Iraqi WMDs: do they exist?

[Jon_in_london]

Register your thoughts with Jon's latest wonderfull Poll!!!!

Did Saddam Hussein have lots of weapons that are now carefully hidden in Iraq/other country/in the hands of terrorists or did Tony Bliar and George I sold my soul to Halliburton "W" Bush just make the whole thing up as they went along?

Dont be shy now folks, lets see what the JREF opion is like!

 

[Tricky]

Sorry Jon, I made a pledge to myself not to respond to any new WMD threads...

Oops! Damn!

 

[MRC_Hans]

I think it was mainly lies. Not just by the Bush administration, but by Saddam himself. He clearly tried to make an impression of having something, just like he made an impression of having a big and strong army. The army turned out to be largely a ghost army (although certainly not harmless), and I think that any WMD facilities eventually discovered will turn out to be in tatters.

It is difficult to understand why Saddam Hussein wanted to create such an impression; if he knew that he did not have any WMD, he could have opened all doors to the UN inspectors and made it very hard for the US to justify hostile action. So, either he had other motives, or his grasp on reality was on par with that of his Minister Of Information

Hans

 

[Crossbow]

I voted 'No'.

USA and British forces have been in control of the country for weeks and have found nothing substantive.

 

[svero]

I didn't vote because I'm pretty unsure. I mean... it's entirely probable and believable that someone like Saddam had some weapons programs or was storing some weapons (chemical, biological). On the other hand it's not really a stretch of the imagination that years of sanctions and bombing prevented him from that kind of development.

These are the options as I see it...

1) Saddam had weapons and somehow the war in Iraq managed to force a situation where the weapons were smuggled into the hands of terrorists or out of the country. Pretty ugly scenario. Not really likely in terms of Bush's statements though. I mean weren't we talking about large amounts of chemical weapons (thousands of tons) that weren't easily moved in secret? We were shown small cars in satellite photos that were supposed to be mobile labs, but they didn't notice thousands of tons of chemical weapons being shipped to Syria? (or whereever) Those were the words used by the president. Thousands of tons.

2) Saddam didn't have the weapons anymore. Most were destroyed after the first gulf war. But Bush was misled by poor intelligence. That would also be an ugly scenario because it indicates that the intelligence used to determine whether to attack is not reliable. Do americans want to go to war based on wishy washy intelligence? It's especially ugly when you're talking about a new US doctrine of pre-emptive war. Basically this is saying, we'll attack potential threats before they attack us, but our ability to determine who is a real threat isn't any good. It's even possible to some extent that the intelligence was coming from Saddam. Maybe he felt it was in his best interest to pretend to be more powerful than he was to keep his neighbors at bay?

3) Saddam didn't have the weapons and we knew he didn't have them but we attacked anyway for different reasons. Well... I guess I don't need to explain why that scenario is ugly. Clearly if outright lies were made it will all end in a big scandal. I still see this as a possibility.

4) The weapons are there, we just haven't found them yet. This is the best scenario for the president's credibility. A smoking gun. However I think it's really short-sighted that they chose not to involve UN inspectors or an international team to accompany the US teams, because there will always be doubt if weapons are found by a special US team and other independent verification is disallowed. Of course that choice could just as easily be motivated by a desire for secrecy if they knew they were lying.

Are there other scenarios?

 

[Jon_in_london]

Are there other scenarios?

Shemp stole them!

 

[Monketi Ghost]

My vote is that Shemp stole them.

Seriously though, I think it's still too early to say with decisiveness. But as the clock ticks, things look worse.

Still, I also think that the majority of the US isn't going to care. Regardless of whether WMD evidence turns up or not, Bush will still be popular and suffer no real political harm.

We won the war, right? The reasons we went in won't matter to most of us, unless I've misunderestimated the apathy of Joe American.

 

[KelvinG]

My vote is that Shemp stole them.

Seriously though, I think it's still too early to say with decisiveness. But as the clock ticks, things look worse.

Still, I also think that the majority of the US isn't going to care. Regardless of whether WMD evidence turns up or not, Bush will still be popular and suffer no real political harm.

We won the war, right? The reasons we went in won't matter to most of us, unless I've misunderestimated the apathy of Joe American.

Even if the majority of the US doesn't care, it may have an impact on the way the rest of the world views the US.
The next time America is presenting a case to the UN on a similar issue, the skeptics might be out in force saying "Why should we believe you this time."

If WMD were a pot of lies, then other countries might be even more suspicious next time. Now one likes to be deceived.

Whether the Bush supporters like to admit it or not, if WMD are not found, there will be an impact.

But, luckily for the US, memories are short, and politicians are expected to lie, so the damage will last only for a period.
At least until another administration is in power and they pull that old trick where they shrug their shoulders and say "We can't answer questions about the motives of the last administration."

 

[Segnosaur]

Are there other scenarios?

I can think of several others myself:

- Iraq had weapons (perhaps not the large stockpiles suggested by Bush, but still had them), but destroyed them prior to the invasion. Why do that? If America didn't invade, they'd still have their stockpiles. If America did invade and he used them, they would have had very little impact on the results of the invasion, but it would have given America the opportunity to say "See, we were right". But by holding on to them and then destroying them at the last minute, he would damage America's credibility and make them look really bad.

- Saddam tried to build up a weapons program, but was unsuccessful. He could have been deceived by his underlings, who didn't want to tell him that the weapons programs were failing. Or perhaps, as this article suggests, he was "hoodwinked" by criminals; he was attempting to purchase weapons components on the black market, but he never received the things he paid for: http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1369794,00.html

 

[chulbert]

Originally posted by Segnosaur But by holding on to them and then destroying them at the last minute, he would damage America's credibility and make them look really bad.

I'm skeptical of claims that he destroyed agents at "the last minute". Perhaps someone in the know can clarify, but I understand the process of destroying chemical and biological agents to be an elaborate and time consuming.

People seem to suggest that they were all flushed down the toilet the night before we invaded.

 

[Segnosaur]

I'm skeptical of claims that he destroyed agents at "the last minute". Perhaps someone in the know can clarify, but I understand the process of destroying chemical and biological agents to be an elaborate and time consuming.

It depends on how they were destroyed.

See: http://www.bicc.de/weapons/brief3/chap3.html (about 1/3 of the way down they talk about disposal techniques)

The "best" way is incineration or chemical deactivation. However, this is expensive, and the facilities for doing so are likely lacking in Iraq. (Saddam certainly didn't show the inspectors where they were, if they existed.)

So, that leaves certain other older, less desirable methods:
- Burying
- Burning in open fires
- Underwater disposal
- Detonation

During the first round of inspections, Iraq used the 'open pit burning' method. (See: http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2003/sandlerlec011003.html)

Now, if Saddam wanted to eliminate existing weapons stocks, burial at sea (combined with detonation) would probably be the fastest and most effective; it could be accomplished easily, and would provide no traces.

That may not have been what Saddam has done. But it does bring up the question... If it would be so hard to 'hide' the disposal of weapons immediately prior to the war, then why did Saddam not show how and where he disposed of existing stocks when the inspectors were in Iraq?

 

[Gem]

If you people remember, just about everybody thought that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. However he said he didn't have any. I think it's entirely possible Saddam had "fake teeth," he didn't really have WMD, but he gave the impression that he had them. WMD are a deterent for invasion, a threat, if you will, to anyone who would want to invade him or oppose him. He could simply have thought that the US wasn't serious about going in, that world wide oppsosition would deter them, and that the US wasn't going to bypass the UN.

And I'm not voting because I'm waiting a year.

Gem

P.S.: If nothing is found, and that it was "proven" that the itel was hyped, or evidence to the contrary discarded, the repurcussions would just be phenomenal.