WMDS or not? Maybe this is gonna proove it?

In The Netherlands a 62 Dutch guy is put under investigation and put in jail for selling Chemical Basic Products, which can be used as to make chemical weopns, to Saddam.
The materials came from Japan and the USA.

I got a link here which is from a major Belgian Newspaper but am looking if I can find an English link. YOu could translate the page in Lingo meanwhile or so .

www.hln.be...

The guy in question is Frans van Anraat, when I google him I get a lot of links..

One of em is this one : www.cbwinfo.com...

We all know that Iraq had WMDs. The real question is whether it's the real reason for our going to "war".

Edit: Mods - I hope that post wasn't too short, I'm really trying to get enough points to join the RATS! Please don't 'dock' me!

[edit on 7-12-2004 by SourGrapes]

Mmm yeah, well my title sux. Didn�t really know what to put as title.
Thing what is wrong here is: Why the hell is he only arrested now?
How come it was so easy to take necessary stuff for WND�s out of USA and Japan?

Till when did he sell them? When did he stop with selling I mean...
Is this about the ones used allready against the Kurds or was this for newones?

Originally posted by Calibre
Mmm yeah, well my title sux. Didn�t really know what to put as title.
Thing what is wrong here is: Why the hell is he only arrested now?
How come it was so easy to take necessary stuff for WND�s out of USA and Japan?

Till when did he sell them? When did he stop with selling I mean...
Is this about the ones used allready against the Kurds or was this for newones?

Well, I think now our government is really cracking down and doing what they can to find 'evidence'. This guy is a token!

The guy delivered between 1984 and 1988 materials which could have been used to make chemical weapons.
Don't forget that Saddam was a good guy for the west in the 80's of the last century as he was fighting the Muslim extremists of Iran.

After the invasion of Kuwait, UN inspections teams destroyed Iraqi WMD capabilities, and prior to the American invasion of Iraq (2003) UN inspection teams stated they had no evidence that Saddam still possessed WMD in that time.

Blobber


[edit on 7-12-2004 by Blobber]

After the invasion of Kuwait, UN inspections teams destroyed Iraqi WMD capabilities, and prior to the American invasion of Iraq (2003) UN inspection teams stated they had no evidence that Saddam still possessed WMD in that time.

Yep. After the invasion they stated that they haven't had the capability to make them since the early 90s

Originally posted by Blobber

UN inspections teams destroyed Iraqi WMD capabilities, and prior to the American invasion of Iraq (2003) UN inspection teams stated they had no evidence that Saddam still possessed WMD in that time.

This is what some people either dont realize, or just flat out refuse to acknowledge. The weapons were gone. We have no proof of anything. Just people selling the stuff. And if you guys think this was the only person selling the stuff, well, you would be incorrect. Iraq's capabilities to produce WMD was made null by the inspectors. WMD was just something Bush and co. put into everyones head to get them all riled up to go to war. He would never have had the support for it otherwise.

We all know that Iraq had WMDs. The real question is whether it's the real reason for our going to "war".

How is there any proof that Iraq ever had WMD's?

If you are refering to things like mustard/nerve gases and other chemical agents then you should go off at every country in the world seeing as most of them have them.

To me WMD's refer to either single weapons that can either spread, evolve and grow (Biological agents), or single weapons that can create extreme damage over a large radius and spread radiation (Nuclear weapons).

SOME of the time however Chemical weapons do not fall under this catagory because they have a limited area of effect. Meaning that if for example nerve gas was released on a particual area, that area would suffer damage for as long as the effect of the chemical lasts but it would eventually halt and disapate after a finite amount of time.
Therefore it does not spread beyond its area of effect (similar to that of an average bomb), and it does not spread or continue damaging after its initial affect has worn off (like Bio agents or Radiation do)

If you class such chemical weapons as WMD, then you must also class ordinary bombs as WMD, for you can gather an extremely large amount of such bombs in the same way you could gather an extremely large amount of chemicals. They are the same in the fact that they are AREA AFFECT weaponary and do not spread.

What most people dont remember is that Bush first stated it was a neuclear threat. He spicifically said neuclear. Only after they realized they would not find a Neuclear threat, Bush started calling it a WMD threat. The WMD would broaden the search and allow the US to justify the war aver a gram of anthrax if they could find it. There never was a neuclear threat from Iraq. There never was a WMD threat from Iraq. Iraq sure has lots of oil though

Its not really suportable now to state that the Iraqis has any kind of WMD any time recently. The only thing that will demonstrate it now is the actual WMDs, not receipts for sale of dual use product, or heck even things that can onl be used for weapons. Its known that they had them and its known that they had programs to try to get more. Outside of that, the only thing anyone can say with any degree of certainty is that they did not have them in the lead up to the war. It was a mistake, an error, or varying degrees of misinformation and misleading. It would take quite a bit more than this to change any of that.

Originally posted by Johnny Redburn

We all know that Iraq had WMDs. The real question is whether it's the real reason for our going to "war".

How is there any proof that Iraq ever had WMD's?

The UN actually found them and it is a known fact he used them on his own people serveral times. It is also a fact that the US gave him the knowledge to devop some in the 1970's that is no secret.

He also used WMD's during the Iran War.

Knowing the above one can see no proof is needed since it has been proven.

The question now remains is did he still have them when the US invaded Iraqi for the 2nd time, or did he perhaps bury them and or move them to another close country like Siera?

Iraq as we all know is a very huge country covered with millions of tons of sand and it would be very easy to have hidden them from the UN's sight. It is like looking for a needle in a haystack. BTW it is not over until the fat lady sings, I happen to think given his past actions, that he did either hide them or move them, now it is just a matter of finding them.

Now I know, I will get some flack for what I have said, keep in mind he denied having new types of missiles to the UN with certain capabilites and he was caught lying about those as well. I do believe he did make some effort to destroy some of those, but at the time the US invaded he still had a few remaining although he claimed they had been destroyed.

If I'm not mistaken, didn't Saddam, the fool, disband dozens of his existing scud missiles, when the US gave him the ultimatem to. They also promised him, that they would not invade, if he did. Well, they did not keep their word obviously.

If he had WMD, don't you think the invasion of his country, would have been a good time to use them? The fool.

[edit on 7-12-2004 by Indigo_Child]

Shots did you even read the rest of my post?

Yes saddam did have stockpiles of chemicals such as mustard gas etc but these are HARDLY weapons of mass destruction...
Some of the chemicals he had, most countries already possess and some of been around since the early 1900's...

As i stated before calling things like these petty chemicals and gases WMD is pathetic, they are area affect weapons that disapate.
A good example is an ordinary bomb, it affects an area but AFTER its affects have worn off it is no longer a threat.

To attack a small city of say a few hundred thousand people with something like mustard gas would require dropping the equivilant of 1000 compressed dumptrucks full of it maybe more.
The same affect could be reached if you dropped 1000 grenades or bombs.
hardly a logical WMD...

keep in mind he denied having new types of missiles to the UN with certain capabilites and he was caught lying about those as well.

By this I assume you mean the Al Samoud ballistic missles? yes these weapons did exceed the required limits and the UN asked Iraq to dismantle them. These weapons were still in the process of being dismantled when America attacked, however they would have posed no threat to America at all even if they were armed.

The Al samoud was Iraq's largest most far reaching missle, however its maximum range was still only around 180-200kms this would mean that if it was positioned on Iraq's South-eastern most border it would be lucky to reach the majority of Kuwait which is some what poor.
As globalsecurity.org puts it

it is wildly inaccurate and capable of reaching only the closest of Iraq's neighbors

Its maximum payload is only around 300kg of (normally) HE explosives.





[edit on 7-12-2004 by Johnny Redburn]

[edit on 7-12-2004 by Johnny Redburn]

Originally posted by Barcs

After the invasion of Kuwait, UN inspections teams destroyed Iraqi WMD capabilities, and prior to the American invasion of Iraq (2003) UN inspection teams stated they had no evidence that Saddam still possessed WMD in that time.

Yep. After the invasion they stated that they haven't had the capability to make them since the early 90s

hahahaha, how would they know? Sadam wouldn't fully comply with the UN inspectors. They didn't see any evidence, because Sadam wasn't showing it to them.

shots:

Knowing the above one can see no proof is needed since it has been proven.

Is that some kind of argument? "We know that he had WMDs in the past so that means he has to have them now."

Really? Ever hear of a half-life? Ever hear of 12 years of sanctions? Ever hear of common sense? Reality shows us that there is no evidence that Saddam had WMDs when he was invaded.

NO EVIDENCE tends to lead one to believe that there is NONE, rather than finding no evidence and saying "Well whatever, he has them anyway."

Iraq as we all know is a very huge country covered with millions of tons of sand and it would be very easy to have hidden them from the UN's sight. It is like looking for a needle in a haystack. BTW it is not over until the fat lady sings, I happen to think given his past actions, that he did either hide them or move them, now it is just a matter of finding them.

Yeah, if it was a Dr Seuss book, or a Saturday morning cartoon. The reality (that word again) is that you cannot bury WMDs in the sand and expect them to function. Chemical and biological weapons need to be kept under strict temperature and safety controls otherwise they degrade. It's science.


jako

Originally posted by Jaruseleh
hahahaha, how would they know? Sadam wouldn't fully comply with the UN inspectors. They didn't see any evidence, because Sadam wasn't showing it to them.

Oh wait, so you have better information than the Duelfer report which was presented to the US senate on October 7th 2004? Quick, you must immediately take the phone and call the FBI and CIA and tell them about your important information:

"... In fact, the long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War."

www.cnn.com...

Blobber