Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq: Foxnews.com

[chomerics]

Christ man, I am not going to reargue and rehash every argument made on this board since I joined in May of 2002

Point of this discovery is simple. WMD's were NOT destroyed as they were supposed to be, after 1991, once again after missles were slammed into Baghdad in 1998, and in the 4 years after that

That simple

What youo are failing to acknowledge is that these were no longer WMD's!!! The chemicals were not active, and youo NEED an active weapons program to make a WMD. Do you realize these weapons are not WMD's? You seem to think they are, but how can a weapon that is not active and poses no biological or chemical harm be considered a WMD? Just curious,

[Seabee1973]

Unlike some other news sources they havent been known to make up stuff. And they actually have talked to people in the government with the papers... Is that not enough?

Heck even before this they had found a bunch of other stuff.

1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

1,500 gallons of chemical weapons

Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas

1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs

17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin

People just dont want to accept that there were actually weapons in Iraq, cause then they cant bash Bush on that.

The report just came up an hour ago, and they might have had an exclusive.

Go here: http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

You forgot 500 pounds of yellow cake

[Seabee1973]

What youo are failing to acknowledge is that these were no longer WMD's!!! The chemicals were not active, and youo NEED an active weapons program to make a WMD. Do you realize these weapons are not WMD's? You seem to think they are, but how can a weapon that is not active and poses no biological or chemical harm be considered a WMD? Just curious,

Some of them do not take much to make the them active all it takes is an explosion. Didnt David Kay state that saddam wanted to restart his program that is why he wanted the embargoes lifted and teh un sanctions it was not because he learned his lesson.

[Seabee1973]

So now you are advocating the invasion was justiffied, not because he had WMD's, but because he had the ability to make them IF and only IF sanctions were lifted?

What do you think about Reagan giving him WMD's and technology for making them?

Iran, you know it as well as I do, to think anything else is just lunacy.

So lets Assume he did not have any but planned on restartying his progvram once sanctions were lifted would you want him to attack us before doing anything about it?

[Ignatius J.]

So lets Assume he did not have any but planned on restartying his progvram once sanctions were lifted would you want him to attack us before doing anything about it?

If sanctions are working why would we lift them?

[chomerics]

Didnt David Kay state that saddam wanted to restart his program that is why he wanted the embargoes lifted and teh un sanctions it was not because he learned his lesson.

Yet we were never told he wanted to RE-START a weapons program, but that he WAS stockpiling WMDs.

Do you not see the errors in attacking a forign nation simply because they may in the future pursue WMDs? Do you think if Americans knew the truth BEFORE the invasion, they would have gone along with it?

[chomerics]

Some of them do not take much to make the them active all it takes is an explosion.

That is a lie, and not true. The chemicals are no longer ACTIVE!!! You can't "re-activate" chemicals by causing an explosion :doh: Once the shelf life expires, the chemicals are no longer dangerous!!!!

Do you not understand this?

Didnt David Kay state that saddam wanted to restart his program that is why he wanted the embargoes lifted and teh un sanctions it was not because he learned his lesson.

And why would the UN lift sanctions? You are basing an argument after the fact, and it is a joke.

1. Saddam did not have an active WMD program

2. The only weapons around were inactive post gulf war I bombs which are not even WMDs.

3. Saddam MAY have started a WMD program in the FUTURE IF the sanctions were lifted.

Do you honestly think the American public would have backed a war based on this info?

[herrmag]

Number one, if, and I say IF this is all true, then it vindicates Bush ONLY SO MUCH. The intelligence was wrong. If the Intelligence had been wholly accurate, we would've found many weapons long ago.

That being said, please Chom, don't use a UN vote as justification for ANYTHING. It's a fact France sold Iraq weapons illegaly, and they have veto power. Russia has been siding with France for God knows what reason. In fact, Germany, as far as I'm concerned, is still shady, and we remember how they "leaked" intelligence to Iraq about our invasion. The UN is a waste of time, and shouldn't exist any longer.

WE (as in the US) pushed Iraq out of Kuwait, and WE could've toppled Saddam's regime then and there, and left them in disarray. Instead, we agreed to sign a "cease fire" (not peace treaty) because GWB agreed to the UN's terms. The UN then looked the fool as Saddam routinely hid things, refused the inspectors in certain areas, etc, etc. Do I necessarily agree that this whole ordeal has been worth the lives of our brave men and women? Probably not. But if the punk ass UN had stood as a unified body, as opposed to wavering and criticizing and refusing to fight, we probably would've broken the backbone of the resistance long ago.

[twa]

Good points Herrmag.

I have not heard this discussed:

General Tom Mcinerney is reporting on Fox Hannity and Colmes right now that that the administration has been keeping this low profile to avoid exposing 3 of the 5 members of the UN Security council; Russia, China, and France. McInerney says these weapons will be traced to these countries, and asserts it is well known that Russia helped Saddam move most of his WMD stockpiles out of Iraq before the war.

[Thiebear]

They have probably adjusted that now, but before the war, Nukes were the only WMD's... I've got 2 family members in the military and both have indicated that as such, one's a marine, the other is in the army. 60 minutes did a spot on that as well about 2 years ago.

Chemical and Biological attacks were always the biggest concern in the Military from 1985-1997 when i was in? Nukes weren't even thought of much because they are the war enders.... They have no affect on troops in the battlefield. If their used: Your dead... not the skin blistering or drowning in the fluids in your lungs kinda thing..

[@DCGoldPants]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101837.html

Lawmakers Cite Weapons Found in Iraq

Thursday, June 22, 2006; A10

Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) told reporters yesterday that weapons of mass destruction had in fact been found in Iraq, despite acknowledgments by the White House and the insistence of the intelligence community that no such weapons had been discovered.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Santorum said.

The lawmakers pointed to an unclassified summary from a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center regarding 500 chemical munitions shells that had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988.

The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active. Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.

[Redskins Diehard]

Chemical and Biological attacks were always the biggest concern in the Military from 1985-1997 when i was in? Nukes weren't even thought of much because they are the war enders.... They have no affect on troops in the battlefield. If their used: Your dead... not the skin blistering or drowning in the fluids in your lungs kinda thing..

You mean you never received the "lay flat on your stomach with your weapon under you, face the blast" brief in a respond to nuclear blast class? We got that every year as part of NBC training. It was a complete joke.

Now the class on don and clear a protective mask, MOPP gear exchange, and decontaminate yourself and equipment...everyone took those fairly seriously.

In summary and as I've said before, I recieved tactical level threat briefs on average 3 times a year from 1997-2005, a nuclear threat was NEVER discussed. Chemical/biological were, in EVERY SINGLE ONE.

Code, I think either your family members gave you innacurate info, or there was a disconnect.

[Larry]

That being said, please Chom, don't use a UN vote as justification for ANYTHING. It's a fact France sold Iraq weapons illegaly, and they have veto power. Russia has been siding with France for God knows what reason. In fact, Germany, as far as I'm concerned, is still shady, and we remember how they "leaked" intelligence to Iraq about our invasion. The UN is a waste of time, and shouldn't exist any longer.

OTOH, it's also a fact that as long as the sanctions continue, France would've continued to have an "exclusive" on Iraqi oil. France was benefiting from the sanctions.

(Just like, on a different front, it's to the advantage of a lot of employers for illegal immigrants to remain illegal, because illegals are more easily bullied.)

[galentjm]

What youo are failing to acknowledge is that these were no longer WMD's!!! The chemicals were not active, and youo NEED an active weapons program to make a WMD. Do you realize these weapons are not WMD's? You seem to think they are, but how can a weapon that is not active and poses no biological or chemical harm be considered a WMD? Just curious,

"Use of these weapons by terrorists or insurgent groups would have implications for coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside Iraq cannot be ruled out," it said.

"But this says: Weapons have been discovered; more weapons exist. And they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq," he said. Asked just how dangerous the weapons are, Hoekstra said: "One or two of these shells, the materials inside of these, transferred outside of the country, can be very, very deadly."

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/060622055545.07o4imol.html

[Popeman38]

Chom,

I know you probably will never read this, but check out the actual declassified points from the NGIC report:

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf (yes this is from FoxNews but it is the actual fax, so it is valid and not right wing drivel)

It clearly states towards the end that some of the mustard, sarin and cyclosarin were degraded, while some was still potent and effective. I know you are in Boston and are not so worried about the chemicals but as a former Active Army soldier, knowing that the enemy possibly has access to just a little active arin gas scares the pants off me....

But since you hate Bush and would like to see him thrown in jail, it wasn't realy mustard GAS, it was just mustard. Please stick head back in sand!

[@DCGoldPants]

Chom,

I know you probably will never read this, but check out the actual declassified points from the NGIC report:

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf (yes this is from FoxNews but it is the actual fax, so it is valid and not right wing drivel)

It clearly states towards the end that some of the mustard, sarin and cyclosarin were degraded, while some was still potent and effective. I know you are in Boston and are not so worried about the chemicals but as a former Active Army soldier, knowing that the enemy possibly has access to just a little active arin gas scares the pants off me....

But since you hate Bush and would like to see him thrown in jail, it wasn't realy mustard GAS, it was just mustard. Please stick head back in sand!

Cripes people. Shall we try this again?

Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.

[Popeman38]

Cripes people. Shall we try this again?

Reread my post and show me where I said they were. I was responding to Chom who said that the gas was all degraded and no more dangerous than a butterfly.

[@DCGoldPants]

I don't know why your posted ended up quoted. I tried quoting from the article earlier posted.

That worked though.

Weird.

[Art]

Do you NOT see the hypocrisy in using a UN resolution to justigfy an invasion when the governing body wouldn't allow a vote to come up on the issue? It is a hypocrisy of monumental proportions, we get to decide what UN violations are punishable and which ones are not. What about the Geneva conventions and UN charters on torture?

How much does it disgust people who dispise the UN for saying the reason for invasion was because of their rules? I guess hypocrisy holds no bounds huh.

Maybe you misspoke, but, no, it's not at all hypocritical to use violated U.N. sanctions to, in part, justify war against a country. The expectation a country like Iraq has to adhere to those sanctions requires some element of action should they not. They didn't. Action was taken by the country strong enough to do so.

Liberals, sadly and normally, fall on the hypocritical side of a debate, suggesting the U.N. should be authorized to do something, yet, never actually wanting consequences should it never get done. We believe in consequences. Liberals do not.

That the U.N. is a corrupt, useless organization is well understood, save by liberals, who value it. The use of violated resolutions should burn you guys deep. We already know how crippled this organization is by corruption and "veto" power by any one of five countries for anything it doesn't like, which of course, is good, cause, no way we'd want to be held to the whim of France on something.

[@DCGoldPants]

I was just thinking how a lot of the same folks who use the U.N. sanctions as a reason to go in there. Are the same folks who say the U.N. are a bunch of worthless parking ticket avoiding jerks and we should kick them out of the United States.

Guess their sanctions and existence are only needed sometimes

[galentjm]

Cripes people. Shall we try this again?

How does your quote disprove that chemical weapons exist in Iraq? How does it show that Saddam Hussein wasn't lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed? How does it show that after years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections we can say definitively that Iraq is WMD free?

[nelms]

We believe in consequences. Liberals do not.

That sums it up in only seven words.

[TimmySmith]

Guess their sanctions and existence are only needed sometimes

What's the point of sanctions when they are not enforced? It wasn't the sanctions that sent us to war, it was the fact that the U.N. was not enforcing them until after 9/11. By then it was too late.

[gchwood]

Or to the conservatives who keep swearing that the war was never about WMDs. (Except when they think they've found some. Then suddenly WMDs prove that the war was justified.)

Haven't the Dems always said the the war was unjustified because we never found the WMDs that we were looking for?

So now that they have been found, the war is unjustified because the Republicans said that the war wasn't about WMDs.

Seems like a certain party is changing their toon, the exact reason why their presidential candidate was defeated by the largest margin in the history of the popular vote in the US

[@DCGoldPants]

How does your quote disprove that chemical weapons exist in Iraq? How does it show that Saddam Hussein wasn't lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed? How does it show that after years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections we can say definitively that Iraq is WMD free?

Then I guess we should expect some sort of announcement from the White House and Defense Dept, that we've found what we were looking for.