Following Iraq's bioweapons trail

Did Iraq still have WMD's?

  • Yes Iraq had WMD's

    Votes: 9 75.0%

  • No Iraq did not have WMD's

    Votes: 2 16.7%

  • Not sure but there is more to it than has been released to the public.

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • Total voters
    12

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Civ,

Let me ask you this, had Saddam let UN inspectors in without restricting their access and they found nothing....day after day.....month after month.

What grounds would have there been to invade Iraq by USA/UK? None

You think USA/UK would of invaded b/c Saddam was a brutal leader that treated his people like crap? Nope

There are many countries like that, you don't see USA/UK taking down all those goverments do you? nope

Had Saddam listened and followed 100% UN's orders then Iraq war would of not happened. It could not of b/c UK/USA would of had no grounds to stand on. Saddam must be held responsible more than anyone.

I am not saying there was WMD or not, I am not saying USA did not like the idea of having a reason to take out Saddam........but Saddam gave them that reason on a silver platter.
 
The much vaunted Iraq Study Group from 2003...
__________________________________________________

telegraph.co.uk

By David Rennie and George Jones
Last Updated: 10:49am BST 01/08/2003



The United States has found evidence of an active programme to make weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, including "truly amazing" testimony from Iraqis ordered to dupe United Nations inspectors before the war, the man leading the hunt said yesterday.

David Kay, a former UN inspector and now the CIA's leading consultant who is joint head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), offered an unprecedentedly bullish assessment of the hunt for weapons of mass destruction.

Although he called for patience, he predicted that doubters were in for a "surprise" by the time his work was done.

His 1,400-strong team of American, British and Australian experts scouring Iraq has not yet found actual biological or chemical weapons, Mr Kay told private Senate hearings in Washington. But there was mounting evidence of an active WMD programme, he said.

That evidence included documents detailing how to conceal arms plants as commercial facilities, and for restarting weapons production once the coast was clear, officials told reporters.

Leading Democratic congressmen, like many Labour MPs, have questioned pre-war claims made by President George W Bush and Tony Blair that Saddam Hussein had large arsenals of banned weapons, ready for use. Such critics have said they will not be satisfied by anything short of physical proof.

 
Hunter, you're batting a 1000!
 
Civettone said:
It is indeed slightly off-topic as I'm only approaching this war from a legal point of view.
Click to expand...
I understand where you're coming from, but that's a major fault of the UN - trying to put a legality on int'l affairs. That's just not going to happen.

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.

Civettone said:
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
Click to expand...

I always get that from people, which is why I mentioned that in the post above. The fact we are not actively involved in Darfur does not mean that we should not stop any evil. Is that a "if you can't stop all evil, why bother stopping any" type of attitude? Bush wants sanctions against Sudan for not stopping the mayhem. If it continues, who knows what will happen, or if it will escalate. God knows that the Europeans won't make a serious contribution to stopping the catastrophe. I hope I'm wrong about that, and it gets thrown in my face, but i don't think it will. They just won't fight for much of anything anymore, and will keep pinning their hopes on futile diplomacy.
 
I understand where you're coming from, but that's a major fault of the UN - trying to put a legality on int'l affairs. That's just not going to happen.
Click to expand...
That's not true Matt. You know as well as I do that the US has signed the UN Charter which requires the UN to give its consent to such a war. Also, Powell and Bush declared they would go through the UN Security Council so they definitely wanted that consent as it gives them legality like in 1991.

Sure Matt, I'm with you on this one. But why on earth all that bull on WMDs? That is the reason given by the US/UK. The humanitarian concept is all very well but you know as well as I do, that that's not what it's about. With all due respect for the US, they never cared that much for human tragedy as shown in Latin America, Africa or even Iraq when Saddam was still a good friend.
But like you said, it's slightly off-topic.

Kris
 
Such critics have said they will not be satisfied by anything short of physical proof.
Click to expand...
And right they are. You cannot go to war on unsubstantiated evidence. And in the end they were.


Let me ask you this, had Saddam let UN inspectors in without restricting their access and they found nothing....day after day.....month after month.
Click to expand...
Hunter, full cooperation by Saddam would not have mattered much as it was impossible for them to account for all WMDs. I already gave the example of Richard Butler. He was looking for a conflict and took direct orders from the US instead of from the UN.

What grounds would have there been to invade Iraq by USA/UK? None
Click to expand...
Of course. UN had to give its consent like it did in 1991. Those countries didn't believe Iraq had a WMD capability and refused to give its consent. They were proven right.

You think USA/UK would of invaded b/c Saddam was a brutal leader that treated his people like crap? Nope
Click to expand...
I agree but MKloby brought that up.

There are many countries like that, you don't see USA/UK taking down all those goverments do you? nope
Click to expand...
Like any other country, the US only think of their own national interests. They have nothing to gain in Sudan, but they do want control over Iraq.

Had Saddam listened and followed 100% UN's orders then Iraq war would of not happened.
Click to expand...
See, that's where your conclusion goes wrong. You claim the UN's orders are the norm, yet you make the US and UK the judge of that. That's a clear contradiction.

Kris
 
If they have found WMD in Iraq the WMD theory wasn't wrong. Sure there weren't the numbers we were led to believe but there were still there (I believe the rest are under the sand or in Syria but hey what do I know). As Hunter said earlier on Sadaam gave the US/UK the reasons they needed by blocking the UN inspectors rights of access (just like Iran is doing with the IAEA inspectors). If you have nothing to hide then were prevent access it just shows you with a guilty conscious and the Iraq war was the result...

Now on another note I read that North Korea was going to shut down its nuclear reactor (although the US - and me - doubt it --> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6562311.stm).

And on another tangent Iran has purportedly started enriching Uranium gas (only 1300 centrifuges though) so whether Iraq had WMD (which I believe it did) or not it not really the question anymore it is pretty much done and dusted. The big thing now is Iran and what are you going to do (or more accurately what will the Israeli's do) when Iran goes nuclear in the not to distant future...

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iran nuclear operations confirmed
 
I guess the next time we should just allow Iran or North Korea to just go and nuke a neighboring country, then its legitimate to do something.

Reminds me of a line from an old punk rock song "Funky Western Civilization."

"They hung Jesus on a cross; they put a hole in JFK,

They put Hitler in the driver's seat and looked the other way."
 
I don't think I was all too clear. Sure, there's the UN charter... but the "legality" of the whole deal was thrown out the window when the US told the UN to F itself. The UN couldn't do a thing other than protest. I don't think you can argue with that. The UN can govern the actions of a member nation ONLY if they allow them to, implicitly by giving up some aspects of their own sovereignty.



I can't explain why our gov't used the whole "wmd" angle as their just cause... but they did - at least publicly. I don't always agree with US foreign policy. However, bringing up US support of Iraq in the 80's does not help the present situation. Again - I never claimed the US had altruistic intent, but that doesn't mean that it's a defense against stopping a single injustice if you don't stop all.
 
He did have them 1991 what he did with them or how far along they were in developement I don't know . There was some indication of him possessing them in 2003 but I've never seen concrete evidence . Atropine injectors are not WMD or an indication of possessing them but indicates they were prepared for any eventuality such as Iran
 

You're right, atropine isn't NBC weapon... but would I stick myself with atropine unless I was in contact with a nerve agent... probably not... actually absolutely not...
 
mkloby said:
I don't think I was all too clear. Sure, there's the UN charter... but the "legality" of the whole deal was thrown out the window when the US told the UN to F itself.
Click to expand...
No, it's not. You're talking about a lacking compliance mechanism though this has nothing to do with making it less legal. Just look at the notions of resolutions. They usually come without a compliance segment but if you read up on international law you'll soon read that these resolutions can still be legally binding (depending on the nature of the resolution, as some just contain a warming, etc).

The UN Charter is a part of international law. That's a fact.
http://www.lcnp.org/global/Iraqstatemt.3.pdf


I can't explain why our gov't used the whole "wmd" angle as their just cause... but they did - at least publicly. I don't always agree with US foreign policy. However, bringing up US support of Iraq in the 80's does not help the present situation.
Click to expand...
I find it's a pity that they brought up WMDs. One can wonder what would have happened had they played the 'humanitarian' card.

Again - I never claimed the US had altruistic intent, but that doesn't mean that it's a defense against stopping a single injustice if you don't stop all.
Click to expand...
I agree. I'm glad the sucker's gone. And every European leader is, that's why they're supporting the rebuild of Iraq. We all want the best for Iraq even though we opposed the war. May sound hypocrit but I think it's better than just being stubborn and not helping the Iraqi people.

There was some indication of him possessing them in 2003 but I've never seen concrete evidence .
Click to expand...
There wasn't. One can say there was stuff unaccounted for and that not everything was destroyed. But it's clear that Saddam had no WMD capability anymore, especially because he wasn't able to produce any since the 90s. The stuff that can be found is very probably degraded and although probably still harmful - you don't want it in your coffee, you know? - no longer a WMD.
I have heard some stories of chemical suits and atropine injectors and old shells but so far these all appear to date from the 80s. Or am I forgetting some? Please point them out as I am not a walking inventory list.


To conclude, one can still assume that there were some WMDs left because not everything has been accounted for ,but can still pop up. But there is no more doubt that Saddam had an effective WMD capability. I personally don't see how anyone can disagree with that as Saddam didn't even use any.
It's also the conclusion of the US Iraq Survey Report with the Pentagon and the CIA behind it, the two institutions who were most desperate to find WMDs.

Kris
 
We're just talking past each other... I'm not denying the "legal" foundation of the organization. My point is, however, what good is that when you can just tell the UN to shove it and do as you please. The UN has any effect of US policy only if the US consents. Tomorrow, the US can withdraw and become a hostile party to the UN, regardless of what the charter states or what has been signed. What is the UN going to do - wave a piece of paper? You're right, it does have to do with compliance. What good are laws when there's no way to enforce compliance? That's the reality of the UN.

Pb - If I remember my briefs on it, the whole purpose of saving the injectors is so that doses can be accounted for, so as to not administer an overdose accidentally. I believe the crap can be fatal if OD'd on...
 
No arguing there...

But IIRC I brought it up as a reply to Hunter's post that Saddam did it to himself by not fully cooperating with the UN. But it's strange that the US should therefor take matters in their own hand.

It's like me having a conflict with my neighbour but willing to talk about it, while my big brother comes over to beat the crap out of him

Kris
 
I don't know. But, Saddam had used them before. So I think the only reason they wern't used was the threat of what Big Brother would do to Iraq if he did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Menu
Log in
Register