What happned to Saddam-Iraq's WMD that they have used on Kurds & on Iran?

Baron Max: "Really, then why are Chemical and Biological weapons still turning up?"

Please post any evidence you have of significant finds. I've seen no credible reports of the kind googling around. What I have discovered are the names of a few of the men who were killed while assigned to the search for WMDs in Iraq:

SSG Clinton Lee Wisdom from Atchison, Kansas
SPC Don Clary from Troy, Kansas
SGT Sherwood R. Baker from Plymouth, Pennsylvania

"There are old weapons there, dangerous...

Please be specific, spidergoat. What weapons. Of what danger to the American Homeland. The issue is confined to strategic weapons. Not just mortars and rusty shells, but Weapons of Mass Destruction. Please don't lose touch with the relevance of what we went to war for.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You read too much James Bond. As it was mentioned, Iraq is California sized and Ahmed could have done that little dumping back in 1995 or earlier. You think the US was watching everything (and it is possible to do so?) in Iraq?

Not to mention cloudy days...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So why wait until now? Why not get the WMDs in 1995?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Buffalo, you need to read this:
https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

 

Syzygys: "You read too much James Bond."

I can't stand James Bond. But I did serve in US Naval Intelligence. Remote sensing technology is fascinating.

"You think the US was watching everything (and it is possible to do so?) in Iraq?"

Not to mention cloudy days...

Shamals are the bigger challenge. But you can't haul much of anything anywhere in those conditions. Sorry, the mystery and intrigue is long over now.

The US was capable of monitoring any significant movements in the Iraqi desert, and that we followed up this monitoring with on-site inspections. We gathered enough human intelligence to reveal Saddam's major weapons command structure as well as his major weapons storage and disposal operations. There are records of what chemical weapons and CW precursors were purchased by Saddam, and when and where they were expended or destroyed. These records have been verified by physical inspection of disposal sites. This was all through the well-documented work of the UN teams, Task Force 20, the 75th XTF, and finally the ISG.

Ultimately, the search was not abandoned because the US government lacked the will to search for and find WMD. On the contrary, the Bush Administration was extremely motivated to see their accusations substantiated. This has proven impossible. The search for Iraqi WMDs has been abandoned because the WMD have been accounted for, to the extent of proving beyond reasonable doubt that there were no appreciable stockpiles of WMD at the time of the US invasion of Iraq.

This is an uncomfortable conclusion for those who wish to believe the pre-war rhetoric. But unless you can produce more definitive evidence than has emerged from years of investigation by thousands of qualified personnel, I'm sorry, but you're only denying the deception you're still under without basis.

 

I can sleep better at night knowing that, that's a good thing.

 

This argument doesn't prove anything.

 

It supports the reasonable conclusion that no credible Iraqi WMD threat emerged during Desert Storm either.

 

Bill Clinton.

 

http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm


While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

 

So now we are going to pull out, and not complete the Mission? what do you think is going to happen when we pull out, I do believe that we will see the breakup of Iraq which will then lead to the destabilization of the area as it comes under the influence of Radical Islam, the terrorist that you defend so well.
As for (Cara Pinia), Noriega fled during the attack and a manhunt ensued. He finally turned up in the Nunciature, the Holy See embassy in Panama, where he had taken refuge. U.S. troops set up a perimeter outside this building, which as an embassy was considered sovereign soil of the Vatican and could not be taken directly, as this would be considered an invasion of the Vatican City. The troops guarding it used psychological warfare, attempting to force him out by playing hard rock music outside the residence. [4] (PDF file)

The Vatican complained to President Bush because of this and U.S. troops stopped the noise. After a demonstration a few days later by thousands of Panamanians demanding he stand trial for human rights violations, Noriega surrendered on January 3, 1990.

ps: what does Noriega have to do with this ?, we didn't have any problem finding him.

 

The mission doesn't depend on us, but on the will of the Iraqis trained to replace us. It isn't looking good, since most of them are partisan. I think you are correct about the consequences, which is probably why Bush 41 never invaded Iraq. Bush will be to blame for radicalizing Iraq.

 

How does the mission not depend on us?, yes the will of the Iraqi is important, and it seem that they do have the will, just look at the Iraqi's that line back up to join their Police forces and military right after the recruiting lines have been bombed, we are training them as fast as is possible, and if we leave, there is no chance that the killing will stop, and there is a good chance that the country will fragment and destabilize the whole area, the power void that will be created will be filled by other powers, Iran, Syria, Russia, Turkey, China, the gains in Afghanistan will disappear and a good chance that the Taliban could reestablished. War is a contest of wills, if you have the will and the weapons you will win, the terrorist have the will, but they don't have the weapons, and can you really defend their goals? what is their goal, I have my idea of what there goal is from reading there manifestos, I would like to hear what you think there goal is?

 

How do you know the Iraqi fighters that the US is training are also not the ones who are becoming the militants?

Seems to me they would try to get the benefit of a Western education as much as anyone else.

 

Yes, the police is full of infiltrators, and the prospect of a job is attractive but doesn't necessarily bring loyal recruits.

Yes, Bush did destabilize the region, and it is debateable if there is any viable solution. The Iraq Study Group does not recommend further involvement. It's easy to commit others, but Americans are responding that's enough. It seems you're a real gun-ho SOB, but Americans are sick of dying and paying the price for a foothold on Iraq's oil.

 

Maybe some people expected freedom to be fought for more vigorously????

 

which people and what freedom?

 

Maybe some people expected the Iraqis to embrace their occupiers? They are a proud people, and we are privatizing their most lucrative resource, and building apparently permanent bases. Freedom for Bush only means free markets, which means leave the corporations alone to do what they wish.

 

As I've heard it, there's only about 2500-3500 radical, violent Iraqis fighting and blowing things up. From that, you conclude that all Iraqis are against the US and the Maliki government? I think there's about 12 million Iraqis, so 2500-3500 represents the feelings of all Iraqis?

Baron Max

 

The Maliki government represents the interests of the Shia most of all, so it follows that the Shia mostly concentrate on killing Sunnis and Americans.