Can anyone cite proof or evidence the Iraq had active programs for WMD just prior to its invasion? I don’t mean several years ago or before gulf war 1. I mean proof found just before or after the invasion that Iraq was in fact working on WMD despite the inspections and sanctions within months prior to its invasion.

All I know what Iraq was doing was Al Samoud missiles. That was allowed under the UN because it's range was less then 150 km. But as to actual WMD...98% of it was destroyed in 1998. What the hell could he do?

I'm just wondering if there was in fact any validity at all in the WMD reason for the invasion. If no WMD can be found and Iraq was not even working on them anymore, dam Bush is in a world of hurt come elections (that if of course the democrats are smart enough and capable enough to bring this issue open)

The US is looking for them though. But they won't let anyone else help I think. So if they did find any WMDs(I doubt they will), people would accuse the US of planting them there. This is why I think the US should let the UN look for them.

If they find some (or plant and find some), they will wait for the politically best time to announce it.

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
Can anyone cite proof or evidence the Iraq had active programs for WMD just prior to its invasion? I don’t mean several years ago or before gulf war 1. I mean proof found just before or after the invasion that Iraq was in fact working on WMD despite the inspections and sanctions within months prior to its invasion.
Nobody can because there is none. However, deductive reasoning tells us that he was in possession of some. Furthermore, the legal justification of the war stems from Iraq's non-compliance with the 1991 cease fire, among other resolutions. So the WMD capacity or lack thereof is a non-issue, as far as technicalities go.
Originally posted by nico
All I know what Iraq was doing was Al Samoud missiles. That was allowed under the UN because it's range was less then 150 kmNo.
UNMOVIC had previously said that 13 out of 40 recent tests of the Al Samoud 2 missile went about 18 miles [30 kilometers] beyond the permitted range. UNMOVIC told Iraq to stop testing the two missile systems until the U.N. analysis was completed.

Six missile experts -- from France, Germany, Britain, the United States, China and Ukraine -- were commissioned by Blix to examine the range of two missiles, the Al Samoud 2 and the Al Fatah. A diplomatic source told CNN that Blix brought in the experts to give a "third voice" on the issue of a possible Iraqi arms violation.

The experts' report found that the Al Samoud 2 "went beyond" the 150-kilometer range and the Al Fatah needed further study, diplomats said. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/21/sprj.irq.missiles/index.html

And they were subsequently destroyed:

In February 2003, U.N. inspectors evaluated two versions of the Al Samoud 2 missile using four separate computer models. Both versions were found to exceed the range limit of 150 kilometers set by the U.N. Security Council. The lighter version of the Al Samoud 2 was estimated to have a range of 193 kilometers, while the heavier version would be capable of a 162 km range. Accordingly, it was requested that all Al Samoud 2 missiles and warheads be delivered to the inspectors for destruction.


Of course their destruction ceased due to the war and invasion. Of course through this we see Iraqi compliance, the same compliance that the US was demanding. :bugeye: I haven't read anything to support the assertion that Iraq was actively building anything. Hey I remember Cheney with Iraq's nuke program. LMFAO!

Bush was getting really uncomfortable/upset/emotional over this topic (ARE there even any wmd??) in his interview w/ Diane Sawyer. Makes it seem like the troops arent anywhere close to finding any.
But then again, they didnt think they were close to finding SAddam and they did.

Stokes Pennwalt,

Well the claim at least to the general public by the administration was that Iraq had or was developing WMD and needed to be taken out.

Originally posted by miss khan
Bush was getting really uncomfortable/upset/emotional over this topic (ARE there even any wmd??) in his interview w/ Diane Sawyer. Makes it seem like the troops arent anywhere close to finding any.
But then again, they didnt think they were close to finding SAddam and they did.

Interesting thing is that it happened right before Christmas. The troops must have lost a lot of moral and more because they couldn't go home for Christmas. So I guess it was the best time to find him now and up the morals before it plummeted into the ground. But that's just my opinion.

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
Well the claim at least to the general public by the administration was that Iraq had or was developing WMD and needed to be taken out.

And the same claim that Osama was behind 9-11. The Taliban offered to send him for trial as long as it was fair and balanced. The US disagreed because they wanted it to be here in the US rather than a third world country or a neutral one.

From the documents Saddam thought they were at least before the first war with Iraq.

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
Stokes Pennwalt,

Well the claim at least to the general public by the administration was that Iraq had or was developing WMD and needed to be taken out.
Yes, that was what Bush said in his January SOTU address. This paragraph is perhaps the most telling:
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

It's a little over half-way down. It remains a mystery where the failure was - in our intelligence community or in the morals of our political leadership. But to be fair, every other nation on the UNSC found Iraq in material breech of the 1991 cease fire agreement, so it would seem that all of us were mistaken about Saddam, not just the United States.

Stokes Pennwalt

So were is the proof that between Gulf War I and II Saddam was developing WMD. Not that I don't believe there is none but how bad is it, a missile that goes 18 miles further then its allotted 150miles is not really a major violation.

LOOK!!!!!

______________________/|
/ | |
| | Made in the U.S. 1980 |
\_|____________________ |
\|

______________________/|
/ | |
| | Made in China. 1999 |
\_|____________________ |
\|





And to show that they really are from the U.S., all WMD's before NAFTA and the WTO were made in the U.S., and those after: in China!!!!

If this isn't proof... nothing will ever be folks!

Prisme

============
WMD's more a matter of faith than science.

-once said by a great man... who looks and acts like me.


P.S.
I made the rockets look very nice... but the codes in the forum keeps screwing them up. You have to use your imagination. Sorry

I am sure they are you have numerous independent sources (not news organizations either) to back that up. How could Saddam after 1998 conduct a WMD program when 98% of it was destroyed by the UN? The proof is in the pudding WCF, they aren't there. WMD programs, especially nuclear programs are that easy to get rid of. All suspected sites were already checked and nada... so even if pre-intel. Said brick and brick...that's all it was. The Al Samoud was not even a WMD let's not go bonkers here, also Saddam destroyed most of them, before the start of hostilities, that was Saddam's only effective offensive platform left! What was said before March 19th is a bunch of non-sensical dribble, from a state whose real casis belli was PNAC, and power. WMD was just a mask for the real deal. Saddam threatened no one really, he didn’t control 1/3 of country, he had a degraded military about a decade behind that of her neighbours, a US presence in S.A, and the Persian Gulf, no IRBM’s, surely no ICBM’s, no terrorist ties…and no WMD, please tell me… why is this even in discussion.

Nico,

Because Bush invaded that country over this, for the love of god he had to have something any proof within the last 10 years that the guy had something bad! I just don’t get why Bush is not getting hammered over this! I just can't believe they impeached Clinton for lying about fucking a intern, yet they don't even touch Bush for killing hundreds of our soldiers, thousand of Iraqi civilians and spending $150 billion for a hunch that turned out the be false!!! I mean reality check here come on Bush must of had some proof that Saddam was at least working on WMD just prior to the war? I mean I know the world is unfair but it can’t be this unfair can it???

Yes, and more so. Notice that the true criminals never get convicted.

Because Bush invaded that country over this,

No he didn't, Bush did not invade Iraq for WMD. As I have said that was a front to show the world, that somehow the US should invade Iraq b.c in fantasy land they were a threat to the US. The reason the US invaded Iraq was for PNAC, basically control of the ME and to "reform" it to American ideals.


I just don’t get why Bush is not getting hammered over this! I just can't believe they impeached Clinton for lying about fucking a intern, yet they don't even touch Bush for killing hundreds of our soldiers, thousand of Iraqi civilians and spending $150 billion for a hunch that turned out the be false!!!

Republicans have all three levels of government, Clinton didn't. History hopefully won't be so kind.

I mean reality check here come on Bush must of had some proof that Saddam was at least working on WMD just prior to the war?

NADA! The only thing Bush had was circumstantial, and threats of Iraq back in 1989 when she was really a threat. Saddam was working on nothing, if he was then they would have found it by now. It is illogical to believe that out of thousands of suspected site which the US said HAD WMD, there is absolutely nothing. The WMD was a farce, a elaborate one at that. What WMD worked for was the irrational fear of Americans who believed that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, and that those phantom WMD would be used against the US, in a alliance of terror.
:rolleyes: Really WMD lies are just a bunch of hyperbole for neo-cons.

Explain PNAC to me... it would not happen to mean Project for the New American Century? I know that the USofA is the worlds rulings global empire but just how much more powerful could it become???

I would hazard a guess that Iraq was "working on" WMD, in that they were actively seeking ways to build or acquire them. After all, we (the US) and many other countries around the world have "worked on" acquiring them for decades.

We know that at one time Iraq had chemical weapons in abundance, so it stands to reason there were some floating about the country somewhere at the time of the invasion. Nuclear weapons? Highly unlikely since the manufacturing and engineering requirements are very high and Iraq probably didn't have the time to reconstruct after the first Gulf war.

Regardless of the stated objective, or whether Bush and company really believed Iraq had WMD, the real objective was to establish a military presence in the Middle East.

The reality? Eventually terrorists WILL get a WMD into the States, it is only a matter of time, whether they get them from Pakistan or Iraq or Iran or Korea or the former Soviet Union... The invasion won't do much to prevent that.

Explain PNAC to me... it would not happen to mean Project for the New American Century?

T’is indeed, and since 1992, and 1998 they have been pushing for an invasion of Iraq. Not b.c of WMD, no because Saddam was a thorn for the US and Israel. Paul Wolfowitz was calling for pre-emptive policy way back in 1992 with a document; it was so radical that Cheney had to change the references of pre-emptive, to containment. The men of the PNAC are in power now in the US, and have been pushing for the invasion of Iraq. For instance in 1998 Blair, and Netahanyhu were pushing Clinton for an invasion due to the UN inspector’s scandal. Clinton wisely denied. This one didn't, we see the cabal at work now. PNAC has just started; Iraq is an ideal base of operations. The potentially most power Arab state has been tamed. Smack in the middle of the Middle East. To have American troops and a powerful, American / Israeli backed Iraqi proxy would do wonders for PNAC. WMD was for the morons who believed that Saddam had something to do with 9/11.

I know that the USofA is the worlds rulings global empire but just how much more powerful could it become???

I am looking to the Korean crisis to figure how much sway PNAC has outside the ME.

Originally posted by nico
The reason the US invaded Iraq was for PNAC, basically control of the ME and to "reform" it to American ideals.

i think it was much worse than that. it goes like this...we get hit (major). somebody has to go down. it really doesnt matter who. a response has to be mounted. iraq? easy target...unfinished and ongoing shit.

the decision is made. the players see an opportunity. exiles, pnac, multinationals all make a bid to get in the game and further their agenda.

*i was watching cops (a reality tv show). house call, domestic squabble. cops arrive, blah blah. one of them says...."well we gotta take somebody in!" they did not care who just that somebody was gonna go down.

frikkin humans

now whether the incident (9/11) was manufactured (as some allude it was) in order for events to unfold as they did is another matter. the analysis gets way complicated

nico,

And like the armies of Mordor Bush will ran across the earth for the ring is in his hands!

No seriously I know it does not take a wise eye to see that Bush and the WMD thing was just a rouse but what gets me is that it was not even valid in anyway, I mean its just not fair that he can get way with it!!! I just can’t believe it! http://www.crazy-board.net/vB/images/smilies/baby.gif

I agree with spookz though I don't think 9/11 was fabricated, it was just good luck for the evil forces in the white house