Talk:Iraq and weapons of mass destruction/Archive 2

Global conspiracy discovered

".. Saddam had hidden WMDs in Iraq but The Terrorists stole them as part of a conspiracy with China, Russia and Iran to build an Islamic Bomb and obliterate your children. We were right all along! Saddam had WMDs! The MSM doesn't want you to know!"[1]Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There has never been any evidence of any kind supporting the above conspiracy theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.105.157 (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We have quite a few links and seperate articles placed IN THIS ARTICLE that support such conspiracy theories. I suggest you take you sad little Neo-Con ignorance somewhere else, Saddam had no WMD's. Nor did he hide them or plan to get them. 143.238.218.76 (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Harlequin

Nor did he hide them or plan to get them. From the key judgements of Duelfer's ISG report- Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities. Please adjust your opinions accordingly. Batvette (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You are assuming:

• Duelfer's crystal ball of Saddam's intentions are correct. Clearly the West has a good record on this (if they can't estimate what he physically has, they must be able to accurately gauge what he is thinking)
• Sanctions would have completely ended and Saddam would have chosen to reconstitute degrading programs.
• Saddam would have chosen to use his reconstituted programs, which we don't know he would have reconstituted, in spite of the American military presence in the region and the previous response to such a decision.
• That this potential scenario was justified by all the costs of the war

Perhaps you can provide an accurate estimate of how long you think it would have been before Saddam would have used his reconstituted programs on the U.S. if it wouldn't have invaded.--Contributions/70.236.71.205 (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't be silly now. It's not my job to prove the speculative result of paths not taken. It's yours because it is you who wishes to go back and change history. Saddam Hussein invaded three countries, it is reasonable to assume his behaviour would continue. Batvette (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, with weapons you can't prove he had, that you can't prove that he was again after, and that you can't prove he would have ignored a response to. Of course you are right, the only thing that has been shown is that the war was a large and costly failure.--Contributions/70.236.71.205 (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well if anyone is so ill informed they believe the situation between the cease fire of desert storm and operation Iraqi freedom was EVER a siuation of anyone having to prove Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, they can share your ill informed conclusions with you. The fact is Saddam was supposed to disarm both materially and in intent, for all practical purposes he did neither. He was literally a convicted criminal on parole, after Kuwait. Such individuals are not allowed to run around with an empty gun pointing it at people, nor are police at fault for shooting him and finding it empty after the fact. The most important thing is that virtually no intelligence arm of any nation thought Saddam had disarmed in early 2003, and the factors that had kept him neutralized for 12 years were ending. What you call a failure is phailed logic because you assume Saddam would live in peace and harmony with his neighbors when sanctions and military containment ended- and they soon would-when nothing at all indicates he had changed. Batvette (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The 2003 Iraq war

The section The 2003 Iraq war needs a lot of work (as does the rest of the page). It's somewhat fractured at the moment, having been written from the perspective that the jury is still out on Iraq's prohibited weapon status/compliance. I think we can now be more explicit. smb 21:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think an analysis of the WMD aspect of the justifications for the war belongs on that page? Further, saying "status/compliance" are two wholly separate issues. We know that after we invaded Iraq we found no stockpiles of weapons or obvious programs that could readily produce them. That is "status", and it is a fallacy to declare that the war was not necessary because of what we found after it happened-your "jury" allows the possibility he moved WMD out of Iraq before the war. We know that Saddam was NOT in compliance with any of the UN resolutions related to the cease fire and WMD. Read Blix's reports of January 27 and March 7 2003, for reference to the requirements as well as statements declaring him in violation of them.Batvette (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Discovery of WMD after onset of 2003 war

Users are removing sourced entries from reputible sources (Fox News, Washington Post, US Congress, US State Department) which indicate that small numbers of chemical weapons and shells for their delivery were found in Iraq. They are replacing it with an unsourced, inaccurate personal analysis that the small numbers found count as "none". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.216.117.86 (talk) 02:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Citing Fox News as a reputable source is as far from the truth as one can get considering that that news organisation has been exposed as a propaganda outlet by formal content studies. In addition, only military-potent weapons should be considered as WMDs, not the odd rocket discovered in the basement of a house. It is almost certain that there are still a few weapons hidden in Iraq but this is more the product of the Iraqis disorganisation than any established covert plan. JG Estiot (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Users are removing your additions because they're misleading. The article's introduction already mentions the 1980s-era remnants to which you're referring. Later on in the article, there's this:

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." [2]

Also from the Washington Post:

Intelligence officials said the munitions were found in ones, twos and maybe slightly larger collections over the past couple of years. One official conceded that these pre-Gulf War weapons did not pose a threat to the U.S. military before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. They were not maintained or part of any organized program run by Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Somebody in England discovered a rusty, useless shell from World War II in his garden in 2007. A few years ago the U.S. military couldn't account for a trillion dollars of taxpayer money and "dozens of tanks, missiles and planes." Wasted munitions should not be unexpected for any military, especially with a military as inefficient as Iraq's was. Discarded, misplaced, and/or useless munitions could not reasonably be called "stockpiles." --Mr. Billion (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

````so the fact that WMD were found in Iraq is not good enough for wiki? But an unprovable negative assertion is? ("Great controversy emerged when no such weapons were found")

How do you know that "no such weapons" were found?

That is totally illogical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairywiki (talk • contribs) 08:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wants to look at WMD found in Iraq after the onset of the war, I'd forget about those old shells and take a look at those 16 55 gallon drums of pure organophosphate found at the weapons depot that the Pentagon hastily called pesticides. Of course they were, but they were also the exact thing you make nerve gas out of and givrn the January 2003 find by Blix of nerve gas warheads that were undeclared and Saddam refused to destroy- as well as Kay and Duelfer's reports of dual use breakout capabilities- if you want to honestly look at what Saddam was up to I believe that was it. And so did Scott Ritter in November 2002. Batvette (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC).

"Nerve gas warheads" with no nerve gas are not weapons at all, unless you pick them up and beat somebody over the head with them. Certainly not weapons of mass destruction. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

A Few Facts and Then a Few Questions

A Few Facts

1. The Hussein regime produced, stockpiled, and used chemical weapons.

2. The Hussein regime agreed to fully and completely disarm itself of all weapons of mass destruction, as a condition of the coalition ceasing combat operations in 1991.

3. The Hussein regime failed to fully comply with the tenants of the United Nations mandates that followed the "Gulf War".

4. The 2003 invasion of Iraq resulted in a regime change.

5. Subsequent to the regime change, stockpiles of chemical weapons could not be found.

A Few Questions

1. If the Hussein regime destroyed the stockpile of chemical weapons prior to 1999, why did the regime risk war, in 2003, over a moot point?

2. What advantage could be gained by the Hussein regime, if they removed chemical weapons from Iraq in the time between the ultimatum and the start of hostilities, in 2003? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.85.58.253 (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Pathetic, just pathetic. A1) He didnt risk war. He complied with everything the US and UN had asked for. The US went to war regardless of the fact he did not have any WMD. A2) That they would not be invaded. However because the US ignored the fact they didnt have any, they were invaded anyway.

I swear, is this the best you can come up with? Ignoring the fact is not going to make them go away. 119.11.14.103 (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC) Harlequin

Both of you are in the wrong. To the first person, there are some fundamental flaws in your logic. First, if Hussein had already destroyed the weapons (I'm not saying that he did or didn't, just revealing a logical flaw), he had nothing more to do to prevent war; in the face of such a lack of diplomacy, he could either step down as leader or face war, neither of which was a good option for Hussein. For your second question, Hussein had everything to gain by destroying weapons after the 1st gulf war: the respect and cooperation of the international community and the major world powers.

To Harlequin, your arguments are correct, but your statement of these "facts" that are not ignorable seem to imply that this article is fact. While this article contains facts, the author definitely seems to have a bent against the Bush administration and seems intent on showing that they lied; I believe that faulty intelligence led to the Iraqi invasion, not outright lies. I find it very odd that this article has been designated as a great article, as it certainly seems biased.

Bottom line is, both of you probably need to grow up.

Not only did you somehow state this article is wrong, when I did not bring up any statements FROM this article, only already recognised facts, you somehow thought the fact that the Bush administration ignored that Iraq had complied means things I have not said. The amount of ridiculous fallacies you just poorly attempted to use against me is hilarious. So im completely right...but somehow it doesn't matter because im "bias" and "need to grow up".

Sigh. I implied nothing about this article, I only stated true fact, undisputable (unlike the previous flat out lies claimed as facts). So your attempt to somehow proclaim anything about my comments because of this article is flat out shut down.

That the Bush administration did indeed lie has no point, as I stated clearly the fact they ignored the lack of WMD in Iraq and invaded anyway. Both are true. I however only stated the latter. That both being true means a slight against the Bush administration is YOUR problem, not mine. You don't like them being criticized for things they have done, perhaps you should go back in time and tell them not to do them.

You need to grow up and stop attempting to defend the Bush administartion by poorly attempting to attack those presenting clear-cut facts in the face of outright lies like the previous poster gave. 58.164.235.128 (talk) 05:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Harlequin

A Few Facts and Then a Few Questions

A Few Facts

1. Semi-False.

2. Hussein's legitimate government DID completely disarm itself of ALL weapons of mass destruction in accordance with UN madates.

3. The US Government ignored that fact and invaded.

4. The 2003 illegal invasion of Iraq resulted in a puppet, US supporting government that declared any non-US supporting/neutral parties to be void from democratic elections and "insurgent groups". On top of which was the massive, devestating civilian death toll, injuries, civil and national damage, and a complete destruction of the nation, resulting in a semi-civil war.

5. Subsequent to the regime change, stockpiles of chemical weapons could not be found. Because none, outside already officialised review, existed any longer.

A Few Questions

1. If the Hussein government destroyed the stockpile of chemical weapons prior to 1999, and confirmed this through the UN and the USA's own official inspectors, why did the US still invade on the pretense that they had undeclared weapons?

2. What advantage could be gained by the USA regime, if they instigated an illegal war after the sovereign nation they invaded had met their set mandates?

3. Why are Neocon morons still attempting to push "Iraq has WMD!!!1z" when it has been completely discredited? 124.178.181.6 (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Harlequin

I think the first answer to non-question proves your in denial. uhh, Hello? Kurds anyone?--Papajohnin (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Iraq did not disarm verifiably by the conditions of the cease fire. This statement suggests your grasp of the facts is skewed. Duelfer's report JUDGES that it is likely Iraq disarmed before 1999, and it also says it is possible he had them but moved them. Anyone claiming it is an absolute fact there were no WMD in Iraq before the war, is lying.

2. The war was not "illegal". It was a resumption of hostilities suspended by cease fire, AND we were not the aggressors, we were acting as agents in defense of Kuwait and KSA. See argument presented by John Wayne- err, the Doctor- [3]he's got the facts behind legalities dead on.

3. We went to war because Iraq refused to verifiably disarm. Since that was true, "peacenik morons" (to return your childish insult) tried to fabricate an insignificant rationale hoping proving it false would be significant- (as if we had to find WMD to prove Saddam had not changed his aggressive behaviour) Pointing to Rick Santorum's 500 WMD list just seeks to show you were wrong there too. Make no mistake, what we found after the war was a state of affairs that existed because of the war. Had the invasion not happened Saddam would have WMD programs and capabilities as Scott Ritter described in 2002 [4] and Charles Duelfer described in the ISG report. Batvette (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This was not a "resumption of hostilities", that's an after-the-fact rationalization due to the actual stated reasons proving to be false. This was a new war, and the US-led coalition most certainly were the aggressors. The conquest of Iraq was in no way defensive, and it was launched on the premise that Saddam had WMDs that presented a grave threat to America. Since Saddam did not have WMDs, that premise was clearly false. You can keep peddling conspiracy theories about WMDs being moved prior to the invasion, but that's not a remotely plausible scenario and no credible evidence whatsoever supports it. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Batvette, but to be fair, the idea of a resumption of hostilities was not invented after the fact. The notion that Iraq was in violation of its cease fire obligations included the implication that if it did not come into compliance the cease fire would end. NPguy (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You can keep peddling conspiracy theories about WMDs being moved prior to the invasion, but that's not a remotely plausible scenario and no credible evidence whatsoever supports it. Not remotely plausible? Better tell that to Charles Duelfer and David Kay, who both judged it POSSIBLE, but unlikely due to not finding evidence of it. Hardly as you put it at all. We have however satellite recon photographs showing an exodus of large trucks leaving Iraq bound for Syria in the days before the war. We have the General in charge of Iraq's Air Force giving many interviews claiming he saw shipments of that nature being sent out of the country, I am not claiming I know it happened, I am claiming anyone saying it didn't is as dishonest with the facts as President Bush is alleged to be.Let's get real here, Saddam had every reason in the world to dispose of anything if he did have them, and no reason whatsoever to keep them if he knew he'd be attacked. Not even to use against us, recall we said in January that the nuclear option was on the table if he did? So this business about "we didn't find any WMD" is just silly, when no rational reason exists to believe we should. Why Bush did not explain to the American people that WMD can take many forms that are easily concealed until needed and the issue was Saddam's willingness to use them, I cannot tell you. Batvette (talk) 11:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha, just wow. It's amazing how many people, like Batvette here, still insist on flat out lies after being completely and utterly refuted. I mean my God, we shut down ignorance like yours far easier than we do to Creationists about evolution, and yet here you are. Still maintaining completely refuted lies. 58.164.235.128 (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Harlequin

Proof of Yellowcake

Reliable source:

AP Exclusive: US removes uranium from Iraq
IAEA Safeguards Inspectors begin inventory of nuclear material in Iraq
Uranium shipment arrives in Montreal

This, and related articles require editing to restore NPOV regarding WMD materials possessed by Hussein. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk)

This material had been sitting in Iraq for twenty-five or more years. It was formally declared and handed over to the IAEA following the Gulf War in 1991. The Yellowcake was then stored locally and monitored briefly by UNSCOM and more regulary by the IAEA Action Team. Theoretical physicist and nuclear expert Professor Norman Dombey summed up the situation succinctly in 2003:

"Iraq already had far more uranium than it needed for any conceivable nuclear weapons programme. … Nuclear weapons are difficult and expensive to build not because uranium is scarce, but because it is difficult and expensive to enrich U235 from 0.7 per cent to the 90 per cent needed for a bomb. Enrichment plants are large, use a lot of electricity and are almost impossible to conceal. Neither British security services nor the CIA seriously thought Iraq had a functioning enrichment plant that would have justified all the noise about nuclear weapons we heard before the war. When I read of the supposed Iraqi purchase of uranium from Niger, I thought it smelt distinctly fishy. … It was a gigantic red herring."

You don't have to agree with Professor Dombey, but you must accept that this is not a 'new' discovery by any stretch of the imagination. ~ smb 19:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha, truly sad 'Dr. B. R. Lang', truly sad. Its as if you Neocons can't even remotely handle the fact you were wrong. That cooouldn't be it, could it? Its bad enough that all the political forums are still being flooded with this failed attempt at legitimising illegally invading Iraq for WMD, let alone trying to push it here, where shouting down your opposition with "omg omg look, see they hadz it aaall along" dosn't work as we have strict rules and guidelines. And as such, that pathetic attempt is quite easily refuted. 124.182.59.85 (talk) 07:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Harlequin

Except that Iraq under Saddam Hussein refused to hand over the yellow cake, the UN did not have possession of it and it became a huge weapons potential. Had the war not been fought, Saddam would have processed this into weapons grade material, a risk that few could take. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.235.201 (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is correct. I don't believe Iraq was ever asked to get rid of its yellowcake. In general, yellowcake is not considered a high proliferation concern - it is a raw material that requires a great deal of processing before it can be used in a nuclear explosive. NPguy (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That's correct, though AFAIK the existing yellowcake was never part of the pretext for war. I think it was silly for them to even mention it in the 2003 SOTU. We should have invaded or vaporized the country in April 2002 when he went on Al Jazeera and broadcast the increase in the terrorism rewards. Batvette (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

So what did you think about the U.S. paying former terrorists who killed U.S. troops? What of talks of talking with the Taliban? Strong men are ok as long as they are our strong men on our terms.--76.251.250.43 (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

"Strong men are ok as long as they are our strong men on our terms".... well hullo, Dorothy, you've returned from OZ. Would you like to add "Why Iraq and not Darfur or North Korea?"(personally I have respect for Saddam pre-desert storm and feel we put him up to fighting Iran then betrayed him- Desert Storm insulted him because we were too easy on him and thus he was bound by honor to spit in our eye as long as he lived. We in the west do not understand the Arab mindset of honor, respect, and brutal strength)Batvette (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Missing: UNSCR 1441

This article is missing a central element of the history: the effects of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 on the effectiveness of inspections in Iraq. When UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors returned to Iraq, at first they encountered the usual resistance and cat-and-mouse games from Iraq. However, as the United States excalated pressure on Iraq, both UNMOVIC and the IAEA Action Team were able to gain access and resolve most questions about Iraq's nuclear, chemical, biological and missile programs. There is an account of this in the article [Rationale for the Iraq War], which should be summarized here.

This is important because it demonstrates the constructive effect of combining intrusive international inspection mandates and credible threats of military threats. This combination coerced Iraq into compliance and effectively resolved the WMD issue. It could have been a major victory for coercive nonproliferation diplomacy. Instead, the United States rejected this outcome and invaded Iraq anyway, damaging its own reputation and undermining the prospects future international unity in confronting the far greater proliferation challenges from Iran and North Korea. NPguy (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the only stated requirements to be met by Iraq were "immediate, active and unconditional cooperation" (with inspections) and Blix's report of 3/07/03 makes it quite clear Saddam was irrevocably in breach of 2 of the 3 qualifiers (and improving as the hammer was being cocked is not one of them), in light of the fact Blix himself described the inspections under 1441 "Iraq's final opportunity for peaceful disarmment" I find it bizarre you should mention "credible military threats" then damn us for following through with just that.

Blix and his team had MANY open issues yet to be resolved and Saddam knew if he could keep the dogs off until after the first week of April, we'd have to go home with our tail between our legs since the coming sandstorms folowed by brutal early summer temperatures would preclude a full scale attack.

"UNMOVIC...... were able to gain access and resolve most questions about Iraq's (omit)nuclear, chemical, biological and missile programs." That is completely false. See Blix's final report (was it 3/17 or 3/19?) as he left Iraq. If you understand that the purpose of the last round of inspections was not to determine the absence or presence of WMD in Iraq (impossible)but for Saddam to demonstrate transparancy that led the world to believe he had changed and sought peace, then it would be easier for you to understand why he clearly failed. Batvette (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have three points in response. First, the inspections were working. They had not broken down. Backed up by U.S. military threats, they were steadily revealing the truth. While the resolution demanded Iraq's full and immediate compliance, no one expected that outcome. The best realistic outcome from inspections was a slow erosion of Iraqi resistance, revealing over time a substantially complete and consistent picture of Iraq's WMD and missile programs. Inspections are a process, not a once and for all revelation. The U.S. government should have understood that going in. I confess that I tend to focus on the nuclear portfolio, which was substantially resolved in 1998 and which the Iraq Action substantially confirmed by March 2003. Progress may have been slower in other areas, but increasingly rhetoric about the "smoking gun" being a "mushroom cloud" were becoming less and less connected to known facts on the ground.

The notion that Saddam was waiting until summer when the weather would free him from the threat of military attack, at which point he would expel inspectors and then what? He had nothing. Could he really count on no attack?

Second, UNSCR 1441 did not authorize the automatic use of force, either by its plain language or by the interpretation of most states that voted for it. The "coalition" attack was not the embodiment of UN authority, but a defiance of it.

Finally, you see a contradiction between the utility of military threats and the disutility of actual use of force. It's not a contradiction, but a familiar paradox. Deterrence is widely recognized as the only legitimate purpose for nuclear weapons, but actual use has been unthinkable for decades. NPguy (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You say "the inspections were working" and under the assumption you feel the purpose of the last round of inspections (those under 1441) were to determine the absence of WMD within Iraq I'd assert you can't say they were working if you do not understand their purpose.

"While the resolution demanded Iraq's full and immediate compliance, no one expected that outcome."

A UN resolution is not carelessly worded or filled with unnecessary embellishment. You've just taken the fundamental and core demands of UN 1441, reiterated verbally and in writing by Hans Blis in his January 27 2003 report, and declared them irrelevant? Preposterous!

While 1441 did not have an automatic trigger for action, what did Hans Blix mean when he said it was Iraq's final opportunity for peaceful disarmment? And when this same UN official declares 6 weeks later that Iraq was irrevocably in breach of its terms, does Iraq get a "do-over"? a "gimme"?

The reason we attacked Iraq was not because of the amount of WMD Saddam possessed at the time. It was because Saddam refused to end his desire for reqional conquest and procure and threaten his neighbors and his own people with WMD. The inspections were his chance to prove he'd changed. He failed, and the ISG report confirms those intents.

On your "final" point: Deputy Barney Fife. (the nuclear reference is silly and irrelevant, there have beeen countless people killed in conflicts since 1945 and we didn't nuke Saddam)Batvette (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that you claim to know why we invaded Iraq. I can't figure it out myself, there have been so many justifications thrown out over the years. My best guess (from reading Bob Woodward) is that President Bush decided to do it back in 2001, and once he set preparations in motion they became self-fulfilling. No changes in circumstance could have prevented it.

You have said nothing of any substance to sway me from the conclusion that the inspections were working. They were making progress and there was no impasse. It was the United States that called them off, not the UN and not Iraq. NPguy (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

1, my contributions at Wiki are not intended to sway any single person's opinions nor do I feel the need to validate my own for their approval. If your goals are different please let me know so I won't further waste time with futility. Your "conclusions" are your perception of facts, the facts themselves are of encyclopedic relevance, what your opinion results from after viewing them is not.

2, Please define "working". Toward what goal? What conditions defined "finished?" I stated above what I believe the goals of the final round were, based upon Blix's 1/27/03 remarks. I think this is a fact that will not mesh with your opinions.

3, When UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors returned to Iraq, at first they encountered the usual resistance and cat-and-mouse games from Iraq. However, as the United States excalated pressure on Iraq,

After 12 years and as many resolutions it was so expected you call it "usual". Why then are you of the opinion if we hadn't invaded and removed him, that would not have been his continued behaviour? Now refer to point 2 and Blix's remarks and see why improving while the hammer of a gun at his head is cocked, is not "working", never mind specifically excluded by the wording of 1441.

4, The ISG report specifially stated that it judged Saddam would restart his WMD programs as soon as sanctions were relaxed. Please tell me how this does not leave Saddam with the ability to threaten the peace and security of the region with attack by WMD today had he not been forcibly removed. Batvette (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The inspections were "working" in the sense that they were making steady progress toward a complete picture of the (nonexistent) status of Iraq's WMD and missile programs. For the nuclear program (not Blix's responsibility), they had already largely completed that task. It's impossible to prove, since history took a different course, but I think the inspections were close to demonstrating that WMD was an untenable pretext for invading Iraq. NPguy (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The inspections were "working" in the sense that they were making steady progress toward a complete picture of the (nonexistent) status of Iraq's WMD and missile programs.

You're completely wrong about the purpose of inspections under UN1441. Hans Blix spelled this matter out to the letter in his January 27, 2003 interim report and address to the security council. [5] Your belief centers around the rather absurd concept that a team of 180 people could determine with absolute certainty, the lack of WMD in Iraq, a nation the size of California-as if that would even accomplish anything if it were possible. As Blix repeatedly points out, their purpose was to establish trust and confidence in Iraq by the world that they not only had disarmed, but they intended to remain as such without 250,000 US troops surrounding them. The ISG report in that case reaffirmed the WMD justification for war as valid. If not, tell me how if we had not invaded, Saddam would not now today be able to threaten his neighbors in the region with attack by WMD? How is a policy "working" if it requires a quarter of a million heavily armed men pointing guns at someone for cooperation?Batvette (talk) 06:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the inspections was to verify the absence of prohibited WMD programs. They were working - steadily achieving progress in achieving that objective. I do not believe Saddam was a significant security threat at the time, nor do I believe he would be one today, even if most of the sanctions were lifted. And the United States would be in a better position to confront Iran if it had not made the strategic blunder of getting bogged down in Iraq. NPguy (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"The purpose of the inspections was to verify the absence of prohibited WMD programs."

I provided you a link above to the interim report Hans Blix delivered, in which he stated:

" In December 1999 – after one year without inspections in Iraq – resolution 1284 (1999) was adopted by the Council with 4 abstentions. Supplementing the basic resolutions of 1991 and following years, it provided Iraq with a somewhat less ambitious approach: in return for “cooperation in all respects” for a specified period of time, including progress in the resolution of “key remaining disarmament tasks”, it opened the possibility, not for the lifting, but the suspension of sanctions.

For nearly three years, Iraq refused to accept any inspections by UNMOVIC. It was only after appeals by the Secretary-General and Arab States and pressure by the United States and other Member States, that Iraq declared on 16 September last year that it would again accept inspections without conditions.

Resolution 1441 (2002) was adopted on 8 November last year and emphatically reaffirmed the demand on Iraq to cooperate. It required this cooperation to be immediate, unconditional and active. The resolution contained many provisions, which we welcome as enhancing and strengthening the inspection regime. The unanimity by which it was adopted sent a powerful signal that the Council was of one mind in creating a last opportunity for peaceful disarmament in Iraq through inspection."

and.....

"Paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002) states that this cooperation shall be “active”. It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of “catch as catch can”. Rather, as I noted, it is a process of verification for the purpose of creating confidence. It is not built upon the premise of trust. Rather, it is designed to lead to trust, if there is both openness to the inspectors and action to present them with items to destroy or credible evidence about the absence of any such items. "

At no point does Blix nor the resolution itself specify that the purpose was to or could even determine the physical absence of WMD in Iraq.

"the United States would be in a better position to confront Iran " Why would we want to do THAT? And if so, how would that be easier with Saddam in Iraq?

Furthermore, on Feb 14, Blix describes your "they were working" with his final words:

"Today, three months after the adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short, if "immediate, active and unconditional cooperation" with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming."

Clearly they were not. Batvette (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you are reading Blix properly. He always balanced descriptions of cooperation with failures of cooperation. But cooperation was clearly improving over time and at no time reached an impasse that would have justified war. NPguy (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to get into fulfilling what would justify war in your eyes, or what you think was in Blix's words but isn't spelled out. Cooperation was the process which inspections were based upon, not the ability to endure with certainty an absence of WMD in Iraq.Your statement above, "The inspections were "working" in the sense that they were making steady progress toward a complete picture of the (nonexistent) status of Iraq's WMD and missile programs was an impossible goal. Batvette (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

So how were they supposed to come clean on weapons they didn't have again?--76.214.161.60 (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Was that the requirement of the cease fire and subsequent resolutions? Get rid of them at an unspecified place, time and manner, then obstruct and evade verification of disarmment? Don't make Saddam out to be the victim of baseless persecution. You DO realize Duelfer's report made it clear he was just going to make more, right? The point was he didn't intend to disarm. He didn't intend to stop attacking his neighbors. Batvette (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Not baseless persecution as much as automatic vilification. I guess it was only a $640 billion+ mistake. Oops.--76.214.161.60 (talk) 09:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The villain who invaded Kuwait agreed to the terms of a cease fire. Refusing to allow verification of disarmment because you wish to scare your neighbors was not one. As for "mistake".... oh really? Where is this crystal ball where I may view the fantasy world of decisions made differently and their results? Saddam gave no indication he had changed a bit. Batvette (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

So why don't you think he was a villain when he used chemical weapons in the war against Iran? Where was the outcry when he was buying weapons from the West?

The goal was to disarm him and there was nothing to disarm. It was 650+ billion dollars and 5,000+ lives that did not need to be spent. If you want to disagree with the majority of the public in considering it a mistake, that is your own prerogative..--76.251.250.43 (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You may allow your views on issues to be influenced by public opinion polls, I do not. I've seen this "poll" shift from a small minority in mid 2003 to now become the vast majority, and now you imply I am wrong merely for not caving in to it. That is idiotic beyond belief. The majority of Americans believe in God, does this prove he exists? The fact remains that unless you can prove a more favorable outcome of decisions not made, any speculation about what was a "mistake" or not remains only a fantasy in the minds of cretins who believe life comes with "do-overs", and those with political capital to gain at the expense of telling millions of war veterans their sacrifice meant nothing. All does not exist in a vacuum if the action was not taken, and the emotional appeal of citing the monetary expenditure and number of casualties is nonsense. At 400,000 lives and $3.6 trillion (adjusted for inflation) was WW2 a "mistake" or money we didn't have to spend? Batvette (talk) 05:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You seem to believe that we are better off for having invaded Iraq under false pretenses. I thought it was a mistake at the time and still think so. By attacking the one of the "Axis of Evil" that threatened us least, we undercut out international credibility in dealing with the other two. We're worse off in dealing with Iran's nuclear program because we invaded Iraq. Of course, this is a counterfactual. We can't to the experiment to see what would have happened if we had not invaded. But by the same token, the notion that the invasion was not a mistake is just a "fantasy." The comparison to WWII is essentially the discredited Hitler-Saddam comparison. Give it up. NPguy (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The former President said "the biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq".[6] and the chairman of his party said the biggest mistake was "prosecution of the war."[7] When the chief proponents are acknowledging this, let alone independent investigations or polls, it is probably best to just let yourself finally acknowledge it as well. What would you prefer to call $640 billion and 5,000 lives spent on weapons which didn't exist? An oopsy woopsy?--76.251.250.43 (talk) 09:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

1 We did NOT invade Iraq under "false pretenses", I think you can find the Joint Resolution here on wiki, review it and you'll find not one point within was ever proven false at all. You like many others have allowed a politically opportunistic media tell you what to think. (Note that the person who initiated the accusation about lying to go to war, Joe Wilson, had his claims wholly, 100% discredited by Congress!)

2 You people seem to forget we were bound by agreement to Kuwait and KSA to protect them from Saddam's agression (the latter paying us with a dollar a barrel discount in oil purchases since Desert Storm, AND guaranteeing US financial dominance of the world economy for over 30 years!) and walking away from such an agreement with such crucial allies was not an option. 10,000 miles away you sit in safety declaring Saddam was no threat. The citizens of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia did not agree. The oil from their countries built America. We owed them, those billions of dollars and thousands of lives were payment deferred and past due.

3 the President never said he regretted invading Iraq. I don't care what the "chairman of his party" said. Your suggestion any statement by them should make me declare the war a mistake is a blatant example of intellectual dishonesty because they don't have that opinion at all. The fact remains it's purely speculatory and not a bit encyclopedic to assert you know an alternate path not taken in history while changing so much would surely lead to a better outcome.

4 Your sole reasons for doing so are for political capital gained in rubbing the opposition party's nose in a mistake. That is despicable not only because most Democrats were just as responsible in their roles, but for what you're doing to veterans who served honorably in that war, and in encouraging similar lowbrow behaviour from some members of the GOP who now seek to torpedo Obama's policies. Good Job, Guys! I won't participate and what you're doing approaches fascism. Batvette (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Iraq had no usable WMD to speak of. That was one of the major points. Al-Qaeda had no real links to Iraq. In fact, Saddam didn't really like AQ and they only started showing up after the fact when USA became an occupying force. Even the government denies Al-Qaeda being in Iraq. Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda#2006_Senate_Report_of_Pre-War_Intelligence. In that same article, Iraq did not provide support for 9/11. And as an after-the-fact, conditions in Iraq are only so bad because the US is so insistent on bombing the crap out of that country. Pre-Gulf War, it was the most successful country in the middle east under the SAME Saddam Hussien.

2. Iraq has been under so many sanctions for so long that it provides no credible threat to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. Note how quickly the entire armoured forces and air forces of Iraq were completely wiped out by America. That is not to show that America is all powerful; it only goes to show the unpreparedness and low-quality of Iraq's modernized forces.

3. Bush did indeed say he had no regrets at one point in June [8], but later on, in December of the same year, claimed that the Iraq war was his BIGGEST regret, specifically in regards to the intelligence for the war. [9].

4. I urge you to review what Fascism is.

Annihilatron (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Using weasel words as hidden disclaimers ("usable" WMD or "real" links to Al Qaeda)works for the media selling leftist political fodder, not for people who know the facts, and those are spelled out clearly in the joint resolution. Saddam was a significant and prolific state sponsor of international terrorism. Terrorism by Islamic militants that killed Americans and harmed our interests. Saddam's WMD programs and capabilities threatened our allies and national interests in the Persian Gulf (and thus our national security) NO claim to links with Al Qaeda were made in the joint resolution whatsoever, nor any claims to material quantities of WMD at that time.

2. I shouldn't have to point out the intellectual dishonesty you just attempted with that. We couldn't babysit Saddam forever AND once Blix gave Saddam a clean bill of health sanctions would be relaxed and France and Russia, his main weapons suppliers, along with China, were about to go in and fill his pockets (and hangars and ammo dumps!)with the proceeds of what has now been resurveyed to be the largest petroleum reserves on earth, all in high pressure wells (50 cents a barrel lift cost!) You think Russia and their bad economy would mind paying Saddam in Migs and other hardware? How much oil do you think energy hungry China could pump out in a year or two? Saddam's armed forces were the largest and had more combat experience than anyone in the region,all they needed were new toys and they were about to get them.

3. Bush never said he regretted the decision to invade, nor should he. You're trying to interpret his statements to mean what you wish them to be. If he has regrets regarding use of intelligence that is nothing more than thinking in hindsight his actions could have been more perfect. Wouldn't life be great if all our decisions had benefit of a crystal ball?

4. Okay why don't we try "hive think by morons"? Another user suggested I change my opinion because public opinion polls were changing, over time, against my opinion. I think that merely shows a lack of integrity within that majority. The facts pertaining to the lead up to the war have not changed significantly, "what we found after the war" was because we invaded. Had we not invaded Iraq's Air Force would not have been buried and Iraq would have WMD programs and capabilities. The logic is like a child laying on a bearskin rug in his father's den, "he doesn't look so mean and these teeth are not so sharp,and his fur is very soft, why did you have to kill the nice bear, daddy?". I simply refuse to go along with that. (and I voted for Obama, no partisanship I assure you)Batvette (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolute, And Irrevocable, Bias

This “article” is about as biased as the most embarrassingly leftist conspiracy theory “newspapers”; It in no way addresses the possibility that there WERE, in fact mobile chemical weaps labs (at least one such truck, filled with componentry for such a lab, was intercepted along the Iraq/Syrian border) three days after the “official” start of the conflict). ¿Is this a fact based article or propaganda? Because as it stand, propaganda would be the POLITE term. --4.246.120.46 18:36, 29 October 2008

Most Wikipedia articles on political issues have some degree of bias, but this one strikes me as relatively even-handed. It describes Iraq's clandestine nuclear weapons program and its use of chemical weapons. But even the Iraq Study Group found no indication of WMD at the time of thd 2003 invasion. And it is by now well known that the intelligence was, if not manipulated, at least interpreted to promote the need for the invasion.

But if you know of missing facts and have references to support you, why not try to fix the article instead of just complaining? That's what I do. NPguy (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It in no way addresses the possibility that there WERE, in fact mobile chemical weaps labs... Make your mind up. Dynablaster (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine. There were. More importantly, Saddam wanted his own people to belive there were (and this is ALSO a result of the so-called "investigations" into the matter).

The "leftist conspiracy theory 'newspapers'" reported in 2003 that "U.S. forces in northern Iraq have found a second suspected mobile chemical weapons laboratory".

The only problem is that: “In the case of the mobile trucks and trains, there was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out to be not accurate.” And… “…it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and, in some cases, deliberately misleading.” (Colin Powell on Meet the Press - May 17, 2004)

The intelligence was discredited four years ago. The UN and even the U.S.'s Iraq Study Group asserted that Iraq had ended its WMD programs in 1991 and had no active programs at the time of the invasion. In short, do some reading.--69.208.141.201 (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a false interpretation of their findings, it leads one to think Iraq (saddam) had ended his desire to possess and threaten his neighbors with WMD. If Saddam employs scientists to research and develop ways to clandestinely manufacture chem and nerve agents from dual use products, and purchases and stocks these precursors, and we found evidence of that, are you going to say he had no WMD programs? Do you want to find the WMD mixed and loaded onto missile warheads before you say it was "active"? That's not going to happen. The joint resolution mentions WMD as a justification by saying:

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

And what he was doing WAS just that, and notice what it DOESN'T claim there or anywhere else: stockpiles at the time of the draft of that document, because he was just going to make more. It might be more to the point that what we were able to catch him with or not after the fact is wholly irrelevant, just as Blix had asserted finding WMD during the inspections would not have been an automatic trigger for action. What the last round of inspections demanded from Saddam was "immediate, unconditional and active cooperation" to demonstrate the transparancy he was hiding nothing and that he intended to end his desires for regional conquest. As the ISG final report clearly states that was far from what his intents were, and he had indeed advanced his programs- by transforming them from the pre desert storm above the table weapons production to dual use clandestine quick breakout capability. Batvette (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The entire introduction needs to be rewritten with a more nonPOV tone, and some factual content. It does not mention WHY the United Nations destroyed Iraq's WMD, it does not state that Iraq was supposed to disarm with verification to meet the cease fire conditions, and portrays the US as an aggressor by continually accusing Iraq of having WMD for no specific reason, when the reality was that Iraq was supposed to document what it did with the WMD it had. Batvette (talk) 06:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

From AskOxford:

aggressor

noun - a person or country that attacks without being provoked.

USA - Fabricated evidence against a country to invade them. The evidence is now widely admitted to be fabricated (IRAQ HAS WMD OMGS?!) or misconstrued (Nigeria's Uranium from the British Intelligence). In any case, USA attacked Iraq without being provoked. The WMD case arguers can state all they like that Iraq had WMD, but an even more important point is that Iraq had ZERO delivery capability. Even if Iraq had a nuclear warhead, they COULD NOT deliver it anywhere, as they have no missiles capable of launching a warhead anywhere significant. How is it possible for a country without a real weapon to provoke the most powerful nation (for a few more years) in the world ?

Annihilatron (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Tell the 5,000 Kurds killed in the attack in 1988 Iraq had no "delivery vehicles". The gas in those attacks was deployed in bomb casings that could be dropped by a number of different aircraft in Iraq's Air Force inventory in 2002. Before the war began in 2003, Saddam buried them, hoping the war would end quickly and he would stay in power. Your position is essentially "I know almost nothing about what Saddam could or would do, so the war was wrong". The threat to our national security was not in his ability to reach the US with a delivery vehicle with a WMD warhead, but in serious interruption of US oil imports by continuing his record of regional conquest in the Persian Gulf. As for "real weapon" see this [10]Scroll down to where it describes how US fighters were unable to ever intercept his MIG-25's. Here was his 2002 inventory of about 200 aircraft: [11](note 10 mig-25s total and 45 mirage F-1's) Now figure Scott Ritter said in Fall 2002 Saddam could produce nerve gas agents in a matter of days.

Furthermore "The US attacked Iraq without being provoked" ignores that as a declared war Desert Storm never ended, hostilities were suspeneded and in 2003 as in 1991 we were acting as agents in defense of Kuwait and KSA. Some may say "that was 12 years ago!" in ignorance of the fact a war within the no fly zone went on for the duration. That 12 years was more than enough patience for him to comply with cease fire conditions. The actions and policies used to contain Saddam directly resulted in the attacks on 9/11, suggesting they were an acceptable status quo to maintain indefinately is not realistic. Batvette (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Desert Storm was not a declared war. Quit lying, Batvette. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

excuse me, a semantics faux pas is not a lie. engage in wordplay all you like,the point remains, as I addressed in the quote this was a continuation of hostilities of Desert Storm that were suspended by cease fire. not a new move of unprovoked aggression on our part.to NPGuy- we don't declare wars anymore. we have conflicts we affix cutesy names with hints of motivations upon. not my fault, don't dump on me for it.Batvette (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This is uncalled for. The first Iraq War (I don't like using the military operation name "Desert Storm") was not "declared" according to the provisions for declaration of war in the U.S. Constitution. However, it was authorized by the UN Security Council, in accordance with the UN Charter, a treaty obligation of the United States. NPguy (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Mig-25s are not weapons of mass destrucion, Batvette. And this isn't a message board. Only bring up information that's actually pertinent to this article. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, tell that to this guy- but an even more important point is that Iraq had ZERO delivery capability. Even if Iraq had a nuclear warhead, they COULD NOT deliver it anywhere, I guess the relevance to the article doesn't matter in sock puppetry/yes mannism, whichever the case may be.Batvette (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

With us or against us. Strategery. It didn't and doesn't have to make sense.--134.68.77.128 (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Rewrote the intro

I'm sure a few people won't be thrilled about the change but the version as it existed was hopelessly biased and was a misrepresentation of the facts, including the purpose of the last round of inspections which Blix has always maintained finding or not finding WMD were never going to be a trigger for war. (So if finding WMD was not going to be a trigger for war, it is intellectually dishonest to imply that because inspectors did not find WMD we were acting contrary to its {UN 1441} intent when we went to war) Most disturbing was the inclusion of the reference to the "report" about 900+ false statements by the administration, which not only was a blatant partisan hit piece, but it was really not encyclopedically relevant to this page and its content. Other pages exist about that matter, and even a few of the things in my rewrite, so I am fairly open to a rewrite by someone else- though if you look at the closing statement (and I'd like that to be retained) I think that's the most relevant thing that can be said- despite legitimate complaints about the human and monetary cost, Operation Iraqi Freedom undoubtedly ended the longstanding concerns about Saddam and WMD. Finally, I think it's important to rely more on official documents- like the UN's own transcripts of Blix's interim reports, or actual transcripts of the text of the Joint Resolution or White House speeches- than citing media reporting of the same, particularly media reports long after the fact. The political maneuvering is sickening, to be sure. Batvette (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought your intro was heavily biased and misinterpreted the underlying facts in numerous ways - although some of the earlier text had bein biased in the opposite direction. I think my changes are self explanatory, but feel free to discuss. NPguy (talk) 10:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You didn't like that part about Bush being bound by law to attack Iraq? Why not?  :-) (in a way it's true) I think it's a fair enough compromise with a couple of detail changes needed: The last statement should read not inspections but the Iraqi survey group report by Chsrles Duelfer, and not confirmed but "JUDGED that saddam probably disarmed after desert storm" (and I won't insist you include his less possible exception that he might have gotten rid of them right before the war) and I'll research the exact wording about his intentions after sanctions were lifted to see what physical evidence was found about his dual use clandestine programs the intents section was based on. If worded 100% correctly toward the facts Duelfer's findings can find both sides with points of happiness and frustration. That should be acceptable IMO. I might mention we should probably avoid going into the subject of what actually justified the war itself- you didn't go there and I tried not to either, there will be a difference of opinions there and other pages have wars to be fought over it someday. One other thing that is in fact in error, is "launched a second gulf war". All UN resolutions refer to the original invasion of kuwait and the cease fire conditions, indeed that was the reason UN1441 put inspectors in Iraq! As well the Joint resolutions begins with it as well. I am comfortable if you want to word it to imply Bush initiated the resumption of/ beginning of new hostilites, but regardless of what people would like to believe all pertinent documents make it pretty clear by the legal way wars are declared OIF was a resumption of suspended hostilities caused by Saddam's failure to comply with cease fire conditions. 12 years doesn't make it a second war, it means we had extreme patience. It's late and I'm tired so if I did these revisions myself they'll come out sloppy, feel free to give them a try or I'll do it in a couple of days. Otherwise I think you showed an open mind, good edit. Batvette (talk) 11:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The United States ... sought a further UN Security Council Resolution authorizing the use of force, but abandoned this effort after France declared it would veto over any such resolution.

The French position needs to be qualified because ministers were prepared to support a second resolution if Hans Blix declared the situation hopeless (the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle was ordered to the Persian Gulf). The BBC's premier current affairs program, Panorama, documented this episode in 2004. Here is the relevant clip. I recommend watching the entire program. Highly informative. Dynablaster (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

How would you change it? Listening to clip, it seems Chirac said his position might change "if Iraq ceased cooperation" with inspectors. I'm not sure how genuine that was and (assuming the narrated summary is accurate) it set a threshold so high (completely ceasing cooperation) that it was safe to predict Iraq would not cross it. In other words, Chirac's equivocation as reported in this clip seems disingenuous. NPguy (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

France's position was only tenable so long as inspectors were making progress. It hinged on the word of UNMOVIC and IAEA. It is not for us to speculate how Jacques Chirac may have reacted if matters had reached a dead end (was the Charles de Gaulle (R 91) deployment an empty gesture? etc). But we must be sure to report the position of France without distortion. Dynablaster (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

As I recall that film clip, it quoted Chirac as saying France could change its position if Iraq stopped allowing inspections. That is different from inspections reaching a dead end, which could occur for other reasons. Chirac wasn't the only French official making statements like this. I recall that Foreign Minister (or had he become Prime Minister by then?) Dominique de Villepin made statements of opposition that were more unequivocal than Chirac's. It was not unreasonable to conclude that France would veto a resolution on the use of force most realistic circumstances. NPguy (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Let me recap. I have a source that says France would vote against a resolution authorizing the use of force because Hans Blix believed disarmament experts were making progress and thus should be afforded more time:

Jacques Chirac: There were two ways to disarm [Iraq]. There was war, of course, but there was also the method of inspections and exerting pressure, the one which consisted in going over there, with the UN's authority, to control these weapons, find and then destroy them. And the international community, by adopting UNSCR 1441 unanimously, took the decision which consisted in saying: "we are going to disarm Iraq peacefully, i.e. through the inspections. We are going to appoint inspectors, and they will tell us whether or not this method is possible".

It's not for you or me to say whether the inspections are effective, whether Iraq is sufficiently cooperative ... [it's] for the inspectors to whom the UN has entrusted the responsibility of disarming Iraq to say. The inspectors have to tell us: "we can continue and, at the end of a period which we think should be of a few months" – I'm saying a few months because that's what they have said – "we shall have completed our work and Iraq will be disarmed". Or they will come and tell the Security Council: "we are sorry but Iraq isn't cooperating, the progress isn't sufficient, we aren't in a position to achieve our goal, we won't be able to guarantee Iraq's disarmament". In that case it will be for the Security Council and it alone to decide the right thing to do. But in that case, of course, regrettably, the war would become inevitable. It isn't today.

France will vote "no" because she considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves, i.e. to disarm Iraq.<sup>[12]</sup>

My concern is with the lead section and how it is written, which may give readers the impression that France would veto come hell or high water. Can you actually produce a source that contradicts the president of France? Here is a Guardian leader in 2003 in which French officials complain they are being misquoted:

Both Mr Blair and Mr Straw have blamed France for paralysing diplomacy at the UN by vowing to use their veto to block a second resolution whatever the circumstances. The French insist Mr Chirac was willing to be flexible and is being misquoted deliberately by the British to suit Mr Blair's interests and to disguise his failure to win support of the majority of states on the security council.<sup>[13]</sup>

Chirac says "dead end" in a separate interview, but it's perfectly clear what he is getting at.

France is not pacifist. We are not anti-American either. We are not just going to use our veto to nag and annoy the US. But we just feel that there is another option, another way, another more normal way, a less dramatic way than war, and that we have to go through that path. And we should pursue it until we’ve come [to] a dead end, but that isn’t the case.<sup>[14]</sup>

I'm not asking for a major rewrite, by the way. Just a little something additional to make the French position clear. Dynablaster (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

My comments above were based on the video clip, not a transcript. In any case, I think it may be misleading to take a single statement of President Chirac as defining France's position over time. I am writing from personal recollection rather than research, but I believe this statement came rather late in the process. As I recall, it seemed to be meant in part to revise France's position to appear more reasonable, responding to criticism that France had been unequivocal in opposing military force. I don't mind editing, but I think relying on a single statement, however authoritative, would be misleading. Here's are a couple of useful sources.

Again, speaking from recollection, I think France's position was seen as uncompromising - that there were effectively no circumstances under which France would approve a UN resolution authorizing the use of force. Rather than impeding the Bush Administration from attacking Iraq, France's position gave the Administration the excuse it needed to bypass the Security Council. In the politics of the day, rather than impeding the use of force, France enabled it. By the way, I agree (and agreed at the time) with France's formal position that the inspections were working and should be given more time. NPguy (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

the quote above (with the number 13 reference) stating they weren't willing to use force was the way I believe France stood at the time. I included it and it was more relevant than one might think because the joint resolution stated:

reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

The Statement by Blix about Iraq's cooperation coming with conditions and not immediate was taken by us as determining a breach of UN1441,and Blix himself stated on Jan 27 that 1441 was Saddam's "final opportunity for peaceful disarmment".(IMO) Chirac's position at that time was obstructionary, the posittion of the security council should have been as it was before Desert Storm, but it was divided due to each having personal fortunes involved- France, Russia and China having lucrative drilling contracts about to be realized, the US not willing to risk the loss of its middle east dominance and dollar hedgemony. Batvette (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

So where was the threat to U.S. national security and where was the resolution authorizing the usage of force? Or it was "the US not willing to risk the loss of its middle east dominance and dollar hedgemony"? That seems very different from Saddam Hussein nuking the United States with fictional uranium from Africa.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That seems very different from Saddam Hussein nuking the United States with fictional uranium from Africa I'm sorry, I couldn't find that in the sole document the US presented to detail the justifications for the war.[15] Also, most US grade school children are taught in Social Studies that it is vital to our economy and our way of life for us to maintain relative security in the middle east due to our dependence on petroleum exports- perhaps you are from a region of the world where your transportation needs are fulfilled by livestock or rail? That's what that "national security" thingy alludes to. Batvette (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"Also, most US grade school children are taught in Social Studies that it is vital to our economy and our way of life for us to maintain relative security in the middle east due to our dependence on petroleum exports": Odd that the words petroleum, economy, and transportation occur no where within the declaration you cite while the word weapon occurs 17 times and the word nuclear occurs 4 times, specifically with the warning that "Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated".

Does it take non-partisan analysis or multiple disagreeing technical agencies to show that there weren't any weapons? Perhaps there wouldn't have been a case for war if the case were "we need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of citizens' lives to maybe influence natural resources half-way around the world". Maybe you could have signed up!--99.162.60.191 (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That would depend on the level of disengenuity one would possess in claiming there weren't any "weapons".

The joint resolution describes the WMD rationale for war as: continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, and not only does Scott Ritter concurr with this as we planned for war in fall 2002 [16] this was confirmed as factual by Duelfer and Kay in the ISG final report, a 1500 page document which partisan mental midgets think can be summarized in two letters: N and O. They described Saddam had "gamed the system" and hid dual use items from UN scrutiny, established illegal procurement channels to set up breakout clandestine programs AS RITTER DESCRIBES. Saddam had programs. Saddam stocklpiled the precursors. Saddam could kill people with nerve/chemical agents with several days notice. The one thing in the final inspections Saddam was caught with and defied orders to destroy were the delivery vehjicles and warheads designed for just these programs, but of course IDIOTS say "well they were nothing since they were empty!" NO **** you don't store non binary aerial mix nerve agents fully weaponized! Saddam was not stupid enough to leave them laying around mixed in weaponized form as his country and power dissolved around him, I'm very sorry your hatred for George W. Bush clouds your judgement from discerning this. Read Ritter's exact words. We went to war because Saddam refused to end his desire to procure and use WMD, what we found after the fact is 100% completely irrelevant. As for the schoolkids comment you asked what the threat was to our national security. I hope you don't think intentional displays of ignorance are a good debate strategy. Batvette (talk) 04:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If you really think that the intelligence wasn't the largest failure of Bush's presidency despite his own admission, that Saddam was going to launch a missile with precursors in it to kill you, that the conflict didn't create more terrorism and cost the U.S. strategically in other ways, and that the conflict was also worth the thousands of U.S. lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars, then you are entitled to your opinion..--68.248.155.2 (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

one would assume Saddam's military leaders would have the presence of mind to mix the precursors together before they filled the warheads and fired their missiles at Saudi Arabia. Not sure what I'd be doing there- why is he firing them at me again, not one of his neighbors who with Iraq collectively possess about 2/3 of the world's proven conventional petroleum reserves? As for "opinions" I am entitled to one just as you are, but I think my reality based "what happened happened" view is more rational than the belief that an action which was always sold as preventative, could be removed from a historical timeline and the resulting outcome guaranteed to be better. My position revolves around facts which are verifiable, yours is sheer speculation. Batvette (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a truly bizarre discussion. We seem to be satisfied with the text of the intro, but read it in wildly divergent ways. The U.S. government took various steps and claimed various justifications that, to me and the IP editor, seem at odds with the evidence and legally specious. France's position was more closely tied to the evidence, but was also deliberately obstructive of U.S. aims. But another editor reads the text as consistent with the view that the U.S. intervention was justified. I wonder what a disinterested reader would think.

In any case, it seems we have succeeded in producing a text that satisfies those divergent views. Let's not press our luck. NPguy (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

NPGuy: I apologize for my initial attitude toward you. Despite our underlying difference in positions, you are far more objective than I ever gave you credit for. :-) If there is a basis for difference in interpretations maybe it's summarized like this: Those who reflect on the situation and think the war was unnecessary put great emphasis that we found nothing and envision a parallel reality of no war with this nothing still the case and Saddam being benevolent in intent. For my part I believe Saddam showed no evidence he had changed from his history of agression and had all the WMD necessary at his disposal, but in programs he'd worked to hide under the nose of the UN. There is evidence to support both sides, empirical and absolute proof of neither. Batvette (talk) 04:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I just want to clarify that this is not my view. I don't believe that the failure to find weapons after the war justifies opposition only in retrospect. I believe that the lack of evidence before the war, as confirmed by the UN and IAEA inspections, was fully sufficient to justify opposing the war. I focus on the nuclear file, where even if they had been valid the yellowcake and aluminum cylinders would have been at best very weak circumstantial evidence. And as it turns out they were known to be false (the yellowcake evidence was based on forgeries and the aluminum tubes were for artillery rockets) before the war. Scott Ritter cited similar gaps in evidence for the chemical and biological weapons files.

I have no illusions about Saddam's intent - after all, he gassed Iranians and Iraqi Kurds - only that his capabilities were so degraded that they were unlikely to pose a threat comparable to other real threats, like Iran and North Korea. In that way, the Iraq war was a dangerous diversion. Actually, it was more than a distraction, because (in my view) it destroyed our international credibility in dealing with those more serious problems and helped them to grow worse. NPguy (talk) 07:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

So it is puzzling you cite the situation as existed in early 2003 as reason we were not supposed to act, when the pre-emptive nature of the action was well publicized and Duelfer's report verifies that these changes were imminent. Batvette (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This was not pre-emption, since there was no imminent threat. There may have been a latent intent to develop the capability to pose a threat, but that is far from "imminent." It was at best a preventive war, but given all the retrospective changes in the Bush Administrations explanations for why it invaded Iraq, I am not convinced that the stated purpose - WMD - was the true motivation. Reading accounts of how the United States got into this war, it remains very difficult to understand why. Whether and why to invade don't seem to have been discussed much by high-level decision makers. Maybe future historians with access to archives will be able to explain better. NPguy (talk) 06:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say the threat was imminent, I said (implied) the changes to the sanctions/inspection/containment status quo were. As for pre-emption, of course it was. I don't think anyone disputes it was sold on preventing Saddam's next aggressive move. Batvette (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it would be best to just state what was objectively observed and to let the reader form their own interpretation. I would also trust most people are already aware of this and have formed their own interpretation.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

ISG

What was it being "confirmed" by inspections? Saddam's ability to game the system and illegally procure items and hide them under their noses? You have no illusions about his intent but instead found comfort in his degraded capabilities. The actions taken to do that caused 9/11, and were unravelling. Some of the key judgements of the ISG report:

Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.

■Saddam totally dominated the Regime’s strategic decision making. He initiated most of the strategic thinking upon which decisions were made, whether in matters of war and peace (such as invading Kuwait), maintaining WMD as a national strategic goal, or on how Iraq was to position itself in the international community. Loyal dissent was discouraged and constructive variations to the implementation of his wishes on strategic issues were rare. Saddam was the Regime in a strategic sense and his intent became Iraq’s strategic policy.

■Saddam’s primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections—to gain support for lifting sanctions—with his intention to preserve Iraq’s intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.

■The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad’s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.

■By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999.

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

[17]

Before

• "Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated"
• "Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities"
• "Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"
• Dick Cheney: ""We believe [Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons".

During

• France, Germany, Russia vow to block resolution approving war: "While suspicions remain, no evidence has been given that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction or capabilities in this field"
• "Both US and British intelligence sources have told the BBC that evidence against Iraq was distorted in order to justify the war against Iraq"
• "(Hans Blix) said U.S. officials pressured him to use more damning language when reporting on Iraq's alleged weapons programs"

After

• "Iraq Survey Group (ISG) discovered further evidence of the maturity and significance of the pre-1991 Iraqi Nuclear Program but found that Iraqís ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after that date"
• "As with other WMD areas, Saddamís ambitions in the nuclear area were secondary to his prime objective of ending UN sanctions"
• "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"
• "ISG judges that in 1991 and 1992, Iraq appears to have destroyed its undeclared stocks of BW weapons and probably destroyed remaining holdings of bulk BW agent"

The Bush administration said anything that was unaccounted for existed, the intelligence was dead wrong and rapidly falling apart as the invasion began (aluminum tubes, yellowcake forgeries, ...), the British said that the intelligence was "sexed up" and that "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".

The sanctions and inspections regimen was working. The war wasted resources and credibility which could have been used to stop the spread of actual weapons of mass destruction. For example, Russia and Pakistan were and are much more serious proliferation concerns. There was virtually no response to North Korea's nuclear weapons. The U.S. also lost much credibility in its dealings with Iran because of its faulty assertions in the lead-up to the Iraq War.

The war created more terrorists according to U.S. intelligence agencies, cost hundreds of billions of dollars according to the CBO, and cost thousands of American lives according to the Department of Defense. The war has cost tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians their lives and has also dramatically worsened the humanitarian situation in Iraq. A majority of Iraqis said they were better off before the U.S. invasion, and a majority of Americans believe that the U.S. "made a mistake" and should "have stayed out". Oh yeah, and the majority of Iraq's neighbors which "felt threatened" somehow opposed the war too, though it may have ironically strengthened Iran. So you can have your opinion in the minority.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 06:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

1. If you want to start a new section of this page go ahead, but don't butcher content from someone's comment to do so. I left the ISG key findings for NPGuy in a comment which now appears fragmented as does the passage itself because it lacks the preface. Since you moved it to launch additional commentary I bolded the most relevant passage. The gist being no invasion, sanctions end, Saddam has WMD.

2. I am not stupid and am well read enough on this to spot right off in "before" you've chopped lines out of the joint resolution and removed contextual content to imply that claims were pertaining to the time it was drafted, they were not. the passage in its entirety is altogether different

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security

To call that intellectual dishonesty is giving you a lot of benefit of doubt. You had to have consciously lifted each of those remarks knowing what you were doing. All of those remarks were contextual to the period of 1991-98. Why should anyone now open their mind to your subjective opinions when you so blatently insulted our intelligence, assuming we were too ignorant to be familiar with the JR's text??

What is so hard to understand about acceptance of reality VS speculating alternate realities? I don't care if 299,999,999 out of 300 million Americans finally agree the war was a mistake. They are speculating a path of action not taken must have been better than the one that was (reality!)It's not up to me to prove reality was the best way to go, it's up to you to prove it wasn't. which is impossible.

I do have a final remark: You say the war "created more terrorists". How many terrorists have US troops killed since the end of declared hostilities in may 2003? You must know this right off the top of your head already, since you say we created MORE. I'd like a direct answer, please. Batvette (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Created more terrorists:

• A National Intelligence Council report completed in January 2003 stated that the approaching war had the potential to increase support for political Islam worldwide and could increase support for some terrorist objectives[18]
• In the third Terrorism Index, more than 100 of America’s most respected foreign-policy experts see a world that is growing more dangerous, a national security strategy in disrepair, and a war in Iraq that is alarmingly off course[19]
• "New jihadist networks and cells, sometimes united by little more than their anti-western agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge," Gen Hayden said. "If this trend continues, threats to the US at home and abroad will become more diverse and that could lead to increasing attacks worldwide."[20]
• "In the long term, do you think there will be more or less terrorism in the United States because the U.S. went to war in Iraq? More 60%[21]
• An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology. The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.[22] National Intelligence Estimates are the most authoritative documents that the intelligence community produces.
• "There is concern that Iraq will become an exporter of seasoned terrorists, weapons, and shared tactics — especially the use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) with “spillover” not only into the neighboring Gulf nations but to Europe and other regions as well" [23] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.217.67.104 (talk) 01:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

To clear things up, I didn't say we created more terrorism; the terrorism index, U.S. generals, U.S. intelligence, U.S. polls, and others said so. So I woud say that the number of terrorists killed is less than the number of terrorists created since that is what every other indicator would say.

And the only intellectual dishonest thing I have seen is you proposing that we invaded Iraq under the presumption that it might have a WMD capability. For example:

• "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." - Richard Cheney
• "We believe [Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons" - Richard Cheney
• "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year." - George Bush
• Powell said there was "no doubt whatsoever" that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction prior to the U.S.-led invasion
• "After eleven years during which we tried containment, sanctions, inspections, ... Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons, and is increasing his ability to make more." - George Bush
• "His regime has amassed large clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX and sarin and mustard gas." - Donald Rumsfeld
• "There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce many, many more." - Colin Powell
• "The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder." - George Bush
• "Under Resolutions 678 and 687 -- both still in effect -- the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction." - George Bush
• "It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction." - George Bush

The Evil and Dishonest Saddam said "We are not weapons collectors", "When Saddam Hussein says he has no weapons of mass destruction, he means what he says", "But we had these weapons for purposes of self-defence when we were at war with Iran for eight years and when the Zionist entity (Israel) was, and it still is, a threat", amd "We have a real desire to rid our region and the whole world of weapons of mass destruction". Glad we didn't fall for that. And the Iraqis got to thank Bush for the freedom he brought to Iraq's widows and orphans.

--68.248.155.2 (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Your statement- The war created more terrorists according to U.S. intelligence agencies, and restated- So I woud say that the number of terrorists killed is less than the number of terrorists created So how many have we killed? You've taken the time to spam the discussion with plenty of snippets of officials' comments, why not look up the number? You declare the war a mistake but only wish to view the information which agrees with you- and will present it as such, as demonstrated by your selective editing of the points within the Joint Resolution. That was blatant dishonesty. And this:

"We are not weapons collectors" is TOO funny. There were more ammunitions dumps in Iraq than garbage dumps. Saddam and his regime were bent on regional domination through agression, he never showed any indication he had changed. Batvette (talk) 04:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, ammunition. Maybe you'd advocate an invasion of New York or Detroit.--69.208.130.182 (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain to me, in light of Duelfer's ISG report accepted as factual by those who see importance in the "we found nothing" catagory, how this other conclusion- Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities. does not leave Saddam today (with no war) with WMD and able to threaten the region with attack just as was claimed in the above statements you provided?Batvette (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You are assuming:

• Duelfer's crystal ball of Saddam's intentions are correct. Clearly the West has a good record on this.
• Sanctions would have completely ended and Saddam would have chosen to reconstitute degrading programs.
• Saddam would have chosen to use his reconstituted programs, which we don't know he would have reconstituted, in spite of the American military presence in the region and the previous response to such a decision.
• That the chance of all of this taking place outweighs the fact that:
  • Saddam didn't have "biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce many, many more"
  • Saddam didn't have "chemical and biological weapons, and is increasing his ability to make more"
  • Saddam didn't have "reconstituted nuclear weapons"
  • $670 billion+ and 4,311+ U.S. lives could have been used to not create more terrorists than it removed, could have been used to not weaken U.S. credibility and strengthen Iranian influence, could have spared tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilian lives, and could have not created hundreds of thousands of orphans and a horrible humanitarian situation; among others.

I feel that one or more of your assumptions is in most probability wrong.--69.208.130.182 (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Duelfer's crystal ball of Saddam's intentions are correct. If you choose to discard Duelfer's judgement that Saddam was intent on making more, why do you grasp as factual his judgement on other things in the same report?

Saddam would have chosen to use his reconstituted programs, which we don't know he would have reconstituted, in spite of the American military presence in the region and the previous response to such a decision. Umm, could it be his long history of using them? And what do you mean by American military presence? You do realize that 250,000 men were there to invade Iraq, not stay forever?

You dodged the question. the fact is sanctions were going to end. Period. Look at Blix's reports, why do you think Saddam allowed inspections to restart? There was a carrot with that stick. The US wanted sanctions to end, we saw it was only hurting Iraqis while Saddam went on as usual.

create more terrorists than it removed, Do the rest of your opinions consist of baseless claims with no information to support them? HOW MANY DID WE REMOVE?

created hundreds of thousands of orphans and a horrible humanitarian situation- A UNICEF report estimated in 2000 that sanctions killed 500,000 Iraqi children. Yet here you are hoping sanctions continued forever as a means to contain Saddam. Logic phails. Batvette (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Duelfer's assessment of Saddam's future intentions was speculation. His assessment of what Saddam already had (or didn't have) was not. Also your statement that the 250,000 men were there to invade Iraq illustrates the problem perfectly: the outcome was pre-determined. Iraq was going to be invaded no matter what Saddam did and regardless of whether he actually had any WMD. Bush had decided before he was even president that overthrowing Saddam Hussein was his purpose in life, and he wasn't going to let anything stop him. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You know even if you COULD prove the whole thing is now worse off than it WOULD be in the fantasy of an alternate reality, so what? Where were you in 2002 when 75% of Congress approved the policy? Got that letter you wrote to your Senator and Congressman detailing the better idea you had? Check it out: I could live your life better than you if I could go back and fix all your bad decisions! Isn't it fun being a CRITIC?Batvette (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Where were you when all the resources were wasted, the non-existent threat was exaggerated, and the entire thing fell apart? I guess it is fun being in touch with reality.--69.208.130.182 (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein was a "non-existent threat" to the combined forces of a coalition of 300,000 troops led by the United States,and after 12 years of sanctions which killed a half million Iraqi children, a policy which directly resulted in the attacks of 9/11. You do understand we removed him because this was not a tenable situation, right? Do you understand the word "pre-emptive"? The erroneous assumption of those of your position is that the status quo which existed in the last half decade before the war was an infinitely sustainable policy, which is ridiculous. Containment by sanctions was crumbling. The muslim population of the whole region was enraged at the hardship of the Iraqis. Saddam provoked attacks in the no fly zone because he was seen as a martyr by all Arabs, a poor little victim. We were losing our main air base we patrolled the no fly zone from, and when Blix finally found him in compliance with inspections, sanctions would be relaxed and bilions of euros would flow directly into Saddam's military arsenal from Russian, Chinese and French oil companies. The US would have no basis to surround him and could only pick up the pieces which would result. However more simply put by saying the threat was nonexistant, you display ignorance of the most fundamental fact... because he had been assured a quick rescue by cease fire from his security council friends in Paris and Moscow, Saddam did not put up an organized defense of his country. At all. He even buried his air force. That would NOT be the case had we walked away. To look around the ashes of ruin after a war, and thus declare the war did not need to happen for you to walk over ashes of ruin- is nonsensical. Batvette (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere, and I suggest that we end it here. I note the policy statement at the top of the discussion page:

This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

NPguy (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

While that's true enough, there is cause to pursue discussion on the subject itself toward the article. When a subject has a lot of political undertones people will edit the article to supress information which goes against their agenda. Discussing the subject brings those facts into the light. We could say "We found no WMD thus Saddam would never be a threat to anyone" but that is not a factual interpretation in light of Duelfer also declaring he was intent on making more. The policy is flawed. :-P Batvette (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Iraq and weapons of mass destruction/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: On hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that needs to be addressed. This is a preliminary review, as I'm only pointing out the most pressing issues. If the below issues are addressed I'll then point out what else the article needs to remain a GA.

1. All of the citation needed tags need to be addressed. Some have been tagged since February 2007.
2. Can the "First use" section be expanded? If not, the section should be merged into another section.
3. The article has multiple dead links that need to be fixed. The Internet Archive can help.
4. Some of the citations need be more descriptive. Include the author, title, date, publisher, accessdate, etc. The citation templates at WP:CITET can help.
5. Can any more images be added to the article (preferably free)?

I will review the prose of the article once the above issues are addressed. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps: Delisted

The article has been on hold for a week and none of the issues were addressed. As a result I have delisted the article as it still has a way to go before meeting the GA criteria. Continue to improve the article, addressing the issues above. Once they are addressed, please renominate the article at WP:GAN. I look forward to seeing the further improvement of the article, and don't hesitate to contact me if you need assistance with any of these. If you disagree with this review, a community consensus can be reached at WP:GAR. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted content of this discussion

I reverted the last edit which deleted large contents of this page. If you feel it is too large it's easy enough to archive it. Batvette (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The INTRODUCTION

I returned it to a hybrid of an earlier edit of mine with the improved section by Mynameinc. It's one thing to write the section in a biased manner, another altogether when you just want your biased parts in but don't care if it makes no sense reading it. TO WIT: Removing the part where Blix states Iraq's cooperation was not immediate and had conditions attached... then go on to state that the US tok this as breach of UN1441- took what? your candy coated version that their cooperation was proactive, nothing bad to see here move along thank you? It makes no sense because you removed the part critical of Iraq's compliance with 1441. SECOND example: Stating that after the war, ISG reports agreed with prewar conclusions that Iraq had destroyed their stockpiles? Excuse me? No such conclusions were made by anyone other than a lone defector several years prior, he was not in any official capacity to make a judgement which officials would consider reliable intelligence. The concensus of the intelligence community before the war is contained in Tenet's NIE of October 2002, period. Not a single report by any intelligence agency in the world contains a judgement as was implied in the old edit. It's complete BS. Finally the findings of the 2008 Senate report are certainly interesting, as it supercedes the findings of two previous reports on the same issue, the difference being the makeup of the committee was majority Republican on the previous versions, majority Democrat on the latest. I think it's safe to say they are all biased in their own way and that is a hornet's nest that deserves to stay on its own page. The link you cite contains a press release by John Rockefeller, listing a number of charges against the Bush administration as leading the nation into war on false pretenses. In particular that Bush tried to link 9/11 with Saddam and used 9/11 as a pretext to attack Iraq. I present to you now the words of that same politician before the Senate vote on the Joint Resolution, detailing a similar list of claims by himself in the preemptive days before the war:

"The global community -- in the form of the United Nations -- has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late.

But this isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.

As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. September 11 demonstrated that the fact that an attack on our homeland has not yet occurred cannot give us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future. We no longer have that luxury.

September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat of terrorism, whether it comes from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70 other countries around the world, including our own.

There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!

The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans. The global community has tried but failed to address that threat over the past decade. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks -- and we should not minimize the risks -- we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat."

  Senator John D. Rockefeller (Democrat, West Virginia)
  Also a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee
  Addressing the US Senate
  October 10, 2002 "

they're ALL full of BS, if one is.

Batvette (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

First use not Iraq but British Mandate.

The First Use section is anachronistic. This article is about Iraq whereas the "First Use" is talking about events in "1919" which is prior to the formation of Iraq in 1932 or the establishment of the Kingdom in 1932 under Faisal I who was made king in 1921. I'm deleting it unless someone can show how this has anything to do with the modern day Republic or the older Kingdom). Ttiotsw (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Done. Ttiotsw (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Rocket Found in Iraq

It seems to me this article should mention the recent discovery of an Iraqi rocket buried underground prior to the invasion. [24]RonCram (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

An anti-ship missile (discarded, not hidden) is not a weapon of mass destruction. Wikispan (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Chinese made Silkworm_missile. Payload about 500 kg shaped charge warhead and a range of around 150 kms. Blair's spin-doctors are really scraping the barrel to consider this a WMD ! Ttiotsw (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Revert war on See also to Yellow rain

Someone added Yellow rain to the See also section. I looked at the yellow rain article and, we have it as an allegation by one state that contains false or unsubstantiated accusations of the use of biological weapons (which we deem as WMD) by their enemies. The reference [25] also draws the parallel between the Iraq WMD and Yellow rain. So it's not a matter of "Yellow rain was in Southeast Asia, not Iraq" as the other another editor considers it to be because it never actually happened anyway but it is an example of one state accusing another of the use of WMD. On this basis given that we have a reference that also draws this parallel then the See also, which is a rather minor change, deserves to be here. Ttiotsw (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Forgot to say - in other words I'm going to add it back - it's encyclopaedic. Ttiotsw (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)REDACTED Swap other to another (we have 3 editors here).Ttiotsw (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yellow rain, whether factual or fantastic, is not about Iraq. NPguy (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The WP:SEEALSO do not have to be exactly about the subject but are related. This article is also not about Iraq but about Iraq and WMD (which includes chemical). The reference (as linked above) associates Yellow rain with Iraq and the accusation related to WMD. Therefore it is reasonable to include but as the guidelines says, "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent" then I will add this to help. Ttiotsw (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the link is much too tenuous and indirect. If this article were only about false accusations and actually made a case linking this to similar U.S. "intelligence failures," the link would be appropriate. But in fact Iraq did have massive WMD programs at one time - though not at they time those programs were used as the justification for invading Iraq. I'd be interested in the views of other editors, but I'm still inclined to delete. NPguy (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that it is not so much what we think but who else thinks that there is a link; the reference I provided draws this link for us in very plain text. On the last page they describe the correlation when they say, "It is a historic fact that he used poison gas against Kurdish villagers and also in his war against Iran. Virtually the whole world considered him a murderer and dangerous psychopath. However, the assertion by the US government that Saddam Hussein was in possession, or close to it, of biological mass destruction materials, was not based on any evidence and none was ever found....". This is in a paper that is discussing the Yellow rain incident which was an unsubstantiated accusation between state actors involving WMD: as is the case with the modern Iraq. As the "See also" entries (which, like Categories) are pretty loosely associated with the topic, then given we have a reference that draws a parallel then it would seem a trivial addition. I'm inclined to keep on this basis unless you can show the reference to be poor and unreliable in some way. It is encyclopaedic given the commonality of at least one of the actors (the US) and the material (WMD) and the type of incident (unsubstantiated accusation of use of WMD).Ttiotsw (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've heard this type of argument before on Wikipedia, and I don't find it persuasive. There seems to be a presumption that information is somehow entitled to be included in a Wikipedia article if it meets certain standards, in particular if it asserts its own relevance to the topic of the article and is not demonstrably unreliable. There seems to be no room for editorial judgment regarding relevance and significance. In this editor's view, the relevance of this link is simply too tenuous to be of value. NPguy (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Be clear that we're not including it in the article text but in the See also section which the relevant guideline states that "internal links (wikilinks) to related Wikipedia articles. Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous." (my bold) which suggests that there need not be a clear and precise link. If the policy said something about a clear think link then it would not need to elaborate on this lack of apparentness. In this case (Yellow rain) there is a very clear link between the two cases where we have state actors accusing each other of acquisition, use or deployment of WMD as is very much the case in Iraq. Ttiotsw (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)REDACT think to link Ttiotsw (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I remain unpersuaded, based on common sense rather than Wikipedia rules. No need to continue the back and forth. I'd be interested if anyone else has views on this NPguy (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section indeed is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. In this case, the link seems to weak as to be a very far strecth (i.e. there would seem to be no consensus for the inclusion). I think the best thing to do would be to include a small paragraph or so explaining the allegation somewhere:

In the build-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq the Wall Street Journal alleged that Saddam Hussein possessed a chemical weapon called "yellow rain". The Iraqis appear to have investigated trichothecene mycotoxins in 1990, but did not produce a functional weapon from these compounds. Although these toxins are not generally regarded as practical tactical weapons, the T-2 toxin might be a usable weapon since it can be absorbed through the skin, although it would be very difficult to manufacture it in any reasonable quantity.

Perhaps a wikilink could then be included to the other article.--69.219.235.167 (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me, but it doesn't address the proposed basis for the link, namely that both were unjustified allegations by the United States. You might want to add a sentence to that effect: "Some have also suggested U.S. allegations of Iraqi WMD programs, like earlier "Yellow Rain" accusations in Southeast Asia, were based on deliberately exaggerated readings of limited intelligence." NPguy (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

To me something along those lines may be true, but we would need to find a source which says it to avoid original analysis. My point would be that if we add something like this we should just sources in a way which is relevant to the article. This will remove editorial judgement and directly demonstrate the relevance to the article.--69.219.235.167 (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If you look back in the article history you'll find the link to Yellow Rain explained by a reference that makes this claim. NPguy (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough.--69.219.235.167 (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks shows that we DID find WMDs in iraq

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/us_did_find_iraq_wmd_AYiLgNbw7pDf7AZ3RO9qnM

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/24/wikileaks-documents-show-wmds-found-in-iraq/

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/

Anyone want to add this? 69.132.79.61 (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

None of this is inconsistent with the conclusion of the Iraq Survey Group, as cited in this article:

On September 30, 2004, the U.S. Iraq Survey Group Final Report concluded that "ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn (sic) possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but the available evidence from its investigation—including detainee interviews and document exploitation—leaves open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant capability."

NPguy (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree in this case the above links aren't really news and seem to be merely echoing what Rick Santorum was promoting which is really useless, and that is coming from an editor here who is unwaveringly supportive of this operation (though objective enough to recognize a non-starter)If any issue needs ultimately expanding upon it is the matter of Saddam's evolving capabilities through dual use commercial programs, which the ISG detailed from both perspective of regime intent and procurement of the materials themselves. Scott Ritter indicated on CNN in November 2002 that Saddam had that breakout capability with a window of several weeks at that time. This statement supports the assertion within the joint resolution of Saddam having a significant WMD capability- if not the actual weapons ready to deploy.

This requires the faith of how much you wish to place upon intent, as well as how ones own bias comes into play. Many look at US shipments of Thiodyglycol in the 80's and steadfastly declare we supplied Iraq with WMD- when Thiodyglycol is stockpiled at any of the various manufacturing facilities which used it in 2003, these same people will assert with equal determination that we found nothing. Some assert we were supposed to prove he had them, others assert the equally problematic situation of him having to prove he did not. It is exasperating. I did come back to say that much of the lede has drifted to a point of bias where bits and pieces have been moved around to suit the facts around opinions and what should be coherent passages are no longer so. I'll return and adjust soon with the expectations it will be tinkered with. My adjustments will be toward center, not towards equally but oppositely biased, I hope others editing show equal intent. Batvette (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the lede is pretty good, but a part of the third paragraph (roughly the third quarter of that paragraph) may be too heavy with skepticism. Some skepticism is justified, but maybe not that much. NPguy (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Frankly most of the lede seems intent on pushing political agenda, with silliness to support it. look at reference 17 and it is from a press release by jay rockefeller, who incredibly, states-

“Before taking the country to war, this Administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced. Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence,” Rockefeller said. “In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”

Apparantly Mr. Rockefeller is so lost in his polital career he believes the American Public's input was asked for on the decision to go to war. Or someone is insulting our intelligence by not thinking we're going to check references. The first sentance of Jay's statement is insane BTW. Batvette (talk) 11:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with this source. It seems on point and a reliable representation of what the committee concluded. NPguy (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Weasel words

"During the regime of Saddam Hussein, Iraq was believed to have weapons of mass destruction (WMD)."

The CIA did not believe that. The UN inspectors did not believe that. How can you make a blanket statement like that when the authorities and informed parties did not believe? It's like saying, "it was believed the world was going to end in 2012."

It should rather be, "It was known that Saddam Hussein once had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Some believed he still had." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 09:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

That's better, but still not quite right. Before 1991, Iraq did have chemical weapons and was trying to develop nuclear weapons. As sanctions wore off, some believed Saddam Hussein had revived those programs. In fact, he had not, and only minor remnants from the earlier (pre-1991) programs were found. NPguy (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Style of introduction !

"The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. (Wikipedia leads are not written in news style, and journalistic leads serve different purposes from encyclopedic leads." (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section). The currenty verion is bad style ! --House1630 (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Senate Report in the Introduction

The introduction refers to a 2008 Senate Intelligence report, but the report doesn't seem to be discussed in the full article (except possibly as a caption to a photo). Shouldn't it either be discussed in the article or eliminated from the introduction?Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Solid RS on WMD missing from article

Puzzling how folks writing this article fail to mention the Al Muthanna Chemical Weapons Complex.[26] It's back in the news as jihadists with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant seized control of it.[27][28] U.S. State Dept and other gov't officials, according to the Wall Street Journal: U.S. officials don't believe the Sunni militants will be able to create a functional chemical weapon from the material. The weapons stockpiled at the Al Muthanna complex are old, contaminated and hard to move, officials said. Nonetheless, the capture of the chemical-weapon stockpile by the forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, known as ISIS or ISIL, the militant group that is seizing territory in the country, has grabbed the attention of the U.S. "We remain concerned about the seizure of any military site by the ISIL," Jen Psaki, the State Department spokeswoman, said in a written statement. "We do not believe that the complex contains CW materials of military value and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to safely move the materials."[29]

Other RS that could be included in the article [30], [31], [32], at least. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)