No, I think that after six years of people with an --> extremely <-- vested interest in finding even documentary evidence, anecdotal evidence, *something* to back up their rationale for invading a sovereign state -- that they have found *nothing,* to the point where they couldn't even fabricate something credible, presents a pretty strong case that nothing was there to find in the first place.

But since a negative can't be proved, no one can prove you're wrong. Of course, you can't prove you're right, either. And right now, the preponderance of evidence isn't on your side.

At the time of the invasion Iraq claimed it had no WMDs -- and inspectors at the time and in the years since the invasion haven't found any evidence of any credible capability ... so where did Iraq admit they had them, and what evidence exists they did? Remember, we're talking 2003, not a decade or two earlier ...



No one ever said they *never* had them -- to the contrary it's been proven they did have them with the assistance of the US and other states ...

The question is wether they had a credible, threatening capability at the time we invaded. The evidence since then (and some would say before that as well) suggests they didn't.

As you say, no one can prove absolutely that they didn't, since proving a negative is impossible. It's up to you, then, as someone who apparently believes they did have that capability, to prove it. Unfortunately, "if you have nothing to hide why hide it?" or "it could be buried under the sand" isn't proof.

If you go back and read the time line its all in there - Iraq itself admits to having bio programs , UN itself admits to destroying facilities and WMDs . Iraq itself admits that they to destroyed facilities and WMDs , keep in mind that neither the UN nor Iraq can prove that Iraq did destroy those weapons and facilities , still remains a big question ?

Now just because UN says they cannot find anymore WMDs - all that means is that they are NOT looking in the right places . Keep in mind that the UN also said it found evidence and bits and pieces of WMDs scattered through out the country , what this suggest is Saddam dismantled the facilities and WMDs so he could easily pick up the pieces hidden through out the country and simply reassemble them

So at that time UN was not looking for a fully operational facility or WMDs but rather small bits and pieces to be reassembled later - IMO

They still found nothing substantial before W rushed to invade - before they could definitely say that there were no WMDs which would have made W look like an idiot.

Of course Iraq would claim not to have weapons, just the way a pot head pulled over on the side of the road would say they didn't have a joint in their pocket.

Part of what was tough for me with the issue was Iraq worked a bio program right underneath the inspectors noses in the '90s, so the U.N. inspectors are hardly infallible, and if someone wants to hide something enough it usually can be done. Sure the equipment was better in 2003 than in 1993, but the equipment in 2013 will be better than it was in 2003, so what?

I've also subsequently read that Saddam himself was mislead as to his own capabilities by scientists who couldn't produce what he wanted, but didn't want to be shot either.

Correct they did not find anything substantial - You think Saddam is that stupid ? and he did make Bush look like an idiot . IMO if Bush had some brains he should have not executed Saddam but rather "waterboarded" his arse to find out where he hid them WMDs

I betcha - Saddam dismantled everything into little bitty parts and hid them through out the country thus making it next to impossible for the UN to find them all .

Thats my best bet and I am sticking with it

I was responding to Carp's claim that Iraq admitted they had WMDs, which wasn't the case. There are two possible explanations why Iraq refused to admit to having such programs -- up to the reader to decide which one has the most evidence going for it.



What equipment? There wasn't any to be found in 2003.



I've also read theories that Saddam knew he didn't have any substantive capability left, but wanted the world to think he did for various reasons (prestige, a bargaining chip, leverage, etc.). Apparently he was fairly surprised the US actually invaded and couldn't fathom why we still weren't backing him against Iranian influence in the region ...

But who really know what was going on in that dude's head?

Yeah, about a decade earlier. At the time of the invasion, they admitted no such thing. And as it turned out, no one has since discovered evidence to the contrary ...



As I mentioned to Sarge, there are two possibilities, one of which the current evidence supports, the other not so much. If you wish to believe the one rather than the other, that's cool. Just seems to be more a matter of belief than fact ...

NOT directed to you personally but to the discussion in this thread.

When the Bush propaganda machine started that WMD mantra I thought we'll lets see the evidence.. Kennedy had satellite photos of missile installations in Cuba and that occurred 40 years earlier. Even HE was able to make his case. With all the advances in surveillance and espionage techniques, surely Bush et al could make a case or even 1/2 a case. All the evidence they put up was disproven, the bioweapons trucks, the Al tubes, the yellowcake, the drones... and all the while they kept shifting the issue. That threw up HUGE red flags for me, and in a matter of months I thought it became obvious they had made their decision and were trying to find or manufacture an excuse to justify their agenda which was already in progress. Then in 2004, I learned through colleagues at CDC that indeed as early as April 2001 Bush /Cheney/ Rummy had decide to invade Iraq.

Now we find out that one purpose of the torture (which that also had planned from the beginning 2002) was to get a confession (true or not) that Saddam had links to 9/11 to justify the invasion. IT FITS the pattern !! . So I can't understand why everyone can't see the obvious... there never was any WMDs in 2001-2 and the LIED to set this war up. Remember it was Bush who pulled the UN inspectors in Jan-Feb 2003, it wasn't Saddam.

In addition look at all the "facts" they told us that turned out to be LIES! The last one was that Abu Gharib was a " few bad apples". Criminy... WTF does it take ??
These schiesters make Madlof look like a choir boy !!

Do we allow them to get away with it, and just walk away. They spent years and $60 million trying to nail Clinton and finally did over a BJ ! That was NOTHING compared to these crimes.
These crimes broke both US and international laws, we have broken treaties over these torture revelations. ONE we helped craft says that the member countries MUST investigate any incidents of torture of their prisoners... they don't have a choice. So if we gloss this over, that treaty is worthless. What will this torture policy do for our servicemen and women if they are captured ? There is definitely an impact on our FUTURE and the HONOR of our country. This is not about revenge or retribution or Banana Republic BS ... it's about obeying LAWS !! . . . and holding those that break them accountable !! . . . .even ex-Presidents and ex_VPs.

But as usual those objecting are using the same smoke and mirrors they did with the WMDs and the Iraq invasion. Fool me once.... fool me twice .... fool me 100 times..... ah, you're a fool !!

You cannot expect an perceived enemy to admit to anything - Its sear insanity to think so - Do you think Saddam was going to suck our dicks ? ? Come on Pal .. Part of Saddams problem is National Iraqi Pride . Gheeees



LOL

Did you even read that Time Line I posted - The facts are all there blow by blow