Saddam Hussein 'clearly' had WMD

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Hans Blix asked for time, everyone but Bush and Blair wanted to give it to him. What was the hurry?

That's a fair question. However I don't think Hussein was innocent in the way things went at that juncture. The cat and mouse game he engaged in from day one with inspectors was detrimental to both his credibility and UNMOVIC's - a full decade of playing games with inspectors. The sentiment that it was time to end his game once and for all was a pretty reasonable one.

Which is why I call them chickenhawk neocons. If it were their life being put in harms way they would have had more patience.

From Hans Blix's briefing to the security council Friday February 14, 2003

Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming.

The inspections have taken place throughout Iraq at industrial sites, ammunition depots, research centres, universities, presidential sites, mobile laboratories, private houses, missile production facilities, military camps and agricultural sites. At all sites which had been inspected before 1998, re-baselining activities were performed. This included the identification of the function and contents of each building, new or old, at a site. It also included verification of previously tagged equipment, application of seals and tags, taking samples and discussions with the site personnel regarding past and present activities. At certain sites, ground-penetrating radar was used to look for underground structures or buried equipment.

Through the inspections conducted so far, we have obtained a good knowledge of the industrial and scientific landscape of Iraq, as well as of its missile capability but, as before, we do not know every cave and corner. Inspections are effectively helping to bridge the gap in knowledge that arose due to the absence of inspections between December 1998 and November 2002.

More than 200 chemical and more than 100 biological samples have been collected at different sites. Three-quarters of these have been screened using our own analytical laboratory capabilities at the Baghdad Centre (BOMVIC). The results to date have been consistent with Iraq's declarations.

We have now commenced the process of destroying approximately 50 litres of mustard gas declared by Iraq that was being kept under UNMOVIC seal at the Muthanna site. One-third of the quantity has already been destroyed. The laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor, which we found at another site, has also been destroyed.

The total number of staff in Iraq now exceeds 250 from 60 countries. This includes about 100 UNMOVIC inspectors, 15 IAEA inspectors, 50 aircrew, and 65 support staff. Mr. President,

In my 27 January update to the Council, I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, most importantly prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure. This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that had never been declared or inspected, as well as to Presidential sites and private residences.

In my last updating, I also said that a decision to cooperate on substance was indispensable in order to bring, through inspection, the disarmament task to completion and to set the monitoring system on a firm course. Such cooperation, as I have noted, requires more than the opening of doors. In the words of resolution 1441 (2002) - it requires immediate, unconditional and active efforts by Iraq to resolve existing questions of disarmament - either by presenting remaining proscribed items and programmes for elimination or by presenting convincing evidence that they have been eliminated. In the current situation, one would expect Iraq to be eager to comply. While we were in Baghdad, we met a delegation from the Government of South Africa. It was there to explain how South Africa gained the confidence of the world in its dismantling of the nuclear weapons programme, by a wholehearted cooperation over two years with IAEA inspectors. I have just learned that Iraq has accepted an offer by South Africa to send a group of experts for further talks.

How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programmes? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared and destroyed. Another matter - and one of great significance - is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were "unaccounted for". One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.

We are fully aware that many governmental intelligence organizations are convinced and assert that proscribed weapons, items and programmes continue to exist. The US Secretary of State presented material in support of this conclusion. Governments have many sources of information that are not available to inspectors. Inspectors, for their part, must base their reports only on evidence, which they can, themselves, examine and present publicly. Without evidence, confidence cannot arise.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: blackangst1
This has been discussed ad nauseum. We didnt know it was faulty AT THE TIME. And apperantly you, as usual, forget just as many lefties believed it as righties.

Typical. They're so busy trying to rewrite history and pretend they never voted to pay any attention to the here and now. Hindsight is always 20/20. Anyone who says the USA (and, indeed, the world) isn't better off without Saddam is an idiot.

The point is also that it does not take any intelligence at all to realize the USA and the rest of the world would be much better off without GWB. And it would be nice to make Putin go poof vanish. We could add and add to that world leader rascal list.

But as soon as you do it with violence, its always a real slippery slope.

And now we can ask who caused more innocent Iraqis to die? GWB or Saddam Hussein?
The statistics are so uncertain its hard to tell.

 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, technically he's right. He *did* have them, we just dont know when and where he sent them.

Do you know how easy it is to find traces of such an activity (it's impossible to hide, not virtually impossible, not almost impossible, IMPOSSIBLE)? He didn't have them and he didn't send them anywhere PERIOD.

I'd consider anyone who thinks anything different (that it wouldn't have been known and touted like hell from the propaganda machines of politics) to be as insane as the people who think the US intentionally brought down WTC.

And I consider anyone who ignore facts to the contrary to be a sympathizer. *shrug*

A sympathiser of what exactly? There are no facts to the contrary.

Would you like to answer this or are you just going to forget about it like others have when they tried to call me a traitor? Or make up some lame excuse for your statement like "i didn't mean you are a traitor, i never said the exact word" like others?
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Hans Blix asked for time, everyone but Bush and Blair wanted to give it to him. What was the hurry?

That's a fair question. However I don't think Hussein was innocent in the way things went at that juncture. The cat and mouse game he engaged in from day one with inspectors was detrimental to both his credibility and UNMOVIC's - a full decade of playing games with inspectors. The sentiment that it was time to end his game once and for all was a pretty reasonable one.

This is made up information, there was never any cat and mouse game, the politics played out were very simple, from when there was a threat of war the inspectors were given full access, at that point there was NO reason what so ever to go to war.

The only weapons the US had to face were weapons taken from the UN storage facilites which were left unguarded, this was a stupid mistake followed by a lot of other mistakes.

Don't get me wrong, going into Iraq could have been a good thing if there were troops enough to take care of the population and if things hadn't been so piss poor planned that the Iraq military was the least of the challenges the US would ever face.

Today, pretty much stay and take the casualties, spend a few trillion dollars more, there is nothing more to do besides doing that and hope it'll get better because there is no policy that aims to fix it.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Since you are suggesting that Congress is in FACT Congress In Chief

Then let's let Congress pull the U.S. 110% out of Iraq right now.

Where did I say that Dave?
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Where are the WMD's? Find them or it's you who are trying to rewrite history.

Saddam had 17 chances with the worthless U.N. He missed them all.

The resolution doesn't tie any authority to a prerequisite. Are you that dense?

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: eits
based on the fact that YOU cited these "fact," chances are that they're completely taken out of context and are misleading as hell. that's your trademark... you fudge stuff bigtime. that's why taking stuff out of context to try and make an argument is called "pulling a pabster".

Well, look here.

Got any facts?

From YOUR article:

In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Where are the WMD's?

Find them or it's you who are trying to rewrite history.

:thumbsup:

Why is Bush not being tried for War crimes?

Warmongering and Imperilization is not in the U.S. Constitution that I am aware of.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Where are the WMD's? Find them or it's you who are trying to rewrite history.

Saddam had 17 chances with the worthless U.N. He missed them all.

The resolution doesn't tie any authority to a prerequisite. Are you that dense?

Is there something wrong with what I quoted from the article you linked?

In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Please , find the WMD's.

Well, I'm waiting for the WMD's to be found.... are they under here...nope, not there.

Meanwhile people like you try to claim 70 dead US soldioers last month is good news.

Have fun wasting your vote on Thopmpson.
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,531
2
81
I love, love, love the fact that GenX still thinks this 'mythical' stockpile of WMD's is yet to be found...great stuff. "We know where they are" - but we aren't going to keep an eye on them? Well done sir, well done.

As for those saying "why would Saddam brag about his WMD's if he didn't have them?" - um...to scare people? Now that we've seen up close and personal views of how loving the 3 'sects' in Iraq are, not to mention the fond feelings shared between Iran & Iraq - do you really need to ask the question? His entire political career was based on fear, and WMD's, torture, and prisons were all part of that fear, and for the most part it worked.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
Now come on guys, those WMD were clearly visable to anyone looking through PNAC glasses.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: blackangst1
This has been discussed ad nauseum. We didnt know it was faulty AT THE TIME. And apperantly you, as usual, forget just as many lefties believed it as righties.

Typical. They're so busy trying to rewrite history and pretend they never voted to pay any attention to the here and now. Hindsight is always 20/20. Anyone who says the USA (and, indeed, the world) isn't better off without Saddam is an idiot.
Anyone who says invading Iraq to dispose of Hussien is a bigger idiot. Besides the Iraqi people the others who are really better off that Hussien was disposed are the Iranians, Al Qaeda and the Iraqi Shiite Islamafacists.
 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
People are still saying Saddam didn't comply with U.N requests to disarm because he wouldn't provide evidence of the demolition of weapons that never existed?


I'll never understand some people. THey'll swear OJ was guilty despite there being evidence otherwise but insist Bush is innocent of misleadery despite the following facts.

1. The uranium yellowcake nonsense - people knew it was fake from the starts.
2. Downing Street Memo - Bush admitted to blair he was going to iraq no matter what.
3. large body of evidence showing that the Douglas Feith run group and Cheney's office were not allowing contradictory views on WMD's out to the public or Congress. If you read Ron Suskind's book "the 1 percent doctrine" you'll understand that even Congress was getting heavily edited and redacted information.
4. Washington Post reports, from the same period that that Judith Miller thing was lying for Cheney in the NY times, was reporting dissent within the CIA.


The people who deny bush misled on Iraq just don't know all the facts. Hell, the Downing Street Memo barely got any coverage here.

Also, there is the lie constantly circulated that from what "we knew at the time" Saddam had WMD's. That's wrong. All the evidence presented at that time was questioned by one source or another. For example, the aluminum alloy tubes... the State Departments nuclear energy group flatly said AT THAT TIME that they could not be used for purification. HOWEVER, their dissent was REWRITTEN by somebody and attached as a footnote that nobody saw. The yellowcake stuff was known THEN to be false.
 

eits

Lifer
Jun 4, 2005
25,206
3
81
www.integratedssr.com
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: blackangst1
This has been discussed ad nauseum. We didnt know it was faulty AT THE TIME. And apperantly you, as usual, forget just as many lefties believed it as righties.

Typical. They're so busy trying to rewrite history and pretend they never voted to pay any attention to the here and now. Hindsight is always 20/20. Anyone who says the USA (and, indeed, the world) isn't better off without Saddam is an idiot.
Anyone who says invading Iraq to dispose of Hussien is a bigger idiot. Besides the Iraqi people the others who are really better off that Hussien was disposed are the Iranians, Al Qaeda and the Iraqi Shiite Islamafacists.

very much qftmft
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Old Freddy Boy is the Democrats dream candidate for the Republican Party, especially when he keeps towing the Bush BS line about Hussien and Iraq. The majority believe Bush is full of shit and they'll think old Freddy Boy is fullof shit too!
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Both Bush and Rumsfeld have already conceded the point that there were no WMDs; not that they weren't found, but that they didn't exist. We're not talking old WMDs, which the CIA had known about for years, we're talking about whether they found the WMDs the administration was talking about, the weapons from mobile weapons labs and even that ridiculous State of the Union comment about Saddam attempting to acquire uranium from Niger. Both completely unsubstantiated as of 10/2/07, save for a 3rd hand account of a former Iraqi official who says they were moved to Syria. That's it. Not a great reason to go to war.

If you can't even agree on reality, you've got bigger problems than being a shameless partisan.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: NeoV
I love, love, love the fact that GenX still thinks this 'mythical' stockpile of WMD's is yet to be found...great stuff. "We know where they are" - but we aren't going to keep an eye on them? Well done sir, well done.

As for those saying "why would Saddam brag about his WMD's if he didn't have them?" - um...to scare people? Now that we've seen up close and personal views of how loving the 3 'sects' in Iraq are, not to mention the fond feelings shared between Iran & Iraq - do you really need to ask the question? His entire political career was based on fear, and WMD's, torture, and prisons were all part of that fear, and for the most part it worked.

Um maybe you missed the part where these were stockpiles declared by Saddams regime to the UN. I never laid claim to know where they were. I am only making the claim they did exist at one point per Saddams own's regimes declaration. Where they are now is a mystery. I just hope they dont end up in some terrorist organizations hands.

 

eits

Lifer
Jun 4, 2005
25,206
3
81
www.integratedssr.com
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I'll never understand some people. THey'll swear OJ was guilty despite there being evidence otherwise but insist Bush is innocent of misleadery despite the following facts.

... uh... oj DID do it...
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

This is made up information, there was never any cat and mouse game, the politics played out were very simple, from when there was a threat of war the inspectors were given full access, at that point there was NO reason what so ever to go to war.

The only weapons the US had to face were weapons taken from the UN storage facilites which were left unguarded, this was a stupid mistake followed by a lot of other mistakes.

Don't get me wrong, going into Iraq could have been a good thing if there were troops enough to take care of the population and if things hadn't been so piss poor planned that the Iraq military was the least of the challenges the US would ever face.

Today, pretty much stay and take the casualties, spend a few trillion dollars more, there is nothing more to do besides doing that and hope it'll get better because there is no policy that aims to fix it.

Do you have anything backing up your claim that the politics were simple and the inspectors were given full access? Considering that the inspectors were kicked out of the country for 4 of the ~12 year period between wars I'm a little skeptical about this claim to full access.

Agreed on the proper way to go about Iraq. President Bush's father knew how to fight a war correctly - that is, not on the cheap. He had half a million men on the border before the word "go" was given. Amazing that his son bungled this very critical point.

Originally posted by: eits
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I'll never understand some people. THey'll swear OJ was guilty despite there being evidence otherwise but insist Bush is innocent of misleadery despite the following facts.

... uh... oj DID do it...

Definitely the best post/response in this thread.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: blackangst1
This has been discussed ad nauseum. We didnt know it was faulty AT THE TIME. And apperantly you, as usual, forget just as many lefties believed it as righties.

Typical. They're so busy trying to rewrite history and pretend they never voted to pay any attention to the here and now. Hindsight is always 20/20. Anyone who says the USA (and, indeed, the world) isn't better off without Saddam is an idiot.
Anyone who says invading Iraq to dispose of Hussien is a bigger idiot. Besides the Iraqi people the others who are really better off that Hussien was disposed are the Iranians, Al Qaeda and the Iraqi Shiite Islamafacists.

For some these are points that really do make sense, SH was the biggest threat to these organisations, for some it just doesn't matter, any justification is ok, i even remember someone offering up the idea that SH was a WMD himself, didn't last too long though since not even the most hardcore chaps would buy that one.

The Iraq war needs something with a twist, may i suggest a few nukes, it wouldn't even be the first time it was suggested and back then it was seriously considered by the US.

Getting SH was no victory, convicting him and hanging him was no victory, finding those elusive WMD's is the only thing that could ever make the Iraq war a victory, so whenever anyone asks about victory, that is the key, to find what started the war in the first place.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

This is made up information, there was never any cat and mouse game, the politics played out were very simple, from when there was a threat of war the inspectors were given full access, at that point there was NO reason what so ever to go to war.

The only weapons the US had to face were weapons taken from the UN storage facilites which were left unguarded, this was a stupid mistake followed by a lot of other mistakes.

Don't get me wrong, going into Iraq could have been a good thing if there were troops enough to take care of the population and if things hadn't been so piss poor planned that the Iraq military was the least of the challenges the US would ever face.

Today, pretty much stay and take the casualties, spend a few trillion dollars more, there is nothing more to do besides doing that and hope it'll get better because there is no policy that aims to fix it.

Do you have anything backing up your claim that the politics were simple and the inspectors were given full access? Considering that the inspectors were kicked out of the country for 4 of the ~12 year period between wars I'm a little skeptical about this claim to full access.

Agreed on the proper way to go about Iraq. President Bush's father knew how to fight a war correctly - that is, not on the cheap. He had half a million men on the border before the word "go" was given. Amazing that his son bungled this very critical point.

It was clearly stated at the first UN meeting after congress authorised the use of force, for some reason i can't access the UN site at this location but i might be able to find it elsewhere, i'm not speculating on this though, once there was a threat Blix and his team was granted access to all sites they wanted to visit until they were told to leave for their own safety.

GHB listened to the men who knew, the Military generals who could make a reasonable estimate, he might not have been the best leader in other ways but at least he knew that authority on warfare is something that comes from those familiar with warfare.

 

teclis1023

Golden Member
Jan 19, 2007
1,452
0
71
I tend to vote Democrat and consider myself a Progressive, and I have no doubt that Saddam, at least sometime in the past decade both developed and stored WMDs of some sort. I see this speculation as unrelated to the validity of the current war in Iraq. I guess my feelings come from the following:

- Saddam used gas on the Kurds, proving both willingness and intent to use WMDs
- Saddam invaded Kuwait, proving willingness and ability to demonstrate hostile action toward other nation-states
- Saddam continually rebuffed inspectors for the better part of a decade, despite global directives commanding his cooperation. This seems fishy to me.

I'm not condoning or condemning the current conflict, but I certainly don't believe that Saddam wasn't WMD-armed.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,377
126
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: blackangst1
This has been discussed ad nauseum. We didnt know it was faulty AT THE TIME. And apperantly you, as usual, forget just as many lefties believed it as righties.

Typical. They're so busy trying to rewrite history and pretend they never voted to pay any attention to the here and now. Hindsight is always 20/20. Anyone who says the USA (and, indeed, the world) isn't better off without Saddam is an idiot.

Then I guess you can accuse me of being an idiot. The population of Iraq is made up of tribes. These tribes are represented and incited to hatred by ancient grudges and corrupt leaders. These dynamic forces, aligned against each other, were kept in check by Saddam's ruthless hand. Removing the containment by Saddam has led, predictably, to carnage and chaos that will probably outlive us all.

Btw, if we cared about Genocide, we'd have invaded the Sudan. If we cared about WMDs, we'd have invaded North Korea, who has TESTED them repeatedly in our faces. If we cared about installing democracy, we'd be in all corners of the globe overthrowing governments wholesale. If we cared about fighting AQ, we'd invade Pakistan full-scale, starting with Pashtun and the NW territory. Nope, none of the so-called 'excuses' hold water, just hot air from the morons on the left and right who buy into their self-serving BS. I'm no partisan on this either, I'll call ANYone who supported the half-baked lies leading up to this fiasco for the frauds that they are, Clinton, Bush, etc. To add insult to injury, why was Shinseki PUBLICLY humiliated and marginalized for suggesting a large force would be required for a maintenance of stability after Saddam's fall? By arseholes who'd never seen a day of combat IN THEIR LIVES? These are the same people who tell us 'we listen to the generals' even to this day. Fact is, they fire the generals who don't tell them what's politically expedient, which means they have to tote the party line or get canned.

Nope, Iraq was about robbing the American citizen, at the cost of our global reputation, several thousand valiant soldiers (I salute them for their sacrifice and fortitude in the midst of a horrible situation), and at least a trillion dollars before the game is over.

Will Iraq be as stable in 2012 as it was in 2002? NOT_A_CHANCE.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |