Iraq WMD Info

[GroundStrength]

Iraqi Officer

Real or memorex?

 

[pgwenthold]

Of course, instead of asking the real question, they just took it for granted that he was telling the truth:

"So why weren't the weapons launched against the allied forces encroaching on Iraq? Al-Dabbagh said the majority of the Iraqi army did not want to fight for Saddam."

Before asking about why they weren't used, shouldn't we be asking, "So if they were there and were so readily accessible, why can't anyone find them?"

Before anyone is to believe that they had weapons that they could launch within 30 minutes, it is first going to have to be established that they any weapons in the first place. Sorry, Colonel, you are not very credible. Show us the weapons, and then you can tell us how fast you could deploy them.

 

[Segnosaur]

"So why weren't the weapons launched against the allied forces encroaching on Iraq? Al-Dabbagh said the majority of the Iraqi army did not want to fight for Saddam."

Before asking about why they weren't used, shouldn't we be asking, "So if they were there and were so readily accessible, why can't anyone find them?"

Before anyone is to believe that they had weapons that they could launch within 30 minutes, it is first going to have to be established that they any weapons in the first place. Sorry, Colonel, you are not very credible. Show us the weapons, and then you can tell us how fast you could deploy them.

Even though I supported the war, I have other doubts about the Colonel's statements... Not only can we not find the weapons that they would have had, you have to figure in an army as large as Saddam's was, there would be at least a few soldiers willing to fight for Saddam using WMD (even if most were not).

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that the coalition was wrong to invaded Iraq, or that they were wrong to believe that he had WMD (remember, many people against the war also made statements that there were unaccounted for materials in Iraq). Just that this particular soldier's statements were wrong.

 

[DrChinese]

Over 8 months of looking. None found yet.

That's none.

N o n e.

 

[Jim Lennox]

Here's a quote from and link to the Telegraph article. (Though you may need to be registered)

Although he gave details of Iraq's battlefield WMD capability, he said that he had no knowledge of any plans by Saddam to use missiles to attack British bases in Cyprus and other Nato targets.

In the build-up to the conflict, Tony Blair was criticised by intelligence officials for giving the impression that Saddam had developed ballistic missiles that could carry WMD warheads and hit targets such as Israel and Britain's military bases in Cyprus.

But Col al-Dabbagh said that he doubted that Iraq under Saddam had this capability. "I know nothing about this. My information was only about what we could do on the battlefield."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...rq07.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=175680

I thought we had already established any possible 45 minute deployment would only apply on the battlefield. We have yet to be shown how we were under threat of immediate attack.

 

[Aoidoi]

If we can't trust an Iraqi Colonel who can we trust?

I suspect he's blowing smoke for the simple reason that we have no physical evidence to substantiate his claims. He might be the source of that intel, but he still appears to be wrong.

 

[Grammatron]

Over 8 months of looking. None found yet.

That's none.

N o n e.

You are correct. Any clue as to where the weapons that were unaccounted for went?

 

[Reginald]

How big does a weapon have to be before it is technically a WMD?

The use of "warhead" and the suggestion that they could be launched from an RPG launcher seems a little disproportionate to me.


Looking at the actual article from the Telegraph it says...

A senior Iraqi general in charge of air defences during the war, who was part of a committee that reported directly to Saddam on the supply and training of air defence units, said: "This lieutenant colonel wanted to scare the Western world."

The general, who would not give his name, conceded that authority may have been bypassed but said the frontline troops he visited were in a shambolic state and were unlikely to have received any additional weapons.

"We were very low on equipment," he said. "There certainly wasn't any talk of chemical warheads."

Now either chap could be bending the truth, but even though I supported the war, the lack of any of these "warheads" makes me think at this time that the Colonel's comments are as described in the above quote.

 

[Frostbite]

Leave it to Geraldo.

 

[Reginald]

Ah... to add.

It appears that the Lt Col. Was actually working for the Iraqi National Accord (INA), an exiled group based in London. I would suggest that he would have every reason to perhaps overstate the threat given this information. One would imagine in the hope of precipitating a conflict.

 

[DrChinese]

You are correct. Any clue as to where the weapons that were unaccounted for went?

Yes, I think there were at least TEN good theories which we had good agreement on. That would be our "Top 10" list of reasons no WMDs have been found thread, recapped below:

10. Four months is not long enough to find them - give them until after the election.
9. They were moved to Syria/Iran/the countryside/buried (this was done at night so we couldn't see it).
8. They have been returned to the French manufacturer for credit.
7. Did Bush say weapons? He meant weapons "programs".
6. According to the former Iraqi Information Minister, they were used to successfully defend against the infidel invaders.
5. Saddam destroyed them right before the war started, just to embarass Bush.
4. We did find them, you must not have read the news that day.
3. We found Chemical Ali, top scientists & many VIPs instead, and any day now they're gonna break - er - talk.
2. Who cares?
1. There weren't any!

 

[Supercharts]

WMD Found!!!

"Survey: Saddam Killed 61,000 in Baghdad
1 hour, 6 minutes ago

By NIKO PRICE, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s government may have executed 61,000 Baghdad residents, a number significantly higher than previously believed, according to a survey obtained Monday by The Associated Press.
The bloodiest massacres of Saddam's 23-year presidency occurred in Iraq (news - web sites)'s Kurdish north and Shiite Muslim south, but the Gallup Baghdad Survey data indicates the brutality extended strongly into the capital as well.
The survey, which the polling firm planned to release on Tuesday, asked 1,178 Baghdad residents in August and September whether a member of their household had been executed by Saddam's regime. According to Gallup, 6.6 percent said yes.
The polling firm took metropolitan Baghdad's population Ñ 6.39 million Ñ and average household size Ñ 6.9 people Ñ to calculate that 61,000 people were executed during Saddam's rule. Past estimates were in the low tens of thousands. Most are believed to have been buried in mass graves.
The U.S.-led occupation authority in Iraq has said that at least 300,000 people are buried in mass graves in Iraq. Human rights officials put the number closer to 500,000, and some Iraqi political parties estimate more than 1 million were executed."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...u=/ap/20031209/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_executions

Oh well..it's wasn't a neutron bomb, or some other means of WMD. It was simply a bullet in the back of the head.
[This does not in any way imply Tony or GWB lied to us but rather the info they were given may have been a little too 'forceful' in their 'reasons' for invading Iraq.]
It's all statistics.
61,000 people are dead but not because of WMD.
Feel better Bunky?
"But..."

 

[peptoabysmal]

It can't be true, because it has already been proven that George W. Bush was lying about the danger of Saddam.

 

[dsm]

It can't be true, because it has already been proven that George W. Bush was lying about the danger of Saddam.

No, no, no -- he was lying about the danger of Saddam's WMDs.

 

[dsm]

Re: WMD Found!!!

"But..."

Is there any timeline for when the 61,000 were killed during Saddam's rule? The natural inclination is to take 61,000 and divide by 23 (years Saddam ruled) and report that an average of ~2400 people were killed each year of Saddam's rule. However, would that be correct IF a timeline showed that most (all?) of the reported 61,000 were killed before (or near) the first Gulf War? In other words, although Saddam was a brutal dictator, this survey doesn't (yet) show that he required the immediate attention of the US.

 

[Jon_in_london]

To get back on topic:

I think there are two principal explainations for the apparent lying colonel:

1: He wanted to bring forward any invasion as he didnt like Saddam.

2: He knew an invasion was coming and wanted to get into the USUK's goodbooks.

I think it may be worth remembering that another senior Iraqi officer was feeding intel British forces outside Basra. Which is one reason why Basra was taken with so little blood shed.

 

[peptoabysmal]

No, no, no -- he was lying about the danger of Saddam's WMDs.

Is that all you remember from Bush's state of the union address?

 

[dsm]

Is that all you remember from Bush's state of the union address?

You mean the one where Bush devoted 37 paragraphs to Iraq of which 1 spoke of Saddam Hussein's torture of Iraqis and 1 spoke of his use of WMDs against Iraqis while 25 paragraphs are devoted to the (as Dr. Chinese might say) "mythical" WMDs still in Iraq.

Yeah, he really had "humanitarian issues" on his mind...

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

How big does a weapon have to be before it is technically a WMD?

some answers:


One trillionth of a solar mass

"That's no moon..."

A Texas mickey

Any of the many Steven Segal movies that were a bomb.

A weekend of pizza and beer, then more more pizza and beer on a holiday Monday.

"Kong, Kong, Kong."

 

[peptoabysmal]

You mean the one where Bush devoted 37 paragraphs to Iraq of which 1 spoke of Saddam Hussein's torture of Iraqis and 1 spoke of his use of WMDs against Iraqis while 25 paragraphs are devoted to the (as Dr. Chinese might say) "mythical" WMDs still in Iraq.

Yeah, he really had "humanitarian issues" on his mind...

If the "he" you refer to is Saddam Hussein, I fully agree with the rolling eyes.

I am equally impressed by your analysis of the speech as I am of your reference to Dr. Chinese .

Perhaps you should read it again, especially this part:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.