It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 12:17 PM
Has it ever crossed anyones mind that maybe there were many "WMDs" found in Iraq, but they could not be reported to the public for OPSEC concerns? Maybe they could be traced back to a certain country that shouldnt be supplying Iraq with WMDs, and the general public would go nuts to find out that certain country was still secretly against the U.S. and its allies?

posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 12:27 PM
Pokey, I find that interesting . . . sometimes I wonder about that one also . . .

US had Iraq under surveillance at all time, highly sofisticated surveillance . . .

But remember that the whole point of the invasion of Iraq was because the danger that they were to our own nation.

So if our own intelligence community and our own administration that started the invasion under the presumption of MWDs is covering for some reason another country is hard to believe.

In this day and time nothing goes secret anymore, is always ways to get the facts out no matter how much covering nations do.

posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 03:09 PM

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.

For starters, Saddam never literally had his finger on the launch button for WMD's. The order would have had to go out to whichever generals had the weapons, and it would be up to them whether or not to follow those orders. Saddam may have had a death wish, but that doesn't mean his generals or deputies did. This was evident in the mass dessertions of his military.

You're also discounting the theory that Saddam's military and scientists fooled Saddam into thinking that he still had WMD's, when in fact he didn't. This is a rather popular theory. They knew Saddam was a mad man and they also knew that if they didn't follow his orders that they could be tortured and killed, along with their families. Letting Saddam believe that he had a WMD stockpile, while never having one for him to actually use in a last-ditched attack on innocent people, was probably the smart thing to do.

posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 03:36 PM

Originally posted by Rasputin13
Saddam may have had a death wish, but that doesn't mean his generals or deputies did. This was evident in the mass dessertions of his military.

There is also an attachment that goes along with the theory. A very clear threat was made against any use by Iraq of biological and chemical weapons in the form of a nuclear response from the US administration. From the few accounts I have read along the lines of the theory you have posted, this threat was supposedly taken seriously by quite a few members in the Iraqi command structure.


posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 03:40 PM
Connect old chap you state for the record that you are a serving member of your country's armed forces and have been in Iraq. Good for you. You will have seen very many sights that for political reasons, do not wind up on our tv sets.

Yet you come on this site and start a thread about WMDs which to me, simply slaps of the usual political claptrap and scaremongering.

The Bush administration has created a new classification of WMD called a Radiological Weapon. We now have CBRN instead of NBC yet, without a Nuclear weapon or device, there can be no Radiological weapon or device.

Wake up people! God! Don't you know that you are being f*cked over by your President.

Connect, your quoted Sarin and Blister chemical weapons as being found buried in a dump somewhere.

Sarin is a Nerve Agent and a member of the Lethal Group of chemical agents. It is colourless, odourless and tasteless. It can be both Persistent (P) or Non-Persistent (NP). It may also be thickened to produce a 'Bostick' glue type of agent.

In whatever form, if a single drop of Sarin should be inhaled or absorbed through the skin, you would probably be dead within 10 minutes having gone through an agonising journey. If however, Sarin is absorbed through an open eye, the casualty will usually die within five to six minutes.

A thickened Sarin droplet - no bigger than a pinhead is of sufficient voracity to kill you within a few seconds.

Sarin however, has one drawback. Once exposed to strong and direct sunlight - it evapourates, causing a downwind vapour hazard. Depending on the source and quantity, I estimate that your 'find' of 500 shells or bombs would, if exposed, cease to be a threat after a few hours.

You mentioned a blister agent had been found, but the article you linked to just said Mustard, but did not divulge what type of blister agent. Was it a Mustard/Lewisite Mix? Perhaps it was Phosgene/Oxime or was it Ethyldichloroarsine, or maybe Methyldichlorparsine. How about a Nitrogen-Mustard Mix or the 1800 Distilled Mustard?

Was it any of those Connected? You seem to be in the know and I reckon you could dish the dirt.

But there is a problem Connected. According to the article and another I have linked below:

these agents would have been buried deep underground and, as you can see from the article dated 2004, that is over 13 years ago.

Connected, that means the methods of storage - the shell cases or warheads - be they of the filler or binary type, would be expected to be in a poor state and may even have been leaking.

The problem with Blister agents of any type, is they present both a
'contact' and a vapour hazard. In other words, as the thick agents 'off gases', they produces a downwind vapour hazard for some considerable distance.

But even so, once the agent in question vapourises, there is very little vapour hazard after 2 or 3 hours given the strength of the sun in the middle east.

So you see Connect, I personally do not buy into this WMD rubbish and it is just that.

Chemical weapons are, at best, a Battlefield weapon. They are used to produce casualties in a specific area and would probably be used to tie down troops and cause their effectiveness to deteriorate in NBC IPE or MOPP IPE.

Biological weapons on the other hand, are best used at the Theatre level or against the defender's rear areas - Corps or Divisional level.

Although some terrifying diseases could be used, modern innoculation programmes and the standard of hygene often prove effective against even the most virulent strains of diseases.

That only leaves Nuclear. A nuclear weapon IS a weapon of mass destruction but a Radiological weapon (whatever that is) most definately IS NOT!

So my friend, would you please stop scaremongering and spreading your President's lopsided view of events.

Even he and the CIA have agreed. There are no WMDs and never were any WMDs in Iraq. Period.

posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 04:13 PM
Granted, there may have been some WMD's found in Iraq that were not reported about... but Bush is still a pawn to a secret organization of men with questionable intentions.

He's not just a good 'ole boy from Texas... and just to be sure people do not mistake my post for political skew, I think most all of our presidents (red & blue) play into the hands of the secret majority.

posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 05:47 PM
Gee, from reading the Bush-bashers one would think that everyone in the world thought Saddam was a great guy and Iraq a quiet, peaceful place until Bush came along and vilified them.

How soon some forget...

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

And of course that's just the tip of the iceberg.

posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 05:56 PM
This whole thread is deceptive.
I've never seen it argued that Hussein's regime did not have chemical weapons at one point, that seems quite well established.

But the basis on which we were "sold" this war was that Saddam had large WMD stockpiles that represented a clear and present danger to the US, which does not appear to be true. We were told that he had an active nuclear weapons program and chemical weapons production programs: also untrue.

The fact that chemical weapons dating to the time of the Iran-Iraq war have been found buried in the desert does nothing to change these facts.

posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 06:29 PM

Originally posted by GLDNGUN
Gee, from reading the Bush-bashers one would think that everyone in the world thought Saddam was a great guy and Iraq a quiet, peaceful place until Bush came along and vilified them.

How soon some forget...

Too much!
You call the truth 'Bush-bashing'?
Then, to support your stance, you quote a bunch of stodgy old politicians who all parrot the same tired fear-mongering catch phrases.

This thread isnt about who said what..........but I notice you didnt have any quotes from Hans Blix or Scott Ritter.

THis thread is about the FACT, and it is a fact no matter how many ignorant people ignore it, the FACT that after four years of searching all the Bu#es can produce in the way of WMD is some 20 year old mortar shells. That is not WMD, its not even really a W let alone the MD part.

To show you how ignorant people are the believe the WMD lie, the OP suggested that 'if released in a dust storm or wind storm thousands could die'.
Sarin released in 5 crowded subway cars killed a whopping 12 people, but this genius thinks that a windstorm would spread it and kill 1000s.

Im through here, nothing more to add.
If you and the OP want to think that Bush did us a favor by invading Iraq you can go right on thinking that, just try not to look at facts or your world may come crushing down on you.

EDIT to add the word above that has the # in the middle of it is B U S H I T E S

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

posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 07:24 PM
Whether or not there were WMDs (and I think there probably was), I think you Americans should support your leader until it comes to the polls, because all your ranting and raving about Bush shows the massive weakness in your country, and that's what the terrorists will exploit, and have exploited.

posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 08:09 PM

Originally posted by neformore
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?

The point of not using them is to cause this kind of moral doubt we are having.

That said, I don't beleive he had any that were deployable.

posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 09:15 PM

Originally posted by SteveR
That said, I don't beleive he had any that were deployable.

Exactly, it was nothing more than the left over from the previous time when Saddam had weapons.

Still if the administration had even one weapon that could be link to MWDs it would have been paraded for the simple purpose to prove that they were right and the rest of the world was wrong, specially those that were against the invasion.

But so far nothing was found but old stuff, that is hardly enough evidence to support the invasion of Iraq.

posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 09:15 PM
[edit on 10-3-2007 by marg6043]

posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 09:20 PM

Originally posted by marg6043
But so far nothing was found but old stuff, that is hardly enough evidence to support the invasion of Iraq.

That's right marg. I even saw the pictures of Gaubatz's smoking gun WMD. All of the shells looked like they had been dug up from a riverbed, most were crushed and falling apart.

It looks like Saddam was trying to dispose of them, not hide them for use.

posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 12:43 AM

Originally posted by 11Bravo
Too much!
You call the truth 'Bush-bashing'?

My post was self-explanatory. Most of the people who attack Bush for going into Iraq act as now as if he just made up the whole idea of WMDs in Iraq one day. The point was that the American liberal politicians now bashing Bush for saying their were WMDs in Iraq are the very same ones who said it themselves, and in many cases before Bush became President. Also, it wasn't just the US intelligence that said Iraq had an active WMD program going. Many other countries' intelligence said the very same thing.

Then, to support your stance, you quote a bunch of stodgy old politicians who all parrot the same tired fear-mongering catch phrases.

Thank you. That was indeed my point, that Bush was far from the first to suggest that Iraq had WMDs and posed a danger.

posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 01:17 AM
you mean the chemical weapons the US SOLD him in the 80's? isn't that like entrapment?

posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 01:43 AM
For crying out loud..

If saddam had ANYTHING resembling wmd programmes or stockpiles...our sophisticated satellites and spies would of come up with CONCRETE Evidence.

OUr sattelites can find anything.

Saddam had NOTHING in the way of wmd's.. absolutley NOTHING.
Had we of found ANYTHING, we would of reported it, because it would of made GW's claims truthful.

Saddam said he had no wmd's, the UN SAid they found no evidence of Wmd's.. there were no wmd's.

Even if Saddam disobeyed UN rules...
the UN should of bee nthe one to enforce punishment.
The UN told the US NOT TO INVADE.

There's absoltuely no grounds for an invasion of Iraq based on the very flimsy allegations by the US.

If people cannot understand that Iraq was a SETUP, then you really need to have a look in the mirror.

Isnt it convenient, all these 'mistakes' that have happened, gave GW and the neo-cons exactly what they wanted LONG before bush was in power?

Not everything is a co-incidence..

posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 01:58 AM

Originally posted by GLDNGUN
Also, it wasn't just the US intelligence that said Iraq had an active WMD program going. Many other countries' intelligence said the very same thing.

Thats right, Australia and Britian said the same didnt they.
Jee, I wonder where 'THERE' intellegence came from.

ITs not as if Australia has satellites patrolling Iraq is it.

What about all those miniscual nations.. did they have evidence?
No, the only reason they spouted the same bs, and joined the US was because of the economic, and trade benefits granted to them.

The world, much like myself during 2002, never believed the US would activley lie and decieve the world over a matter so enormous.
They honestly trusted the US and theyre claims, especially after an incident like 911.

posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 03:05 AM
It is true that no significant evidence of an active, deployable WMD program has been found in Iraq - at least that has been reported or revealed. This could be because; there was no program, because the weapons and evidence are still hidden, because the weapons and evidence were moved out of Iraq before the war, or because the US has chosen not to reveal the evidence for some reason we do not yet know. In any case, I think we do not have enough proof of anything to stand on a soapbox and proclaim that this or that is an absolute FACT and everyone who disagrees with it is an idiot.

I also think we tend to oversimplify the situation in the Middle East by spending so much time arguing over WMDs in Iraq. Let me suggest a larger, hypothetical picture of why we may be in Iraq:

1. A stable Middle East is strategically important to the US. We have allies there that we are obligated to protect and we need a stable supply of oil coming out of the region.
2. There are bad players in the region who are intent on hurting us and our allies any we they can.
3. Some of these bad players are aggressive and want to conquer or eliminate their neighbors, especially those who are friendly to the US.
4. Some of these bad players are affiliated with and/or support the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and a number of other occasions.
5. In 1991 the US found out that it is very difficult to project military power into the Middle East without any major bases nearby.
6. We therefore needed a large, stable ally in the Middle East that would allow us to have a large military presence there. This large military presence would allow us to exert influence on both friend and foe.
7. Since no large, stable friend of the US was available in the area, we needed to create one.
8. Saddam was a heinous dictator and had given the entire world many reasons to want him and his government eliminated.
9. Iraq is a fairly large country right in the middle of the region where we could put a lot of troops and military hardware right next door to our enemies.
10. Bingo - we have a plan. Kick out Saddam, take over the country and establish a new government that is friendly to the US. Keep 80,000 or so troops and 1,000 tanks and other military hardware in Iraq (with the consent of our new friends) for the next 30-50 years.

Now, is this a complete guess or theory on my part? YES. Is it a good plan? Probably not. Did our government consider some of these issues before invading Iraq? Most likely yes. Did it work out as planned? Definitely not. Is it going to get worse before it gets better? Absolutely. Was the whole thing a mistake of galactic proportions? Only time will tell.

posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 03:29 AM
So actually we should be really happy that ''we'' invaded Iraq? Should I be proud of your support to it?

No way.

This is what Bush said:

The White House propaganda blitz was launched on September 7, 2002, at a Camp David press conference. British Prime Minister Tony Blair stood side by side with his co-conspirator, President George W. Bush. Together, they declared that evidence from a report published by the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) showed that Iraq was "six months away" from building nuclear weapons.

"I don't know what more evidence we need," crowed Bush.

Actually, any evidence would help-there was no such IAEA report. But at the time, few mainstream American journalists questioned the leaders' outright lies. Instead, the following day, "evidence" popped up in the Sunday New York Times under the twin byline of Michael Gordon and Judith Miller. "More than a decade after Saddam Hussein agreed to give up weapons of mass destruction," they stated with authority, "Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb, Bush administration officials said today."


And now they are doing exactly the same to Iran, they have only changed the 'q' into an 'n'.

Am I supposed to feel sorry for the Bush administration now?

Seriously, I don't see the point of discussing this every once in a while and eventually draw the same conclusion as we've done so many times before.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in