Possible Evidence That WMDs Were In Iraq?

[NorCal Guy]

I was watching the news about a week ago and saw something very interesting. This former Iraqi general named Georges Sada has written a book about his experiences in Iraq and what he says happened to the WMDs. Sada is a christian and openly defied Saddam to his face but was never punished by him. Sada told the reporter he was talking to that in the 1980s Saddam had planned to drop nuclear bombs on Israel, a plan that never went through, and create biological weapons. But what does this have to do with the current war? Sada says that he helped with the secret plans to get rid of all WMDs in Iraq before the US invaded. He claims that a dam in Syria broke before the war and the Iraqis flew cargo planes and drove hundereds of trucks across into Syria under the claim to be carrying releif supplies to Syria but instead carrying thousands of tons of biological and chemical weapons. Sada and the other generals knew that a true military victory was not possible so this effort was to win the war of "words". Anyway this is all extremely interesting and may give a new perspective on the war. Here is a link. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591454042/qid=1138243661/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-9383360-3940932?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
Your thoughts.

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

I am pretty skeptical of this. First of all, the guy sounds like he certainly has an axe to grind against the Saddam regime, so though I have no evidence to say that he is lying, it also is possible to say that there's little evidence to support his claim, which brings me to my next point.

I find it hardly believeable that an entire two decades activity in researching and producing WMDs could be dismantled and shipped to neighboring countries in the months before the war. You would think that even by freak accident something would be left behind if that were the case. The fact that nothing was found strikes me as being the proof that there never really was the WMD threat that we were so browbeaten into accepting as fact.

[NorCal Guy]

I can totally understand your reply due to the lack of evidence currently under the ground. When it comes to having an axe to grind though I have to dissagree because the reporter brought up this same point and the general siad he was not even sure if the war is right or wrong and is not sure whether Saddam is should be on trial. As evidence goes i do remember him talking about proof that the plane flights occured or something like that but i cant remember specifics. Sorry. Guess someone has to read the books. By the way GO CANUCKS! Sorry could not resist after seeing your avatar.

[Simetrical]

Political threads belong in the Mudpit. :original:

[The White Knight]

Political threads belong in the Mudpit. :original:

Maybe the pit should be subdivided in ME politics and American politics. I doubt there would be many topics left in the orignal pit.

this is not faith. it's just that (as have been mentioned countless times before) lack of evidence is not evidence of non-existence.
what we do know is that
1. Saddamn had WMDs before (iran war, kurds, etc)
2. UN weapon inspectors said a lot of WMDs were not accounted for in the destruction phase
3. no WMDs can be found after the invasion.

meaning, there may still be WMDs there because the UN inspectors said there were discrepancies with the destruction reports, but just because we can't find it doens't mean they don't exist. they may very well be all destroyed, but we will never likely never know

I believe Erik is right and many people are just desperately looking for a justification for the Iraq-invasion.

[Zuwxiv]

Few evidence would be suspicious. No evidence doubly so.

The simple fact that nothing has been found.... Not a few clues, but absolutely nothing. If there was any WMD, any at all, it would be impossible to hide all physical evidence this long. Impossible. Thus far, there is no solid, physical evidence that WMD exist.

If there is any evidence, please show it. I would really like to see any solid evidence, because the complete absense of evidence means that it is impossible to prove existance or nonexistance.

[NorCal Guy]

I have not read the book so i cant even speculate on any possible evidence in the book. As for the complete lack of evidence and it being impossible to get rid of everything i would have to disagree. When a complete totalitarian government wants to make things dissapear you dont think they could do it with months of preperation. Im not saying that this book is fact or anything like that but it still deserves an open mind and we should not be so quick to shoot it down just because CNN and the New York Times is not going all googly over it.

[RZZZA]

Why do people think it is impossible to hide things in the Iraqi desert? I'm sure Saddam knew his land better than the U.S. troops did, or do even now. And I bet its not that hard to hide something deep below the iraqi desert, particularly so if you happen not to care very much if you never find what is hidden again.

[DimeBagHo]

The simple fact that nothing has been found.... Not a few clues, but absolutely nothing.

That's not true at all. The investigation after the invasion found lots of evidence of WMD programs, and some materials. Since then some WMDs have also been found. What was not found was stockpiles of weapons ready for use.

Here's the public statement of what was found by the investigation after the invasion: http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affair..._10022003.html

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

That's not true at all. The investigation after the invasion found lots of evidence of WMD programs

Deactivated programs.

and some materials.

With heavy emphasis on the word 'some'.

Since then some WMDs have also been found.

Old WMDs, most dating from the Iran-Iraq War or the pre-1991 WMDs program.

What was not found was stockpiles of weapons ready for use.

Because they didn't exist.

Here's the public statement of what was found by the investigation after the invasion: http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affair..._10022003.html

The same report also comprehensively dismisses the idea that Saddam somehow packed up the WMDs and WMD programs, shipped them to Syria or 'hid them in the desert' without leaving the faintest trace behind. Totalitarian or not, nothing short of magic could have achieved this without leaving some evidence that it happened. Despite this, we still get people closing their eyes really, really tight and wishing really, really hard that this magical removal happened.

It didn't.

[RZZZA]

All it takes is ONE hydrogen bomb to commit an international war crime. How hard is it to say "Oh crap, the Americans are ****** at hell at us! Ok, Abu and Sayyid, go and bury this thing under a sand dune."?

Maybe I'm being silly but...someone explain this to me as if I were a 6 year old. Why is it hard for a man who doesnt care about ANYTHING to bury nuclear weapons in a nation that is built upon lots and lots of sand?

[stop-3]

The term 'WMD' is meaningless. The death of thought. A hail of 2000-pound bombs is not 'mass destruction'? Tens of thousands of civvies killed in the past few years by weopons of not mass destruction. How many killed in this same period by your dreaded '''WMD'''?

[NorCal Guy]

Im not trying to say that this is what happened but just imagine yourself the tyrant of a country. You have had hundreds of thousands of your own people killed by WMDs. Eventually you find out that a much stronger group of countries are coming to take your land and probably kill you for these WMDs. What would you do? I know what i would do. I would get rid of the weapons by burying them, sending them to allied neighbors, or destroying them before the invasion. At least this way i could take a "moral" highground. And some might ask why has the US not confronted Syria about all this. Because if we did we would also be occupying Damascus right now.

[Masquerade]

Oh Lord. There were no WMDs in Iraq and most people have had the good sense to let it drop and cease embarrassing themselves.

[Hellenic Hoplite]

So a political opponent of Husein says that Husein planned to use weapons of mass destruction, and he does so in a time when the American army controls (or tries to) Iraq and he would have all the monetary benefit to do so? What a credible source!

Actually I would love his theory to be more than just a late theory. Had Iraq WMD the coalition would not have wrought the havoc that it wrought to our day, for the simple threat of it.

[Erik]

There were no WMD's.
Why can't people just accept that they were fooled?

This is turning into some kind of religion.
There is not a single piece of evidence, but people still put "faith" into the idea that the WMD's exist.
I guess they just have a need to "beleive".

[allthesedamnnamesaretaken]

There were no WMD's.
Why can't people just accept that they were fooled?

This is turning into some kind of religion.
There is not a single piece of evidence, but people still put "faith" into the idea that the WMD's exist.
I guess they just have a need to "beleive".

this is not faith. it's just that (as have been mentioned countless times before) lack of evidence is not evidence of non-existence.
what we do know is that
1. Saddamn had WMDs before (iran war, kurds, etc)
2. UN weapon inspectors said a lot of WMDs were not accounted for in the destruction phase
3. no WMDs can be found after the invasion.

meaning, there may still be WMDs there because the UN inspectors said there were discrepancies with the destruction reports, but just because we can't find it doens't mean they don't exist. they may very well be all destroyed, but we will never likely never know

[jefegordo]

I have a take on the real motivation for our war in Iraq.

First, I don’t think it is for oil like many people may think. We would have gone in there long ago to get oil and going for it smack dab in the middle of the middle east where chaos is sure to form and impede the construction and security of any infrastructure doesn’t make much practical sense.

Second, I don’t think the WMD had much to do with it. Maybe they thought Iraq might actually have something hidden in the closet and the close proximity to Israel made them a bit nervous but I think the possibility of WMD was a minor threat at most and ultimately they were just hoping to gain international support with it. It was a weak argument and to many people discredited us from the get go – understandably so.

Third, I don’t think they seriously thought a fully functional, Western-style democracy had any real hope of blossoming over there. Our government leaders are pretty smart people. Their intentions, goals, and motives made be shady as all hellfire but they are smart people. They knew that given the long history, culture, attitude toward the U.S., and religion of the middle east a democracy would likely not pan out too smoothly. Maybe removing a nasty dictator and producing some semblance of an organized, semi-free government would be good for the people and the region but it is a far too lofty goal given the risk and certainly not the main reason for invading.

So, after we were well established in Afghanistan they thought – what do we do next? We need to kill as many terrorists as we can but they find shelter in other countries. We can’t invade every single country but we can make a case (however sketchy) to invade Iraq. We hear about Syrian, Jordanian, Saudi, and Iranian fighters pouring in from the border and think it is awful and wonder why they don’t better control that. The U.S. wants them to come in – the more the better. They want terrorists, insurgents, and any other bloodthirsty nutjob with a Kalashnikov and beef with America to strap on their clown shoes and take a crack a U.S. marine division. Our goal: to turn Iraq into a big meat grinder for terrorists. If we can achieve the other three things above then great but the biggest reason we invaded was to create a killing field for terrorists right in their back yard.

It’s crude and a bit costly but what better way to meet the terrorist threat head on.
Sorry this is so long. What do you all think?

[Erik]

It’s crude and a bit costly but what better way to meet the terrorist threat head on.
Sorry this is so long. What do you all think?

I think you watch too many movies.

[mike^_^]

perhaps you should check out the pentagon P2OG program, it is essentially what is happening

P2OG would launch secret operations aimed at "stimulating reactions" among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction, meaning it would prod terrorist cells into action, thus exposing them to "quick-response" attacks by US forces. The means by which it would do this is the far greater use of special operations forces.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/P2OG.html