[Scotty]

On top of that, over 500 chemical weapons found in three years.

Source?

The same articles I've been asking people to read for more than a page now.

Here are several more in case you don't feel like scrolling up.

[NGTM-1R]

Didn't we sell Sadaam most of the WMD's that he supposedly had? 

Considering the United States, by law, cannot sell anything that even looks like a WMD...no.

Besides, it was well within Saddam's ability to produce most of the chemical weapons he had. Stuff like mustard gas and sarin/GB doesn't take complex technology. Most non-persistant chemical agents date to during or immediately after the First World War.

[General Battuta]

sarin/GB doesn't take complex technology

i can't speak for sarin but this fellow certainly does

[karajorma]

On top of that, over 500 chemical weapons found in three years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Iraq_Survey_Group

Beginning in 2003, the ISG had uncovered remnants of Iraq's 1980s-era WMD programs. On June 21, 2006 Rick Santorum claimed that "we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons", citing a declassified June 6 letter to Pete Hoekstra  saying that since the 2003 invasion, a total of "approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent" had been found scattered throughout the country.

The Washington Post reported that "the U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active." It said the shells "had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988."

Seriously? 20 year old WMDs that have degraded is the best you can do?

[Bobboau]

I don't get why Sadam didn't just flat out give the UN inspectors total access to everything, he would have totally embarrassed the US and would probably still be alive and in power, instead he decided to play that stupid cat and mouse game which just pissed us off and gave legitimacy to Bush's claims.

[NGTM-1R]

I don't get why Sadam didn't just flat out give the UN inspectors total access to everything, he would have totally embarrassed the US and would probably still be alive and in power, instead he decided to play that stupid cat and mouse game which just pissed us off and gave legitimacy to Bush's claims.

He was a strongman; he couldn't bow to anyone or his rule is delegitimized. Saddam was, and with good justification, paranoid. He went to great lengths to ensure he wouldn't be killed by his own military.

[karajorma]

True but he maybe could have combined the two into a show of strength by claiming to those in Iraq that he'd scared the West into giving him stuff even though they said they hated him. North Koreans have gotten away with crazier claims so if Saddam couldn't that just meant he wasn't trying hard enough.

[Kosh]

True but he maybe could have combined the two into a show of strength by claiming to those in Iraq that he'd scared the West into giving him stuff even though they said they hated him. North Koreans have gotten away with crazier claims so if Saddam couldn't that just meant he wasn't trying hard enough.

Bush wanted his head, plain and simple, and there was nothing he could have done to prevent that.

I find it highly suspicious that, of the few files that were released from the super secret energy task force back in 2000-2001, one of them happens to be oil maps about iraq, then we inexplicably invade them on trumped up charges of supporting al-qaeda and having weapons of mass destruction? This smells of an oil war.

[MP-Ryan]

This smells of an oil war.

No, it doesn't.  Not one little bit.  Geopolitical stability allowing for oil exploration is a nice added bonus, of course.  Before you go claiming oil war, take a look at the actual oil import data for the United States, and then take a look at the actual current estimated production capacity remaining in the United States and Canada. [Hint, hint.]  North America is doing its best to tap out oil supplies in strategically shaky countries before we touch our own.  Last time someone from our outfit talked to some of the corporate execs in Northern Alberta, we heard that they estimate another 50-100 years of extraction business in the oil sands alone, with a production capacity there that could rival the Saudis (at current market prices; nevermind if the price goes up and permits a drive for better recovery percentages).  In 2006, it was estimated that there were 170 billion barrels of [economically-feasible] recoverable oil in the Athabascan oil sands alone.  This does not account for recent exploration data in the north, or the provinces of Saskatchewan and Newfoundland.

Oil war, my ass.  The US did not commit an amount approaching nearly $1 trillion dollars to finance a war in Iraq over oil, of all things.

http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=70756.msg1401669#msg1401669

[Bobboau]

did you mean to type "50-100"?

[MP-Ryan]

did you mean to type "50-100"?

Indeed I did.  Fixed.

[Kosh]

This smells of an oil war.

No, it doesn't.  Not one little bit.  Geopolitical stability allowing for oil exploration is a nice added bonus, of course.  Before you go claiming oil war, take a look at the actual oil import data for the United States, and then take a look at the actual current estimated production capacity remaining in the United States and Canada. [Hint, hint.]  North America is doing its best to tap out oil supplies in strategically shaky countries before we touch our own.  Last time someone from our outfit talked to some of the corporate execs in Northern Alberta, we heard that they estimate another 50-100 years of extraction business in the oil sands alone, with a production capacity there that could rival the Saudis (at current market prices; nevermind if the price goes up and permits a drive for better recovery percentages).  In 2006, it was estimated that there were 170 billion barrels of [economically-feasible] recoverable oil in the Athabascan oil sands alone.  This does not account for recent exploration data in the north, or the provinces of Saskatchewan and Newfoundland.

Oil war, my ass.  The US did not commit an amount approaching nearly $1 trillion dollars to finance a war in Iraq over oil, of all things.

http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=70756.msg1401669#msg1401669

It's that way now, but oil demand is going up globally at an alarming rate, hence why we no longer have $10 a barrel oil. Also US oil production has been on the decline for decades. From the late 19th century all the way until the 1960's when production started declining the US essentially was the Saudi Arabia of oil and the center of world oil production.  Now much of its reserves are gone with many of the great reserves in texas and pennsylvania sucked dry.

Thanks to decades of sanctions and mismanagement, Iraq's oil fields are still mostly unexploited, with reserves far far exceeding anything Canada has to offer. 9/11 gave an opportunity to remove an unfriendly government and install a puppet government to put those oil fields essentially under our control. Sure we've got 50-100 years worth of tar sands, but lets also take into account that none of it becomes economically viable unless the prices are high, unlike the lakes of Iraqi oil which is very easy to get at. The price of oil for now is settling at between $70-$80 barrel. That price alone should indicate where we are on the supply and demand curve, especially compared with the $10 a barrel we used to pay just one decade ago. So, did the task force see this price rise coming? Probably, though since the details of that meeting are inexplicably highly classified we may never know for sure.

[S-99]

sorry, but all the respect I had for you in these silly political debates is now gone.

Didn't know anybody here had respect for me.

There were the nuclear materials.  Over 550 metric tons of the stuff.  Stuff that Iraq had absolutely zero conceivable peaceful use for.  The easiest thing to make with that, as MP-Ryan said, is a dirty bomb, which is still a WMD (an R instead of an N)

On top of that, over 500 chemical weapons found in three years.

And biological labs for biological warfare.

Okay, now let's go over something that you apparently refuse to believe and/or accept.  "Weapons of Mass Destruction" are weapons that kill lots of people.  Usually, you'll hear of NBC threats.  Ryan went into a lot more detail upthread, which you also ignored, but I'll stick to basics.  Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapon.  We found two and a half out of three of those.

Honestly, if the public is too stupid to only think WMDs == nukes, it's hardly the government's fault.

Materials for nukes is not nukes, it is materials for nukes. What you're trying to say is that if you had all of the ingredients for making cookies that you already have cookies. Materials for a nuke need to be put together to make a nuke; similar to mixing ingredients together for cookies and then baking actually equals cookies. That's all i am trying to say about iraq having nukes; having materials for nukes is actually different than having nukes.

This is not about a term i can't accept or refuse to believe (of course WMD's kill lots of people). Again i don't really like the term weapons of mass destruction. The word destruction reminds people of big boomies and not quite something like chemical weapons which don't kill people via big explosion. Weapons of mass death would be more descriptive and make more sense for the array of NBC weapons and others of the like that are also included in the term.

It was more the media and bush's fault. Bush referred to nukes as WMD's all the time, so did the media (i don't think bush ever bothered to clarify in a presidential address or on the radio or some other outlet what kinds of weapons WMD covers). This backed by a stupid public will make people confused about what kinds of weapons that are under the WMD umbrella. Which means iraq 2 war the public is seriously confused since no actual nukes were found but all of this other nasty stuff sure was that not many really knew were also WMD's.

I am in no way denying the fact that lots of chemical weapons were found and biolabs. This was something that was known (the fact that saddam had at least chemical weapons and suspected bio weapons since the 90's) for a while. Saddam was obviously a fan of these kinds of weapons given how many he had and attacked the kurdish with.

Why'd you remove the picture of the twin towers (or did an admin? just curious)? Aside from that, dropping the topic of the twin towers sounds good since great points were made, and it was fun challenging them, but ultimately i was defeated on that topic. I already gave my reasons for exploring such a theory, and everyones defense of the fact were written with such intensity that it seemed like some people burst a blood vessel.

[SpardaSon21]

Materials for nukes is not nukes, it is materials for nukes. What you're trying to say is that if you had all of the ingredients for making cookies that you already have cookies. Materials for a nuke need to be put together to make a nuke; similar to mixing ingredients together for cookies and then baking actually equals cookies. That's all i am trying to say about iraq having nukes; having materials for nukes is actually different than having nukes.

Radioactive material + conventional explosives = radioactive material scattered across a large area.  You don't need a nuclear explosion to kill people with radioactive substances.

[Scotty]

Additionally, it's more akin to having the parts available to build a machine that does no good and only burns gas.  At a time when a gas shortage is in widespread effect.

There was absolutely zero peaceful reason for Iraq to have that material, because, unlike the above example, they did have oil.  Lots and lots of oil, with no peaceful need for nuclear power.

[Klaustrophobia]

Materials for nukes is not nukes, it is materials for nukes. What you're trying to say is that if you had all of the ingredients for making cookies that you already have cookies. Materials for a nuke need to be put together to make a nuke; similar to mixing ingredients together for cookies and then baking actually equals cookies. That's all i am trying to say about iraq having nukes; having materials for nukes is actually different than having nukes.

Radioactive material + conventional explosives = radioactive material scattered across a large area.  You don't need a nuclear explosion to kill people with radioactive substances.

Uranium is VERY weakly radioactive.  It's safe to handle.  You couldn't make a dirty bomb out of it.

[Ghostavo]

Materials for nukes is not nukes, it is materials for nukes. What you're trying to say is that if you had all of the ingredients for making cookies that you already have cookies. Materials for a nuke need to be put together to make a nuke; similar to mixing ingredients together for cookies and then baking actually equals cookies. That's all i am trying to say about iraq having nukes; having materials for nukes is actually different than having nukes.

Radioactive material + conventional explosives = radioactive material scattered across a large area.  You don't need a nuclear explosion to kill people with radioactive substances.

By that logic, we should invade Australia since they have one third of the world's uranium supply. I mean, what are they doing with all that uranium? Feeding it to the kangaroos?

Additionally, it's more akin to having the parts available to build a machine that does no good and only burns gas.  At a time when a gas shortage is in widespread effect.

There was absolutely zero peaceful reason for Iraq to have that material, because, unlike the above example, they did have oil.  Lots and lots of oil, with no peaceful need for nuclear power.

So does the United States it seems, and they have nuclear power plants too. Not to mention, nuclear power plants are more efficient than oil based ones.

[Kosh]

Materials for nukes is not nukes, it is materials for nukes. What you're trying to say is that if you had all of the ingredients for making cookies that you already have cookies. Materials for a nuke need to be put together to make a nuke; similar to mixing ingredients together for cookies and then baking actually equals cookies. That's all i am trying to say about iraq having nukes; having materials for nukes is actually different than having nukes.

Radioactive material + conventional explosives = radioactive material scattered across a large area.  You don't need a nuclear explosion to kill people with radioactive substances.

Despite what our beloved homeland security department and fox news has said, a dirty bomb is not really that dangerous.

So does the United States it seems, and they have nuclear power plants too. Not to mention, nuclear power plants are more efficient than oil based ones.

Indeed, of the commercially available power sources nuclear fission is hands down the most efficient we've ever created, being millions of times more energy dense than any fossil fuel.

[S-99]

Radioactive material + conventional explosives = radioactive material scattered across a large area.  You don't need a nuclear explosion to kill people with radioactive substances.

[Uranium is VERY weakly radioactive.  It's safe to handle.  You couldn't make a dirty bomb out of it.

This isn't even related to the topic of "we say iraq had nukes, S-99 is wrong for contradicting". A dirty bomb isn't even a nuclear use for uranium. Spardason21, a dirty bomb is only really affective for killing people with the explosion (there wouldn't be enough radiation dispersed to really amount to anybody getting sick), and more for the psychological impact.

There was absolutely zero peaceful reason for Iraq to have that material, because, unlike the above example, they did have oil.  Lots and lots of oil, with no peaceful need for nuclear power.

...no **** holmes.

Additionally, it's more akin to having the parts available to build a machine that does no good and only burns gas.  At a time when a gas shortage is in widespread effect.

Again, i stand by my logic that parts for nukes is not equal to a nuke; you were wrong. And using parts for a nuke to make a completely different explosive that wont even result in a nuclear explosion does not even somehow in the slightest make you somehow, earlier in the matter, right. Using parts for a nuke for a completely different purpose is called not the topic you were bickering about (which was "we say iraq had nukes, S-99 is wrong for contradicting""). You're understanding of my logic being "oh yeah, well the parts can be used for something else" is a separate matter from my conclusion entirely.

Despite what our beloved homeland security department and fox news has said, a dirty bomb is not really that dangerous.

Correct. A dirty bomb does not qualify as even close to being classified as a wmd. A dirty bomb is one of those "has more bark than it's bite" kind of weapons.

How many people need to go down the road of "he's wrong simply because he angered us"? Humans agreeing with each other is wierd to say the least. I already admitted defeat on the conspiracy matter and have dropped that entirely from discussion.

[karajorma]

Radioactive material + conventional explosives = radioactive material scattered across a large area.  You don't need a nuclear explosion to kill people with radioactive substances.

In which case why bother with Uranium at all? There are far better things to use for a dirty bomb. IIRC you'd be better off making a dirty bomb out of granite than uranium.

There was absolutely zero peaceful reason for Iraq to have that material, because, unlike the above example, they did have oil.  Lots and lots of oil, with no peaceful need for nuclear power.

Really? So why did the US keep supporting Saddam after he built a nuclear reactor in the 70's then? They even went as far as condemning it when the Israelis attacked it.