Proof of WMD...

Tenchiro · Oct 23, 2003

So how come nobody has been able to find them?

Silver · Oct 23, 2003

Originally posted by Tenchiro
So how come nobody has been able to find them?

We'd need to occupy the country to do that, silly.

Tenchiro · Oct 23, 2003

Who is saying that they didn't exist?

Lizz · Oct 23, 2003

Since the timeline stops way before the invasion, is there more recent evidence than 1998?

Westy · Oct 23, 2003

Originally posted by LordOpie
you don't need *more* evidence of their *existence*. You *need* evidence of their dismantling... which never happened.

Correct. Iraq just has realy realy small weapons of mass destruction that are very hard to find. The Bush administration has sent thousands of magnifying glasses and trenchcoats to aid in the search.

Lizz · Oct 23, 2003

Originally posted by LordOpie
you don't need *more* evidence of their *existence*. You *need* evidence of their dismantling... which never happened.

But wasn't the invasion premised on them actually still having WMD in sufficient quantities to pose an imminent danger to the US? The premise was also that the US knew right where these stockpiles were. If this premise was true, then indeed there should be some evidence of their existence, don't you think? Colin Powell argued before the UN that Iraq had 20,000 L of anthrax alone. Where was this made and how, with such careful scrutiny by the best intelligence agency on the planet, did they destroy it without our knowing?

And please don't trot out the "Saddam's a master of deception" reasoning for the lack of discovery.

Lizz · Oct 23, 2003

Gotcha! Movin' on

the law · Oct 23, 2003

Originally posted by Westy
Correct. Iraq just has realy realy small weapons of mass destruction that are very hard to find. The Bush administration has sent thousands of magnifying glasses and trenchcoats to aid in the search.

LMAO

It is simple. Bush lied to you! Get over it. It seems as if every Republican has become a conspiracy nut eager to turn over any rock in a vain attempt to find a scintilla of outdated and thus irrelevant evidence to support "the crook". There is more evidence that martians exist than that Iraq possessed WMD in the last couple of years.

fluff · Oct 23, 2003

Originally posted by LordOpie
you don't need *more* evidence of their *existence*. You *need* evidence of their dismantling... which never happened.

not you

Could you possibly mean me?

Have I said that Iraq did not possess them? No, I haven't.

The point still remains that no evidence has been uncovered to show that Iraq had them at the time of the invasion.

Now given your repeated point that if Iraq did not provide evidence of having destroyed them then they must still exist, where are they?

It should be easier to prove they exist than to prove that they don't. Your point is that Iraq did not prove they did not have them so they must exist hence Iraq must be invaded.

Now the US is occupying Iraq and has not found any, what does that mean?

That's my point.

RhinofromWA · Oct 23, 2003

Originally posted by fluff
Could you possibly mean me?

Have I said that Iraq did not possess them? No, I haven't.

The point still remains that no evidence has been uncovered to show that Iraq had them at the time of the invasion.

Now given your repeated point that if Iraq did not provide evidence of having destroyed them then they must still exist, where are they?

It should be easier to prove they exist than to prove that they don't. Your point is that Iraq did not prove they did not have them so they must exist hence Iraq must be invaded.

Now the US is occupying Iraq and has not found any, what does that mean?

That's my point.

Check Mate? Does this work or has it been dissproven? 10/1/03

WorldnetDaily:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kuwait foils Iraqi-WMD smuggling attempt
Report: Biological warheads, chemical arms en route to Europe snagged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 1, 2003
5:54 p.m. Eastern

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

Following months of frustrated searches by hundreds of U.S. and British investigators for Saddam's weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, some have turned up in Kuwait, according to Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Siyassah.

The pro-government daily reports Kuwaiti security forces foiled an attempted smuggling of $60 million worth of chemical weapons and biological warheads from Iraq to an unnamed European country.

Citing an unnamed security source, Al-Siyassah said the smugglers had been under surveillance since they arrived in Kuwait and were arrested "in due time."

No details about the suspects, possible accomplices, where the weapons came from in Iraq and how they were acquired were disclosed.

The smuggled arms will be turned over to an FBI agent by Kuwaiti Interior Minister Sheik Nawwaf Al Ahmed Al Sabah, according to the paper. No time was given for the news conference where this handover is slated to take place.

The reported find of weapons of mass destruction comes on the eve of testimony by David Kay, the head of the CIA-led team of some 1,200 investigators, before House and Senate intelligence committees. Kay is due to offer an interim report on the status of their search for WMD in Iraq.Link to article

Tenchiro · Oct 23, 2003

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Does this work or has it been dissproven? 10/1/03

You would think this would have made headlines...

EDIT - I mean, moreso than one HIGHLY partisan website.

Lizz · Oct 23, 2003

Originally posted by LordOpie
umm, i hope you don't mean you're leaving the political forum... fresh blood is always fun and insightful.

Nope, there's little to argue about here without being able to debate about those missing 5 years. Hmmmm, Nixon only had 18 minutes.

So, just moving on until another topic of interest rears it's head.

RhinofromWA · Oct 23, 2003

Originally posted by Tenchiro
You would think this would have made headlines...

It did, I heard about it on the radio talk shows back when it happened...now I ask why it hasn't? Even if it was untrue....

It isn't like the TV news shows checks sources or substance before blurting out something.

So I ask you Why haven't they reported it?

Do they not want to report it? Does that expose some bias?

$tinkle · Oct 23, 2003

for "the law" -- apologies to L.O.

Originally posted by the law
LMAO

It is simple. Bush lied to you! Get over it. It seems as if every Republican has become a conspiracy nut eager to turn over any rock in a vain attempt to find a scintilla of outdated and thus irrelevant evidence to support "the crook". There is more evidence that martians exist than that Iraq possessed WMD in the last couple of years.

Did you actually spew "bush lied" just before you call Republicans Conspiracy Theorists? That's gold, baby.

Originally posted by David Kay, Oct. 2, 2003:
"Iraq's WMD programs spanned more than two decades, involved thousands of people, billions of dollars and were elaborately shielded by security and deception operations that continued even beyond the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom."
Originally posted by Sandy Berger, Clinton national security adviser, Feb. 18, 1998:
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983."
Originally posted by Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Dec. 16, 1998:
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Originally posted by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., Oct. 10, 2002:
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years."
Originally posted by Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., and others, in a letter to President Bush, Dec. 5, 2001:
"There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. . . . In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

please take note that these are not Bush's political allies

Lizz · Oct 23, 2003

Originally posted by LordOpie
holy crap for crap! Don't be as dense as some people around here!

I did say that I pulled those references at random!

CLICK the links I provided to show YOURSELF all the data.

Your assumption that I hadn't looked at the timelines is a bit disappointing. If you had read them carefully you'd see that from early 1997 to present there was no further mention of evidence of WMD. There's a 5 year gap of no evidence.

$tinkle · Oct 23, 2003

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
It did, I heard about it on the radio talk shows back when it happened...now I ask why it hasn't? Even if it was untrue....

It isn't like the TV news shows checks sources or substance before blurting out something.

So I ask you Why haven't they reported it?

Do they not want to report it? Does that expose some bias?

i wonder who will report this story of a huge weapons cache found today next to a mosque!!!

...besides FOXNews, of course

Lizz · Oct 23, 2003

Originally posted by LordOpie

Please, so me evidence that they've been dismantled!

While I dig around, you might want to show evidence they weren't destroyed.

Lizz · Oct 23, 2003

From Scott Ritter, Chief UN Inspector in 1998:
"As of December 1998 we had accounted for 90 to 95 percent of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability -- "we" being the weapons inspectors. We destroyed all the factories, all of the means of production and we couldn't account for some of the weaponry, but chemical weapons have a shelf-life of five years. Biological weapons have a shelf-life of three years. To have weapons today, they would have had to rebuild the factories and start the process of producing these weapons since December 1998."

$tinkle · Oct 23, 2003

Originally posted by LordOpie

apologies for beating a dead/resurrected horse

Lizz · Oct 23, 2003

Originally posted by LordOpie
I don't have to. The UN does not have to. The US does not have to. Iraq has to prove they were destroyed!

Why is that point so hard to understand?!

Iraq said it did. The UN as of 1998 said it had wiped out 90-95% of the weapons and had 100% destroyed capability to re-manufacture. The US said it didn't believe it. It's one of those stand off situations where the 2 sides accuse each other of lying.

Enter the Inspectors again to verify the claims of BOTH sides. Except, ta da the UN is irrelevent, Dubya can't wait to "shock&awe", and off we go to invade. As it turns out, the US was the one lying. Why is THAT point so hard to understand?

$tinkle · Oct 23, 2003

Originally posted by Lizz
From Scott Ritter, Chief UN Inspector in 1998:
"As of December 1998 we had accounted for 90 to 95 percent of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability -- "we" being the weapons inspectors. We destroyed all the factories, all of the means of production and we couldn't account for some of the weaponry, but chemical weapons have a shelf-life of five years. Biological weapons have a shelf-life of three years. To have weapons today, they would have had to rebuild the factories and start the process of producing these weapons since December 1998."

you mean Scott Ritter the child predator? At least he's on the up & up, eh? I mean he wouldn't have an agenda or anything, would he?

Would he?

You ever heard of the Scott Ritter Project? Bet he wish you hadn't.

fluff · Oct 23, 2003

Originally posted by LordOpie
yes, you did, you have. Here's your latest...

See, you confuse me. Now you say you believe they did exist, but from the other thread you say they didn't. You also say they didn't develop and/or deploy when they clearly did both.

Okay, to make the context clearer what I clearly should have added is 'at the time of the invasion of Iraq (or at least the justification for it)' which was 2002/2003. The context being a discussion about the justification for the latest war against Iraq, which is the thread from which you have taken that statement.

So whilst I do not argue that they had them, I saw no credible evidence of the existence of WMD as a threat at the time the US was using them to justify invading Iraq.

Therefore I believe they did exist (after all we know, we gave them some of the early stuff from which they developed them). I also believe that they probably did not exist at in 2001.

Please do not try and take that out of context.

fluff · Oct 23, 2003

Originally posted by LordOpie
As I said in my post above, it's Iraq's responsibility to prove they don't have them and they continue to deny inspections.

I don't deny that the US lied or mislead, but that's not the debate... let's stay focused, shall we?

Well the title of the debate is 'Proof of WMD..."

You are saying that lack of proof of non-existence is proof of existence. That's the crux of the matter.

Another argument put forward is that Iraq's lack of cooperation with the weapons inspectors is proof of existence. Saddam Hussein's desire to prevent inspection of certain sites is also given as evidence of the existence of WMD.

Were you aware that in May 1997 when the US senate passed an act to implement the "Convention on the Prohibition of Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction" (ratified as is by over 100 nations in the preceeding 4 years) they added and amendment (section 307) stipulating that "the President may deny a request to inspect any facility in the United States where the President determines that the inspection may pose a threat to the national security interests of the United States"?

Pretty much the same as Iraq asked for.

Furthermore please check this link:

Stimson Report

The United States Sets a Dreadful Example
U.S. leaders have touted the CWC as the centerpiece of international efforts to reduce the chemical weapons threat. Although Washington signed the CWC enthusiastically in January1993, the United States has since taken a very cavalier approach to the implementation of the CWC. After dallying for four years before ratifying the CWC, U.S. leaders have allowed the treatys implementing legislation to languish in a year and a half-long cycle of neglect and political gamesmanship. Consequently, the United States is violating the CWC, having failed to open to inspection U.S. industry facilities that work with proliferation-risk chemicals. Washington has also reneged on pledges to provide the CWCs inspectorate with equipment and training and owes funds to the inspection agency. In addition, tension and a lack of cooperation have overshadowed inspections of U.S. military facilities, as U.S. officials have balked at allowing the inspectors to tag munitions for monitoring purposes and refused to permit weighing of ton containers filled with chemical agent. The beginnings of a domino effect are apparent, as other countries have begun to utilize similar non-cooperative tactics to block the inspectors.

The U.S. implementing legislation, which remains before Congress, is spiked with treaty-weakening exemptions. First, the U.S. law would allow the President to refuse a challenge inspection on the grounds that it "may pose a threat" to U.S. security interests. Second, this legislation specifies that no samples collected during an inspection can leave U.S. territory for analysis. A third measure in the U.S. law would narrow the number of industry facilities that declare activities involving mixtures or solutions that contain proliferation-risk chemicals. Should other nations emulate these examples, they would block challenge inspections, deny inspectors permission to send chemical samples abroad for detailed analysis at independent laboratories, and decrease considerably the number of industry facilities worldwide that are declared and subsequently opened to routine inspection. Once gutted in this fashion, the CWCs verification regime may be beyond repair.

In short, for the past 18 months, the United States has been the malignancy in the midst of the CWC. In some regards, this situation is baffling. U.S. military and civilian leaders have foresworn future use of chemical weapons, including for retaliatory purposes, and a 1985 law requires the Army to destroy the U.S. chemical arsenal. The United States, it seems, has nothing to hide, yet U.S. officials are hindering inspections. Moreover, the United States has been a strong advocate of free and unfettered access during United Nations Special Commission inspections in Iraq, and the most potent evidence of threatening chemical weapons activity in both Iraq and Sudan has recently come from samples. Nonetheless, the Clinton Administration and Congress are contemplating actions that would have the effect of stripping from the CWCs inspectorate the very tools that have proven so essential to the ability of United Nations inspectors to track down the remnants of Iraqs chemical weapons program.

fluff · Oct 23, 2003

Originally posted by LordOpie
and if the USA invaded mexico multiple times, lobbed some missles at Belize, and told the UN to piss off, i'd say the USA should suffer the same treatment as iraq.

Well, there was Panama, Grenada, Cuba (the list goes on) and I think the US did tell the UN to piss off many times!

However, who the hell could invade the US? Canada maybe? You'd better watch them neighbours of yours.

Drunken_Ninja · Oct 28, 2003

what i want to know is,

how did canada know that there would be absolutely no weapons of mass destruction before the US invaded iraq?

something funny must be going on up there

shocktower · Nov 2, 2003

Originally posted by LordOpie
umm, my intention for this thread was STRICTLY to document that they DID exist, I didn't want this thread to turn into another debate since several threads already exist... please visit a thread such as this current one.

They have WMD like you have a dick ,and if you do spit it out

Proof of WMD...

MOTHER HEN

Attention K Mart Shoppers

find me a tampon

MOTHER HEN

Attention K Mart Shoppers

Chimp

MOTHER HEN

the teste

Chimp

MOTHER HEN

Chimp

Monkey

MOTHER HEN

Monkey Turbo

Brevity R Us

Attention K Mart Shoppers

Chimp

Brevity R Us

MOTHER HEN

MOTHER HEN

Expert on blowing

Chimp

Expert on blowing

MOTHER HEN

Chimp

MOTHER HEN

Chimp

Expert on blowing

Chimp

MOTHER HEN

MOTHER HEN

MOTHER HEN

Expert on blowing

Monkey Turbo

Monkey Turbo

MOTHER HEN

MOTHER HEN

Monkey Turbo

Turbo Monkey

Monkey