The discussion revolves around the implications of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Syria, particularly in relation to their potential impact on the United States and the involvement of radical Islamist groups. Participants explore the historical context of WMDs in Iraq and debate the likelihood of these weapons being secured or proliferated in the current Syrian conflict.
Participants do not reach a consensus on the existence or implications of WMDs in Iraq or Syria. Multiple competing views remain regarding the historical context and current risks associated with WMDs.
Participants express uncertainty about the evidence surrounding WMDs, with references to missing documentation, differing interpretations of historical events, and the complexities of international relations affecting the discussion.
For example, our success in Iraq certainly decreased the likelihood of WMDs in the hands of terrorists getting into the U.S. with WMDs.
Office_Shredder said:I don't think this is certain at all? Considering the probability of those non-existent WMDs getting into terrorist hands was 0 whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power.
Office_Shredder said:If you really just want to keep the WMDs secure the best way to do that is probably to help the government crush the rebels and massacre the dissidents. al-Assad has a proven track record of not aiding terrorists in attacking us with chemical and biological weapons, it stands to reason that if we help him militarily he wouldn't flip on that stance.
Can you supply any evidence for this claim? Earlier, the US supplied Saddam with chemical weapons, which he used against the Kurds, but what else was there? There was a steady drumbeat among some US politicians about WMDs, yet none were ever found or documented. Where is the evidence?bobc2 said:WMDs were definitely there, and Saddam had his organization for pursuing weapons programs in tact. Further, it became clear that terrorists could have had access to the weapons for transport to the U.S. at some point down the road.
turbo said:Can you supply any evidence for this claim? Earlier, the US supplied Saddam with chemical weapons, which he used against the Kurds, but what else was there? There was a steady drumbeat among some US politicians about WMDs, yet none were ever found or documented. Where is the evidence?
turbo said:Can you supply some reputable links? Including the "fact" that he had a WMD program? Such arguments quickly fell apart after the invasion.
Can you supply any evidence for that claim?turbo said:Can you supply any evidence for this claim? Earlier, the US supplied Saddam with chemical weapons, which he used against the Kurds...
Clearly, Iraq had WMDs during the Iran/Iraq war. In addition, we destroyed a lot of chemical and biological weapons during and soon after the 1991 war....but what else was there?
There was a steady drumbeat among some US politicians about WMDs, yet none were ever found or documented. Where is the evidence?
In any case, I've split this from the Syria thread because it doesn't seem likely - and certainly is not proven - that there were any WMDs in Iraq during or just prior to the 2003 invasion and as such it isn't relevant to use it as an analogue for whether interfering in Syria might cause WMDs to fall into the hands of terrorists.In August 1998, Ritter resigned his position as UN weapons inspector and sharply criticized the Clinton administration and the UN Security Council for not being vigorous enough about insisting that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction be destroyed. Ritter also accused UN Secretary General Kofi Annan of assisting Iraqi efforts at impeding UNSCOM's work. "Iraq is not disarming", Ritter said on August 27, 1998, and in a second statement, "Iraq retains the capability to launch a chemical strike." In 1998 the UNSCOM weapons inspectors left Iraq.
I really think its time to approach Iraq's disarmament as qualitative
disarmament. There is no doubt that they're hiding stuff from the weapons
inspectors. What they're hiding are drawings, blueprints, some components,
some material. I call it seed stock. It's the stuff you could put on the
back of the truck, move it out to the farm, and then at some point, you can
plant it and use it as a base to reconstitute weapons. Even in ballistic
missiles, you have components that can be used to build the missile at a
later date, but by themselves they do not constitute an operational
ballistic missile. By themselves, the biological capability and chemical
capability are not chemical weapons or biological weapons programs.
When you ask the question, "Does Iraq possesses militarily viable biological
or chemical weapons?" the answer is "NO! It is a resounding NO! Can Iraq
produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce
biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It is
"no" across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been
disarmed. Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction
capability.
Subject: Iraqi Chemical Munitions 21 June 2006
Purpose: This summary provides an unclassified overview of chemical munitions recovered in Iraq since May 2004.
Key Points:
-- Since 2004 Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent..