US Ends Search For WMD In Iraq

[Riptide]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/index.html

So much for finding those massive stockpiles. Evidently they were either destroyed or moved out of the country.

[Sazar]

if nothing else it will bring some form of closure to this chapter and allow the people to concentrate on reconstruction and the upcoming electoral process...

thats a positive...

[nod]

So much for finding those massive stockpiles. Evidently they were either destroyed or moved out of the country.

No. There never were any.

[Ninjaman09]

No. There never were any.
Agreed. I never believed Iraq had WMDs and was totally against the invasion because of this.

[Sazar]

Iraq did have them at a point... the argument was simply that they had them post 9/11... this was unfortunately found to be an invalid assessment...

[General Lee]

I really hate it when people keep spouting that same line "there never were WMD's in Iraq". Fact is, there were, and we know it, and that's not going to change. The problem I have is that everyone is so focused on TODAY, instead of the time passed between when UN inspectors were allowed to go where they wanted to in order to do their jobs, till the time we forcibly moved into Iraq recently. You see, everyone is so focused on one thing, when they aren't looking at the whole picture.

Sadam had PLENTY of time to either destroy the weapons we KNEW he had, or move them elsewhere. Of course, if he did destroy them, I think he'd hold onto proof to show that in the event we did go into Iraq. However, I don't think this is the case. During that time (over a DECADE) that he would not allow inspections, who's to say what he did with them? Can the democrats and liberals not even admit that there's a chance he moved them out-of-country for safe keeping, or perhaps he sold them to another country? Why does nobody even bring this up?

If you ask me, I think Syria is a likely place to find Sadam's old WMD's, though I don't exactly know much of his relationship with Syria's leaders or terrorists hiding there. This has been my rant since this arguement began, and it seems that very few (especially in the media) want to bring this up. So, to say that there never were WMD's in Iraq is not only ignorant, it's also very dangerous. Now, that's what worries me...not only not finding them, but also having to idea whether they were destroyed (unlikely, not document by Sadam), or whether someone else has them now.

[evilchris]

No. There never were any.
Who are you? Kenny Kingston?

[nod]

I really hate it when people keep spouting that same line "there never were WMD's in Iraq". Fact is, there were, and we know it, and that's not going to change.

I really hate it when people use shady bull**** flim-flam conjecture and uninformed opinion to somehow justify a totally useless and stupid war. Fact is: there are no WMD and there is no proof that they were ever there over the past decade. You are wrong.

[evilchris]

I really hate it when people use shady bull**** flim-flam conjecture and uninformed opinion to somehow justify a totally useless and stupid war. Fact is: there are no WMD and there is no proof that they were ever there over the past decade. You are wrong.
FACT IS YOU DON'T HAVE THE FACTS.

[General Lee]

Lol, so I'm wrong about the DOCUMENTED inspections done before Sadam had the UN inspectors thrown out of Iraq? I'm wrong about the thousands of dead Iraqis gassed during the Gulf War, simply because those people were hoping American forces would remain in Basrah and free them from a tyrant? Have you so easily forgotten about those poor souls? No, I am not wrong, I base my statements on facts, not what I can think of off the top of my head (also called your opinion). Wait, didn't you say you hate that...someone using shady bull**** flim-flam conjecture and totally uninformed opinion? You're actually speaking of yourself, and don't even realise it, LOL.

[Riptide]

The UN stated there were items unaccounted for. Those are the stockpiles that remain missing. So to say there never were any... Well how do you explain that then?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2590265.stm

[Buck Armstrong]

No. There never were any.

Thats ridiculous. There certainly were, and not only did Iraq admit it and UN inspectors confirm it, but Saddam actually used them on Kurds (caught on film) and Iranians (SIPRI: "One of the chemical-warfare instances reported by Iran...has since been conclusively verified by an international team of specialists dispatched to Iran by the United Nations...The evidence adduced in the report by the UN team lends substantial credence to Iranian allegations of Iraqi chemical warfare on at least six other occasions...").

If you're saying that there were none in March 2003, then you might be right. However, the report submitted to the UN contained what Iraq said was a complete list. But many of the items previously documented by UN inspectors and admitted by Iraq were not on the list. When asked to explain their absence, Iraq basically just said the report is complete whether you like it or not. Had they just LIED and said they'd been destroyed, they could've robbed Bush of one of his "reasons" to attack.

So regardless of how people feel about Sheriff Bush or the current war, the simple fact is that many of the WMDs that the UN found in Iraq's possession after the first Gulf War were and still are unaccounted for.

[DaveW]

No. There never were any.

Then how did they gas all those kurds in the 80s? Eat lots of very hot curry?

[r2d2d3d4d5]

There does not seem have been any WMDs in the period prior to the War that were a threat to America or it's allies. Was that not the reason given at the time for the War?

[Ninjaman09]

We knew that had WMDs during the Gulf War. The argument was whether or not they had WMDs after Hussein was forced to shut down his weapons facilities. Though I have no doubt that he planned to resume production once the sanctions were let down, I never believed he had any WMDs CURRENTLY and as it turned out he didn't.

[r2d2d3d4d5]

We knew that had WMDs during the Gulf War. The argument was whether or not they had WMDs after Hussein was forced to shut down his weapons facilities. Though I have no doubt that he planned to resume production once the sanctions were let down, I never believed he had any WMDs CURRENTLY and as it turned out he didn't.
First there was preemption against an unproven intention to use WMDs (IMO he had nothing to gain by attacking his neighbours) and now there is preemption against an intention to built WMDs.

SH was an evil man that should have been removed but I'm pretty sure that he was removed for the wrong reasons and in the wrong way. Do the ends justify the means? Perhaps we should ask Iraqis? In the end History will probably be the best judge.

[vampireuk]

Again people love to ignore the fact that illegal weapons were found in the country, but because they cannot be classed as biological chemical or nuclear people assume that does not make them illegal enough.

[superklye]

I really hate it when people use shady bull**** flim-flam conjecture and uninformed opinion to somehow justify a totally useless and stupid war. Fact is: there are no WMD and there is no proof that they were ever there over the past decade. You are wrong.
How ****ing retarded are you? Why don't you do a Google search and find out exactly why we were going in there almost 2 years ago to search for them. There WAS a reason and it's not because Bush decided he would make up a story about Iraq having them.

Iraq had and USED them and refused to allow inspectors in to take inventory and make sure he was being disarmed. You know, there's a reason he was asked to disarm and it's not because he didn't have anything to get rid of.

[Riptide]

First there was preemption against an unproven intention to use WMDs (IMO he had nothing to gain by attacking his neighbours) and now there is preemption against an intention to built WMDs.
I don't think we need a tape recording to prove he had a bone to pick with the US and our allies for summarily kicking his arse in the first gulf war. That's proof enough for me that he couldn't be trusted. The job should've been done right the first time, but alas that was not the case. As for his intention of reconstituting his programs or not, I believe the last report that came out (Duelfer?) mentioned that as a probability.
SH was an evil man that should have been removed but I'm pretty sure that he was removed for the wrong reasons and in the wrong way. Do the ends justify the means? Perhaps we should ask Iraqis? In the end History will probably be the best judge.There was no other way to remove him. Nothing else worked. I do agree with your last sentence as far as whether or not this experiment in ME democracy will be looked upon as a success or not.

[Clay]

How ****ing retarded are you? Why don't you do a Google search and find out exactly why we were going in there almost 2 years ago to search for them. There WAS a reason and it's not because Bush decided he would make up a story about Iraq having them.

Iraq had and USED them and refused to allow inspectors in to take inventory and make sure he was being disarmed. You know, there's a reason he was asked to disarm and it's not because he didn't have anything to get rid of.
Don't bother with myopians that wanted to see some kind of 40' neon arrow pointing down to million WMDs piled up with signed receipts by Saddam dangling off each one. People that think the world is so black and white have no business arguing to begin with especially when they base it purely on semantics.

[superklye]

Don't bother with myopians that wanted to see some kind of 40' neon arrow pointing down to million WMDs piled up with signed receipts by Saddam dangling off each one. People that think the world is so black and white have no business arguing to begin with especially when they base it purely on semantics.
I couldn't agree more. :)

It's just so funny:
Either way it happened, Bush would've been wrong. No WMDs found: he's a liar.

WMD's found? He planted them.

[Yonkers]

I can't believe you guys are still arguing this. I came to terms with this long ago. The fact that are not any WMDs in Iraq has nothing to do with the current situation there. For any liberal to keep hounding this message only takes them out of current events and into fanatasy land. The fact remains the left is not opposed to Saddam, WMDs, terrorists or this war, they are opposed to George W. Bush and that is it. If Clinton was leading this war they would be all over it like stink on sh|te. We conservatives how ever would still support Clinton and the war effort as we did in Kosovo.

END OF STORY!

[nod]

I can't believe you guys are still arguing this. I came to terms with this long ago. The fact that are not any WMDs in Iraq has nothing to do with the current situation there. For any liberal to keep hounding this message only takes them out of current events and into fanatasy land. The fact remains the left is not opposed to Saddam, WMDs, terrorists or this war, they are opposed to George W. Bush and that is it. If Clinton was leading this war they would be all over it like stink on sh|te. We conservatives how ever would still support Clinton and the war effort as we did in Kosovo.

END OF STORY!

Absolutely completly wrong. If Bill Clinton was running this fiasco (or Gore or Kerry or Whoever) it would still be just as wrong.

What I am opposed to is our armed forces being put into impossible situations and being killed every single day for nothing. I am opposed to innocent Iraqi people being murdered. I am opposed to civilians being put into a position where the can be abducted and beheaded by criminals. I am opposed to our military being sep. from their families for months and months at a time. I am opposed to the outrageous lies that were told to us about why we're over there. I'm opposed to the cost. I'm opposed to the destruction. I'm opposed what this is doing to our country. I'm opposed to the politicians, both democrat and republican that signed-off on the thing.

And the list goes on and on and on. If that makes me opposed to GWB, then so be it. But I'd be opposed to any and all, regardless of party affiliation, who sanctioned this war.

If I was a democrat or a republican I'd be just as disgusted by this vile situation we are involved in. This goes across party lines, as both parties are ultimately responsible. The right had a bad idea, and the left rolled-over and let it happen.

You want some good reasons to break out the might? Kosovo, Afganistan, '91 Iraq, and there are many others. This isn't one of them. Not by a longshot. And this story today is just another reminder of that. Liberals will use it as ammo against the right, but that's just the nature of the game. The right would be doing the same thing if the roles were reversed. Don't be naive.

This war is indefensible.

[Yonkers]

This war isn't wrong. We need a strong democratic country in the middle east. We need to attack the terrorist where they live. Iraq will give us that country. This is a huge and important battle in the war on terror. You see, some of us want to take the terrorists out where they live, instead of letting them come back here and start picking us off one by one. I'm sorry you don't see the war on terror as important but those of us who understand the enemy do see this as important.

[Clay]

I often wonder how many more UN resolutions it would have taken to make this war defensible in the eyes of some. Of course, we'd be playing with fire (especially now in light of the gross corruption in the UN tied to Saddam) to let an undeniably dangerous world leader like Saddam to rack up another 15 or so UN resolutions to snub his nose at. That inaction would have arguably been indefensible...I say arguably because we'll never know for sure...thank goodness.