Talk:Iraq and weapons of mass destruction/Archive 1

Feb 2003

A user recently added a 'dispute' label to the page. I think we would benefit from his opinion as to why this is appropriate. The disputed-article-page lists the following as possible reasons for a dispute label:

"1. It contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references. 2. It contains information which is particularly difficult to verify. 3. In, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking. 4. It has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic."

As far as I can see none of the information is "unlikely" nor difficult to verify. In fact there are many sources listed and, more importantly, this topic is extremely well known and information is very easy to obtain.

The articles has been composed over a long time by many users and I don't know any of them as known "inaccurate" guys.

Perhaps there are some errors but then those need pointing out! Slapping a 'disputed' label like this on the page without contributing anything else at all is not, in my opinion, constructive or useful wiki-behaviour.

Until an argument for it is provided I am removing the label.

Haukurth 14:14, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Maybe I should move the contents of this article to regime change or U.S. plan to invade Iraq. --Uncle Ed

Even if the US didn't exist (wee!) the question of whether Iraq has WMD would still arise, and the history of their involvement with WMD and I think it's useful to consider the two things seperately. Why not merge Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction with this article? I think this article is better titled. -Martin

I'm with Martin on this, lets merge them... they're talking about the same thing. Just reorganise and subhead. Greg Godwin

May 2003

I´d like this article enclose something about David Kelly´s case[1]. I´ve just put an initial contribuition, but I feel it is not enought. 12.4.195.100 22:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)Rodrigo

June 2003

Let's not, see my comment below. This is a topic now. Steverapaport 23:37 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Steve. I don't understand this comment of you. I merged these two articles 2 months ago I think. Do you suggest that they are un-merged, or that another one is created, or that this one is refactored to take your new input into account ? Anthere

None of the above, Anthere -- I was commenting on Uncle Ed's suggestion of merging this article with Plan to Invade Iraq/Regime Change, not on Martin's suggestion which was already implemented. I guess I'm happy that nobody took Ed up on his, that's all! Steverapaport 23:33 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

In the article:

One of the suppliers of these weapons to Iraq was the United States itself, during the Iran/Iraq war.

I think there's a difference between supplying a weapon and providing a sample of a germ. What do others think?

The CDC "sent samples in 1986 of botulinum toxin and botulinum toxoid - used to make vaccines against botulinum toxin" [2].

This could be regarded as a humanitarian act.

This could be regarded as deliberately helping Iraq develop a biological weapon.

This could be regarded as unwittingly helping Iraq develop a biological weapon.

---

moved here as it doesnot appear to belong to this article

The Israeli government's Home Defense Command has begun preparations in the event Iraq launches chemical or biological warheads on its Scud missiles. 39 such missiles were launched at Israel in the 1991 War. Israel is thought to have an arsenal of atomic weapons, but did not retaliate against Iraq. However, if Iraq does in fact attack Israel with NBC weapons, the United States may not be able to convince the Israelis to exercise the same amount of restraint.

---

moved here pending a supporting link or two:

However, US troops have found eleven mobile chemical weapons labs equipped to quickly produce chemical weapons, buried south of Baghdad but marked for later retrieval.

---

It seems that it's a good idea now to leave this article in place, since it's quickly becoming a news item in its own right. examples: [3] [4][5]

--okay with everybody? Steverapaport 17:34 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

No one was suggesting to remove it. What do you mean ? Ant

---

here's a link to bush saying WMDs have been destroyed.

[6]

Tristanb 04:40 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

This one's probably more suitable for the article - http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/06/20030621.html

Hephaestos 05:11 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

October 2003

Hmm, interesting article, but somehow falls short. Now, as I recall, the case for the invasion was mainly that Iraq was failing to cooperate with the inspections. The lack of interviews with scientists, the refusals to explain inconsistencies, and so on. There was a contemporary comparison between what Iraq had done and what had occurred in South Africa when that nation wished to convince the world that it had destroyed its WMD. Iraq was striving for minimal technical compliance with the resolutions without trying to make an effort to convince world observers of its freedom from WMD.

That was much of the public reasoning for the war, and the supposed evidence of WMD was something of an afterthought.

UninvitedCompany 23:58, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Feb 2004

The ISG info is not accurate (among others). JDR

"Since the 2003 war _no_ banned weapons have been found and it is thought likely that no large quantities of them remain hidden in Iraq."

"On October 3, 2003, the world digests David Kay's Iraq Survey Group report that finds _no_ WMD in [[Iraq]."

... this is inaddition to other parts (those are just 2 I quickly picked out); Haukurth thanks for the try, though ... JDR

Okay! Great, we've got a dialogue going here. Now please point out some sources from which we can see that some non-conventional weapons capable of a great amount of destruction have been discovered in Iraq. Better yet, rewrite the paragraph yourself, then remove the dispute tag.

I'm not being sarcastic here. WMD's being found in Iraq is simply news to me. I'd like to read all about it.

Haukurth 18:46, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The ISG report is here ... "vials of "live C botulinum Okra B" inparticular (which falls under the WMD classification ... of the NBC, the B; eg., any organism (bacteria, virus or other disease-causing organism) or toxin) ...

rewrite the paragrap? I have tried before ... but it's been rv'd ... so the tag is, I believe, the only options (for various reasons) ...

Sincerely, JDR (PS. I may try a rewrite @ a later time (with some research); if it is not done in the meantime)

I certainly agree that a live botulinum strain falls under the 'B' of 'NBC' but that's still a far cry from a _weapon_, let alone a weapon of _mass destruction_. NBC-materials? Certainly. NBC-weapons? Hardly. WMD's? Definitely not. Weapons of mass destruction related-programme activities? Whatever.

Seriously, vials with a bacterium strain are nowhere near a finished weapon. What are you going to do with them? Throw them at people?

I agree that the botulinum find is of interest and belongs in the article (and it is there). However it does not change the accuracy of the "no WMD's" statement. Or, to quote the ISG interim report:

"We have not yet found stocks of weapons"

However I will try to rewrite and expand the paragraph, taking your concerns into account.

Haukurth 19:42, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Glad someone agrees that a live botulinum strain falls under the 'B' of 'NBC' ...

Is it a _weapon_? It's a toxin weapon ...

Weapon of _mass destruction_? It's definitely not the end product that most ppl think of ... but it is a WMD that Iraq was not suppose to have I believe (in the least, it was a step to have stockpiles (eg., part of weaponry _development_ and _production_))...

NBC-materials? We agree that it is certainly that ....

Not NBC-weapons? YMMV on that ... it could be reproduced quickly from the stock they had (and the toxin vials found could be used to incapacitate or kill an adversary ... so those are weapons) ...

Not WMDs? It is though, I believe ... I'll look into what exactly was considered WMD (and, of which, what WMDs Iraq pledged not to have) ...

Weapons of mass destruction related-programme activities? Yes ... additionally that ...

Vials with a bacterium strain are not what some would expect as a finished weapon ... but it still is a weapon (and it could be made to a state of what one would expect) ... What to do with the types of weapons stocks they found? Mass replicate it [and futher weaponize it] ...

Accuracy of the "no WMD's" statement? I am content with the accuracy of which "no stockpiles of WMD" (as that is more accurate than no WMDs) ... I guess sometimes it simply easier agree to disagree on the exact nature of if they had weapons though (and I'll refrain from editing on that for now) ...

Concerning the quote from the ISG interim report, "We have not yet found stocks of weapons", I believe that is a reference to stockpiles and not the stock weapon agent (from which stockpiles can be produced) [and that is the impression Kay himself gave on C-SPAN television ... which I watched; though I'll look into this more].

Thank you for your attempt @ a rewrite and expanding the paragraph. Additionally, thank you for taking my concerns (along with others, I would presumne) into account in your editing. It is interesting ... and, yes, it does belongs in the article (and I am glad you put it in there). Though, even if I do not think that it is totally accurate as it stand, for your good faith effort and work on the article, I will not (presently) tag again it myself [others can though, if they choose] ... Sincerely, JDR

Thank you for your mature take on this. I think the article benefits from dialogue like this.

I still think that it is misleading to call vials of a bacterium strain a weapon. Though I suppose they could theoretically be used as such. You COULD throw them at people and they might break and the bacteria could enter the victim's body and cause damage. But since botulinum does not cause an infectious disease I can't see where the mass destruction would come into this.

Take a small lump of uranium. You could hide it under someone's pillow or force it down someone's throat and cause lethal radiation poisoning. But calling it a nuclear weapon would be misleading.

So, take the botulinum vials again. Could they (among other possibilites) be used as raw materials for constructing a biological weapon? Yes. Are they themselves a biological weapon? Not, I think, in the usual sense of the word.

Were they proscribed items that the Iraqis should have declared to the UN inspectors for them to destroy? I'm not absolutely sure but, yes, I think so.

Were they part of an active biological weapons research programme? Certainly not a very active one, having been kept in the fridge for 10 years.

Part of a dormant programme? I'm not sure. Do you know if the ISG had anything definite on that?

Were the vials valuable for a potential biological weapons programme? I don't know. I'm not a biologist but I'm told botulinum can be fairly easily harvested from the soil. If that's true then having some vials to begin with would not have given a biological weapons programme much of a head start.

Does information about the vials belong in this article? Certainly.

Again, thank you for participating. The editing sometimes gets hot, especially on current topics like this one. But while we all bring our respective opinions and biases to the fray it's important to remember that we're all on the same team. We're not world leaders making decisions on war and peace. We're encyclopaedists, trying to create readable and accurate articles.

Haukurth 17:00, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The article has been renamed "Iraq War WMD controversy" from "Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction". The original title seems more appropriate to me. The article is not specifically about the "war controversy" and a general treatment of the whole subject in a historical light seems called for. I will change the name back unless a good argument for the change is supplied.

Haukurth 23:26, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree this should be renamed back to what it was. There is already the Iraq disarmament crisis which covers the controversy leading up to the war. This article is merely about the history of WMD's in Iraq, not the war specifically. -- VV 07:11, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I heard iraq was going to build an A-bomb is it true??

I do not regard it as neutral to say "some evidence supports the theory that Iran is to blame for the chemical attacks" although it is generally believed that it was Hussein. How about the evidence that does not support the theory? Get-back-world-respect 00:53, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

M 687

The M687 is not a standard NATO 155 round. It cannot be used in non US NATO 155's and can only be fired from a couple of US 155 platforms. TDC 05:34, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

"Churchill's" Gas attacks

According to the Daily Telegraph.

"The RAF asked Churchill for permission to gas the rebels. [...]

The RAF failed to master the technology of gas bombs and they were never used.

The British did, however, bombard Shia rebels with gas-filled artillery shells.

After crushing the rising, Churchill again recommended withdrawal and was again overruled."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/18/widip218.xml

This was of course before the Geneva convention of 1925. However does anyone know what was in these shells, or any other details? Rich Farmbrough 17:44, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My understanding is that it was Mustard Gas, but I don't have a decent reference for that. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:50, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• This suggests they felt they didn't need to use gas in the end, at least that's my interpretation - I haven't studied the article too carefully and there is more material there:
• "Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". He dismissed objections as "unreasonable". "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes _ [to] spread a lively terror _" In today's terms, "the Arab" needed to be shocked and awed. A good gassing might well do the job. Conventional raids, however, proved to be an effective deterrent." Guardian (with Google highlights)

--[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 19:47, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

The gas referred to by Churchill was CN gas, the forerunner of today's CS gas. The use of gas was not ordered by Churchill, his opinions given above were written on a Whitehall memorandum on the subject. As stated above, the gas was delivered by artillery and Churchill at the time was at the Air Ministry, so it is unfair to paint him as having ordered or being responsible for the attack. He gave his opinions on the proposed use of gas, nothing more. Bert Preast 11:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

New NY Times article

NY Times Says Cheney and Rice Knowingly Misled On Iraq's Nuclear Capability [7]

But before Ms. Rice made those remarks, she was aware that the government's foremost nuclear experts had concluded that the tubes were most likely not for nuclear weapons at all, an examination by The New York Times has found.

New report by chief US weapons inspector

WashPost link and an update

The government's most definitive account of Iraq's arms programs, to be released today, will show that Saddam Hussein posed a diminishing threat at the time the United States invaded and did not possess, or have concrete plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, U.S. officials said yesterday.

The officials said that the 1,000-page report by Charles A. Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, concluded that Hussein had the desire but not the means to produce unconventional weapons that could threaten his neighbors or the West. President Bush has continued to assert in his campaign stump speech that Iraq had posed "a gathering threat." Wolfman 14:45, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Former United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter has pointed out that the WMDs Saddam had in his possession all those years ago has long since turned to harmless substances. Sarin and tabun have a shelf life of five years, VX lasts a bit longer (but not much lower), and finally botulinum toxin and liquid anthrax last about three years. All the all the chemical and biological weapons withing Saddam's possessions haven turned into harmless and useless goo according to Ritter. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,794771,00.html

Moved the above from the main article. Maybe it belongs there but it needs to be reworded and put in the appropriate place, not just at the end.

Haukurth 00:43, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Flaws in this article

This article is currently full of duplicate sections. How did we let it get in this shape? Mr. Billion 04:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, the duplicates have been removed, but I notice a lot of problems with typos, formatting, and the cites. Why all the empty numbers under "References"? This may take a while to slog through. Mr. Billion 04:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just on a cursory reading I found some howlers. Like that Saddam refused to allow Inspectors into Iraq in 1997. In actual fact the inspectors left in 1998 stating that the Iraqi government were not cooperating with inspections. I remembered this from when it happened, and fortunately was able to find a reference to back up the change I made. This sort of thing is very sloppy, I urge people to check their facts before submitting them. I also made some changes to the growth medium section as there were technical terms used incorrectly (I work in a molecular biology laboratory). I haven't read the whole thing so there may be some more incorrect statements.--Alun 11:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

The biggest flaw may have been that they havent found any WMDs yet, but of course America is never going to apologize for liying.

New speak

I changed the title and text which minimalized government violence againts civilians in the Halabja poison gas attack. If one would like to change this already mild name for the Halabja massacre, and perhaps justify government attacks with chemical weapons against civilian population, please argue so here. This article can and should (at least) reflect the mild name chosen for the massacre. gidonb 18:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Reports of chemical weapons finds since 2003" section

This section is a little weird - its purpose seems to be to raise questions about the official conclusions of investigators who have found no WMD. Some of the stuff mentioned here - e.g. the threat to Jordan from Zarqawi's group - do not seem related to the Saddam regime, and the whole section seems worded IMHO in a way that suggests (without evidence) that media reports discounting these as WMD finds are erroneous. -csloat 03:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Could someone rip through this BS?

[8]

• This site doesn't exactly look reputable. I would wait for verification by somebody with... well... a reputation before pasting it on this page. - ClockworkSoul 03:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

No one has mentioned the reasons Iraq gave for ending its cooperation with UNSCOM.

1) Iraq claimed UNSCOM had been infiltrated by American and British spies, who were more interested in Iraq's legally allowed conventional weapon systems.

http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/301168.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theissues/article/0,6512,794275,00.html

2) Iraq claimed that the US and UK would veto any attempt to lift or reduce sanctions

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0808-07.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/indexone.htm

http://middleeastreference.org.uk/mythoflifting.html

Then of course, there's the problem of proving a negative. How exactly does Iraq prove it does not possess WMDs? Proving a negative is a logical impossibility. Iraq could no more prove they aren't hiding WMDs than they could prove they aren't hiding aliens or bigfoot. Not finding anything proves nothing. It could mean they don't exist, or they do exist and haven't been found...yet.

There is a lot of BS surrounding this issue. I think its important because the US justified its invasion of Iraq in part by Iraq's lack of cooperation with weapon inspections. Since the invasion, its now fairly certain that Iraq hasn't possessed WMDs since 1994.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/21/145202

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1150

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm

So why wouldn't Iraq cooperate after everything had been found (1995 onward)??? I can't think of a good reason for Iraq not to cooperate if weapon inspections were fair and impartial. Therefore either the inspections weren't fair and impartial or Iraq had come to perceive the inspections as being not fair and impartial.

Therefore Iraq came to the conclusion that cooperation was pointless.

Earth as one 21:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Rm Tierney quote

Tierney's quote implied various things known to be untrue (Saddam had trigger mechanisms for nukes, and was trying to buy yellowcake, etc), and it is sourced from frontpagemag, who are <polite>politically highly partisan</polite>. Inserting it looks to me like trying to put war-apologist POV into the article. --Squiddy 16:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The article contains information from other highly partisan sources aside from FP mag. The two pieces of information you cited as being untrue, do have merit. In 1998, Iraq bought a half-dozen kidney-stone-smashing machines from Siemens and then placed an order for 120 high-tech switches as 'spare parts.' Siemens shipped some of the switches before it recognized the ruse. [9] On the yellowcake, I hope you realize, despite Wilson's claim to the contrary, Iraq had sent a trade delegation to Niger to procure yellowcake, or at least that was the PN of Niger's assertion as well as the Senate Committee on Intelligence. TDC 17:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Tierney is qualified to speak on what he knows from first-hand experience. Witnesses are not censored just because you do not like what they have to say. Some of the facts you assume to be untrue have been confirmed. Perhaps you did not know Saddam had one (possibly more) of his scientist(s) hide components of nuclear weapons at his home? Perhaps you did not know that Joe Wilson's trip to Niger learned that Saddam had sought yellowcake uranium from Niger in 1999 and the CIA considered that a kind of confirmation on more recent attempts? Perhaps you did not know the Butler Review found that intelligence on the Iraqi visit to Niger was "well founded"? Don't worry. RonCram 17:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

'The article contains information from other highly partisan sources aside from FP mag' - and it needs a cleanup, not more propaganda. Referring to klytrons as 'triggers for nukes' is simply wrong. They are fast switches which are used in nuke triggers but which aren't the whole gizmo in themselevs. The Niger - yellowcake thing is admitted by the US administration to be wrong - "Now, we've long acknowledged -- and this is old news, we've said this repeatedly -- that the information on yellow cake did, indeed, turn out to be incorrect." Ari Fleischer, July 7, 2003. [10] (sorry, couldn't find it on an amateur wingnut site, so had to refer to whitehouse.gov). RC - Perhaps you did not know what the purpose of British government inquiries is? Anyway, leave your propaganda in there if it makes you happy. The penny has pretty much dropped about the WMD case for war. --Squiddy 09:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Krytrons can most certainly be used as triggers for weapons, which is why their export and sale is strictly monitored and regulated. As for Fleischer's comments, I suppose we should quote from the Butler report:

It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.

By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” was well-founded. TDC 14:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

“The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” was well-founded.'' Oddly enough the Bush administration disagreed (why else retract the statement?) and the Butler report fails to advance any evidence to substantiate the conclusion.--Nomen Nescio 21:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Ritter's dramatic change in viewpoint

Between 1998 and 2000, Ritter underwent a dramatic change in viewpoint on Saddam as a threat. When Ritter resigned in 1998, he gave as his reason that the US and UN were not willing to be confrontational enough in weapons inspections because they were not willing to use force to enforce the inspection. In essence, he complained about an unwillingness to go to war over the issue. By 2000, Ritter produced a film portraying Saddam as a non-threat. Ritter has been anti-war ever since. Different motivations have been suggested for Ritter's change: 1. Saddam found out about Ritter's attraction to young girls and used it as leverage or 2. Saddam funneled money from the Oil for Food Program. Indeed, the financier for Ritter's film did receive Oil for Food coupons from Saddam. Ritter has denied knowing this. These issues were spelled out and properly sourced on the Scott Ritter page. Unfortunately, a Wikipedia editor that goes by Wm has been systematically deleting and dismissing any information embarrassing to Ritter. Any positive contributions to the article would be welcome. RonCram 15:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

John, your edit indicates you think I was editorializing. Perhaps so. However, Ritter changed his view after resigning as a weapons inspector and did not have access to classified information during that time period. That fact should not be excluded from the article. If you feel my wording is not NPOV, I welcome your effort to make it better. However, the point itself is valid and needs to be included in the article.RonCram 19:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Saying Ritter resigned as weapons inspector in 1998 is factual. Saying his views on Iraq changed after that is also factual. Tying the two events together and suggesting a causal connection by saying, "During this period Ritter no longer had access to classified information, yet in 2000 he produced a film that portrayed Iraq as fully disarmed" is editorializing. It's mainly the word "yet," which despite being very, very small, is still, in this context, very, very significant. I've modified the passage in question, and I think this version does a better job of adhering to NPOV. Note that the current version retains the fact that the change in views happened after he left UNSCOM. If you want to make the case in the article that the change in views resulted directly from his lack of access to classified information, I think it would help if you cited some authority for the claim. -- John Callender 20:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not saying the change in his view happened because of his lack of access to classified information. I am talking about overcoming inertia. Normally, people do not change their views unless they have been confronted with new information that makes the change necessary. Ritter did not have access to any new information and has not explained why his views changed. In fact, Ritter will even look you in the eye and say his views have not changed. What does that say about the man?

Here are some sources from different perspectives about Ritter's dramatic change in view:

Washington Post calls Ritter's change a "bizarre turnaround" [11]

CNN's chief Eason Jordan says Ritter's "chameleon-like behavior is really bewildering" [12]

London Guardian [13]

Sam Shulman's op-ed [14]

Weekly Standard draws a parallel between Saddam's money funding Ritter's film to Saddam's bribes of other pro-Saddam journalists [15]RonCram 20:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Does this discussion not constitute an ad hominem attack?--Nomen Nescio 22:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Much of politics involves ad hominem attacks. Why can't this encyclopedia mention such attacks? If some country or party or political activists want to sabotage position X by discrediting advocate Y, shouldn't we mention this in the article?

If the Post calls Ritter turnaround "bizarre", surely they did so to call into question his motives and reliability.

I suggest we incorporate this aspect into the article briefly, with a {{main}} link to Scott Ritter, where his "bewildering ... chameleon-like behavior" is discussed at length.

Ritter is considered an objective, reliable, honest source by some (i.e., those who believe Saddam had no WMD). He is considered unreliable or even dishonest by others (i.e., those who believe that Saddam did have WMD).

In light of this week's revelation that the U.S. found (what? 500?) WMDs, this bears mention in the article. --Wing Nut 14:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Quotes Section

Wow, 1 quote from Bush and a wall of quotes from Democrats. Fair and balanced, eh. As currently organized, the quotes are fairly misleading. They could be divided into sections such as "claims that iraq had wmd" "claims that iraq wanted wmd" "claims that iraq was a threat" etc. 129.170.202.3 11:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

These quotes are cribbed (not by me) from the lists of quotes by Democrats accusing Saddam of having WMD which live on the various rightwing websites. In a couple of cases I found some context for them which countered that assertion. Gzuckier 16:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Since none of the statements can be supported by evidence they are claims, not fact.--Nomen Nescio 12:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please balance those quotes with some dramatic republican claims.200.126.160.27 18:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the quotes section could be trimmed down quite a bit, with an added note that "most authorities believed Iraq possessed WMD's" or something to that effect. TDC 21:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Unaccounted For WMD

If you go back and read the UNMOVIC Quarterly Reports there are actually unaccounted for material in each of the allegations the UN accused Saddam of having. A huge amount of VX, Anthrax and high purity mustard gas were never accounted for. In both the BW and CW areas there was no questions answered. It was taken as face value that they were destroyed by tyhe former Baath Regime. Then on ballistic missle capability the regime was working on missles that were over the range the UN set. I mean I dont know why there is so much talk about WMD as if there was no threat what so ever. The issue was never about Iraq on its own being the threat itself but one of proliferation and that there could be a nexus between states that sponsor terrorism and terrorists. The list of items unaccounted for by both UNSCOM and the ISG is scary to think.

Who here agrees that there should atleast be a section for the weapons that were not accounted for and left unanswered.

Former Iraqi General states that WMD were moved to Syria in 2002

I have added a section to the Aftermath of the War that discusses the recent public statements of Georges Sada, a former senior officer in the Iraqi Air Force that the WMD were moved to Syria just before the invasion. Dawgknot 02:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

He should be identified as a current spokesman for Iyad Allawi.--csloat 08:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if he is a current spokesman. He was awhile back. Either way, while I don't know if its relevant, I certainly don't object. Does it bear upon his credibility? We could also mention that he is a senior official in the Presbyterian church in Baghdad.Dawgknot 18:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

i found this article on the same topic [16]. i'm not sure what to make of it, but i thought i'd bring it to the table. Anthonymendoza 03:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

it says here that the Russians might have had a hand in moving the WMDs [17]. If anyone has got good reason to dismiss the claims being made here then I'd be happy to hear them. Mr bozo, 25 July 2006

Because they are uncorroborated claims from extremely biased sources? Because nobody has cited any evidence of WMDs having existed in the first place in order to be moved? Because documentary evidence of internal discussions among the Iraqi leadership clearly indicates that they didn't know of any WMDs? Because they never actually used any WMDs in the one time they would be useful, i.e. when the US attacked them? I'm sure there are other good reasons but there's a few for starters.--csloat 11:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Mendacity and POV: please use edit summaries or talk when editing please!

To the anonymous user who puts in blatant POV statements that turn out to be complete misrepresentations of what is actually reported: please stop. It's BS, it's obvious you know it's BS because just reading the articles that you link shows it. If you are going to make edits to this page please use the edit summaries or this discussion forum to indicate why you are changing what you're changing. This article is troubling enough without putting in what amounts to blatant disinformation.--csloat 06:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles Not by Judith Miller

In one section someone wrote "However, Judith Miller wasn't the only Times reporter detailing Iraqi WMD ambitions, and Iraqi exiles weren't the only source of information:" followed by a list of NYT articles. I already deleted one that actually was by Miller (among others) as well as one unrelated one. But most of these are unrelated; if there are no objections I will remove the rest of the Sendon articles, which are actually talking about weapons from before 1991 and about the US military inadvertently exposing American soldiers to the gases during the Gulf War in 1991. I don't see the point of this section, as even the other articles from 2000 are by people who worked with Miller, and I see no evidence that "Iraqi exiles weren't the only source of information." This seems like it was entered for POV reasons and it does not seem to have the evidence to back up the point it is making. Actually I would like to delete this section if there are no objections.--csloat 01:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

All editors should watch Nightline tonight, Feb. 15

Nightline is going to report on the "Saddam Tapes."

Reportedly armed with 12 hours of Saddam Hussein's audio recordings, the organizers of an upcoming "Intelligence Summit" are describing the tapes as the "smoking gun evidence" that the Iraqi dictator possessed weapons of mass destruction in the period leading up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has already authenticated the tapes. These are the same tapes mentioned in Duelfer's Report that had not been translated at the time of the report. For some reason, the tapes were released through a very unusual manner - possibly because some in the intelligence community did not want the truth to come out. Read news story here. [18]RonCram 15:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but you infer there indeed existed a threatening program, while omitting this quote:

"The question is not, did he have a program, but did that program represent a threat to the United States, to England, or to anywhere else"

Selective citing of information is exactly why this debacle occured in the first place.-- Nomen Nescio 15:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I also linked to the wrong story. I apologize and that error has been corrected. Please note this quote:

On Tuesday night, Loftus praised a Cybercast News Service article published on Oct. 4, 2004, entitled Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties. The exclusive report featured documents showing numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans.

The documents also demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. The papers showed that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders. RonCram 15:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is another news story from ABC News. It is unfortunate Tierney blames the U.S. "government" for not releasing these tapes. That term is too generic. The Bush Administration wants them released but the CIA has been blocking it.

ABC News obtained the tapes from Bill Tierney, a former member of a United Nations inspection team who translated them for the FBI. Tierney said the U.S. government is wrong to keep these tapes and others secret from the public. "Because of my experience being in the inspections and being in the military, I knew the significance of these tapes when I heard them," says Tierney. U.S. officials have confirmed the tapes are authentic, and that they are among hundreds of hours of tapes Saddam recorded in his palace office.[19]RonCram 23:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you substantiate you repeated claim the CIA is frustrating this virgin-like, lily white administration? More to the point, is the opposite possible? Nomen Nescio 00:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Saddam Tapes Cause Government to Reexamine WMD in Iraq

Apparently the post-war intelligence has been as bad as the pre-war intelligence. According to a news story in the New York Sun titled Furor Erupts Over Recordings of Saddam, some in the Intelligence Community are now willing to reexamine the issue of WMD in Iraq. Wikipedia articles should reflect this new information. Here is some excerpts from the story:

The 12 hours of recorded conversations are part of a vast trove of untranslated documents, recordings, videotape, and photographs captured in Iraq during the war. Whether this information will be examined for clues to the whereabouts of WMD stockpiles is a matter of debate within the intelligence community.

The CIA, FBI, and directorate of national intelligence have resisted calls from Congress to reopen the hunt. But an interagency outfit known as the Media Exploitation Center, administered by the Defense Intelligence Agency, last month started its own search of these materials to attempt to discover the location of the weapons of mass destruction.

"There are elements in NSA and DIA that believe there is enough evidence to warrant further re-examination and a relook at all the material," a congressional staff member told The New York Sun yesterday. "This includes the imagery, documents, and human sources. They also think a more extensive debriefing of knowledgeable human sources and third party nationals is in order."

The quiet re-examination parallels efforts from the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Peter Hoekstra, a Republican of Michigan, who is in the early stages of his own review. He told the Sun last week that he checked the authenticity of Mr. Loftus's recordings with the intelligence community and confirmed that it was Saddam's voice on them.

Mr. Hoekstra has also been pestering the directorate of national intelligence to translate and make public what he claims are nearly 36,000 boxes of captured documents and materials from Iraq that may shed clues on the WMD front.

The Defense Department now appears to be working on the directorate to make other Iraq files public as well. A February 6 letter from Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to Senator Santorum, a Republican of Pennsylvania, said Mr. Rumsfeld is working with the director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, to release Iraqi files sought from the Harmony database, which catalogs material on terrorism secured since September 11, 2001.

The story can be found here.[20]RonCram 21:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What ever happened to the report of the laser technology papers held in one scientist's home in Iraq. Mahdi Obeidi makes no mention of that scientist claiming to be Saddam's most important nuclear enrichment person. It would not be unsuprising that Saddam had more than one enrichment program going without letting either group know of its existance: The Manhhatan project kept secrecy. Drphillo 23:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Bill Tierney says ABC News cut a key part of translated Saddam Tapes

This news could be as big as the Dan Rather forged documents debacle. Tierney, the former weapons inspector, says ABC News cut a key portion of the translated tape to make Saddam sound much less sinister. Here is an excerpt from the news article:

"He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," he told Hannity. In a passage not used by "Nightline," Tierney says Saddam declares: "Terrorism is coming. ... In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?" [21]

Now that comment, ladies and gentlemen, should have made the news. RonCram 00:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I bet you many regimes around the world (China, Russia?) have had similar conversations? Nomen Nescio 00:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Tierney's translation is likely incorrect. My response to the above. In short, ABC did not cut out part of the translation; the heading is false here as is newsmax's assertion. Let's take this argument just to one page Ron rather than all over wikipedia--csloat 01:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

4/27/04 attack on Jordan

Under the heading "Reports of chemical weapons finds since 2003" there is the following:

On 27 April 2004 FOX News reported that operatives confessed to planning a chemical attack against Jordan under the orders of Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Jordanian officials said the plotters entered Jordan from Syria with trucks filled with 20 tons of toxic chemicals. The attack planned to kill some 80,000 civilians.[55]

There was another sentence claiming that the chems they were going to use came from Iraq, but the source did not say that at all. I removed the claim. I have tried to find something similar reported on other sources through google with no luck. I think if this sentence is removed, the rest must go too, as it is in no way a "report of chemical weapons finds" in Iraq, and is in fact unrelated to the topic at hand. If anyone can evidence the claim I removed, please do, otherwise the rest of this paragraph must be deleted as well.--csloat 03:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

csloat, General Sada said the chemicals used in the attack were from Iraq. I know you were aware of his claim. If you thought a reference was so critical, I am surprised you did not look for one yourself. The reference you ask for can be found here. [22] Will you restore the article now? RonCram 08:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Ron, I was not aware of this claim, though I was aware that Gen Sada is the source of other information that has been shown to be false, so I am not too surprised. Please do not lecture me about what you "know" I am or am not aware of, Ron, especially when you choose to wait a month before making your accusations. Thank you.--csloat 02:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Pre-war F*** up

Nobody is listening

• Iraqi diplomat gave U.S. prewar WMD details [23]

Nomen Nescio 11:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this article states that Naji Sabri told the CIA through an intermediary that Saddam "desperately wanted a bomb" and "had stockpiled weapons and had 'poison gas' left over from the first Gulf War." Anthonymendoza 14:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Cherry picking information is the reason the US is now guilty of a war of aggression, try and present all the facts:

For example, consider biological weapons, a key concern before the war. The CIA said Saddam had an "active" program for "R&D, production and weaponization" for biological agents such as anthrax. Intelligence sources say Sabri indicated Saddam had no significant, active biological weapons program. Sabri was right. After the war, it became clear that there was no program.

Another key issue was the nuclear question: How far away was Saddam from having a bomb? The CIA said if Saddam obtained enriched uranium, he could build a nuclear bomb in "several months to a year." Sabri said Saddam desperately wanted a bomb, but would need much more time than that. Sabri was more accurate.

On the issue of chemical weapons, the CIA said Saddam had stockpiled as much as "500 metric tons of chemical warfare agents" and had "renewed" production of deadly agents. Sabri said Iraq had stockpiled weapons and had "poison gas" left over from the first Gulf War. Both Sabri and the agency were wrong. Nomen Nescio 00:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

yes, i read the article, and even Naji Sabri said Saddam had stockpiles. one justification for going to war was Saddam's unaccounted for weapons, weapons that Mr. Sabri told the CIA saddam had stockpiled. as for the nuclear issue, how much time is "much more time than that". Mr. Sabri seems to indicate that eventually saddam would have a bomb, which was another justification for war. i don't see this as "cherry picking". Anthonymendoza 14:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

We are discussing the arguments for invading Iraq, which was impossible to postpone because of the imminent threat. How does "eventually" constitute an imminent threat? It is clear this article, and many others, show there was so much ambiguity that claiming the US had to act and could no longer wait, is unsupported by the evidence presented. Nomen Nescio 15:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

actually, the argument for war hindered on whether Iraq was a gathering imminent threat to world stability. Mr. Sabri indicates Saddam desperately wanted a bomb, thus adding to the gathering threat argument. are you planning on inserting this article into the main text? Anthonymendoza 17:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that doesn't support the gathering threat argument - to support that one would have to show that he was making progress towards making a bomb. And the preponderance of evidence that the administration has (and had at the time of going to war) shows the opposite. Kevin Baas^talk 18:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

i'm referring to the above cited article only. Mr. Sabri apparently told the CIA Saddam desperately wanted a bomb but needed more time than the CIA had thought to produce one, implying Iraq was somewhat capable. read all the postings before attempting to correct me please. Anthonymendoza 21:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

To need more time means that it is at least less imminent than initially presented to us. Nomen Nescio 23:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

but imminent nonetheless. Anthonymendoza 23:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the phrase "imminent":

Imminent is a fairly ambiguous term, given the context of the conversation. It can be accurately defined as both "likely to happen without delay" and "threatening." Obviously, the term is not adequate for purposes of a discussion of whether Saddam needed to be removed with military force.

Since what we're really talking about here is whether the case made for a pre-emptive strike was valid and made with the best of intentions, it would seem to me that the best way to address the issue at hand would be not to properly determine whether or not Saddam represented an "imminent" threat to acquire and use WMDs, but whether the Bush administation duped the American public into believing that Saddam already HAD them. (Speaking as one of the duped)

There was no ambiguity presented to the American public, no "Saddam might be able to do this in several months to a year given the necessary enrichment of uranium, though we have conflicting reports on that..."

I don't think anyone with any interest in pursuit of the truth would argue that Saddam was devoid of the intent to acquire weapons or that he did not represent a threat of any kind to the region.

However, it would be a mistake to justify the Bush administration's duplicity by claiming that there is no distinction between that and what was sold to the American public.

(I apologize, by the way, that I have not taken the time to log in for a Wikipedia account, as I have no desire to take shots at the Bush Administration without identifying myself. My name is Joseph Telegen and I currently reside in Durham, North Carolina)

Joseph, I appreciate your desire to not be anonymous. Please come back and log in. Once you do that it is much easier to sign your comments with RonCram 11:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC) and wikipedia will identify you and give the time you commented. By the way, when you posted your comment, you unintentionally deleted a comment of mine regarding the Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents. No worries, as I have restored it below. But these documents are very important and so I invite you to visit that page as well. RonCram 11:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents

Editors of this page need to take careful note of the Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents. New documents are being released regularly. Many of them relate to WMD. Others to Iraq's relationship to al-Qaeda (or in some cases, the document relates to both). Without question, editors need to be familiar with these documents before contributing. RonCram 08:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Date?

This article contains the text: "In one of the taped conversations an aide to Saddam Hussein asks "Where was the nuclear material transported to?" He then says, "A number of them were transported out of Iraq."" Neither Wikipedia nor the cited article give the date or year of the conversation, which is probably relevant. I also notice the user who added that text to this article has pasted the exact same paragraph into another article for some reason. Is there any way to find out the date of the conversation? --Mr. Billion 23:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This is most likely a reference to the UN special commission or the IAEA Iraq Action Team, which transported nuclear material out of Iraq during the 1990s. Quote:

"They inspected all the air vents, water pipes, even the air, they inspected everything, and he created the file, as you know. He has raised and renewed it a great deal. Sir, where was the Nuclear material transported to? A number of them were transported outside of Iraq. A number of them knew about the nature of our work in the past [UNINTELLIGIBLE] I mean, they got out. Therefore sir, to solve this issue, we must stand firm. Why should we stand firm? We should stand firm because the time will allow us to confess all that we have … Sir, this estimate could take up to five years while they are trying to solve it. Five years of examination and comparison, and they have seen [UNINTELLIGIBLE] He said that we used Nuclear weapons when we entered Iran; this is the story, which I believe he will refer to, if Ekeus and the American position stays strong. However, sir, if they weaken, they will vanish, even if we manufactured missiles or something that is not permitted."

Ste B 22:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

So they were talking about UN inspectors taking away Iraq's nuclear material in the '90s? The Weekly Standard article linked makes it sound like they're talking about Iraq sneakily moving WMD outside the country just before the invasion so that the U.S. will be unable to find any afterwards.

That's incredibly misleading. --Mr. Billion 20:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, Comrade Husayn (the Saddam aide who's speaking in the phrase in question) is referring to an event in 1996, when "The large nuclear infrastructure was destroyed and the fissionable material was removed from Iraq by the IAEA." --Mr. Billion 22:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Failed Good article

For these reasons :

• The International responsibility has too many subsections for the number of 1-line paragraph, maybe regroup by continents or something.
• By far Germany had the largest role in Iraq’s WMD program. is POV.
• The Chemical weapons were used extensively against Iran by Iraq. line is POV unless dates or sources are given.
• would help, crucial information, attempted to aid, As fresh horror stories from the occupation of Kuwait should be changed.
• Why say Niger also provided, they only gave 1 thing.
• This is OR : At the time of the attack Iran was reportedly using the blood agent cyanide whereas Iraq was employing mustard gas.
• Citations needs to be added to at least every sections.
• The Statements section should be dumped into wikiquote.

Altough almost NPOV for such a controversial subject and really stable. Lincher 15:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

• Tons of work was put into bringing the article to the current level. After reconsideration and since many points were assessed, the GA is granted. I will still repeat that it needs more citations but for GA it is enough. Lincher 05:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Report of WMD finds in Iraq

Someone has already posted an entry into the article about the recent FOX News report that WMD were found in Iraq.[24] While this report is not insignificant, it should not be overplayed. After reading the story more closely, all 500 of the WMD were manufactured prior to 1991 and were no longer useable in their current condition. The article does not say if the weapons could have easily been made useable or not. The Department of Defense is downplaying the find and I think that is the proper response at this point. RonCram 05:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Report of WMD finds in Iraq part II

In reference to the pre-1991 munitions being no longer useable, All the recent news articles are based on Senator Santorum's recent press conference and the declassified document he read from (linked in the FOX article). Per that document we have the following:

"The purity of the agents inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal,"

This in no way implies that the mustard and sarin gas munitions found are no longer useable, and in fact states that "chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal." A degraded condition means just that, degraded. As an example, mustard gas munitions found in Iraq in 1998 (and over 7 years old) were still found to be between 96% and 97% pure.

Sarin gas on the other hand has a shelf life of weeks to a few months, unless it is kept chemically seperated in what is called a "binary chemical weapon." Essentially the chemicals that create Sarin gas are kept seperate until the moment of detonation. In this configuration the shelf life of Sarin gas increases exponentially. It's possible the munitions found in Iraq were not binary, but then we would have to ask why would Iraq spend the money making WMD's for longterm stockpiling that would be rendered ineffective after only a few months?

While the munitions found may be "unusable" as far as loading and firing them, the chemicals within are still dangerous and can be transferred to another device easily. The Sarin attack in Tokyo was done with plastic bags wrapped in newspaper and poked with an umbrella after all.

Wikipedia links: Binary chemical weapons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_chemical_weapon Sarin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin Mustard Gas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_gas

Badmojohawk 09:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)badmojohawk

NEAL CONAN (host): The report says hundreds of WMDs were found in Iraq. Does this change any of the findings in your report?

DEULFER: No, the report -- the findings of the report were basically to describe the relationship of the regime with weapons of mass destruction generally. You know, at two different times, Saddam elected to have and then not to have weapons of mass destruction. We found, when we were investigating, some residual chemical munitions. And we said in the report that such chemical munitions would probably still be found. But the ones which have been found are left over from the Iran-Iraq war. They are almost 20 years old, and they are in a decayed fashion. It is very interesting that there are so many that were unaccounted for, but they do not constitute a weapon of mass destruction, although they could be a local hazard.

CONAN: Mm-hmm. So these -- were these the weapons of mass destruction that the Bush administration said that it was going into Iraq to find before the war?

DEULFER: No, these do not indicate an ongoing weapons of mass destruction program as had been thought to exist before the war. These are leftover rounds, which Iraq probably did not even know that it had. Certainly, the leadership was unaware of their existence, because they made very clear that they had gotten rid of their programs as a prelude to getting out of sanctions.

[...]

DEULFER: Sarin agent decays, you know, at a certain rate, as does mustard agent. What we found, both as U.N. and later when I was with the Iraq Survey Group, is that some of these rounds would have highly degraded agent, but it is still dangerous. You know, it can be a local hazard. If an insurgent got it and wanted to create a local hazard, it could be exploded. When I was running the ISG -- the Iraq Survey Group -- we had a couple of them that had been turned in to these IEDs, the improvised explosive devices. But they are local hazards. They are not a major, you know, weapon of mass destruction.

Source: NPR Interview with Charles Duelfer, June 22, 2006. They may be still dangerous but they are not WMDs. --kizzle 20:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem with Duefler is he was not following politics before this obviously [25] This is Iraq attempting to hide a list detailing what weapons were used from Iran Iraq War. Funny how they would not turn over the list and now appear 500 rounds. Also al-Abud network was attempting to create binary mustard weapons. This is a group that was created after the invasion, so I doubt that Saddam was making non-binary if even insurgents knew that binary weapons was the way to go. Also while one round may not destroy a city, its still proof that Iraq was attempting to hide these weapons, weapons it should not have had according to the UN. Weapons it did no have according to its own government. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

My point is not whether Saddam hid the weapons, its that these weapons do not constitute WMDs according to both Duelfer and Kay. Nothing you have provided has refuted this. --kizzle 21:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Chemical weapons are WMDs. Its like saying WMDs were not used in Iran, because it was just 15,000 of these types of shells. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 21:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I've cited both Duelfer and Kay both stating these chemical weapons you refer to do not constitute weapons of mass destruction. Who are you going to cite, yourself? --kizzle 21:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Some of us dont look at the above information as mere coincidences. Duelfer may look at the Iraqi's unwillingness to turn over evidence of these and think its just a coincidence and they were lost in the desert somewhere. I see it as proof that they planned to hide them. Its getting confusing doing this in both locations, but I question ISG and Duefler in the other location. See there for further replies. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 21:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Sarin and Mustard gas are WMDs whether it's loaded in a bomb or kept in a jelly jar in the pantry. There is no set quantity of a substance that defines it as a WMD, the substance itself does that regardless of amount. Per UN resolution 687, chemical weapons (regardless of quantity) are WMDs, regardless of what Duelfer and Kay think. I assume this is because we are dealing with nations here and not neighborhoods. A nation's chemical warfare development is likely to produce a sufficient quantity to affect the masses. Iraq demonstrated this ability when they attacked the Kurds with chemical weapons, killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians. Survivors are still dying today of chemical related ailments. Funny how quickly some forget the past in an effort to debase the present. Bad Mojo 03:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)badmojohawk

I don't think small amounts are defined to be a chemical weapon - I think quite a few countries have lab scale amounts (or more) for testing masks, filters, tanks etc. UN resolution 687 does not define what a chemical weapon is AFAIK. The Chemical Weapons Convention says in Article II.1 ""Chemical Weapons" means ... Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes", and in II.1 says ""Chemical Weapons Production Facility" ... Does not mean ... Any facility having a production capacity for synthesis ... that is less than 1 tonne; ... or The single small-scale facility for production of chemicals listed in Schedule 1". Surprisingly it also says in II.9 ""Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention" means ... Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes". Rwendland 09:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

UN resolution 687 paragraph 14 states "Takes note that the actions to be taken by Iraq in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the present resolution represent steps towards the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all missiles for their delivery and the objective of a global ban on chemical weapons;" Looking back at paragraph 8, it states:

"Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;"

The rest of the paragraphs (9,10,11,12, and 13) deal with nuclear weapons, prevention of developing nuclear and chemical weapons, and locating and destroying any such existing weapons. It appears by reading it that the UN is stating that the destruction of any nuclear and chemical weapons is an effort to keep the Middle East free of WMDs - Inferring that chemical weapons are WMD's just as nuclear weapons are. There is no provision for quantity in resolution 687 and I'll admit that the wording could have been more direct, but I don't think they were anticipating another war in Iraq centered on WMD's. I hadn't read the Chemical Weapons Convention, thanks for the link. Looking it over, I can see where you are coming from with regards to limited quantities for research. I'm curious however how this carries over to a country that has violated that convention in the past, is it an absolute right despite previous transgressions (ie. the aforementioned attacks on the Kurds, and over 100,000 Iranians that died from Iraqi chemical attacks), or is it grandfathered in that "at risk" countries give up the right to limited quantities of research material. I do find it interesting however that out of 178 ratifying countries, Iraq seemingly refused to join (one of only eight to not ratify). I view the omission of Iraq on that list as suspect. Given that, Part of the requirement for reasearch use quantities is a permit, I would be curious if Iraq as a non-ratifying country bothered to apply for a permit from an organization that they do not support. The OPCW web site lists all participating countries http://www.opcw.org/ . I also find it humorous that in the wikipedia entry you cited, under "known stockpiles" it states that Iraq's stockpiles were destroyed under a United Nations reduction program - though apparently they weren't. All in all, I'm not sure I can apply the OPCW to Iraq, as Saddam evidently didn't agree with the OPCW's long term plan to destroy and prevent production of chemical weapons. Bad Mojo 02:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I can see that UN 687 bans Iraq from having chemical weapons R&D facilities, but in general, where does the CWC say a country need a permit for chemical weapon research level quantities? Are you talking about the permits countries issue to companies/labs in that country to use research level quantities, eg [26]? Rwendland 11:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. That info comes from here http://www.chemlink.com.au/chemweap.htm - It states that anything more than 100 gms of Schedule 1, 2, or 3 chemicals (all that are covered by the OPCW) must aquire a permit. Click on the "Countries that are party to the convention" link and it takes you back to the OPCW homepage. Apparently if you belong to OPCW, then you also abide by the guidelines set forth by the CWCO, and they request that you inform them of any amount that approaches 50% of the amount for which you need a permit... Which would be 50 gms of any chemical warfare agent (and of course apply for a permit at 100 gms). Seems that like most things the UN and other international organizations have their hands in, it's overly complicated and difficult to establish a clear set of rules without far more research than should be necessary. Bad Mojo 13:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

False Reporting and not Balanced about FOX NEWS REPORT

I sent the Link from the 2004 CIA REPORT --Chicago3rd 03:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

ALSO: [27]

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Iraq Survey Group Final Report

Key Findings

Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable:

• Saddam and many Iraqis regarded CW as a proven weapon against an enemy’s superior numerical strength, a weapon that had saved the nation at least once already—during the Iran-Iraq war—and contributed to deterring the Coalition in 1991 from advancing to Baghdad.

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.

• The scale of the Iraqi conventional munitions stockpile, among other factors, precluded an examination of the entire stockpile; however, ISG inspected sites judged most likely associated with possible storage or deployment of chemical weapons.

Iraq’sCW program was crippled by the Gulf war and the legitimate chemical industry, which suffered under sanctions, only began to recover in the mid-1990s. Subsequent changes in the management of key military and civilian organizations, followed by an influx of funding and resources, provided Iraq with the ability to reinvigorate its industrial base.

• Poor policies and management in the early 1990s left the Military Industrial Commission (MIC) financially unsound and in a state of almost complete disarray.
• Saddam implemented a number of changes to the Regime’s organizational and programmatic structures after the departure of Husayn Kamil.
• Iraq’s acceptance of the Oil-for-Food (OFF) program was the foundation of Iraq’s economic recovery and sparked a flow of illicitly diverted funds that could be applied to projects for Iraq’s chemical industry.

The way Iraq organized its chemical industry after the mid-1990s allowed it to conserve the knowledge-base needed to restart a CW program, conduct a modest amount of dual-use research, and partially recover from the decline of its production capability caused by the effects of the Gulf war and UN-sponsored destruction and sanctions. Iraq implemented a rigorous and formalized system of nationwide research and production of chemicals, but ISG will not be able to resolve whether Iraq intended the system to underpin any CW-related efforts.

• The Regime employed a cadre of trained and experienced researchers, production managers, and weaponization experts from the former CW program.
• Iraq began implementing a range of indigenous chemical production projects in 1995 and 1996. Many of these projects, while not weapons-related, were designed to improve Iraq’s infrastructure, which would have enhanced Iraq’s ability to produce CW agents if the scaled-up production processes were implemented.
• Iraq had an effective system for the procurement of items that Iraq was not allowed to acquire due to sanctions. ISG found no evidence that this system was used to acquire precursor chemicals in bulk; however documents indicate that dual-use laboratory equipment and chemicals were acquired through this system.

Iraq constructed a number of new plants starting in the mid-1990s that enhanced its chemical infrastructure, although its overall industry had not fully recovered from the effects of sanctions, and had not regained pre-1991 technical sophistication or production capabilities prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).

• ISG did not discover chemical process or production units configured to produce key precursors or CW agents. However, site visits and debriefs revealed that Iraq maintained its ability for reconfiguring and ‘making-do’ with available equipment as substitutes for sanctioned items.
• ISG judges, based on available chemicals, infrastructure, and scientist debriefings, that Iraq at OIF probably had a capability to produce large quantities of sulfur mustard within three to six months.
• A former nerve agent expert indicated that Iraq retained the capability to produce nerve agent in significant quantities within two years, given the import of required phosphorous precursors. However, we have no credible indications that Iraq acquired or attempted to acquire large quantities of these chemicals through its existing procurement networks for sanctioned items.

In addition to new investment in its industry, Iraq was able to monitor the location and use of all existing dual-use process equipment. This provided Iraq the ability to rapidly reallocate key equipment for proscribed activities, if required by the Regime.

• One effect of UN monitoring was to implement a national level control system for important dual-use process plants.

Iraq’s historical ability to implement simple solutions to weaponization challenges allowed Iraq to retain the capability to weaponize CW agent when the need arose. Because of the risk of discovery and consequences for ending UN sanctions, Iraq would have significantly jeopardized its chances of having sanctions lifted or no longer enforced if the UN or foreign entity had discovered that Iraq had undertaken any weaponization activities.

• ISG has uncovered hardware at a few military depots, which suggests that Iraq may have prototyped experimental CW rounds. The available evidence is insufficient to determine the nature of the effort or the timeframe of activities.
• Iraq could indigenously produce a range of conventional munitions, throughout the 1990s, many of which had previously been adapted for filling with CW agent. However, ISG has found ambiguous evidence of weaponization activities.

Saddam’s Leadership Defense Plan consisted of a tactical doctrine taught to all Iraqi officers and included the concept of a “red-line” or last line of defense. However, ISG has no information that the plan ever included a trigger for CW use.

• Despite reported high-level discussions about the use of chemical weapons in the defense of Iraq, information acquired after OIF does not confirm the inclusion of CW in Iraq’s tactical planning for OIF. We believe these were mostly theoretical discussions and do not imply the existence of undiscovered CW munitions.

Discussions concerning WMD, particularly leading up to OIF, would have been highly compartmentalized within the Regime. ISG found no credible evidence that any field elements knew about plans for CW use during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

• Uday—head of the Fedayeen Saddam—attempted to obtain chemical weapons for use during OIF, according to reporting, but ISG found no evidence that Iraq ever came into possession of any CW weapons.

ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations. The network of laboratories could have provided an ideal, compartmented platform from which to continue CW agent R&D or small-scale production efforts, but we have no indications this was planned. (See Annex A.)

• ISG has no evidence that IIS Directorate of Criminology (M16) scientists were producing CW or BW agents in these laboratories. However, sources indicate that M16 was planning to produce several CW agents including sulfur mustard, nitrogen mustard, and Sarin.
• Exploitations of IIS laboratories, safe houses, and disposal sites revealed no evidence of CW-related research or production, however many of these sites were either sanitized by the Regime or looted prior to OIF. Interviews with key IIS officials within and outside of M16 yielded very little information about the IIS’ activities in this area.
• The existence, function, and purpose of the laboratories were never declared to the UN.
• The IIS program included the use of human subjects for testing purposes.

ISG investigated a series of key pre-OIF indicators involving the possible movement and storage of chemical weapons, focusing on 11 major depots assessed to have possible links to CW. A review of documents, interviews, available reporting, and site exploitations revealed alternate, plausible explanations for activities noted prior to OIF which, at the time, were believed to be CW-related.

• ISG investigated pre-OIF activities at Musayyib Ammunition Storage Depot—the storage site that was judged to have the strongest link to CW. An extensive investigation of the facility revealed that there was no CW activity, unlike previously assessed.

And the author disregarded the information from the Administrations own CIA.

Is this a TABLOID Encyclopedia?

WMD Post 1992

Hi. the article states "no post 1991 stockpiles have been found" However this article shows otherwise http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html Thanks. --DjSamwise 06:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC) -the suspected lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 --DjSamwise 16:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

if it was from after the invasion, that's kind of a different category than those under Saddam which presumably were the cause of his needing to be invaded. Gzuckier 18:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• What was found has not been identified as a "stockpile", and so it doesn't count as one. If we call it that, it would be original research. Judgesurreal777 16:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations needed

Alright, I concede, not all of them need a citation, but a few of them need to be.....like one per paragraph if they are all the same. Judgesurreal777 21:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Double article?

Why does the section "Theories in the aftermath of the 2003 war" link to Post-Saddam WMD search as the main article, when that entire article is included in that section too? Is this a mistake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twthmoses (talk • contribs) 04:33, 7 August 2006

I get the idea that it was an effort to reduce the length of this article by moving all that stuff to the other one. Doesn't seem to have worked. --Mr. Billion 06:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Revert by Judgesurreal777

Could you explain what it is that's wrong with the new intro, Judgesurreal777? I'd appreciate it if you'd work to repair that rather than just reverting it.

They're already mentioned further down in their own section. Do they really need to be mentioned twice? I removed the duplicate in the intro before, but somebody reinserted it. I wrote the new version because if the 500 shells deserve to be part of the introduction, they deserve to have the context in which they were publicized included. They were discovered in 2004 and the inspectors who dug them up recognized that they were not the weapons they'd been looking for. Then Santorum publicized them in 2006 when he was behind in the polls during a heated election contest.

Is it biased to mention this? I find it biased the way they've been publicized and touted as a great vindication in spite of the fact that they're the "same kind of ordnance the U.S. military has been gathering in Iraq for the past several years." --Mr. Billion 07:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying a different version of the introduction which I hope will be more acceptable. --Mr. Billion 14:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to keep the intro NPOV, and as I brought this article to GA status and wrote that intro, and don't see any need to add to it, I am going to try to keep it intact. It is summarized, and NPOV, and doesn't need further commentary. Please explain what about it needs to be added from what it was. Judgesurreal777 15:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The intro looks pretty good, actually, but the bit about Santorum's and Hoekstra's claim is a little off. That's what I'm trying to repair.
The intro claims that "declassified documents" show that "as of July 21, 2006" inspectors have found "over 500 chemical munitions containing degraded Mustard or Sarin Nerve agent." First, it is a document. Not multiple "declassified documents." Second, the document does not say "over" 500, it says "approximately." Also, why capitalize Mustard and Sarin? Was somebody trying to emphasize something? But those are minor points. More importantly, Santorum's document is irrelevant because, as I have pointed out, the old weapons had been found and reported on since 2004. Nobody needed Santorum and Hoekstra to discover in 2006 what the ISG had reported on in 2004. The fact that remnants of the Iran-Iraq war have been dug up is not "classified" information. It was a piece of old information dramatized for political purposes.
The two politicians made it sound like the sum total of 500 buried and unusable shells from the Iran-Iraq war that had been dug up were a recent discovery, and "critically important information that the world community needs to know." The classified document that Negroponte's bulletpoints summarized is a study that analyzed the potential hazards for soldiers finding chemical munitions from the Iran-Iraq war without realizing what they were. The only thing that's notable about Santorum's "declassified" document is the political effect it had.

As far back as September 2004, the CIA had disclosed the discovery of the old chemical munitions from Iraq's war with Iran. The CIA also explained that these weapons were not the ones the Bush administration had used to justify the invasion of Iraq. What's more, Kay said, the decades-old sarin nerve gas was probably no more dangerous than household pesticides -- and far more likely to degrade at room temperature. "In terms of toxicity, sir," Kay told Weldon at one point, "I suspect in your house, and I know in my house, I have things that are more toxic than sarin produced from 1984 to 1988."

The way the introduction is worded, it sounds as if the 500 might have been found all together, or as if the 500 are a single group. But they were found 'in groups of one or two' over the years since the invasion.[28] The info from the "declassified document" referred to in the introduction is a trivial fact presented in a misleading way by politicians.
I'd really prefer simply removing Santorum's meme from the intro, leaving the note about the old shells in the correct section under "Theories in the aftermath of the 2003 war," and thereby avoiding repetition.
I'll try a new version. --Mr. Billion 07:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, perhaps the Santorum stuff needs to be clarified, but please keep it small in length; from what you have said, that part needs trimming due to lack of relevance instead of more explanation. Judgesurreal777 19:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed sentence

Iraq's refusal to allow inspections stipulated under UN Resolutions and the threat of operational, banned WMD in the hands of Saddam Hussein was given as the chief of several reasons for the decision of the United States and its coalition to invade Iraq and topple his government in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.{{citationneeded}}

This sentence is not sourced, and although this was the reason given by the US, "refusal to allow inspections" this is contradicted in the section directly above, were UN inspictors were allowed into Iraq. Travb (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Bush's 8/21 admission that Iraq had no WMD

Bush said this today:

"Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.'

Should it go in the article somewhere? Bush admission

NBGPWS 19:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I am very sure that he has previously said something to that effect, but perhaps not as directly. Where do you suggest putting it? Judgesurreal777 19:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. P.S., thank goodness we can put those Santorum/500 non-working chemical weapons "discovery" to rest now. --kizzle 20:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently not; it's still making the rounds. See below... --Mr. Billion 01:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You folks may trust Bush to be 100% perfectly accurate in his speeches, but some of us prefer more factual detail. It seems to me that both the statement that Iraq had no "WMD", and the statement that Iraq could still make them, are at best oversimplifications. Warren Dew 03:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are simplifications. What's actually the case is that there were no significant WMD in Iraq and the country probably still was technically capable of eventually regaining the ability to produce some after sanctions were dropped someday (assuming UN watchdog groups didn't notice and didn't stop them), in the same way that somebody who's in handcuffs is still technically capable of doing jumping jacks after he's released from them (assuming the cops don't notice and don't stop him). --Mr. Billion 00:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

WMDs Found

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50746

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

But for some reason, no body wants to admit it. Sarin says "Sarin, also known by its NATO designation of GB (O-Isopropyl methylphosphonofluoridate) is an extremely toxic substance whose sole application is as a nerve agent. As a chemical weapon, it is classified as a weapon of mass destruction by the United Nations according to UN Resolution 687, and its production and stockpiling was outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993."

Now since Saddam Hussein was stockpiling WMDs, would that not be what we (The US) went to war for? Because the UN didn't enforce its own Resoulution 687, we went in. And low and behold all this information is swept under the rug. It's quite a pity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.224.221.114 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 25 August 2006

Dr. David Kay, First Director of the CIA Iraq Survey Group 2003 - 2004, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee:

"I fully expected that we would find chemical rounds from the 1980s in Iraq. I knew that they were continuing to be found right up to the time of the war, and there was no reason to doubt there.

"Now, I was concerned with these weapons in one particular aspect: I was concerned that our troops would be exposed to them as they tried to bring under control and render harmless a large conventional armory.

...

"Why this lack of concern on my part for what I freely acknowledge at the time was a high probability that small amounts of pre-1991 chemical munitions would continue to be found? There were two reasons.

"First, the general technical assessments that I was provided was that Iraq sarin that was produced -- and this was the bulk of Iraq sarin -- was produced between 1984 and 1988, a huge amount of which had been collected by the U.N., had been analyzed not only here but in other places around the world -- that that sarin was of such poor quality, it lacked any stabilization agent, and quite frankly, if I can respond to an earlier question you had, Congressman Weldon, it does not in any way look like Russian sarin.

...

"I must also say -- and some questions were raised about how easy it would to be extracted. I'm one person in the room that has actually ordered people to extract chemical agent in Iraq from Iraqi weapons. Let me tell you, the people who deserve our undying gratitude are the American men and women who are now asked to do it.

"It is an extraordinarily -- even using the advanced technology we have to draw off those chemical agents from Iraqi weapons. These weapons are badly corroded. They were never produced in a quality that would be acceptable in our military. And while it is possible to draw it off, you are more likely to result in the death of the people likely to draw it off.

...

"Let me conclude by saying, I don't think any of us should be surprised that we are still finding chemical munitions produced before 1991 in Iraq. I must say the only surprise in the last two weeks about this controversy is why this report is classified. I can think of no reason that this report should remain unclassified (sic) and unavailable. And I commend the chairman and others' efforts to make that unclassified.

"All of the world's battlefields continue to yield old weapons, many decades after the conflict. I'm absolutely convinced that Iraq is no exception to this. We will be finding conventional armaments and, unfortunately, chemical munitions."

REP. WELDON: "So this Iraqi sarin -- would you pick up the bag and hold it if there was a liter of it?"

MR. KAY: "Sir, I have carried it on my person in a closed aircraft with 25 of my closest friends until they discovered I was carrying it."

Gzuckier 16:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

(See the discussion above and here for more explanations on why the claim that Saddam was "stockpiling WMDs" after all is thoroughly misinformed.) --Mr. Billion 01:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Downing Street Memo

There is no mentioning of the Downing Street memo in the article. Why not ?

Because the document was proved to be a fabrication. Judgesurreal777 21:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Weel, that's news. Was that on Fox News or on the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page? Gzuckier 16:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have evidence that nobody else on Wikipedia does, could you add it to the Downing Street Memo article, Judge? Because I don't yet see anything there proving such an assertion. --Mr. Billion 17:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. Was thinking of another WMD related topic. What I meant to say was that it does not directly relate to WMDS, and as you can see this article is already way overloaded just keeping strictly to the subject matter, instead of including peripheral information. Judgesurreal777 23:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

How are the minutes of an official meeting between top u.s. and british officials that mentions WMD in relation to Iraq not relevant to an article titled "Iraq and weapons of mass destruction"? Kevin Baas^talk 18:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Easy. This is about how they were created, used, and then destroyed/disapeared, not about speculating how much the United States knew about WMD's. That's for the justification of the Iraq war article. Judgesurreal777 22:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Moreover the Downing St. memo is based upon the subjective notes taken by a British cabinet member's aide, and is NOT to be considered official "minutes" of objective recording such as found by court reporters. The proof would be in the statement "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." which was not a statement by an official present, but thirdhand- a description of what a British official described in a report of what he was witnessing. Thus it is mere opinion. Batvette 07:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

UNSCOM's own estimate was that 90-95% of Iraqi WMDs had been successfully destroyed before its 1998 withdrawal?

Is there a citation for this statistic? I know Scott Ritter has stated this statistic on many occassions after UNSCOM stopped gathering evidence in 1998, and his association with UNSCOM lends credibility to the assertion. However, I have read much of the late UNSCOM documents and see no such assessment in them, and a lot of indication that UNSCOM could not provide a reliable assessment of Iraq's compliance.

This is a very important statistic that is not obviously evidenced, so it should be cited or removed.

First paragraph loaded with weasel words

"reign"... Wouldn't "tenure" or "time as president" be more appropriate than this kingly designation? Not to mention the last sentence in the first paragraph--"confrontation". Implying that he never allowed any inspections or that he was violently threatening the UN or its inspectors.

I tried to take some of them out but someone just reverted the changes I made! 86.147.169.125 20:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

"and overthrew Saddam Hussein in the spring of 2003." Whos' spring? American? A date would be better. 203.0.35.33 02:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

CIA-backed Iran-Iraq war

I added the crucial point that the Iraqi invasion of Iraq was backed by the CIA and someone deleted it. Isn't this fact esential for Americans to gain a world view on Saddam Hussein and how he became armed in the first place? 86.147.169.125 20:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

The section "Only retained old weapons and equipment to develop later" needs cleaning/rewriting in keeping with WP:NPOV. The header is loaded. "ISG findings and/or conclusions" would be appropriate. In addition: 1. I see embedded links in the main body. 2. The section has repetitive statements. 3. There is an unrelated statement from David Kay about "terrorist groups and individuals" passing through Iraq. 4. Bill Tierney's conjecture is also redundant (why should we quote a man who claims God told him where to find WMD?). 5. Uranium compound had been sitting behind lock and key under IAEA safeguard at Iraq's gutted Tuwaitha nuclear for several years. Something to this effect should be included in the article, so not to mislead readers into believing it was a fresh discovery. Other sections are equally questionable. Do we really need to have a section on the legal justification for war? Shouldn't this page simply describe the relationship between Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, as per other nations listed in the WMD panel? smb 20:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, would Bill Tierney be any more credible in your eyes if he said "a hunch"? "a little voice inside"? I have a problem with people saying God told them to dio something too, but in most cases it's merely a figure of speech by those a bit wrapped up with their spiritual guidance. In any case it sounds like a dismissal merely on his faith and good luck with that, there's billions more where he came from. (I'm agnostic FWIW)Batvette (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that that has been a difficulty of this page; as the last few years have transpired, the topic has become too large to hold on just one article, so we have had to divide off sections, and perhaps we need to make a plan to get the article back to Iraq and WMD's, and then anything else should get transferred to its specific article. :) Judgesurreal777 21:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit like a giant jigsaw puzzle -- editors would insert a few different pieces here and there. But now we are in a position to make the picture more complete; describing the scene as accurately and concisely as possible. smb 06:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favour of removing unsourced statements and anything controversial. If individual objections are raised, we can discuss things further and perhaps reword/reinsert information. It would nice to get this page looking like most of the others. smb 06:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, let's do it. Judgesurreal777 13:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we remove the {{cleanup-rewrite}} tag then? WinterSpw (talk) 04:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

It has been suggested that Operation Sarindar be merged with WMD theories in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War. Please make your thoughts on the proposed merger known on the respective talk page. Thankyou. smb 21:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Interview on Last Night

Did anyone else see the interview on TV last night? Wished I remembered the channel, but it was very interesting. They interviewed the guy who interrogated Saddam in prison. He was definitely saying that they HAD weapons that they destroyed, and were planning to build new ones as soon as the US left the country. Do a google search or something and I'm sure you could find a video of the interview. [Techno Indie-1/28/08]

There is definitely a need to create a section on Iran and Saddams fears of Iran being the reason he claimed he still had WMD's. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The Iraqi dictator insisted that his country retained no such weapons of mass destruction. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. We might consider including a section on the recent controversy that Saddam "tricked" the United States into overthrowing his government, but that is a completely different thing. smb (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

why would saddam admit to having them at all? It would completly hurt all of his interests, including strengthening the support for the war. If you heard about the interview at all sadam's intention was not to "trick" the united states into attacking them. He first did not believe bush would attack and when he found out he expected to have a bombing campaigh similar to the ones carried out on his country earlier by the US. Later when he realised there was a going to be a full scale invasion he instructed his army to hold out for several weeks before starting the insurgency. Whether you believe there was WMDs there are not you must admit that saddam would not have admitted to it becuase that alone could cuase him to lose his war. He was not that stupid to make such a mistake. I dont understand how you can take his comments as the truth. First look at his record as a person and then just recognize it is such a huge conflict of interests. At that point, possibly his life, and certanly his legacy and a possible retaking of his country depended on his words. You have to be stupid to think he would just tell the truth.

Think of what his goal was at that point, discredit the US, make them lose the war. What was the best way to do that? Say stuff that gets the democrats into power, they will lose the war for the US, Iraq goes to being terrorist controled.

Democrats must be ashamed to think they are on the same side as terroists and mass murderers. And seeing as they obviously dont have some conspiricay to help terrorists, they must just be plain stupid.

This page seems to be biased towards the opinion that Iraq produced WMDs which is generally held not to be the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.161.122.252 (talk) 03:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

They did, for many years, no one disputes that. the question is did they after the mid 1990's, which is not known for certitude by anyone (that we know of). Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The only bias on this page is coming from those who believe no weapons on mass destruction existed. They were found. It's a fact. They were there. Mustard gas and sarin count as weapons of mass destruction. this page desperately needs a moderator to come in, set the facts straight and lock this page down because every time i look at this article, somebody has edited history to their liking and claimed that no wmds were found, which is a blatant lie.

UN condemnation of chemical weapons use during Iran-Iraq war

This article states "For example, the US and UK blocked condemnation of Iraq's known chemical weapons attacks at the UN Security Council. No resolution was passed during the war that specifically criticized Iraq's use of chemical weapons, despite the wishes of the majority to condemn this use. On 21 March 1986 the United Nation Security Council recognized that "chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian forces"; this statement was opposed by the United States, the sole country to vote against it in the Security Council (the UK abstained)."

I don't think that is true. Resolution 582 (1986) was adopted unanimously and it includes this statement:

"2. Also deplores the escalation of the conflict, especially territorial incursions, the bombing of purely civilian centres, attacks on neutral shipping or civilian aircraft, the violation of international humanitarian law and other laws of armed conflict and, in particular, the use of chemical weapons contrary to obligations under the 1925 Geneva Protocol;"

http://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/729/06/img/NR072906.pdf?OpenElement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.53.104 (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you to correct the article. It is clearly false, since the Security Council cannot decide anything without U.S. agreement. The United States has a veto over any resolution, and statements by the Security Council President require consensus of all Council members. So the statement cannot be true and the cited reference cannot be taken as authoritative. NPguy (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Significant cooperation

It says in the lead section that "the United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi WMD throughout the 1990s in spite of persistent Iraqi obstruction", yet says nothing of Iraqi cooperation, as described here by former UNSCOM inspector and UNMOVIC commissioner Frank Cleminson:

"It is often said, sometimes with dubious authority, that Baghdad never cooperated in the UN quest to account for its nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. In fact, that is not entirely correct. Immediately following the termination of hostilities in 1991, Iraq did cooperate in a significant fashion. Not only did Iraq turn over militarily significant holdings of weapons of mass destruction to the United Nations as instructed, but it also participated effectively in a follow-on destruction process. The destruction of proscribed weapons and of associated facilities was carried out mainly by Iraq but under constant supervision by UNSCOM and the IAEA. Data from the archives in New York bear out the contention that UN inspectors proved to be extremely successful in effectively accounting for the disposition and ultimate destruction of nuclear materials and associated facilities as well as of proscribed missiles and of chemical weapons." [29]

It's worthy of note, that Iraq produced and turned over significant quantities of illicit material to the inspectors. smb (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Truth

That country never had that weapons and is even silly to suppose they did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.199.111 (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Pfft. You obviously have never taken the time to educate yourself on Iraq's own declarations of their nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs given to the IAEA and UNSCOM(UNMOVIC). (Wingnutrules (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC))

Curious edit reverted

While doing a little anti-vandalism, I noticed a change to this article by an IP whose other change deleted the entire section in Submarine called "Women as part of crew" while commenting "Who gives a fuck, stupid pointless waste of space" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Submarine&diff=239657025&oldid=239377078

That IP's change to this article was to change the "suggestion" of Winston Churchill to the "order" of Winston Churchill.

The first reference given simply goes to the Telegraph's home page, while in the second the writer says he no longer believes the UK used gas, but only that the local commander asked for "large supplies" that were not needed. A third citation before that (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/apr/19/iraq.arts) does say that Churchill suggested using chemical weapons against the Arabs as an experiment, to "shock and awe" (Mustard gas had already been used against the Bolshevik troops in 1919, says the article).

I'm not an expert in this historical field, but the two references I could read demonstrate nothing except that the British were considering chemical weapons as an option that was never used. The text before the anonymous IP's change was clear enough, while the IP's change is misleading. Hence, I've restored the original text.

Piano non troppo (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

what is this meant to mean?

"hindi gani2 yan. ala namang hinulog ang iraq ehh..japan naghulog nun ehhh..nung"

This: the first line of text under the introduction is not a good way to introduce the subject. vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigourous (talk • contribs) 12:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)