logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!

> Welcome to the America's Debate Archive!

Topics that have had no new replies in the last 180 days are moved to the archive.

New replies are not accepted once a topic is moved to the archive, and new topics cannot be started in the archive.

> Weapons of Mass Destruction, Er ... where are they?
JonBon
post Apr 14 2003, 01:23 PM
Post #1


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 190
Member No.: 440
Joined: February-5-03

From: Cardiff, Wales
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Socialist



QUOTE
Best of AD Award Winner: Best Topic, War on Terrorism, 2002-2003


If Iraq was such a threat to American security, and had advanced and extensive biological, chemical, nuclear and conventional weapons progress - as Colin Powell was anxious to have us believe - why weren't these weapons used in the recent conflict?

This post has been edited by Jaime: Sep 20 2003, 08:42 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
25 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Amlord
post Apr 14 2003, 01:38 PM
Post #2


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



The answer, as I see it, is fairly simple when you realize exactly how the war went down.

First of all, Iraq's WMDs were not overtly deployed and ready to be used by the military. That would have been way too easy for the "inspectors" to discover them. So they were hidden (probably underground) and not readily accessable to the troops.

The Iraqi military is based upon the the Soviet "top-down" command and control approach. Individual commanders have very little leeway with regards to tactics, etc. Everyone would be afraid of using a tactic NOT condoned by SH, so no individual initiative would be shown. Also, GWB's announcement of war crimes may have made an impact (I don't know if they could have or would have seen that one, though).

On the opening night of the war, when the first cruise missiles struck that "target of opportunity", I really feel that we decapitated the regime. Whether or not we actually killed key members is debateable (and, of course, unknown at this time), but what is NOT debateable is that the Iraqis never mounted any type of coordinated defense. Although there were pockets of resistance, even in Baghdad there was no feel of "holding the line" or any other type of organized effort to stop us.

The initial strike (or the subsequent ones on Baghdad) completely unravelled Iraq's ability to communicate and give orders. That, coupled with the lack of individual initiative, lead to the WMDs not being deployed and they remained hidden.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Apr 14 2003, 01:42 PM
Post #3


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



Since the war is now over, it may add a new dimension to the debate on whether or not Iraq has WMD's, I closed the previous topic of Iraq doesn't have WMD, does it? last posted on 12 March.

Please do continue the debate here. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rickmanx
post Apr 14 2003, 02:02 PM
Post #4


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 188
Member No.: 577
Joined: March-4-03

From: Missouri, USA
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Independent



Well the war played out exactly as I thought it would. Heavy bombing, lots of Iraqis dead and not one single illegal weapon used. Nor have ANY of the troops/Us Inspectors found anything. Sure there were ALOT of false alarms.

"CHEMICAL WEAPON PLANT FOUND" was one of the headlines I read which days later turned out to be an old abandoned facility.

"BARRELS OF SARIN GAS DISCOVERED" turned out to be drums of pesticide.

"11 ROCKETS OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS FOUND BY 101ST AIRBORNE" which later the story has never resurfaced again nor verified or denied by the Pentagon.

Those are just a few I can remember off the top of my head.

This war was with one goal in mind: To ELIMINATE the Saddam Regime. So I ask you this. If thats 100% percent true which it is, and there were MANY Iraqis soldiers who lost their lives ( intial report I heard was something like 160,000 ) why wouldn't they use their chemical weapons? I mean imagine if a huge force was coming to your home to KILL YOU. Would you not use every bit of weaponry you have to take down as many as you can with you?

People say the reason they didn't use WMDs is because they wanted to keep world opinion on their side. Well, does world opinion really matter when you're DEAD?

And if they didn't use them now.. in their DARKEST hour what makes you think they'd EVER use them on us?

But I don't think we are done here. Just wait till our government starts calling another government a "regime" ( Taliban Regime, Iraqi Regime ) because its a good bet we'll be going to war with them.

Prolly the next thing we'll hear is how EVIL the Palestinian Regime is even though it was Israel who blew up a school last week. sad.gif When will it end?

This post has been edited by Rickmanx: Apr 14 2003, 04:31 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Abs like Jesus
post Apr 14 2003, 06:36 PM
Post #5


********
Cross Training Instructor

Sponsor
June 4, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,613
Member No.: 591
Joined: March-9-03

From: Louisville, KY
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE
First of all, Iraq's WMDs were not overtly deployed and ready to be used by the military. That would have been way too easy for the "inspectors" to discover them. So they were hidden (probably underground) and not readily accessable to the troops.


As "Rick" pointed out in the previous post, the administration certainly seemed to believe that Iraq not only had WMD's but also had them ready to deploy.
Whoops blush.gif

And there's been some talk, from what I've heard in news reports, that some in the administration are now trying to say the weapons aren't there because they're in Syria. As it's already been pointed out, it wouldn't make much sense for the Iraqis to rid themselves of what would arguably have been their best weapons -- assuming they had them. Even in the face of this logic the CIA warned that if Iraq had such weapons a war would likely prompt them to distribute them before the fall of the regime.

It's certainly interesting how much more "liberation" talk there is today in contrast to WMD and "smoking gun" talk. At the rate the press conferences are going, people won't even remember WMDs were the initial reason for going into Iraq, following what the administration considered ineffective weapons inspections. No... people will only think of the liberation factor and assume that we accomplished everything we set out for... whistling.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
quarkhead
post Apr 14 2003, 08:00 PM
Post #6


Group Icon

********
Original Sufferhead

Sponsor
February 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,180
Member No.: 328
Joined: December-11-02

From: Spokane, WA
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



The whole idea that they've now spirited away the WMD to Syria seems a bit daft. I mean, why? I can understand hiding them while inspectors are looking for them, to avoid war, etc., but why hide them now? What's the point? It's not like things are going to be worse for Hussein if they are discovered now. The only way I could imagine them being in Syria (if they do exist) is if they were sold to Syria for some reason.

If the police are sending around a detective to search for your illegal gun, you hide it. If they are coming in expressly to kill you, you don't slip it to your neighbor, you use the dang thing! mellow.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hugo
post Apr 14 2003, 09:31 PM
Post #7


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,584
Member No.: 362
Joined: December-28-02

From: Houston
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(quarkhead @ Apr 14 2003, 02:00 PM)
If the police are sending around a detective to search for your illegal gun, you hide it. If they are coming in expressly to kill you, you don't slip it to your neighbor, you use the dang thing! mellow.gif

But if they are coming to kill your evil SOB of a boss ......
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Abs like Jesus
post Apr 14 2003, 11:08 PM
Post #8


********
Cross Training Instructor

Sponsor
June 4, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,613
Member No.: 591
Joined: March-9-03

From: Louisville, KY
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Other



Iraq fell last week, right...?

And none of the soldiers are leading American forces around to the hidden stash(es) of the evil SOB's WMDs. There are some who are manipulating the presence of the Americans to threaten other Iraqis ("if you don't do this, I'll tell them you're with Saddam), but yet nobody has led Coalition forces to hidden weapons.

Reported today, and plastered all over the news (so far as I've been watching), is the news of mobile labs dug up in the desert. The reporters sound almost distressed to have a "major development" but no chemical or biological weapons. In other words: no smoking gun. sad.gif

But Iraq does have WMDs.
They just don't have the same countless varieties of WMDs that we have throughout America.

We have Weapons of M*** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** Destruction...
Iraq has Weapons of M*** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** Distraction biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DaytonRocker
post Apr 15 2003, 02:50 AM
Post #9


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,520
Member No.: 547
Joined: February-26-03

From: Dayton, Ohio
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE
In other words: no smoking gun


I haven't done the research, and I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that it doesn't matter if they moved WMD materials or not. They have equipment so sensitive, they can detect the presence of anything that could have been there. In other words, they would know something was there and moved. Yet, I don't recall ever hearing about that.

Not only has all their major suspected WMD sites went bust (and anybody that doesn't think that finding WMD was as much a priority as capping Saddam, I want some of what you are smoking), they haven't even found traces. Those joyous liberated Iraqis don't seem to know either.

This whole exercise has been more along the lines of Weapons of Mass Durbation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Artemise
post Apr 15 2003, 05:11 AM
Post #10


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 668
Joined: April-15-03

From: Alaska
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Sadaam was not going to use his great stash of weapons of mass destruction against the Americans for his own defense, he was going to foil the evil plot, a more devilish scheme. He would make himself a martyr by proving the weapons never existed, and by his death remain in Iraqis hearts forever, or possibly move them into Syria to yet live to create a more diaboloical event, upon where after Iraq was conquered, the US would bomb Syria and Iran, then resurface as the Joker, to take over the world! Moohaahaaa!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eeyore
post Apr 15 2003, 07:34 AM
Post #11


Group Icon

********
Thaaaaanks for noticin' me

Sponsor
February 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,483
Member No.: 365
Joined: December-28-02

From: Nashville
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(amlord @ Apr 14 2003, 08:38 AM)
The answer, as I see it, is fairly simple when you realize exactly how the war went down.

It is fairly simple as I see it too. (But entirely different)

Saddam Hussein never was a supporter of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. His number one policy goal was to solidify and strengthen his own position as dictator of Iraq. His secondary concern is his personal safety. It was never in his best interests to use his weapons for terror acts because that would ensure his doom.

Even in the of an invasion with a pretty well broadcast starting range (and a waiting period of US troops for several days near Baghdad, Hussein did not resort to the use of WMDs.

The simple conclusion I take from that is that Hussein was not an immediate threat to the citizens of the United States and that war on Iraq was not the only option for solving the Iraq WMD problem.

Let's not concoct new theories that go something like, the fact that he did not use them shows what an incredible threat he really was.

I have seen no obvious connection to the war on terror. But I have seen priorities put on the oil fields and getting American companies the contracts to reap profits from putting Iraq back together again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Platypus
post Apr 16 2003, 02:59 AM
Post #12


*******
Five Hundred Club

Sponsor
Aug. 13, 2003

Group: BANNED
Posts: 948
Member No.: 544
Joined: February-26-03

From: Lexington, MA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Apparently, according to CNN, the Army is now admitting that the mobile labs they found near Karbala might not have anything to do with banned chemical or biological weapons after all. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/15/...labs/index.html

How many false alarms does that make? I can remember at least three major ones, but I think there were more.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hugo
post Apr 16 2003, 04:07 AM
Post #13


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,584
Member No.: 362
Joined: December-28-02

From: Houston
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Eeyore @ Apr 15 2003, 01:34 AM)


Even in the of an invasion with a pretty well broadcast starting range (and a waiting period of US troops for several days near Baghdad, Hussein did not resort to the use of WMDs. 

The simple conclusion I take from that is that Hussein was not an immediate threat to the citizens of the United States and that war on Iraq was not the only option for solving the Iraq WMD problem.

Let's not concoct new theories that go something like, the fact that he did not use them shows what an incredible threat he really was.

I have seen no obvious connection to the war on terror. But I have seen priorities put on the oil fields and getting American companies the contracts to reap profits from putting Iraq back together again.

Saddam was a threat to the US because Iraqi forces were likely to use WMD's; it was because terrorists, supplied with Iraqi WMD's, might use them. Was not an infamous terrorist captured today in Iraq? Was not Saddam paying the families of suicide bombers? If Saddam was primarily concerned for his own survival, why did he not keep records of WMD's destroyed? Why did the UN have sanctions on Iraq?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eeyore
post Apr 16 2003, 04:21 AM
Post #14


Group Icon

********
Thaaaaanks for noticin' me

Sponsor
February 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,483
Member No.: 365
Joined: December-28-02

From: Nashville
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Hugo I see no evidence of an imminent threat. We gave him the stuff in the 1980s. He has had plenty of time to launch a terrorist attack against us or slip his goods to a terrorist organization. I am not sure which terrorist capture you are referring to, but his payments to suicide bombers have to do with anti-Israeli terrorism, not the Al-Qaeda organization. You have to go after the whole Arab league for supporting terrorism against Israel on behalf of the Palestinians.

If we are going to wage war on what might be able to happen the wars will continue well past the end of this decade. We are revisiting dark interventionist bullying territory.

Why would Hussein want to provide records of destroying his WMDs. He wanted the threat of their existence or their very existence to appear more powerful than he was.

Hussein is one of many bad leaders out there. He was improperly connected to Al-Qaeda by the Bush administration. The primary interest in getting involved in Iraq is to increase American influence in the region by getting rid of one of our enemies in the world. We are right in this case only because we have the might. This was a bad war.

This post has been edited by Eeyore: Apr 16 2003, 04:22 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aquilla
post Apr 16 2003, 05:44 AM
Post #15


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,148
Member No.: 421
Joined: February-3-03

From: Missouri
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Incredible. Here we are, less than a month after the beginning of the liberation of Iraq and people are asking about where these WMDs are. Well, gee, let's tiptoe back through memory lane for a moment and forget about the fact that our troops were there first to fight a war and consider a few things. How long ago was it that we were debating on whether we should go to war and those opposed were telling us, among other things, that the UN Weapons Inspectors hadn't had enough time. "They hadn't been allowed to do their job and they need more time." Seems to me that was after the inspectors had been in Iraq for over 3 months. Now, here we are with the major part of the war barely over, we took Tikrit what a day or so ago? Still terrorism operating around the country in spots, we have museums to guard and now we're being asked how come we haven't found the WMD? This is really incredible.

I can only echo the calls of those who opposed this war not so long ago. "What's the rush?"

This post has been edited by Aquilla: Apr 16 2003, 05:44 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Abs like Jesus
post Apr 16 2003, 06:37 AM
Post #16


********
Cross Training Instructor

Sponsor
June 4, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,613
Member No.: 591
Joined: March-9-03

From: Louisville, KY
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Other



The Bush administration insisted that the weapons were there... not just that they had bio or chemical weapons, but also that they had restarted their nuclear program. They claimed the weapons inspectors couldn't and wouldn't find them because they were being moved around like musical chairs and that the inspectors weren't being granted access everywhere within the country.

So let's see... the country is now under the control of Coalition forces. What's that mean? UNRESTRICTED ACCESS for starters. And secondly, there isn't anybody left to transport these alleged weapons around undetected. According to the administration, the weapons that they claim are there should just be sitting around somewhere waiting for somebody to stumble over them.

Yet there has been nothing.

Even with all the nifty satellite coverage Colin Powell demonstrated for the UN Security Council, the administration and Coalition forces seem a bit at a loss as to where all those alleged weapons could be. Heck, even the administration almost immediately suggested that they could have been transported across the border into Syria. It wasn't but a day or two after the fall of Baghdad that I heard that scenario being thrown out from the White House... blush.gif
QUOTE
"They hadn't been allowed to do their job and they need more time." Seems to me that was after the inspectors had been in Iraq for over 3 months.

...
I can only echo the calls of those who opposed this war not so long ago. "What's the rush?"

Not necessarily a rush. But the administratin seems to be out of excuses. They said the inspectors would never find anything, no matter how much time they had, because Saddam was moving them around or denying access. As I've already said, those two excuses no longer have any basis. The inspectors were constantly baffled by the lies and manipulation of events coming from the White House all throughout the inspections... and this trend seems to continue without the participation of the inspectors. False alarms abound right and left, as Platypus has already mentioned.

So what's the rush? They're out of excuses. From what the administration showed in February, spy satellites had no trouble tracking the weapons when we didn't really care that much about them in November. Yet now we haven't a clue where they might be (presuming they exist). And now there's nobody left to shuffle them around or deny access to such facilities as claimed. But, again, there has been nothing...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JonBon
post Apr 16 2003, 10:35 AM
Post #17


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 190
Member No.: 440
Joined: February-5-03

From: Cardiff, Wales
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Socialist



QUOTE(Aquilla @ Apr 16 2003, 05:44 AM)
Incredible.  Here we are, less than a month after the beginning of the liberation of Iraq and people are asking about where these WMDs are.

The original question was not 'why haven't WMD's been found' - although that is a valid query in itself - but 'why weren't WMD's used?'

I don't believe for a minute that Saddam had them but was unable to deploy them. The American invasion was hardly a surprise attack - Saddam new to the hour when the US would begin its invasion. Why would he not have deployed any WMD's he had in readiness for the assault?

And then there's suggestion that they have been shipped to Syria. What possible reason would Saddam have for doing that? They're no good to him there. Why would he have bothered developing them in the first place if he wasn't going to use them or even keep them in Iraq when it is being invaded?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Platypus
post Apr 16 2003, 01:21 PM
Post #18


*******
Five Hundred Club

Sponsor
Aug. 13, 2003

Group: BANNED
Posts: 948
Member No.: 544
Joined: February-26-03

From: Lexington, MA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Aquilla @ Apr 16 2003, 12:44 AM)
I can only echo the calls of those who opposed this war not so long ago.  "What's the rush?"

The rush is that the proof should have existed before the war. One week after the war is "won" is more than a week too late.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Artemise
post Apr 16 2003, 01:58 PM
Post #19


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 668
Joined: April-15-03

From: Alaska
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE
Incredible. Here we are, less than a month after the beginning of the liberation of Iraq and people are asking about where these WMDs are. Well, gee, let's tiptoe back through memory lane for a moment and forget about the fact that our troops were there first to fight a war and consider a few things.


Aquilla...

I believe everyone is asking WHY, if Sadaam Hussein was such a threat, if his all insurmountable WMD were to be unleashed upon the US to the point of a National Security Issue to engage in pre-emptive war, then why were these weapons never used and have yet to be discovered. You say 'that our troops were there first to fight a war'. What was that 'war' based upon? Alledged Bio and chemical weapons, never used , why? I cannot imagine. AHHH, of course, they were moved to Syria, ??? hence a new target.

Think of a General, S. Hussein was in charge of Iraq for 34 years, as opposed to a 2 year novice, with alot of firepower and finance. Wouldnt you use everything you have to oust an invader, sorry, 'liberator'? What excuses can anyone come up with that there were no WMD, god the most overused and hypocritical term of 2003, used by or found in Iraq?

I suspect we have some lies and the admin thinks the public is really stupid. Now we have threats against Syria..oh my, Iraqs WMD are now in Syria, how far can the deception possibly succeed? Osama, Saddam are still alive as far as we know, do we ever get our man, or simply move on to create more chaos?

This post has been edited by Artemise: Apr 16 2003, 02:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post Apr 16 2003, 02:57 PM
Post #20


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



whistling.gif If you can believe The Bush Administration (and you shouldn't if you have an I.Q. higher than a potted plant) those darn tricky Iraquis realized the U.S. was coming in the front door and scrambooched the nasty ol' WMD's out the back door.

I can see it now.

SADDAM: "Hey man--do me a favor and watch my stash of...er...'stuff'."

BASHAR ASSAD: "Errr...okay. What's in all of these sealed barrels?"

SADDAM: "I could tell you but I'd have to kill you."

ASSAD: "What if Don Rumsfeld comes by?"

SADDAM: "CUT HIS THROAT!!! Uh...just tell him that Hans Blix has already checked the barrels and he says it's all good."

ASSAD: "Okay dude. No problemo. When are you comin' back to get your stuff?"

SADDAM: "When hell freezes over or the 2004 Presidential elections are over. Whichever comes first."


It would appears that finding these WMD's is going to be a giant game of "Where's Waldo." First the WMD's are in Iraq, then Syria, then Iran, then North Korea, then France....

Wheeee! This could be a reality TV show. dry.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

25 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: August 18th, 2018 - 07:47 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.