Home Politics and Debate
Exciting news! Join our watch club and get free access to NOW for 1 month

Where are all the WMDs then?

SystemSystem Posts: 8,649 Staff Team
News out that not a single gram of chemical or biological agent, not the smallest trace of banned weapons, have been found in 10 sites searched by Special Operation Allied troops. The 10 sites were high on the list of suspect sites and the Pentagon was very confident of finding weapons or evidence of them at some of the sites at least.
Story.

The news couldn't come at a worse time for Tony Blair, as he's starting a tour of the Middle East to convince Arab nations he and Master Bush were right to invade Iraq. It is also confirmation- if anyone needed any- that the Allies were being, er economical with the truth when they reported finding a "massive chemical weapons factory" a week ago.

So... what if no weapons are found?

What if the main argument used by the US and Britain to illegally invade Iraq proves to be a lot of hot air? Can we expect the UN to impose sanctions? Will the two great leaders apologise to the world- with the humblest of all apologies going to France and of course the people of Iraq?

Or will they lie like they have lied about a good number of things during the last 12 days alone and maintain there were weapons? Can anyone really say "I don't believe the US would ever think of planting biological spores or a few litres of VX gas on Iraq"?

There is still a good chance that weapons will be found. Even that Saddam will have them primed for use. But the sad fact is if no weapons are found it won't really matter to the US. Once the invasion is over they will have achieved their objective and won't care, knowing that there is little anyone can- or is willing to- do about it.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Saddam's sneakily hid all of his WMDs up George W, and Tony's arses. thats the last place that the coalition forces would look.

    when they don't find any that belong to saddam, i wouldn't be suprise if they do plant a bit of this here, and some of that there, just to "prove" to the world that america was right.
    but if for some reason, they don't plant any bio or chem weapons, do you really think that the only superpower on earth would allow a group of seemingly inferior nations impose any sanctions?

    america would probably just drop out of the UN and declare that they are to be undisputed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Even my country with all its might would go down fast if it ended up in opposition to the world. Without investment money flowing in we'd soon be bankrupt thanks to the wonderful gift Bush has given the nation by inflating its Budget deficit almost to its all time highs.

    Notwithstanding that. we only have so many soldiers and we cant fight hit and run retals ad infinitum.

    All told, the sooner my countrymen wake up and not only throw Bush out but have him and his cronies investigated thoroughly for their long running corruption the sooner America can return to behaving like a worthwhile global neighbour instead of a neo-imperialist brute.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They found tons of the antidote for the nerve gas as well as many chemical suits in many locations. So they're up to something.

    I don't know that I believe in the war....but I believe Saddam has all of that stuff. He built a huge warehouse and put a lake over it. They had it in time lapsed satellite shots.

    Meantime: oil derricks spewing blood...that's what the peace protesters put within sight of Bush today. And I was only about 2 hours from where he spoke. That would have been a good school trip...I mean to see the oil derricks spewing blood...not Bush's speech.:naughty:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    talk about planting evidence! read an article a couple of weeks ago in, i think the observer. to finaly justify the invasion of vietnam, the c.i.a "aquired", a north vietnamise boat. filled it up with russian weapons and sailed it down to the south. when they shot it up, they had news crews from around the world on hand to see ..."heres all the proof, that the north were about to attack the south"... and so started americas involvment in vietnam.
    this has been made public and still the american people "believe" their government to be honest!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I pointed out the revelations of the lies in that war some time back MR. Even gave him a link to enable him to do some research on the Pentagon Papers which blew the lies wide open back in '71, but he obviously didnt bother to read or absord any of it. Guess he prefers the pretty banner slogans on Fox News more than enlightening himself.

    As i said elsewhere, No regime in the world has as effective a spin machine as Washington. Its so good people are convinced that they have a true image of whats going on sitting in their LayZboy recliner in some cookie cutter suburb in Indiana. Heck, I was as convinced as pnj that all news was objective and accurate when i was pnj's age, but get away from it for long enough and you are able to see things we are doing in the world that most folks undoubtedly never get to hear about unless they bother to search the internet.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Dreamer3k
    Saddam's sneakily hid all of his WMDs up George W, and Tony's arses. thats the last place that the coalition forces would look.

    when they don't find any that belong to saddam, i wouldn't be suprise if they do plant a bit of this here, and some of that there, just to "prove" to the world that america was right.
    but if for some reason, they don't plant any bio or chem weapons, do you really think that the only superpower on earth would allow a group of seemingly inferior nations impose any sanctions?

    america would probably just drop out of the UN and declare that they are to be undisputed.
    I'm almost certain Bush would twig Saddam's suppository depository scheme when his dick dropped off...

    Dirty tricks perpetuated by US government agencies since WW2... sub-question... is it in in fact unfair to criticise a formerly great nation for trampling on it's much touted reputation for integrity for monetary gain, is it better to sell out or fade away?

    To put it more bluntly, who thinks bio/chemical agents will have to provided, regardless of the ethics, if that's what it takes to save the Iraqi people from the clutches of Saddam?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think the US is perfectly capable of planting bio/chem agents if it comes to that. Either that or trying to pass off some findings (like for instance the finding of a few warheads that contained chemical agents 12 years ago) as the smoking gun they are desperately trying to find.

    If real bio/chems were found in possession of Iraq the US and the UK would see their case vindicated. But unless it was proven that the banned agents were weapon-graded and primed for use against a foreign nation I would still see this war as illegal. The inspections were far from over and the diplomatic options far from extinguished.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Good Rumsfeld quote from that Guardian article on the link.....

    "We know where they are, they are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north of that," he said.

    So they could be anywhere apart from the places they were expected to be....:crazyeyes
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    the unspoken subtext:

    "... all the places where our troops currently are operating, we just haven't had time to break off and unpack our supply from the convoys so we can stage our breathtaking "find" ".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NB They don't need to find WMD. They claim to be enforcing UN Resolutions which asked for compliance with inspectors, one of the issues that Iraq had to comply on what proving that they had destroyed their stockpiles of Chem/Bio agents, and they failed to do so.

    And you will never get agreement on whether the inspectors were far from over. Clearly, as the Blix document stated, even at the late stage and with all the pressure being applied by the US Saddam wasn't co-operating fully. I don't know what it would have taken for Blix to declare that he could do no more...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They don't need to find WMDs from the legal point of view, because regardless of whether they do or not this war is still illegal (at least as seen by every country in the world bar US, UK, Spain and Australia).

    But they need to find the WMDs to try to amend the catastrophic diplomatic shambles they got themselves into.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK:

    You seriously saying that if they did not find any WMD which is clear evidence that our leaders claims of vast stockpiles was bollocks then everything would be OK because our leaders didn't believe Saddam?

    As has been mentioned before it is a logical flaw to ask them to prove they don't have soemthing, it is bonkers.........

    or are you arguing form a purely legal point of view, i am sure you realise this is not necessarily a sufficient case.........

    late stage? 2 months?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Toadborg
    or are you arguing form a purely legal point of view, i am sure you realise this is not necessarily a sufficient case.........

    It's a legal perspective. That is all that is required. Politics is subjective - had we got a Liberal Govt then support for the war would have differed. Had we tried this in 1998, support would have differed - oh hang on, we did and it was.

    Perhaps it's also worth considering who originally developed the US Govt's position on regime change in Iraq. Just to start us off, I'll point out that it wasn't GWB.

    Morally the removal of a dictator is a pretty good cause.
    late stage? 2 months?


    Late stage: Since 1991.

    Dunno about you, but my calender has 12 months in each year ;):p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well as the leading legal authorities remained divided on the eve of the war then surely we should wait until everyone is convinced before starting any war?

    Or is the opinion of a few good enough?

    a)we are told that the only reason the diplomatic process is worth trying is if we put concerted pressure on Saddam, keep an army ready to strike etc..

    b) we are told we have been waiting for 12 years, was the above situation what was happening for all those 12 years?

    i see a flaw in your argument........:p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Actually MoK, with relation to Iraq, one of the initial proponents of regime change was Rumsfeld himself during the Reagan/Bush era. He and his circle of vultures have been biding their time for a President stupid enough to to be steered into undermining global diplomacy and more than half a century of strong foreign relations so they could rush in to seize their long awaited prize!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru



    Aladdin: The WMD might be in Syria for safe keeping
    Clandestine: Diplomacy is the way....but the UN doesn't work.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
    They found tons of the antidote for the nerve gas as well as many chemical suits in many locations. So they're up to something.
    Or they're just afraid that US will use nerve gas & chem weapons...
    Originally posted by Toadborg
    As has been mentioned before it is a logical flaw to ask them to prove they don't have soemthing, it is bonkers.........
    Iraq had WMDs. We know this because we sold them to Iraq. There are four possibilities:
    1. They still have them, and are hiding them.
    2. They don't have them, because they destroyed them
    3. They don't have them, because they sold them
    4. They don't have them, because they used them
    If 1, then we would be justified attacking them, end of story. If 2, why didn't they just say so, and if they don't have any paper evidence, why don't they at least give us interviews with those involved in their destruction immediatly. If 3 or 4, then isn't that even more scary?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How about:

    5. They destroyed most of it (it's believed up to 90% of its former stock was destroyed by 1998) but decided to keep the last few reserves as a last line of defence should the US decided to invade Iraq. Which is well what might have happened.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Highlights the craziness of some of the thinking here Al:

    We will threaten to invade you if you don't hand over all your weapons.......

    On the other hand we are also going to invade you becasue you opress your people....

    So Iraqis aren't allowed weapons but are threatended by invasion anyway so why would they give up the weapons which then give the coalition the pretext to invade.....

    Bonkers.........
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In Kurd-dominated northern Iraq, CNN's Brent Sadler reports Iraqi opposition forces took a town that was a suspected stronghold of the Islamic militia Ansar al-Islam. U.S. officials said the group is a link between Iraq and al Qaeda. Kurdish fighters worked with U.S. Special Forces to destroy the operation. Equipment and documentation

    (You could skip to here)

    indicating the presence of chemical or biological weapons was found, according to Sadler.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Given that the Kurdish Northern Territory has long been out of Baghdad's control and given that Ansar Al Islam has no connection to the Iraq regime, you are simply swallowing and regurtitating the same tired worn out spin you always have.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I too read the Observer article about the US planting weapons in Vietnam...UI'd love to hear PNJ's thoughts on this??
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Cranky much? :lol:

    I knew you were going to say that. I think Saddam was allowing them to operate up there. He had his people in the cities in Northern Iraq. You know that. We're fight him for some city that is the center for oil now.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As delusional as you ever were boy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Another point to do with WMD:

    Supposedly the thinking is that if Saddam had WMD he would use them agressively.

    Now we are invading him he has not even used them defensively.

    The main reason for this war is bollocks, I hope people remembee that when it comes to the next general election.............
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They might not be able to see clearly enough to vote if they still have flags in their eyes by that time.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    in the interests of national security elections may well have to be
    postponed ...indefinately. and still pnj's flag will be fluttering cos he'll understand why his great leaders have had to make such a sacrifice.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In caves in Northern Iraq. HEE. I keep posting things I read on the web about where they are. They all sound reasonable to me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If it was in caves surely Mr bin Laden is behind it? We all know Saddam, not being as humble as the bearded one, prefers bunkers.
Sign In or Register to comment.