|
herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/12/2010 6:28:11 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
quote:
Q:Were there really weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when the U.S. invaded in 2003?
A: No. WRONG. The answer is YES. The Iraq Survey Group determined that Iraq had abandoned its quest to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and that it had already destroyed all of its existing stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. As for how you dispel your friends' notions that Iraq really did have stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons when President Bush no longer makes such claims himself, (Proof that we don't get our marching orders from George Bush, or anybody else, that we come to our own conclusions based on what the facts tell us.) we suggest ridicule. (Redicule for people that stubbornly hold onto the facts, vice going off media spin about what Iraq had and didn't have? Serius? If anybody diserves redicule, it's you.) If that doesn't work, you may be out of luck. (Do realize that I've never changed my mind based on what your side of the argument has told me. Only facts do that, so far, your side has yet to give me the facts.) (Facts are facts, neither you, nor anybody that I've debated with, have answered my questions, with regards to the SARIN fined in Iraq. NONE. The mere existence of that SARIN, and MUSTARD, gases destroys any attempt that you make, to include this post, to argue against the FACT that Iraq had WMD up to, during, and after the invasion.)
After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration formed the Iraq Survey Group and tasked it with the job of locating WMD stockpiles in Iraq. The ISG was staffed with hundreds of intelligence analysts and military personnel from the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia. The group scoured Iraq, searching for deposits of weapons. But that was actually only part of the ISG's focus.(WRONG. The group didn't scour Iraq for WMD. They only searched a selected, extremely limited, portion of Iraq. They couldn't search every square inch of Iraqi soil, there wasn't enough security for them, and they didn't have the logistics for them to search every square inch of Iraq. The results of their survey could only be responsibly applied to the limited areas that they searched, not to the entire country of Iraq.)
According to the ISG final report, the search for WMDs actually began during the invasion phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom. A military task force was deployed to investigate suspected WMD sites on the theory that the Iraqi military might otherwise employ those weapons against coalition troops. After the invasion, the ISG was established to conduct "a more systematic collection of evidence to build an understanding of Iraqi WMD programs." In other words, the ISG did not simply look for WMDs. The group also looked at Iraq's WMD capabilities and examined evidence relating to past WMD stockpiles.
During its investigation, the ISG reported that "[a] total of 53 munitions have been recovered, all of which appear to have been part of pre-1991 Gulf war stocks based on their physical condition and residual components." These isolated discoveries received significant media attention, and it's likely that these overhyped reports contributed to your friends' beliefs that Iraq really did possess WMDs. But the finds were rare, and the ISG concluded that they were not part of a significant stockpile of weapons. (WMD is WMD, regardless if we're talking about stockpiles, or isolated events. The opposing side of the argument insists that there were NO Weapons of Mass Destruction. If this were the case, then those stockpiles wouldn't have been discovered. When they were made, and how much was actually discovered, is beside the point. Either Iraq had WMD, or it didn't. The fact that Sarin was used against our troops destroys any argument that there were "NO" WMD in Iraq. I use the quotations strongly.) Indeed, after nearly two years of investigation, the ISG concluded that:
"Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program." While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, (Again, for the opinion that there were "no" WMD in Iraq to hold true, what I have bolded in red SHOULD NOT have occurred. But it did.) 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. (That doesn't matter, if the opposing side insists that there were no WMD in Iraq, then construction date is beside the point. Its existence prove that there were WMD in Iraq.) In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW [biological warfare] weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes." Experts from the three nations failed to document any existent biological or nuclear weapons and discovered only a few random chemical weapons. The ISG concluded that contrary to what most of the world had believed, Iraq had abandoned attempts to produce WMDs. In his congressional testimony, the head of the ISG, Charles Duelfer, admitted, "We were almost all wrong" on Iraq. (He also refused to rule out the possibility that the WMD were moved to Syria.)
The ISG report was sufficient to convince the Bush administration that there were no WMDs to be found; they called off the search in 2005. If that doesn't convince your friends, we're not sure what else might do the trick. Anyone who believes something without any positive evidence and in the face of evidence to the contrary is no longer acting on the basis of reason In that case, you'll be able to answer the question that I'm going to ask you at the end of this post. This post fails to prove my statement, that there WERE WMD in Iraq.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/were_there_really_weapons_of_mass_destruction.html
And if you want to read the final report for yourself, http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/
Considering that I have a cousin who is still recuperating from wounds received in the Iraqi invasion, and he has never mentioned anything and knows of no instance where chemical weapons were used against Allied forces.
Considering the number of reporters imbedded in the various point elements I would suspect that someone would have reported it, considering that it would have taken a lot of the criticism the US took for invading.
If you wanted me to change my position, the worse thing that you could have done is to bring up the exact same argument that I've debated with repeatedly in the past. You needed to present facts, not deception, or misrepresentation, as you've presented above.
I base my decision on facts. Since the above is something that I've repeatedly rebutted in the past, I'm going to use the same rebuttal I've used on the others.
Some quotes:
"ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war," - Duelfer
"He transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria," General Yaalon, Isreili officer
And, a former member of Saddam's own circle:
Retired General Georges Sada was a senior ranking Iraqi Airforce General. His seniority put him within Saddam's circles. According to him, his pilots carried out emergency evacuation on the WMD in the months leading up to the war:
Sada talks about WMD movement
"General, when did you come to the United States?
GEORGE SADA, AUTHOR, "SADDAM'S SECRETS": Well, I came two years ago.
HANNITY: And up to that point, you were in Iraq?
SADA: Yes, I was in Iraq.
HANNITY: And you were Saddam Hussein's top military advisor?
SADA: Yes, I was No. 2 in the air force.
HANNITY: And how many years did you work under him?
SADA: I worked since the revolution of 1968.
HANNITY: From the beginning?
HANNITY: Some people say they were destroyed. Did we still have them leading up to the invasion?
SADA: No, he had a very good organization that Saddam was created to show some of them but to continue to hide.
HANNITY: So he had them.
SADA: Yes.
HANNITY: Where were they? And were they moved and where?
SADA: Well, up to the year 2002, 2002, in summer, they were in Iraq. And after that, when Saddam realized that the inspectors are coming on the first of November and the Americans are coming, so he took the advantage of a natural disaster happened in Syria, a dam was broken. So he -- he announced to the world that he is going to make an air bridge...
HANNITY: You know for a fact he moved these weapons to Syria?
SADA: Yes.
HANNITY: How do you know that?
SADA: I know it because I have got the captains of the Iraqi airway that were my friends, and they told me these weapons of mass destruction had been moved to Syria.
BECKEL: How did he move them, general? How were they moved?
SADA: They were moved by air and by ground, 56 sorties by jumbo, 747, and 27 were moved, after they were converted to cargo aircraft, they were moved to Syria."
And now, some questions that you need to answer:
From MSNBC: "Bomb Said to hold deadly sarin gas explodes in Iraq"
"The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," said Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq. "The round had been rigged as an IED [improvised explosive device] which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy.
Were the Iraqi Survey Group, and Kimmitt, lying and telling half truths in that MSNBC article? YES [ ] NO [ ]
I don't want your SPIN... simply copy and paste everything from "From MSNBC" all the way to "YES [ ] NO [ ]." Place an "X" in the appropriate box.
If you chose "NO," then your prove your entire argument wrong. If you chose "YES," then you deserve redicule. If you fail to answer my question per the directions I give, then you have absolutely no confidence in your own source... or your own argument.
And here's a question that I'm going to ask you, given that the above inspection wasn't completed:
Prior to my first post on this message board, none of you had evidence of my existence. Does it automatically follow that I didn't exist prior to making my first post here? YES [ ] NO [ ]
If you chose "NO" in this response, then you prove your entire argument wrong.
FACTS.
That's what going to get me to change my mind, not some bullshit spin, tap dance, or smoking mirrors. And so far, I've yet to have someone on your side of the argument present me facts. The only facts that I have are the one's supporting my argument, so that's what I'm going to go by.
|
|
|
|
