At the Time of the 2003 Invasion, Iraq Had Weapons of Mass Destruction

The proposition on offer is that contrary to a popular argument against the invasion of Iraq, at the time of the 2003 invasion under the Bush administration, Iraq was known to have (or have had previously) possession of weapons of mass destruction. There are four types of weapons of mass destruction (WMD): 1) Nuclear (atom, hydrogen bombs) 2) Radiological (dirty bombs) 3) Chemical (Sarin, Ricin, etc...) 4) Biological (Disease-based) Any of these four qualifies as a weapon of mass destruction. ******************************************* In the Iran-Iraq war from 1980-1988, Iraq used chemical weapons, most notably in an incident in March, 1988 called the Halabja Poison Gas Attack (http://en.wikipedia.org...). This attack included the following agents: - Mustard Gas (CWC regulated in 1993 - Schedule 1, Part B) - Sarin (WMD per UN Resolution 687 - CWC regulated in 1993) - Soman (WMD per UN Resolution 687 - CWC regulated in 1993 - Tabun (WMD per UN Resolution 687 - CWC regulated in 1993 - VX (WMD per UN Resolution 687 - CWC regulated in 1993) Mustard gas is not categorically a WMD; however, the use of mustard gas as per Schedule 1, Part B of the CWC regulations classifies it as having only a use in chemical warfare. Stockpiles of mustard gas over 100g are required to be registered, and countries are prohibited from stockpiling more than 1 ton of the material. The rest of the agents on this list are classified as weapons of mass destruction. To head off a possible line of argument concerning the notion that the attacks in 1988 were not using WMD's because the agents had not been classified as such until 1993, the UN created the WMD classification in 1948, three years after the first atom bomb was dropped. This in no way indicates that the atom bomb was not a WMD at the time of its use. Likewise, the specific classification of an agent as a WMD after its use does not change the fact that the agent itself was a WMD. ************************************ The notion that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction is simply false. Iraq may not have had NUCLEAR weapons of mass destruction, but it is certain that at one point in time, Iraq did indeed have possession of WMDs. There are claims that the Iraq Survey Group did not find any WMDs in its search. However (http://en.wikipedia.org...): "On May 2, 2004 a shell containing mustard gas, was found in the middle of street west of Baghdad. The Iraq Survey Group investigation reported that it had been previously "stored improperly", and thus the gas was "ineffective" as a useful chemical agent" This is basically the same as finding an inoperative nuclear warhead. Simply because the WMD does not work does not indicate it is not a WMD or that the intention in possession was not to possess a WMD. "On May 16, 2004 a 152 mm artillery shell was used as an improvised bomb. The shell exploded and two U.S. soldiers were treated for minor exposure to a nerve agent (nausea and dilated pupils). On May 18 it was reported by U.S. Department of Defense intelligence officials that tests showed the two-chambered shell contained the chemical agent sarin..." Sarin, as stated above, is classified as a WMD. "In June 2004, the United States removed 2 tons of low-enriched uranium from Iraq, sufficient raw material for a single nuclear weapon." Iraq demonstrably had the technology at the time to produce a nuclear weapon within roughly a month's time if given fissile materials. This is akin to having all the parts to a WMD laying around, but not assembled. A gun is still a weapon if disassembled and laid on a table - it's just not ready to use. ************************************* The conclusion of the ISG was basically thus: At the time of our inspection, we didn't find any WMDs. However, this is not conclusive as to whether or not they exist. I submit that the fact that Iraq was previously known to have massive stockpiles of chemical WMDs, plans to build a nuclear weapon, and various developmental labs and programs suggests that at the time of the 2003 invasion, there were existing WMD's and the materials to build them. Consider that Saddam Hussein and members of his administration professed that they would keep whatever weapons they needed to defend their "Arab nation." Furthermore, none of them suggested that Hussein had given up his WMD programs. The totality of this evidence suggests that there were more WMDs in Iraq during the 2003 invasion than the sarin, mustard gas, and uranium discovered in 2004. It is highly likely that Iraq had a supply (even if limited) of WMD's at the time of the invasion. AFFIRMED.