Options

No WMD - where they really there?

bingomanbingoman Posts: 23,940
Forum Member
✭✭✭
Now that the last combat troops have left Iraq the question still remains where are the so called WMD'S and did they really ever exist if they did where did Saddam Hussain hide them:confused:

After the 1st Gulf War did Iraq have WMD if so did they get rid of them to other rouge states or was Iraq telling the truth that there where no WMD'S and they only had a few of them and used them during the conflict:confused:

Are there Weapons inspectors in they country still looking for them:confused:
«1

Comments

  • Options
    smudges dadsmudges dad Posts: 36,989
    Forum Member
    bingoman wrote: »
    Now that the last combat troops have left Iraq the question still remains where are the so called WMD'S and did they really ever exist if they did where did Saddam Hussain hide them:confused:

    After the 1st Gulf War did Iraq have WMD if so did they get rid of them to other rouge states or was Iraq telling the truth that there where no WMD'S and they only had a few of them and used them during the conflict:confused:

    Are there Weapons inspectors in they country still looking for them:confused:

    We knew they were there because we kept the receipts - but we forgot he had already used them
  • Options
    44444444 Posts: 1,104
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    You didn't really believe all that, did you?
  • Options
    psionicpsionic Posts: 20,188
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    If they were there, don't you think we would have found them by now? :)

    The powers that be knew there were no WMD's left in Iraq before we invaded. It was all bollocks along with the sexed up dodgy dossier and the 45 minute claim etc. etc.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 5,186
    Forum Member
    Tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists :rolleyes:
  • Options
    OvertheUnderOvertheUnder Posts: 4,764
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    With Osama in....Iran
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 16,275
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    With Osama in....Iran

    Why would he give them to his enemy?
  • Options
    jenziejenzie Posts: 20,821
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ask the student who wrote the thesis on the first gulf war ..... then the prat who decided to make it into the ALL NEW GULF WAR STITCH-UP 2003
  • Options
    OvertheUnderOvertheUnder Posts: 4,764
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    whip wrote: »
    Why would he give them to his enemy?

    Saddam losing control of his WMD's? or Osama in Iran? :D

    I was kinda joking but there a point -

    The Western invasion of Iraq destabilised entire country and whatever weapons Saddam may controlled have in all likelihood fallen into the hands of the more subversive elements of the insurgency i.e Al-Qaeda
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 16,275
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Saddam losing control of his WMD's? or Osama in Iran? :D

    I was kinda joking but there a point -

    The Western invasion of Iraq destabilised entire country and whatever weapons Saddam may controlled have in all likelihood fallen into the hands of the more subversive elements of the insurgency i.e Al-Qaeda

    It's just for a while they tried to pretend they were allies so they could link Saddam with terrorism when in fact they were enemies.
  • Options
    StykerStyker Posts: 49,893
    Forum Member
    OP,

    Sadaam had WMD's during Gulf War 1 but they where destroyed by the UN Weapons Inspectors after that war. Its why they never found them in 2003!

    Hans Blix is an idiot I'm afriad to say! He delibaaretly kept on throwing Bush and Blair a bone to their cause because IMO he felt he had to be balanced when he should have just reported the facts.

    I clearly remember the aftermath of Gulf War 1, the main reason it was ended was because Iraq agreed for the WMD to be destroyed and it was on the news all the time, the inspectors going from site to site, having destroyed the weapons.

    In any case, Iraq never used the WMD in the first Gulf war because Major and Bush senior told Iraq that if they used the WMD Chemical weapons, they would nuke Iraq!

    But it was alright for poor Iran to be subjected to those very same weapons though wasn't it with the Wests support before all of this happenned?!!! :mad:
  • Options
    Ethel_FredEthel_Fred Posts: 34,127
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Saddam's WMDs boiled down to some chemicals in buckets which were poured on Kurds from helicopters

    Everything else was a high stakes bluff to stop Saddam being deposed - whether by the army, Iranians or Americans.
  • Options
    MesostimMesostim Posts: 52,864
    Forum Member
    Styker wrote: »
    OP,

    Sadaam had WMD's during Gulf War 1 but they where destroyed by the UN Weapons Inspectors after that war. Its why they never found them in 2003!

    Hans Blix is an idiot I'm afriad to say! He delibaaretly kept on throwing Bush and Blair a bone to their cause because IMO he felt he had to be balanced when he should have just reported the facts.

    I clearly remember the aftermath of Gulf War 1, the main reason it was ended was because Iraq agreed for the WMD to be destroyed and it was on the news all the time, the inspectors going from site to site, having destroyed the weapons.

    In any case, Iraq never used the WMD in the first Gulf war because Major and Bush senior told Iraq that if they used the WMD Chemical weapons, they would nuke Iraq!

    But it was alright for poor Iran to be subjected to those very same weapons though wasn't it with the Wests support before all of this happenned?!!! :mad:

    That's a new one... blaming it on Hans... those who were following it closely at the time would struggle to put the blame there.
  • Options
    InspirationInspiration Posts: 62,706
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Saddam confirmed himself that the WMD question was never answered as an insurance policy against Iran. If Iran knew there were no WMD Iraq would have been weakened. The US and UK either failed to work this out or decided to ignore it. What didn't help was Saddam miscalculated the invasion and expected airstrikes only.
  • Options
    StykerStyker Posts: 49,893
    Forum Member
    Mesostim wrote: »
    That's a new one... blaming it on Hans... those who were following it closely at the time would struggle to put the blame there.

    :confused:Obviously you didn't follow it closely because if you did, you would have seen Blix keep on trying to be balanced for teh sake of it when he was giving almsot weekly updates to the UN Security Council about the inspections in late 2002 and early 2003.

    It was because he was being balanced for the sake of it that helped Blair and Bush try and justify their actions because of the ambiguity that Blix was raising and even now, 7 years after the war and not one WMD found and with thousands of inspections by both the UN and by Bush's own team, Blix at the Iraq Inquiry told them that he told Blair at the time that he thought Saddam still had WMD! :mad: This is why I say Blix was and is an idiot!!!!

    Inspectors like Scot Ritter who where part of the original inspectors that destroyed the weapons said that Iraq didn't have WMD anymore but he was ignored or mocked at!!!
  • Options
    subversivesubversive Posts: 2,969
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    They were there, in the North, West, Southern and Eastern regions of the country, somewhere there, we just need to look in the right place.

    Can you believe how they took us, the TAX Paying PUBLIC for a RIDE, scared us into believing that we were going to be attacked in 45mins.

    THEN, they used our TAX money to pay OUR Sons and Daughters to FIGHT their Personal War, so that THEY can control what is probably the Second Largest Oil Producer in the, only to SELL it back to, guess who, US.

    my my my, when will we wake up.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,725
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    He'd used them up on Iran
  • Options
    InspirationInspiration Posts: 62,706
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    If people can find me quotes of key people in the process saying "They have no WMD" I'd be interested in reading them because from my recollection it was more a case of "We need more time to inspect". It's easy for people to say, in hind sight, that there were never any WMD, but at the time.. it wasn't so clear. That's not to say the war was justified.. because the intelligence had huge holes in it.
  • Options
    stoatiestoatie Posts: 78,106
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    If there HAD been any, they must have been pretty rubbish if they decided to use IEDs instead.
  • Options
    MesostimMesostim Posts: 52,864
    Forum Member
    Styker wrote: »
    :confused:Obviously you didn't follow it closely because if you did, you would have seen Blix keep on trying to be balanced for teh sake of it when he was giving almsot weekly updates to the UN Security Council about the inspections in late 2002 and early 2003.

    I followed it extemely closely... this forum is the Iraq War forum renamed as Politics... every nuance was observed... by all means have a look at the posts from back then. Hans asked for more time but the US decided to invade to beat the weather...

    Being "balanced for the sake of it"... utter rubbish.
  • Options
    MandarkMandark Posts: 47,965
    Forum Member
    I think the West genuinely believed Iraq had WMDs left. This was in part because they didn't think the sanctions were working and that Iraq was smuggling all sorts of weapons related materials in. In fact the sanctions had worked better than expected and Iraq had struggled to get arms. Also Iraqi ex pats were saying their sources high in Saddam's regime knew there were WMDs in secret bunkers. It's clear now that this was speculation rather than direct knowledge. There was some disgraceful fact finding going on and obviously some didn't care if the facts seemed weak.
  • Options
    goldenhairgoldenhair Posts: 1,270
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    In the first Gulf War we found a couple of locations where they had badly stored chemical agents but had little knowledge of what to do with them.
    They'd been issued to field commanders but they seemed to have little knowledge of how to arm them, however by the time we arrived half of them had gone AWOL and it was chaos.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 271
    Forum Member
    If people can find me quotes of key people in the process saying "They have no WMD" I'd be interested in reading them because from my recollection it was more a case of "We need more time to inspect". It's easy for people to say, in hind sight, that there were never any WMD, but at the time.. it wasn't so clear. That's not to say the war was justified.. because the intelligence had huge holes in it.

    Absolute garbage. The dossier "evidence" was drawn from a PhD thesis, the 45 minute claim was regarding short range missiles (not ones capable of hitting Cyprus as was claimed). It was pretty clear that evidence was being manipulated to give an excuse for war. Why do you think £1M people turned up to protest about it. Please keep your revisionism to yourself.
  • Options
    GwrxVurferGwrxVurfer Posts: 5,359
    Forum Member
    bingoman wrote: »
    Now that the last combat troops have left Iraq the question still remains where are the so called WMD'S and did they really ever exist if they did where did Saddam Hussain hide them:confused:

    After the 1st Gulf War did Iraq have WMD if so did they get rid of them to other rouge states or was Iraq telling the truth that there where no WMD'S and they only had a few of them and used them during the conflict:confused:

    Are there Weapons inspectors in they country still looking for them:confused:

    Ah, states that don't agree with Britain and America are "rogue", how interesting......
  • Options
    blueisthecolourblueisthecolour Posts: 20,128
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I remember that everyone's favourite ex MP - George Galloway - once said to Saddam "Why on earth don't you just agree to their demands and get rid of the weapons. It's got to be better than losing a war" and his reply was "because I don't have any".
  • Options
    mikeydddmikeyddd Posts: 11,684
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Mesostim wrote: »
    I followed it extemely closely... this forum is the Iraq War forum renamed as Politics... every nuance was observed... by all means have a look at the posts from back then. Hans asked for more time but the US decided to invade to beat the weather...

    Being "balanced for the sake of it"... utter rubbish.

    If you had followed it that closely you would recall that the inspectors were not there to "find" WMD. They were there to verify the evidence that they had been destroyed, but no evidence was provided because Saddam was playing games with the West and wanted to keep ip the pretence that he had them. While trying to delay any response from the West. Why is it that people want to continually try and rewrite history.
Sign In or Register to comment.