WMD in Iraq? Nah, nothing to see here, move along...

POSTED BY: lynchaj
UPDATED: Sunday, March 8, 2026 22:49
VIEWED: 7691
PAGE 3 of 9

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE

RUE

Saturday, June 4, 2005 2:54 AM

Quote:
Dual Use technologies for creation of special materials associated with rocket motor technology, nuclear, biological weapons manufacturing, chemical weapons, etc are specifically controlled. There is only so much capacity for organophosphates an agrarian nation needs. Iraq had capacity way far exceeding that. For what?

VX thats what.

Same for rocket fuel, rocket motors, biological fermenters, etc. The list goes on endlessly.

Oh please.

Rockets: Iraq was allowed conventional weapons for self defense, as long as they had limited range (so as not to project power). Given the recent history of 'THE Gulf War' - the one between Iraq and Iran - (which the US was more than willing to supply in order to maximally bleed both sides), where more than 1M died on each side and took nearly an entire generation of males, that Iraq should have a lot of conventional rockets is not surprising.

Quote:
nuclear, biological weapons manufacturing, chemical weapons

So where are the tons of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? With all that capacity, you'd think more than a half-dozen old and degraded weapons of any type would have been found.

Sorry. No BW or nuclear weapons have ever been found. And the few CWs found were over a decade old. No amount of hysteria can cover up those FACTS.

RUE

Saturday, June 4, 2005 3:15 AM

Quote:
OIF was not the first time we've gone to war with Iraq over WMD

A three day (or four day, depending on source) limited bombing campaign doesn't constitute 'going to war'. You play fast and loose with facts. tsk tsk tsk

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 4, 2005 6:12 AM

Lynch- Let's go back to the original article that you cited and put it to rest. Do you agree that the article merely points to loss of dual use equipment since the invasion? Or are you still of the opinion that this points to some sort of technology transfer before our invasion?

Moving upwards through the posts:

Quote:
Weren't they supposed to have gotten rid of ALL of their WMD? I suppose the just forgot about all those discoveries that came later.

Apparently, you missed the part of the report that said:

Quote:
...Another source stated that several hundred munitions moved forward for the Gulf war, and never used, were never recovered by retreating Iraqi troops. A thorough post-OIF search of forward depots turned up nothing—if the weapons were indeed left behind, they were looted over the 12 years between the wars.

So the answer- in Duelfer's report, was- Yes, they forgot about them, and then the munitions- if any- were subsequently looted. Still- this does not point to the "huge stockpiles" of chemical and biological weapons" that Bush et al kept repeating.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM: I'm not sure what "tons and tons" of "pesticide- making" equipment constitutes. Batch reactors? Blanketing equipment? Dryers? What- specifically- are you refering to?
Posted by Lynch: OK, you did read the original article right?...Oh I can make a case. This is the stuff I am talking about and that is what was in those facilities mentioned in the article. Read about it in the Duelfer report. www.mtcr.info/english/index.html Yes, MTCR focuses on rocket/WMD technology but there are other guidelines broadly described as "Dual Use".

I went to every single link that you posted. An edit-find for pesticide and organophosphates only flagged one instance in the Duelfer report from 1991 (a history of events) and another that said pesticides are an example of aerosols. Did you just make this stuff up? If not- please quote and link.

Quote:
Oh, I think I see now. So it boils down to a conspiracy theory. One that conveniently has no evidence to support it but can't be disproven.

It's not a conspiracy- it's policy. I've already laid out some evidence. Check my previous posts.

Quote:
I am also an engineer and well familiar with what constitutes dual use materials.

I am not an engineer, I'm a chemist by training, working in the field of indistrial emissions including risk. I also happen to be working on an unrelated project for the DOD involving- ironically- chemical weapons detection.

You have not presented a single piece of evidence that points to the massive stockplies of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons that were supposedly ready to be deployed in 45 minutes (according to bush) around Baghdad and Tikrit (according to Rumsfeld). You are pointing and gibbering at everything, at nothing, and have only succeeded in compromising your point and (by extension) the Administration's.

NEUTRINOLAD

Saturday, June 4, 2005 6:48 AM

Quote:
Remember, a lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence.

I see we have a theologian among us.
Thanks for all the great source material for my doctoral thesis, Cognitive Dissonance -Fabrication Facilitation and Logical Fallacies lynchaj.
But then, you probably think all the inspectors and front line intelligence agents are disassembling, don't you

NEUTRINOLAD

Saturday, June 4, 2005 6:55 AM

Quote:
There are lots of means to destroy WMD but the most effective technique is not to create them in the first place.

And if I were a better person, I would let that pass without comment. But I'm not.
Please have your parents review your comments before you hit the Post button, m'kay?

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 4, 2005 3:17 PM

Quote:
There is plenty of evidence, I have presented and there is plenty more available.

Where is the evidence? Every single item that you pointed to has evaporated. The one real issue with Saddam, which you didn't address, was his attempt to extend the range of his Samud missiles.

I listened to both Scott Ritter and David Kay at length, describing their UN pre- and USA post- inspections respectively. Let me tell you a little about the UN inspections. They went in teams of approx 25 that included missile, chemical, biological, nuclear, engineering and computer exerts, as well as door kicker-inners ("security"). They got their orders on paper at inspection AM, silently, and did not talk about them for fear of listening devices. They split up in four groups and drove around at random for hours until they met at a designated site. They assumed they had five minutes to do the inspection, from the time they arrive on-site to the time that evidence might be sanitized. They kicked in the door (if necessary), fanned out and grabbed PCs, notes, disks, and papers, and took samples. It was an aggressive, intrusive, complete inspection program even though they did not get full cooperation from Saddam or full backing from the UN.

David Kay (whose work forms the basis of the Duelfer report) was a firm believer in WMD and he was part of the UN inspection team. When he went back he took advantage of the new situation, interviewing at length Iraqi scientists, engineers, medical, and military people who might have been involved in a WMD program. His team also did site inspections. They turned up a few items- a laboratory-sized centrifuge, a few PCs, a few vials of cultured non-pathogenic medical reference strains of bacterium in somebody's frig at home... nothing to indicate the kind of robust, ongoing, massive production that you would need to make "huge stockpiles" of WMD of any sort. If you have such evidence please bring it forward, linking to a specific page (not report indexes or public relations blurbs).

Give these guys a little credit. These are bright ppl, who were passionately committed for different reasons to find WMD. They never found WMD nor any indication of the kind of program or production that it would take to produce the tens of thousands of liters of anthrax, the mushroom cloud, the huge stockpiles of chemical weapons ready-to-be-deployed-in-45 minutes around Baghdad and Tikrit that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell scared us with.

I can, OTOH, point to statements made by Bush et al that were known to be false before the statements were made, specifically crafted to give the impression of imminent danger while skirting the actual truth. Quite frankly, when someone parses language in such a lawyerly fashion, they are intending to deceive. And if Bush et al have credible evidence of the stockpiles of WMD used to justify invasion and occupation, don't you think they would be trumpeting it from the rooftop of the White House? They would not have shifted the discussion from WMD to WMD "programs" and "links with al Qaida" to "freedom is on the march" to the "flypaper" theory of counter-terrorism.

I also remember Saddam coming to power. I remember him being portrayed as a strong secular leader, friend of the USA and bulwark against Iran. Recall that Iranian ayatollahs kicked out the Shah, took over the oil, held USA hostages, and became a nation of religious fanatics and sworn enemies of the USA.

If you think this is a veiled criticism of Bush et al, then you have not been open to my statements. There is nothing veiled about it. Bush and his administration deliberately lied, over and over again, and even our friends in British intelligence say so. Bush must have scared you with death with his stories, and it seems to be imprinted in your brain as a kind of PTSD. You need to get over your fears because its warping your perceptions and clouding your reason, and I would say the same about anyone who is still clinging to the notion of mas

GINOBIFFARONI

Saturday, June 4, 2005 5:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Heck, the only recent pres we had wasn't full o' crap was Jimmy the C. And look how much he couldn't get done!

Jimmy the C... hate to say it but HE caused much of your current mess by supplying money and arms to terrorists, which helped to provoke the Soviet invasion of Afganistan.

www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/ episodes/20/documents/brez.carter/

www.marxists.org/history/afghanistan/ archive/brzezinski/1998/interview.htm

Face it, they are all full of crap

" Looking for a place to happen
Making stops along the way "

GINOBIFFARONI

Saturday, June 4, 2005 5:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:

PS, don't forget the biggest tragedy of all.. Jimmy Carter betrayed the Iranian people and spawned that incredibly evil regime there now. Not that the Shah was a saint but compared to AK he was a prince.

Perhaps if you are looking to blame someone for political problems in Iran you should start with Eisenhower.

http://www.payvand.com/news/03/aug/1106.html

" Looking for a place to happen
Making stops along the way "

GINOBIFFARONI

Saturday, June 4, 2005 5:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
OIF was not the first time we've gone to war with Iraq over WMD
A three day (or four day, depending on source) limited bombing campaign doesn't constitute 'going to war'. You play fast and loose with facts. tsk tsk tsk

Unless you are on the recieving end of those bombs... in that case I'd be looking to make someone pay. Kind of the history of your foriegn policy troubles.

" Looking for a place to happen
Making stops along the way "

CHRISISALL

Saturday, June 4, 2005 6:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Jimmy the C... hate to say it but HE caused much of your current mess by supplying money and arms to terrorists, which helped to provoke the Soviet invasion of Afganistan. Face it, they are all full of crap

Jimmy had no buisness being in the White House. As much as I like him as a man, he was used, misled, and disgarded. He didn't know how to play the 'game'. He was led into doing a lot of questionable things.
Yes, they all are full of crap. And Regan wasn't like waking up from a nightmare, it was just trading one for another, albeit his nightmare felt better, for a time.

No more posting on political threads for me Chrisisall

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE