To this point I am under the impression that no WoMD have been located.

My question, for those of you who believe that Saddam possesses WoMD, in light of the impending defeat of Saddam's regime, why would he not use chemical, or biological weapons if he did have them?

I think we can all agree that Saddam is an evil person, but he is hardly unintelligent, and is probably quite aware of the situation he is. The old saying, "desperate men do desperate things" certainly applies here.

Certainly you're not speculating that the reasons presented for "Operation Iraqi Freedom" bear no resemblance to the actual reasons for the coalition onslaught. Certainly not....

TBH, I was surprised S. didn't use such weapons during the first Gulf war. Throwing a few SSMs at Israel seems like a pretty feeble response for an alleged madman in possession of weapons only good, God-fearing Euro-Americans should have. And that only good, God-fearing Euro-Americans have ever been verified to have used (rumors of chemical warfare against Kurds notwithstanding).

-- Mal

I don't think the rumors are just rumors. I thought it had been substantiated by Kurdish testimony that he used chemical weapons against the Kurds. I saw Kurdish woman on TV who had clawed at her face as a result of being exposed to a chemical weapon so much that she was completely disfigured.

Surely, you aren't suggesting that using chemical weapons against the Kurds doesn't count?

Watching cnn coverage the last two days I've been hearing talk about WMD being trucked to Syria and other reports about Baath party members fleeing there as well..Want to bet that Bush plans on going into Syria next,looking for the elusive WMD.

Lets hope Bush comes to his senses before he decides that the easiest way to control terrorism is to control the world. :D

Personally, I don't believe that Saddam possesed WoMD and the fact that Powell was less than truthful with the UN about the supposed WoMD just adds further questions about the integrity of Bush's administration.

God Help Us All There. :D

There remains the possibility that WoMD may be uncovered...this thing is far from over. The possibility that they have been trucked into Syria is very real. I am giving them until the end of the unraveling of Iraq before I am guessing that there are/aren't any WoMD at all, but if Saddam wants the Arab world to believe that he is the great man he makes himself out to be, surely he would have had any that remained removed rather than leave them to be discovered...that is, provided he had them after being ordered to destroy them.

Its all still to "if-fy" imo.

Hilarious question from a BBC journalist at yesterday's briefing: "Will this be the first war to be won before the reasons for the war were discovered?"

:D

It may be too late for Sh to use WoMD. The Coalition troops are so close to the Iraqis that chemical (and certainly biological) will be likely to hit the Iraqis themselves should they be deployed.

We shouldn´t forget that this is not over yet.

I saw on the news some days ago a map on Baghdad and it´s surroundings with a red circle around it. It showed the reach of any possible WoMD in Baghdad and that was around the time the Coalition just reached Baghdads outskirts so it´s far from over.

Saddam have had some WoMD and have used them on the Kurds in northern Iraq, and even though the UN inspectors have been in Iraq, S. probably have some left stacked away somewhere. But then again so does many other countries.

Probably.

Centcomm is saying (and I am inclined to agree) that getting Saddam Hussein out of his position of power in Iraq has priority over any searches for WoMD if none are uncovered prior to his removal.

If in fact Saddam is the madman that he is reported to be, you would think he would use chemical weapons IF he has them.

Reports have been flying regarding the gassing of his own people during the last several years, so why would it matter to him now?

<font color=orange>MSNBC is reporting that tests have come up positive for traces of nerve and blister agent at a site south of Baghdad. Just got the breaking news e-mail.

I also heard on NPR this moning coming into work that around twenty armed medium range missiles were found with warheads containing serin and mustard gas. There was also a missile launcher. They were all found in a warehouse. The thought was that they could pull out of the warehouse set up and fire the missile, then takeback down and pull back into the warehouse without being seen. Apparently the soldiers who manned the launcher fled, without firing a shot. this was found by the 101st Airbourne Division.

Sorry, no links. Though you might go look on NPR's website.

</font>

I heard the same news on FOX this morning as well as seeing a very short clip of soldiers being decomtaminated...there are likely to be links galore by mid-afternoon. ;) [img]smile.gif[/img]

I am sure some will be found soon but more will be found when certain key scientists are found.

Leastways when we've had enough time to plant some...

Chemical agents are hard to deploy without accurate long range ballistics and properly timed fuses that detonate the rounds above ground. They also poison the land for a period of time. Using them would also invite us to use WOMD in response.

OOF! [img]graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

I've been waiting for this to come out. ;)

Of course we'll plant them. The democratic countries taking part in this war, who have graciously allowed embedded reporting to view all of their actions in minute detail, will go to a great deal of trouble to ship over and plant chemical weapons just to prove to the world that this guy really does have them.

That's *far* more likely to be the case than assuming an insane despot who has a proven track record of using chemical weapons and ruling his country with a reign of terror, actually has them.

[/sarcasm]

I'm as distrustful of and cynical about the actions of the western governments as the next anarchist ( ;) ), but I think you are a little too quick to assume that we are the bad guys in this war, rather than the mass murderer on the other side with the track history of using the very weapons he claims not to have.

But then, you probably believe that the Iraqi Information Minister is correct, and there are no tanks of US origin in Bagdhad, that US soldiers are being slaughtered in their thousands in the city, and that Iraq is on the verge of a glorious victory resulting in the complete destruction of the coalition forces. After all, we all claim the exact opposite, and anything the coalition says must be a lie.

Yes, we should question the actions of governments and organisations that we are suspicious of, and yes - speaking out in opposition to the government is one of those rights that we (as opposed to Saddam) hold dear. I would think the least reward we could actually get would be a bit of trust when it came to life or death matters like WoMD.

If I know a cop (even one with previous rumours of excessive use of force) who has arrested a drug dealer with previous convictions and beat him up in the process, but afterwards evidence is found that the drug dealer drew a gun, then i will believe the cop is being truthful and the dealer is a scumbag. I will keep an open mind, and allow myself to believe that any evidence against the cop may well be verifiable, but until that evidence is shown, I believe the cop.

If we find a chemical weapons stash, and a team of coalition forensic experts deems that it is indeed genuine, then I will believe them, and think that if anyone wants to shout "fit-up!", then it is up to them to prove we planted the weapons.

Saddam is a proven liar. He has used chemical weapons before. He kills, tortures and maims his own people. He rules through terror, persecution and oppression. He lives in fantastic luxury while his people live in squalor. Aid shipments and money meant for the people of Iraq instead found it's way into his bank account.

I know the USA, UK, Australia etc aren't perfect, but come on - don't you think we deserve just a little bit of credit? Just even a tiny little bit?

Is it really that much of a stretch to believe that -gasp- the coalition might just be telling the truth, and Saddam might be lying?

As I've said, I'm all for people having an open mind and questioning authority and their government, but I don't think you do have an open mind, Skunk. You are the one with a closed mind, determined to believe what you want to believe, no matter the cost. I think you would do a little better to try and view things with a bit less harshness towards the coalition, and a bit more towards Saddam's regime.

[ 04-07-2003, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: Bardan the Slayer ]

Not yet Skunk, I haven't finished brewing my batch up for the evil "Bush regime" and the vast Rightwing Anlgo/American/Big oil/anti-enviromentalist conspiracy. How about you guys Sir T and Mordenheim, have you finished brewing up your batches? Isn't the colection point for our "home brew" the "Grassy Knoll"? Or do we have to take it to Area51 so the aleins can plant it useing their super dupper double secret technolgy?

*Spoiler*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*Illustrating absurdity by absurdity :D

Here is the link.. "U.S. forces near Baghdad found a weapons cache of around 20 medium-range missiles equipped with potent chemical weapons, the U.S. news station National Public Radio reported on Monday.

NPR, which attributed the report to a top official with the 1st Marine Division, said the rockets, BM-21 missiles, were equipped with sarin and mustard gas and were "ready to fire." It quoted the source as saying new U.S. intelligence data showed the chemicals were "not just trace elements."

It said the cache was discovered by Marines with the 101st Airborne Division, which was following up behind the Army after it seized Baghdad's international airport.

U.S. Central Command headquarters in Qatar had no immediate comment." I found that on The Washington Post, certainly no Bush Administration backer. Give us mean old Republicans a break. If we were going for a throw-down, we would have planted a nuke, not boring old sarin and mustard gas.

[ 04-07-2003, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: Attalus ]

Attalus,
I'm pretty sure your batch has to go to the "Grassy Knoll" since you're in Texas. Don't forget to wear your aluminum foil hat so the mircowaves beamed from triple secret locals won't confuse you, and you in up taking it to "Area51". You know those aliens don't like to wait for us Terrains. :D

Hey Attalus what happened to Va Va Vicky? Have you tried the Va Va Vicky flirtpak yet? JC finished it up last week. And she's a hotty ;)

[ 04-07-2003, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

Sorry, John, I haven't heard of that one. Is it a mod?

Not yet Skunk, I haven't finished brewing my batch up for the evil "Bush regime" and the vast Rightwing Anlgo/American/Big oil/anti-enviromentalist conspiracy. How about you guys Sir T and Mordenheim, have you finished brewing up your batches? Isn't the colection point for our "home brew" the "Grassy Knoll"? Or do we have to take it to Area51 so the aleins can plant it useing their super dupper double secret technolgy?

*Spoiler*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*Illustrating absurdity by absurdity :D </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=orange>Nope not finished mine yet. Any of you guys got any brain of JFK? How bout any ear of Kissinger? Those are both essential ingredents in "Evil Bush Regime Conspiracy".

Skunk, I think you listen to way to much anti-american propaganda. </font>

LOL Go easy guys! There ae plenty of people inside the U.S. who also feel the Bush regime is quite capable of planting evidence against their opposers.

I know I'm being BAD very Bad , but in order for a conspiracy of that size to work there would have to be lots of people in on it. That many people couldn't keep their mouths shut, not with the money that could be made on one of the talk shows. ;)

You mean I read the speeches by Bush and co? ;)

But seriously, there was an awful lot of planted and fabricated evidence to start this war. And when the public saw through that, rhetoric and distorted history was used instead as a justification.

Don't you remember the 'uranium in a shoebox' scam that was ran in Sept2002? It hit every major US news network - but not a single international one. Then some British and Austrialian reporters began to do some investigating over the US scare story and got suspicious when:
<ul>[*]the driver of the taxi 'disappeared'[*]the taxi that supposed to have carried them totally destroyed in an 'arson' attack in the
police compound[*]the suspects mysteriously vanished[*]the suspects records (fingerprints and mugshots) were mislaid[*]they couldn't find any journalist who actually saw the nuclear material
that was apparently 'on police public display', nor could anyone identify the
journalist that photographed the containers - and then... [*]the nuclear material mysteriously vanished...[/list]If fake 'evidence' was planted before, why not again?

[ 04-08-2003, 04:20 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

You mean I read the speeches by Bush and co? ;)

But seriously, there was an awful lot of planted and fabricated evidence to start this war. And when the public saw through that, rhetoric and distorted history was used instead as a justification.

Don't you remember the 'uranium in a shoebox' scam that was ran in Sept2002? It hit every major US news network - but not a single international one. Then some British and Austrialian reporters began to do some investigating over the US scare story and got suspicious when:
<ul> [*]the driver of the taxi 'disappeared'
[*]the taxi that supposed to have carried them totally destroyed in an 'arson' attack in the
police compound
[*]the suspects mysteriously vanished
[*]the suspects records (fingerprints and mugshots) were mislaid
[*]they couldn't find any journalist who actually saw the nuclear material
that was apparently 'on police public display', nor could anyone identify the
journalist that photographed the containers - and then...
[*]the nuclear material mysteriously vanished...[/list]If fake 'evidence' was planted before, why not again?</font>[/QUOTE]<font color=orange>No, that would be PRO-American Propaganda. ;)

Sorry, I don't remember the uranium in the shoe-box story. Of course I've sleep some since then, but it's not ringing any chimes up there in my penthouse.
</font>

<font color="#ffccff">Must have hit every amjor US news media except all the ones that people watch...no one I have talked to knows what you are talking about Skunk. You might try to get a broader base for your information, reading through your posts is like reading the statements made by the likes of the Iraqi nformation Ministry. </font>

[ 04-08-2003, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

OOF! [img]graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

I've been waiting for this to come out. ;) </font>[/QUOTE]I don't see why we don't just go and plant some - there are elements that are always going to believe that if any are found they were planted, so lets just go and plant some and get the "discovery" over and done with.

On that factory where they were claiming Sarin and had soldiers coming out through decontamination - I heard that was proven to be industrial pesticides only.

You mean I read the speeches by Bush and co? ;)

But seriously, there was an awful lot of planted and fabricated evidence to start this war. And when the public saw through that, rhetoric and distorted history was used instead as a justification.

Don't you remember the 'uranium in a shoebox' scam that was ran in Sept2002? It hit every major US news network - but not a single international one. Then some British and Austrialian reporters began to do some investigating over the US scare story and got suspicious when:
<ul> [*]the driver of the taxi 'disappeared'
[*]the taxi that supposed to have carried them totally destroyed in an 'arson' attack in the
police compound
[*]the suspects mysteriously vanished
[*]the suspects records (fingerprints and mugshots) were mislaid
[*]they couldn't find any journalist who actually saw the nuclear material
that was apparently 'on police public display', nor could anyone identify the
journalist that photographed the containers - and then...
[*]the nuclear material mysteriously vanished...[/list]If fake 'evidence' was planted before, why not again?</font>[/QUOTE]I remember that, but I also remeber that it was the PRESS that went NUTS over it not the US goverment or the CIA. The CIA said they were looking into it and checking it out, NOT it WAS evidence, but they were checking it out. Which is exactly what their job is, check stuff out. The CIA doesn't have to tell the public of everything they find out, if they did they would be stupid. Just because they let the press run with something doesn't mean squat, other then the PRESS ran with something. Remember the Press DOES NOT run this country, even though they think they are the fourth branch of goverment. Remember the Press is nothing but gossips, THAT is THEIR JOB!.
There was no fake evidence planted just a story about somebody trying to plant it. Which proves that it wasn't successful and the system works, his planting was caught. Now if you think just because the CIA didn't come out and say much on the subject, means they are in on it, then so be it. I must also be in on it too, and I'm just and old country boy, I knew that the story about a taxi driver hauling a shoebox of Uranium, across the desert was bunk. I guess that makes me part of the conspiracy, because I didn't run out and have a big press conference right then!
Distorted histroy? BS skunk I've listed several times many links from multible sources both the press and non press sources that have stompted this distorted history BS. It out there on this forum in different threads, take the time to find it, personaly I tired of of reposting the links. You find them and prove them wrong.

Wow! That's an amazing psychic talent you have there - I didn't even mention what I had in mind and you already knew.
Don't suppose you do state lottery numbers too? Only, cash is a bit tight at the moment and I could use the help picking the right numbers for next week...

Skunk I hear the Iraqi minister has a job opening. Spreading such obvious disinformation should get someone right in. Kinda like how the coalition was not in Baghdad when he could see them from where he was talking.

Arab news? Saudia Arabia? now that's information you can take to the bank

lol

OOF! [img]graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

I've been waiting for this to come out. ;) </font>[/QUOTE]I don't see why we don't just go and plant some - there are elements that are always going to believe that if any are found they were planted, so lets just go and plant some and get the "discovery" over and done with.

On that factory where they were claiming Sarin and had soldiers coming out through decontamination - I heard that was proven to be industrial pesticides only.</font>[/QUOTE]I heard that the first tests done showed sarin and 2 other toxic chemicals, that the second tests showed nothing of danger and that the third tests have thus far "been inconclusive".

You're welcome to trek over there and plany anything you want...I've stated already that I think Saddam's regime would have had them removed already...if they even had them to begin with.

:rolleyes:

An invite to a war zone - why thank you Princess - uh, but I will decline if you don't mind ;) . Too much friendly and unfriendly fire going on at the moment. I wouldn't know which direction to duck from.

On the topic of WOMD, we (the coalition) are going to look a right bunch of dills if we can't produce any. People are know changing the slant of this war to a humanitarian one, but that is not what the coalition went to war for. It went there to take away Saddam's dangerous toys. Operation Iraqii Liberation was more a public relations afterthought.

An invite to a war zone - why thank you Princess - uh, but I will decline if you don't mind ;) . Too much friendly and unfriendly fire going on at the moment. I wouldn't know which direction to duck from.

On the topic of WOMD, we (the coalition) are going to look a right bunch of dills if we can't produce any. People are know changing the slant of this war to a humanitarian one, but that is not what the coalition went to war for. It went there to take away Saddam's dangerous toys. Operation Iraqii Liberation was more a public relations afterthought.</font>[/QUOTE]I understand completely, on all counts. [img]smile.gif[/img]

If we come out looking like a right bunch of dills it will certainly add fuel to the fire against "The Great Satan" for sure...but it might also get Bush out of office too and the only bad thing I can see in that is that Australia has proven themselves to be our worthy allies, making your country just as much a target for martyrdom...maybe not as easily reached, but it stings from where I sit.

I still haven't seen an answer to the original question.

IF Saddam is the sadastic, evil dictator that he is claimed to be, with no remorse about gassing his own people...

THEN why was there no usage of so called WoMD. I don't think he'd hesitate to use them on 'infidels' if he uses them on his own people.

Quite simply because it is not possible to prove a negative. It is not possible to divine anothers actions until they do them.

We (those of us getting info only through news feeds) have no idea about the capabilities of Iraq's WMD or it's current ability to deploy them. There is also very little ability to determine any status on Iraqi WMD until the country is stablized and the country can be inspected thouroughly.

Just because he hasn't used them doesn't mean he doesn't have them. It doesn't mean he does have them either, but this whole speculative question is just that, and moot to debate.

By not using them (provided he has them) he further serves his own cause in promoting himself as a victim of "The Great Satan" in the eyes of the Arab world and terrorist communities.

[ 04-08-2003, 08:54 PM: Message edited by: Lil Lil ]

This is possible the most logical and well thought out opinion I've read. Thanks.

Quite simply because it is not possible to prove a negative. It is not possible to divine anothers actions until they do them.

We (those of us getting info only through news feeds) have no idea about the capabilities of Iraq's WMD or it's current ability to deploy them. There is also very little ability to determine any status on Iraqi WMD until the country is stablized and the country can be inspected thouroughly.

Just because he hasn't used them doesn't mean he doesn't have them. It doesn't mean he does have them either, but this whole speculative question is just that, and moot to debate.</font>[/QUOTE]If he has them do you think he'd use them?