Talk:Iraq and weapons of mass destruction/Archive 1

message: A user recently added a 'dispute' label to the page. I think we would benefit from his opinion as to why this is appropriate. The disputed-article-page lists the following as possible reasons for a dispute label:
"1. It contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references. 
2. It contains information which is particularly difficult to verify. 
3. In, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking. 
4. It has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic."
As far as I can see none of the information is "unlikely" nor difficult to verify. In fact there are many sources listed and, more importantly, this topic is extremely well known and information is very easy to obtain.
The articles has been composed over a long time by many users and I don't know any of them as known "inaccurate" guys.
Perhaps there are some errors but then those need pointing out! Slapping a 'disputed' label like this on the page without contributing anything else at all is not, in my opinion, constructive or useful wiki-behaviour.
Until an argument for it is provided I am removing the label.
Haukurth 14:14, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Feb 2003

message: I´d like this article enclose something about David Kelly´s case. I´ve just put an initial contribuition, but I feel it is not enought. 12.4.195.100 22:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: May 2003

message: Hmm, interesting article, but somehow falls short.  Now, as I recall, the case for the invasion was mainly that Iraq was failing to cooperate with the inspections.  The lack of interviews with scientists, the refusals to explain inconsistencies, and so on.  There was a contemporary comparison between what Iraq had done and what had occurred in South Africa when that nation wished to convince the world that it had destroyed its WMD.  Iraq was striving for minimal technical compliance with the resolutions without trying to make an effort to convince world observers of its freedom from WMD.
That was much of the public reasoning for the war, and the supposed evidence of WMD was something of an afterthought.
UninvitedCompany 23:58, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: October 2003

message: WashPost link and an update
:The government's most definitive account of Iraq's arms programs, to be released today, will show that Saddam Hussein posed a diminishing threat at the time the United States invaded and did not possess, or have concrete plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, U.S. officials said yesterday.
:The officials said that the 1,000-page report by Charles A. Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, concluded that Hussein had the desire but not the means to produce unconventional weapons that could threaten his neighbors or the West. President Bush has continued to assert in his campaign stump speech that Iraq had posed "a gathering threat."  Wolfman 14:45, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New report by chief US weapons inspector

message: This article is currently full of duplicate sections. How did we let it get in this shape?  Mr. Billion 04:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Flaws in this article

message: I changed the title and text which minimalized government violence againts civilians in the Halabja poison gas attack. If one would like to change this already mild name for the Halabja massacre, and perhaps justify government attacks with chemical weapons against civilian population, please argue so here. This article can and should (at least) reflect the mild name chosen for the massacre. gidonb 18:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New speak

message: This section is a little weird - its purpose seems to be to raise questions about the official conclusions of investigators who have found no WMD.  Some of the stuff mentioned here - e.g. the threat to Jordan from Zarqawi's group - do not seem related to the Saddam regime, and the whole section seems worded IMHO in a way that suggests (without evidence) that media reports discounting these as WMD finds are erroneous. -csloat 03:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Reports of chemical weapons finds since 2003" section 

message: * This site doesn't exactly look reputable. I would wait for verification by somebody with... well... a reputation before pasting it on this page. - ClockworkSoul 03:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone rip through this BS? 

message: 1) Iraq claimed UNSCOM had been infiltrated by American and British spies, who were more interested in Iraq's legally allowed conventional weapon systems. 
http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/301168.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theissues/article/0,6512,794275,00.html
2) Iraq claimed that the US and UK would veto any attempt to lift or reduce sanctions
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0808-07.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/indexone.htm
http://middleeastreference.org.uk/mythoflifting.html
Then of course, there's the problem of proving a negative.  How exactly does Iraq prove it does not possess WMDs?  Proving a negative is a logical impossibility.  Iraq could no more prove they aren't hiding WMDs than they could prove they aren't hiding aliens or bigfoot.  Not finding anything proves nothing.  It could mean they don't exist, or they do exist and haven't been found...yet.
There is a lot of BS surrounding this issue.  I think its important because the US justified its
invasion of Iraq in part by Iraq's lack of cooperation with weapon inspections.  Since the invasion, 
its now fairly certain that Iraq hasn't possessed WMDs since 1994.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/21/145202
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1150
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm
So why wouldn't Iraq cooperate after everything had been found (1995 onward)???  I can't think of 
a good reason for Iraq not to cooperate if weapon inspections were fair and impartial.  Therefore 
either the inspections weren't fair and impartial or Iraq had come to perceive the inspections as being not fair 
and impartial.
Therefore Iraq came to the conclusion that cooperation was pointless. 
Earth as one 21:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No one has mentioned the reasons Iraq gave for ending its cooperation with UNSCOM.

message: Wow, 1 quote from Bush and a wall of quotes from Democrats.  Fair and balanced, eh.  As currently organized, the quotes are fairly misleading.  They could be divided into sections such as "claims that iraq had wmd" "claims that iraq wanted wmd" "claims that iraq was a threat" etc. 129.170.202.3 11:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: These quotes are cribbed (not by me) from the lists of quotes by Democrats accusing Saddam of having WMD which live on the various rightwing websites. In a couple of cases I found some context for them which countered that assertion. Gzuckier 16:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since none of the statements can be supported by evidence they are claims, not fact.--Nomen Nescio 12:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please balance those quotes with some dramatic republican claims.200.126.160.27 18:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the quotes section could be trimmed down quite a bit, with an added note that "most authorities believed Iraq possessed WMD's" or something to that effect. TDC 21:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes Section

message: To the anonymous user who puts in blatant POV statements that turn out to be complete misrepresentations of what is actually reported:  please stop.  It's BS, it's obvious you know it's BS because just reading the articles that you link shows it.  If you are going to make edits to this page please use the edit summaries or this discussion forum to indicate why you are changing what you're changing.  This article is troubling enough without putting in what amounts to blatant disinformation.--csloat 06:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mendacity and POV:  please use edit summaries or talk when editing please! 

message: In one section someone wrote "However, Judith Miller wasn't the only Times reporter detailing Iraqi WMD ambitions, and Iraqi exiles weren't the only source of information:" followed by a list of NYT articles.  I already deleted one that actually was by Miller (among others) as well as one unrelated one.  But most of these are unrelated; if there are no objections I will remove the rest of the Sendon articles, which are actually talking about weapons from before 1991 and about the US military inadvertently exposing American soldiers to the gases during the Gulf War in 1991.  I don't see the point of this section, as even the other articles from 2000 are by people who worked with Miller, and I see no evidence that "Iraqi exiles weren't the only source of information."  This seems like it was entered for POV reasons and it does not seem to have the evidence to back up the point it is making.  Actually I would like to delete this section if there are no objections.--csloat 01:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles Not by Judith Miller 

message: Apparently the post-war intelligence has been as bad as the pre-war intelligence. According to a news story in the New York Sun titled Furor Erupts Over Recordings of Saddam, some in the Intelligence Community are now willing to reexamine the issue of WMD in Iraq.  Wikipedia articles should reflect this new information.  Here is some excerpts from the story:
:The 12 hours of recorded conversations are part of a vast trove of untranslated documents, recordings, videotape, and photographs captured in Iraq during the war. Whether this information will be examined for clues to the whereabouts of WMD stockpiles is a matter of debate within the intelligence community.
:The CIA, FBI, and directorate of national intelligence have resisted calls from Congress to reopen the hunt. But an interagency outfit known as the Media Exploitation Center, administered by the Defense Intelligence Agency, last month started its own search of these materials to attempt to discover the location of the weapons of mass destruction.
:"There are elements in NSA and DIA that believe there is enough evidence to warrant further re-examination and a relook at all the material," a congressional staff member told The New York Sun yesterday. "This includes the imagery, documents, and human sources. They also think a more extensive debriefing of knowledgeable human sources and third party nationals is in order."
:The quiet re-examination parallels efforts from the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Peter Hoekstra, a Republican of Michigan, who is in the early stages of his own review. He told the Sun last week that he checked the authenticity of Mr. Loftus's recordings with the intelligence community and confirmed that it was Saddam's voice on them.
:Mr. Hoekstra has also been pestering the directorate of national intelligence to translate and make public what he claims are nearly 36,000 boxes of captured documents and materials from Iraq that may shed clues on the WMD front.
:The Defense Department now appears to be working on the directorate to make other Iraq files public as well. A February 6 letter from Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to Senator Santorum, a Republican of Pennsylvania, said Mr. Rumsfeld is working with the director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, to release Iraqi files sought from the Harmony database, which catalogs material on terrorism secured since September 11, 2001.
The story can be found here.RonCram 21:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Saddam Tapes Cause Government to Reexamine WMD in Iraq

message: This news could be as big as the Dan Rather forged documents debacle.  Tierney, the former weapons inspector, says ABC News cut a key portion of the translated tape to make Saddam sound much less sinister.  Here is an excerpt from the news article:  
:"He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," he told Hannity. In a passage not used by "Nightline," Tierney says Saddam declares: "Terrorism is coming. ... In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?" 
Now that comment, ladies and gentlemen, should have made the news. RonCram 00:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I bet you many regimes around the world (China, Russia?) have had similar conversations? Nomen Nescio 00:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bill Tierney says ABC News cut a key part of translated Saddam Tapes

message: Under the heading "Reports of chemical weapons finds since 2003" there is the following:
:On 27 April 2004 FOX News reported that operatives confessed to planning a chemical attack against Jordan under the orders of Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Jordanian officials said the plotters entered Jordan from Syria with trucks filled with 20 tons of toxic chemicals. The attack planned to kill some 80,000 civilians.[55]
There was another sentence claiming that the chems they were going to use came from Iraq, but the source did not say that at all.  I removed the claim.  I have tried to find something similar reported on other sources through google with no luck.  I think if this sentence is removed, the rest must go too, as it is in no way a "report of chemical weapons finds" in Iraq, and is in fact unrelated to the topic at hand.  If anyone can evidence the claim I removed, please do, otherwise the rest of this paragraph must be deleted as well.--csloat 03:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: csloat, General Sada said the chemicals used in the attack were from Iraq. I know you were aware of his claim.  If you thought a reference was so critical, I am surprised you did not look for one yourself.  The reference you ask for can be found here.   Will you restore the article now? RonCram 08:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Ron, I was not aware of this claim, though I was aware that Gen Sada is the source of other information that has been shown to be false, so I am not too surprised.  Please do not lecture me about what you "know" I am or am not aware of, Ron, especially when you choose to wait a month before making your accusations.  Thank you.--csloat 02:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  4/27/04 attack on Jordan 

message: Nobody is listening
*Iraqi diplomat gave U.S. prewar WMD details 
 Nomen Nescio 11:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this article states that Naji Sabri told the CIA through an intermediary that Saddam "desperately wanted a bomb" and "had stockpiled weapons and had 'poison gas' left over from the first Gulf War."  Anthonymendoza 14:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: yes, i read the article, and even Naji Sabri said Saddam had stockpiles.  one justification for going to war was Saddam's unaccounted for weapons, weapons that Mr. Sabri told the CIA saddam had stockpiled.  as for the nuclear issue, how much time is "much more time than that". Mr. Sabri seems to indicate that eventually saddam would have a bomb, which was another justification for war.  i don't see this as "cherry picking".  Anthonymendoza 14:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are discussing the arguments for invading Iraq, which was impossible to postpone because of the imminent threat. How does "eventually" constitute an imminent threat? It is clear this article, and many others, show there was so much ambiguity that claiming the US had to act and could no longer wait, is unsupported by the evidence presented. Nomen Nescio 15:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: actually, the argument for war hindered on whether Iraq was a gathering imminent threat to world stability.  Mr. Sabri indicates Saddam desperately wanted a bomb, thus adding to the gathering threat argument.  are you planning on inserting this article into the main text? Anthonymendoza 17:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that doesn't support the gathering threat argument - to support that one would have to show that he was making progress towards making a bomb.  And the preponderance of evidence that the administration has (and had at the time of going to war) shows the opposite. Kevin Baastalk 18:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i'm referring to the above cited article only.  Mr. Sabri apparently told the CIA Saddam desperately wanted a bomb but needed more time than the CIA had thought to produce one, implying Iraq was somewhat capable.  read all the postings before attempting to correct me please. Anthonymendoza 21:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To need more time means that it is at least less imminent than initially presented to us. Nomen Nescio 23:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: but imminent nonetheless.  Anthonymendoza 23:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Joseph, I appreciate your desire to not be anonymous.  Please come back and log in.  Once you do that it is much easier to sign your comments with RonCram 11:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre-war F*** up

message: Editors of this page need to take careful note of the Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents. New documents are being released regularly. Many of them relate to WMD. Others to Iraq's relationship to al-Qaeda (or in some cases, the document relates to both). Without question, editors need to be familiar with these documents before contributing. RonCram 08:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents

message: For these reasons :
* The International responsibility has too many subsections for the number of 1-line paragraph, maybe regroup by continents or something.
* By far Germany had the largest role in Iraq’s WMD program. is POV.
* The Chemical weapons were used extensively against Iran by Iraq. line is POV unless dates or sources are given.
* would help, crucial information, attempted to aid, As fresh horror stories from the occupation of Kuwait should be changed.
* Why say Niger also provided, they only gave 1 thing.
* This is OR : At the time of the attack Iran was reportedly using the blood agent cyanide whereas Iraq was employing mustard gas.
* Citations needs to be added to at least every sections.
* The Statements section should be dumped into wikiquote.
:Altough almost NPOV for such a controversial subject and really stable. Lincher 15:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed Good article

message: * Tons of work was put into bringing the article to the current level. After reconsideration and since many points were assessed, the GA is granted. I will still repeat that it needs more citations but for GA it is enough. Lincher 05:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: Someone has already posted an entry into the article about the recent FOX News report that WMD were found in Iraq.  While this report is not insignificant, it should not be overplayed.  After reading the story more closely, all 500 of the WMD were manufactured prior to 1991 and were no longer useable in their current condition.  The article does not say if the weapons could have easily been made useable or not.  The Department of Defense is downplaying the find and I think that is the proper response at this point. RonCram 05:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Report of WMD finds in Iraq

message: I sent the Link from the 2004 CIA REPORT --Chicago3rd 03:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  False Reporting and not Balanced about FOX NEWS REPORT 

message: Hi. the article states "no post 1991 stockpiles have been found" However this article shows otherwise http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html
Thanks. --DjSamwise 06:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: if it was from after the invasion, that's kind of a different category than those under Saddam which presumably were the cause of his needing to be invaded. Gzuckier 18:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WMD Post 1992 

message: Alright, I concede, not all of them need a citation, but a few of them need to be.....like one per paragraph if they are all the same. Judgesurreal777 21:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations needed

message: Why does the section "Theories in the aftermath of the 2003 war" link to Post-Saddam WMD search as the main article, when that entire article is included in that section too?
Is this a mistake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twthmoses (talk • contribs) 04:33, 7 August 2006
I get the idea that it was an effort to reduce the length of this article by moving all that stuff to the other one.  Doesn't seem to have worked. --Mr. Billion 06:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Double article?

message: Could you explain what it is that's wrong with the new intro, Judgesurreal777?  I'd appreciate it if you'd work to repair that rather than just reverting it.
They're already mentioned further down in their own section. Do they really need to be mentioned twice?  I removed the duplicate in the intro before, but somebody reinserted it.  I wrote the new version because if the 500 shells deserve to be part of the introduction, they deserve to have the context in which they were publicized included.  They were discovered in 2004 and the inspectors who dug them up recognized that they were not the weapons they'd been looking for.  Then Santorum publicized them in 2006 when he was behind in the polls during a heated election contest.
Is it biased to mention this?  I find it biased the way they've been publicized and touted as a great vindication in spite of the fact that they're the "same kind of ordnance the U.S. military has been gathering in Iraq for the past several years." --Mr. Billion 07:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am trying to keep the intro NPOV, and as I brought this article to GA status and wrote that intro, and don't see any need to add to it, I am going to try to keep it intact. It is summarized, and NPOV, and doesn't need further commentary. Please explain what about it needs to be added from what it was. Judgesurreal777 15:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, perhaps the Santorum stuff needs to be clarified, but please keep it small in length; from what you have said, that part needs trimming due to lack of relevance instead of more explanation. Judgesurreal777 19:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert by Judgesurreal777 

message: Iraq's refusal to allow inspections stipulated under UN Resolutions and the threat of operational, banned WMD in the hands of Saddam Hussein was given as the chief of several reasons for the decision of the United States and its coalition to invade Iraq and topple his government in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. 
This sentence is not sourced, and although this was the reason given by the US, "refusal to allow inspections"  this is contradicted in the section directly above, were UN inspictors were allowed into Iraq. Travb (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed sentence

message: Bush said this today:
<I>"Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.'</I>
Should it go in the article somewhere? Bush admission
NBGPWS 19:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very sure that he has previously said something to that effect, but perhaps not as directly. Where do you suggest putting it? Judgesurreal777 19:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Absolutely. P.S., thank goodness we can put those Santorum/500 non-working chemical weapons "discovery" to rest now. --kizzle 20:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, they are simplifications.  What's actually the case is that there were no significant WMD in Iraq and the country probably still was technically capable of eventually regaining the ability to produce some after sanctions were dropped someday (assuming UN watchdog groups didn't notice and didn't stop them), in the same way that somebody who's in handcuffs is still technically capable of doing jumping jacks after he's released from them (assuming the cops don't notice and don't stop him). --Mr. Billion 00:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bush's 8/21 admission that Iraq had no WMD

message: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50746
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf
But for some reason, no body wants to admit it. Sarin says "Sarin, also known by its NATO designation of GB (O-Isopropyl methylphosphonofluoridate) is an extremely toxic substance whose sole application is as a nerve agent. As a chemical weapon, it is classified as a weapon of mass destruction by the United Nations according to UN Resolution 687, and its production and stockpiling was outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993."
Now since Saddam Hussein was stockpiling WMDs, would that not be what we (The US) went to war for? Because the UN didn't enforce its own Resoulution 687, we went in. And low and behold all this information is swept under the rug. It's quite a pity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.224.221.114 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 25 August 2006
:Dr. David Kay, First Director of the CIA Iraq Survey Group 2003 - 2004, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee: 
:"I fully expected that we would find chemical rounds from the 1980s in Iraq. I knew that they were continuing to be found right up to the time of the war, and there was no reason to doubt there. 
:"Now, I was concerned with these weapons in one particular aspect: I was concerned that our troops would be exposed to them as they tried to bring under control and render harmless a large conventional armory. 
... 
:"Why this lack of concern on my part for what I freely acknowledge at the time was a high probability that small amounts of pre-1991 chemical munitions would continue to be found? There were two reasons. 
:"First, the general technical assessments that I was provided was that Iraq sarin that was produced -- and this was the bulk of Iraq sarin -- was produced between 1984 and 1988, a huge amount of which had been collected by the U.N., had been analyzed not only here but in other places around the world -- that that sarin was of such poor quality, it lacked any stabilization agent, and quite frankly, if I can respond to an earlier question you had, Congressman Weldon, it does not in any way look like Russian sarin. 
... 
:"I must also say -- and some questions were raised about how easy it would to be extracted. I'm one person in the room that has actually ordered people to extract chemical agent in Iraq from Iraqi weapons. Let me tell you, the people who deserve our undying gratitude are the American men and women who are now asked to do it. 
:"It is an extraordinarily -- even using the advanced technology we have to draw off those chemical agents from Iraqi weapons. These weapons are badly corroded. They were never produced in a quality that would be acceptable in our military. And while it is possible to draw it off, you are more likely to result in the death of the people likely to draw it off. 
... 
:"Let me conclude by saying, I don't think any of us should be surprised that we are still finding chemical munitions produced before 1991 in Iraq. I must say the only surprise in the last two weeks about this controversy is why this report is classified. I can think of no reason that this report should remain unclassified (sic) and unavailable. And I commend the chairman and others' efforts to make that unclassified. 
:"All of the world's battlefields continue to yield old weapons, many decades after the conflict. I'm absolutely convinced that Iraq is no exception to this. We will be finding conventional armaments and, unfortunately, chemical munitions." 
:REP. WELDON: "So this Iraqi sarin -- would you pick up the bag and hold it if there was a liter of it?" 
:MR. KAY: "Sir, I have carried it on my person in a closed aircraft with 25 of my closest friends until they discovered I was carrying it."
:Gzuckier 16:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WMDs Found

message: There is no mentioning of the Downing Street memo in the article. Why not ?
:Because the document was proved to be a fabrication. Judgesurreal777 21:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Weel, that's news. Was that on Fox News or on the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page? Gzuckier 16:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, my mistake. Was thinking of another WMD related topic. What I meant to say was that it does not directly relate to WMDS, and as you can see this article is already way overloaded just keeping strictly to the subject matter, instead of including peripheral information. Judgesurreal777 23:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How are the minutes of an official meeting between top u.s. and british officials that mentions WMD in relation to Iraq not relevant to an article titled "Iraq and weapons of mass destruction"? Kevin Baastalk 18:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy. This is about how they were created, used, and then destroyed/disapeared, not about speculating how much the United States knew about WMD's. That's for the justification of the Iraq war article. Judgesurreal777 22:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Downing Street Memo 

message: "reign"... Wouldn't "tenure" or "time as president" be more appropriate than this kingly designation?
Not to mention the last sentence in the first paragraph--"confrontation".  Implying that he never allowed any inspections or that he was violently threatening the UN or its inspectors.
I tried to take some of them out but someone just reverted the changes I made! 86.147.169.125 20:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First paragraph loaded with weasel words

message: "and overthrew Saddam Hussein in the spring of 2003." Whos' spring? American? A date would be better.
203.0.35.33 02:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: I added the crucial point that the Iraqi invasion of Iraq was backed by the CIA and someone deleted it. Isn't this fact esential for Americans to gain a world view on Saddam Hussein and how he became armed in the first place? 86.147.169.125 20:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIA-backed Iran-Iraq war 

message: 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)
replies: text: Just curious, would Bill Tierney be any more credible in your eyes if he said "a hunch"? "a little voice inside"? I have a problem with people saying God told them to dio something too, but in most cases it's merely a figure of speech by those a bit wrapped up with their spiritual guidance. In any case it sounds like a dismissal merely on his faith and good luck with that, there's billions more where he came from. (I'm agnostic FWIW)Batvette (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Agreed, let's do it. Judgesurreal777 13:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we remove the  tag then? WinterSpw (talk) 04:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup tag

message: 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)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Interview on Last Night 

message: 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)
thread_title:  UN condemnation of chemical weapons use during Iran-Iraq war 

message: 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." 
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)
thread_title: Significant cooperation

message: That country never had that weapons and is even silly to suppose they did.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.199.111 (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pfft. You obviously have never taken the time to educate yourself on Iraq's own declarations of their nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs given to the IAEA and UNSCOM(UNMOVIC). (Wingnutrules (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truth 

message: While doing a little anti-vandalism, I noticed a change to this article by an IP whose other change deleted the entire section in Submarine called "Women as part of crew" while commenting "Who gives a fuck, stupid pointless waste of space"  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Submarine&diff=239657025&oldid=239377078
That IP's change to this article was to change the "suggestion" of Winston Churchill to the "order" of Winston Churchill.
The first reference given simply goes to the Telegraph's home page, while in the second the writer says he no longer believes the UK used gas, but only that the local commander asked for "large supplies" that were not needed. A third citation before that (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/apr/19/iraq.arts) does say that Churchill suggested using chemical weapons against the Arabs as an experiment, to "shock and awe" (Mustard gas had already been used against the Bolshevik troops in 1919, says the article).
I'm not an expert in this historical field, but the two references I could read demonstrate nothing except that the British were considering chemical weapons as an option that was never used. The text before the anonymous IP's change was clear enough, while the IP's change is misleading. Hence, I've restored the original text.
Piano non troppo (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Curious edit reverted