POLL: U.S. found no evidence WMD moved from Iraq - diehard's last straw gone

Remove all ads!

U.S. found no evidence WMD moved from Iraq
No signs that weapons were smuggled, intelligence officials say

'nuff said. So there is my poll - anyone *believes* they've been moved anyway?

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 28 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: U.S. found no evidence WMD moved from Iraq - diehard's last straw gone (28 votes.)

Have Saddam's WMD been moved from Iraq? (Choose 1)
* yes, they've been moved to Saudi-Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, Iran, Kuwait - somewhat north-east of it ... - 11% (3)
* WMD, what WMD? - 89% (25)

 

Heck, it's difficult to say. I simply cannot believe Saddam didn't have WMD. It is possible he didn't. However, I would also be a fool to have ever believed that any trace of them could be found. Hussein played the game with A LOT of cunning -- being able to conceal them, and/or smuggle them outside of his country before the war, perhaps? He could win the battle if he wanted -- by employing WMD. But if he did, he'd tip his own hand, and would soon lose the war.

So, did Saddam have WMDs? I'm certain. Was he smart enough to not use them, provide evidence to the US, or do anything in order to end up being further condemned? Yes. This, however, doesn't change the fact that he IS guilty of murdering Kurd population, oppressing his nation, etc., and that he is still eligible to be brought before court. And I'm certain neither he nor his kin should be allowed to rule Iraq -- or anywhere else -- ever again.

One positive thing -- this will make the US forces step back from Iraq quicker. Some need to stay for security enforcement, minefield disarming, etc., but most military activity should be ceased.

 

Oh really? Why?

... lemme guess: Because Saddam was evil and therefor HAD to have some?

Like Dr. Evil unavoidably lives in a volcano appartment with this charming lava ambiente?

 

Yeah, just like that. Seriously, though, he did use chemical weapons against Kurds. Being sick enough to do that is enough 'proof' of his mind, which didn't ever change. Besides, he did have chemical and biological facilities. It would be quite strange to fund them so generously and get absolutely no yield from them...

 

I agree with toughluck. There is no question that Iraq had WMD because THEY HAVE USED THEM IN THE PAST.

I have never understood the giddyness (sic) of people who claim victory that WMDs were not found in Iraq. As if that somehow proves they were right and everyone else was wrong.

Why was the thought that Iraq had WMDs so unreasonable. As stated above THEY HAVE ALREADY USED THEM BEFORE. If I have a gun in my house and kill an intruder, isn't it a safe assumption to the next thief that I may have a gun? Is this rocket science?

Can any reasonable person think that Iraq wouldn't have jumped at the opportunity to get nukes? I think not.

The fact that absolutely nothing was found in a country THAT HAS ALREADY USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS to me means one of three things. They were moved somewhere else, or international efforts to stop the acquisitions of WMD have been effective, or maybe Dr. Evil has them in his nicely heated volcano. I have a difficult time figuring out which of those three options is the most absurd.

 

Maybe they used them all up, who knows. He gassed entire villages in the region where the Kurds live, he also gassed an entire Iranian division which was advancing towards Basra through the swamplands, i've seen pictures of their remnants, it wasn't pretty.

It's an undeniable fact that he had AND used them in the past (courtesy to certain European manufacturers, as well as American), however it's pretty obvious now that he didn't have any at the time of the invasion. Unless he had David Copperfield on his payroll and made them mysteriously dissapear. Perhaps they should take David down to Abu Ghraib and loosen his tongue a bit.

 

Assuming they did not listen, and have not destroyed their chemical weapons. Assuming as well that Hussein didn't stash them in his volcano hideout, this means one thing:
These weapons still exist. And it means Saddam sold/moved them to another warmonger in the area. That thought isn't really inspiring images of butterflies, you know...

 

Stephen Colbert had a very good comment about this on The Daily Show: "Blame Saddam Hussein. He's the one who didn't have the weapons of mass destruction." He added a moving description of the Bush administration going through the stages of grief at this development: "Denial. More denial. Still more denial. Acceptance. That there were no WMD's."

 

Yes, and, AMERICAN CORPORATIONS SOLD THEM TO IRAQ.

 

That's as logical as it is pointless.

Chandos' point left aside, isn't the interesting question wether Saddam had them when the US attacked? The answer is no. Plain and simple.

I find the faith in the myth that Saddam had them anyway, even though the US didn't find anything, stunning.

toughluck, your idea on where the unfound WMD might have gone to, this 'other warmonger in the area', is highly implausible - who that might be I'd like to know? Considering that everyone in question either had WMD of his own - so no thank you - or was hostile to Saddam ...

How about that option: WMD weren't found because they weren't there and they weren't there because they were destroyed.

Like it or not, the UN controlled disarmament effort was evidently very successful, despite Iraq's fooling of the inspectors. The WMD were destroyed by the inspectors and by Saddam himself.
But that can't be right, the corrupt UN can't have been successful? Is it that? How could they accomplish what the US didn't manage with an all-out war?
And Saddam destroying them himself? Impossible, he was so evil that he must have wanted to keep out-of-shelf-life WMD ... how evil however, Saddam wasn't stupid, too. This judging Saddam by his alleged character is ludicrous.
Under the UN sacntions Iraq's chem facilities have been dismantled, as were the bio plants - everything left was dual use and that's legitimate, even in a country with an evil dictartor.
What do you suggest - that countries with evil dictators leave the industrial age and go back to the agricultural one?

Evil intentions and evil ambitions for another day are no crime and are no treaty violation -and neither a reason for punishment or war.

The US fell for their own propaganda image of Saddam, so do you toughluck.

If you feel silly with that - blame Saddam for not meeting your expectations as a supervillain but for heaven's sake - wake up.

[ January 19, 2005, 09:45: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I have just read "Disarming Iraq" by Hans Blix and his conclusion is that all the stuff that was not declared and destroyed under the scrutiny by inspectors were destroyed in -91 on the direct order of Saddam. At the end of the UNMOVIC inspections the Iraqis were trying to take soil samples and everything they could think of to show that they really did dump a lot of stuff 12 years ago. Apparently the politics of containment and inspections had worked, Iraq had complied with the restrictions and resolution in all that matters. They had just been stupid enough not to do it in a way the world could see.

All of you talking about Iraq using them in the past do you know how ridicoulous that statement sounds? Yes, Iraq used chemical weapons 20-25 years ago against Iran and his own people (with the world's blessing) but Iraq war II started 2003 after Iraq had suffered a severe military defeat in 1991 and are told to get rid of all the cool stuff and this is followed by sanctions, restrictions and inspections. Inspection which under large parts of the 90's is more or less under the direct control of the CIA but that nonetheless has great success in finding things.

As usual talking about the WMD's in Iraq makes me think of those three monkeys who refuse to see and hear, sadly the analogy falters as people talk loudly and clearly about invisible chemical superweapons being transported through underground tunnel networks to North Korea where Kim has developed a super missile which can take these mega chemicals to the US where they would kill EVERYONE!!!! Cause it is SUPERchemicals!!!

 

Saddamn may not have been a supervillain, but there's no denying he was a villain. Whether that justifies war, I don't know.

 

Saddam was a super villain. This does not justify war, at least not in the world we have.

Taluntain: Most (or close to most) Americans believe WMD's were found; the result of a clever campaign of dis-information (i.e., lying). That good old free press was on the job again.

 

1)WMD were not found in Iraq. Saddam was a villain. I am not sorry to see him gone but I don't approve of the way it was done. He's not the only villain in the world.

2)Tal , I have to disagree with your statement. Bush wasn't elected because of the war with Saddam but in spite of it. The USA is primarily moderate, middle-class and family oriented. At least the voting part. The Democrats (which I nominally consider myself) were too liberal.

3)Where I live we know that WMD were not found.

IMO we desperately need a moderate third party. :sigh:

 

As a side note, I believe that it's high time for a law allowing the prosecution of public lies on the part of elected or appointed officials. From public apology and clarification, through ban from public service to criminal prosecution perjury style. Not just in the US, but in every country where central public figures have a habit of lying to the public.

 

What is a lie Chev? I like the idea but first a definition of what a lie is must be agreed upon and that is far harder than what it might appear to be.

 

People can't figure out the truth, much less the lie

 

Did Bush lie to the world? Maybe, maybe not.

Did he mean well?
I do not think that Bush is "evil", and I´m sure that he thinks that he is doing the world a favor.

Did he have the proper/right amount of intel to justify a war in Iraq?
Definently not. If he did, there would be no doubt about the WMD, no one would question the intel.

Did he have any ulterior motives? (oilinterests comes to mind) Perhaps, allthough he would never admit it, if he did have any such interests in mind, but then again, who would?

Was the war in Iraq a mistake?
The only thing that´s for certain is that it´s gonna be a cold day in Hell before the Bush-administration would admit to making a mistake (if the war was a mistake, that is.) Then again, admitting to a mistake of such a magnitude would be a tough one to swallow. And you are right Chevalier, people should be elligable for prosecution, if they lie about something like this(if they DO lie, that is.)

Were there any WMD? Yes, Saddam had WMD a long time ago, but without any definite rock-solid intel, the points put forth about Saddam having them and planning to use them now seem pretty invalid.

Perhaps Bush should have said from the start: "Saddam has refused to cooperate and killed thousands of civilians through his actions." He should not have made the WMD justify the war, I´m pretty sure that they could have found another reason with as much merit.

I do not necessarily disagree with Bush´s desicion to remove Saddam as such, but what I´m trying to say is that you cannot start a war based on a hunch. Too many innocent lives are on the line.

[ January 23, 2005, 01:42: Message edited by: Yulaw9460 ]