Where are the WMD?

[Perle]

As our forces are slowly but surely defeating saddam, I cant help to wonder where the WMD are .

What do you think??
Are there any weapons of mass destruction left in Iraq??
I mean surely if saddam has them , now would be the perfect time to use those weapons.
So why is he not using them???

[wu_trax]

they are in syria and iran now, just to make sure there are new countries to 'liberate'

[Belgarath The Sorcerer]

Originally posted by Perle
So why is he not using them???

Either he doesn't have them, in which case Bush and Blair are ****ed (Blair will either resign or be forced out if he doesn't); or, he is waiting for the right moment to attack, in order to maximise the effectiveness of the chemical and or biological agent's he has. IE, he's waiting until he can kill as many coalition soldiers in one go as he possibly can.

[wu_trax]

they will be 'found' as soon as saddam is dead or there will be 'hard evidence' they are in syria or iran. time will show.

[Sub]

America has always been at war with Syria and Iran.

[Sub]

Originally posted by Belgarath The Sorcerer
Either he doesn't have them, in which case Bush and Blair are ****ed (Blair will either resign or be forced out if he doesn't); or, he is waiting for the right moment to attack, in order to maximise the effectiveness of the chemical and or biological agent's he has. IE, he's waiting until he can kill as many coalition soldiers in one go as he possibly can.

I don't think he resign really, he's still saved a lot of lives by taking out Saddam.

[Perle]

Originally posted by Belgarath The Sorcerer
Either he doesn't have them, in which case Bush and Blair are ****ed (Blair will either resign or be forced out if he doesn't);

I DOUBT VERY MUCH THAT, THAT WOULD HURT BLAIR IN ANYWAY!!!

Originally posted by Belgarath The Sorcerer
or, he is waiting for the right moment to attack, in order to maximise the effectiveness of the chemical and or biological agent's he has. IE, he's waiting until he can kill as many coalition soldiers in one go as he possibly can. [/b]

There are 12000 to 15000 coalition troops around Baghdad right now.
Its the perfect chance to kill alot of them.

[Lord Zor]

I thought British Troops found a Chemical plant

could it not be possible to WIN the war and then go look for the wmds? right now i think the americans and the brits have pleanty to do without meandering through the desert looking for nerve agents.

dancing chickens are cool. :e_chick:

[Judge]

The WMD's are in the US on a Plane waiting to be flown in real soon, just so they can be "discovered"

honest?

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Perle
As our forces are slowly but surely defeating saddam, I cant help to wonder where the WMD are .

I hope we don't find out until after the fighting is over. :/

What do you think??
Are there any weapons of mass destruction left in Iraq??

Yes; I think so.

I mean surely if saddam has them , now would be the perfect time to use those weapons.

Depends on your definition of perfect. From a military standpoint, I think the best time to use them would have been about a week ago. Now, US troops are close to Baghdad. If Iraq uses biological/chemical weapons now, they may end up killing a lot more of their own civilians than US soldiers. Not that I think Saddam cares, but his commanders and soldiers might. Perhaps they're refusing to use such weapons (and/or dragging their feet).

[pablissimo]

As Belgy suggests, imo Blair's neck's on the line if there is no evidence of some form of WMD, his only fallback being the secondary objective of regime change, though previously in press conferences both Blair and Bush have claimed and then disclaimed that to be a primary mission goal.

Though he wouldn't need to jump ship, I don't personally think the voting public would desire it so desperately, and the possibilities for an alternative leader aren't so hot: Brown? Creo que no. That and there's currently no serious opposition leader to demand a resignation, so all he's got to do is keep his party in line.

Easier said than done.

[Kurashima]

Originally posted by Judge
The WMD's are in the US on a Plane waiting to be flown in real soon, just so they can be "discovered"

honest?

Dammit. Youre making me agree with you again.

I am SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO coming back to rub it in when we do find them.

It's going to be a very obnoxious thread, too!

[Monkehpimp]

If they do find them, I wouldn't be suprised.

I also wont be suprised if the US 'find' them. (in other words bring them in later and pretend they were Saddams)



I'm pretty sure which ever way, they will claim to have found something.

[edit] also, what qualifies as a WMD?? [/edit]

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Monkehpimp
If they do find them, I wouldn't be suprised.

I also wont be suprised if the US 'find' them. (in other words bring them in later and pretend they were Saddams)

I'm pretty sure which ever way, they will claim to have found something.

Those who suggest that the US can easily fake Iraq having wmd clearly haven't thought this through.

It won't be enough to just "find" wmd; they will also have to find the factories where they were made (in order to neutralize them). Then they will have to interview the scientists and workers who made them and examine their records, in order to determine how much was actually manufactured and where the raw materials came from; and then interview those who were in responsible for transporting it (so they know where to find it all). In short, they have to find--and dismantle--an entire industry involving factories, hundreds or perhaps thousands of people, and a paper trail.

The US can't just bring in a couple of chemical warheads--that wouldn't convince anybody. They'd have bring in factories, witnesses, documents, etc.

[edit] also, what qualifies as a WMD?? [/edit]

The "standard" definition is chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. In addition, Iraq is also under UN proscription from possessing missiles over a certain range.

[Monkehpimp]

Originally posted by Tactitus


The US can't just bring in a couple of chemical warheads--that wouldn't convince anybody. etc.

they started an illegal war without properly convincing too many people that they were right in doing so.

Originally posted by Monkehpimp
they started an illegal war without properly convincing too many people that they were right in doing so.

They didnt break any laws

[Monkehpimp]

Originally posted by Dreadnought!
They didnt break any laws

in theory, if a member of the UN starts a war without the UNs consent, that war is illegal, as it breaks the UNs laws..

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Monkehpimp
they started an illegal war without properly convincing too many people that they were right in doing so.

It's not illegal, and if it were, how would 'properly convincing too many people' make it right?

in theory, if a member of the UN starts a war without the UNs consent, that war is illegal, as it breaks the UNs laws..

And in theory, the US is just enforcing the UNs resolutions.

[Monkehpimp]

Originally posted by Tactitus
It's not illegal, and if it were, how would 'properly convincing too many people' make it right?

that was me saying that if they are willing to go to war without convincing people they are right, they wont care about convincing people that the WMD they find are actually saddams, and not planted there by them.

Originally posted by Tactitus

And in theory, the US is just enforcing the UNs resolutions.

which ones? is this how they are a 'clear and present danger' ?

[Sandsnake]

Originally posted by Monkehpimp
that was me saying that if they are willing to go to war without convincing people they are right, they wont care about convincing people that the WMD they find are actually saddams, and not planted there by them.

not very bright, are you? The entire premise of the US/UK stance was that the inspections would never YIELD such a find due to direct interference by the Iraqi government. The fact remains that they acted because they felt it was what they had to do. Being wrong would damage both nations and destroy their heads of state politically. Being right is something that's next to impossible to manufacture. They didn't bother convincing anyone because 3 key nations didn't WANT to be convinced. Why bother if France says they could care less?

Originally posted by Monkehpimp
which ones? is this how they are a 'clear and present danger' ?

the last two resolutions concerning Iraq authorized war (albiet not explicitly). You'll also note that no one, and I mean NO ONE has put forward that the war was illegal. If everyone was so sure, you'd think at least ONE nation would have the guts to put it forward in the UN or that Mr. Annan would publicly condemn the US and UK for their actions.

They didn't, and he won't. At the end of the day, it's a given fact that the UN didn't explicitly authorize an attack on Iraq, but the wording of the previous resolutions made it legal to do so.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Belgarath The Sorcerer
Either he doesn't have them, in which case Bush and Blair are ****ed (Blair will either resign or be forced out if he doesn't);

I doubt it. they will be able to justify it on the grounds that saddam was interfering, and furthermore, that they got rid of saddam. once it is all over, because at the end of the day, most people will agree that even if the reasons for war were a bit dubious, getting rid of saddam is a Good Thing (tm)

[Monkehpimp]

oh ok all this killing must be alright then. can someone quickly explain now why only certain countries are allowed to have wmd then?


I still feel happy my country didn't get involved in this war.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Monkehpimp
oh ok all this killing must be alright then. can someone quickly explain now why only certain countries are allowed to have wmd then?


I still feel happy my country didn't get involved in this war.

would you want an insane tyrant or dubious regieme to have WMD? people mutter on about the states, but when you look at them, they don't do anything tooo bad.

[Monkehpimp]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
would you want an insane tyrant or dubious regieme to have WMD? people mutter on about the states, but when you look at them, they don't do anything tooo bad.

several Iraqis have cancer due to depleted uranium used in the first Gulf War. not as bad as gassing people (which they tried to blame on Iran, but you know that anyway), but still in all honesty i don't think anybody should be allowed WMD.

[ChubbyChecker]

Originally posted by Sandsnake
You'll also note that no one, and I mean NO ONE has put forward that the war was illegal. If everyone was so sure, you'd think at least ONE nation would have the guts to put it forward in the UN or that Mr. Annan would publicly condemn the US and UK for their actions.

Kofi Anan has already stated that the war is illegal. The war is definitely illegal, no question. For one thing, the wording of resolution 1441 was not explicit enough to say that war was allowed. But it doesn't matter anyway, just because something is illegal doesn't automatically make it wrong. Plus nobody's going to do anything about it anyway. What can they do? Impose sanctions on the US? Yeah, right...

I wouldn't be surprised if Iraq has no WMDs. But by the time we realise that he doesn't have them nobody will care. The US will say "Yeah, well, he wasn't complying, that's why we went in", the French will say "Told you so... *mumble* *mumble*" and the public won't care because we've already forgotten about the whole WMD argument anyway.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Monkehpimp
several Iraqis have cancer due to depleted uranium used in the first Gulf War. not as bad as gassing people (which they tried to blame on Iran, but you know that anyway), but still in all honesty i don't think anybody should be allowed WMD.

oh I know, and I really disagree with the use of depleted uranium. In an ideal world, no-one would have WMD, but this isn't an ideal world. I would much rather the US has them and stops other people from hacing them, than Iraq/Iran/Israel/India etc. had them.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by ChubbyChecker
Kofi Anan has already stated that the war is illegal.

unless you can back this up, don't say it. If I recall he was very careful not to say "illegal" at the most he may have said "regrettable" or "questionable", but not illegal. If he did, then fair enough, but I would much prefer you backed this statement up.

[Monkehpimp]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
oh I know, and I really disagree with the use of depleted uranium. In an ideal world, no-one would have WMD, but this isn't an ideal world. I would much rather the US has them and stops other people from hacing them, than Iraq/Iran/Israel/India etc. had them.

India has them.

Now THAT would be a good war to see if the US decided to 'disarm' India...

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Monkehpimp
India has them.

Now THAT would be a good war to see if the US decided to 'disarm' India...

I know, that is why I mentioned them. I think the fact that they and Pakistan have Nuclear warheads and the means to deploy them is rather worrying. The difference is though, India isn't a threat. Surely you don't need me to explain this to you.

[Monkehpimp]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
I know, that is why I mentioned them. I think the fact that they and Pakistan have Nuclear warheads and the means to deploy them is rather worrying. The difference is though, India isn't a threat. Surely you don't need me to explain this to you.

have any countries around Iraq said they were worried about Iraq yet? I heard that none had, but I guess that could be wrong. India is a threat to Pakistan. Or at least they were, Im not entirely sure whats happening in that part of the world atm.

[Cynical Oracle]

We all know Iraq has chemical warfare capacity. However, I think your misunderstanding Saddam. He's not trying to win a war against the coalition forces, but the coalition governments and currently he's leading by miles.

[Monkehpimp]

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
We all know Iraq has chemical warfare capacity. However, I think your misunderstanding Saddam. He's not trying to win a war against the coalition forces, but the coalition governments and currently he's leading by miles.

please re-write that in a more understandable way, and spell 'you're' correctly.



ta.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Monkehpimp
have any countries around Iraq said they were worried about Iraq yet? I heard that none had, but I guess that could be wrong. India is a threat to Pakistan. Or at least they were, Im not entirely sure whats happening in that part of the world atm.

Israel, mostly, although the alleged concern is if he hands these weapons over to someone who can delever them to a target in the west.

INdia an pakistan just dislike one another, I suspect they will always be like that. they will do a bit of squaring up, blame one another for things, but not actuallg go nuclear on each other. the main dispute is kashmir, and neither of them want kashmir to be a nuclear bleached wasteland.

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by Monkehpimp
please re-write that in a more understandable way, and spell 'you're' correctly.



ta.

Alle vet at Irak har kapasitet til kjemisk krigføring. Det jeg tror du misforstår er at Saddam ikke prøver å vinne en krig mot koalisjonens militærstyrker, men mot koalisjonens ledere og foreløpig vinner Saddam den biten.

[ChubbyChecker]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
unless you can back this up, don't say it. If I recall he was very careful not to say "illegal" at the most he may have said "regrettable" or "questionable", but not illegal. If he did, then fair enough, but I would much prefer you backed this statement up.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0312-06.htm

"The shaky legal grounds upon which Britain and America are expected to launch their military offensive have already been exposed by the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan.

But Mr Annan's warning that military action against Iraq without a second UN resolution would be illegal is being supported by a growing number of senior British lawyers."

Not a great source, but I'm not that great at googling

As far as I know he hasn't said anything since war broke out, since that would just make the UN look ineffectual, but he did make it clear before the war started that a war without another resolution would be illegal.

But like I said, it is illegal, but that doesn't matter.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
We all know Iraq has chemical warfare capacity. However, I think your misunderstanding Saddam. He's not trying to win a war against the coalition forces, but the coalition governments and currently he's leading by miles.

not really.

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
not really.

What ?

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by ChubbyChecker
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0312-06.htm
But like I said, it is illegal, but that doesn't matter.

the exact quote probably said something like "questionable" like I said, rather than outright saying "illegal" which he didn't.

what do you base your assertation on the fact that the war is illegal, on?

[Mong]

Originally posted by Sub
America has always been at war with Syria and Iran.

Sub, you really think the average GD'er will get that?

M.

[Mong]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
what do you base your assertation on the fact that the war is illegal, on?

The fact that it isn't supported by a UN mandate?

It's terribly simple dear. In the strictest sense, this war is not legal. In fact, some Arab countries have lobbied the UN to DEFEND Iraq, from the US/UK. Which, in the strictest sense, the UN is now supposed to do (Iraq is a UN country, under attack by illegitamate forces).

Anyway, this has gone off-topic, so let's bring it back...

So far there has been nothing to substanciate that in the recent past, Iraq has been producing NBC weapons. There's been a very vague suggestion that they've fired conventional Scud's that MAY be over the approved range. But that's about it.

Heh, and the Yanks are now openly dropping "Bunker Busters" on Baghdad.

Don't take everything on CNN and BBC as the hard fact, look around for a more balanced view.

M.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Mong
The fact that it isn't supported by a UN mandate?

It's terribly simple dear. In the strictest sense, this war is not legal. In fact, some Arab countries have lobbied the UN to DEFEND Iraq, from the US/UK. Which, in the strictest sense, the UN is now supposed to do (Iraq is a UN country, under attack by illegitamate forces).

ooh, patronising, how clever.

they weren't Scuds, they were Al Samoud missiles.

They didn't provide any evidence of the destruction of the WMD they were known to have.

and in any case, 1441 is an admission of violation of 687 which means Iraq broke the ceasefire agreement.

[Mong]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
and in any case, 1441 is an admission of violation of 687 which means Iraq broke the ceasefire agreement.

1441 over-ruled 687 of course. The point of 1441 was to legislate for percieved and accused violations of 687. That's the sticking point - the US didn't want 1441 in the first place, but eventually went through the UN to get it. When they saw 1441 wasn't progressing as quickly as they liked, they pushed for 1442, which you'll all recall, they didn't get. Thus, as 687 was defunct - superseded by 1441 - this military action is illegal.

If Kofi Annan says it is illegal, then it is. Who are you going to believe? Bush, or the nobel-prize wining Annan?

M.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Mong

If Kofi Annan says it is illegal, then it is. Who are you going to believe? Bush, or the nobel-prize wining Annan?

M.

I'm just going to leave th resolution argument be, since even if 1441 "overrules" and I don't think it does, 687, then 1441 is the worst piece of badly written crap I have ever seen, and could just about justify doing anything to Iraq that you like.


where has kofi annan said it is illegal? I want a quote. that is my whole issue here, Annan as far as I know has never explicitly stated that it is illegal.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by WorkMonkey
If you honestly believe Saddam got rid of his WMD's after the first gulf war just like he was asked to, like the good boy that he is, then you are either extremely niave, or very trusting.

he may well have done, due to lack of maintainance, perhaps flung em in a pit or something. But then also remember how his whole regieme was based around fear, he wouldn't be nearly as imposing to his people if he admitted to having been a good boy and got rid of it all....

but then again, I have to wonder what all the doubters think that Atropine is for... can it be used as a recreational drug?