quote:

Originally posted by JM Cheers to tiesto14! as for all of you "liberal pricks" as tiesto14 stated, now that we know that they DO HAVE WOMD, you'll just come up with another thing to complain about the war..some other excuse that you won't be able to back up. oh boii, like i said it before, it amazes me how some are so passionate about things they have no idea what they're talking about. >JM<

...they already started maiking exscuses...LOL...they crack me up.........its funny how everyone here SWORE up and won Iraq had no weapons liek this and would not use them...YET NOW he has plans to use them in the war....and why does he care?...wont affect him anyway he KNOWS after this war is over he is finished...so he will do whatever he wants...so when those WOMD fall u all better pucker up and kiss my red white and blue American as...

quote:

Originally posted by ProDiGaL you couldnt possibly beleive how ironic that statement is......

jus like a liberal poster boy for pacifism to post half ass comments.....

quote:

Originally posted by Konijn Island Anybody who's a crazy dictator is theoretically a threat: I was just pointing out that 12 years of a combination of UN inspections/sanctions/and the threat of international force has done a pretty good job of keeping the guy in line. That's why it doesn't matter whether he has WMD or not--he would never use them (and anything he does have is bound to be miniscule). Saddam knows that any show of force on his part would doom him, and so like the multitudes of other dictators in the world (most of whom exist with our backing--a topic for a later date), he minds his business. As far as his army is concerned, I would check the stats on the "5th largest" figure--it's probably including potential civilian conscriptions. And while the $1.5 billion he spent last year on defense sounds like a lot, the US spent slightly over $400 billion. I'm fairly certain no one at the Pentagon is quaking with fear

Well YOU are saying that he would never use them. I'm sorry but I don't really think you're an authoratative voice in being able to predict what he will and will not do. You just said he was a crazy dictator. That doesn't really imply that he's a wholly logical person. The only person that knows what Saddam is going to do is Saddam.

I'm pretty sure its' the 5th largest ... I'll try and find that source again. And I never said that he posed a threat to the US, I said he poses a threat to the region. I'm sure that 1.5 billion is a lot compared to what kuwait or saudi arabia is spending. Anyway with regards to how much he is spending I was merely alluding to the fact that he is still very militaristically minded especially since he is spending that much on his military when Iraqi civilians are suffering.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider What tacit agreement are you talking about? The nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Nations are not obligated to sign the treaty. And it's purely voluntary. IT's more or less a sign of good faith. With regards to the second statement, the UN brokered the truce agreement between the US and Iraq, but that doesn't imply recognition that the UN has full authority. The UN was not dictating how the war was to end and the US essentially had authority over what was acceptable terms for an Iraqi surrender.

Two more points and then I'm outta here:

Whether limiting nukes by a tacit (voluntary) agreement or official censure, the unassailable fact remains that North Korea and Pakistan are far more dangerous than Iraq. In both these regions, regional war is apt to break out at any moment, over the demilitarized zones of the Korean peninsula and over Kashmir in the Indus valley. There is no comparable threat with Saddam, as Iraq has never bothered Turkey, Jordan or Saudi Arabia, and hasn't been involved with Iran or Kuwait in over a decade.

My second point is more abstract and concerns the UN. In theory, the UN is supposed to exist as a body where countries can come and mitigate their differences on an equal playing field. Since its inception in the late 1940s, the US has run roughshod over the UN and bent it to its will so there hasn't been a visible power struggle. Now, a combination of a vocal leader, Kofi Annan, and the appearance of new, vote-bearing nationalistic states, have caused the US and the UN to clash.

This brings into question the UN's authority and legitimacy. For the UN to function as its mandate calls, member countries ought to reciprocally renunciate their international rights, and work within the confines of mutually-agreed upon rules--one country ought not, therefore, have the power to "set the terms" of another's surrender (look at Germany after WWI).

World leaders who turn their backs on diplomacy, the established mechanisms for preserving international order, and the protests of millions of people, are either extremely foolish, extremely cynical, or extremely presumptous--or all three.

-cheers

___________________
agenda:


[Dark Disco|Frozen Balearic|Gay Biker-House| Boogie-Trance|Heavy Electronica|Soft-Goth]

quote:

Originally posted by Konijn Island Follow me: Saddam threatened Kuwait in 1991. His effort failed. Since then he has pretty much minded his own business (there is no Al-Qaeda link). He has neither threatened any neighbors nor attacked the Kurds (the "murder of his own" people that we've heard repeated ad nauseum occurred in the mid-1980s under US auspices). Who exactly is he threatening?

you need a history lesson my friend. maybe you havent heard of the attorcities the kurds faced after they tried to rebel agianst saddam following the gulf war. read up on the following chem attacks in 1993 & 1995 agianst the kurds.
http://www.phrusa.org/research/chem...emiraqgas1.html
just look at amnesty's critizism of iraq:
http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/count...nt=30&Expandall
for example:
Expulsion of Kurdish families must stop
http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index...=COUNTRIES\IRAQ
theres many more there...
if you care to learn you'll find out that going to war over the disposition of saddam is worth it, both to the world and the iraqi people.

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

quote:

Originally posted by Konijn Island Two more points and then I'm outta here: Whether limiting nukes by a tacit (voluntary) agreement or official censure, the unassailable fact remains that North Korea and Pakistan are far more dangerous than Iraq. In both these regions, regional war is apt to break out at any moment, over the demilitarized zones of the Korean peninsula and over Kashmir in the Indus valley. There is no comparable threat with Saddam, as Iraq has never bothered Turkey, Jordan or Saudi Arabia, and hasn't been involved with Iran or Kuwait in over a decade.

But that's the reason why the US is pursuing Iraq and threatening with force whereas it is using diplomacy with N. Korea and Pakistan (why do you always leave out India?). The US HAS taken precationary steps against conflict by basing 40,000 troops in S. Korea, and erecting thousands of mine fields. There not much more we can do except to initiate hostilities. That would go against the brokered armististice agreement set at the end of the Korean war.

With regards to India and Pakistan, the US has no direct role in that matter and can only act as an intermediary. It's a long standing issue between India and Pakistan only that has lasted 50 years. It's a claim over ownership of a disputed region. It's not a case of Pakistan wanting to invade India or vice-versa. Iraq on the other hand has engaged in two wars of hostile aggression over the past 2 decades with the INTENT to completely invade and rule another country. You don't think Iraq bothered Saudi Arabia? Why do you think the Saudis INVITED the US to set up bases before the gulf war? It was a clear bid for protection.

quote:

--one country ought not, therefore, have the power to "set the terms" of another's surrender (look at Germany after WWI).

Seemed to work pretty well in WW2. And how would a deal like that be brokered by the UN? Do you think the allies would have settled for anything LESS than unconditional surrender after being invaded? It's an ideal goal but it would never work.

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 jus like a liberal poster boy for pacifism to post half ass comments.....

pacisfism, wow im suprised that word is in your vocabulary,.....

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa Seriously, the American generals must be pretty pissed-off when they have to obey Bush, Blair and other political clowns whose pomp and silly goals make proper military operations impossible. Especially when Bush's ultra conservative lobby mixes in: - democracy (Bush's de-baathification threats repelled all top Iraqi officials who might otherwise be potential allies during the invasion; not all ordinary Iraqi civilians want a Western-style democracy in the first place)

Bush will not be running this war from a tactical standpoint. It's not going to be another Vietnam. But putting another dictator in place of Saddam wouldn't sit well with public opinion so I can see why he did that.

quote:

- religion ("Bush constantly brings up his newborn Christianity. So the American attack is a crusade! Kill the infidels!") These only make achieving the military goals harder because of the increased Iraqi resistance.

I think you're reading into this too much. I never heard religion being used in any way as justification for US policy.

quote:

- Bush must have known for sure that Saddam has chemical WMD. So why did he bring in huge land troops who are the most vulnerable to such an attack? Why did he try to bully UN for involvement? Troops from non-professional countries have less training against chemical WMD, so foreign forces would only be a liability to American generals. I suppose Bush wants to please the generals of land troops and/or he has further military goals for his massive land troops beyond Iraq.

Chemical weapons are largely ineffective as a tactical battlefield weapon (see WW1). It's unlikely they will seriously phase ground troops. They would however be most effective against unprotected civilian populations. Also I don't think Bush really wanted UN military involvement so much as he wanted backing.

quote:

- Why go to the UN, and attack in the spring when a couple months ago in the winter would have been better? And now Saddam has had lots of time to prepare his chemical counterattacks.

I don't know maybe because we wanted to exhaust diplomacy and gather world support first? This is a good question to ask someone who thinks the US is all about invading regardless of what happens.

quote:

- Why bring in the journalists and the Shock & Awe? Is this war some kind of a military fair? American military power makes the other countries shit their pants even without Bush having to show it off on TV. The missiles will not help at all in destroying Saddam's chemical WMD.

I just saw an interview with a general about the journalist issue. Apparentely the press will have unprecedented access to the frontlines ... more so than any war before. Essentially the General said that they would be there to document any collateral damage or WOMD as they are found to ensure integrity.

quote:

What's the point of street battles, anyway? Hitler lost World War II irrevocably at Stalingrad, which could have easily been bypassed. Is there a lesson to learn there?

Well Saddam is going to be in Baghdad and that's what this whole thing was about. And Stalingrad couldn't have been avoided if Hitler's objective were the oil fields of the caucusses. The Russians would have been able to mount attacks against the German army's left flank. At any rate what do you propose we do? Start a blockade? I don't think that would sit well with world opinion when Baghdad ran out of food and water.

quote:

Originally posted by JM Cheers to tiesto14! as for all of you "liberal pricks" as tiesto14 stated, now that we know that they DO HAVE WOMD, you'll just come up with another thing to complain about the war..some other excuse that you won't be able to back up. oh boii, like i said it before, it amazes me how some are so passionate about things they have no idea what they're talking about. >JM<

If tiesto14 is your intellectual ally in this discussion then, sorry mate, you're struggling.

You don't seem particularly interested in anything else anyone has to say, but in the hope of generating a useful reply from you, I'll back up what I said earlier:

quote:

I don't think there's any doubt that Iraq still possesses some reminants of its biological/chemical weapons programs from the late 80's (guess who funded them?) but my argument was always that firstly the US are overplaying the quantity and quality of these weapons and the threat that they pose. [...] It is not the kind of undertaking we should be entering into on the "hunch" that Saddam may have a 15 year old vial of Anthrax hidden somewhere. I severely doubt that you would sacrifice friends of members of your family on the off-chance that Iraq has WMD's and it's unfair of you to expect that innocent Iraqi's should make this sacrifice just to appease your vague concerns.

Look at what I said: "Iraq possesses some reminants of its biological/chemical weapons programs" not "Iraq has WMDs". Iraq has no active biological/chemical programs, and certainly no nuclear program. The only thing that the US has to go on is the fact that there are biological agents left over from the late 80's that Iraq hasn't declared. Or rather, Iraq has declared them in the sense that they assert that it has all been destroyed. Therefore, we have the scenario where Iraq says it has destroyed the agents and the US says it hasn't, with virtually no evidence supporting either case (and I'm inclined to not completely believe either). Nonetheless, the US have basically used this as ammunition for their crusade and in doing so have violated the principle on which its legal system is based - the Iraqis are innocent until proven guilty. It doesn't matter that the US have no evidence, it only matters that Iraq doesn't either. What a grand conception of justice this President Bush possesses.

The Iraqis have declared a great deal of material, including the Al Samoud missiles that were destroyed recently. As Hans Blix put it "these are not toothpicks". While Blix was undeniably concerned about what reminants of the dormant biological/chemical programs there may be, Iraqi co-operation was generally quite good and was definitely shifting from "passive" to "pro-active" as time wore on. The UN inspectors were doing the job that the US intends to do, only without blood-shed and at a tiny fraction of the cost. Thus, given that much of Iraqs weaponry has been destroyed over the past 12 years (remember the vast amount of material that was destroyed during the 7 years of inspections after the Gulf War) if it has anything left then it is in a comparitively small quantity and is of little threat to anyone (what has Saddam Hussein done over the past 12 years that makes us believe he is likely to be a threat to anyone?). Remember, to preserve large amounts of biological material, you need adequate facilities to store and transport it. Iraq is banned from importing refrigerated trucks (which has also prevented the safe transportation of medicine over that time period) and you can't just store vials of anthrax in the back of your car or in any old cupboard and expect it to remain intact - especially given the time period that the US asserts it has possessed it for.

Besides, even if Iraq has somehow been able to keep all these agents safe and away from the prying eyes of inspectors for this period of time, we must first ask if it is of sufficient quality or quality to pose a risk to any other nation (which is highly unlikely), then if Saddam Hussein has the means to transport it (he has no scud missiles left - even the US acknowledge this - and what's left is insufficient to pose any risk to anyone more than 150km away) and finally - even given that he has the means available - whether Saddam is likely to use these weapons against another nation (I doubt he - nor anyone else - would be that stupid). What does this say then?

I would agree that Iraq posed a threat if it (demonstrably) had large amounts of biological and chemical agents, and the sophisticated technology to transport it. This functioning system is a weapon of mass destruction. Small amounts of raw, aging biological agents that cannot be easily transported around the country let alone outside the Iraqi borders constitute a weapon, sure, but a Weapon of Mass Destruction? No. Not even close. The US will be bombing Bagdhad with weapons far more destructive and unnecessarily powerful than anything Iraq has - oh, but I forgot. America's doing it for the good of the Iraqi people isn't it?

As I have said time and time again, war is not something that we should enter into on a hunch. It should only be the last unavoidable course of action in a desperate situation, and there should be undebatable and unambiguous justification for it. In this case, we see that the US have been desperate for warfare from the beginning, and have derailed any and all attempts at a peaceful resolution. Similarly, whatever evidence provides the justification for the conflict is at best murky and ambiguous, at worst fraudulant. Given all this, I fail to see how the deaths of all these Iraqi innocents can be justified. Quite apart from the death, I still feel that this war is likely to do the US a lot more harm in the region (through political instability, Arab dissent which fosters terrorism etc.) than would have occurred through the continuation of the UN Inspections. If it was just about putting a bullet in Saddam Hussein's head then I'd be all for it, but the consequences of this war far outweigh any conceiveable benefits.

So now that I've justified my position, JM, perhaps you'd like to abandon your policy of posting patronising, illogical bullshit for a second and tell me why you're currently rubbing your hands together in glee at the prospect of this war?

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade If tiesto14 is your intellectual ally in this discussion then, sorry mate, you're struggling. You don't seem particularly interested in anything else anyone has to say, but in the hope of generating a useful reply from you, I'll back up what I said earlier:

because all u guys say is pacifist liberal garbage......all you do is condem Bush for his stance on the war...yet not once have ANY of you said "how come Hussein wont comply on what he agreed on" or "Saddam is an evil tyrant that places people in plastic shredders feet first while they scream their way to death"..or any of the horrific things he has done....

Or how about how just the other day he had the tongue cut off a person who oppsed him then let him bleed to death....

NOOOOOOO God forbid you remark on how Hussein needs to be removed purely on humanitarian reasons....you oppose a US war effort cus of civilian deaths...however u agree with keeping Hussein in and letting him continue to torcher and murder people all the time....

Then you will go on about it is because of sanctions placed upon him...well if you where so concerned with iraq civilians you would be demanding the compliance of Hussein to those sanctions to help his people....which he wont....

You are all alike...your hatred for American government shines through everyday in your lame ass efforts as you dig up numerous web pages on how America and Bush are so bad...yet you never do that to Hussein....

Like i asked you before ...would you of removed Hitler in 1933?..because Hussein is Hitler like.....

Your anti-American and noone will change that....and to be honest i could care less...just please continue to buy our wonderful products so the money comes in to my wonderful country...as you infact support America in your purchases...

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Iraq has no active biological/chemical programs, and certainly no nuclear program. The only thing that the US has to go on is the fact that there are biological agents left over from the late 80's that Iraq hasn't declared. Or rather, Iraq has declared them in the sense that they assert that it has all been destroyed. Therefore, we have the scenario where Iraq says it has destroyed the agents and the US says it hasn't, with virtually no evidence supporting either case (and I'm inclined to not completely believe either). Nonetheless, the US have basically used this as ammunition for their crusade and in doing so have violated the principle on which its legal system is based - the Iraqis are innocent until proven guilty. It doesn't matter that the US have no evidence, it only matters that Iraq doesn't either. What a grand conception of justice this President Bush possesses. :

that "innocent to proven guilty" scenario ONLY applyies to US citizens...thought you would know that....jeeezzz...

And you WILL be proven wrong about the WMD as we enter Iraq...then your apology will need to be heard...

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade The Iraqis have declared a great deal of material, including the Al Samoud missiles that were destroyed recently. As Hans Blix put it "these are not toothpicks". While Blix was undeniably concerned about what reminants of the dormant biological/chemical programs there may be, Iraqi co-operation was generally quite good and was definitely shifting from "passive" to "pro-active" as time wore on. The UN inspectors were doing the job that the US intends to do, only without blood-shed and at a tiny fraction of the cost. Thus, given that much of Iraqs weaponry has been destroyed over the past 12 years (remember the vast amount of material that was destroyed during the 7 years of inspections after the Gulf War) if it has anything left then it is in a comparitively small quantity and is of little threat to anyone (what has Saddam Hussein done over the past 12 years that makes us believe he is likely to be a threat to anyone?). Remember, to preserve large amounts of biological material, you need adequate facilities to store and transport it. Iraq is banned from importing refrigerated trucks (which has also prevented the safe transportation of medicine over that time period) and you can't just store vials of anthrax in the back of your car or in any old cupboard and expect it to remain intact - especially given the time period that the US asserts it has possessed it for. :

your full of shit...it took almost 300,000 troops for the beginign of the disarmement.....a few motnhs ago he was doing NOTHING....get real.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade (he has no scud missiles left - even the US acknowledge this - and what's left is insufficient to pose any risk to anyone more than 150km away) and finally - even given that he has the means available - whether Saddam is likely to use these weapons against another nation (I doubt he - nor anyone else - would be that stupid). What does this say then?

:


it says your full of shit AGAIN...it has been reported for the last week that he has Scud missiles and they are aimed at the south and at Israel....again thought u would know that...

You DOUBT he would use them?...you doubt a man who tests chemical and biological weapons and men, women, children and even puppies?..u doubt a man who mass murdered Kurds, you doubt a man who sets up rapes of women? you doubt a man who cuts tongues out and puts people in plastic shredders?...you doubt a man who has continues to lie and deceive UN officials for 12 years?....man you sure are trusting...

And remember Hussein ""IS"" leaving...one way or another he will either leave in a body bag or on his own...but either or Hussein is going.....so he has NOTHING to lose anymore...whih means he is going to fight with EVERYTHING he has and wil hold nothing back at this point...yet you DOUBT this man...if i should even call him a man...Renegade just the fact that you doubt Hussein shows your very unintelligent...u may be able to provide links to good sources and have a good background on events...but anyone who doubts Hussein is...um...sorry to have to say this...but a moron.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade (I would agree that Iraq posed a threat if it (demonstrably) had large amounts of biological and chemical agents, and the sophisticated technology to transport it. This functioning system is a weapon of mass destruction. Small amounts of raw, aging biological agents that cannot be easily transported around the country let alone outside the Iraqi borders constitute a weapon, sure, but a Weapon of Mass Destruction? No. Not even close. The US will be bombing Bagdhad with weapons far more destructive and unnecessarily powerful than anything Iraq has - oh, but I forgot. America's doing it for the good of the Iraqi people isn't it?

:


No your right America is doing it for fun...we want to be cool...WTF that statement in itself is representing on how sad you are...you REALLY think America wants to go in and kill innocent people...get real...

And AGAIN i ask would you of removed Hitler in 1933?...Hussein IS Hitler like...maybe YOU want to wait for him to get the means to deliver the weapons or sell them...but i and 70% of my fellow Americans DO NOT....i mean come on enough is enough...he had his chance to leave.....so that NOONE would die....he refused...he has given orders to use chemical weapons on our forces...which right there shows he is a mad man....what will it take for you to realize Hussein needs to go?...another 9.11?..maybe it needs to happen in Sydney for you to change your views....and i know Hussein was not behind 9.11 but you get my point....

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade ( In this case, we see that the US have been desperate for warfare from the beginning, and have derailed any and all attempts at a peaceful resolution.

:

17 resolutions 12 years and a 48 hour warning....hhhmmm we gave time and diiplomacy....

or would 1000 resolutions and 40 years be sufficent for you?..or maybe Hussein getting stronger?....

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade (Similarly, whatever evidence provides the justification for the conflict is at best murky and ambiguous, at worst fraudulant..

:

wheres the VX?...wheres the mustard?...wheres the anthrax?...wheres the rest of the missiles?...wheres the refrigarated trucks for mobile bio/chem factories?...what about the drones?.....

Maybe YOU need a big fat nuclear missile up your ass to see the light...but i and 70% of my fellow Americans do not.

I

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade ( f it was just about putting a bullet in Saddam Hussein's head then I'd be all for it,

here i agree with you...but wont happen.

I'll attempt to reply to your post intellectually Renegade since nobody is taking you up on your challenge

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Look at what I said: "Iraq possesses some reminants of its biological/chemical weapons programs" not "Iraq has WMDs". Iraq has no active biological/chemical programs, and certainly no nuclear program. The only thing that the US has to go on is the fact that there are biological agents left over from the late 80's that Iraq hasn't declared. Or rather, Iraq has declared them in the sense that they assert that it has all been destroyed. Therefore, we have the scenario where Iraq says it has destroyed the agents and the US says it hasn't, with virtually no evidence supporting either case (and I'm inclined to not completely believe either).

You're speculating. There's no way you can know for a fact that Iraq doesn't have an active biological/chemical programs. For the same reasons that I can't say that Iraq definetely has mobile chemical/biological weapons programs, you can't say that they don't. However, I think we can conclude that there seems to be and definetely in the past some suspicious activity occurring.

quote:

Nonetheless, the US have basically used this as ammunition for their crusade and in doing so have violated the principle on which its legal system is based - the Iraqis are innocent until proven guilty. It doesn't matter that the US have no evidence, it only matters that Iraq doesn't either. What a grand conception of justice this President Bush possesses.

Let's not forget the absence of complete, full compliance as proscribed by the truce agreement. Every weapons inspector report I raid always said Iraq should be doing more.

quote:

The Iraqis have declared a great deal of material, including the Al Samoud missiles that were destroyed recently. As Hans Blix put it "these are not toothpicks". While Blix was undeniably concerned about what reminants of the dormant biological/chemical programs there may be, Iraqi co-operation was generally quite good and was definitely shifting from "passive" to "pro-active" as time wore on. The UN inspectors were doing the job that the US intends to do, only without blood-shed and at a tiny fraction of the cost.

The modified extended range Al Samoud missiles were never declared and were in violations of UN sanctions. The only reason why Iraq became "pro-active" was due to the mounting pressure by the US. Think otherwise? Why did inspections fail in 1998 then? The Iraqis didn't seem very cooperative then when the US wasn't breathing down their neck.

quote:

Thus, given that much of Iraqs weaponry has been destroyed over the past 12 years (remember the vast amount of material that was destroyed during the 7 years of inspections after the Gulf War) if it has anything left then it is in a comparitively small quantity and is of little threat to anyone (what has Saddam Hussein done over the past 12 years that makes us believe he is likely to be a threat to anyone?).

How very optimistic of you. The inspections were going so well that in 1998 there was nothng left to destroy so we just up and stopped inspections! Out of curiosity do you have any data documenting just how successful these inspections were?

quote:

Besides, even if Iraq has somehow been able to keep all these agents safe and away from the prying eyes of inspectors for this period of time, we must first ask if it is of sufficient quality or quality to pose a risk to any other nation (which is highly unlikely), then if Saddam Hussein has the means to transport it (he has no scud missiles left - even the US acknowledge this - and what's left is insufficient to pose any risk to anyone more than 150km away) and finally - even given that he has the means available - whether Saddam is likely to use these weapons against another nation (I doubt he - nor anyone else - would be that stupid). What does this say then? I would agree that Iraq posed a threat if it (demonstrably) had large amounts of biological and chemical agents, and the sophisticated technology to transport it. This functioning system is a weapon of mass destruction. Small amounts of raw, aging biological agents that cannot be easily transported around the country let alone outside the Iraqi borders constitute a weapon, sure, but a Weapon of Mass Destruction? No. Not even close.

Throughout the 1990s, UN inspectors in Iraq supervised or verified the destruction of:
about 100,000 chemical munitions
over 400 tonnes of bulk chemical agents, and
over 2,600 tonnes of chemicals, known as precursors, which could have been used to make weapons.
Iraq initially lied to UN inspectors about producing VX, one of the most toxic of all known chemical warfare agents. It continues to deny ever weaponising VX, even though UN inspectors uncovered unambiguous physical evidence in 1998. UNSCOM uncovered documentation which suggested Iraq had in the order of an additional 6000 undeclared chemical munitions. UNSCOM could not confirm Iraq's claim to have destroyed 500 artillery shells filled with mustard gas and 500 aerial bombs for delivery of chemical weapons.

UNSCOM assessed that major uncertainties still exist concerning some 4000 tonnes of declared chemical precursors, including 200 tonnes of precursors used in the production of VX.

Only after the defection in 1995 of General Hussein Kamil – Saddam Hussein's son-in-law – did Iraq admit it had produced over 19,000 litres of botulinum toxin, almost 8,500 litres of anthrax and over 2,000 litres of aflatoxin. At the end of 1998, UN inspectors judged that Iraq could have produced two to four times more biological weapons agent than it had declared.

UNSCOM judged the biological weapons program to be the most incompletely documented of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. It concluded that Iraq possesses an industrial capability and knowledge base through which biological warfare agents could be produced quickly and in volume, if Iraq decided to do so. UNSCOM reported that in 1997 Iraq still had 79 facilities capable of playing a role in biological weapons production.

Taking all this into account I think that we can state that the threat of Iraq possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction (not mere weapons as you state) is very real. And I think that a COUNTRY can get around a simple ban on refrigerated trucks. It's not like these people walk around rubbing sticks together to generate fire ... they do have engineers and scientists too you know.


By the way, has anyone actually checked out the CIA's publication on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction? It's very long. I'm not accepting it all as fact, I'm just saying that it's very in-depth.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications...aq_Oct_2002.htm

Last edited by occrider on Mar-19-2003 at 04:21