Talk:Iraq and weapons of mass destruction
|
|
| Contents |
Feb 2003
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)
Maybe I should move the contents of this article to regime change or U.S. plan to invade Iraq. --Uncle Ed
Even if the US didn't exist (wee!) the question of whether Iraq has WMD would still arise, and the history of their involvement with WMD and I think it's useful to consider the two things seperately. Why not merge Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction with this article? I think this article is better titled. -Martin
I'm with Martin on this, lets merge them... they're talking about the same thing. Just reorganise and subhead. Greg Godwin
June 2003
Let's not, see my comment below. This is a topic now. Steverapaport 23:37 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Steve. I don't understand this comment of you. I merged these two articles 2 months ago I think. Do you suggest that they are un-merged, or that another one is created, or that this one is refactored to take your new input into account ? Anthere
- None of the above, Anthere -- I was commenting on Uncle Ed's suggestion of merging this article with Plan to Invade Iraq/Regime Change, not on Martin's suggestion which was already implemented. I guess I'm happy that nobody took Ed up on his, that's all! Steverapaport 23:33 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
In the article:
- One of the suppliers of these weapons to Iraq was the United States itself, during the Iran/Iraq war.
I think there's a difference between supplying a weapon and providing a sample of a germ. What do others think?
The CDC "sent samples in 1986 of botulinum toxin and botulinum toxoid - used to make vaccines against botulinum toxin" [1] (http://www.sunspot.net/news/nationworld/bal-te.bioweapons01oct01,0,4635016.story?coll=bal%2Dhome%2Dheadlines).
This could be regarded as a humanitarian act.
This could be regarded as deliberately helping Iraq develop a biological weapon.
This could be regarded as unwittingly helping Iraq develop a biological weapon.
moved here as it doesnot appear to belong to this article
The Israeli government's Home Defense Command has begun preparations in the event Iraq launches chemical or biological warheads on its Scud missiles. 39 such missiles were launched at Israel in the 1991 War. Israel is thought to have an arsenal of atomic weapons, but did not retaliate against Iraq. However, if Iraq does in fact attack Israel with NBC weapons, the United States may not be able to convince the Israelis to exercise the same amount of restraint.
moved here pending a supporting link or two:
However, US troops have found eleven mobile chemical weapons labs equipped to quickly produce chemical weapons, buried south of Baghdad but marked for later retrieval.
It seems that it's a good idea now to leave this article in place, since it's quickly becoming a news item in its own right. examples: [2] (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/) [3] (http://www.sundayherald.com/print34271)[4] (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0607iraq-intell07.html)
--okay with everybody? Steverapaport 17:34 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- No one was suggesting to remove it. What do you mean ? Ant
here's a link to bush saying WMDs have been destroyed.
http://www.channel5.co.uk/newsandweather/newsdetail.php?section=World&storyId=story1813966
Tristanb 04:40 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- This one's probably more suitable for the article - http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/06/20030621.html
- Hephaestos 05:11 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
October 2003
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)
Feb 2004
The ISG info is not accurate (among others). JDR
- "Since the 2003 war _no_ banned weapons have been found and it is thought likely that no large quantities of them remain hidden in Iraq."
- "On October 3, 2003, the world digests David Kay's Iraq Survey Group report that finds _no_ WMD in [[Iraq]."
- ... this is inaddition to other parts (those are just 2 I quickly picked out); Haukurth thanks for the try, though ... JDR
Okay! Great, we've got a dialogue going here. Now please point out some sources from which we can see that some non-conventional weapons capable of a great amount of destruction have been discovered in Iraq. Better yet, rewrite the paragraph yourself, then remove the dispute tag.
I'm not being sarcastic here. WMD's being found in Iraq is simply news to me. I'd like to read all about it.
Haukurth 18:46, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- The ISG report is here (http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html) ... "vials of "live C botulinum Okra B" inparticular (which falls under the WMD classification ... of the NBC, the B; eg., any organism (bacteria, virus or other disease-causing organism) or toxin) ...
- rewrite the paragrap? I have tried before ... but it's been rv'd ... so the tag is, I believe, the only options (for various reasons) ...
- Sincerely, JDR (PS. I may try a rewrite @ a later time (with some research); if it is not done in the meantime)
I certainly agree that a live botulinum strain falls under the 'B' of 'NBC' but that's still a far cry from a _weapon_, let alone a weapon of _mass destruction_. NBC-materials? Certainly. NBC-weapons? Hardly. WMD's? Definitely not. Weapons of mass destruction related-programme activities? Whatever.
Seriously, vials with a bacterium strain are nowhere near a finished weapon. What are you going to do with them? Throw them at people?
I agree that the botulinum find is of interest and belongs in the article (and it is there). However it does not change the accuracy of the "no WMD's" statement. Or, to quote the ISG interim report:
"We have not yet found stocks of weapons"
However I will try to rewrite and expand the paragraph, taking your concerns into account.
Haukurth 19:42, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Glad someone agrees that a live botulinum strain falls under the 'B' of 'NBC' ...
- Is it a _weapon_? It's a toxin weapon ...
- Weapon of _mass destruction_? It's definitely not the end product that most ppl think of ... but it is a WMD that Iraq was not suppose to have I believe (in the least, it was a step to have stockpiles (eg., part of weaponry _development_ and _production_))...
- NBC-materials? We agree that it is certainly that ....
- Not NBC-weapons? YMMV on that ... it could be reproduced quickly from the stock they had (and the toxin vials found could be used to incapacitate or kill an adversary ... so those are weapons) ...
- Not WMDs? It is though, I believe ... I'll look into what exactly was considered WMD (and, of which, what WMDs Iraq pledged not to have) ...
- Weapons of mass destruction related-programme activities? Yes ... additionally that ...
- Vials with a bacterium strain are not what some would expect as a finished weapon ... but it still is a weapon (and it could be made to a state of what one would expect) ... What to do with the types of weapons stocks they found? Mass replicate it [and futher weaponize it] ...
- Accuracy of the "no WMD's" statement? I am content with the accuracy of which "no stockpiles of WMD" (as that is more accurate than no WMDs) ... I guess sometimes it simply easier agree to disagree on the exact nature of if they had weapons though (and I'll refrain from editing on that for now) ...
- Concerning the quote from the ISG interim report, "We have not yet found stocks of weapons", I believe that is a reference to stockpiles and not the stock weapon agent (from which stockpiles can be produced) [and that is the impression Kay himself gave on C-SPAN television ... which I watched; though I'll look into this more].
- Thank you for your attempt @ a rewrite and expanding the paragraph. Additionally, thank you for taking my concerns (along with others, I would presumne) into account in your editing. It is interesting ... and, yes, it does belongs in the article (and I am glad you put it in there). Though, even if I do not think that it is totally accurate as it stand, for your good faith effort and work on the article, I will not (presently) tag again it myself [others can though, if they choose] ... Sincerely, JDR
Thank you for your mature take on this. I think the article benefits from dialogue like this.
I still think that it is misleading to call vials of a bacterium strain a weapon. Though I suppose they could theoretically be used as such. You COULD throw them at people and they might break and the bacteria could enter the victim's body and cause damage. But since botulinum does not cause an infectious disease I can't see where the mass destruction would come into this.
Take a small lump of uranium. You could hide it under someone's pillow or force it down someone's throat and cause lethal radiation poisoning. But calling it a nuclear weapon would be misleading.
So, take the botulinum vials again. Could they (among other possibilites) be used as raw materials for constructing a biological weapon? Yes. Are they themselves a biological weapon? Not, I think, in the usual sense of the word.
Were they proscribed items that the Iraqis should have declared to the UN inspectors for them to destroy? I'm not absolutely sure but, yes, I think so.
Were they part of an active biological weapons research programme? Certainly not a very active one, having been kept in the fridge for 10 years.
Part of a dormant programme? I'm not sure. Do you know if the ISG had anything definite on that?
Were the vials valuable for a potential biological weapons programme? I don't know. I'm not a biologist but I'm told botulinum can be fairly easily harvested from the soil. If that's true then having some vials to begin with would not have given a biological weapons programme much of a head start.
Does information about the vials belong in this article? Certainly.
Again, thank you for participating. The editing sometimes gets hot, especially on current topics like this one. But while we all bring our respective opinions and biases to the fray it's important to remember that we're all on the same team. We're not world leaders making decisions on war and peace. We're encyclopaedists, trying to create readable and accurate articles.
Haukurth 17:00, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The article has been renamed "Iraq War WMD controversy" from "Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction". The original title seems more appropriate to me. The article is not specifically about the "war controversy" and a general treatment of the whole subject in a historical light seems called for. I will change the name back unless a good argument for the change is supplied.
Haukurth 23:26, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I agree this should be renamed back to what it was. There is already the Iraq disarmament crisis which covers the controversy leading up to the war. This article is merely about the history of WMD's in Iraq, not the war specifically. -- VV 07:11, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I heard iraq was going to build an A-bomb is it true??
- I do not regard it as neutral to say "some evidence supports the theory that Iran is to blame for the chemical attacks" although it is generally believed that it was Hussein. How about the evidence that does not support the theory? Get-back-world-respect 00:53, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
M 687
The M687 is not a standard NATO 155 round. It cannot be used in non US NATO 155's and can only be fired from a couple of US 155 platforms. TDC 05:34, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
"Churchill's" Gas attacks
According to the Daily Telegraph.
"The RAF asked Churchill for permission to gas the rebels. [...]
The RAF failed to master the technology of gas bombs and they were never used.
The British did, however, bombard Shia rebels with gas-filled artillery shells.
After crushing the rising, Churchill again recommended withdrawal and was again overruled."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/18/widip218.xml
This was of course before the Geneva convention of 1925. However does anyone know what was in these shells, or any other details? Rich Farmbrough 17:44, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- My understanding is that it was Mustard Gas, but I don't have a decent reference for that. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:50, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- This suggests they felt they didn't need to use gas in the end, at least that's my interpretation - I haven't studied the article too carefully and there is more material there:
- "Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". He dismissed objections as "unreasonable". "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes _ [to] spread a lively terror _" In today's terms, "the Arab" needed to be shocked and awed. A good gassing might well do the job. Conventional raids, however, proved to be an effective deterrent." Guardian (with Google highlights) (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cache:P_PYI_uWiCUJ:www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,939608,00.html+site:www.guardian.co.uk+OR+site:www.ntk.net+OR+site:news.bbc.co.uk+OR+site:www.timesonline.co.uk+OR+site:www.telegraph.co.uk+churchill+Iraq&hl=en)
- --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 19:47, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
New NY Times article
NY Times Says Cheney and Rice Knowingly Misled On Iraq's Nuclear Capability [5] (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html?hp)
But before Ms. Rice made those remarks, she was aware that the government's foremost nuclear experts had concluded that the tubes were most likely not for nuclear weapons at all, an examination by The New York Times has found.
New report by chief US weapons inspector
WashPost link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9790-2004Oct5.html) and an update (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6.html)
- 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)
Former United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter has pointed out that the WMDs Saddam had in his possession all those years ago has long since turned to harmless substances. Sarin and tabun have a shelf life of five years, VX lasts a bit longer (but not much lower), and finally botulinum toxin and liquid anthrax last about three years. All the all the chemical and biological weapons withing Saddam's possessions haven turned into harmless and useless goo according to Ritter. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,794771,00.html
Moved the above from the main article. Maybe it belongs there but it needs to be reworded and put in the appropriate place, not just at the end.
Haukurth 00:43, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Flaws in this article
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)
Okay, the duplicates have been removed, but I notice a lot of problems with typos, formatting, and the cites. Why all the empty numbers under "References"? This may take a while to slog through. Mr. Billion 04:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Just on a cursory reading I found some howlers. Like that Saddam refused to allow Inspectors into Iraq in 1997. In actual fact the inspectors left in 1998 stating that the Iraqi government were not cooperating with inspections. I remembered this from when it happened, and fortunately was able to find a reference to back up the change I made. This sort of thing is very sloppy, I urge people to check their facts before submitting them. I also made some changes to the growth medium section as there were technical terms used incorrectly (I work in a molecular biology laboratory). I haven't read the whole thing so there may be some more incorrect statements.--Alun 11:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
New speak
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)