WAR: Iraqi Daily Newspaper al-Sabah Reports Three Nuclear Warheads Found

UNMOVIC and the UN itself have given reports that they have found banned parts, rockets, and other material that were dismantled and sent to scrapyards around the world from Iraq.

A few parts don't really impress me although they may be technically illegal. Except for a few false alarms, to my knowledge the army really hasn't found much that they considered worth tooting their horn about.
Given all the times they found some baby powder or something and said it was WMD and then said.. 'oh wait nevermind', I really doubt they are keeping anything secret. You never know, but I kind of doubt it since GWB's butt is on the line.

[edit on 26-7-2004 by perseus]

Originally posted by Muaddib
They shouldn't find "any" wmd in Iraq, no matter what quantity since they were all banned, and we have found more than a few. So, yeah....there were, and probably still are wmd in Iraq.
[edit on 26-7-2004 by Muaddib]

They only found old ordinance fromt he Iran Iraq war.. no WMD.

Don't forget that WMD stands for Weapons of Mass Destruction, not 10 year old rusted, unusable shells containing "traces" of nerve agent.

So no, in fact WMD have not been found in Iraq. There weren't any, and there aren't any. You're behind the times Mauddib.. even Blair admits it.

Let's examine facts here.

Fact: Stockpiles of WMD's are inventoried and visually confirmed to have been in Saddam's possetion after the Gulf war.

Fact: Saddam was required to destroy them in a verifiable manner by multiple UN resolutions and the terms of the cease fire that ended the war.

Fact: Saddam had everything to gain by showing that these confirmed stockpiles were destroyed.

Fact: Saddam did not give any evidence to show that his stockpiles were destroyed.

Stop debating whether Saddam had WMD's. It is an undisputed fact that he did. Start debating the correct questions, like; Where did the WMD's go? Who had them now?

Don't be a politcal parrot and repeat some campaigne line that is not based on facts. Saddam had WMD's and he did not do what he was supposed to do with them which was to destroy them.

If you start with the known facts you may yet come to proper conclusions

"Generalissimo Bush" - Ha I like it!!! I recently heard Tim Russert - on NBC's Meet the Press - Refer to Bush as "Our Commander in Chief" - what an odd thing to say - I didn't know that Tim Russert & Every U.S. Citizen was a part of the Armed Forces. Unless of-course the U.S. has already turned into a Corporate-Fascist Police State a long time ago!!!

Johannmon, It is obvious to me that you are no scientist.

1. Most, maybe all, of the WMDs Saddam had after the Gulf war were destroyed during the years the UN inspectors were there.

2. He probably didn't want Iran to know he was defenseless.

3. Chemical and biological agents break down over time:
"Fortunately, for the most part, the chemical agents break down fairly rapidly when exposed to the elements. According to coauthor Sylvia S. Talmage of the Life Sciences Division at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, "It was a nice, pleasant surprise to see that these things are mostly not persistent, but they will break down naturally, and most of the breakdown products are less toxic, and some practically innocuous."
ehp.niehs.nih.gov...

Are you a Bush apologist?
.

Originally posted by slank

1. Most, maybe all, of the WMDs Saddam had after the Gulf war were destroyed during the years the UN inspectors were there.

That sir is pure speculation unsubstaniated by the evidence. Only your desire for it to be true could precipitate such an unfounded statement.

2. He probably didn't want Iran to know he was defenseless.

which is the greater security risk; for the Arab world to know that Saddam had destroyed his WMD's that proved ineffective in the IRan Iraq war or to risk open war with the United States because he refused to prove that they were destroyed? Hello!!?? The answer is obvious even for someone who is mentally disturbed like Saddam

3. Chemical and biological agents break down over time:
"Fortunately, for the most part, the chemical agents break down fairly rapidly when exposed to the elements. According to coauthor Sylvia S. Talmage of the Life Sciences Division at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, "It was a nice, pleasant surprise to see that these things are mostly not persistent, but they will break down naturally, and most of the breakdown products are less toxic, and some practically innocuous."
ehp.niehs.nih.gov...

So your point is what? The point of going to war with Saddam was that he refused to comply with UN mandates to disarm and was therefore a loose cannon with WMD capabilities. If he made these items once he could do it again at any moment. Do you think that barrels of pesticide were stored next to artillary shells because they were afraid of locust? What do you think Sarin is made from? Saddam was legally removed from power for refusing to fufill the terms of the cease fire. Clinton should have done as much 9 years ago when Saddam first broke the terms of that agreement but the man was too interested in other things.

Are you a Bush apologist?

No. I have my qualms with decisions that the PResident has made and why. I do try however to keep these critisisms based on facts not pure politically motivated speculation and emotionalism. Now if you want to ask who is the better choice, Kerry or Bush I would have to say Bush because Kerry has rarely stood for anything of value for long.

Excuse me?

Kerry ran a gun boat to draw enemy fire in Vietnam.

GEORGE BUSH WAS A DESERTER.

George Bush's whitehouse is leaking CIA agents names.
George Bush has ENRAGED the arab world with Abu Grabe and all the other prisoner abuse in Afghanistan and elsewhere in Iraq. He has helped increase the recruiting numbers for Al- Queda.

He has done NOTHING to locate, secure and aquire nuclear matterials around the globe.

To anyone, do you really feel safer? I know i don't.

George Bush's values all have dollar signs attatched.

sorry off topic post