Following Iraq's bioweapons trail

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Here is what I truely believe.

Iraq had WMD's which were moved out of the country and burried at locations to still be found throughout the country (you can hide anything there and it will never be found). Captured Iraqi Generals have even stated that the WMD's were moved to Syria just prior to the invasion.

I dont think the ammount of WMD's was as much as we thought before the war started and I believe that most of it was of deteriorated state and would not have worked anyway.

But he still had them. If there were none then there would not have been a need for the Chem units that were found, the chem protective gear that had been used along with the atropine injectors that had been used.

That being said, he did have them and even if he did not he led the world to believe that he did.

And with that said, you didn't need to be a chemical engineer or scientist to figure it all out!!

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Here is what I truely believe.

Iraq had WMD's which were moved out of the country and burried at locations to still be found throughout the country (you can hide anything there and it will never be found). Captured Iraqi Generals have even stated that the WMD's were moved to Syria just prior to the invasion.

I dont think the ammount of WMD's was as much as we thought before the war started and I believe that most of it was of deteriorated state and would not have worked anyway.

But he still had them. If there were none then there would not have been a need for the Chem units that were found, the chem protective gear that had been used along with the atropine injectors that had been used.

That being said, he did have them and even if he did not he led the world to believe that he did.

I agree with you fully. That was what I was trying to get at with my post earlier - saying that because the anticipated number has not been found, does not mean they never existed...

[Civettone]

You can believe what you want, fine by me, but it seems a bit of a weak case.
You found some degraded leftovers and you conclude that there's more to be found.
You don't find what you want so you assume it has been smuggled out of the country.
You find some suits so you assume they had WMDs ready.

That's like finding a coin in your backyard and conluding there's a treasure under your house...
Kris

[Hunter368]

As a third neutral party....I thought that was funny post.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Civettone

You can believe what you want, fine by me, but it seems a bit of a weak case.
You found some degraded leftovers and you conclude that there's more to be found.
You don't find what you want so you assume it has been smuggled out of the country.
You find some suits so you assume they had WMDs ready.

That's like finding a coin in your backyard and conluding there's a treasure under your house...
Kris

Kris, at the start of the whole mess the ground rules for Iraq was NO WMDs. They were supposed to remove ALL of them, and as stated they did retain several Skuds that were used at the start of the war. Again, if they had one or 100 WMDs they were in violation.

Take all the circumstantial evidence and real evidence and it shows there were WMDs there.

If Saddam Hussein fully complied he'd still be in power today; raping, pillaging, and murdering members of his sports teams for not winning medals in international competitions...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Civettone

You can believe what you want, fine by me, but it seems a bit of a weak case.
You found some degraded leftovers and you conclude that there's more to be found.
You don't find what you want so you assume it has been smuggled out of the country.
You find some suits so you assume they had WMDs ready.

That's like finding a coin in your backyard and conluding there's a treasure under your house...
Kris

No it is not weak at all. You have not provided anything that proves that there were none at all, absolutely none at all. You dont know that there were none.

The only thing I can tell you is this. Get out of your safe environment go to Iraq and see it for yourself...

[Civettone]

Adler, were those atropine injectors found together with the mustard gas you guys found? Could it have been that those injectors dated back from the 80s? Could it have been that the mustard gas was no longer active? You said those experts identified them as mustard gas. Does that mean they hadn't degraded yet?



90 to 95% of the plants which produced WMDs were taken out of action by 1998. Now this doesn't mean that those 5 to 10% is still working. Making WMDs is a complex affair and needs a large infrastructure. Several plants need to work to make others work. Just imagine destroying 90% of the factories in the US. Not one factory would still be working as one of their subcontractors would surely be out of action. Another option is restructuring the industry but reports later showed that this did not change, no flow in scientists from one sector to another.
I don't see anyone claiming that Iraq still had the capbility to produce so I'm not going to go on about this.

Iraq did not tell the UN all what it destroyed. Later investigations showed that Iraq had destroyed weapons and material without telling this to the UN. 90 to 95% of the WMDs on the list were accounted for.

As production was discontinued before 1998, those few WMDs unaccounted for would have become degraded.

These are facts. You may have your own opinion and your own theories but please start from facts.
Kris

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Civettone

Adler, were those atropine injectors found together with the mustard gas you guys found? Could it have been that those injectors dated back from the 80s? Could it have been that the mustard gas was no longer active? You said those experts identified them as mustard gas. Does that mean they hadn't degraded yet?

I can not tell you dates or anything. I did not touch the stuff or pick any of it up. I do have a Iraqi helmet that I picked up from the bunch though!

Originally Posted by Civettone

90 to 95% of the plants which produced WMDs were taken out of action by 1998. Now this doesn't mean that those 5 to 10% is still working. Making WMDs is a complex affair and needs a large infrastructure. Several plants need to work to make others work. Just imagine destroying 90% of the factories in the US. Not one factory would still be working as one of their subcontractors would surely be out of action. Another option is restructuring the industry but reports later showed that this did not change, no flow in scientists from one sector to another.
I don't see anyone claiming that Iraq still had the capbility to produce so I'm not going to go on about this.

Iraq did not tell the UN all what it destroyed. Later investigations showed that Iraq had destroyed weapons and material without telling this to the UN. 90 to 95% of the WMDs on the list were accounted for.

As production was discontinued before 1998, those few WMDs unaccounted for would have become degraded.

These are facts. You may have your own opinion and your own theories but please start from facts.
Kris

And were do you get these facts from because I think it is hogwash. Iraq did not get rid of all of there WMD's and that is something that you can not prove.

The things that have been found by varying units that have served there is Fact, you can start with the facts.

I am sorry but I honestly think you are blind to the truth because of your liberal agenda. I honestly dont care if he had WMDs or not. The man had to go and I supported the war from the beginning and I support ever last soldier that has to go there, so I dont care if he had them or not. If someone can prove to me that he had no WMDs and that everything I saw and everything that everyone else has seen is just a figment of there imagination then so be it. I honestly am not biased. I dont care for Bush or any of the politicians as a matter of fact, so it would not hurt my feelings. I am open to whatever the truth is, but Iraq did have WMDs....

Discussion over for me because this is going know where....

[Matt308]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Discussion over for me because this is going know where....

.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Okay the poll that I started in the wrong thread is now in this thread. This poll is just to get peoples opinions, please vote.

[Matt308]

Done

[Civettone]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I honestly dont care if he had WMDs or not. The man had to go and I supported the war from the beginning and I support ever last soldier that has to go there, so I dont care if he had them or not

Fair enough. But that's why you went for war, not to remove Saddam Hussein. That's the reason why so few countries supported the war because it was based on wrong reasons: Iraq did not have a WMD capability.

These facts come from official UNSCOM and IAEA reports.

I'm also disappointed Adler that you claim you've seen so much yet you don't know any details. You had me thinking those were still active WMDs but it could just as well have been degraded mustard gas. That my friend is no longer a WMD.

Also your claim of those atropine injectors means nothing. You base huge conclusions on things which could well have dated from the 80s when we all know Saddam had WMDs.

And you call me a liberal though you don't know a damn thing about my political stand or the party I vote for.

Kris

edit: fixed the quote, apology to Matt.

[Matt308]

And that's not my quote, Civvy.

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by Civettone

Fair enough. But that's why you went for war, not to remove Saddam Hussein. That's the reason why so few countries supported the war because it was based on wrong reasons: Iraq did not have a WMD capability.

These facts come from official UNSCOM and IAEA reports.

I'm also disappointed Adler that you claim you've seen so much yet you don't know any details. You had me thinking those were still active WMDs but it could just as well have been degraded mustard gas. That my friend is no longer a WMD.

Also your claim of those atropine injectors means nothing. You base huge conclusions on things which could well have dated from the 80s when we all know Saddam had WMDs.

And you call me a liberal though you don't know a damn thing about my political stand or the party I vote for.

Kris

A big part for me is not whether he had them or not.

But it was thought he did have them or might have them. UN sent in inspectors and he kicked them out or refused them access to certain areas. That strongly suggests that he did have them, again whether he did or not does not matter, he acted like he did have them.

So USA acted to protect itself and the countries around Iraq, and to protect Israel, and to protect Saddam's people.

Kris you have to admit he acted guilty as hell, where there is smoke....most times there is fire.

Saddam has to hold a lot of the blame for his country being invaded.....even if he had no WMD.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Hunter368

A big part for me is not whether he had them or not.

But it was thought he did have them or might have them. UN sent in inspectors and he kicked them out or refused them access to certain areas. That strongly suggests that he did have them, again whether he did or not does not matter, he acted like he did have them.

So USA acted to protect itself and the countries around Iraq, and to protect Israel, and to protect Saddam's people.

Kris you have to admit he acted guilty as hell, where there is smoke....most times there is fire.

Saddam has to hold a lot of the blame for his country being invaded.....even if he had no WMD.

BINGO!!!!