Possible WMD in Iraq

Senate Intel Report: Saddam's Nuke Scientists Active Until War

While the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded on Friday that Saddam Hussein didn't have much in the way of weapons of mass destruction, its conclusions on Iraq's nuclear weapons program weren't quite the clean bill of health that the media have suggested they were.

For instance, according to the report's "Overall Conclusions" section, "Iraq was procuring dual use equipment that had potential nuclear applications."

What's more, the Committee found that "Iraq had kept its cadre of nuclear weapons personnel trained and in positions that could keep their skills intact for eventual use in a reconstituted nuclear program." To be sure, the Committee managed to come up with alternative explanations for these developments, such as labeling Saddam's nuclear team "former nuclear scientists" who just happened to be working at "former nuclear facilities" while carrying out work unrelated to any weapons program. But nowhere in the Committee's conclusions is there any mention of the 1.8 tons of low-enriched uranium that Saddam managed to accumulate at his "former" nuclear weapons plant at al-Tuwaitha. Just last month the U.S. Energy Department transported that stockpile out of Baghdad to prevent terrorists from getting their hands on it. And neither does the Committee discuss the 500 tons of un-enriched uranium Saddam kept at the same facility - material that certainly could have kept those "former" nuclear scientists busy, especially if they were able to convert some of that "dual use equipment." Of course, critics of the war say fears about Saddam's uranium stockpile were overblown, that the massive cache of nuke fuel was kept under seal and inspected annually by the International Atomic Energy Agency - even after U.N. weapons inspectors were kicked out in 1998. That would be the same IAEA that did such a bang-up job of keeping tabs on North Korea's nuclear program for the last 10 years - right up until 2002, when Pyongyang announced, "Surprise, we have eight nuclear bombs."

I will concede its more likely Saddam sent his scientists and technology to places like N Korea. Let someone else build a bomb or missile, and the US will refocus away from Iraq.

"Surprise we have 8 bombs" is right. Where was the CIA on this? Way back when, the CIA knew days in advance when the first Russian H-bomb was going to be tested. Now the CIA wouldnt know until after one obliterated a city.

For instance, according to the report's "Overall Conclusions" section, "Iraq was procuring dual use equipment that had potential nuclear applications."

Teaspoons can be used in nuclear powerplant canteens.Fits that statement perfectly.So what?

Senate Intel Report: Saddam's Nuke Scientists Active Until War

[size=4][size=4][size=4][size=4][size=1]While the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded on Friday that Saddam Hussein didn't have much in the way of weapons of mass destruction, its conclusions on Iraq's nuclear weapons program weren't quite the clean bill of health that the media have suggested they were.

For instance, according to the report's "Overall Conclusions" section, "Iraq was procuring dual use equipment that had potential nuclear applications."

... So, because Iraq had equipment that, in addition to its normal use, could be used for a nuclear program, this means... um... what?

I mean, I've got a 30-06 that I hunt with. I could use that to kill someone if I wanted to -- does this make me a murderer, or someone planning murder?

What's more, the Committee found that "Iraq had kept its cadre of nuclear weapons personnel trained and in positions that could keep their skills intact for eventual use in a reconstituted nuclear program." To be sure, the Committee managed to come up with alternative explanations for these developments, such as labeling Saddam's nuclear team "former nuclear scientists" who just happened to be working at "former nuclear facilities" while carrying out work unrelated to any weapons program. But nowhere in the Committee's conclusions is there any mention of the 1.8 tons of low-enriched uranium that Saddam managed to accumulate at his "former" nuclear weapons plant at al-Tuwaitha. Just last month the U.S. Energy Department transported that stockpile out of Baghdad to prevent terrorists from getting their hands on it. And neither does the Committee discuss the 500 tons of un-enriched uranium Saddam kept at the same facility - material that certainly could have kept those "former" nuclear scientists busy, especially if they were able to convert some of that "dual use equipment."

The 'facility' is a nuclear power plant. They need uranium to run?

Of course, critics of the war say fears about Saddam's uranium stockpile were overblown, that the massive cache of nuke fuel was kept under seal and inspected annually by the International Atomic Energy Agency - even after U.N. weapons inspectors were kicked out in 1998. That would be the same IAEA that did such a bang-up job of keeping tabs on North Korea's nuclear program for the last 10 years - right up until 2002, when Pyongyang announced, "Surprise, we have eight nuclear bombs."


Erm, they were regulary inspected. And further, the inspectors weren't kicked out, they were PULLED out so we could start Desert Fox bombing Iraq (right on, say I: he wasn't complying, but let's stop with this myth that he kicked them out)

I mean, I've got a 30-06 that I hunt with. I could use that to kill someone if I wanted to -- does this make me a murderer, or someone planning murder?


Oh, c'mon, don't be that naive. Saddam had used WMD's on his OWN PEOPLE before. You can't sit here and say that he would even hesitate to use them on Americans or American allies for a second.

You can use a hunting rifle for many different things. Target shooting, skeet shooting, actually hunting, self-protection, shooting varment in your house. But what the fuck could you possibly want to do with a WMD besides use it to harm somebody else??!!! You don't hang it up on the wall and admire it! He had no reason for having WMD's and if indeed he did have them, the world is a much better place without them and him , seeing as his track record playing with WMD's is a fatal one.

Oh, c'mon, don't be that naive. Saddam had used WMD's on his OWN PEOPLE before. You can't sit here and say that he would even hesitate to use them on Americans or American allies for a second..

Use on Americans? Do you mean sending them over here (which was the suggestion before we got into the war), comeon, how was he suppose to deliever them to us. The missles he had could not go that far away.

But what the fuck could you possibly want to do with a WMD besides use it to harm somebody else??!!! You don't hang it up on the wall and admire it! He had no reason for having WMD's and if indeed he did have them, the world is a much better place without them and him , seeing as his track record playing with WMD's is a fatal one.

Then what can be said of the US, Russia, China, Great Britain, India, Isreal, etc etc. Don't they all hold wepaons of mass destruction aka Atomic bombs or is this just a double standard.

We haven't used them on our own people or shown aggression in using them in the past twenty years.

We haven't used them on our own people or shown aggression in using them in the past twenty years.


but America has used them. on their own soil. and people did get sick cause of it.

Oh, c'mon, don't be that naive. Saddam had used WMD's on his OWN PEOPLE before. You can't sit here and say that he would even hesitate to use them on Americans or American allies for a second.

and so america and the other powers get to hold WMD's but other countries can't. seems like a load of bs to me. if the states want to "deactivate" worlds WMD, maybe they should start with themselfs and worry about others later.

You can use a hunting rifle for many different things. Target shooting, skeet shooting, actually hunting, self-protection, shooting varment in your house. But what the fuck could you possibly want to do with a WMD besides use it to harm somebody else??!!! You don't hang it up on the wall and admire it! He had no reason for having WMD's and if indeed he did have them, the world is a much better place without them and him , seeing as his track record playing with WMD's is a fatal one.

just to recap, he had the means to make WMDs. so do many places.
America's track record with WMD aint' so hot either.

When, besides to end a WORLD WAR, have we used WMD's? And when have we used them on our own people?

When, besides to end a WORLD WAR, have we used WMD's? And when have we used them on our own people?

Iraq in 1991, and again in 2003.DU shells are higghly radioactive,and US and allied infantry operating in contaminated areas have gotten sick from it.Not to mention the massive jump in birth deformities in Iraq since the Gulf war.
Could also argue that the carpet bombing of Vietnam with Agent Orange also harmed US servicemen and their allies,or that the abuse of napalm in Vietnam would be classified as a WMD if the enemy had been the ones using it.

I can only find this...
Human Nuclear Expiriments (http://www.nuclearfiles.org/ethumancost/020429onghumanexp.htm)

Good source material on the countries with weapons of mass destructions and the types they have. Nuclear Forces WMD around the world.
(http://fas.org/nuke/guide/index.html)
Off but not quite off topic...
In the Operation Teapot link on page 11 they talk about the beverages they exposed to the tests...
"Some flavor change was found in the beverages, more in beer than in soft drinks. However the alterations may well be considered as equivalent in most respects to "aging" and were not found to detract from the potential usage of these beverages for emergency supplies"

Well at least its good to know that the beer was good to drink even in an attack. :lol: Talk about aging a beer. Molsen anyone. :smile:

Use on Americans? Do you mean sending them over here (which was the suggestion before we got into the war), comeon, how was he suppose to deliever them to us. The missles he had could not go that far away.

we were never really worried about his missles, we were just worried about his capacity to produce the substances. who says he wouldn't be able to have an operative smuggle a small vial or case of the stuff into the U.S.? It's scary how easily someone could do that. And yes, even that small of an amount can wreak horrible damage if employed correctly. Sarin, which they knew he had, or had the capability of producing, is extremely lethal. It is lethal in , I don't know what it is, some 1/100th of a gram or something. It's terrible stuff. Someone with a small vial could do real damage with the right delivery.

Which leads one to wonder if anyone is actually safe if something that small in quantity is so lethal and can be probably transported.

... So, because Iraq had equipment that, in addition to its normal use, could be used for a nuclear program, this means... um... what?
I guess you can't read or something because you quoted me "potential nuclear applications"


... Erm, they were regulary inspected. And further, the inspectors weren't kicked out, they were PULLED out so we could start Desert Fox bombing Iraq (right on, say I: he wasn't complying, but let's stop with this myth that he kicked them out)

That could be true if the invasion started in 1998, the year the inspectors were kicked out. If I stated 2003 or 2002 then you had a chance but 1998 was before Bush was in office! Or are you implying Clinton started this?

Iraq in 1991, and again in 2003.DU shells are higghly radioactive,and US and allied infantry operating in contaminated areas have gotten sick from it.Not to mention the massive jump in birth deformities in Iraq since the Gulf war.

In military applications, when alloyed, Depleted Uranium [DU] is ideal for use in armor penetrators. These solid metal projectiles have the speed, mass and physical properties to perform exceptionally well against armored targets. DU provides a substantial performance advantage, well above other competing materials. This allows DU penetrators to defeat an armored target at a significantly greater distance. Also, DU's density and physical properties make it ideal for use as armor plate. DU has been used in weapon systems for many years in both applications. Depleted uranium results from the enriching of natural uranium for use in nuclear reactors. Natural uranium is a slightly radioactive metal that is present in most rocks and soils as well as in many rivers and sea water. Natural uranium consists primarily of a mixture of two isotopes (forms) of uranium, Uranium-235 (U235) and Uranium-238 (U238), in the proportion of about 0.7 and 99.3 percent, respectively. Nuclear reactors require U235 to produce energy, therefore, the natural uranium has to be enriched to obtain the isotope U235 by removing a large part of the U238. Uranium-238 becomes DU, which is 0.7 times as radioactive as natural uranium. Since DU has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, there is very little decay of those DU materials.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/du.htm

The article you posted is ridiculous, and is merely wild speculation and conjecture. Because Iraq did not exile it's nuclear scientists, or force them to work in a different field, you draw the conclusion that he was keeping them ready for a nuclear weapons program?

Pick, as for your reply, I think you entirely missed the analogy between the rifle and the "dual use items",and simply started bleating about WMD. The point was, that the rifle has an intended legal purpose other than killing people, although it could also be used for that. The "dual use items" also have an intended legal purpose other than making nuclear weapons, although they could be used for that.


That could be true if the invasion started in 1998, the year the inspectors were kicked out. If I stated 2003 or 2002 then you had a chance but 1998 was before Bush was in office! Or are you implying Clinton started this?

Are you familiar with Richard Butler? The man who withdrew the UNSCOM team in 1998, believing that the US would invade? Iraq did not kick out the inspectors, they were pulled out by their leader.

And one more link for you republican haters!

http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/wmd.htm

Oh, c'mon, don't be that naive. Saddam had used WMD's on his OWN PEOPLE before. You can't sit here and say that he would even hesitate to use them on Americans or American allies for a second.

Um, first of all, any Kurd will be happy to tell you that they are NOT Iraqis. Iraqis would agree.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2098.htm

Interesting link on the whole Kurd-gassin' thing.


You can use a hunting rifle for many different things. Target shooting, skeet shooting, actually hunting, self-protection, shooting varment in your house. But what the fuck could you possibly want to do with a WMD besides use it to harm somebody else??!!!

Um, I was talking about the 'dual-use' stuff we found. Not WMDs. Because, um, there aren't any WMDs to discuss. Anyway, dual-use: You can use a rifle for lots of legal things, as we all know, but it has a 'dual-use' in that you could also murder someone with it. Does it mean you intend to use the rifle for murder, just cuz it could be? No, of course not. Same thing.

You don't hang it up on the wall and admire it! He had no reason for having WMD's and if indeed he did have them, the world is a much better place without them and him , seeing as his track record playing with WMD's is a fatal one.

Agreed -- he had no reason. Also, of course, he DIDN'T have WMDs. I have no reason for owning a death-ray armed flying saucer. Don't have any of those in the shed either.

*Reads through thread, looks around, takes stock of general situation*

Wah, wah, waaaahh. Republican this, Democrat that. Saddam COULD have done this with his Uranum supplies, other countries could do THAT with their Uranium supplies. I wish all the nations of the earth would just load up the arsenals they possess, and all just launch at the same time... wipe everyone out. Get it the hell over with. Anyone whining about potential capabilities that could have possibly been utilized to maybe launch against another country needs to just shut up and deal with it. You know what? If you waste your time thinking like that, then you're already a damn victim. News Flash: THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SOMEONE WHO WILL POSE A POTENTIAL THREAT IN SOMEONE ELSE'S EYES. Iraq wants to have nuclear capabilities? Good, let 'em. North Korea wants to have nuclear capabilities? Well alright then, all the power to them. People seem to like to use some sort of horribly skewed logic when it comes to the ownership of "bad things" -- and it usually portrays their country in the right. They justify it with all kinds of excuses: "well, we're a good guy country," or "we're a responsible power," or "well, they have a past of violent utilization of said destructive force." Wake up! Nearly EVERY country/major institution has abused their power at some time or another, in some way or another. Many people in our country saw the use of the atomic bombs on Japan as "a quick end to a war that otherwise might have dragged on, so it was the humane thing to do." Yeah, well, I can guarantee you the generations of innocent people who suffered from radiation poisoning didn't see it that way. England's subjugation of Ireland and Scotland, China's oppresive subjugation of Tibet, the Roman empire's brutal expansion, Japan's violent imperialistic conquests, and the list goes on. As I said in a post a while back, we're obviously unwilling to learn from our past, so why spend your time pouring over articles, trying to link Kerry to this, Bush to that, and somehow tying it into an ultimate gloom and doom scenario for the people of the United States (for instance.) That's some real Cold War style conspiring if you ask me. The fact is, either NO ONE is in the right to own these type of resources, or EVERYONE is. But what the hell, if it helps you sleep at night, I'll say it: We have a right to possess a nuclear arsenal, and -enter name here- doesn't. Why? Because we're good and they're bad, of course. :rolleyes:

Good point.

If you found something of mine that you thought should be removed, and demanded (by international law) that you be allowed to come make sure everything was on the up-and-up, and I refused, only allowing you to come in 10 years later, AND I had an entire country at my disposal, I can garuntee you I could hide it pretty well. Just mho on the WMDs in Iraq

and still have it ready to be deployed in 45 minutes?

Don't think so.

I'd say within 24 hours. He would be the guy that knew where they were, who was guarding them, how to get them, and where they would need to be to become armed and aimed.

.....but it never happened.Why not?

The time was not right apparently. Cuba HAD VISIBLE NUKES and never fired them. Just because a group or country has them does not mean they will use them right away or on a whim, but they still could at any time they chose. They were just waiting for the right moment.

The time was not right apparently. Cuba HAD VISIBLE NUKES and never fired them. Just because a group or country has them does not mean they will use them right away or on a whim, but they still could at any time they chose. They were just waiting for the right moment.
I think that "moment" has come and gone several times now and they were never used. Either they don't have them or they are demonstrating such considerable restraint that it wouldn't matter even if they did have them.

You have 100,000 men armed to the teeth rampaging across your country dropping bombs and missiles on your children and slaughtering your armed forces like sheep...how much better justification woulfd you need before you use them?

There were no WMD.There are none to be found.Bush lied,marines died.End of story.

Yes we know that Saddam had at least the means to produce WMDs. We also know that he has the willingness to use them against anyone who opposed him. Contrary to popular belief however, we did not go to war because he had them. We went to war because he refused to prove that he didn't have them. It was not the responsibility of the IAEA, UN, US, or any other organization/country to find them.

Yes we know that Saddam had at least the means to produce WMDs. We also know that he has the willingness to use them against anyone who opposed him. Contrary to popular belief however, we did not go to war because he had them. We went to war because he refused to prove that he didn't have them. It was not the responsibility of the IAEA, UN, US, or any other organization/country to find them.
He let the UN conduct a search to anywhere they wanted to go...hwo is that refusing? Even after Saddam has been put out of power, they still have not found any hard evidence of Weapons of MASS destrution.....one shell of some gas is a weapon, but how is that a threat to the ENTIRE US?

Yes we know that Saddam had at least the means to produce WMDs. We also know that he has the willingness to use them against anyone who opposed him.


who doesn't have the ability these days to make or buy WMD's. if he were willing to use them then he would of nuked new york long ago.


Contrary to popular belief however, we did not go to war because he had them. We went to war because he refused to prove that he didn't have them.


no, we did start over a war over the WMD's. remember bush getting up giving speechs about how saddam was a threat and he has weapons of mass destruction. if he had he would of used them.


It was not the responsibility of the IAEA, UN, US, or any other organization/country to find them


just like it is not the responibilty of america to police world.

He let the UN conduct a search to anywhere they wanted to go...hwo is that refusing? Even after Saddam has been put out of power, they still have not found any hard evidence of Weapons of MASS destrution.....one shell of some gas is a weapon, but how is that a threat to the ENTIRE US?
http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/chronologyframe.htm As you can see this is from the UN's web site!! This is in response to Raz_Kaz (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/member.php?u=129620). It states that Iraq admitted to having WMD and on Iraq refusing to allow the weapons inspectors to do there job. UNSCOM:

CHRONOLOGY OF MAIN EVENTS3

Apr 1991 Security Council resolution 687 (1991), Section C, decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept, under international supervision, the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of its weapons of mass destruction, ballistic missiles with a range over 150 kilometres, and related production facilities and equipment. It also provides for establishment of a system of ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq’s compliance with the ban on these weapons and missiles. Requires Iraq to make a declaration, within 15 days, of the location, amounts and types of all such items.

18 Apr 1991 Iraq provides initial declaration required under resolution 687 (1991), declares some chemical weapons and materials and 53 Al-Hussein and Scud type long-range ballistic missiles. Iraq declares it has no biological weapons programme..

16 May 1991 Iraq submits revised declarations covering additional chemical weapons and a refinement of the missile declaration.

23-28 Jun 1991 UNSCOM/IAEA inspectors try to intercept Iraqi vehicles carrying nuclear related equipment (Calutrons). Iraqi personnel fire warning shots in the air to prevent the inspectors from approaching the vehicles. The equipment is later seized and destroyed under international supervision.

28 Jun 1991 Statement by the President of the Security Council deploring Iraq’s denial of access to an inspection site and asking the Secretary-General to send a high-level mission to Baghdad immediately (S/22746).

2 Aug 1991 Iraq declares to the first biological inspection team that it had conducted "biological research activities for defensive military purposes".

15 Aug 1991 Security Council resolution 707 (1991), demands that Iraq provide without further delay full, final and complete disclosures of its proscribed weapons and programmes, as required by resolution 687 (1991).

23 Sep 1991 Statement to the press by the President of the Security Council concerning Iraq’s failure to provide unconditional acceptance of resolution 707 (1991) (SC/5306 - IK54).

21-30 Sep 1991 IAEA inspectors find large amounts of documentation relating to Iraq's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. The Iraqi officials confiscate some documents from the inspectors. The inspectors refuse to yield a second set of documents. In response, Iraq refuses to allow the team to leave the site with these documents. A four-day stand-off during which the team remained in the parking lot of the site ensues. Iraq permits the team to leave with the documents following a statement by the President of the Security Council, threatening enforcement action by members of the Council.

24 Sep 1991 Statement to the press by the President of the Security Council concerning Iraq’s detention of an inspection team and reiterated that the Commission is the sole judge of the definition of documents, sites or materials subject to inspection (SC/5307 - IK61).

Oct 1991 Iraq states that it considers the Ongoing Monitoring and Verification Plans, adopted by resolution 715 (1991), to be unlawful and states that it is not ready to comply with resolution 715.

19 Feb 1992 Statement by the President of the Security Council approving the report of the special mission and expressing grave concern over Iraq’s failure to acknowledge its obligations under resolution 715 (1991) and the plans for ongoing monitoring and verification, and supporting a decision to despatch a further special mission to Baghdad (S/23609).

28 Feb 1992 Statement by the President of the Security Council, upon receipt of the special Commission’s report, reaffirming that it is for UNSCOM alone to determine which items are to be destroyed under resolution 687, and condemning Iraq’s failure to provide full compliance with the relevant Security Council resolutions (S/23663).

12 Mar 1992 Statement by the President of the Security Council noting a statement made in the Council by the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq and expressing the view that Iraq had not yet complied fully and unconditionally with its obligations under the relevant Security Council resolutions (S/23709).

19 Mar 1992 Iraq declares the existence of previously undeclared ballistic missiles (89), chemical weapons and associated material. Iraq reveals that most of these undeclared items were unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991, in violation of resolution 687 (1991)..

May 1992 Iraq provides its first Full, Final and Complete Disclosures for its prohibited biological and missile programmes. Iraq admits to having had only a "defensive" biological weapons programme.

Jun 1992 Iraq provides its first Full, Final and Complete Disclosure for its prohibited chemical weapons programme.

Jul 1992 UNSCOM begins the destruction of large quantities of Iraq's chemical weapons and production facilities.

6-29 Jul 1992 Iraq refuses an inspection team access to the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture. UNSCOM had reliable information that the site contained archives related to proscribed activities.

6 Jul 1992 Statement by the President of the Security Council concerning refusal by Iraq to permit the UNSCOM inspection team entry into the Ministry of Agriculture and stating that Iraq’s denial constituted a material and unacceptable breach of resolution 687 (1991) (S/24240). Access was thereafter obtained. Evidence gathered from the Ministry is consistent with the removal of items during the period the team was denied entry.

Jan 1993 Iraq refuses to allow UNSCOM the use of its own aircraft to fly into Iraq. Furthermore, Iraq starts incursions into the demilitarized zone between Iraq and Kuwait and increases its military activity in the no-fly zones.

Jun-Jul 1993 Iraq refuses to allow UNSCOM to install remote-controlled monitoring cameras at two missile engine test stands.

Jun 1994 UNSCOM completes the destruction of large quantities of chemical warfare agents and precursors and their production equipment.

Sep/Oct 1994 Iraq sets a deadline of 10 October 1994 for the implementation of paragraph 22 of resolution 687 (1991), rejects all appeals to withdraw its threat to stop cooperation with UNSCOM, and starts deploying troops in the direction of Kuwait. It leads the US to begin deploying troops to Kuwait.

15 Oct 1994 Security Council resolution 949 (1994), demands that Iraq "cooperate fully" with UNSCOM and that it withdraw all military units deployed to southern Iraq to their original positions. Iraq thereafter withdraws its forces and resumes its work with the Commission.

Mar 1995 Iraq provides the second Full, Final and Complete Disclosures of its prohibited biological and chemical weapons programmes.

1 Jul 1995 As a result of UNSCOM's investigations and in the light of irrefutable evidence, Iraq admits for the first time the existence of an offensive biological weapons programme but denies weaponization.

8 Aug 1995 General Hussein Kamel, Minister of Industry and Minerals and former Director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Corporation, with responsibility for all of Iraq's weapons programmes, leaves Iraq for Jordan. Iraq claims that Hussein Kamel had hidden from UNSCOM and the IAEA important information on the prohibited weapons programmes. Iraq withdraws its third biological Full, Final and Complete Disclosure and admits a far more extensive biological warfare programme than previously admitted, including weaponization. Iraq also admits having achieved greater progress in its efforts to indigenously produce long-range missiles than had previously been declared. Iraq provides UNSCOM and the IAEA with large amounts of documentation, hidden on a chicken farm ostensibly by Hussein Kamel, related to its prohibited weapons programmes which subsequently leads to further disclosures by Iraq concerning the production of the nerve agent VX and Iraq's development of a nuclear weapon. Iraq also informs UNSCOM that the deadline to halt its cooperation is withdrawn.

Nov 1995 The Government of Jordan intercepts a large shipment of high-grade missile components destined for Iraq. Iraq denies that it had sought to purchase these components, although it acknowledged that some of them were in Iraq. UNSCOM conducts an investigation, which confirms that Iraqi authorities and missile facilities have been involved in the acquisition of sophisticated guidance and control components for proscribed missiles. UNSCOM retrieves additional similar missile components from the Tigris river, which had been allegedly disposed of there by Iraqis involved in the covert acquisition.

Mar 1996 UNSCOM teams are denied immediate access to five sites designated for inspection. The teams enter the sites after delays of up to 17 hours.

19 Mar 1996 Statement by the President of the Security Council expressing the Council’s concern at Iraq's denial of access, which it terms a clear violation of Iraq's obligations under relevant resolutions. The Council also demands that Iraq allow UNSCOM teams immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to all sites designated for inspection (S/PRST/1996/11).

May-Jun 1996 UNSCOM supervises the destruction of Al-Hakam, Iraq's main facility for the production of biological warfare agents.

Jun 1996 Iraq denies UNSCOM teams access to sites under investigation for their involvement in the "concealment mechanism" for proscribed items.

13 Jun 1996 Despite the adoption of resolution 1060 (1996), Iraq again denies access to another inspection team.

22 Jun 1996 Iraq provides the fourth Full, Final and Complete Disclosure of its prohibited biological weapons programme.

23 Aug 1996 Statement by the President of the Security Council in which the Council strongly reaffirms its full support of the Commission in the conduct of its inspections and other tasks and expresses its grave concern at Iraq’s failure to comply fully with resolution 1060 (1996). The Council also states that Iraq’s failure to grant immediate unconditional and unrestricted access to sites and its attempts to impose conditions on the conduct of interviews with Iraqi officials constitute a gross violation of its obligations. The Council also reminds Iraq that only full compliance with its obligations would enable the Executive Chairman to present a report in accordance with section C of resolution 687 (1991) (S/PRST/1996/36).

Nov 1996 Iraq blocks UNSCOM from removing remnants of missile engines for in-depth analysis outside Iraq.

30 Dec 1996 Statement by the President of the Security Council in which the Council deplores the refusal of Iraq to allow the Special Commission to remove certain missile engines from Iraq for analysis, and demands that Iraq allow such removal. (S/PRST/1996/49).

Jun 1997 Iraq interferes with UNSCOM's helicopter operations, threatening the safety of the aircraft and their crews.

18 Jun 1997 Statement by the President of the Security Council expressing serious concern at Iraq’s actions endangering the Commission’s helicopters, deploring such incidents and demanding that Iraq permit UNSCOM to carry out its air operations anywhere in Iraq without interference of any kind (S/PRST/1997/33).

21 Jun 1997 Iraq again blocks UNSCOM's teams from entering certain sites, which have been designated by UNSCOM for inspection.

21 Jun 1997 Security Council resolution 1115 (1997), condemns Iraq's actions and demands that Iraq allow UNSCOM's team immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any sites for inspection and officials for interviews by UNSCOM. The Council also calls for an additional report on Iraq's cooperation with the Commission and suspends the periodic sanctions reviews.

Sep 1997 Iraq provides fifth Full, Final and Complete Disclosure for its prohibited biological weapons programme. An international panel of experts is convened in New York to discuss Iraq’s declaration. The panel unanimously finds Iraq’s declaration to be incomplete, inadequate and technically flawed.

13 Sep 1997 One of UNSCOM's personnel is manhandled by an Iraqi officer on board one of the Commission's helicopters while the inspector was attempting to take photographs of the unauthorized movement of Iraqi vehicles inside a site declared by Iraq to be "sensitive", that was designated for inspection. Two days later, Iraq again failed to freeze movement inside another "sensitive site" designated for inspection..

17 Sep 1997 While seeking access to a site for inspection declared by Iraq to be "sensitive", UNSCOM inspectors witness and videotape the movement of files, the burning of documents and dumping of ash-filled waste cans into a nearby river.

Sep/Oct 1997 UNSCOM inspection teams are prevented from inspecting three sites designated for inspection, on the basis that the sites are "presidential sites", which Iraq claims are out of bounds to UNSCOM's inspectors.

Oct 1997 UNSCOM completes the destruction of additional, large quantities of chemical weapons related equipment and precursors chemicals. Iraq had previously denied that part of the equipment had been used for CW production. Only in May 1997, on the basis of UNSCOM's investigations, did Iraq admit that some of the equipment had indeed been used in the production of VX.

27 Oct 1997 The Executive Chairman sends a letter to Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, suggesting the agenda for forthcoming meetings in Baghdad. The letter proposes that Iraq address important outstanding issues, including warheads, VX and the biological weapons area. It also mentions the need to review the "modalities for inspection of sensitive sites" to ensure that inspections are conducted in a credible manner.

29 Oct 1997 Statement by the President of the Security Council condemning Iraq's decision and terming it "unacceptable". The statement also demands that Iraq cooperate fully, without restrictions or conditions with UNSCOM, and warns of the serious consequences of Iraq's failure to comply immediately and fully with its obligations under relevant resolutions (S/PRST/1997/49).

12 Nov 1997 Security Council resolution 1137 (1997), condemns the continued violation by Iraq of its obligations, including its unacceptable decision to seek to impose conditions on cooperation with UNSCOM. It also imposes a travel restriction on Iraqi officials who are responsible for or participated in the instances of non-compliance.

13 Nov 1997 Statement by the President of the Security Council in which the Council condemns the unacceptable decision of Iraq in expelling personnel of UNSCOM of a specified nationality, demands Iraq to rescind its decisions of 29 October 1997 and demands that Iraq cooperate fully with UNSCOM (S/PRST/1997/51).

17 Dec 1997 The Executive Chairman returns to New York from Iraq and reports, inter alia, to the Council that Iraq would not permit the Commission’s inspectors into a category of sites (Presidential and Sovereign) hitherto not identified to the Council or the Commission as being off-limits to inspection (S/1997/987).

13 Jan 1998 The Executive Chairman reports to the Council that during the first day of an inspection, Iraq announced that it was withdrawing its cooperation with the inspection team on the pretext that the team had too many individuals of US or UK nationality (S/1998/27 of 13 January 1998).

14 Jan 1998 Iraq continues to block the work of the inspection team.

14 Jan 1998 The President of the Security Council issues a statement terming Iraq’s actions unacceptable and a clear violation of the relevant resolutions and reiterates its demand that Iraq cooperate fully and immediately without conditions (S/PRST/1998/1).

22 Jan 1998 Following a visit to Iraq, the Executive Chairman reports to the Council that, despite the Council’s Statement on the need for unrestricted access to all sites, the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq continues to assert that Iraq would not permit access to eight so-called Presidential sites (S/1998/58).Early Feb Two technical evaluation meetings (TEMS) take place in Baghdad, reviewing 1998 the position with respect to the chemical weapons agent VX. and missile warheads. The report of the outcome of the meetings is submitted to the Council (document S/1998/176). Despite Iraq’s assertions and it having had a full opportunity to present its views on all matters pertaining to the two issues, the team of UNSCOM international experts conclude unanimously that Iraq has still not provided sufficient information for the Commission to conclude that Iraq had undertaken all the disarmament steps required of it in these areas. The Commission’s experts provide the Council with an oral briefing of the outcome on these two TEMS in March 1998..

8 Apr 1998 The report of the biological weapons TEM is transmitted to the Council (S/1998/308). As with the other TEMs, the experts unanimously conclude that Iraq’s declaration on its biological weapons programme is incomplete and inadequate.

14 Jul 1998 As a consequence of the high-level talks between the Deputy Prime Minister and the Executive Chairman in June 1998, a team of UNSCOM international biological experts is assembled in Baghdad to review, for the third time, Iraq’s declaration on its biological weapons programme. The experts conclude that the declaration is not verifiable.

3 Aug 1998 During a visit to Baghdad, the Executive Chairman is told by the Deputy Prime Minister that he must certify to the Security Council that the requirements of section C of resolution 687 (1991) have been met. The Chairman responds that he is not in a position to do so. The Deputy Prime Minister suspends the talks (S/1998/719).

5 Aug 1998 The Revolutionary Command Council and the Ba’ath Party Command decide to halt cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA pending Security Council agreement to lift the oil embargo, reorganize the Commission and move it to either Geneva or Vienna. In the interim, Iraq would, on its own terms, permit monitoring under resolution 715 (1991).

6 Aug 1998 The Executive Chairman briefs the Security Council on Iraq’s position and the results of his talks in Baghdad (S/1998/719). The Security Council’s President terms Iraq’s actions "totally unacceptable".

12 Aug 1998 The Executive Chairman informs the Security Council (document S/1998/767) that, in addition to halting all disarmament activities, Iraq’s actions with respect to monitoring have impinged on the effectiveness of the monitoring system and the Commission could not continue to provide the Security Council with the same level of assurances of Iraq’s compliance with its obligations not to reestablish its proscribed weapons programmes.

19 Aug 1998 The Executive Chairman proposes, in a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister that Iraq and the Special Commission resume the full range of activity. This is rejected by the Deputy Prime Minister in remarks to the press stating that Iraq does not trust the Executive Chairman or the elements dominating UNSCOM and that it does not believe that there is any use in resuming work with them.

3 Sep 1998 The Executive Chairman briefs the Security Council on the status of UNSCOM’s work in Iraq, including three incidents where Iraq has placed further limits on the Commission’s rights and activities with respect to monitoring.

9 Sep 1998 Security Council resolution 1194 (1998) unanimously condemns Iraq’s decision to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM, terming Iraq’s actions a totally unacceptable contravention of Iraq’s obligations; demands Iraq rescind its decision and decides not to conduct the 60-day sanctions reviews until Iraq does so and the Commission reports to the Council that it is satisfied that it has been able to exercise its full range of activities, including inspections.

22-23 Oct The Commission convenes a further international expert meeting to discuss the 1998 analysis of samples taken from remnants of Iraq’s special warheads. The report of the meeting which is submitted to the Council.

31 Oct 1998 Iraq announces that it will cease all forms of interaction with UNSCOM and its Chairman and to halt all UNSCOM’s activities inside Iraq, including monitoring. The Security Council, in a statement to the press, unanimously condemn Iraq’s decision to cease all cooperation with UNSCOM.

4 Nov 1998 The Executive Chairman informs the Council (S/1998/1032) that, as a result of Iraq’s actions, the Commission is not in a position to provide the Council with any level of assurance of Iraq’s compliance with its obligations not to retain and not to reestablish proscribed activities.

15 Nov 1998 Press Statement by the President of the Security Council in which the Council takes note of Iraq’s statement of 14 November to cooperate fully with the Special Commission and the IAEA. The Council members underline that their confidence in Iraq’s intentions needs to be established by unconditional and sustained cooperation with the Special Commission and the IAEA in exercising the full range of their activities. The Council members also reaffirm their readiness to proceed with the comprehensive review once the Secretary-General has confirmed, on the basis of reports from the Special Commission and the IAEA that Iraq has returned to full cooperation on the basis of resolution 1194 (1998) and the Council President’s letter of 30 October to the Secretary-General (SC/65/96-IK258).

15 Dec 1998 The Special Commission reports to the Security-General concerning UNSCOM’s activities and the status of Iraq’s cooperation with the Commission in the period since 14 November 1998. The Executive Chairman concludes that Iraq did not provide the full cooperation it had promised on 14 November 1998 (S/1998/1172)

16 Dec 1998 The Special Commission withdraws its staff from Iraq.

Those are the events leading up until 1998, hows about events after that?

First to Raz Kaz. Ok maybe refused is too strong of a word, however it was like I said his responsibility to prove that he didn't have weapons of mass destruction by showing where he destroyed them. As of 1998, there was a list of what WMDs Saddam had, and the amount that he had.

Now for driftu. First off, if it is so easy to aquire WMDs then we probably would have been hit by terrorists with them long ago. Second, in is State of the Union Address to which I assume that youare refuring to, President Bush stated that Saddam was an imminent threat. He also did not say that Saddam had WMDs in that speech, what he said was that Saddam had materials sufficient to produce mass quantities of WMDs. Third, true it isn't the responsibility of the US to police the world, however in this case, the US was enforcing what the rest of the world had decided. Keep in mind that other than France, Russia, Germany (all of whom were making Billions off of Iraq), and a few others, the world was with us and sent support.

Those are the events leading up until 1998, hows about events after that?

That's when the inspections stopped! Truth be told no one but Saddam knows what happened from 1998 to the present. But looking at the past actions it would be impossible to believe saddam on anything he said.


But what no comment on Iraq admitting they had WMD and there refusal to allow the inspectors to do their job! Haven't we been debating for months now that Iraq never had WMD yet here in print from the UN and Iraq we have the proof that he had WMD not sure if they still had them but up until 1998 they had them.

First to Raz Kaz. Ok maybe refused is too strong of a word, however it was like I said his responsibility to prove that he didn't have weapons of mass destruction by showing where he destroyed them. As of 1998, there was a list of what WMDs Saddam had, and the amount that he had.
Hans Blitz did carry out a full investigation which was not good enough for Mr.Bush. In 1998, Saddam could have been a threat to the States, but when they did the whole search for WMD, they found nothing,so does that mean he's still a threat even 2-3 years later?

Now for driftu. First off, if it is so easy to aquire WMDs then we probably would have been hit by terrorists with them long ago. Second, in is State of the Union Address to which I assume that youare refuring to, President Bush stated that Saddam was an imminent threat. He also did not say that Saddam had WMDs in that speech, what he said was that Saddam had materials sufficient to produce mass quantities of WMDs. Third, true it isn't the responsibility of the US to police the world, however in this case, the US was enforcing what the rest of the world had decided. Keep in mind that other than France, Russia, Germany (all of whom were making Billions off of Iraq), and a few others, the world was with us and sent support
Actually Bush claimed that US intelligence had informationt hat Saddam does have in possesion WMD in which he will attack the US. Also he pretty much forced the rest of the world to follow him into a flase war

Hans Blitz did carry out a full investigation which was not good enough for Mr.Bush. In 1998, Saddam could have been a threat to the States, but when they did the whole search for WMD, they found nothing,so does that mean he's still a threat even 2-3 years later?


Its wasn't BUSH but the UN that said Hans Blitz's report wasn't enough. You must of missed that on the UN web site. Matter of fact it said the reports issued by Iraq were not good enough. Don't blame Bush for this its the UN, the one so highly touted by people here. People here said the UN shoud have invaded Iraq not the Americans yet we have a nutless UN unwilling to do anything but issue resolutions. Read the whole post it never mentions Bush but the security council and the UN.

Please reread the above post.

That's when the inspections stopped! Truth be told no one but Saddam knows what happened from 1998 to the present.If you are going state something so emphatically then maybe you should make sure of your facts first.

Iraq declared that it would again accept inspections without conditions on 16th September 2002. Here is Hans Blix's UNMOVIC inspection report dated 27th January 2003:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

The report does not state either way the existence of WMD in Iraq. It does state that none had been found to date and that there were some inconsistencies in their findings that needed to be resolved. The report does however indicate that Iraq was being fully co-operative with UNMOVIC.

Depending how selective your memory is, you might recall that Mr Blix asked for more time to complete the inspections and resolve the discrepencies. Bear in mind that he built his team up from nothing to 260 personnel in the 2 months preceeding the report above.

Unfortunately a couple of impatient people had an itchy finger on the trigger and the safety was off. Perhaps they were afraid of what Mr. Blix might NOT find.

Perhaps they were afraid of what Mr. Blix might NOT find.

Got it in one.The Bush administration had 'removal of Saddam Hussein' on their agenda long before they were put into office by court order.The failure of the UN to add legitimacy to their objectives could have caused no end of problems if it weren't for Sept 11.

A massive fraud has been perpetrated on the American public by their own Government.Hundreds of American servicemen have been sent to their death for a pack of lies.Bush has not been defending America,he has been perpetrating a fraud.

Actually Bush claimed that US intelligence had informationt hat Saddam does have in possesion WMD in which he will attack the US.

Hmmm really well this says otherwise
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. The rest of the intelligence which he states is credited to the UN.

/\ your reference seems to be out of date, try reading this article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3882145.stm (special thanks to driftu for the link ;))

/\ your reference seems to be out of date, try reading this article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3882145.stm (special thanks to driftu for the link ;))

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3882145.stm[/url]]"We haven't found the stockpiles, but we knew he could make them," Mr Bush said. again didn't say that Iraq had them, said they had the potential to make them, and seeing how that is the only quote in that article by President Bush, it doesn't disprove my reference at all. By the way the BBC is once of the most biased antiamerican news agencies out there, so you can probaly find even better dirt from them if you look hard enough.

Afghanistan has the potential of nuclear arms as well since there are uranium deposits. How come that was not in the motif for the war? Companies that make salt have large quantities of sodium chlorite which is classifed ans dangerous goods, now can we label these factories as a potential for chemical wepons production?
Oh please don't bring up the "it doesnt follow what I believe so it's wrong" argument

1. Has Afghanistan ever had a nuclear power plant?
no
Has Iraq?
yes
2. Would it have even been worth it to accuse Afghanistan of nuclear weapons?
No, there government had ties to the 9/11 attacks, and that was plenty of reason for the invasion.
3. Is there ever any evidence that Afghanistan was trying to create nuclear arms?
no
Was there evidence that Iraq was?
yes
4. Is Sodium Chlorite a viable weapon?
no, Sodium Chlorite was find to marginally increase the rate of tumors in the lungs. A tumor inducing chemical is not a viable weapons system, an therefore while regulations are maintained in its containment and use, companies are able to use it.
5. Are there chemicals out there that could be used to harm people?
yes, there are, however having a weapon and showing the willingness to use one are completely different things, and Saddam proved in the '90's that he is the later.
6. Is it probable that Saddam moved his WMDs before the war began?
definitely! I mean if I were him I would have them in Syria immediately after Bush's altamadem
7. Do I believe that if it doesn't follow what I say then it's wrong?
no! if I did this I would be just as ignorant as people who only use antiamerican sources as their sources. If I am shown decent evidence that Saddam was not a threat to the US or its allies them I'll believe it. However if the only reason that people think that we went to war was for WMDs, then they are just blatantly uninformed. A better arguement for the war would have been that we were removing a brutal dictator, however that isn't as dramatic as WMDs.

Is it probable that Saddam moved his WMDs before the war began?
definitely! I mean if I were him I would have them in Syria immediately after Bush's altamadem



makes sense cause i know i guy is talking about invading my country i would send my weapons away. :shakehead

come on, they flat out lied about the WMD's. the link raz kaz posted is bush trying to explain that it was not the admin. but the intel agencies screw up. even Blair is getting shit for the intel. failure.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3908369.stm

any one know when the report on the intel failure is going to be released?

Yes we know that Saddam had at least the means to produce WMDs. We also know that he has the willingness to use them against anyone who opposed him. Contrary to popular belief however, we did not go to war because he had them. We went to war because he refused to prove that he didn't have them. It was not the responsibility of the IAEA, UN, US, or any other organization/country to find them.

You can't prove that you don't have something. It's just not possible, if you think about it. Prove to me that you don't have a flying pink elephant that plays the kazoo!

I mean, it could be hidden anywhere. You could have told it to fly away before I showed up. PROVE you no longer have your elephant!

Now for driftu. First off, if it is so easy to aquire WMDs then we probably would have been hit by terrorists with them long ago. Second, in is State of the Union Address to which I assume that youare refuring to, President Bush stated that Saddam was an imminent threat. He also did not say that Saddam had WMDs in that speech, what he said was that Saddam had materials sufficient to produce mass quantities of WMDs. Third, true it isn't the responsibility of the US to police the world, however in this case, the US was enforcing what the rest of the world had decided. Keep in mind that other than France, Russia, Germany (all of whom were making Billions off of Iraq), and a few others, the world was with us and sent support.

... But... (headache)

How can he be an imminent threat if he only had the ability to manufacture weapons, and was in fact complying with the UN's resolutions anyway?

Im´mi`nent
a. 1. Threatening to occur immediately; near at hand; impending; - said especially of misfortune or peril.
2. Full of danger; threatening; menacing; perilous.
Hairbreadth scapes i' the imminent deadly breach.

You can't prove that you don't have something. It's just not possible, if you think about it.
It is known that Saddam at one point had chemical and biological weapons. It is even known what amounts he had of each. When you destroy these weapons, a byproduct is produced. Using the amount of byproduct, you can determine how much was destroyed, so yes you can prove that you don't have weapons.

... But... (headache)
How can he be an imminent threat if he only had the ability to manufacture weapons, and was in fact complying with the UN's resolutions anyway?

1. He has shown the willingness to use weapons.
2. He was not following UN resolution because resolution 1441 stated...Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

It is known that Saddam at one point had chemical and biological weapons. It is even known what amounts he had of each. When you destroy these weapons, a byproduct is produced. Using the amount of byproduct, you can determine how much was destroyed, so yes you can prove that you don't have weapons.


What exactly were the weapons,what exactly were the quantities,what exactly are the byproducts made in destroyting them and are there any other ways of manufacturing said byproducts?

Also,you argue that Saddam had shown willingness to use said weapons.He may or may not have used these weapons against the Kurds[there is still a reasoned argument that that was,in fact the Iranians] but that was back in the day when he was peritted to access American technology and raw materials to make them.In case you'd forgotten,Saddam was sitting on a one-legged stool for ten years while his country was denied a whole raft of materials ranging from weapons to medicines.

If Saddam had somehow managed to sumuggle these chemicals in,furtively assemble them into weapons that he wasn't allowed to have,conceal said weapons from UN inspectors and CIA surveillance,given that you claim his willingness to use them,why did he not use them when his country was under attack?

Simple.They didn't exist.The only reason that the myth was perpetuated was to provide himself with defence from his neighbors.If anyone still insists that Saddam had WMD this century,please......go to Iraq,dig them up,and show me.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0124-01.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3570845.stm

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/12/1073769484152.html?oneclick=true

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10142630%255E1702,00.html

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s947413.htm

just a few sites saying no WMDs. once again the reason the states invaded iraq was over these WMDS that don't exist. any other reason they give now is bs and they're only trying to fix bush's image before the election.

/\ How dare you! ABC is such an anti-bush/anti-american source....not valid :p
Anyways, there were no weapons found except for one old canistar holding some sarine gas. One old bomb cluster does not qualify as WMD to me

With the naive bunch that we have around here, I am beginning to get worried that US has the potential to end the world as we know it....

"Russia has nukes! They might use them! Nuke them FIRST!"
"Pakistan has nukes! They might use them! Nuke them FIRST!"
"N Korea has nukes! They might use them! Nuke them FIRST!"

" [i]could be trying to make nukes! They might use them! Nuke them FIRST!"

I am sure Pick would be up for it...

Also,you argue that Saddam had shown willingness to use said weapons.He may or may not have used these weapons against the Kurds[there is still a reasoned argument that that was,in fact the Iranians] but that was back in the day when he was peritted to access American technology and raw materials to make them.In case you'd forgotten,Saddam was sitting on a one-legged stool for ten years while his country was denied a whole raft of materials ranging from weapons to medicines.

Taranki you forgot that Iraq admitted to having a stockpile of WMD in the 90's, most were destroyed but not all, where did the rest of it go? Why was Saddamn not allowing inspectors into his palaces? Why was Saddam loading up trucks while guards were holding up the inspectors at the front gate? Why was Saddam constsantly kicking the inspectors out of Iraq?

How hard is it to trace WMD? Iraq had to buy the raw materials from other countries, The UN had a list of these items and were looking for them all of them were never found.

Saddam, invaded Iran, Kuwait, and killed the Kurds. Saddam used WMD on the Kurds quit pretending that Iran did it. I would believe both Iran and Iraq did it. Saddam showed his willingness to invade other countries and to use WMD. He did it once he'll do it again.

Next just because the UN had sanctions in place doesn't mean Iraq couldn't get their hands on sanctioned items from France, and Russia. The US found Migs buried in the sand that Iraq wasn't susposed to have yet they did! The Russians were selling them. Why did Jordan (I believe) intercept cargo destined for Iraq that was on the list of sanctioned weapons? The list goes on and on.

With the naive bunch that we have around here, I am beginning to get worried that US has the potential to end the world as we know it....

"Russia has nukes! They might use them! Nuke them FIRST!"
"Pakistan has nukes! They might use them! Nuke them FIRST!"
"N Korea has nukes! They might use them! Nuke them FIRST!"

" [i]could be trying to make nukes! They might use them! Nuke them FIRST!"

I am sure Pick would be up for it...


it all comes back to the constant state of fear. makes people easy to control. used to be that the power that be would kill you if you spoke againest them. now it is the fear of another terrorist attack. the more they change the more they stay the same.

"Pakistan has nukes! They might use them! Nuke them FIRST!"
"N Korea has nukes! They might use them! Nuke them FIRST!"

Actually both countries did threaten to use their nuclear weapons. Pakistan and India both have possesion of a nuclear arms and have threatened each other to use them over the Kashmeer fight. North Korea even threatened to use their nuclear weapons on the US.

Actually both countries did threaten to use their nuclear weapons. Pakistan and India both have possesion of a nuclear arms and have threatened each other to use them over the Kashmeer fight. North Korea even threatened to use their nuclear weapons on the US.


korea only said they would use them if america was going to invade.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,1238120,00.html

With the naive bunch that we have around here, I am beginning to get worried that US has the potential to end the world as we know it....

"Russia has nukes! They might use them! Nuke them FIRST!"
"Pakistan has nukes! They might use them! Nuke them FIRST!"
"N Korea has nukes! They might use them! Nuke them FIRST!"

" [i]could be trying to make nukes! They might use them! Nuke them FIRST!"

I am sure Pick would be up for it...

Owned, and by God no less. :rofl:

Bush lied, marines died. Clever, witty, catchy even. However, I've yet to meet ONE of my Marine friends (and I'm friends with SEVERAL platoons at Banger Naval Base in WA) that isn't pissed they arent over there. And as for dropping bombs on their children? Hrm... oh oh wait, I forgot that Iraq habored and funded terrorist attacks via groups that had involvment in the Sept. 11th attack.

Hey! We are America! Come kill our citizens, I'll fly an American flag for 3 days, say how tramatic it was, then forget about it.

The easiest way to stop any threat is to cut off its resources. Saddam and his legions donated more money then you'll ever see to groups that kill for whatever purposes (terrorists, from our prospective). But hell thats totally fine for me.

I always laugh when I hear these "we shouldn't go first" arguments. If we dont, and we practice our non-involvment tactics, we wait until something devestating happens THEN have to respond. Look at Pearl Harbor. "Hey dudes, lets not get involved in WW2 even though we know whats happening is wrong" We wait, then Japan kills hundreds of our Naval personell, oh, NOW its ok to go into this.

And by the way, Bush was acting off of CIA and other government agencies information to him and his cabinent. Bush didnt "Lie," if anyone did the agencies are to blame. Look at documents from the Clinton administration, he had the SAME pieces coming to him. There is only so long you can hold off on a potential threat. Bush was acting off of legitimate information passed along to him. He wasn't just sitting there drawing fake pictures of Saddam hording a pile of nukes in crayon and saying "Hey guys, look what i found, that bastard has nukes!"

And as for Igors response.... we didn't just say "OMG DOODS ALUMINUM TUBES CARPET NUKE CARPET NUKEz0rs!" In fact, we didn't fire any nukes. And Saddam, either way you look at it, DID have Illegal weapons stashes and illegal weapons, regardless of them being of MD. He was a threat. We COULD have delt with him when he invaded our Ally the first time, and Norman was within striking distance, but everyone said "Hey now, we went over to liberate Kuwait, what are you doing trying to prevent the problem from happening again! Get back here!" Its like having a hole in your radiator hose, you COULD put tape on it and just let it do its thing, or we could have just replaced the tube and prevented any further problems.

http://www.iiss.org/news-more.php?itemID=88


Report on Iraq WMD programs

Taranki you forgot that Iraq admitted to having a stockpile of WMD in the 90's, most were destroyed but not all, where did the rest of it go? Why was Saddamn not allowing inspectors into his palaces? Why was Saddam loading up trucks while guards were holding up the inspectors at the front gate? Why was Saddam constsantly kicking the inspectors out of Iraq?


Now how many of those stories can you actually document and prove?

Iraq did admit to having WMD, and the first UNSCOM team confirmed most of those weapons destroyed by 1998, when they were withdrawn by Butler. Since then, Iraq claimed to have destroyed these weapons, and nobody has proven otherwise since.

Well, when you consider that the first UNSCOM team was accused by Hussein. and correctly I might add, to have been heavily comprimised by CIA and Mossad agents, it's not terribly unreasonable of him to want to keep them from snooping around where he sleeps at night. It's pretty far fetched to claim Iraq was hiding deadly chemical and biological agents in their President's bedroom closet.


How hard is it to trace WMD? Iraq had to buy the raw materials from other countries, The UN had a list of these items and were looking for them all of them were never found.


I'm not sure what you mean by that, do you mean that the UN couldn't find any proof that Iraq was buying these raw materials? Also, might these raw materials have uses other than making weapons?


Saddam, invaded Iran, Kuwait, and killed the Kurds. Saddam used WMD on the Kurds quit pretending that Iran did it. I would believe both Iran and Iraq did it. Saddam showed his willingness to invade other countries and to use WMD. He did it once he'll do it again.


When you say "killed the Kurds" you make it sound as if he killed them all. Obviously this is not the case, as there are still many Kurds in northern Iraq, up to their old tricks. Namely, organizing paramilitary groups, and attempting to create their own country using terrorism. Not nice people!

The argument that Iran did it holds quite a bit of weight, actually. If you take away your presupposition of that, then your argument seems a tad bit less sinister.


Next just because the UN had sanctions in place doesn't mean Iraq couldn't get their hands on sanctioned items from France, and Russia. The US found Migs buried in the sand that Iraq wasn't susposed to have yet they did! The Russians were selling them. Why did Jordan (I believe) intercept cargo destined for Iraq that was on the list of sanctioned weapons? The list goes on and on.

Ah, that's right. France and Russia were committed to illegally arming Iraq with weapons of mass destruction, the whole time standing in the UN and demanding that Iraq allow the inspectors to search for WMD. What a bunch of hypocrites, eh? :rolleyes:

With the naive bunch that we have around here, I am beginning to get worried that US has the potential to end the world as we know it....

"Russia has nukes! They might use them! Nuke them FIRST!"
"Pakistan has nukes! They might use them! Nuke them FIRST!"
"N Korea has nukes! They might use them! Nuke them FIRST!"

" [i]could be trying to make nukes! They might use them! Nuke them FIRST!"

I am sure Pick would be up for it...
C'mon Igor, that wasn't necessary....... :nono: