FINAL WORD/CONSENSUS OF SD.Net

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-01-15 04:07pm

Well? I don't know if we've done a definitive yes/no opinion poll about this yet, so, here it is.

FLAME ON!

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-01-15 04:21pm

I think that Iraq has WoMD hidden away, but I don't think that they represent either a significant threat to the US, or that they have the kinds of stockpiles that were claimed prior to the war. The remaining WoMD probably exist only in small quantities, and may not have the support equipment required for proper utilization.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-01-15 04:25pm

Yes, in so much as there probably is alot of loose ends all over the country. Former test sites, former production centers and that kind of thing. Do I think that US forces will bust down a door and find a nice shinny Nuclear Missile? No.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-01-15 04:25pm

I'm going out on a limb here and sayng that frankly if they do have WMD they're probably lying around rotting away in some hole in the desert or some forgotten bunker and they will be discovered later in the future, maybe when the casing on some ancient shell erodes away and the chemicals seep into the ground making some animals and children sick.

Otherwise, we're not going to find anything of importance, and whatever is found will be trotted out for display, pictures will constantly be on CNN and Fox showing the ancient artillary shells or drums and the Bushites will hail this as the complete and total vindication of a policy that has so far led to the deaths of 500 young American boys and occupation of a nation with no end in sight.

And they will feel no shame for it.

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2004-01-15 04:47pm

Yes they at one time had them. They at no time could provide proof of their destruction. Therefore, one must conclude that unless we are provided evidence of their destruction, there exists a strong possibility that they still exist.

As Saddam is now thankfully out of power they no longer pose the threat that they could have posed in the future. Since Saddam was unwilling to show that he had either destroyed or even used all the weapons in his possesion, there exisited in my mind enough reasons to believe that there are still WMD's that were at some time under the control of Saddam whether they be currently in Iraq or elsewhere.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-01-15 08:05pm

They had them, and I still believe they still exist out there somewhere, but this whole act about them being a threat to the U.S., or really any other country in the region, is complete and utter bullshit.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-01-15 08:18pm

They HAD them, but they didn't have very many, and they are long gone.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-01-15 09:34pm

Well geez, I mean there isn't any doubt that they HAD them seeing as how they used them on Iran during the war.

However, the thought that Iraq had any WMD that could threaten the United States in laughable, especially recently.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2004-01-15 10:35pm

There is not a large stockpile of weapons like he had during the first war.
There might be a few here and there, forgotton and in poor repair.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-01-15 11:03pm

If there are any there, they are both long forgotten and/or long past the point where they were useful. There certainly is no evidence that Iraq produced more in the period from 1991-2003.

Bob McDob · Post by **Bob McDob** » 2004-01-15 11:10pm

Where's the "I don't know" option?

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-01-15 11:35pm

They had them, and seeing as though we haven't been provided with evidence of their destruction, still have them somewhere, and are most likely hidden in the desert at some unknown compound or facility.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2004-01-16 01:31am

Can we get a definition for WMDs? I personally don't consider chemical artillery shells to be WMDs, since they're on a tactical level. I mean, if we're going by potential casualties, then 9/11 showed that civilian aircraft are WMDs.

As a tentative answer, I think there may be tactical chemical (possibly biological, but unlikely) weapons, but no strategic weapons of any sort and nothing nuclear.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2004-01-16 01:45am

The Dark wrote:Can we get a definition for WMDs? I personally don't consider chemical artillery shells to be WMDs, since they're on a tactical level. I mean, if we're going by potential casualties, then 9/11 showed that civilian aircraft are WMDs.

As a tentative answer, I think there may be tactical chemical (possibly biological, but unlikely) weapons, but no strategic weapons of any sort and nothing nuclear.

A weapon of mass destruction is defined as any weapon that will ghave far reaching effects beyond the specific target. Chemicals and bio agents are there easily, the radiation and threat of contamination from nukes make them there. Therefore it is impossible for planes to be considered WMD.

I think they had something, but I doubt it was enough of anything to be useful so they probably destroyed it to try and make the US never attack if we couldn't find anything. Unfortunatly for them, we attacked anyways.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-01-16 01:58am

Chardok wrote:Well? I don't know if we've done a definitive yes/no opinion poll about this yet, so, here it is.

FLAME ON!

I think there will be, but it will take a long time, and I wouldn't be surprised if the things are uncovered during construction excavation long after US forces have left the area. It's a large sandbox afterall, and there are lots of places to bury the stuff...

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-01-16 04:09am

I believe there are probably single artillery shells full of chemical shit near the Iranian border that fell off of trucks twenty years ago. But I consider that a "no".

Straha · Post by **Straha** » 2004-01-16 02:17pm

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-01-19 08:37am

If they are/were there, they'd have been smuggled out or buried a long time ago.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2004-01-19 09:26am

I'm leaning towards Smuggle Out/Sold Off/Destroyed VIA Saddam's own semi-brillance

See when it came war time he decided to bury alot of stuff in hopes of hiding it post war, Problem was you don't just bury arms and armorment under desert sand and hope it is 100% AOK after you pull it up

Its not going to be and likley some of his WMD are buried under the desert somewhere and now completly useless

Likley until we catch another few people and/or get Saddam to sing completly about every little thing we won't know for sure

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-19 12:36pm

They had them. It is simply not prudent to believe otherwise.

Rev Prez

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-01-19 01:25pm

Stravo wrote:And they will feel no shame for it.

For some one that supported the war, you're awfully quick to point fingers.

revprez wrote:They had them. It is simply not prudent to believe otherwise.

Rev Prez

We know they had weapons at one point. The question is did they dispose of them, and if they did when.

At this point it's pretty clear Saddam didn't have any WMDs worth mentioning, they were either not there or hidden. Either one is a possbility considering the almost idiot-savant nature of the whole thing.

The real question now is did our intelligence fail? And if it did, why? And if it didn't, why the lies.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-19 01:38pm

Stormbringer wrote:We know they had weapons at one point. The question is did they dispose of them, and if they did when.

Agreed, but I'm also concerned what they have kept has either left Iraq or remains buried somewhere, waiting to be dug up by terrorists.

At this point it's pretty clear Saddam didn't have any WMDs worth mentioning, they were either not there or hidden.

Well he's in custody, so I don't think he has much of anything anymore.

As for his regime, or what's left of it, they are clearly not willing or able ot use what weapons they hid against the Americans. How long that will last, I don't know.

The real question now is did our intelligence fail? And if it did, why? And if it didn't, why the lies.

One, there's no evidence of deception. One, there's simply no reason why Bush would subject himself to this sort of political misfortune if he knew that his so-called "lies" would eventually be proven untrue. Two, there has yet to be anyone who comes forward on the record and says "I told the Administration they were wrong and they told lie." Given the large numbers and political diversity of people involved in the collection, analysis and dissimmenation process, I have a hard time believing that we have gone this long without a whistleblower.

Second, I wouldn't call it an intelligence failure. Hussein had six months between the NIE and the war to do whatever he wanted with his weapons. If some posters here want us to believe that Hussein moved and unilaterally destroyed most of his stockpile and production capacity in a matter of weeks in 1991 (under UNSCOM's noses, no less), then they should be prepared to accept that whatever else he had could be moved, destroyed, or hidden in the half a year between the NIE's release and the 19 March start of the war.

Rev Prez

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-01-19 01:43pm

Umm, hasn't it been shown that Bush was rabid about going back to Iraq from the second he entered office? I'm quite convinced that he would have gone out for one reason or another, whether grasping at straws or not. He's certainly a big enough moron to think that his lies would never be uncovered. We're talking about a president that, in the beginning, rarely gave press conferences for fear of being put on the spot.

Bush=puppet.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-19 01:52pm

Chardok wrote:Umm, hasn't it been shown that Bush was rabid about going back to Iraq from the second he entered office?

No, Paul O'Neill simply accused the Bush Administration of what it admitted publically in 2001, that they had every intent of fulfilling the policy set forth in 1998 by Congress and President Clinton.

[quote[I'm quite convinced that he would have gone out for one reason or another, whether grasping at straws or not.[/quote]

Your assuming that his desire to attack Iraq is stronger than his desire to get reelected. Do you have any evidence to this effect?

He's certainly a big enough moron to think that his lies would never be uncovered.

Even if President Bush is a moron (he clearly isn't), what about his staff, his advisors? People who make it their business to see him in office four more years? Are you seriously suggesting all these people were either out of their minds or ignored for three years?

We're talking about a president that, in the beginning, rarely gave press conferences for fear of being put on the spot.

President Bush's relationship with the press is a matter of interesting discussion, but claiming it's because he's not at his best in front of a press pool is a sad attempt to kill reasonable debate. Could it possibly be that President Bush's reluctance to carouse with the barbarians is the negative view he built up of them during his father's term in the White House? Now there's a legitimate, actually very public debate about the depth of the President's enmity for the Washington news media. Why not raise that conservation instead?

Rev Prez

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-01-19 01:56pm

Agreed, but I'm also concerned what they have kept has either left Iraq or remains buried somewhere, waiting to be dug up by terrorists.

You realize that such stores would last long right? And that anything buried isn't likely to be useful at this point.

Well he's in custody, so I don't think he has much of anything anymore.

True, but nothing left to lose isn't a very good motive for cooperation. Especially not for some one that's a bit detached from reality.

As for his regime, or what's left of it, they are clearly not willing or able ot use what weapons they hid against the Americans. How long that will last, I don't know.

The key to that, not able. There might not be weapons and they certainly aren't going to last buried in the desert.

One, there's no evidence of deception. One, there's simply no reason why Bush would subject himself to this sort of political misfortune if he knew that his so-called "lies" would eventually be proven untrue.

Well, it's clear that Iraq has no useable WMDs. That means either the intel was wrong or he lied. Yes, it would be stupid. But he wouldn't be the first president to do that.

Two, there has yet to be anyone who comes forward on the record and says "I told the Administration they were wrong and they told lie." Given the large numbers and political diversity of people involved in the collection, analysis and dissimmenation process, I have a hard time believing that we have gone this long without a whistleblower.

There have been plenty of people that have said the intelligence was shaky and that the administration picked and choosed what they looked at. I doubt anyone is going to claim the role as deliberately faking things but we've got people saying it was not the most objective analysis.

Second, I wouldn't call it an intelligence failure. Hussein had six months between the NIE and the war to do whatever he wanted with his weapons. If some posters here want us to believe that Hussein moved and unilaterally destroyed most of his stockpile and production capacity in a matter of weeks in 1991 (under UNSCOM's noses, no less), then they should be prepared to accept that whatever else he had could be moved, destroyed, or hidden in the half a year between the NIE's release and the 19 March start of the war.

Then where the hell is all of it?

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

FINAL WORD/CONSENSUS OF SD.Net

Were there/are there yet to be found, in Iraq, Weapons of Mass destruction?

FINAL WORD/CONSENSUS OF SD.Net

Re: FINAL WORD/CONSENSUS OF SD.Net