Iraqi WMDs - Unaccounted For?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-07-01 08:49am

Ok, I know this has been beaten to death and burned at the stake, but hey...I don't care.

Now, someone on another forum claims that every major intelligence service knew that Iraq had WMDs, because they "Hadn't been accounted for". I'm assuming he's refering to the gassing of the Kurds. Now, of course, this doesn't do anything to validate the absurd "45 minutes" claim, but at the moment that's not the heart of the issue.

Is this in anyway true? If not, how can I go about refuting it? (counterarguments, places to research, etc.)

Zac Naloen · Post by **Zac Naloen** » 2004-07-01 09:46am

I have someone on another site convinced that they've actually found WMD's and that all the major intelligence networks and the UN agree to this. Its beginning to annoy me.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-07-02 01:23am

Ask him to provide links, obviously.

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2004-07-02 01:28am

Yeah, a lot of stupid people have convinced themselves that the UN has confirmed that there are WMD in Iraq.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-07-02 02:02am

I've seen this argument often. It refers to certain chemical weapons that are "unaccounted for" as of 1991, not the gassing of the Kurds. They are based on assumptions, not hard facts- i.e. for the most part, they are entirely hypothetical (e.g. Iraq had x amount of raw material so must've produced x amount of weapon y based on x assumptions about production efficiency and rate), and also ignore the expiration date of many of Iraq's poorly-made weapons. It also ignores the fact (acknowledged by the UN) of Iraq's unilateral destruction of weapons before UNSCOM came in.

You can quite easily point out that Hans Blix stated repeatedly that "unaccounted for" does not mean that they existed.