WMD's found in Iraq, most not even reported.

Let's get this clear. I keep seeing people say Bush lied about the WMD's in Iraq. He didn't.

WMD = Weapons of Mass Destruction

Weapons = plural = several different types of...

Mass Destruction = massive deaths, or massive property loss.

WMD's are not just a nuclear weapon, it is multiple types of weapons

It is a FACT that there was 500+ chemical munitions found in Iraq.

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.

www.defenselink.mil...

They were old, and couldn't be used as designed, but they still held chemicals that could be really really deadly. With a bit of imagination these munitions could have been used in an Improvised Explosive Device, and kill 1000's of people.

Even though we only found and reported 500 chemical munitions at the time, there is a high possibility that more was found, and discarded by our military without reporting them. The US forces in Iraq have been discarding many many truck loads of munitions that have been found in Iraq on a daily basis. So much so, that they do not have the time to count and dissect and report each one. It is highly possible that more chemical munitions were found, just destroyed before they could be examined.

"I do believe the former regime did a very poor job of accountability of munitions, and certainly did not document the destruction of munitions,"

www.defenselink.mil...

So there WAS WMD's and they probably will find more. The reason for going to Iraq is to keep these weapons out of the hands of insurgents, and out of other countries like America and her allies.

Connected we all know what WMD's are, and could I just point out that there were no insurgents pre Iraq2. And by insurgents I take it you mean those people who wish to rid their country of an occupying Foreign Power.

Invading Iraq was and is not about WMD's I wont repeat it myself because I have replied to you on the current Iraq debate. I'm sure you understand how an illusionist works, he creates a destraction to occupy your mind whilst working his trick. That was what was done on 9/11 and 7/7.

Over a period of time the details get a bit muddled, the politicians forget what they say. I dont know were you live but Blair told us that the UK was 45 mins away from an attack possiblity. Well thats ok but the next question to ask is what weapons platforms and the weapons themselves did Saddam have that could hit us all the way from Iraq, well we never got an answer. And if they could not hit us there was no way he could hit the US.

But that begs another question, the alleged terrorist of 9/11 were Saudis not Iraq's so why did the US attack and invade Iraq, did not that bufoon Bush say that America will attack any country that carries out acts of terrorism against it or its allies, so why didn't the US attack and invade Saudi Arabia?

You see my young truth seeker sometimes one cannot see the wood for the trees, but if you look hard enough you will see.

Originally posted by Connected
Let's get this clear. I keep seeing people say Bush lied about the WMD's in Iraq. He didn't.

Its not just Bush that lied, its all of them.
Dick was scaring us with the phrase 'dont let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud over a U.S. city.'
Colin Powell showed us cartoon-like drawings of 'moble WMD trucks'.
He used drawings because no such vehicles exist.

It is a FACT that there was 500+ chemical munitions found in Iraq.

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.

www.defenselink.mil...

Back that up a bit, you used the word FACT followed by 500+.
Lets compare that with the propaganda peice you linked to...twice.

Though about 500 chemical weapons - the exact number has not been released publicly - have been found

Hmmm, looks like they sayabout 500, then you spin that into 500+.
Dont you think if they had more than 500 then they would say something like "More than 500 were found" instead of "About 500 were found"?

They were old, and couldn't be used as designed, but they still held chemicals that could be really really deadly. With a bit of imagination these munitions could have been used in an Improvised Explosive Device, and kill 1000's of people.

1000s of people? Where did you get this fact?
Lets see exactly what your article says...

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added

SO are you really trying to convince me that 20 year old, badly corroded, unusable mortar shells justify a multi-billion dollar invasion and occupation where my brethren are being blown up daily?

Even though we only found and reported 500 chemical munitions at the time, there is a high possibility that more was found, and discarded by our military without reporting them.

Yeah and there is a high possiblity that Saddam had something to do with 911 too, right?
Like I said on an earlier thread, I hope you came to ATS to learn, because it is quite obvious that you are ignorant of facts surrounding WMD, Iraq, and 911.

IM surprised this thread hasnt been closed yet, and that you havent been warned yet, because your title is a 'false and misleading' statement.
There were no WMDs found in Iraq, and your claim that 'most not even reported' is a blatant lie.



[edit on 9-3-2007 by 11Bravo]

Originally posted by 11Bravo

Back that up a bit, you used the word FACT followed by 500+.
Hmmm, looks like they sayabout 500, then you spin that into 500+.
Dont you think if they had more than 500 then they would say something like "More than 500 were found" instead of "About 500 were found"?

I served in Iraq when these munitions were found, and I have the correct, non publicly released number. It is more than 500.

Originally posted by 11Bravo
1000s of people? Where did you get this fact?
Lets see exactly what your article says...

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added

SO are you really trying to convince me that 20 year old, badly corroded, unusable mortar shells justify a multi-billion dollar invasion and occupation where my brethren are being blown up daily?

I didn't want to go into detail about the possibilities of these chemicals, but I guess I'll touch the surface. It is possible to extract and repack the chemicals into newer munitions. It is possible to make the chemicals airborn, and with the right timing of weather and position, these chemicals can be planted into a dust storm or wind storm of a certain type. This could potentialy find its way into 1000's of peoples lungs. There are also many other ways to get these deadly chemicals into peoples systems, but I shouldn't have to get into detial. The point is, if these chemicals some how made it into the USA, the death toll would be worse. The fact that these weapons were used in the past, was enough for us to think they would use them again, and have more of them.

Originally posted by 11Bravo
Yeah and there is a high possiblity that Saddam had something to do with 911 too, right?

Like I said on an earlier thread, I hope you came to ATS to learn, because it is quite obvious that you are ignorant of facts surrounding WMD, Iraq, and 911.

IM surprised this thread hasnt been closed yet, and that you havent been warned yet, because your title is a 'false and misleading' statement.
There were no WMDs found in Iraq, and your claim that 'most not even reported' is a blatant lie.

You call me ignorant and a liar. Thats great. YOU should be warned.

I provided a link straight from the military saying that these munitions found are concidered WMD's and that there is possibly more. I gave you information straight from the military saying that most munitions and weapons we destroyed were not documented, yet you call me a liar when I say "most not even reported".

I think you either need to learn to read, or need to learn to add 2 + 2. Then I think you need to soak in this next sentance....

The Iraq war is not over, and we are STILL finding munitions on a daily basis.

How do you know we will not find MORE WMD's before its over?

There were WMD's in Iraq, and some of them were destroyed without first being documented. Thats the fact's. Sorry to hurt your anti-war agenda.

And connected all those old munitions that you call MWDs are enough evidence for you to justify the death and chaos going on in that nation and the take over of the Iraqis oil resources and the wasted tax payer money.

The Bush administration sure love to have more people that think like you to keep feeding their pro war propaganda.

So of you said they are MWDs so beat it . . . in connected eyes and opinions it must be truth.

Thanks for bringing the reason why we are in Iraq and why our soldiers are dying for.

No to mention all the death toll on Iraqis civilians.

[edit on 9-3-2007 by marg6043]

Originally posted by magicmushroom
......and could I just point out that there were no insurgents pre Iraq2....

i just want to comment on this point.
i would say yes, there were. about 200,000 or more of them. they were called "fadien sadam" (not sure of the spelling)

it goes like this:
they knew we were coming. so, they watch us cross the boarder, and then toss the uniforms and blend into the society.

now, they are insurgents, or more properly stated, sadams elite military, creating a garilla war.

they had cash and wepons stashed all over that contry before we got there.

Originally posted by Connected

I served in Iraq when these munitions were found, and I have the correct, non publicly released number. It is more than 500.

Ahhhh, so you alone are privy to the information that 300 million Americans would love to have?
Dont you think we all wanted to find WMD? Dont you think we didnt want to look like liars and fools in front of the world? Dont you think we would parade the WMD out for everyone to see?
I know I would have absolutely loved to see some WMD, then atleast we could be partially justified.

I didn't want to go into detail about the possibilities .... It is possible to extract and repack .............. It is possible to make the chemicals airborn, and with the right timing of weather and position, these chemicals could....

An awful lot of 'possibles' and 'coulds'. Did you even read the article you are referencing? They say:

"Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic," he said. "Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal."

It is toxic, and "if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal"
Toxic is not the same as lethal, just so you know, and they say you would need an extended exposure for it to be lethal. Your article references the sarin subway attack in Tokyo. Get scared. In FIVE coordinated attacks a sarin was release on subway trains(confined area) Twelve people died. Hardly a WMD.
You are talking about putting it in a windstorm? You know nothing about chemical agents, but I wont call you ignorant because evidently your feelings are easily hurt.

I gave you information straight from the military saying that most munitions and weapons we destroyed were not documented, yet you call me a liar when I say "most not even reported".

You are wrong.
Your article states, and I quote:

"I do believe the former regime did a very poor job of accountability of munitions, and certainly did not document the destruction of munitions,"

Somehow you twist that into munitions 'we' destroyed?
Since when are we the former regime?

There were WMD's in Iraq, and some of them were destroyed without first being documented. Thats the fact's. Sorry to hurt your anti-war agenda.

Son let me tell you something.
First of all I am a third generation United States Army Veteran.
Secondly I scored 98 on my ASVAB and could have went into any branch, any MOS that I wanted, and I chose U.S. Army infantry because it IS the backbone of the military. I wanted to be the 'boots on the ground'.
Thirdly I volunteered to serve my country, and I took an oath to protect the constitution, so dont give me your condescending attitude.
I have no 'anti-war' agenda.
I have a 'pro-truth' agenda.
Im here to help mitigate your ignorance.
If you dont want to learn you shouldnt be here.

I stand by my ascertion that your title is 'false and misleading' and that this thread should be closed.

Originally posted by marg6043
Thanks for bringing the reason why we are in Iraq and why our soldiers are dying for.

[edit on 9-3-2007 by marg6043]

Oh, gawd dont even!

just the other day you were calling them "death troops" and now you are using them to further your political ideas. you just make me sick

This is a true yet equally quite propagandas story. Because when Iraq unilaterally disarmed itself of WMD’s many were disposed of by burial. This technique used to be internationally recognised and has been used in…

1. U.S
Deteriorating Chemical Weapons in Florida (read down)… www.sptimes.com...

www.armscontrol.org...
www.globalsecurity.org...

2. The former Soviet Union
www.cdi.org...

3. Great Britain.
(on a farm in Wiltshire (England)
findarticles.com...

4. Japan
www.china.org.cn...

5. And most of Europe…
editors.sipri.se...

It is currently outlawed but when Saddam did it, it was still quite legal.

The Context…
Iraqi people were starving because of U.N sanctions and President Saddam Hussein did not want to prolong ether their suffering, his weakness or the cultural backwardness of the Iraqi people by maintaining WMD’s a moment longer than was necessary.
Therefore because Iraq has lots of dessert, was low on cash, and needed to get the job done quickly; President Hussein agreed to opt for the burial method.
He had no intention of digging them up again, not least because both chemical agents (and especially the explosives used to the metal casing can quickly become unstable) and therefore highly unsuitable for military use.
Besides if President Saddam Hussein had, had any intention of using WMD’s the time to have done so would have been in defence of his country; the sovereign nation of Iraq.

Connected what are you connected to?
Why do people persist in bringing up old rubbish which does nothing but to shy away from the fact that our countries are responsible for removing a culturally westernised, successful, secular dictator, who kept his people under control; and in so doing prevented the kind of violence we see today in Iraq which is killing more Iraqis, and at a faster rate, than he ever did.
1. www.moderateindependent.com...
2. www.washingtonpost.com...
Do you accept that there are certain places where democracy is a bad idea? Like Iraq? Where nearly the majority of the population accept stoning women to death for adultery? Do you accept that Iraqis would be richer, that hundreds of thousands would still be alive, and that there would be less terrorism in the world if ether Saddam or a secular dictator likes him where still in power in 2007?
If not; how-why not?

Conclusion
Because both countries have disposed of WMD’s by burial; if an Alien were to invade the United States they could justify it on the grounds the U.S had enormous stocks of hideous biological and chemical weapons in exactly the same way you are using them to “justify” the invasion of Iraq.

So, these old munitions that were left over from the 80's.... these are the reason we invaded are they?

I thought chemicals have a shelf life... so how exactly do you fathom them being extracted , repacked and reused?

Especially by insurgents?

The Bush admin told us about STOCK PILES.. about large stockpiles with a 30 minute ready time to be fired or some ridiculous number..

They told us Saddam gave permission to USE these weapons against us..

It was enevitable that we find old munitions from the 80's that Iraq simply lost track of..

but that bottom line is,

the admin told us they were MAKING Stock piles, and had the MEANS to make stock piles.
the truth is, there were NO stock piles, and they DIDNT have the ability to make them..

We went in because they were an iminent THREAT, they turned out to be anything but.

And connected, what a load of BS..

you expect us to believe that because you served, you know that they did find large, numbers of chemical/bio bombs.. ???

Had we of found ANYTHING that could of given backing to GW's claims they would of declared it front page news.. because before the wwar even started, people accused them of lying about wmd's...

I mean ffs, The insurgents only last week used chlorine gas in a bomb.
That is the first REMOTE sign of a chemical weapon..

and you know what?
I took us invading, bombing and murder for 4 years until they finally found a way.

The WMD issue is bunk, its a total fabrication.
Just like the Alqaeda link. Its amazing to think people still, after all this time... believe that horse manure.

blah blah blah, asvab this, who cares, that test is really easy. come on, what is the point of saying we found WMDs, especially with your anti-war agenda mindset? people like you would just call it BS, or the popular 'disinfo' label anyway. and whats US ARMY backwards as an acronym? Y did my retarded ass sign up? just kidding, but really, its like your post is geared to annoy him more than get the facts straight. you're condescendingly calling someone from a military branch whose typists could easily throw down on you by 'son'. i think you need to take a chill pill and stop believing everything that the armchair intelligence officers post on this forum.

Admin edit: Removed false quote and warned.

[edit on 10-3-2007 by SimonGray]

JSR, you have missed the point, until you attack or invade another country there are no terrorists, freedom, fighters or insurgents. Thats what happens when you commit those acts and its happened in every conflict known to man.

Connected as your a military man perhaps you can explain Blair's 45 minute warning, pehaps you can tell all of us what weapons platforms and what weapons they carried that could hit the UK in said 45 mins.

I await with anticipation.

Originally posted by Well

Originally posted by 11Bravo
I'm embracing ignorance

blah blah blah, asvab this, who cares, that test is really easy. come on, what is the point of saying we found WMDs, especially with your anti-war agenda mindset? people like you would just call it BS, or the popular 'disinfo' label anyway. and whats US ARMY backwards as an acronym? Y did my retarded ass sign up? just kidding, but really, its like your post is geared to annoy him more than get the facts straight.

Who are you? Whats your record? Ever served your country? Were you a REMF? A typist by chance?
Do you have anything to add to this conversation?
Is your post about 'getting facts straight' or is it about spreading ignorance?
Do you think you cant put my name in a quote box with words I didnt say and get away with it?

I cant believe the Mods have let this thread stand with the blatently false and misleading title.





[edit on 10-3-2007 by 11Bravo]

Originally posted by 11Bravo
Do you think you cant put my name in a quote box with words I didnt say and get away with it?

Wow, tell you I never even picked that up.
I had to search to see if you did say this, and you didnt.
Far out, thats pretty low....

Originally posted by magicmushroom
JSR, you have missed the point, until you attack or invade another country there are no terrorists, freedom, fighters or insurgents. Thats what happens when you commit those acts and its happened in every conflict known to man.

my point was, that they are not insurgents. they are iraq military fighting an invading army.

didn't bush declare on television at one point that there were actually no WMD's in Iraq and that he was sorry for misleading the nation?

Originally posted by magicmushroom
But that begs another question, the alleged terrorist of 9/11 were Saudis not Iraq's so why did the US attack and invade Iraq, did not that bufoon Bush say that America will attack any country that carries out acts of terrorism against it or its allies, so why didn't the US attack and invade Saudi Arabia?

Forgive me, because I don't remember Bush saying anything about "attacking whatever country a terrorist happened to be born in or is a citizen of, who is involved in terrorist attacks upon the United States." Using your logic we should attack Great Britain because Richard Reid lived there!

And what about the 4 remaining 9/11 hijackers who were Egyptian? No one ever talks about Egypt being involved- just Saudia Arabia. Maybe instead of giving Egypt as much aid as we give Israel, we should just attack them instead! I'm only thankful that our government doesn't incorporate your logic into their foreign policy and military decisions.

As for the whole WMD debate, I'm not going to dive into it too far as it's already been discussed and overdiscussed on here for the past few years. I will just say that without the WMD equation, there were still more than adequate grounds for the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam and his regime, including but certainly not limited to: his violation of some 16+ United Nations resolutions, his support and financing of terrorism, his torture and murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, his firing on coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone and much, much more. I mean, what's the point of even having resolutions issued by the security council if we're never going to back them up?

If the title of a discussion thread is wrong or misleading, it's up to our members to respond and point out why... which is happening in this case.

Also, the member who has fabricated a quote has been warned.


As for the topic, I think we're forgetting a major point and allowing ourselves to be distracted from seeing the forrest because of all these damn trees.

The Bush administration made a very dramatic case for an active and ongoing weapons of mass destruction program... not the storage of old chemical munitions. I think most people can discern the significant distinction between old chemical weapons shells, and a contemporary weapons program.

I've said it before on numerous threads, and I'll say it again here.

If you are Saddam Hussein, and your country is being invaded by a foreign power that is steamrollering your military, and you know full well that when you get caught you will probably be sentenced to death, you are going to throw every single weapon in your inventory at the invaders to buy you time to try and get the hell out of the way, buy some plastic surgery and rent an apartment in New York where no one is going to notice you.

You aren't going to bury them or ship them out somewhere else, are you?

THINK about it. If he'd used them the worst thing that could happend to him is that he'd get executed. He was going to be executed anyway, so what does he have to fear? Being dug up and executed again?

Right wingers who argue he wouldn't have used them under moral grounds, or in order to protect his own people are arguing against their own premise that he was a madman dictator who didn't care about anyone but himself.

I'll draw an anaolgy. Imagine (put your ego's aside and think about it) that the US is being attacked and invaded by a power that has weapons years in advance of its own, because it has been declared to be a rogue state. The armed forces are being routed, and the one chance at stopping it all is the use of a nuclear weapon. According to the right wingers here, rather than using the weapons, they would be shipped off to Canada, or Mexico, or buried in the desert in Nevada.

Doesn't make sense when you think about it that way, does it?

Hi Rasputin, but what about America supporting terrorists, there are many despot staes arounfd the world I dont see anyone running into those countries.

Quite right Skeptic, I have asked the author of this thread twice now to tell me what active weapons systems did Saddam Insane have that posed a threat to the Uk, Europe or the US, I still await a reply.