Iraq's WMDs
So after invading Iraq and finding no WMDs what does this mean? I guess it means two things making Iraq the innocent victim here. Either GW Bush misread a message stating that Saddam had MWDs (Mass Weaponry Destruction) as part of a plan to gain world peace. Or there was no weapons there and USA used it to 'steal oil'.
However could it not be that these weapons did actually exist and were in fact just very well hidden that they couldn't be found? Say hidden outside Iraq?
Some believe that prior to the invasion WMDs were exported into Syria via passenger planes converted into cargo planes and conveys.
Now if this is true, surely the Iraq war has put the USA and England* in a much worse off position? If Syria currently has an arsenal of WMDs then they are closer to falling into the wrong hands than ever before. Particularly under the circumstances as we currently have. For example, the rebels in Syria likely already held anti-american/western views for their Israeli support alone regardless of everything else they stand for. But now these people witnessing their own slaughter while the west looks on and does nothing of any use. What if they actually do get to power and actually have WMDs?
*England - An alias for the UK used by idiotic US-Americans who have no idea of the world outside their bubble that is the UK.
However could it not be that these weapons did actually exist and were in fact just very well hidden that they couldn't be found? Say hidden outside Iraq?
Some believe that prior to the invasion WMDs were exported into Syria via passenger planes converted into cargo planes and conveys.
Now if this is true, surely the Iraq war has put the USA and England* in a much worse off position? If Syria currently has an arsenal of WMDs then they are closer to falling into the wrong hands than ever before. Particularly under the circumstances as we currently have. For example, the rebels in Syria likely already held anti-american/western views for their Israeli support alone regardless of everything else they stand for. But now these people witnessing their own slaughter while the west looks on and does nothing of any use. What if they actually do get to power and actually have WMDs?
*England - An alias for the UK used by idiotic US-Americans who have no idea of the world outside their bubble that is the UK.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by politixx
There are reports that suggest that we knew that Iraq had no nuclear weapons beforehand.
So let me get this straight, the government lied to you about an entire war. Then whisle blowers turn around talking about reports that 'suggest' Iraq had no WMDs and you are going to take that without a pinch of salt?
Why are you so keen to believe a government that has supposedly lied to you?
A book by a General in the Iraqi Air Force claimed the weapons had been exported. Why not believe him? The book is 'Saddam's Secrets'.
Original post by bestofyou
So let me get this straight, the government lied to you about an entire war. Then whisle blowers turn around talking about reports that 'suggest' Iraq had no WMDs and you are going to take that without a pinch of salt?
Why are you so keen to believe a government that has supposedly lied to you?
A book by a General in the Iraqi Air Force claimed the weapons had been exported. Why not believe him? The book is 'Saddam's Secrets'.
Why are you so keen to believe a government that has supposedly lied to you?
A book by a General in the Iraqi Air Force claimed the weapons had been exported. Why not believe him? The book is 'Saddam's Secrets'.
Exported to Syria? That means Syria is now a nuclear state and is untouchable... so why are people so why are we and France so keen to start funding the rebels there?
Original post by politixx
There are reports that suggest that we knew that Iraq had no nuclear weapons beforehand.
Rubbish. Suggesting Saddam possessed these weapons was a perfectly plausible hypothesis given his dodging of inspections, his previous programmes, etc. Anyone who has taken the time to consider the circumstances and the nature of the Iraqi regime will shun this ridiculous "they lied about the whole thing" hypothesis.
The idea that it was done for oil is overly simplistic, you don't gain oil by destroying a countries oil industry setting its oil production back decades, leaving behind a hostile anti American government and having your oil companies barred from Iraqi oil auctions as happened a number of times.
Looking at the run up to the Iraq invasion seems to suggest different parts of the government wanted to go in for different reasons. There was no unified approach to it
The world is a better place with Saddam gone, we should have removed him back in the 90's rather than leaving him in power to appease other Arab nations.
Looking at the run up to the Iraq invasion seems to suggest different parts of the government wanted to go in for different reasons. There was no unified approach to it
The world is a better place with Saddam gone, we should have removed him back in the 90's rather than leaving him in power to appease other Arab nations.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by pjm600
The removal of a dictator who gassed an estimated 100,000 of his own people is, in my opinion, commendable.
How many of those were actually civilians though? We know he had to stop Kurdish terrorists and sometimes there is collateral damage when targeting high value terrorist operatives.
Original post by politixx
How many of those were actually civilians though? We know he had to stop Kurdish terrorists and sometimes there is collateral damage when targeting high value terrorist operatives.
Yes, collateral damage often occurs when residential areas are targeted.
Wikipedia notes that the Kurds had an 2,000 strong army. It also notes that up to 100,000 civilians were killed; that is not acceptable 'accidental' collateral.
Original post by politixx
How many of those were actually civilians though? We know he had to stop Kurdish terrorists and sometimes there is collateral damage when targeting high value terrorist operatives.
You believe using chemical weapons in civilian areas is a legitimate tactic?
Original post by pjm600
Yes, collateral damage often occurs when residential areas are targeted.
Wikipedia notes that the Kurds had an 2,000 strong army. It also notes that up to 100,000 civilians were killed; that is not acceptable 'accidental' collateral.
Wikipedia notes that the Kurds had an 2,000 strong army. It also notes that up to 100,000 civilians were killed; that is not acceptable 'accidental' collateral.
We have no way of accurately measuring the size of the Kurdish army so those figures are debatable. 100s of thousands died in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki sometimes you have to kill civilians to win the war.
Original post by Aj12
You believe using chemical weapons in civilian areas is a legitimate tactic?
Nuclear weapons in civilians areas is a valid tactic.
Original post by politixx
Even if Saddam had nukes we shouldn't have invaded. Why should we have to do everything? Let the Chinese and the Russians deal with it for a change.
Obviously if you think that using nukes on civilians in Kurdistan is a "valid tactic" (as you admitted above) then invading would be wrong. But for those of us who hold certain moral standards and aren't content to sit by and let a rabid dictator develop the capacity to annihilate us, things are seen rather differently.
Original post by politixx
We have no way of accurately measuring the size of the Kurdish army so those figures are debatable. 100s of thousands died in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki sometimes you have to kill civilians to win the war.
Surely you don't think the deliberate burning of schools, hospitals, mosques and churches is a morally sound method of winning a war?
I don't condone the use of nuclear weapons.
Original post by pjm600
Surely you don't think the deliberate burning of schools, hospitals, mosques and churches is a morally sound method of winning a war?
I don't condone the use of nuclear weapons.
I don't condone the use of nuclear weapons.
if you don't condone them then surely you would support an invasion of the USA? No? Then you are a hypocrite.
Original post by politixx
There are reports that suggest that we knew that Iraq had no nuclear weapons beforehand.
WMDs =/= nuclear weapons.
Also in the WMD category are chemical and biological weapons. Weapons that Iraq has had and has used in the past.
Original post by Drewski
WMDs =/= nuclear weapons.
Also in the WMD category are chemical and biological weapons. Weapons that Iraq has had and has used in the past.
Also in the WMD category are chemical and biological weapons. Weapons that Iraq has had and has used in the past.
We weren't invading Iraq because of chemical and biological weapons lol loads of countries have those.
Original post by politixx
We weren't invading Iraq because of chemical and biological weapons lol loads of countries have those.
From the BBC:
"The 45-minute claim first appears in a Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) assessment, with a request for comments.
The draft says: "Iraq has probably dispersed its special weapons, including its CBW [chemical and biological warfare] weapons. Intelligence also indicates that from forward-deployed storage sites, chemical and biological munitions could be with military units and ready for firing within 45 minutes.""
"The biological weapons branch in the Defence Intelligence Service (DIS) sends an e-mail to the JIC assessment staff saying: "The intelligence refers to a maximum time of 45 minutes, the average was 20 minutes. This could have important implications in the event of a conflict."
New draft of assessment reads: "Iraq has probably dispersed its special weapons, including its CBW weapons. Intelligence also indicates that chemical and biological munitions could be with military units and ready for firing within 20-45 minutes."
The claim appears in a dossier draft for the first time as it says Iraq: "Envisages the use of WMD in its current military planning and could deploy such weapons within 45 minutes of the order being given.
"Within the last month intelligence has suggested that the Iraqi military would be able to use their chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes of being ordered to do so." "
How many references to nuclear weapons do you see?
Original post by Drewski
From the BBC:
"The 45-minute claim first appears in a Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) assessment, with a request for comments.
The draft says: "Iraq has probably dispersed its special weapons, including its CBW [chemical and biological warfare] weapons. Intelligence also indicates that from forward-deployed storage sites, chemical and biological munitions could be with military units and ready for firing within 45 minutes.""
"The biological weapons branch in the Defence Intelligence Service (DIS) sends an e-mail to the JIC assessment staff saying: "The intelligence refers to a maximum time of 45 minutes, the average was 20 minutes. This could have important implications in the event of a conflict."
New draft of assessment reads: "Iraq has probably dispersed its special weapons, including its CBW weapons. Intelligence also indicates that chemical and biological munitions could be with military units and ready for firing within 20-45 minutes."
The claim appears in a dossier draft for the first time as it says Iraq: "Envisages the use of WMD in its current military planning and could deploy such weapons within 45 minutes of the order being given.
"Within the last month intelligence has suggested that the Iraqi military would be able to use their chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes of being ordered to do so." "
How many references to nuclear weapons do you see?
"The 45-minute claim first appears in a Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) assessment, with a request for comments.
The draft says: "Iraq has probably dispersed its special weapons, including its CBW [chemical and biological warfare] weapons. Intelligence also indicates that from forward-deployed storage sites, chemical and biological munitions could be with military units and ready for firing within 45 minutes.""
"The biological weapons branch in the Defence Intelligence Service (DIS) sends an e-mail to the JIC assessment staff saying: "The intelligence refers to a maximum time of 45 minutes, the average was 20 minutes. This could have important implications in the event of a conflict."
New draft of assessment reads: "Iraq has probably dispersed its special weapons, including its CBW weapons. Intelligence also indicates that chemical and biological munitions could be with military units and ready for firing within 20-45 minutes."
The claim appears in a dossier draft for the first time as it says Iraq: "Envisages the use of WMD in its current military planning and could deploy such weapons within 45 minutes of the order being given.
"Within the last month intelligence has suggested that the Iraqi military would be able to use their chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes of being ordered to do so." "
How many references to nuclear weapons do you see?
None because WE KNEW they had biological weapons whereas there was absolutely no evidence for nuclear ones.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Trying to do A-Levels abroad.
- is afghanistan pronounced AF-ghanistan or af-ghani-STAN?
- I'm an atheist but I like the idea of having a god to believe in
- Hello
- preserved was for example excavated at Tell Madhur in Iraq.[8] Roman architect Vitruv
- AQA A Level History - Making of Modern Britain(2S) Exam Chat - 9th June 2023
- Made mistakes in my A-Level history exam
- A levels
- Anyone experienced willing to critique my GCSE Q5 of English Language Paper 1?
- Masters SOAS LSE choice query
- A-level Arabic (Edexcel)
- Muslim grouping OIC says measures needed to prevent Quran desecration
- Made mistakes in my exam - messed up on events and dates and would like some clarity
- How do I ace A Level Politics?
- Why are young men so different than before?
- College application
- Why doesn't my dad know how to show love?
- Name a country or city with the last letter of the previous one
- essay question sociology
- Instagram account maybe hacked
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
