TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- NEEWSS!!::Official: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq!!

NEEWSS!!::Official: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq!!

Allrighty, soooo.. I dont think this is the day for all our fellow republican debaters.. the day has come. After some time, from claims coming out of Bush's mouth and other top officials within the administration, claiming there WAS weapons of mass destruction ( The main reason for the war ) .. Claiming that Saddam WAS building weapons or whatever sort of thing after the sanctions.. and so and so on.. is all, FALSE.. It's Official gals... as the Headlines put it "WASHINGTON (AP) -- Contradicting the main argument for a war that has cost more than 1,000 American lives, the top U.S. arms inspector reported Wednesday that he found no evidence that Iraq produced any weapons of mass destruction after 1991.'

quote:

Official: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq CIA: Saddam intended to make arms if sanctions ended WASHINGTON (AP) -- Contradicting the main argument for a war that has cost more than 1,000 American lives, the top U.S. arms inspector reported Wednesday that he found no evidence that Iraq produced any weapons of mass destruction after 1991. The report also says Saddam Hussein's weapons capability weakened during a dozen years of U.N. sanctions before the U.S. invasion last year. Contrary to prewar statements by President Bush and top administration officials, Saddam did not have chemical and biological stockpiles when the war began and his nuclear capabilities were deteriorating, not advancing, according to the report by Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group. Duelfer's findings come less than four weeks before an election in which Bush's handling of Iraq has become the central issue. Democratic candidate John Kerry has seized on comments this week by the former U.S. administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, that the United States didn't have enough troops in Iraq to prevent a breakdown in security after Saddam was toppled. The inspector's report could boost Kerry's contention that Bush rushed to war based on faulty intelligence and that sanctions and U.N. weapons inspectors should have been given more time. Saddam a threat But Duelfer also supports Bush's argument that Saddam remained a threat. Interviews with the toppled leader and other former Iraqi officials made clear to inspectors that Saddam had not lost his ambition to pursue weapons of mass destruction and hoped to revive his weapons program if sanctions were lifted, the report said. On Wednesday, Bush cited Saddam's "history of using weapons of mass destruction, a long record of aggression and hatred for America" in calling the invasion the right thing to do. "There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks," Bush said in a campaign speech in Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania. "In the world after September 11, that was a risk we could not afford to take." Duelfer presented his findings in a report of more than 1,000 pages, and in appearances before Senate committees. The report avoids direct comparisons with prewar claims by the Bush administration on Iraq's weapons systems. But Duelfer largely reinforces the conclusions of his predecessor, David Kay, who said in January, "We were almost all wrong" on Saddam's weapons programs. The White House did not endorse Kay's findings then, noting that Duelfer's team was continuing to search for weapons. Duelfer found that Saddam, hoping to end U.N. sanctions, gradually began ending prohibited weapons programs starting in 1991. But as Iraq started receiving money through the U.N. oil-for-food program in the late 1990s, and as enforcement of the sanctions weakened, Saddam was able to take steps to rebuild his military, such as acquiring parts for missile systems. However, the erosion of sanctions stopped after the September 11, 2001, attacks, Duelfer found, preventing Saddam from pursuing weapons of mass destruction. Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Soo yea.. a bunch of us in TA ended up been right, and it hurts though. So, Im wondering, How in the world Bush and Cheney can still say that they would do everything over, agaaain?!?!.. Only a psycho would think that way, with all the evidence presented.

I think Bush said Saddam was a threat anyway or something like that. I don't like quoting presidents but I do know he said something of that sort. Bush and his people should have a plan for a comeback. They need one.

Thanks for the info. Although I'm happy that I was right about my speculations, I feel sad because the statements made will cause a negative reaction outside and inside this country(if there isn't already one). Hopefully I'm wrong.

nooooooooooo WMD???but that cant be,they had photchoped pictures and lots of maps and to support their cause Iam really shocked











lets see what those morons have to say now?although I know they'll make up some new bullshit.

No WMD, oh no, whatever. The point was, as Bush said after the attacks of 9/11... that the US will attack anyone that harbors terrorists in their countries. Iraq being one since Al-Zarqawi, worked out of Iraq. And is most likely the guy behind all of the beheadings which are taking place.

quote:

Originally posted by Vlad No WMD, oh no, whatever. The point was, as Bush said after the attacks of 9/11... that the US will attack anyone that harbors terrorists in their countries. Iraq being one since Al-Zarqawi, worked out of Iraq. And is most likely the guy behind all of the beheadings which are taking place.

We have internal terror threats within the US. Why don't we attack ourselves?

quote:

Originally posted by Vlad No WMD, oh no, whatever. The point was, as Bush said after the attacks of 9/11... that the US will attack anyone that harbors terrorists in their countries. Iraq being one since Al-Zarqawi, worked out of Iraq. And is most likely the guy behind all of the beheadings which are taking place.

what about all those other countries that harbors terrorists?

quote:

Iraq being one since Al-Zarqawi, worked out of Iraq

Did you ever notice where he was stationed in Iraq? He was in the northern Kurdish area (mingling with Ansar Al-Islam), which is NOT controlled by Saddam's government. In fact, that area, after the Gulf War, became "autonomous". Saddam's government officially has no power over that region, since the US and the UK made that part of Iraq a no fly/no go zone with regards to the Iraqi government back in 1991.

Christian Science Monitor article

Observer article

There were never any established links between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The 9/11 commission said that much and more. If you can find me ONE reliable shred of information that relates any known terrorist or terrorist organization, including Al-Qaeda, that was a direct threat to the US with Saddam Hussein's regime, I'll use Zionist mustard on my turkey sandwich from now on

Washington Post article

MSNBC article

Edited for links.

quote:

Originally posted by nic01445 We have internal terror threats within the US. Why don't we attack ourselves?

Apparently you haven't seen the TV show C.O.P.S have you?

as for this report two things:

1) Heads should be rolling at CIA

2) Where did the WMD go?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus 2) Where did the WMD go?

Isreal they've been there all along

this is no news!!

i've said it all along, they should hire me at the CIA

I recommend that you all read the report (available here) or at least the "Key Findings" overview (available here) just to get an idea about how much of a balls-up this really was. Virtually every pre-war claim made by the coalition about Iraq's WMD stockpiles and WMD programs is now demonstrably false. Specifically (all from the overview):

WMDs generally:

quote:

Iraq's WMD capability [...] was essentially destroyed in 1991.

Missile Systems:

quote:

The ISG has uncovered no evidence Iraq retained Scud-variant missiles, and debriefings of Iraqi officials in addition to some documentation suggest that Iraq did not retain such missiles after 1991.

Nuclear Program:

quote:

Saddam Hussein ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.

Chemical Weapons:

quote:

While a small number of old, abandoned chemcial munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter.

Biological Weapons:

quote:

ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new Biological Weapons program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes.

quote:

ISG judges that in 1991 and 1992, Iraq appears to have destroyed its undeclared stocks of BW weapons [sic] and probably destroyed remaining holdings of bulk BW agent.

quote:

In spite of exhaustive investigation, ISG found no evidence that Iraq possessed, or was developing BW agent production systems mounted on road vehicles or railway wagons.

Future intents:

quote:

The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions.

quote:

Interviews with former Regime officials who were active in Iraq's governing, economic, security and intelligence structures were critical to [sic?] Iraq Survey Group (ISG)'s assessment of the former Regime's WMD strategy.

The only thing that the hawks can take out of this report is that if left unattended, Saddam Hussein probably would have resumed WMD production programs (which we already knew, given his character). However, the report also states on several occasions that Saddam's goal of producing weapons was "secondary to his prime objective of ending UN sanctions".

So, to answer your question Yoepus:

quote:

2) Where did the WMD go?

The short answer is that, like I've been saying all along, they were never there to begin with.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade The short answer is that, like I've been saying all along, they were never there to begin with.

So your telling me the UN lied?

Just wanted to check

They are all hidden in France.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus So your telling me the UN lied?

The UN never lies.

But seriously, I think you'll find that the UNSC never actually reached consensus on the issue because the inspectors were withdrawn too early. Happy to be proven wrong, but I don't think that the UN, as an organisation, or any of its subsidiary groups (eg. UNMOVIC) ever declared definitively that Iraq still possessed banned weapons.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade declared definitively that Iraq still possessed banned weapons.

But it did declare them unaccount for...

hence the reasoning behind my second question.

alright folks, lets snap back into reality here. i realize LiquidX's talents from being a Supreme Master of the Obvious has awed us once again

let me suggest to you that reading the Key Findings of the report alone, can develop one's perspective far more than what the media editorials are capable of.

educate, gain some of your own perspective
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/wmdfinalreport.pdf
it is very interesting.
totaly non-partisaned.
easy to read

then lets discuss this. if not? thats cool too.


BTW, Saddam even had some of his top military commanders and officials thinking he had WMD's.
so don't feel bad.

I love how Cheney said in the debate that Saddam was going to give terrorists WMD...hehehehe now he is going down.

Does it really matter anymore, the moronic American public will continue to run around believing that Saddam Hussein was connected to September 11th when they haar that he was allegedely supporting terrorism, since terrorists attacked us on September 11th or was that Saddam Hussein

All I have to say folks is prepare yourselves for four more years of the same spinning, lying and disgusting contempt that this administration treats others with if and when they are reelected, help us all.

The premise that is now being claimed for war, Saddams future intent to produce weapons under a failing sanctions system even though he had no weapons in a decade(but the sanctions were failing) is as repulsive as the fact that North Korea and Iran have made no secret of their intentions to do so and the Chickenhawks can't do jack shit but negotiate whether they want to or not.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus But it did declare them unaccount for...

Yes, but there's a difference between delaring weapons "unaccounted for" and suggesting, as the coalition did, that Iraq had large WMD stockpiles and active biological and chemical weapon programs. If you read the full text of Resolution 1441 (available here), you'll notice that the consensus reached was that Iraq was in "material breach" due to its failure to provide a "complete disclosure" (i.e. material evidence) about the weapons programs it claimed to no longer have and the fact that it had failed to allow UNMOVIC unfettered access to sites of interest. Nothing in the Resolution suggests a widely held belief that Iraq still had WMD or WMD programs, merely that Iraq hadn't complied with the terms of 687 for the above reasons.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo let me suggest to you that reading the Key Findings of the report alone, can develop one's perspective far more than what the media editorials are capable of.

All the quotes from my above post were taken from the very "Key Findings" report you're talking about. Which particular aspect of gross intelligence failure did you wish to discuss in more detail?

quote:

BTW, Saddam even had some of his top military commanders and officials thinking he had WMD's. so don't feel bad.

Source? Relevence?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Yes, but there's a difference between delaring weapons "unaccounted for" and suggesting, as the coalition did, that Iraq had large WMD stockpiles and active biological and chemical weapon programs. If you read the full text of Resolution 1441 (available here), you'll notice that the consensus reached was that Iraq was in "material breach" due to its failure to provide a "complete disclosure" (i.e. material evidence) about the weapons programs it claimed to no longer have and the fact that it had failed to allow UNMOVIC unfettered access to sites of interest. Nothing in the Resolution suggests a widely held belief that Iraq still had WMD or WMD programs, merely that Iraq hadn't complied with the terms of 687 for the above reasons. All the quotes from my above post were taken from the very "Key Findings" report you're talking about. Which particular aspect of gross intelligence failure did you wish to discuss in more detail? Source? Relevence?

Its all to take away from the fact that there are no WMDs in Iraq as was claimed and premised as a justification for the invasion of Iraq. Just watch the French, German, Russians be blamed for events as well. When will we as a nation see the facts for what it is, there are no weapons, Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat to the U.S and thus the war was rushed into for the purposes of a Neo-Con administration asserting their bullshit American hegemony policy. All the world doesn't care to be like us, thank goodness it would be a much more boring place without other cultures, too bad many Americans don't seem to realize or care about this when we speak of others be they French, Germans, Chinese or Iraqis. Do we want to be like the French, Chinese, Japanese, whomever, didn't think so.

I am struggling with the justification for this conflict without any weapons that threatened us, too bad Bush just has to say Saddam Hussein was a threat, the world is better off without him, John Kerry changes his positions and its eaten up by many. If things changed on September 11th and Iraq can be justified with such sham premises, then the U.S. Army should be sitting on the doorsteps of Iran and North Korea or are we not concerned that they would share technology with terrorists Iraq is pure Bullshit

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Yes, but there's a difference between delaring weapons "unaccounted for" and suggesting, as the coalition did, that Iraq had large WMD stockpiles and active biological and chemical weapon programs. If you read the full text of Resolution 1441 (available

I know what accounting is. And it could very well be that the UN simply had bad accountants - I wouldn't be suprised these days. Maybe they used Aurther Anderson to estimate the WMD Iraq did have?

But even if they over stated WMD possession considerably I believe there is enough room for error for there still to be WMD 'missing'. So unnless the accounting is inaccurate - and I've never heard a claim for this - you have WMD missing. Its quiet silly I think the make a conclusion when you can't come up with an explination, a factual explination, of what happened to the WMD. If you can't find out what happened to the WMD, how can one trust you to find the WMD at all if they do exist?

I don't know. Perhaps they do have an explination. I have not read the hundreds of pages of the report yet - but they must be filled with something.

quote:

you'll notice that the consensus reached was that Iraq was in "material breach" due to its failure to provide a "complete disclosure" (i.e. material evidence) about the weapons programs it claimed to no longer have and the fact that it had failed to allow UNMOVIC unfettered access to sites of interest. Nothing in the Resolution suggests a widely held belief that Iraq still had WMD or WMD programs, merely that Iraq hadn't complied with the terms of 687 for the above reasons.

Yes I know. I used this very resolution pre-war to say the war on Iraq was legitimate - and I sitll beleive that in my opinion. The beauty of the legal argument for the war on Iraq is much simpler and does not lay on the foundation that Saddam has or does not have WMD. The legal claim for war is that Saddam has impeded and fustrated inspections. i.e. alla Martha Steward - not necessarily doing insider trading, but lying to federal officials and destorting reality.

I still believe the legal justificaiton for the war on Iraq was right, and so personally I've had less of an issue with WMD. The only incosistancy with my believes is that the Bush admin has not used the legal argument in its array of arguments against Iraq, and has sort of set them self up primarly around WMD (although again not the only reason).





As a side note: Yesterday on Charlie Rose there was a good panel debating this issue. He started the show with Richard Perle, who I believe has a very good interview, even if you don't swing his way - he presented his arugments in good light and met the knew arguments quiet well. Next they had some guys from the NY Times who wrote something about centrifuges and intelligences failure - it was evident from hearing them speak, they they follow the Dan Rather syndrome of wanting to believe - they're 'research' was to politically motivated to bring to much credit too' - and across the table they had the former Iraq Director of the Centrifuge question which seemed a very interesting guy to hear his take from.

depending if the Democrats use this effectively to sway undecided....they can seal the election.

Primary reason to go to war: WMD
Verdict: None since 1991

Republicans are on the ropes with this one indeed.

I was listening to commentators today morning on NPR, and they mentioned that by analyzing the report, Saddam was one of the primary sources, where Saddam said that he, in some way, made believed that he was somewat armed, this said, as some type of defense against Iran, and US, and this is commonly used by governments worldwide ( imagine been a country without any weapons, you don't want to be shown vulnerable to any enemy country ), and unlike North Korea and Iran who have openly proven they are in fact producing weapons. It would have been "bad" for Iraq if that was seen on Iran or elsewhere, BUUTT, this does not excuse the intelligence networks to take that into account. It is their job to prove this true or not, it was their job to see if Saddam was indeed armed or not, and, as previous reports showed, in a summary of words.. the intelligence openly said that there were no implications that showed that Saddam was armed, or had any in process, and this is probably one of the reasons why U.N. did not support the U.S. into the invasion of Iraq. This is a huge blow for the Bush/Cheney ticket, and for the U.S. itself. If they win after this.. I dont know what to think anymore..

Oh, how I wanted to say this for years now...

TOLD YA SO! TOLD YA SO!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Aaah, feels so nice to get that off of my chest

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.