• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction

Ron Mars

Ron Mars

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
1,194
Reaction score
170
Location
Central Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I started this so we can have the WMD debate here and not another thread.
 
Ron Mars said:
I started this so we can have the WMD debate here and not another thread.
Click to expand...

People actually debate this? :shock:

I thought this one was pretty obvious to anyone.
 
Yeah, there are still people who do not know what was found in Iraq or the findings of the ISG and Senate pre-war intelligence report.

The link for this info no longer works. It's from a Jewish organization and the info was compiled from UNSCOM reports:

“But, there have been no UN-mandated weapons inspections in Iraq since 1998, and the Assessment notes, "Based on the UNSCOM report to the UN Security Council in January 1999 and earlier UNSCOM reports, we assess that when the UN inspectors left Iraq they were unable to account for:
Up to 360 tons of bulk chemical warfare agent, including 1.5 tons of VX nerve agent.
Up to 3,000 tons of precursor chemicals, including approx. 300 tons, which, in the Iraqi chemical warfare program, were unique to the production of VX.
Growth media procured for biological agent production (enough to produce over three times the 8,500 liters of anthrax spores Iraq admits to having manufactured).
Over 30,000 special munitions for delivery of chemical and biological agents."
The Assessment adds, "The departure of UNSCOM meant that the international community was unable to establish the truth behind these large discrepancies and greatly diminished its ability to monitor and assess Iraq's continuing attempts to reconstitute its programs."
http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articl...9,650,122,1759
 
I know that accounting can suck at times, but was any of this stuff actually found?
 
WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results | Danger Room | Wired.com



Nearly three years later, American troops were still finding WMD in the region. An armored Buffalo vehicle unearthed a cache of artillery shells “that was covered by sacks and leaves under an Iraqi Community Watch checkpoint. “The 155mm rounds are filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard.”

In WikiLeaks’ massive trove of nearly 392,000 Iraq war logs are hundreds of references to chemical and biological weapons. Most of those are intelligence reports or initial suspicions of WMD that don’t pan out. In July 2004, for example, U.S. forces come across a Baghdad building with gas masks, gas filters, and containers with “unknown contents” inside. Later investigation revealed those contents to be vitamins.

But even late in the war, WMDs were still being unearthed. In the summer of 2008, according to one WikiLeaked report, American troops found at least 10 rounds that tested positive for chemical agents. “These rounds were most likely left over from the [Saddam]-era regime. Based on location, these rounds may be an AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq] cache. However, the rounds were all total disrepair and did not appear to have been moved for a long time.”
Click to expand...



WMD's were found, much to the media and the lefts dismay......
 
What is the premise that is to be debated?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
You should also show that no one else had started this before him and that the things that came after him were the result of his actions.
Until then you have not demonstrated what you think you have demonstrated.
Click to expand...

Sorry, nice try. Wilson started the hoax and many still believe it.

That the hoax spiraled into the ether and took on a life of it's own is no surprise. It's also no surprise that most people don't know Jow Wilson was making it all up.
 
Ron Mars said:
Sorry, nice try. Wilson started the hoax and many still believe it.
That the hoax spiraled into the ether and took on a life of it's own is no surprise. It's also no surprise that most people don't know Jow Wilson was making it all up.
Click to expand...
You haven't demonstrate that Wilson originated the claim that the Bush WH misled people about the invasion of Iraq or that his actions resulted in the subsequent claims.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Bush took responsibility for invading Iraq, and rightly so as Commander-in-Chief. He also said the main reason he invaded was because he believed Iraq was in possession of stockpiles of WMD. Bush went on to confess he was wrong, Iraq did not have them after all.

Sounds like a mia culpa to me.
Click to expand...

It's an admission some of the WMD intelligence was incorrect. That in no way means Bush lied about the intelligence he was given.

Nobody ever wants to talk about what the ISG report has to say about this issue.

On the question of Saddam and WMD's the verdict is GUILTY as charged.
 
Ron Mars said:
Seriously, do your own research.
Click to expand...

Let me translate that for you: I can't find any information to prove my claim, thus I will use the 'Prove that I'm wrong' cop-out tactic.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm sorry, but the evidence is al Libi, Curveball, and Chalaibi with his heros in error, and what we clearly knew about them. So, the he would have to be the CIA and the Bush administration. :lamo
Click to expand...
Ron Mars said:
The entire intelligence community of the free world did not rely on these sources alone as you would know if you read the Senate report. In fact very little.
Click to expand...
Simon W. Moon said:
But who did use these sources to make a case for invading Iraq? Who could that be?
Click to expand...
Ron Mars said:
UNSCOM did.
Click to expand...
Simon W. Moon said:
cite please
also cite for UNSCOM making a case for invading Iraq.
Click to expand...
Ron Mars said:
Negative. UNSCOM reports are available to anyone.
Click to expand...
Simon W. Moon said:
I have read these things and did not find any such thing as you assert.
If you do not wish to debate, perhaps you are in the wrong forum.
In debate, the person who makes and assertion, such as, "UNSCOM made a case for invading Iraq and used information from Curveball to do so," is obligated to provide backing for their assertion.
If you are not willing to do so, please concede instead.
Click to expand...
Ron Mars said:
The link for this info no longer works. It's from a Jewish organization and the info was compiled from UNSCOM reports:
“But, there have been no UN-mandated weapons inspections in Iraq since 1998, and the Assessment notes, "Based on the UNSCOM report to the UN Security Council in January 1999 and earlier UNSCOM reports, we assess that when the UN inspectors left Iraq they were unable to account for:
Up to 360 tons of bulk chemical warfare agent, including 1.5 tons of VX nerve agent.
Up to 3,000 tons of precursor chemicals, including approx. 300 tons, which, in the Iraqi chemical warfare program, were unique to the production of VX.
Growth media procured for biological agent production (enough to produce over three times the 8,500 liters of anthrax spores Iraq admits to having manufactured).
Over 30,000 special munitions for delivery of chemical and biological agents."
The Assessment adds, "The departure of UNSCOM meant that the international community was unable to establish the truth behind these large discrepancies and greatly diminished its ability to monitor and assess Iraq's continuing attempts to reconstitute its programs."
http://www.jinsa.org/articles/artic...2/documentid/1759/history/3,2359,650,122,1759
Click to expand...
Simon W. Moon said:
Which part of the above comes from Curveball?
Click to expand...
Ron Mars said:
It's from UNSCOM reports.
Click to expand...
You asserted that UNSCOM relied on Curevball. I asked you to provide evidence of that claim. Do you have any evidence to support your claim?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
If you don't want to debate, you don't have to, but this forum IS called DEBATE politics.
Click to expand...

I'm happy to debate this subject. I will not do your homework.

If you are going to continue this debate I highly recommended that you read the relevant reports, like UNSCOM reports, before diving into the discussion.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Let me translate that for you: I can't find any information to prove my claim, thus I will use the 'Prove that I'm wrong' cop-out tactic.
Click to expand...

What an idiotic response.

I've been defending my position with reports from UNSCOM, ISG and the US Senate.

If you have nothing but empty assertions perhaps you should just read and learn and stay out of the discussion.
 
Ron Mars said:
I never asserted anything of the kind.
Click to expand...
I have already shown where you did.
Ron Mars said:
I'm happy to debate this subject. I will not do your homework.
Click to expand...
Providing sources for your assertions is a part of debate. Do it or don't. But if you don't, you're not really debating.
Ron Mars said:
If you are going to continue this debate I highly recommended that you read the relevant reports, like UNSCOM reports, before diving into the discussion.
Click to expand...
I have many times over.
 
In the intrest of all. I don't know if any of the links work but I know this one does: Google Advanced Search

10/11/95 UNSCOM Report- 11 October 1995 UNSCOM report
▪ 54. During the technical talks held in Baghdad in September 1995, it became clear that Iraq was continuing to withhold important information on the extent and technical depth of its chemical weapons programme.
▪ 79. The new information obtained by the Commission in August and September 1995 clearly shows that Iraq's full, final and complete disclosure presented on 25 March 1995, the attachment of 27 March 1995 and the addenda to the attachment, received on 29 May 1995, are incorrect and incomplete.
▪ 106. The Commission's preliminary analysis of this information reveals that Iraq has been concealing proscribed activities and that, consequently, some of the assessments in the Commission's earlier reports have to be revised
▪ 108. In the chemical weapons area, the Special Commission's investigations have led to disclosure of activities aiming at the acquisition of a considerable capability for the production of the advanced nerve agent VX

4/16/98 UNSCOM Report- http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/s98-332.htm
▪ 118. As already indicated in this report, Iraq has never fulfilled the primary obligation to provide complete and verifiable declarations in any of the weapons areas specified by resolution 687 (1991).
▪ 128. Iraq repeatedly failed to comply with the Council's requirements, especially those relating to immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to relevant sites, documents and persons.
▪ 130. virtually no progress in verifying disarmament has been able to be reported. If this is what Iraq intended by the crisis, then, in large measure, it could be said to have been successful.

10/6/98 UNSCOM Report-
70. The biological weapons area is a revealing example of these facts. For half of the eight-year period of the relationship between Iraq and the Special Commission, Iraq declared that it had no biological weapons programme. When that claim was no longer tenable, Iraq provided a series of disclosure statements all of which have been found by international experts, on multiple occasions, to be neither credible nor verifiable.
73. It must be recorded, however, that for this to be the case, a satisfactory resolution of the question of the chemical warfare agent VX needs to be achieved, because of its implications for both the chemical weapons and the missile files. This involves not just the question of VX weaponization, but also the more fundamental question of Iraq’s record of VX production. Again, there can be no substitute for full disclosure by Iraq on this matter, a disclosure that has never been made.


12/2/98 UNSCOM Report- http://www.meij.or.jp/text/Gulf War/unscomr1998.htm
▪ Section II, 11. …tasked with missions concerning the fate of 155 mm shells filled with the chemical weapons mustard; The mission to determine the fate of the 155 mm shells will proceed when logistically possible.
▪ Section X, 11. During chemical monitoring inspections in the reporting period, undeclared dual use pieces of production equipment, once again, were found.
 
Ron Mars said:
Nope. Saddam never accounted for it although UNSCOM proved he was in possesion of it.
Click to expand...

I meant found after Saddam was deposed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom