together with the mustard gas you guys found? Could it have been that those injectors dated back from the 80s? Could it have been that the mustard gas was no longer active? You said those experts identified them as mustard gas. Does that mean they hadn't degraded yet?

Click to expand...

I can not tell you dates or anything. I did not touch the stuff or pick any of it up. I do have a Iraqi helmet that I picked up from the bunch though!

Civettone said:

90 to 95% of the plants which produced WMDs were taken out of action by 1998. Now this doesn't mean that those 5 to 10% is still working. Making WMDs is a complex affair and needs a large infrastructure. Several plants need to work to make others work. Just imagine destroying 90% of the factories in the US. Not one factory would still be working as one of their subcontractors would surely be out of action. Another option is restructuring the industry but reports later showed that this did not change, no flow in scientists from one sector to another.
I don't see anyone claiming that Iraq still had the capbility to produce so I'm not going to go on about this.

Iraq did not tell the UN all what it destroyed. Later investigations showed that Iraq had destroyed weapons and material without telling this to the UN. 90 to 95% of the WMDs on the list were accounted for.

As production was discontinued before 1998, those few WMDs unaccounted for would have become degraded.

These are facts. You may have your own opinion and your own theories but please start from facts.
Kris

Click to expand...

And were do you get these facts from because I think it is hogwash. Iraq did not get rid of all of there WMD's and that is something that you can not prove.

The things that have been found by varying units that have served there is Fact, you can start with the facts.

I am sorry but I honestly think you are blind to the truth because of your liberal agenda. I honestly dont care if he had WMDs or not. The man had to go and I supported the war from the beginning and I support ever last soldier that has to go there, so I dont care if he had them or not. If someone can prove to me that he had no WMDs and that everything I saw and everything that everyone else has seen is just a figment of there imagination then so be it. I honestly am not biased. I dont care for Bush or any of the politicians as a matter of fact, so it would not hurt my feelings. I am open to whatever the truth is, but Iraq did have WMDs....

Discussion over for me because this is going know where....

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

Discussion over for me because this is going know where....

Click to expand...

.

Okay the poll that I started in the wrong thread is now in this thread. This poll is just to get peoples opinions, please vote.

Done

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

I honestly dont care if he had WMDs or not. The man had to go and I supported the war from the beginning and I support ever last soldier that has to go there, so I dont care if he had them or not

Click to expand...

Fair enough. But that's why you went for war, not to remove Saddam Hussein. That's the reason why so few countries supported the war because it was based on wrong reasons: Iraq did not have a WMD capability.

These facts come from official UNSCOM and IAEA reports.

I'm also disappointed Adler that you claim you've seen so much yet you don't know any details. You had me thinking those were still active WMDs but it could just as well have been degraded mustard gas. That my friend is no longer a WMD.

Also your claim of those atropine injectors means nothing. You base huge conclusions on things which could well have dated from the 80s when we all know Saddam had WMDs.

And you call me a liberal though you don't know a damn thing about my political stand or the party I vote for.

Kris

edit: fixed the quote, apology to Matt.

And that's not my quote, Civvy.

Civettone said:

Fair enough. But that's why you went for war, not to remove Saddam Hussein. That's the reason why so few countries supported the war because it was based on wrong reasons: Iraq did not have a WMD capability.

These facts come from official UNSCOM and IAEA reports.

I'm also disappointed Adler that you claim you've seen so much yet you don't know any details. You had me thinking those were still active WMDs but it could just as well have been degraded mustard gas. That my friend is no longer a WMD.

Also your claim of those atropine injectors means nothing. You base huge conclusions on things which could well have dated from the 80s when we all know Saddam had WMDs.

And you call me a liberal though you don't know a damn thing about my political stand or the party I vote for.

Kris

Click to expand...

A big part for me is not whether he had them or not.

But it was thought he did have them or might have them. UN sent in inspectors and he kicked them out or refused them access to certain areas. That strongly suggests that he did have them, again whether he did or not does not matter, he acted like he did have them.

So USA acted to protect itself and the countries around Iraq, and to protect Israel, and to protect Saddam's people.

Kris you have to admit he acted guilty as hell, where there is smoke....most times there is fire.

Saddam has to hold a lot of the blame for his country being invaded.....even if he had no WMD.

Hunter368 said:

A big part for me is not whether he had them or not.

But it was thought he did have them or might have them. UN sent in inspectors and he kicked them out or refused them access to certain areas. That strongly suggests that he did have them, again whether he did or not does not matter, he acted like he did have them.

So USA acted to protect itself and the countries around Iraq, and to protect Israel, and to protect Saddam's people.

Kris you have to admit he acted guilty as hell, where there is smoke....most times there is fire.

Saddam has to hold a lot of the blame for his country being invaded.....even if he had no WMD.

Click to expand...

BINGO!!!!

"It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers. In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these journalists/geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late. Accordingly, I'm readily willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects and I'll in turn, do my best for the cause by writing editorials....after the fact."




Robert E. Lee, 1863

This ranting is not directed at anybody, and is slightly off topic. One of the big things that absolutely shocks me is that many act as if Saddam Hussein was a decent leader, out there trying to improve the lot of his people in this world. They talk about how we violated Iraq's national sovereignty and international law - what about the right of human beings to live without being exterminated??? You can disagree with the whole NBC reasoning for the war, and that's fine. I don't see how you can oppose the war on moral grounds. How can you say it is moral to leave a regime in power that exterminates, rapes, etc their own people??? That is a question that I never receive an answer from those that oppose the war. Many of the former fiece European nations lack the testosterone to stand and fight for anything, this pacifist attitude is insidiously infecting America. I'm not saying the US had purely altruistic motives in this - that was a major reason, though. And the increased casualties that have occured since the invasion is not a valid argument in my opinion - if the Iraqi gov't gassed, raped, and terrorized the population like the baathists did, the situation may be different. We may not have the power to stop all evil regimes, but that doesn't mean you don't try to do what you can, so I don't want to hear why American troops aren't clamping down on Darfur. Call me crazy, but I have been raised to believe that if you see evil being done, it is YOUR responsibility to stop it...

Wonder who will respond to that? Hmmm

UN sent in inspectors and he kicked them out or refused them access to certain areas. That strongly suggests that he did have them, again whether he did or not does not matter, he acted like he did have them.

Click to expand...

That's a good remark Hunter and I'm glad you mentioned it.
Saddam and Iraqi authorities tried to cover up as much as they could. It's a dictatorship and that bastard had a whole lot more to cover up than his WMDs. I also suspect he felt it was necessary to take a stand against the West, not making it too easy on them.
Be that as it may, the UN reports back in 1998 were quite clear. Saddam did not have a WMD capability. The US and UK chose to disregard this and demanded a new UNSCOM team. This didn't give them what they wanted either. The US/UK said they would go through the UN Security Council. When this didn't give them the authorisation they still went at it alone. That suggests that no matter what, they would have gone to war. It was simply impossible for the Iraqis to account for everything: like I said, much was destroyed without them telling the UN, or was dumped once it was degraded.

Now that link Njaco posted makes a lot of sense: nearly one of every 25 weapons the U.S. military bought for Iraqi security forces is missing. Njaco, if you read this, it took a while but now I get your point.

But let's take a look at those weapon inspections. UNSCOM was doing a good job but when it wasn't delivering the results the US was hoping for, the team was changed. This started with that row about the presidential palaces where the US believed the Iraqis were producing WMDs. Remember that? Saddam refused - like I said, because he didn't want to show anything more than needed - and this almost lead to new attacks. Saddam gave in and when UNSCOM tested for nuclear and chemical weapons, they found nothing. Dick Spertzel, head of the biological inspection team, declared that they never expected to find those weapons but that he didn't want to give the Iraqis the "benefit of a negative result". Can you imagine that? That's deliberately looking for framing the Iraqis instead of giving a objective analysis. Spertzel was a protegee of ... Richard Butler who took over UNSCOM in 1998. Butler was chosen by the US do protect their interests. The history and viewpoints of Butler were well known so it's a bit strange to have him head UNSCOM. He replaced Elkeus who had an arrangement with the Iraqis to have full clearance in exchange for a limited number of inspectors. But Butler one day simply showed up at the Ba'ath headquarters and demanded full clearance. The Iraqis allowed 4 inspectors to enter, then gave in to allow 6, but Butler wanted complete access to all archives of the Ba'ath party. So he called the US ambassadar at the UN! who gave him clearance to pull back the UN inspectors.
You simply don't change rules without warning. So Butler deliberately provoked the Iraqis knowing very very well that they would not allow the full team as this was a part of the agreement with UNSCOM. Two days later Iraq was bombed which ended any chance of bringing the inspectors back.

I'm not trying to turn things around and making the Americans the bad guys and the Iraqis the good ones, but I hope my story gives a bit of a different insight in pulling back those inspection teams.

Kris

mkloby said:

This ranting is not directed at anybody, and is slightly off topic. One of the big things that absolutely shocks me is that many act as if Saddam Hussein was a decent leader, out there trying to improve the lot of his people in this world. They talk about how we violated Iraq's national sovereignty and international law - what about the right of human beings to live without being exterminated??? You can disagree with the whole NBC reasoning for the war, and that's fine. I don't see how you can oppose the war on moral grounds. How can you say it is moral to leave a regime in power that exterminates, rapes, etc their own people??? That is a question that I never receive an answer from those that oppose the war.

Click to expand...

It is indeed slightly off-topic as I'm only approaching this war from a legal point of view.

I suppose those who oppose the war believe that war is not the answer, and that Iraq should free itself. That invading Iraq would probably lead to more problems and that one cannot force a regime change upon a people. Perhaps some were already seeing a civil war happening with the Iraqis fighting each other. Some also saw muslim fundamentalism rising in other muslim countries as a result of American interference.

I don't naturally agree with this but I do wonder this: Why Saddam? There are dozens of cruel dicators around? Why Iraq? Why Saddam? Why isn't the US doing anything in Sudan? Why not North Korea?
Kris