Talk:Iraq and weapons of mass destruction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Iraq and weapons of mass destruction has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment. | |||
|
||||
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||||
 GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
 |
Iraq and weapons of mass destruction is part of the WikiProject Iraq, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Iraq on the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 To-do list for Iraq and weapons of mass destruction: |
edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|
|
IMPROVEMENTS FOR FA STATUS
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/ritter000427.html, http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Iraq/IraqAtoZ.html, http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Programmes/ActionTeam/nwp2.html#compo https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html |
|
| Priority 5 | |
 Archives |
Contents |
[edit] 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 NescioGnothi 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] Cleanup tag
The section "Only retained old weapons and equipment to develop later" needs cleaning/rewriting in keeping with WP:NPOV. The header is loaded. "ISG findings and/or conclusions" would be appropriate. In addition: 1. I see embedded links in the main body. 2. The section has repetitive statements. 3. There is an unrelated statement from David Kay about "terrorist groups and individuals" passing through Iraq. 4. Bill Tierney's conjecture is also redundant (why should we quote a man who claims God told him where to find WMD?). 5. Uranium compound had been sitting behind lock and key under IAEA safeguard at Iraq's gutted Tuwaitha nuclear for several years. Something to this effect should be included in the article, so not to mislead readers into believing it was a fresh discovery. Other sections are equally questionable. Do we really need to have a section on the legal justification for war? Shouldn't this page simply describe the relationship between Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, as per other nations listed in the WMD panel? smb 20:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think that that has been a difficulty of this page; as the last few years have transpired, the topic has become too large to hold on just one article, so we have had to divide off sections, and perhaps we need to make a plan to get the article back to Iraq and WMD's, and then anything else should get transferred to its specific article. :) Judgesurreal777 21:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's a bit like a giant jigsaw puzzle -- editors would insert a few different pieces here and there. But now we are in a position to make the picture more complete; describing the scene as accurately and concisely as possible. smb 06:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm in favour of removing unsourced statements and anything controversial. If individual objections are raised, we can discuss things further and perhaps reword/reinsert information. It would nice to get this page looking like most of the others. smb 06:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, let's do it. Judgesurreal777 13:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge proposal
It has been suggested that Operation Sarindar be merged with WMD theories in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War. Please make your thoughts on the proposed merger known on the respective talk page. Thankyou. smb 21:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Significant cooperation
It says in the lead section that "the United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi WMD throughout the 1990s in spite of persistent Iraqi obstruction", yet says nothing of Iraqi cooperation, as described here by former UNSCOM inspector and UNMOVIC commissioner Frank Cleminson:
"It is often said, sometimes with dubious authority, that Baghdad never cooperated in the UN quest to account for its nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. In fact, that is not entirely correct. Immediately following the termination of hostilities in 1991, Iraq did cooperate in a significant fashion. Not only did Iraq turn over militarily significant holdings of weapons of mass destruction to the United Nations as instructed, but it also participated effectively in a follow-on destruction process. The destruction of proscribed weapons and of associated facilities was carried out mainly by Iraq but under constant supervision by UNSCOM and the IAEA. Data from the archives in New York bear out the contention that UN inspectors proved to be extremely successful in effectively accounting for the disposition and ultimate destruction of nuclear materials and associated facilities as well as of proscribed missiles and of chemical weapons." [2]
It's worthy of note, that Iraq produced and turned over significant quantities of illicit material to the inspectors. smb (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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.[1][2] 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." [3]
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)
[edit] Interview on Last Night
Did anyone else see the interview on TV last night? Wished I remembered the channel, but it was very interesting. They interviewed the guy who interrogated Saddam in prison. He was definitely saying that they HAD weapons that they destroyed, and were planning to build new ones as soon as the US left the country. Do a google search or something and I'm sure you could find a video of the interview. [Techno Indie-1/28/08]
- There is definitely a need to create a section on Iran and Saddams fears of Iran being the reason he claimed he still had WMD's. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- I disagree. The Iraqi dictator insisted that his country retained no such weapons of mass destruction. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. We might consider including a section on the recent controversy that Saddam "tricked" the United States into overthrowing his government, but that is a completely different thing. smb (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
why would saddam admit to having them at all? It would completly hurt all of his interests, including strengthening the support for the war. If you heard about the interview at all sadam's intention was not to "trick" the united states into attacking them. He first did not believe bush would attack and when he found out he expected to have a bombing campaigh similar to the ones carried out on his country earlier by the US. Later when he realised there was a going to be a full scale invasion he instructed his army to hold out for several weeks before starting the insurgency. Whether you believe there was WMDs there are not you must admit that saddam would not have admitted to it becuase that alone could cuase him to lose his war. He was not that stupid to make such a mistake. I dont understand how you can take his comments as the truth. First look at his record as a person and then just recognize it is such a huge conflict of interests. At that point, possibly his life, and certanly his legacy and a possible retaking of his country depended on his words. You have to be stupid to think he would just tell the truth.
Think of what his goal was at that point, discredit the US, make them lose the war. What was the best way to do that? Say stuff that gets the democrats into power, they will lose the war for the US, Iraq goes to being terrorist controled.
Democrats must be ashamed to think they are on the same side as terroists and mass murderers. And seeing as they obviously dont have some conspiricay to help terrorists, they must just be plain stupid.
This page seems to be biased towards the opinion that Iraq produced WMDs which is generally held not to be the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.161.122.252 (talk) 03:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- They did, for many years, no one disputes that. the question is did they after the mid 1990's, which is not known for certitude by anyone (that we know of). Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
[edit] UN condemnation of chemical weapons use during Iran-Iraq war
This article states "For example, the US and UK blocked condemnation of Iraq's known chemical weapons attacks at the UN Security Council. No resolution was passed during the war that specifically criticized Iraq's use of chemical weapons, despite the wishes of the majority to condemn this use. On 21 March 1986 the United Nation Security Council recognized that "chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian forces"; this statement was opposed by the United States, the sole country to vote against it in the Security Council (the UK abstained)."
I don't think that is true. Resolution 582 (1986) was adopted unanimously and it includes this statement:
"2. Also deplores the escalation of the conflict, especially territorial incursions, the bombing of purely civilian centres, attacks on neutral shipping or civilian aircraft, the violation of international humanitarian law and other laws of armed conflict and, in particular, the use of chemical weapons contrary to obligations under the 1925 Geneva Protocol;"
http://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/729/06/img/NR072906.pdf?OpenElement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.53.104 (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I encourage you to correct the article. It is clearly false, since the Security Council cannot decide anything without U.S. agreement. The United States has a veto over any resolution, and statements by the Security Council President require consensus of all Council members. So the statement cannot be true and the cited reference cannot be taken as authoritative. NPguy (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
