Where are the WMD?

[sirs]

So, can I get a Js reason why Bush took us into Iraq?

For a myriad of reasons, he wished to fight an unjust war.

What "reasons"?  What were the principle reasons?  They had to be pretty darn huge to want to fight an unjust war, wouldn't ya think?

[_JS]

So, can I get a Js reason why Bush took us into Iraq?

For a myriad of reasons, he wished to fight an unjust war.

What "reasons"?  What were the principle reasons?  They had to be pretty darn huge to want to fight an unjust war, wouldn't ya think?

One would think so.

[Plane]

Where are the WMD?

Looks like they're  east, west, south and north somewhat.... of New Jersey.

“The Army now admits

that it secretly dumped 64 million pounds of nerve and mustard agents into the sea, along with 400,000 chemical-filled bombs, land mines and rockets and more than 500 tons of radioactive waste - either tossed overboard or packed into the holds of scuttled vessels.”
wmdclosehome.jpg
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/12/the-army-now-admits/

When Saddam destroyed the WMD he used to have , he made no mess whatsoever, not a trace o the disposal remains.

Perhaps we should emulate Saddams disposal method an ship it all to Syria.

[_JS]

Where are the WMD?

Looks like they're  east, west, south and north somewhat.... of New Jersey.

“The Army now admits

that it secretly dumped 64 million pounds of nerve and mustard agents into the sea, along with 400,000 chemical-filled bombs, land mines and rockets and more than 500 tons of radioactive waste - either tossed overboard or packed into the holds of scuttled vessels.”
wmdclosehome.jpg
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/12/the-army-now-admits/

When Saddam destroyed the WMD he used to have , he made no mess whatsoever, not a trace o the disposal remains.

Perhaps we should emulate Saddams disposal method an ship it all to Syria.

But can we ship it to Syria without any trace of having done so? No western power or Israel would notice tens of millions of tons of various chemical and biological agents being shipped through a barren landscape.

We should not have hanged Saddam, he was clearly a logistical genius.

[sirs]

So, can I get a Js reason why Bush took us into Iraq?

For a myriad of reasons, he wished to fight an unjust war.

What "reasons"?  What were the principle reasons?  They had to be pretty darn huge to want to fight an unjust war, wouldn't ya think?

One would think so.

But nothing you're willing to put speculating words on, based on your objective grasp of issues, huh?

[Plane]

Where are the WMD?

Looks like they're  east, west, south and north somewhat.... of New Jersey.

“The Army now admits

that it secretly dumped 64 million pounds of nerve and mustard agents into the sea, along with 400,000 chemical-filled bombs, land mines and rockets and more than 500 tons of radioactive waste - either tossed overboard or packed into the holds of scuttled vessels.”
wmdclosehome.jpg
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/12/the-army-now-admits/

When Saddam destroyed the WMD he used to have , he made no mess whatsoever, not a trace o the disposal remains.

Perhaps we should emulate Saddams disposal method an ship it all to Syria.

But can we ship it to Syria without any trace of having done so? No western power or Israel would notice tens of millions of tons of various chemical and biological agents being shipped through a barren landscape.

We should not have hanged Saddam, he was clearly a logistical genius.

So you do understand my point, the destruction of these things requires apparatus and leaves traces .
Shipping requires only trucks.

I don't suppose that tens of millions of tonns of poison could be dumed into the Persian gulf without affectng the ecology noticeably.
So lets eleminate the impossible , it was not dumped in the ocean or in pits ,we would have found that, it was not burned in furnaces , we would have found them.

Where and how is still possible?

[_JS]

But nothing you're willing to put speculating words on, based on your objective grasp of issues, huh?

What's the point? No, I don't think the war had anything to do with oil grabbing or anything like that. I do believe that evidence was seen that tended to be favorable to the disposition of those who wished to invade.

It doesn't matter now because we are there.

[_JS]

So you do understand my point, the destruction of these things requires apparatus and leaves traces .
Shipping requires only trucks.

I don't suppose that tens of millions of tonns of poison could be dumed into the Persian gulf without affectng the ecology noticeably.
So lets eleminate the impossible , it was not dumped in the ocean or in pits ,we would have found that, it was not burned in furnaces , we would have found them.

Where and how is still possible?

It wasn't possible to take it all to Syria without us, the UK, Israel, Turkey, Russia, or someone knowing (more likely more than one nation). Especially if we are talking about the quantities that Bush, Powell, Rice, etc were speaking about in the pre-war selling stage. There was discussion of tens of millions of tons of various biological and chemical agents - you don't just shove those in a crate and toss them in the back of a U-haul. If you really believe in the Syria has all the WMD theory, then you have to accept the corollary that the US, Israel, and UK are completely and utterly incompetent and that Saddam Hussein is quite the genius.

There are many ways to destroy chemical and biological weapons, it depends primarily on the agents in question.

[sirs]

But nothing you're willing to put speculating words on, based on your objective grasp of issues, huh?

What's the point?

The point being it's provide clearer understanding if you fall into the more objective Bush critics that are a pleasure to debate vs those inflicted with BDS, and simply cause migraines

No, I don't think the war had anything to do with oil grabbing or anything like that. I do believe that evidence was seen that tended to be favorable to the disposition of those who wished to invade.

Of course.  What President wouldn't have done so?  Every monumental decision is going to have a President focused on those attributes that support his decision, when he presents it to the country.  That isn't rocket science.  Nor does it indicate some overwhelming plan to invade regardless.

[Plane]

So you do understand my point, the destruction of these things requires apparatus and leaves traces .
Shipping requires only trucks.

I don't suppose that tens of millions of tonns of poison could be dumed into the Persian gulf without affectng the ecology noticeably.
So lets eleminate the impossible , it was not dumped in the ocean or in pits ,we would have found that, it was not burned in furnaces , we would have found them.

Where and how is still possible?

It wasn't possible to take it all to Syria without us, the UK, Israel, Turkey, Russia, or someone knowing (more likely more than one nation). Especially if we are talking about the quantities that Bush, Powell, Rice, etc were speaking about in the pre-war selling stage. There was discussion of tens of millions of tons of various biological and chemical agents - you don't just shove those in a crate and toss them in the back of a U-haul. If you really believe in the Syria has all the WMD theory, then you have to accept the corollary that the US, Israel, and UK are completely and utterly incompetent and that Saddam Hussein is quite the genius.

There are many ways to destroy chemical and biological weapons, it depends primarily on the agents in question.

There are many ways to destroy chemical and biological weapons, it depends primarily on the agents in question.

No, there are only a few ways . And there is no way that leaves no traces and uses no apparatus.

Strng chemicals can reduce toxic chemicals to less active compounds , this produces a lot of sludge.

Furnaces that burn at very high tempretures can oxidise the toxic chemicals , such a funace would be findable .

Release into the environment would have to be done at an extremely low rate to not be noticeable.

What is possible as an explanation for the complete absense of both the stuff and no trace of where it went?

[_JS]

There is a possibility you had not considered.

They never had the large quantities of Biological and Chemical weapons that were claimed.

- 1995, Saddam's son-in-law and advisor General Hussein Kamel defected and admitted to destroying all weapons programs, including biological, though research and design elements were preserved.

- Due to a poor economy in 1995 and a desire to lift sanctions, ISG reported Iraq gave up the BW program, specifically destroying the al-Hakam facility.

- ISG found no evidence prior to the 2003 invasion that proves Iraq had revitalized a chemical weapons program.

- Evidence shows most chemical research done in 1995 and 1996 was conducted in the realm of infrastructure improvement.

- An extensive CW arsenal–including 38,537 munitions, 690 tons of CW agents, and over 3,000 tons of CW precursor chemicals–was destroyed by UNSCOM prior to the inspectors' withdrawal in 1998.

Link

It looks to me like UNSCOM destroyed what was left of the chemical weapons stockpiling and the Biological Weapons program was destroyed and recorded by ISG.

There was no evidence in 2003, because the evidence was already taken into account by 1998. There was simply nothing left to destroy.

[Plane]

There is a possibility you had not considered.

They never had the large quantities of Biological and Chemical weapons that were claimed.

- 1995, Saddam's son-in-law and advisor General Hussein Kamel defected and admitted to destroying all weapons programs, including biological, though research and design elements were preserved.

- Due to a poor economy in 1995 and a desire to lift sanctions, ISG reported Iraq gave up the BW program, specifically destroying the al-Hakam facility.

- ISG found no evidence prior to the 2003 invasion that proves Iraq had revitalized a chemical weapons program.

- Evidence shows most chemical research done in 1995 and 1996 was conducted in the realm of infrastructure improvement.

- An extensive CW arsenal–including 38,537 munitions, 690 tons of CW agents, and over 3,000 tons of CW precursor chemicals–was destroyed by UNSCOM prior to the inspectors' withdrawal in 1998.

Link

It looks to me like UNSCOM destroyed what was left of the chemical weapons stockpiling and the Biological Weapons program was destroyed and recorded by ISG.

There was no evidence in 2003, because the evidence was already taken into account by 1998. There was simply nothing left to destroy.

So it was possible to have none there without us, the UK, Israel, Turkey, Russia, or someone knowing , that there was none.

But Impossible that it all was taken to Syria without us, the UK, Israel, Turkey, Russia, or someone knowing (more likely more than one nation). Especially if we are talking about the quantities that Bush, Powell, Rice, etc were speaking about in the pre-war selling stage.

[_JS]

Well, UNSCOM and the ISG gave us these reports. General Hussein Kemal sacrificed his life to tell us that and other secrets.

So the information was well known to all of those countries. Why we chose not to listen, I am not so sure. Where Bush, Powell, Rice, etc. received their suspected quantities from, I have no idea.

I've got to go with Occam's Razor on this one. UNSCOM quite clearly destroyed them. I don't see any reason for ISG to lie about the biological weapons either.

It makes far more sense than some conspiracy theory of a top secret massive project to move biological and chemical weapons to Syria. It also shows that there was plenty of evidence of the destruction of WMD in Iraq.