UN finds WMD missing from 109 sites in Iraq

So which is it? Were there WMD that the US failed to protect that the UN told us about or were there never any WMD and we just invaded for oil? Sorry, the title and contents are the UN's. It's not my spin.

---

"A good plan executed today is better than a perfect plan executed at some indefinite point in the future."
- General George Patton Jr No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

There were no missiles. Tal is quoting out of context. It's clear that it is referring to material that could be used to MAKE long range missiles. The "has" is singular and therefore refers to "material that could be used..." - not to missiles.

Tal, can you not read or are you doing this on purpose? Holmes says: The UN warned the US to protect theses sites .. And you ask about WMD? What's wrong with you? Neither the article nor Holmes nor the UN nor the US administration say that these sites contained WMD. It's just you. Why? Tal, could you kindly show me a UN statement that makes the claim that they found WMD missing from Iraq?

Thank the gods. What do you make of this other article at Fox, which you could have found right by the article you quoted?Its the current intelligence assessment which states about Iraq... and How can you remain in denial on this topic any longer?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

PaulK, thanks for the reminder. I was giving Tal the benefit of the doubt, since in the months leading up to the war the UN was actually overseeing the disassembly of missiles that had a range slightly longer than was allowed. So it would not surprise me if material from these sites that contained actual missiles also went missing.

Of course, the United Nations is a biased and useless and corrupt organization so you don't believe this UN report.Right?

quote:

---

If I recall correctly, there was no doubt that Saddam Hussein wanted, very much, a development program to produce WMDs, and that there may have been some material and equipment relevant to this purpose.

​

He used them on his own people.

---

If I recall correctly, Saddam was recieving aid from the Reagan administration when he was using them on his own people. In fact, it was known that he was using them on his own people while he was recieving aid from the Reagan administration. Obviously, using WMDs on one's own people is not, under Republican ethics, sufficient grounds to go to war with the regime -- or even to break an alliance.

Do I have to draw you a map?There were no WMDs, nor were there any WMD material caches nor working WMD programs which Bush and Co claimed they knew existed prior to the war.What did exist were materials from pre 1991 programs which could be used for both civil and weapons purposes (much like most industrial chemical and biological material). The catch is that these were known by everyone, and monitored by the UN and so not what Bush was referring to at all.These were not a threat unless oversight of them was lost and the material moved. It was warned that that could happen if we invaded, and indeed that appears to have been what did happen.Thus... now follow with me... Bush and Co said there were WMDs and WMD material which was not known to the UN (only the US), and it was an active threat. Their claims were questionable at best, and disproven forgeries before the invasion at worst.By invading Iraq to go after these unknown and unproven WMDs and WMD materials, we risked losing control of known and secured materials which someone could then turn into WMD type weapons. That is one of the reasons many at the UN, and people like me, opposed the invasion.Sort of a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.But Bush flipped reason the bird with both of his hands, and invaded anyway. He was wrong, the UN was right. Bush's WMDs are not there, but thanks to Bush it is possible there are now new WMDs somewhere else. Oh the title and contents may be from the UN. I was referring to your "analysis". That was pure spin. In reality, the article was a damning picture of neglect by the US.Perhaps your eyes are too watered with shame to see the picture before you?This message has been edited by holmes, 06-03-2005 03:30 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Sure!First, there is no statement saying "we found anthrax or sarin." Not that it would any good anyway, because we've already found both of those substances (Sarin has already been used a few times on Coalition Troops).What we do have is this: "Aha! Those can be used for household chemicals!" is what you'll point out, and rightly so. But we can follow that bit of info up with: So we know that those facilities: A-Had materials to make WMD; B-Made WMD; C-WMD were used on Iraqi civillians in the past; and D-WMD have been used on Coalition Troops.

---

"A good plan executed today is better than a perfect plan executed at some indefinite point in the future."
- General George Patton Jr No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

So you chose "or were there never any WMD and we just invaded for oil?"1.77 tons of nuclear material were removed by Coalition Forces last year. And, again, WMD have been used on Coalition Forces in multiple attacks.This message has been edited by Tal, 06-03-2005 03:38 PM

---

"A good plan executed today is better than a perfect plan executed at some indefinite point in the future."
- General George Patton Jr No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

First let me say something nice: I like your new signature.Now let me rip you yet another asshole... No. What you presented was a stock dilemma with both alternatives being false. Obviously there used to be WMDs so "never any WMDs is false". If you mean never any of the ones that Bush and CO claimed were definitely there, then yes.Clearly your article was not referring to WMDs of any kind so its sort of moot for your question.As far as motivation for the invasion I do not believe it was only for oil. I had a tongue in cheek post suggesting there was growing evidence for it, but it was clearly more than just oil. His hawk advisors had papers on why we should invade Iraq printed years before the invasion. Perhaps you should look them up and find out what other motives there could be. The nuclear material was hardly weapons grade now was it? It was known that they had nuclear material, and again, it was monitored by the UN and lost control of during our invasion. This is public knowledge Tal.As far as the "WMD" attacks you are referring to even your own organization, if you are still in the military, has recognized that these were incidents where old munitions which happened to have chemicals in them (but likely unknown to anyone rigging the devices) were used like regular improvised explosives.The source of these "wmds" were stocks of old ammo, which had been discarded and were not for use by the Iraqi Army... specifically not as chemical munitions. Here's that balloon buster Fox article again. Just wanted to make sure you caught it. Even Fox seems to get that the gig is up.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Also, a bit of nerve gas in one shell does not constitute a weapon of mass destruction. So far, I haven't seen any mass destruction of US troops.

Seeing as poverty seems to be widespread in the Iraqi community, have you checked the scrap-metal dealers?

Tell that the soldiers exposed to it.This message has been edited by Tal, 06-03-2005 10:55 PM

---

"A good plan executed today is better than a perfect plan executed at some indefinite point in the future."
- General George Patton Jr No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

And another shift of the goal posts. Tell me, Tal, that was three or four times that you decided to shift the posts? They are just racing along the field, aren't they?Edit: Ooops, edited shit to shift. This message has been edited by Hrun, 06-04-2005 05:24 AM