Where have all the chemicals gone?

[moggie]

As no WMD have yet been found in Iraq, are the Septics:

a) going to put some there for us

or

b) going to keep on invading Middle Eastern countries until they find some?

Your thoughts please!

[BarryMonday]

Too impatient by far old chap!

The Coalition have only just started to look, not just too busy before, but not safe to send small units off all over the country on their own until the entire country can be considered secure or sufficient troops are available to provide adequate protection.

They are looking for needles in haystacks, given the size of Iraq, a couple of thousand 45gal drums, split into small packets and scattered throughout the country could take years to find. Artillery shells deliberately wrongly marked could be hidden amongst other ammunition stocks as could smaller rockets.

If it helps a number of what are believed to be trailer mounted chemical weapon laboratories have been unearthed just south of Baghdad.

Just possible that Saddam Hussein will have rigged a few hideous booby traps in the hope that they will be sprung after he has long gone, his way of having the last laugh. Any searches will be painstakingly slow.

[Triple Matched TQ]

Moggie

Old lad - Maybe you have seen TV recently? Unfortunately our boys have been putting out fires, fighting wars, becoming policemen/women and you want them to become detective inspectors.

Miracles take weeks not days!:cool:

[moggie]

Ahh, but we were going to stumble over them all over the place, Saddam was certain to use them, and every Iraqi soldier had a nuke in his back pocket.

However, any thoughts on the "I'll just keep invading 'til I find some" approach by George? The echos from the last shots in Kabul had not died down before he was ranting about Iraq - now the same thing seems to be happening with Baghdad and Syria.

If he keeps moving West like this, he'll be invading Italy next! No point invading France because a) they confess to having WMD and b) they would just lie down and wait for the troops to come in (and the men, too!).

[BlueWolf]

Apart from death and taxes, two things are absolutely certain.

1) Banned weapons will be displayed in Iraq
2) Whoever is next on the list will have been on it next longest to Iraq.

Life can be very predictable :)

[witchdoctor]

I believe they found a packet of aspirin in a government building in Baghdad - does that count?

[Starvin' Marvin]

Indeed, finding the remnants of Saddam's chemical weapons will take weeks... possibly even months. But we knew that anyway, Blix told us as much!

What has been clearly demonstrated is that Iraq did not have enough of a coherent weapons programme to deploy or use them, or thus to pose any significant threat to its neighbours or the US or UK. What there was has probably been mostly bombed or 'inspected' away over the past 12 years.

At least with Iraq as an isolated, pariah state, hated by all, including extremist Islamist terrorists, the remnants of WMD were to some degree contained. Now where are they? Syria? Al Quaeda? Who knows?

Of course, this is a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy... Iraq's WMD could fall into terrorist hands, and the chosen strategy has probably made that all the more likely, thus providing justification for further action in the future.

In summary... I believe that, in the fullness of time, some remnants of WMD will be found in Iraq. I also believe that some other remnants will by now have been spirited away into Syria or elsewhere, or to terrorist groups. Unfortunately, now we have embarked on this aggressive, pre-emptive interventionist strategy, it is difficult to see where it will stop. Based on the Bush / Rumsfeld rhetoric, I fear Syria is next.

[solotk]

Now,
I thougfht the reason we went to war, was because America had DEFINITE PROOF of not only WMD, but their locations. I also understand, that Tony Blair was "Party to information that he couldn't release" that justified going to war with Iraq.

If you wanted to justify to the world soonest, that your actions were correct, the very first thing you'd do, is go to the locations you suspected. Especially, as you realise that world cynicism will grow, the longer it takes to find anything.

The troops who are tasked for role, are not taken from the "Fighting strength" they are NBC specialists. They are primed and ready to go, and would normally move,(As far as I remember) at least a Platoon in support, and the other assets they'd need to conduct an investigation.

To recover the bulk of dispersed WMD's assuming they exist, might well be a needle in a haystack, but their primary task, is to look for depots or production facilities, which can hardly be "spirited away" , especially as that nice Mr. Powell, showed us SatIntel proving the Americans knew where they were.

Now why haven't any been found? We see Queen Ari postulating about "The finding of Gas masks " proving they have a chemical capability. I imagine a Gas mask, has been standard issue since the Iran-Iraq war, it is not proof, per se that that Army also posses Chem/Bio weps. After all, we have the best NBC kit in the world, but we don't have any chem/bio weps (Allegedly)

Why haven't we found Gas shells , or munitions, in the ready bins of the defensive forces? This is all pre-war deployment stuff, it does not get issued, after hostilities begin. So far, we have found zip, even in the Artillery ammunition bunkers. Plenty of out of date conventional munitions, but no nasties.

Barry makes reference to "Chemical trailers" . I had a long chat with another Ppruner, as we tried to remember back to our NBC briefings. If he is referring to the Unimogs, they are one of two things. Either Chemical DETECTION wagons, or NBC hardened forward control vehicles. Now that's interesting. The vehicles are old, and could certainly date back to the Iran-Iraq war, when both sides were using chemweps, so that is once again, not proof positive, that Iraq possess these items.

Yes, I believe they must have something knocking around, but where is it? If we haven't fallen over it yet, then it implies that it was not readily available, therefore not deployed, therefore not presenting a "real and present" danger to the indigenous population, Iraq's neighbours or as has been proved to the invading forces. George Tenet's analysis, was that Saddam MIGHT use WMD's IF he was invaded. It hasn't happened. maybe he took a decision not to use them? Or maybe they just weren't available.

One thing we can be sure of, we are going to find something. Any nation that can launch an invasion on the flimsiest of reasons, is going to make damn sure that the world will see they were justified.:mad:

[A Civilian]

Dont expect them to find any chemical weapons any time soon. The US marines are to busy defending the Oil Ministry and the police ministry from looters than to do very important things like guard hospitals or look for banned weapons :rolleyes:

Thx to the hackers for liberating me from my Schrodinger cat box :)

[BarryMonday]

What I am referring to are vehicles that were recently buried close to a munitions factory south of Baghdad, and which locals showed to the Coalition forces who are now in the process of digging them out.

Have searched the archives of the newspaper I read it in but that article is not included.

[solotk]

I wonder if they'll be as interesting as the vehicles the US Marines found in one of the compounds of Saddams palace

Classic Rolls-Royces, Classic Bentley's, Porsche Boxer/Speedster 40's Mercs, very very nice

[moggie]

Solotk - my point exactly, but much more eloquent.

As for those chem lab trucks - would it be fair to say that as they were under several tons of sand they can not be considered an immediate threat?

Come on George/Tony - you told us you knew where they were - so tell us now that it is time to do so. Or were you never really sure where they were or even if they were.............................?

I may be "starting" to lose my belief in the honesty of our leaders...................

[ODGUY]

Latest news on CNN was that coalition forces found an abandoned '84 Toyota pick-up truck that may be used to transport chemical or biological weapons. This is just the tip...

[John (Gary) Cooper]

WMD's = Zilch

Perceived threat to our airports a few weeks ago = Zilch

Missiles that would reach Akrotiri = zilch

Yep Princess Tony is certainly keeping his head down except in Parliament, how about a few answers then Tone? :ugh:

[BlueWolf]

If they don't find any, does Saddam get to have his old job back?

[RatherBeFlying]

Now that with the exception of the specially guarded Oil and Police Ministries, every Iraqi government facility has been stripped to the rafters, we have two possibilities:[list=1]
The looters have them and will shortly use them to take out their frustrations on a nearby troop concentration -- a container of Sarin would be a suicide bomber's dream.
There aren't any.
[/list=1]With a whole week gone by, possibility 1. is rapidly fading. Not so good for the Bush/Blair propaganda machine, but given the current (and predicted) chaos -- far better for the troops:ok:

[solotk]

Rumsfeld: Bioweapons May Be Hard to Find
Associated Press
April 17, 2003


WASHINGTON - The U.S. military's search for chemical and biological weapons is unlikely to succeed until Iraqis lead American forces to them, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday.

"I don't think we'll discover anything, myself," Rumsfeld said at a town hall-style meeting with Pentagon employees.


"I think what will happen is we'll discover people who will tell us where to go find it. It is not like a treasure hunt where you just run around looking everywhere, hoping you find something."

U.S. troops have found suspicious chemicals and facilities at a number of sites but tests on the materials have proved negative or inconclusive. Eliminating such weapons was a chief reason President Bush gave for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq that began March 20.

A Defense Department employee asked Rumsfeld what could be done so the United States would not be accused of planting any chemical or biological weapons that might be discovered. Rumsfeld said he believed such charges are likely and there is little the United States can do to avoid it.

Only in the past few days, Rumsfeld said, have enough weapons searchers arrived in parts of Iraq where U.S. intelligence indicates chemical or biological weapons could be found.

"The teams have been trained in chain of control, really like a crime scene," he said. "That will not stop certain countries and certain types of people from claiming, inaccurately, that it was planted."

Appearing with Rumsfeld was Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, who cautioned against thinking that the fall from power of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party rule means the war is over.

"I wish I could say that we're winding all this down, but I can't," Myers said.

In other words, you've checked all the sites that you forced Colin Powell to present as evidence, and you've come up with d1ck.


"A Defense Department employee asked Rumsfeld what could be done so the United States would not be accused of planting any chemical or biological weapons that might be discovered. Rumsfeld said he believed such charges are likely and there is little the United States can do to avoid it."


I like that - Spot the politician covering his ass with both hands, and getting his denial ducks in a row. What will happen, if they don't discover any weapons? Now it's going to be hard to plant them in the quantities needed to make a conclusive arguement.

Meanwhile Hans Blix is spitting blood, and his top inspectors, have rejected an approach from USMIL, stating they'll go as UNMOVIC or not at all....

[moggie]

Interesting to see that the septics don't want Hans Blix and the UN to do the follow up weapons inspections, but want the coalition to do them.

So, why might that be? Could it be that the UN would not take kindly to the US planting stuff to "find" later? Can there be any other reason for the US stance?

If "von Rumsfeld" is concerned that people will think the US planted WMD in Iraq, then he should let Blix and his gang dig them up - Blix looks like a man we can trust.

Nice to see Blix saying what most free-thinking people believe - that the US "undermined" his inspectors efforts in the weeks leading up to the war and that the intelligence information they used to justsify the invasion was "shaky". He also said a few days ago that he was "inclined to think that Iraq did not in fact possess WMD" at the time the war began.

You can see and hear the arse-covering and question dodging going on all over the US government - it is SO unfair of saddam not to have WMD!!!

[Jackonicko]

1) No link to 9/11
2) No immediate threat to anyone, except his own people
3) No Scuds
4) No WMD

No justification for war.

Still, if regime change alone is justification for war, then there are undemocratic tyrants out there who could usefully be removed. George Dubya first, or President Tone?

[BlueWolf]

Valid point Jacko, but Harare Bob still gets my vote for being top of the list.

Helen Clark makes an almost immeasurably close second.

[A Civilian]

Isn't oil classified as a Weapon of Mass Destruction? Im sure it is as I read it in one of Bush's speach sometime. If so they will probably find lots of it in Iraq and will probably have to stay for decades to remove all the nasty WMD's and transport it back to the old US of A for safekeeping :rolleyes:

[tug3]

Just watched BBC News and was amazed to see US forces at the latest WMD 'Site' - isolated, surrounded by barren desert, no hidden bunkers nor even so much as a cammo-net in sight, never mind adjacent to a school, mosque or hospital.

The rusty abandoned vehicles, storage tanks and container drums would aslo indicate that this 'site' has been in situ for some time.

How can it be that after years loooking for such sites, (And mobile Scud launchers), and in the process having photographed and scrutinised every inch of the country from both of satelite and recon-a/c 'intel', it takes a bunch of grunts to find what looks from the news footage to be about as covert as a boil on the end of your nose?

Politically convenient? - absolutely!

Credible? - you be the judge!

Rgds
T3

[Jackonicko]

T3,

Ooh you cynic, you.

[Dr Jekyll]

It was never the Americans responsibility to find WMD's.

According to the UN, it was Saddams responsibility to account for them. The function of the inspectors was simply supposed to be an auditing exercise to see if his account was true, they were never meant to have to search through every cupboard in Iraq trying to find them.

We know he had them (ask the Kurds).

So far he has.
1) Given UN inspectors the run around for year after year, thereby violating the UN resolution which ended the 1991 war.

2) Then, after the threat of renewed war, produced a document saying in effect; "yes I did have some, but I got rid of them while the inspectors weren't looking and I didn't make any notes of what I did with them."

3) Given inspectors the run around yet again.

Some might find his document plausible, but I certainly don't.

As for being no immediate threat to anyone except his own people!

1) Why don't his own people deserve consideration?
2) Should we really delay taking action until he is an immediate threat, until he can fight back with nukes for example?

[moggie]

Yes - the UN were responsible for getting the Iraqis to tell them where the WMD were - but the Septics stopped them doing so by launching an invasion.

Hans Blix (who must know more about the inspections than all of us put together) says that he is "inclined to think that there were none" and that the "US intelligence was shakey" (no comment!!!!)

George and Tony told us they knew where they were - but we have yet to see any. So were W and Tone telling fibs to get us all on-side?

Yes he had them when he used them on the Kurds (obviously!) but everyone said "if he has them, he will use them on us during an invasion - guaranteed". But he didn't.

I will believe it when I see it, and so will just about everyone with whom I have discussed this matter. And no-one I know will believe that any finds are genuine if they are uncoverd by the Septics without UN verification. Please note, UN verification works both ways, in my eyes.

[Dr Jekyll]

"Yes - the UN were responsible for getting the Iraqis to tell them where the WMD were - but the Septics stopped them doing so by launching an invasion."

On the contrary, it was only the threat of invasion that got the inspectors back into Iraq in the first place. You can only give someone so many last chances to cooperate before the threat loses credibility.

"I will believe it when I see it, and so will just about everyone with whom I have discussed this matter. And no-one I know will believe that any finds are genuine if they are uncoverd by the Septics without UN verification. "

Now who's trying to cover themselves both ways?

[Jackonicko]

I don't want to believe the obvious implication.

Can anyone offer a credible, lucid, compelling reason why both Bush and Blair have explicitely ruled out participation by the UN Weapons inspectors in finding and verifying Iraqi WMD?

[moggie]

Dr Jekyll - I agree, the threat of invasion made the Iraqis let the inspectors back in.

Then, as they were making progress (their words, not the Iraqis) the Yanks (and Tony the poodle) declare war and force them to pull out.

Of course, allowing the inspectors to complete their work may have run the risk of taking away the excuse for a war........................

[moggie]

W/Don/Tone - we're still waiting!!!

[Jackonicko]

Come on, come on. Someone out there believes that it's right to exclude the UN arms inspectors. Why?

Failing that, can someone do a good job at devil's advocacy?

I really want to understand that point of view....

[G.Khan]

Hans Blix has stated publicly, including on TV, that he believes the USA faked their submission to the UN showing evidence of WMD in Iraq.

Right now Iraq is being run by the USA who feel they have been badly let down by the UN and accused of being cheats and liars by Hans Blix - The UN inspectors are not necessarily the best or most experienced, they just happen to work for the UN. Why should the USA let the UN inspectors back into Iraq?

[solotk]

Sorry Genghis - Obviously my hangover seems to have impaired my comprehension facilities this AM.

Are you saying the US is right to exclude the Weapons Inspectors, or are you being Devils advocate?

[Jackonicko]

OK Genghis, thanks. But I'm not quite clear. Is it that the UN and UNSCOM need to be punished for their past misdeeds (to whit casting doubt on the US's pre-war 'evidence'), or is it that the US fears that UN inspectors would somehow deliberately cover up evidence of any WMDs that were found, or would maliciously deny any US WMD finds?

In this 'statement of the anti-UN case' we're naturally excluding the possibility that it might be that UN inspectors would prevent, or might refuse to verify, any 'bogus' WMD find or any planted evidence.

Is there any recognition of the need (or desirability) for any WMD finds to be independently validated and verified?

[Woff1965]

Interesting points -

1) Someone in the coalition (probably MI6) faked a set of documents purporting Saddam was buying Uranium from the government of Niger. One of the Niger officials named in the documents had actually been kicked out of office 2 years prior to the "purchase". The IAEA state the documents are complete fakes with no basis in reality. This did not stop the UK and USA providing them as evidence of Iraq's continuing WMD programs

2) Tariq Aziz is, according to Rumsfeld, refusing to cooperate with the US/UK about the location and progress of the Iraqi WMD programs post 1991.

Do I personally think the Iraqi's were still conducting large scale production of bio and/or chemical weapons? No - simply because if they had been deployed ready for use they would have turned up by now in the Iraqi army ammo dumps. There would have been junior and not so junior officers dragging US and Brit officers to gaze upon them - in the hope of not finding themselves in a nice hot tin shed in Cuba.

I suspect the Iraqis were probably keeping research teams together so that if the international community ever did give up sanctions they could go back into the WMD business from a running start. Certainly that in itself would be a breach of the UN resolution, but such theoretical reserch is almost impossible to prove.

The real problem that has come from this fiasco is that unless the US/UK can VERIFIABLY provide evidence of a active deployed WMD neither the elctorate or the international community can ever trust either the UK or the USA ever again. Even were the belief that Iraq possessed such weapons sincerely held, there are more cynical people who will suspect it was all a "fit up".

The only way that anyone is going to believe in a Iraq WMD program is if the UN says there was one - the only possible reason that the US refuses to allow the UN back must be that they don't want it verified.

[G.Khan]

Devils advocate!;)

Neutral99 Strange user name for someone obviously far from neutral!

Good points but a little less passion please!

[Jackonicko]

Wolf,

You summarise what appears to be completely obvious to me ("The only way that anyone is going to believe in a Iraq WMD program is if the UN says there was one"), but in view of the official UK and US Government position on participation by the UN arms inspectors there must be a counter argument and/or justification for this position. They can't just be thinking that they'll do it and simply ignore the painful questions, surely? There must be an argument - even if such an argument is only a cynical excuse or a fig leaf to cover an unwillingness to expose the lack of evidence of any Iraqi WMD. Such a counter argument can't simply be that they're punishing the UN, surely, nor even that UN participation is not necessary or desirable?

Can no-one elucidate this 'official' counter argument?

[contact_tower]

One thing I find a bit interesting, is that the US can only offer contracts regarding the rebulilding of Iraq to US companies.

I wonder how many of the oil related companies that have a cousin of old W in the board? :rolleyes:

"The oil will be the basis of an free Iraq", bull***

It will be the basis of W's next therm in office.

I hear that Blair is getting a bit unpopular with some of his labour woters, I wonder why? :E

[Huh??]

If WMD are not found in Iraq within the space of 6 months to a year, then Bush and Blair will certainly have much to answer for in the eyes of the world---and rightly so. But given that France and others in the UN Security Council were willing to allow inspections to continue for at least that long (and in the minds of Blix and others as a bizarre, permanent sort of deterrent), it is unfair to pound the table so early regarding the US MET/XRT teams inability to unearth them. There are many different possibilites here---and one of them may indeed be that Bush is lying---including the stuff being spirited away to Syria, being extremely well-hidden, or existing as a production capability rather than a stockpile of weapons. It's simply too early to say.

That said, there is certainly a case to be made for restricting UN involvement in a postwar Iraq. For one, the Enron style accounting of the oil-for-food program which keeps billions of dollars of Iraqi money in French and Russian escrow accounts and keeps the UN flush with cash. The fact that Scott Ritter, George Galloway, various U.S. congressmen, and journalists from throughout the Arab and Western world have taken millions in Saddam's cash for their service to the regime indicates that perhaps UNMOVIC has been similarly 'penetrated' as the US has alleged in the past. Its clear the UN (and some countries in the UNSC) has a vested interest in maintaining sanctions, and the continued inspection process provides justifcation for the oil-for-food thievery to continue indefinitely. Even if Bush is lying, oil-for-food should be done away with as soon as is practicable.

In the final analysis, nobody will believe the US or subscribe to Bush's motives even if the weapons are found and found in huge quantity (that's clear enough from the tone of this thread). But Blix should be kept out, if only because he has publicly compromised his impartitality.

Just a humble Septic's opinion.

[Jackonicko]

OK:

So the two main reasons for keeping the UN out altogether (because most people were only asking for participation by the UN arms inspectors, not for total UN control of the process) are:

1) The UN has been penetrated by those interests who are served by the ongoing sanctions+oil-for-food regime, and is an inherently corrupt and untrustworthy organisation?

2) Hans Blix has 'compromised his impartiality' by stating that he believes that the USA may have faked its submission to the UN showing evidence of WMD in Iraq? (Some would suggest that this DEMONSTRATES his impartiality).

If this is the argument, don't those accusations need to be clearly set out? Isn't there some need for evidence, if not proof? (And is there proof that either Ritter or Galloway took Iraqi money? The balance of probability may support the accusation against Gorgeous George, I'll admit....)

And if the US is setting itself up as being a better moral authority than the UN, does it not need to be beyond reproach itself? Does the unwillingness to submit to scrutiny, and the corrupt way in which reconstruction contracts are being placed undermine what legitimacy the USA has in this area?

[Huh??]

Like it or not, continued inspections legitmate the need for indefinite sanctions to remain in place on Iraq. I would contend that countries such as Russia and France (the two countries that did the most to erode sanctions against Saddam Hussein's dictatorship) are now joined at the pocketbook to use sanctions as leverage to get some kind of Iraqi recognition of their onerous debts and oil contracts from the Saddam era. If Iraqi redevelopment is held back in the meantime, so what. Of course, there's nothing wrong with a country persuing its legitimate commercial interests, but using the UN's unique legitimacy as a cloak of piety is very brazen indeed (and yes, the US is plenty guilty of this as well). Of course, the alternative argument is that the US wants the UN sanctions lifted simply so its own companies can profit from Iraq's reconstruction (which will be the case regardless of what happens).

Additionally, inviting the inspectors back allows Hans Blix (who is not trusted by anybody in the Bush administration) to have the final say-so regarding when sanctions can ultimately be lifted, and thus gives the UN a central role in the rebuilding and reconstruction of the country, after the US and UK spent blood and $100B+ in treasure to overthrow Saddam. This would be most unacceptable to the national security 'hawks'.

Personally, I don't believe Hans Blix was intellectually honest in the weeks prior to the war. He openly stated his desire that the inspection process serve as a permanent deterrent in Iraq, cast aspersions on the breadth of Iraqi WMD when his own investigations showed tons of unaccounted-for materiel, and failed to appreciate that UNMOVIC's mission was to verify disarmament, not serve as a detective agency of international sleuths. Once war had begun, he immediately announced that Iraq had no WMD in contrast to his earlier statements on missing anthrax and such. And now that WMD has not been unearthed in two weeks (he wanted 6 months and more), he publicly declares that Bush was a liar. Yes, some of the evidence was faked, and Bush and Blair should certainly be held to account (as they will be if WMD don't turn up soon) but Blix cannot claim to have approached the Iraq issue honestly. However, if WMD doesn't turn up soon, Blix will be vindicated and Bush and Blair will look like idiots. And that MAY happen, but they should be given at least as much time as the UNSC were prepared to let the weapons inspectors have to find the stuff.

These arguments are but a preview of the bitter sanctions fight that will take place at the UNSC in the next 2-3 weeks. The US hopes to put France and Russia on a moral backfoot by publicly daring them to keep sanctions on a destitute nation. Failing that, they will look for ways to bust the sanctions unilaterally.

Say what you will about American motives (and the US is certainly no paragon of moral authority), but the Oil-for-Food program (and the UN's Office of Iraq Programs) is a corrupt and thoroughly rotten organization indeed.

2.2% commission on $55 billion in oil sales, $21 billion in UN escrow accounts with no transparency or auditing whatsoever, surcharge-kickback deals and flat-out smuggling making Saddam filthy rich, and billions in transactions with French and Russian firms. To say the UN has a stake in the status quo is an understatement.

To an extent, these new "revelations" are designed to discredit France and Russia but these are some very shady deals nonetheless.

So the two main reasons for keeping the UN out altogether (because most people were only asking for participation by the UN arms inspectors

With regard to UN involvement, you cannot simply pick and choose which UN agencies go in and which do not. Russia and France will pursue their substantial business interests in Iraq by "reminding" the US that the lifting of sanctions must be tied to Iraq being certified free of WMD by the UN. Enter Blix for another round of inspections, with Oil-for-Food continuing indefinitely. Purchasing decisions will be made not by an interim Iraqi government or by the US administrators of Iraq, but by the UN bureacracy and the UNOIP.

High irony considering that prior to 2001 it was Russia and France demanding an end to sanctions and the US and UK refusing because Iraq had not been certified free of WMD.

[Flatus Veteranus]

Jackonico

A possible reason for the Coalition not to want the UN inspectors back in Iraq is that the US (and possibly UK) intelligence believed that they had been penetrated by interests favoured by the Iraqi regime.

We all remember the allegations about a certain NATO member state passing NATO plans (including targeting information) to the Serbs during the Kosovo conflict.

Just a thought, not statement of my belief!

[Jackonicko]

OK, that all makes a degree of sense.

BUT

Do we really think, though, that the UN (as opposed to Russia and France) will oppose the lifting of sanctions?

In view of the cynicism and distrust of US motives, is it really wise to continue to exclude the UNSCOM inspectors - even if their only role was changed to be one of verification and validation of what the US and UK arms inspectors do and find? (Not a return to an exclusive inspection role, in other words). Do we seriously think that the UN would insist on "all or nothing"? In that role how much damage could they do, even if they are 'penetrated'?

Should what the Bush administration think of Blix be allowed to get in the way of what the rest of the International Community thinks and wants? UNSCOM is trusted and has credibility. US arms inspectors (without independent oversight) do not.

The fact that the "US and UK spent blood and $100B+ in treasure to overthrow Saddam" is an irrelevance to what should happen now. The US and the UK are not the kind of nations which go to war for plunder, nor should they be. You rightly condemn France and Russia for this kind of cynically self interested greed, let's not allow our two great nations to ape their behaviour and morality.

[OFBSLF]

And is there proof that either Ritter or Galloway took Iraqi money?I don't know about Galloway and/or money, but it sure looks like Ritter is a perv:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76196,00.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins012403.asp

[Jackonicko]

"The fact that Scott Ritter, George Galloway, various U.S. congressmen, and journalists from throughout the Arab and Western world have taken millions in Saddam's cash for their service to the regime......"

OK Ritter's a sex offender (if he wasn't set up), Galloway's a stupid, gullible, greedy, unpatriotic lefty ****, many US congressmen are similar and journos (as we know are unreliable scum).

But where's the proof of these people taking cash from Saddam?

[The Flymo]

Has anyone seen this? Could be the tip of the iceberg and justify why it was right to go in.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/world/newsid_3010000/3010001.stm

[BlueWolf]

What a crock.

One truck which may or may not be equipped to replicate certain biological agents doesn't prove Dick Squat.

How old is the truck, and how long has the equipment been fitted to it? When was it manufactured, and when was it registered? What's the wear and tear on the gearshift, the pedals, the door handles like? Is this a well-used biological weapons laboratory, or a very recent fit-up?

This war had Jack Schitd to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction. Everyone knows it. Why are we pretending?

Face it; chemical weapons are not WMD. They are local theatre denial weapons.

Biological weapons are only WMD if you have the means to deploy them widely, and even then, it's hit and miss.

The only real WMD are nukes, and thanks to our excellent allies and true friends in Tel Aviv, Saddam didn't have any.

This war was all about oil and money, control of the reserves, the dollar versus the Euro, and about curtailing Saudi influence, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a naive fool.

Saddam Hussein was (as I have said before) a psycopathic genocidal fascist thug who needed got rid of, and that was reason enough to go in and remove him. Switching from the Dollar to the Euro was a real threat to the US/UK way of life, and that was also reason enough. The UN is a useless, pointless waste of time, money, effort and oxygen, and ignoring it was the right thing to do.
Why are we bothering to pretend?

The UN only continues to exist because the Yanks give it money, credence, a place to live, and the ultimate threat of the availability of military force. Without the US, the UN is nothing. Can anyone really, seriously, imagine the desperate, disparate nations of the world organising anything, or achieving consensus, without the Americans providing leadership, commonsense and money?

To hell with the whiners, the apologists, the sycophants, the pinkos and the softcocks.

Let's just come straight out and admit why we did this thing, and challenge anyone who wants to, to make us undo it.

The only thing we have to be, which we have not been so far, in order to retain the moral high ground, is honest.

[A Civilian]

Excellent post BlueWolf but I have to reply to Flymo instead of you. Do you usually get your news from BBC Newsround :D

[El Grifo]

Bluewolf

I wonder what is most likely, finding weapons of mass destruction, or the US being honest.

That is truly a tough call !!

[BlueWolf]

Mutually exclusive options perhaps, El Grifo...
;)

[Flatus Veteranus]

Blue Wolf

I suppose I am as cynical as the next guy. But within the last two weeks (or so) I have heard Adm Boyce (CDS), Gen Jackson (CGS) and AM Burridge (OC Brit Forces, Gulf) each say, without apparant coercion, that they are still convinced that there are WMD in Iraq. I simply cannot believe that such men could be involved in a conspiracy of the sort your views imply.

I believe that the collective term "WMD" was Soviet in origin and they defined it to include what NATO called NBC weapons. It is a useful shorthand but cannot be taken too literally in all circumstances. I can think of many areas of NZ where the release of nerve gas would only destroy some sheep. But the same release by terrorists in the London underground at rush hour would cause a massacre. The dispatch of terrorists already infected with Smallpox or Ebola in airliners to major Western cities does not bear contemplation. And it was these delivery "systems", rather than crude missiles, shells and bombs that threatened the West .

It is clear that Iraq sheltered many terrorist organisations, some of which may have had loose links with Al Qa'eda, that did not look kindly on the West.

[Jackonicko]

Strictly speaking what you say is correct FV, but that isn't the definition of WMD used to 'sell' this war. It was clear that what the US Government was talking about was large quantities of militarily deployable chemical weapons, perhaps with a robust bio programme and a developing nuclear threat.

Merely harbouring terrorists who 'did not look kindly on the West' would put much of the ME on the target list, perhaps together with the UK, and even the USA itself.

[reynoldsno1]

From the Washington Post 11 May 2003

BAGHDAD -- The group directing all known U.S. search efforts for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is winding down operations without finding proof that President Saddam Hussein kept clandestine stocks of outlawed arms, according to participants.

The 75th Exploitation Task Force, as the group is formally known, has been described from the start as the principal component of the U.S. plan to discover and display forbidden Iraqi weapons. The group's departure, expected next month, marks a milestone in frustration for a major declared objective of the war.

[T_richard]

Excuse me

I think they found 4 mobile chem labs built on the backs of flatbed trailers. It seems the chem labs did exist. SOrry to disappoint you guys

[Jackonicko]

The problem is that while Iraq probably did have illegal WMD programmes, which put it technically in breach of UN requirements and resolutions, the US justification for war was on the basis that Iraqi WMD posed a 'clear and present danger' to US security, with the inference that WMD were not only being developed and/or tested, but were actually deployed and available. The USA's pre-war intelligence reports made this clear, emphasising the widespread distribution and availability of WMD. The impression given was that allied troops would be in great danger from Iraqi WMD, and would be tripping over these as they advanced. It was not the case that war was being launched because the Iraqis had a handful of truck-mounted research labs.

Thus finding laboratory equipment is technically interesting, and a breach, but does not constitute the level of threat which the US suggested existed in Iraq, and therefore doesn't satisfy those who are looking for proof.

[T_richard]

LOL Why am I not surprised. First the bitch was that they hadn't found ANY WMD, etc. Even though the bullets were still flying all over Iraq. Now we find the labs, mobile labs, in DIRECT violation of UN resolutions (the ones everyone said they didn't violate) but that isn't enough anymore. Now its only a TECHNICAL violation of the resolutions. What utter cr*p. Please admit just once that if you saw GWB walk across the waters of the Engish Channel your only comment would be " See I told you he can't swim"


You are all frauds.:yuk:

[Jackonicko]

If the US hadn't wanted people to judge what it meant by WMD, it should not have been so clear in its pre-war briefings.

We were led to expect a smoking gun. NOT blueprints for a gun which might one day, in the distant future, begin to smoke.

And again: Where have all the chemicals gone? Not four derelict lorries.

[T_richard]

Not four derelict lorries.

Thats interesting but what about the Opinions of experts who have stated publically that these are genuine chemical weapons manufacturing plants on wheels.

Like I said before no matter what is uncovered you will never be satisfied

[BlueWolf]

Fair point FV, though the Aum Sect had nowhere the level of "success" they had hoped for by releasing Sarin in the Tokyo subway.

I don't doubt the integrity of senior officers either, but the question remains, if there are, or were, banned weapons in Iraq, which justified the military action taken, given that Saddam was supposed to be on the brink of using them, then why didn't he use them, why has no-one been able to find them, and where are they now?

Frankly, I couldn't give a toss whether he had the damn things or not; he was someone who needed got rid of, and now he's gone.

But equally frankly, I simply don't believe the reasons given for the invasion, I do believe it was done for other reasons, and I would find it easier to respect those responsible for initiating the action taken if they had the balls to come straight out and admit it.

Ebolar or smallpox on an airliner would be a major worry, but equally, it could be launched from anywhere.

[solotk]

Not four derelict lorries.

Forgive me for saying so T_Richard , but this doesn't look exactly battle ready and 45 min deployable to me....


http://eur.news1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/xp/ap_photo/20030509/all/l815315.jpg

The point we are all arguing the toss over is : Where are the chemical and biological nasties that Saddam was supposed to have, ready and available. Where are the stores of weapons. Remember, we went into Iraq, because he had umpteen thousand Gallons of Sarin and Anthrax. What did he do, flush them down the toilet when the 5-Oh crossed the border?

We went into Iraq, and good men and women died, to save the world from the threat of weapons of Mass destruction, except, they don't appear to have been found yet. We asked the question, "Well surely they've gone to the sites that they had earmarked as definite centres?"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3018063.stm

US Central Command began the war with a list of 19 top weapons sites - only two remain to be searched.

Another list enumerated 68 top "non-WMD sites," without known links to special weapons but judged to have the potential to offer clues. Of those, the tally at midweek showed 45 surveyed without success.

"Why are we doing any planned targets?" said Army Chief Warrant Officer Richard L Gonzales, leader of Mobile Exploitation Team Alpha, reports the Washington Post.

"Answer me that. We know they're empty."

Normally, I agree with Blue Wolf's arguements, but this time I hesitate. Yes, we may have been right to get rid of Saddam. Unfortunately, it appears that his role was very much the same as Tito's. If we can't get food into the bellies, money into the pockets and fuel into the cars of the Iraqi civpop , then we're going to be in trouble.

[T_richard]

No it doesn't look 45 minute deployable, it looks looted of canvas, tires, plumbing and everything else a person could carry.

FORGIVE me Solotk for pointing out what should be obvious to anyone who has watched events unfold in the last month, but there is not a building or a vehicle in Iraq that has not been looted unless it was guarded from day one. For you to assume that the trailer in question is derelict because it lacks canvas, and some piping is to admit that you will only believe what you want to believe.

If SH didn't have WMD please explain to the surving Kurds who killed their people. Did he dump them down the toilet? I don't know, but I would be willing to wait the months and years all of the hand wringers were willing to wait before I started throwing bricks. I am sure that after the shock and awe campaign said weapons, stocks of raw material and manufacturing equipment are either carefully hidden or buried or are in serious disrepair.

You didn't really expect to find a freshly painted bomb wrapped in plastic waiting at SH's palace for the press to photograph did you. Actually you probably did, and if it had been there you would have said it was planted by the US.

[RatherBeFlying]

Bush trumpeted Saddam's WMD as an imminent danger to the region and the USA itself.

A few rusty containers and traces fall far short of the mark in restoring Bush's heavy expenditure of credibility.

Looks more and more like a flim-flam man to me, and many others.

As for getting rid of Saddam, the Kurds and Shi'ites would have been overjoyed to do the job themselves. The Afghani model with the donation of a few thousand second-hand tanks would have done the job for a fraction of the price.

[G.Khan]

" Saddam was supposed to be on the brink of using them, then why didn't he use them?"

Well, one very good reason why Saddam didn't use them is that Saddam may well have been either dead or totally out of commission. Given the kind of operation he ran it is quite probable that his deputies would shrink from such a decision either in fear of him reappearing or retribution when they were finally caught, but would not have known if Saddam was dead or alive.

Personally, I think that given that Saddam had twelve years to plan the perfect escape and money enough to buy the best brains available to help him it is hard to believe that he hasn't already legged it.

Given the cynicism of the media, ( and many here on PPRuNe!), I would not be surprised if the USA didn't hoard all their evidence for one convincing showing rather than trot it out in dribs and drabs, to be forgotten as soon as another juicy headline showed up.

[Danny]

Some intelligence sources believe that Syria disposed of Saddam Hussein's WMD by moving them into eastern Lebanon for burial in the Beqaa Valley. It is possible that Iraq's biological weapons are there too. It's alleged they were interred deep under the heroin poppy and cotton fields in two of the most fertile regions of Lebanon: the valley stretching between Jabal Akroum, the town of al Qbayyat and the Syrian border, and the land lying between the towns of Al Hirmil and al Labwah between the Orontes River and the Syrian frontier.

The relocation of Iraq's WMD systems is believed to have taken place between January 10 and March 10 and was completed just 10 days before the US-led offensive was launched against Iraq. The banned arsenal, hauled in giant tankers from Iraq to Syria and from there to the Bekaa Valley under Syrian special forces and military intelligence escort, was discharged into pits 6-8 meters across and 25-35 meters deep dug by Syrian army engineers. They were sealed and planted over with new seedlings.

US secretary of state Colin Powell made several demands including one for a map with the coordinates of the pits holding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction when he visited Damascus on May 3rd. Washington is now waiting for President Bashar Assad to respond to the ultimatum. He was put on notice to report on the arsenal's whereabouts in Lebanon after he removed this hot potato from Syria.

The Syrians made a placatory gesture to Washington by speeding and upgrading the handover of Iraqi fugitives from the Saddam regime sheltering in Syria. On April 28th, Dr Rihab Taha, a microbiologist known as Dr Germ, was turned over to the Americans in Iraq. She had directed Iraq's biological weapons program. Also turned over was Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash, who headed Iraq's anthrax project. The surrender 24 hours later of Taha's husband, General Amir Muhammed Rasheed, director of Iraq's missile development program and best known by his nickname "The Missile Man", was announced.

There will no doubt be more news forthcoming over the next few weeks as the diplomatic manouvering settles down in light of the changing dynamics of the region. The Americans are sitting tight on valuable Iraq intelligence archives discovered at the intelligence headquarters in Baghdad and at various sub-departments. The only data released so far are a few leaks to the British media calculated to help Tony Blair stand up to anti-war campaigners (Galloway?) at home and around Europe.

America has distributed to its war allies some materials relevant to their national security but no decision has been taken as to documents attesting to the clandestine ties of collaboration maintained with the Saddam regime by a whole range of foreign government and public office-holders, academics, media figures, financiers and industrialists the world over, many deeply involved in sanctions-busting. By and large, Washington is not inclined to bare these secrets or make use of them at the moment, except in some notable cases. One is French president Jacques Chirac. Another is the head of the International Atomic Energy Commission in Vienna, Dr Mohammed ElBaradai, who led the nuclear weapons inspection in Iraq before the war.

[T_richard]

Interesting Danny but of course you know that all of that intelligence is nothing but B***s*** planted by the imperialistic American duo of Cheney and Rumsfeld the true powers behind the throne of the imbeslilic and illegal President Bush. After all as GrandPa will freely tell anyone who will listen it is the French particularly Jacques Chirac who are the true statesmen in this unneccesaryconflict . No payoffs, no sweetheart oil deals for the French. Mais Non! we are Fearless French, the evidence that exposes us as money grubbing, backstabbing frauds is all circumstantial or fabricated.

My second favorite rant is the "See its been two days since the invasion started and The Yanks haven't taken Bagdahad yet, well this is a quagmire they'll never get out of. Yup another Vietnam................. Opps they did it, well of course they did, Hell they could have given the Kurds a few thousand second hand tanks and saved everyone a lot of time and money"

Complete Frauds the total lot

[solotk]

Yep, I see your point T_R , looted of everything, nice of them to add rust as well, not just on the framing, but on the equipment as well.

The arguement was, Saddam had materiel that could be brought into play at 45 mins notice. Where is it? No, I don't expect brand new shrunk wrapped munitions. I expected rusty old drums and leaking cases, like the stuff UNMOVIC found in 1992-1994

I would be willing to wait months and years too, if it justified the death of just one member of the coalition forces. However, Colin Powell presented EVIDENCE to the UN, as the justification for war.

Those sites are being checked, and so far , a great big zippo. Odd, no? If you're so sure that's where they are, and you go there, and find nothing?

Danny's source may be right, maybe they are in lebanon in which case, the NSA should have satellite intel of convoys of trucks moving into Syria and out to Lebanon. Syria doesn't have a leg to stand on, after all, they are under heroin/poppy fields, and we don't want those around anyway. So, lets destroy them, compensate the farmers and get digging.Finding evidence of large scale excavations shouldn't be too hard. Just looked at www.digitalglobe.com for satellite imagery of the area, and it appears to be more heavily photographed than Jordans Puppies :)

These weapons if they exist, have to be found, if only for the reasons that once in the wrong hands, they might well be used.

But for that to happen , they have to exist. Mobile laboratories are not WMD's. they are an integral part of the process of making Chem/Bio weapons, but they are not the nasties discussed.
If they are found, it will vindicate Bush and Blair, then maybe we can turn to the important issue. Stopping Iraq collapsing into Iran
II

[T_richard]

So now the US is supposed to just roll into Syria and dig up their poppie fields?? What is this a joke. First they absolutely didn't exist and Bush is a criminal, now maybe they do exist and we should ignore Syria's soverign borders and just go get them before the WMD are turned over to the terrorists you all said they'd never be given to. Please make up you mind. I am getting dizzy.

Ahh any metal covered by a canvas tarp as the frame in the pic was intended to be so covered would rust even while the tarp was in place. You make assumptions based on faulty logic. Look at the whell hubs, they look pretty good for a trailer that has been sitting in a field for God know how long

[solotk]

Not Syria T_R , Lebanon. I'm not suggesting invading the place, I said dig and compensate. I don't remember saying they absolutely didn't exist either. As I've said before , where are they? Danny offers a possible scenario, If it's the case, then it should be investigated. You don't need to invade to investigate.

Ahh any metal covered by a canvas tarp as the frame in the pic was intended to be so covered would rust even while the tarp was in place

How? Our wagons have the same assembly covered in the same way. and they don't, and this is nasty foggy wet England. Oh, and the stands under the eqipment are rusted too. I think they've been there a very long time. The area of discovery is odd too, but as you say, I'm probably just looking for any excuse to beat Bush and Blair over the head, I shouldn't be, because they're already doing such a good job without my help.

In the UK, we haven't been subjected to quite the same barrage of biased press coverage you have been in the US, and so we take our news from different sources, and collate the same, not to find the pieces that conform to our point of view, but to find the pieces that will actually tell us, what the hell is going on.
Genghis makes a good point, maybe they are all being saved for one big announcement. Maybe they are so dispersed, that the only real impact, would be to have a "Paraded captured weapons" presentation?

We, the sceptics, would like to see nasty leaky rusty drums of chemicals, we would like to see bacteria farms and some really hard evidence of weapons that were deployable. If they are not available, then Saddam didn't have them as a ready-use item, which is why we went to war.

[RatherBeFlying]

Given intelligence reports that WMDs are dumped into pits 6-8 meters across and 25-35 meters deep dug by Syrian army engineers. They were sealed and planted over with new seedlings. I see two possibilities:[list=1]
If the Syrians constructed tanks to hold the WMD, there should be ample satellite imagery of the construction process.
If they're just simple pits dug into earth, the WMD are effectively destroyed which raises the question why Saddam didn't dig the pits in Iraq and invite Blix & Co. to watch.[/list=1]Now if intelligence shows that just about all Saddam's WMDs have been planted in the Bekaa Valley, why did the Yanks go to the bother of looking in Iraq if they know where militarily significant quantities already are?

Lots of stories and guesses, including a few of mine.

So far no solid evidence.

[T_richard]

Solotk

Syria, Lebanon same thing.....:E :E :E (I'm kidding , I'm kidding)

who was it who said that Americans go to war to learn geography? I loved the Doonesberry cartoon about only 10% of Americas under 23 y/o know where Iraq is, the problem for Iraq is that they are all US Marines!:D

Solotk I will wait for the history books to be written before I judge GWB on the WMD issue. We all assume that we know everything about the issue, all of us are speculating at best, unless someone on PPRUNE owns a spy satelite(sp) and gathers their own intel.
It is clear to me that in the long run, we did the people of Iraq a huge favor by going in there.

[El Grifo]

A more worrying possibility is that they were looted.

Across Iraq - not just in Baghdad and Basra - practically every government and military facility was looted long before US or British troops were able to control them.

It might be that the weapons are now on the black market.

"'It means the weapons would now be proliferating, which is exactly what the war was meant to stop," said Garth Whitty, a former weapons inspector in Iraq in the 1990s.

[Jackonicko]

TR,

Go and look how long ago Iraq gassed the Kurds in Halabja (sp). It's certainly of no immediate relevance to the issue of Iraqi WMD today.

If the threat was so 'clear and present' then provide some real evidence.

Simple.

[BlueWolf]

solotk, that is a good point; I have actually thought of Saddam in the same vein as Tito myself. But, as Tito did, Saddam was going to croak one day anyway, which leaves the same void to be filled.

Under Saddam, Iraq was a (relatively) moderate, secular state; Islamic fundamentalism was supressed, women were allowed to show their faces, the people were educated, and, until the invasion of Kuwait, fairly affluent.

Even this time around, the footage we were shown of Iraqi hospitals showed that they were modern, well-resourced, and plentiful.

Then again, he was also a murdering bastard who raped for fun and gassed people for being ethnically different.
Three nations coddled into one, and held together by one man's brutality, was never going to last, and I for one do not mourn that man's passing.

And if the intelligence which says that Iraq's purported WMD are in Lebanon is correct, you can bet your bottom dollar that Bush knew that before the invasion began, which brings us back to the question of Real Reasons.

[Flatus Veteranus]

I don't know why everyone is getting so excited because the Iraqi stocks of WMD have not been found yet. Lets face it, we have been looking for the IRA arms dumps (which they cheerfully admit to possessing) for 30-odd years now, without success. :confused:

[Woff1965]

If the Iraqi looting team had stripped these "chemical production vehicles" of wheels, canvas, equipment and (particularly) piping then why, oh why are there not mounds of dead Iraqi looters stacked like cordwood downwind from these trucks? Unless of course they had not been used for the purpose for some time.

Even if they had been production vehicles then I suspect they could not produce a lot of nerve agent per day. To use chemical weapons effectively a huge quantitly of agent needs to be used to achieve a LD50 dose even on a windless day, if there is a breeze then the amount required increases to several TONS to achieve LD50. And that is with nerve agents.

Unless the agent is extremely pure and mixed with other chemicals to stabilize it the agent will decay over a period of time until it becomes nasty rather than fatal. If Saddam had made VX or GB in 1990 it is likely to be of declining value.

I would reiterate the point that I made in a earlier post, and has been made elsewhere by others, if he had this stuff ready for use it would have been found when the Allies overran the the first Brigade or Divisional ammo dump. It would not be shipped to Syria for a holiday it would be used - he had nothing to lose by its use. As for their burrial in Syria that sounds like a plot Tom Clancy would dream up after a good session on LSD. I would suggest the ideal (fictional) character to find these (fictional) weapons would be Indiana Jones in his forthcoming movie "Indiana Jones and the Weapons of Doom!".

As for someone stealing Iraqi chemical munitions (badly made, rusting and leaking), good luck to them. I hope to read about their exploits in a forthcoming edition of the Darwin awards.

[solotk]

From the International Institute of Slimy Sods

Failure to find Iraqi arms 'surprising'


The International Institute for Strategic Studies in London issued a report in September last year about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, saying that Iraq probably had "a few hundred tons" of mustard gas, precursors for other agents and VX gas from earlier stocks.

It was the first major report on Iraqi capabilities and proved helpful to Washington and London as they made their own cases against Iraq in the following weeks.

At the launching of its annual Strategic Survey, Dr Gary Samore, one of the experts who wrote the Iraq report, accepted that neither chemical weapons nor the munitions to deliver them had been found, nor were likely to be found in large quantities, despite the predictions of the IISS and the British and US governments. "The absence of chemical weapons was a big surprise," he said.



Does that mean you'll be giving the Government back the fees then?

:mad:

Overpaid shiney-arsed bar stewards

.and from the latest report

International terrorism: "It would be unwise, in view of the latest explosions in Saudi Arabia, to conclude that the audacity of the Iraq intervention had intimidated anti-American terrorists as well as rogue regimes."

I predict Iraq will be poor for a bit yet, and there will be growing resentment at the occupying forces. That'll be £1,000,000 for stating the bleedin obvious please KA-CHING!!!

T*ssers :mad: :mad: :mad:

[PercyDragon]

OK. So who gives a s*** if there aren't any WMDs anyway?

The great thing about going into Iraq is that we showed these chanting mouthy Rag-heads who's number one on this planet.
Incidentally, I note that there are a considerable number of mass graves turning up, along with a great many stories about how persecuted the Iraqis were under Saddam.

The best thing we can now do is hand the country over to the UN and get the hell out of the place. The UN can in turn can hand it back to the Iraqis and then we can sit back and see them f*** it all up again. But that's OK, because as long as they spend most of their waking hours banging their heads on the ground and praying to Allah it will stop them flying planes into high buildings back here in the civilised world.

God I'm glad I'm English.

[Woff1965]

Err....the 9/11 kamikaze pilots were mostly Saudi's not Iraqi's.

[moggie]

As a friend of mine reminded me today,

O peration
I raqi
L iberation !

Enough said!

[moggie]

and, of course, we are STILL waiting.

[Archimedes]

But Moggie: it was Operation Iraqi Freedom, not 'Liberation'.

So:

Operation
Iraqi
Fossil Fuel

instead, perhaps?

[Brakes...beer]

Shells of blister agent have been found in Iraq and were being looked after by Allied troops as far back as April.

I can only assume these stocks are being saved for some sort of comprehensive announcement. This may explain Tony Blair's smug certainty on the subject as the Poisoned Dwarf et al dig themselves ever deeper into a hole.

[moggie]

We still don't have an answer, do we?

Now it seems like our own MPs and Intelligence Staff believed all along that even if they were there they could not be a threat to the UK. Does this not invalidate the sole legal justification for the war?

Don't get me wrong - getting rid of Saddam would be a great move (but have we done it yet?). However, if we are to hold the moral high ground it must be done LEGALLY!

And TB was advised that invading Iraq and toppling Saddam would INCREASE the risk of terrorism by allowing Al Qaeda to gain access to Iraqi technology - yet he chose to ignore that evidence. The current "unrest" in Iraq may just be proving a point, Mr Bliar.

[Archimedes]

Moggie,

I think (but would welcome correction from a legal sort) that the legality of the operation was based not on whether Saddam had WMD, but on the fact that he was not co-operating fully with the UN inspectors. By not doing so, he was in breach of UNSCR 1441, which was used as the justification. Also, the breaches of UNSCRs left, right, centre, down and up was added as back up- again, these were predicated on the suspicion that he had a WMD programme, and the UN had demanded that he - NOT they - prove unequivocally that he did not have either the weapons or a programme. Although 1441 didn't specifically authorise force, there was sufficient room for the US and UK to claim leigitimacy.

On the other hand, threre was a good article in a recent RUSI Journal which gave an eloquent explanation of why the war was illegal (but again, this didn't revolve around possession of actual WMD).

Quite why Saddam didn't say:

'We have no WMD. Please come to Iraq, Dr Blix. Spend as long as you like, go anywhere you like, and my officials will not do anything to interfere with your investigations (not if they know what's good for them). Then please reveal to the world that the Great Satan and its poodle have been lying. And then please lift sanctions, by the way' is rather odd. I can only surmise that a) he had a WMD programme he wanted to conceal or b) he felt he would lose face if he was proven not to be cocking a snook at the US by complying with UN demands.

The end result was that although Blix and co thought they were making some progress, they didn't make enough to show that Saddam was complying fully with UNSCR 1441. Dubya and Tony then waded in, pausing only to answer CDS's pointed query as to whether the war was legal.

[timzsta]

It is now my humble opinion that the Secretary General of the UN should give the governments of the USA and UK 90 days to find irrefutable evidence that Iraq had, in March 2003, WMD that posed a clear and imminent danger to Iraqs neighbours, and that they could be launched within 45 minutes, as claimed by the UK government.

Failure to do so will result in George W Bush and Tony Blair facing war crimes charges.

Thoughts???

[Archimedes]

It'd mean the end of the UN as a political organisation.

First, the US and UK govts would tell Kofi Anan that he's in no position to make such ultimatums/ultimata (it's the job of the UNSC). result = UNSC debate.

US and UK veto without doubt. Probably a veto from China as well (could limit their freedom of action).

Debate in Congress, followed by legislation telling UN to clear off from New York post haste...

The point is that the legal justification (whatever one thinks of it's validity, it is a justification that could be argued in a court) isn't dependent upon Saddam having WMD. It was predicated on his having a WMD development programme (or not) and not complying totally with UNSCR 1441. The war was the US/UK definition of 'serious consequences'.

It was also that of Poland, Australia and Kuwait (and possible one or two other nations who gave support, tacitly or overtly).

Finally, such a resolution would probably be vetoed by the French, since it would open some interesting possibilities for some of their leaders that the French wouldn't want explored...

[moggie]

Well, in the eyes of the UN who had passed that resolution he WAS complying because the inspectors were in there, were doing the job and had reasonable access.

Of course the Septics didn't want there to be NO evidence so jumped in ther, forcing the UN inspectors out!

The invasion was NOT legal (i.e. in accordance with the UN rsolution) because it was not sanctioned by the UN - it was a US/UK effort which bypassed the whole UN security council procedure.

[Archimedes]

Moggie,

If you'll forgive a slight bit of devil's advocacy rooted in pedantry and semantics...

They couldn't because two of the P5 states said he wasn't, and would've vetoed any resolution that said that he was. In effect, the UN was left in a position where it couldn't officially express an opinion.

Also, until the UNSC officially said that Saddam had met his obligations under UNSCR 1441, Saddam was officially in breach of UNSCR 687 (ordering the surrender of WMD development capability/or WMD themselves). 1441 said explicitly that 687 had not been met.

The end result is that the UN's official position (since it did not come to one on 1441) was that Iraq was in breach of UNSCR 687...

Finally, Hans Blix did not say that the Iraqis were fully complying with 1441. His statements imply that the Iraqis were making greater efforts than in 1991 (not difficult, frankly), but do not say that they were complying - rather, his reminder to Saddam that he was required to provide "immediate, active and unconditional cooperation" suggests that it wasn't quite as required - messing around with the interviews of the scientists didn't help.

The final blow struck for the Axis of Believers would be that there is enough evidence that the diplomatic world and his dog understand that 'serious consequences' means 'use of military force', and that the French, Russians and Chinese chose to re-translate this, stating in a proviso to the resolution that they thought that this did not imply 'automaticity' [yuk] of use of force'. However, it can be argued (and has been) that the French, Russians and Chinese botched this, since the majority of the UNSC voted in favour of 1441 without adopting the proviso. In which case, did the UNSC accept the US or UK interpretation or not, since it was well known that this was how the US and UK would interpret the wording - in which case, the three ought to have vetoed the resolution.

Or...

This is far too long already - but what I'm trying (and probably failing) to do is to suggest that a decent team of defence lawyers would probably inflict fatal damage on the credibility of the UNSC and UNSCRs in their efforts to get Bush and Blair off; also, they'd have a very good chance of arguing that there was legality (or hints of it) hiding behind their actions...

[SPIT]

I don't think that the MUSTARD GAS shells/cylinders that they found (after 70 years) in FRANCE have anything to do with it.
Not even Tony/Bush would be that desperate (WOULD OR ARE THEY ???) as these shells/cylinders were BRITISH/ALLIED.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[BEagle]

Well - Throbbin' Cock's disclosures in today's Sunday Chipwrapper make interesting reading. He alleges that Trust-me-Tone knew perfectly well that there were no usable Iraqi WMD poised to threaten us.....

Now the Downing St spin has already started. Just how much longer can Bliar, BuffHoon and the rest continue?

There's also an interesting story about the Nimrod 2000...err, 2001 - or was it 2002? 2003?? 200MRA4??? No - it looks like 2005 or 2006 now. Time to throw it away and put the mission system into an A321 with a stores bay, perhaps I might suggest? For verily I say unto thee, truly hath the Bungling Baron Waste o'Space bungled big time over this!