When the Dust settles, If there are NO Weapons of MD, will the US plant some ?

[Venusian]

what if we find no chemical weapons, no torture chambers, no rape rooms? I'm not saying they aren't there, what if they are just destroyed before we get there? Do you think the U.S. govt would fake them? Do you think that if we do find them, some of the nay sayers would change their minds?

[kvrdave]

What if we get to Mars and it is made of Cheese? :eek:

seriously, I don't think that is possible. No, I don't think we would fake them.

[Venusian]

i think its very possible to not find any weapons. if he doesn't use them against our troops he has no use for them so he could have them destroyed as soon as an invasion starts

[bfrank]

If they dont find stuff they will make it up.

They have to find stuff!

[Y2K Falcon]

Do you think the U.S. govt would fake them?
Nope.



Do you think that if we do find them, some of the nay sayers would change their minds?
Nope. Not most of the ones I know.

[kvrdave]

Originally posted by bfrank
If they dont find stuff they will make it up.

They have to find stuff!

And thus, the anti-war group already has it's next rally cry -ohbfrank-

[DeputyDave]

Do I think we will fake them? Well, it worked for the moon landing -ohbfrank-

[Brian Shannon]

Originally posted by Venusian
what if we find no chemical weapons, no torture chambers, no rape rooms? I'm not saying they aren't there, what if they are just destroyed before we get there? Do you think the U.S. govt would fake them? Do you think that if we do find them, some of the nay sayers would change their minds?

You mean besides the special shells for chemical weapons and the illegal rockets?

[al_bundy]

What of the reports that SH is moving chemical weapons to ready the defense of baghdad? And the torture chamber stories have been around for years. You can't wipe all evidence of it since too many people know where they are.

[thejammy]

venusian I was thinking the same thing but you know what. Our intel has already said they are handing out chemical weapons to use on our troops when they try to invade Baghdad. I guess there is some main highway that our intel has said they will most likely use it there.

[classicman2]

It doesn't matter. The principal thing has been accomplished. We and the Brits have added to our empire. :)

[goop]

Originally posted by bfrank
If they dont find stuff they will make it up.

They have to find stuff!

Yes, if they don’t find anything the evidence will be manufactured. He has already been caught manufacturing evidence, citing phony studies and so on. So yes they will find evidence.

[Venusian]

He? who is he? what evidence has "he" manufactured?

[DeputyDave]

There doesn't need to be any hard evidence. There are thousands of first hand accounts of the WMD's, ethnic cleansing, and human rights atrocities. More than enough to hold up in court.

[DeputyDave]

Originally posted by Venusian
He? who is he? what evidence has "he" manufactured? Bush. goop thinks that Bush is evil and that he will stop at nothing to push is hidden agenda. It's called paranoia.

[goop]

Originally posted by Venusian
He? who is he? what evidence has "he" manufactured?

It is probably more accurate to call it grossly exaggerating the evidence. However, If you want an example of manufactured evidence it would be the phony IAEA report he cited stating Iraq could have Nuclear weapons in a year in the nationally televised speech he gave.

[goop]

Originally posted by DeputyDave
Bush. goop thinks that Bush is evil and that he will stop at nothing to push is hidden agenda. It's called paranoia.



No, I don’t believe Bush is evil stupid perhaps, but not evil

[DeputyDave]

Originally posted by goop
No, I don’t believe Bush is evil stupid perhaps, but not evil At least he's smarter than Gore (OK, enough kindergarden stuff)

[goop]

Originally posted by DeputyDave
At least he's smarter than Gore (OK, enough kindergarden stuff)

Wasn’t their something on 60 Minutes this Sunday saying Bush had the lowest IQ of any recent president?

[classicman2]

What if?

Does anyone on this forum believe that Iraq doesn't have chemical and most probably biological weapons?

Even goop & bfrank have to admit that Iraq does possess those weapons. ;)

[classicman2]

Originally posted by goop
Wasn’t their something on 60 Minutes this Sunday saying Bush had the lowest IQ of any recent president?

How do they know?

Has Bush taken an accredited IQ test? How many of the previous Presidents have taken such a test?

[eXcentris]

Unless you know something the UN inspectors don't, I don't see how you could just happen to stumble upon a big pile of weapons and say "look! we told you so!".

[BigPete]

On the opposite side of the picture, the French are now saying that should Saddam deploy a chemical or bilogical weapon against coalition forces, they may be willing to do a little dance for us.

France's ambassador to the United States, Jean-David Levitte, said Tuesday that his country might re-think its position on war with Iraq if Saddam were to use biological or chemical weapons against coalition forces.

"If Saddam Hussein were to use chemical and biological weapons, this would change the situation completely and immediately for the French government," Jean-David Levitte said.

[classicman2]

Originally posted by eXcentris
Unless you know something the UN inspectors don't, I don't see how you could just happen to stumble upon a big pile of weapons and say "look! we told you so!".

I don't believe you would find it all that difficult to know something that the inspectors don't know. ;)

[classicman2]

Originally posted by BigPete
On the opposite side of the picture, the French are now saying that should Saddam deploy a chemical or bilogical weapon against coalition forces, they may be willing to do a little dance for us.

The only thing that would change the French position is if the US and Great Britain allowed Saddam to stay in power.

[eXcentris]

Originally posted by classicman2
I don't believe you would find it all that difficult to know something that the inspectors don't know. ;)

Of course since the US has never wanted the inspections to succeed in the 1st place. :)

[kvrdave]

Originally posted by goop
It is probably more accurate to call it...

When has that ever stopped you before? :lol:

Forget accurate and go with you feelings -wink-

[bfrank]

I should have said more.

We know he had more chemical/bio weapons. However we also know that many had shelf lives of under ten years so they may really be gone now. But we have accurate records of what we help them get durring the Iraq/Iran war and we have not found all of this stuff. We have also never been told all what was given to Iraq. Bush may know that they have stuff that we help them get that we must get now.

Still its laughable how quickly the right here would discount the idea that this administration would use propaganda. Every administration at war has used propaganda.

We already had the nuclear story exposed as propaganda.

I am not suggesting there is anything wrong with it or that it is worth criticizing. But you can bet the farm and all your pennies that we will find lots of stuff (we have to).

[goop]

Originally posted by kvrdave
When has that ever stopped you before? :lol:

Forget accurate and go with you feelings -wink-


I would but that mantra has already been taken by of most of the pro-war people.

[classicman2]

Originally posted by eXcentris
Of course since the US has never wanted the inspections to succeed in the 1st place. :)

There was never a chance for the inspectors to succeed in the first place. It was doomed to fail. The inspection process only works when you have cooperation from those that you are inspecting.

Cooperation will not be a problem in the "new Iraq." ;)

[OldDude]

Originally posted by Venusian
what if we find no chemical weapons, no torture chambers, no rape rooms? I'm not saying they aren't there, what if they are just destroyed before we get there? Do you think the U.S. govt would fake them? Do you think that if we do find them, some of the nay sayers would change their minds?

My opinions:
WMD: George hasn't shown us hard proof before we go in. If he can't show us hard proof afterward, he is a one term President, and we have to eat crow at the UN for a decade or more. I consider this probability near zero. On the slight chance of it occuring though, George needs to realize how po'd the American people would be.
Fake: Honestly, if we find nothing, he might want to try. I believe someone would have the integrity to rat him out if this were the case. It would be too big to cover up.
Others: If there were a mushroom cloud over Paris, those French far enough away to survive will say "We need more proof" or "He didn't attack us."

[karnblack]

Originally posted by eXcentris
Unless you know something the UN inspectors don't, I don't see how you could just happen to stumble upon a big pile of weapons and say "look! we told you so!".

It would be funny for the American soldiers to just stumble upon the stuff because the Iraqis didn't have time to move them around. I could see Mark Whalberg playing his character from Three Kings saying "What the heck did I just trip over?" "Oh, it's just some Anthrax and stuff." "I thought they didn't have this stuff and we were supposed to plant some evidence." "Oh well, makes our job easier."

All kidding aside I would be amazed if they could find no evidence of WMD. It would be scary if SH decided he had nothing to lose and went for an all out first strike attack using his WMD.

[grrrah]

Originally posted by goop
Wasn’t their something on 60 Minutes this Sunday saying Bush had the lowest IQ of any recent president?

Yah, it was on 60 minutes.. and about 20 seconds after 60 minutes said that, they said they tried to trace the sources, and immediately found that the study was completely fabricated, and the sources were made up.

To answer the original question, we will still complete the objective which is to get SH out of power, and they will come up with something.. even if its just 'evidence' of WMD.

[Original Desmond]

when the dust settles, if, all shocks of shocks, there happens NOT to be any weapons of mass destruction, will the US plant some in Iraq ?

cos if they don't, they will look like the biggest bullies and wallies in history!

[Y2K Falcon]

As I said in this thread, no.

<a href = 'http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=279200'>What if we find nothing in Iraq?</a>

[nemein]

:hscratch: does someone hear an echo in here ;)

[Numanoid]

Originally posted by Original Desmond
cos if they don't, they will look like the biggest bullies and wallies in history!

http://www.litb.com//images/wally2/0.jpg

[Struz]

Originally posted by Original Desmond
when the dust settles, if, all shocks of shocks, there happens NOT to be any weapons of mass destruction, will the US plant some in Iraq ?

cos if they don't, they will look like the biggest bullies and wallies in history!

Oh please.

The better question is that when we do what are those who said there wasn't any going to say ?

Hmmm.

What is France going to say when they are shown to have oil & weapon deals with Saddam ?

[weargle]

No chance of us looking like a bunch of Sheilas, mate.

[Nazgul]

I think there are a few poeple here who think the US will do something like that.

Loony, if you ask me.

[DeputyDave]

Well, Iraq has already fired a SCUD missile at US troops in Kuwait so we know they were lying about that...

[X]

The most effective ones to plant would be pesticides, chainsaws, and tax reduction plans.

[kvrdave]

If the scud missiles that were used were really just large bouquets of love and harmony, will we plant scud missiles?

[Original Desmond]

don't get me wrong, i hope there are weapns of MD to justify the war but i just think Bush should have been more honest and said he was going into Iraq for regime change mainly, sod the weapons, let's just get rid of Saddam !

[crankyman]

i think we should plant flowers.

[eXcentris]

Originally posted by DeputyDave
Well, Iraq has already fired a SCUD missile at US troops in Kuwait so we know they were lying about that...

Huh? How do you know where those scuds were fired from? Basra, for example, is less than 100 KM from the Koweit border.

[Struz]

Originally posted by Original Desmond
don't get me wrong, i hope there are weapns of MD to justify the war but i just think Bush should have been more honest and said he was going into Iraq for regime change mainly, sod the weapons, let's just get rid of Saddam !

Bush never said the main reason was for regime change.
He has said all along the reasons we are going to war are disarm Iraq, regime change and liberate their people.

[JCJF10]

Although I don't put it past our government I'd say no in this instance.

(but that's just my gut)

[Iron Chef]

Well, the Iraqis are firing Al Samouds and SCUDS at us. They're illegal, lord knows what else he has.

[monkeyboy]

I don't think they'd plant anything. It'd be just as easy to say that they were destroyed and you'd just have to take their word for it.

Originally posted by Struz

The better question is that when we do what are those who said there wasn't any going to say ?


I don't know how many people dispute that there might be chemical stockpiles or illegal weapons there. The dispute is if we really needed to go to war over it.

[Jeremy517]

They've already fired 4 missiles that they're not supposed to have. Do you REALLY think they're innocent?

[OldDude]

Originally posted by Original Desmond
when the dust settles, if, all shocks of shocks, there happens NOT to be any weapons of mass destruction, will the US plant some in Iraq ?



I know nothing (about that).

On another subject, could you Australians print up some "Made in France" labels? Be sure and use an ink not available in the US. Thanks, much.

[wlmowery]

Originally posted by eXcentris
Huh? How do you know where those scuds were fired from? Basra, for example, is less than 100 KM from the Koweit border.

Gee, I wasn't aware that the Kuwaiti's were firing on themselves and US soldiers.... You have got to be kidding on this one....

[Dah-Dee]

Originally posted by eXcentris
Huh? How do you know where those scuds were fired from? Basra, for example, is less than 100 KM from the Koweit border.

[shakes head ruefully at sight of another nail in coffin of eXcentris credibility]

[matome]

Maybe they came from N. Korea? They might be feeling neglected.

[bhk]

After the SCUDS were fired, Hans Blix stated that this was a positive development since the Iraqi govt. was "displaying and disarming" illegal weapons in one move.

[OldDude]

Originally posted by Dah-Dee

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by eXcentris
Huh? How do you know where those scuds were fired from? Basra, for example, is less than 100 KM from the Koweit border.
-------------------------------------------------------------
[shakes head ruefully at sight of another nail in coffin of eXcentris credibility]

??? For the geography impaired, he is completely correct. Basra, Iraq is probably less than 20 km from Kuwait/Iraq border. It is pretty close to 150 km from Kuwait City, and recall than 150 km is the max range the UN allowed Iraq to have. (and none have actually reached the city).

The missile itself (Al Samoud) is illegal, but as flown, may not have been. As a CNN article has said, the Pentagon states they weren't Scuds, they were either Al Samouds or something similar.

[eXcentris]

Originally posted by wlmowery
Gee, I wasn't aware that the Kuwaiti's were firing on themselves and US soldiers.... You have got to be kidding on this one....

What I'm saying is what's the range on those Scuds? If the Iraqis can have missiles (for defensive purposes) with a range of 150 km or less, woudn't they still be able to reach Koweit with those from some parts of Iraq?

I believe these questions should preceede the knee-jerk "they are firing illegal stuff!" arguments.

[eXcentris]

Originally posted by OldDude
??? For the geography impaired, he is completely correct. Basra, Iraq is probably less than 20 km from Kuwait/Iraq border. It is pretty close to 150 km from Kuwait City, and recall than 150 km is the max range the UN allowed Iraq to have. (and none have actually reached the city).

The missile itself (Al Samoud) is illegal, but as flown, may not have been. As a CNN article has said, the Pentagon states they weren't Scuds, they were either Al Samouds or something similar.

OldDude to the rescue! :lol:

I was going wtf am I being attacked for? I just looked at the frigging map.

[DivxGuy]

The missile itself (Al Samoud) is illegalI think the Al Samoud is legal, it is the Al Samoud 2 that is not.

So far, I haven't come across any evidence that the Iraqis have used illegal weapons.

RD

[OldDude]

Originally posted by eXcentris
I was going wtf am I being attacked for? I just looked at the frigging map.

I believe someone (not you) was confused on what country Basra is in. The crappy score on the geography test is going to haunt us. Oh well, as long as the long/lat is set correctly, in the bombs and cruise missiles.

[Gallant Pig]

After we plant some weapons of MD in Iraq, we'll plant them across the world. Just call us Johnny Warmongerseed.

[al_bundy]

For those of you who are conspiracy theorists, one question. How do you sneak in tons of dangerous chemicals that need to be transported very carefully. That is going to be a lot of people involved who will need to keep quiet in the future.

[bhk]

The crappy score on the geography test is going to haunt us. Oh well, as long as the long/lat is set correctly, in the bombs and cruise missiles. Well, as you know only about 13% of Americans can find Iraq on a map, but as Colin Powell said, "unfortunately for Iraq those 13% are the US Marines."

[DarkElf]

Originally posted by al_bundy
For those of you who are conspiracy theorists, one question. How do you sneak in tons of dangerous chemicals that need to be transported very carefully. That is going to be a lot of people involved who will need to keep quiet in the future.

I thought vials of antrax were the size of your finger?

[Dah-Dee]

Originally posted by OldDude
I believe someone (not you) was confused on what country Basra is in. The crappy score on the geography test is going to haunt us. Oh well, as long as the long/lat is set correctly, in the bombs and cruise missiles.

I know where Basra is; I thought eXcentris was saying the missiles might have been fired from somewhere other than in Iraq, was being lazy in including his Basra statement in my quote.

[eXcentris]

Originally posted by Dah-Dee
I know where Basra is; I thought eXcentris was saying the missiles might have been fired from somewhere other than in Iraq, was being lazy in including his Basra statement in my quote.

I'll take that as an apology. :D

[al_bundy]

Originally posted by DarkElf
I thought vials of antrax were the size of your finger?

But SH is supposed to have tons of this stuff as well as chemical weapons and mobile labs and stuff. How do you fake that without letting the secret out. With all the people that will need to be involved someone is going to spill his guts to the press. It's too risky to even consider anything like that.

[Dah-Dee]

Originally posted by eXcentris
I'll take that as an apology. :D

Huh? I figured you would apologize for being obtuse. :D

Edit: P.S. -- This clinches it; after we're through with Iraq and finish purging the forum of fun, we're invading Canada to rid it of the obtuse oppressors of seals!

[DeputyDave]

Back on the SCUD question for a second. Does anyone have any better info on IF Iraq launched a SCUD? The news is reporting it as fact. They have reported that the White House confirmed that a SCUD (the illegal 400-mile range kind) missile was launched at our forces in Kuwait and shot down by a patriot missile.

[Dah-Dee]

Originally posted by DeputyDave
Back on the SCUD question for a second. Does anyone have any better info on IF Iraq launched a SCUD? The news is reporting it as fact. They have reported that the White House confirmed that a SCUD (the illegal 400-mile range kind) missile was launched at our forces in Kuwait and shot down by a patriot missile.

Your favorite news source and mine, CNN, is sticking with:

"U.S. and Kuwaiti sources initially reported all the missiles as Scuds, but the Pentagon later said it believes they were al Samouds or some other type of missile."

Now, can we PLEASE get back to the pending war...on Canada! Liberate from the vague-in-a-French-kind-of-way persecutors our phoca vitulina friends to the north!

[OldDude]

AT least one (I think it was CNN, but I looked at a lot of sites) said that Pentagon has said none are scuds, but Patriots have gotten at least one, maybe two. Conflicting reports on whether second broke up in flight all by itself or was "assisted."

[Giantrobo]

The answer is YES. Duuuuh.

Like any good cop planting evidence is an important part of law enforcement.

http://www.alan.com/photogallery/1998/mark_furman.jpg

[eXcentris]

I wonder what people will think if, right after Iraq is "liberated", stockpiles of WMD's are found. I for one would be extremely suspicious. :)

[Rod Thorn]

Originally posted by Dah-Dee
Your favorite news source and mine, CNN, is sticking with:

"U.S. and Kuwaiti sources initially reported all the missiles as Scuds, but the Pentagon later said it believes they were al Samouds or some other type of missile."



CNN is sucks.

Scud (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030320-052922-7020r)
More Scud (http://www.nynewsday.com/news/nationworld/iraq/sns-ap-kuwait-alert.story)
Even More Scud (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2494537,00.html)
Even Still More Scud (http://www.austin360.com/aas/news/ap/ap_story.html/Intl/AP.V7554.AP-Kuwait-Alert.html)

And CNN wonders their ratings have decreased over the years and Fox has been taking the lead in news services and why their top people are resigning. Their site is always slow in news and their news station is worse still.

[DeputyDave]

Since reports are that the White House is confirming that it was a SCUD, I'm going to believe that until proven otherwise. I guess Blix missed one.

[DeputyDave]

OK, I’m going on the assumption that most reasonable people accept that Saddam has not been totally honest about the destruction of all WMD’s. The question now is what will Saddam do now. Looking at the big picture, the most damaging thing to his enemies (the US) is to NOT use them and continue to keep them hidden. That way when they are eventually found the anti-bush crowd (i.e. the rest of the world) will be able to point and say we planted the “glove”. The problem is that there is a very good chance that Saddam will not be around to reap the benefits of this plan.

Will Saddam be able to control his megalomaniac tendencies enough to follow this path, or will he decide to attack with WMD’s regardless of the long-term consequences?

[Dah-Dee]

Originally posted by Dah-Dee
Your favorite ( -wink- ) news source and mine ( -wink- ), CNN, ( -wink- ) is sticking with:


Edited for Rod Thorn -wink-

[bfrank]

Not a such a scale. But the facts might get adjusted.

[Dah-Dee]

Originally posted by eXcentris
I wonder what people will think if, right after Iraq is "liberated", stockpiles of WMD's are found. I for one would be extremely suspicious. :)


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight..... And the cigarette-smoking man will beckon to you from the shadows, offering to explain the sinister goings-on....

[X]

Iraq Confirms It Fired Missiles at Kuwait (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A579-2003Mar20.html)

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq confirmed on Thursday it had fired missiles at U.S. military bases in Kuwait, after earlier denying having done so.

In a statement broadcast by Iraqi television, Iraq's central military command said its units on the Iraq-Kuwait border had pounded "the dens of evil, treachery and tyranny" across the frontier at Ali al-Salem air base, Shuwaikh port close to Kuwait City and Camp Doha, the main U.S. base for its invasion of Iraq.

Kuwaiti officials said earlier that Iraq fired at least two Scud missiles at the Gulf state but they were intercepted, though Iraq denied having Scuds and any involvement in a strike.

The officials also said Iraq fired two other missiles -- smaller, Chinese-made ones -- into Kuwait's northern desert.

The salvo, the Iraqi statement said, was an expression of Iraq's "firm determination to teach the criminal invaders, hard lessons and make them taste bitter pain."

[eXcentris]

Originally posted by Dah-Dee
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight..... And the cigarette-smoking man will beckon to you from the shadows, offering to explain the sinister goings-on....

The weapons inspectors, who are (supposedly) experts in their field have found nothing in what? 6 months of searching? And that was with "tips" from US/UK intelligence. You are now going to tell me that US/UK soldiers magically stumbling upon stockpiles of WMD's woudn't be suspicious in the least? Are you going to deduct that:

1. The weapons inspectors are incompetent bumbling idiots that didn't know what the hell they are doing.

2. The soldiers planted the weapons there.

3. The soldiers stumbled on the evidence by chance!

4. The US/UK knew all long where the weapons were but had no intention of revealing that evidence.


Oh, and you might want to try thinking before posting your snide remarks. Twice in the same thread doesn't do much for your (gasp!) credibility...

[Dah-Dee]

Originally posted by eXcentris
Oh, and you might want to try thinking before posting your snide remarks. Twice in the same thread doesn't do much for your (gasp!) credibility...

Relax. Big breaths. Count to ten. Repeat. Or .... go club a seal! :D

Just trying to keep the mood lighter than it has any right to be. If it helps, add a -wink- when in doubt while reading posts....

[Pharoh]

Originally posted by eXcentris
The weapons inspectors, who are (supposedly) experts in their field have found nothing in what? 6 months of searching? And that was with "tips" from US/UK intelligence. You are now going to tell me that US/UK soldiers magically stumbling upon stockpiles of WMD's woudn't be suspicious in the least? Are you going to deduct that:

1. The weapons inspectors are incompetent bumbling idiots that didn't know what the hell they are doing.



:thumbsup:

[Dah-Dee]

Originally posted by eXcentris
The weapons inspectors, who are (supposedly) experts in their field have found nothing in what? 6 months of searching? And that was with "tips" from US/UK intelligence. You are now going to tell me that US/UK soldiers magically stumbling upon stockpiles of WMD's woudn't be suspicious in the least? Are you going to deduct that:

1. The weapons inspectors are incompetent bumbling idiots that didn't know what the hell they are doing.

2. The soldiers planted the weapons there.

3. The soldiers stumbled on the evidence by chance!

4. The US/UK knew all long where the weapons were but had no intention of revealing that evidence.


It seems to me that the most logical explanation for discovery of WMD, during or following hostilities, would be that the military action made it impossible for Iraq to continue moving any mobile WMDs or to continue concealing immobile WMD. Regarding immobile WMD, I wouldn't be surprised at all if we discover and secure involved facilities that Iraq has managed to hide (e.g., deep underground) since the first Gulf War. I certainly don't believe the U.S. intelligence community has some omniscient power to have 'magically' located all such facilities prior to sending in troops to hunt for them without interference from Saddam's thugs. There's no conspiracy here: Iraq admitted to vast quantities of WMD; agreed to destroy the same; won't provide documentation of such destruction. We're going in to help with that process, being the benevolent humanitarian superpower that we are. :D

Edit: Oops, forgot to address your enumerated....points:
1. Yes, bumbling...incompetent, check...idiots, yup...don't know, of course.
2. Redikkerus!
3. Possible.
4. Not likely.

P.S. -- Speaking of snide, read your post again. Sheesh.

[collven]

My gosh, was there ever any doubt that Iraq has WOMD? Everyone agreed back in '98 when the inspectors were booted out that they were there. I'm sure that, in the years since, with no inspectors looking over their shoulders, Iraq looked around and said, maybe we better destroy all this stuff and never again try to build more.

Was looking around and found this (http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/iraq.htm) report from September of 2001. If this much was known then, imagine what Iraq could have been doing in the year and a half since.

[cwilli]

Originally posted by Original Desmond
when the dust settles, if, all shocks of shocks, there happens NOT to be any weapons of mass destruction, will the US plant some in Iraq ?

cos if they don't, they will look like the biggest bullies and wallies in history!


What the heck is a wally? I gather that is not a compliment. If they do find weapons of mass destruction, will you eat your words?

[collven]

This is a pretty clear picture of what was known when the inspections stopped in '98.
Report submitted by the Executive Chairman of the Special Commission established by the Secretary-General pursuant to paragraph 9 (b) (i) of Security Council resolution 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991. (http://cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/report.htm) .


Pretty dry reading, so I will go straight to the conclusions:

VI.CONCLUSIONS

67. It is suggested that three central facts emerge from this report on the Commission’s work with Iraq during the last six months: the disarmament phase of the Security Council’s requirements is possibly near its end in the missile and chemical weapons areas but not in the biological weapons area; Iraq is permitting the monitoring work of the Commission to be exercised only at a less than satisfactory level, yet its development is vital to the future; full disclosure by Iraq of all necessary materials and information remains the crucial ingredient for both an end to the disarmament process and future monitoring.

68. Iraq’s present stance rests on its ambit claim that it has already fulfilled all of the Council’s disarmament requirements. It has asked the Council to accept this claim, immediately.

69. Argumentation Iraq employs in support of its claim includes the demand that the Commission prove to Iraq that it continues to hold prohibited weapons and associated capabilities. This argumentation, were it to be accepted, would reverse the onus of disclosure clearly placed upon Iraq by the Council and instead would require the Commission to make the full disclosure of proscribed items, that only Iraq can make. The question may be asked what sound purpose would be served were the Commission to substitute an overall statement of its own, for Iraq’s statement. Would Iraq then be asked to verify the Commission’s statement?

70. The biological weapons area is a revealing example of these facts. For half of the eight year period of the relationship between Iraq and the Special Commission, Iraq declared that it had no BW programme. When that claim was no longer tenable, Iraq provided a series of disclosure statements all of which have been found by international experts, on multiple occasions, to be neither credible nor verifiable.

71. The Commission has worked as constructively as it could, with Iraq, to try to shed light on the biological weapons area, including by suggesting a new approach in June this year. But, Iraq failed to take that opportunity, failed to provide the disclosures which are essential to the fulfilment of the disarmament mandate in the BW area.

72. As indicated in this report, the priority issues in the missile and CW areas, while important, are not large in number. Cooperation by Iraq, full disclosure, could see those areas able to be considered for transit to long-term monitoring and verification, at a relatively early date.

73. It must be recorded however, that for this to be the case, a satisfactory resolution of the question of the chemical warfare agent VX needs to be achieved, because of its implications for both the CW and missile files. This involves not just the question of VX weaponization, but also the more fundamental question of Iraq’s record of VX production. Again, there can be no substitute for full disclosure by Iraq on this matter, a disclosure which has never been made.

74. This report also discusses the additional very serious impediments to the Commission’s disarmament work caused by Iraq’s unilateral destruction and concealment actions and its withholding of relevant documents.

75. The Council may need to consider, at some stage, that the effect of these actions by Iraq may prove to be that the Commission is obliged to conclude that it is unable to provide 100% verification of the claimed fate or disposition of prohibited weapons.

76. In cases where such a conclusion comes to be accepted by the Council, then the effectiveness of the future monitoring system, including the Commission’s right of full access to any relevant sites, becomes even more important. As this report records, the Commission is studying the nature and resource requirements of the future monitoring system. It expects to seek the Council’s guidance in this area, shortly.

77. As indicated in this report the Commission is ready to assist, as the Council may require, in any comprehensive review to take place of Iraq’s compliance with its obligations under relevant Security Council resolutions. With respect to its mandate under section C of resolution 687 (1991), the Commission would be able to provide a comprehensive statement of the present disarmament situation, with an indication of the level of verification achieved.

78. The Commission is grateful to the Council for diligent attention it has continually given to it and its task.

[DeputyDave]

Originally posted by eXcentris
The weapons inspectors, who are (supposedly) experts in their field have found nothing in what? 6 months of searching? And that was with "tips" from US/UK intelligence. You are now going to tell me that US/UK soldiers magically stumbling upon stockpiles of WMD's woudn't be suspicious in the least? Are you going to deduct that:

1. The weapons inspectors are incompetent bumbling idiots that didn't know what the hell they are doing.

2. The soldiers planted the weapons there.

3. The soldiers stumbled on the evidence by chance!

4. The US/UK knew all long where the weapons were but had no intention of revealing that evidence.


Oh, and you might want to try thinking before posting your snide remarks. Twice in the same thread doesn't do much for your (gasp!) credibility... EXcentris, you lost some credibility with me by arguing that Iraq has no WMD’s. By honestly suspecting that the US would lie about and plant WMD’s before Saddam would lie about and try and hide them… well, to me you just showed your hand behind your real beliefs and why you protest this war.

Update: Seven SCUDS have been confirmed so far as being shot at out troops in Kuwait. (Or wait, maybe WE shot them at OURSELVES)

[DeputyDave]

I just read this: Chemical Weapons (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030321-87375993.htm) . I hope it's wrong
text:Inside the Ring

Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough

U.S. intelligence officials tell us the evidence that Iraqi artillery units are preparing to use chemical warfare shells is based on reconnaissance photographs of the shells.
The rounds were identified as chemical weapons-capable shells with slots where a vial of nerve agent or biological-weapons dust is inserted before firing.
No evidence of the actual chemical or biological agents has been spotted so far. Officials said the weapons of mass destruction vials are kept separate from the artillery shells and then brought to the units before being fired.
The artillery units with the special shells were bombed Wednesday in southern Iraq in a pre-emptive strike. Officials believe the Iraqis, if they use weapons of mass destruction, will draw on their hidden stocks of VX nerve agent, an extremely potent poison.

Military ruler
We are told that Army Lt. Gen. John Abizaid, one of two deputy commanders of U.S. Central Command, will likely be the top U.S. military officer in post-war Iraq.
The Arabic-speaking West Point graduate would essentially run the country while the United States maintained order and then slowly handed off power to Iraqi citizens.
Retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, who directs the Pentagon's office of Iraqi reconstruction, is now in Kuwait readying his team, which will follow the ground troops all the way to Baghdad.
Gen. Abizaid is helping to direct the war from Central Command war headquarters in As Saliyah, Qatar.
One of three regional rulers in post-Saddam Iraq has been designated. She is career Foreign Service Arabist Barbara Bodine, who last served as U.S. ambassador to Yemen. She will run civilian affairs in Baghdad and central Iraq, along with two other U.S. regional administrators.
Miss Bodine's appointment has angered some FBI and law enforcement officials because of her role in hampering the FBI's investigation of the October 2000 al Qaeda bombing of the destroyer USS Cole in Aden, Yemen.
She clashed with FBI counterterrorism official John O'Neill during the probe. She blocked Mr. O'Neill from returning to Yemen after a trip back to the United States, scuttling an aggressive investigation into the blast. Mr. O'Neill retired from the FBI and was killed in the September 11 World Trade Center attack.

Bogus intelligence
U.S. intelligence officials said they have serious doubts about the intelligence information being provided by captured al Qaeda leader Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.
Contrary to news reports this week praising Mohammed's role in supplying information about al Qaeda terrorism, officials said Mohammed appears to be supplying disinformation designed to fool U.S. intelligence, as well as information that is accurate but already widely known.
"What he's telling us has been in the press and has been known well before he was captured," one official told us. "He's trying to deceive his interrogators."
For example, Mohammed said that Osama bin Laden picked the targets attacked September 11, something that was known from other intelligence and from a videotape of bin Laden himself.
Other information on al Qaeda plans provided by Mohammed also were known from other intelligence that has been made public.

Quake or nuke
It is a hallway maxim at the CIA and other spy agencies that when an intelligence analyst smells flowers, he looks for a hearse.
That pessimism was at work recently when the ground shook in China's remote western Xinjiang province on Feb. 24.
U.S. intelligence agencies at first thought that China had conducted an unannounced underground nuclear test at its Lop Nur testing facility in the area. Analysts at first feared they had been caught napping again, as happened with India's underground nuclear test in May 1998, which was a major U.S. intelligence failure.
The event in Xinjiang was in fact an earthquake measuring 6.8 on the Richter scale. The quake killed 263 persons and injured 4,000 others.

Admiral's war message
On the eve of war with Iraq, Vice Adm. Timothy Keating, Central Command's top naval officer, sent a message to the 5th Fleet telling sailors "you are about to begin a momentous task: the liberation of Iraq."
"You have worked very hard preparing for this moment," Adm. Keating said. "You are ready. For some of you, this is a culmination of years, decades perhaps, of training. For others, this is your first exposure to the frightening reality of armed conflict.
"In any case, you will be called upon for sacrifice, for strenuous labor, for gut-wrenching, split-second decisions. You will make the right call. You will find a reservoir of strength and wisdom. I know you will because you have been schooled in the traditions of our glorious service, our United States Navy."
The strike-fighter pilot added that "it is time for us to go to work."
"Do so aggressively, intelligently, with audacity and courage. Go fully confident in the knowledge that you have earned the support of your countrymen and of millions of freedom-loving people around the world."
The Navy has deployed five carrier battle groups, which kicked off the war Wednesday night by firing more than 40 Tomahawk weapons into Baghdad and other sites.

Bunker buster
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has pointed to the 1991 bombing of the Amiriyah bunker in the Baghdad suburb as an example of how Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein fights.
In a recent prewar press conference, Mr. Rumsfeld said Saddam put civilians in a military command bunker knowing allied planes would eventually strike it.
Sure enough, on Feb. 13, 1991, an Air Force jet attacked the communications command bunker with a penetrating bomb. At daylight, the Iraqi regime displayed the dead civilian bodies to the international media as an example of America's murderous ways.
In his new book, "War with Iraq: Critical Lessons," retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Buster Glosson writes a detailed description of how the target, No. L30, was chosen.
"Why were civilians in the bunker?" asks Gen. Glosson, who designed the air campaign. "At this point in the war, how likely was it that people would go to a bunker on their own when they could very easily see we were only bombing things of military significance in Baghdad. In other words, the safest place to be in Baghdad was in an apartment complex or in a housing area."
He answers his own question: "Saddam did it on purpose. Saddam wouldn't have cared about the fact that a lot of people that were killed were dependents of the military and the intelligence service. That fact was irrelevant to him. All life, except his own, is irrelevant to him."


•Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough are Pentagon reporters. Mr. Gertz can be reached at 202/636-3274 or by e-mail at bgertz@WashingtonTimes.com. Mr. Scarborough can be reached at 202/636-3208 or by e-mail at rscarborough@WashingtonTimes.com

[al_bundy]

Originally posted by eXcentris
The weapons inspectors, who are (supposedly) experts in their field have found nothing in what? 6 months of searching? And that was with "tips" from US/UK intelligence. You are now going to tell me that US/UK soldiers magically stumbling upon stockpiles of WMD's woudn't be suspicious in the least? Are you going to deduct that:

1. The weapons inspectors are incompetent bumbling idiots that didn't know what the hell they are doing.

2. The soldiers planted the weapons there.

3. The soldiers stumbled on the evidence by chance!

4. The US/UK knew all long where the weapons were but had no intention of revealing that evidence.


Oh, and you might want to try thinking before posting your snide remarks. Twice in the same thread doesn't do much for your (gasp!) credibility...

And how would we get all these chemical and biological weapons there to plant them? It would take an operation of hundreds of people all who would need to keep quiet about it. A little too risky to even try anything like that. And why would Iraq need artillery shells capable of firing chemical weapons if they don't have any? If they don't have any chemical weapons then it would mean the artillery shells are designed with less than the optimal explosive power. Not too logical.

[Venusian]

so its been awhile. no big caches of WMD have been found. I haven't seen manufactured intel yet, anyone else?

[shaun3000]

I think they're hoping we forgot about the WMD thing.

[sfsdfd]

Originally posted by shaun3000
I think they're hoping we forgot about the WMD thing.
...or bury us in "We did it for another reason, you're just trying to revise history because of the upcoming election" rhetoric.

<a href="http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=318428">We know better.</a>

- David Stein

[kvrdave]

Originally posted by sfsdfd
...or bury us in "We did it for another reason, you're just trying to revise history because of the upcoming election" rhetoric.

<a href="http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=318428">We know better.</a>

- David Stein

Or perhaps say, everyone was wrong about WMD, including Clinton (Numanoid's law), and every other country around.

If they do not have them, they did according tot he UN's reports (and Iraq's admissions) but destroyed them and did not account for them. What a terrible mistake that only Bush could make. :lol: So long as it isn't just political, I suppose. -wink-

[kvrdave]

From the Kay report


What have we found and what have we not found in the first three months of our work?

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the U.N.


Examples of concealment
Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:

– A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to U.N. monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW (chemical biological weapons) research.

– A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW (bioweapons) agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for U.N. inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the U.N.

– Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.

– New research on BW-applicable agents, brucella and Congo Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the U.N.

– Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation.

– A line of UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.

– Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD-variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the U.N.

– Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1,000 km – well beyond the 150-km range limit imposed by the U.N. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets throughout the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.

– Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300-km range ballistic missiles – probably the No Dong – 300-km range anti-ship cruise missiles and other prohibited military equipment.

In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts, we have been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories and companies suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence – hard drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment cleaned of all traces of use – are ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts.


Kay report in its entirety
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20031002-1830-kay-text.html

[nemein]

-ohbfrank- There you go w/ the truth again kvrdave... won't you ever learn :(


-ptth-

[sfsdfd]

Originally posted by kvrdave
Or perhaps say, everyone was wrong about WMD, including Clinton (Numanoid's law), and every other country around.
And how many of those other countries used those beliefs as the basis for a land invasion to destroy a sovereign government?

And how many of those other countries staked their international reputation on later finding indisputable evidence of WMDs? How many said, "Trust us now, and we'll prove it later"?

As for the list you posted:

<i>"Equipment"</i>
One of the major complaints about the pre-war sanctions was that a huge number of routine materials were banned because they <i>might possibly</i> be used in a very tangential way to make weapons. Case in point: <i>chlorine</i>, routinely used in water purification. So the "equipment" found here could have been, like, a test tube. If this were remotely incriminating, we'd have heard all about it, in great detail.

<i>"A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW (bioweapons) agents"; "clandestine attempts to obtain missiles"</i>
Please tell me we didn't destroy a government on "maybe"s and "possibly"s and "attempt"s. The loud-and-clear message presented to the American people was not couched in such softness. This smacks of desperation.

<i>"Vehicles"; "fuel for SCUD missiles that could carry WMD-based warheads"</i>
Neither a plane nor SCUD missile constitutes a weapon of mass destruction. They're wholly conventional weapons. Even if they're in technical violation of U.N. restrictions, that's hardly a reason to <i>destroy their government.</i>

<i>"Plans and advance design work"</i>
Last I checked, a blueprint for a missile did not constitute a dangerously imminent threat.

How can you present this, with a straight face, as damning evidence of weapons of mass destruction? Look at this list, again, and ask yourself why such a massive threat that required a huge land invasion has turned up these tattered scraps of evidence - the harshest found in the following <i>six months.</i> Doesn't this speak volumes?

- David Stein

[Pharoh]

Originally posted by sfsdfd
And how many of those other countries used those beliefs as the basis for a land invasion to destroy a sovereign government?

And how many of those other countries staked their international reputation on later finding indisputable evidence of WMDs? How many said, "Trust us now, and we'll prove it later"?

.....

- David Stein


And you do not allow for the possibility that these countries acted the way they did simply out of selfish political motives? That they acted purposefully as an impediment to the US and the UK, and contrary to the advice of their intelligence services?

[sfsdfd]

Originally posted by Pharoh
And you do not allow for the possibility that these countries acted the way they did simply out of selfish political motives? That they acted purposefully as an impediment to the US and the UK, and contrary to the advice of their intelligence services?
Or maybe they didn't have enough proof to justify toppling a nation. As evidenced by the uniform cry from overseas: "We need more proof." As in: "We're not convinced that the threat is as imminent as you say."

But you know, I don't much care why other countries took the stances they did, because I can't vote in their elections. Why they chose not to put their countries' reputations at risk is their business. In other words: Don't change the subject. -smile-

The fact remains that <i>we</i> put our reputation at stake, and to date, <i>we</i> have been grossly unable to back up our statements. So it looks like <i>we</i> destroyed a nation without sufficient justification. Other countries and prior Presidents do not factor into this equation.

- David Stein

[Draven]

Originally posted by sfsdfd
stuff

Sfsdfd, I applaud your attempts, but around here it's really falling on deaf ears.

[sfsdfd]

Originally posted by Draven
Sfsdfd, I applaud your attempts, but around here it's really falling on deaf ears.
[shrug] Not really. The people who post here aren't the only ones who read the threads.

- David Stein

[Draven]

Originally posted by sfsdfd
[shrug] Not really. The people who post here aren't the only ones who read the threads.

- David Stein

Agreed. But as far as discussions are concerned, everyone is pretty well set in the rhetoric. Unless something massive happens (like finding WMDs) nothing is gonna change in the dialogue.

[John Sy]

If it's coming close to the November elections and Bush's numbers are down...then YES, the US will plant WMDs

[colossus]

Originally posted by John Sy
If it's coming close to the November elections and Bush's numbers are down...then YES, the US will plant WMDs

Or if they're legitimately found around that time, you will question the timing, or argue they're plants....:rolleyes:

[sfsdfd]

Originally posted by colossus
Or if they're legitimately found around that time, you will question the timing, or argue they're plants....:rolleyes:
I'll go on record as stating that, in the absence of seriously discrediting evidence, any WMDs we might find in Iraq are probably geniune. A scandal that big would involve the complicity of too many people - there would be a leak somewhere. I don't trust our government (no matter <i>who</i> is in charge), but I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

- David Stein

[Pharoh]

Originally posted by sfsdfd
Or maybe they didn't have enough proof to justify toppling a nation. As evidenced by the uniform cry from overseas: "We need more proof." As in: "We're not convinced that the threat is as imminent as you say."

But you know, I don't much care why other countries took the stances they did, because I can't vote in their elections. Why they chose not to put their countries' reputations at risk is their business. In other words: Don't change the subject. -smile-

The fact remains that <i>we</i> put our reputation at stake, and to date, <i>we</i> have been grossly unable to back up our statements. So it looks like <i>we</i> destroyed a nation without sufficient justification. Other countries and prior Presidents do not factor into this equation.

- David Stein


In all fairness, it was not I who brought up the sentiments and motives of America's "allies". :)

I believe the point is that the Bush administration took the action they did, an action they strongly felt was necessary, because of all the information and intelligence that was available to them. Information and intelligence that was not merely of their own gathering, but that which came from the work of many around the world, and the work of those that came before them. That fact, that nearly the entire world and past administrations firmly believed the same as the Bush administration and advocated similar action, is relevant. I think it would be far worse if we were at the same point in time as we are now, if the Bush administration went completely against the grain of what was believed about saddam and his regime, but we all know that they did not.

While you point out that what America did, liberating Iraq, was worse because no other nation took measures as drastic as America did, I believe, as do a great deal of others, that what France and Germany did was much more insidious. If they opposed America out of any sense of moral justice, whether it was right or wrong, I might see things differently. Clearly though, they did not.

We put our reputation on the line based on the whole world's thoughts and convictions, not simply those of a few men in America. To me, that is a difference that matters. And though I know we disagree, I find the Kay Report highly encouraging. There is still work to be done, but it will happen.

[eXcentris]

Originally posted by Pharoh


While you point out that what America did, liberating Iraq, was worse because no other nation took measures as drastic as America did, I believe, as do a great deal of others, that what France and Germany did was much more insidious. If they opposed America out of any sense of moral justice, whether it was right or wrong, I might see things differently. Clearly though, they did not.

Reducing the opposition to the US stance to simply "looking after their own selfish self-interests" is tad simplistic. Moral justice or not, there were certainly "principles" involved, namely multilateralism vs unilateralism. It's no secret that the Bush admin was never a big fan of international law and international organizations. That "policy" is what France, Germany, and Russia opposed.


We put our reputation on the line based on the whole world's thoughts and convictions, not simply those of a few men in America. To me, that is a difference that matters. And though I know we disagree, I find the Kay Report highly encouraging. There is still work to be done, but it will happen.

The whole world's thoughts and convictions? While there seemed to be an agreement that Iraq possessed WMD's, their was no such widespread conviction that Iraq posed an imminent threat to anyone.

[Pharoh]

Originally posted by eXcentris
Reducing the opposition to the US stance to simply "looking after their own selfish self-interests" is tad simplistic. Moral justice or not, there were certainly "principles" involved, namely multilateralism vs unilateralism. It's no secret that the Bush admin was never a big fan of international law and international organizations. That "policy" is what France, Germany, and Russia opposed.


Perhaps it is a bit simplistic, but I still do not believe in any way that "principles" were involved in France's or Russia's decisions. Germany was merely Chirac's lapdog in the whole matter, which still puzzles me to this day. France saw a chance to consolidate their power and advance their position, so they took it. It remains to be seen if it will be a successful gamble.



The whole world's thoughts and convictions? While there seemed to be an agreement that Iraq possessed WMD's, their was no such widespread conviction that Iraq posed an imminent threat to anyone.


What, I am not allowed any hyperbole? ;)
However, I think you are mistaken as to whether anyone from France or Germany thought that saddam was a serious and immediate threat.