burning question - why wasn't a WMD 'discovery' engineered in IRAQ?

Rich

The Living Force
A friend asked me a burning question of something he just doesn't understand, so i would like to be able to answer him. He understands that the Iraq invasion was based on lies and deception but he doesn't understand why WMD weren't just planted somewhere in Iraq and 'discovered' . Hence legitimizing the whole invasion and avoiding much of the backlash the lack of subsequent evidence has caused. Any theories are welcome.
 
Well my first thoughts are that it would take a construction crew or a number of folks assembled to artificially place WMDS , they couldnt just put a jam jar full of bacteria in a room and say "See we told you"

Such a crew assembled for such a task would probably have a high risk of being discovered.

And all soldiers are not knowingly on the pay roll of the psychopaths , they are just decieved into thinking they are defending their country.

maybe?
 
My own burning question is along the lines of...... Rummy et al supplied bio weapons etc in the first instance to Iraq and thus any WMD's were in fact supplied by USA. It befuddles me as to why this disconnect continues as it does.
My own thoughts as to Ignatious' question are the goal was purely to 'get in there'. Once the invasion and genocide was under way, any thoughts of justifying or covering their tracks was a non issue to those psychopaths as they were and are salivating more towards their next goals and prizes. Their lies are temporary to them but not to us.
 
Off the top of my head I would say that there may have been a problem as regards traceability. In Iraq the WMDs that were sought were chemical and biological, not nuclear. I think bio and chem weapons can be traced back to the point of origin, which may have made it too risky to plant them.

Joe
 
Any group (i.e. our government) that would have been willing to present the flimsy case before the UN "Security" Council would have had no difficulty manufacturing WMDs to plant or would have no difficulty ignoring the obviousness of that plant. So I don't think that there are any "practical" reasons.

Instead, I believe the reason is that the discovery of WMDs in Iraq would have meant that:

1) we would have succeeded in a clear mission (discovery of said WMDs)
2) that mission would have come to a peak (having discovered WMDs, there is nothing more to do)
3) there would be a process for that mission to come to an end (destroy the WMDs and their means of production)
4) we would have to leave.

The failure to find WMDs in Iraq was not an omission on the part of the Neo-Cons, they are far too clever for such a glaring oversight. Instead it served to insure that our mission in Iraq is forever and always ambiguous and confusing. This way we are "stuck" there, which was the plan from the beginning. The current "quagmire" was not an "accident" or "mistake" or "miscalculation, it was a deliberate act, the only known way to guarantee that the mission in Iraq has no defined end. The discovery of WMDs would have meant there was a clear "stake in the ground" and would have been impossible to ignore.
 
rs said:
The failure to find WMDs in Iraq was not an omission on the part of the Neo-Cons, they are far too clever for such a glaring oversight. Instead it served to insure that our mission in Iraq is forever and always ambiguous and confusing. This way we are "stuck" there, which was the plan from the beginning. The current "quagmire" was not an "accident" or "mistake" or "miscalculation, it was a deliberate act, the only known way to guarantee that the mission in Iraq has no defined end. The discovery of WMDs would have meant there was a clear "stake in the ground" and would have been impossible to ignore.
I believe you have hit the nail right on the head.
 
you're also neglecting the neocon propaganda that supposes they did find WMD in iraq, and the 'liberal' media covered it up.

Foxnews said:
WASHINGTON — The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.

Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."
There was also a story where they found some PVC piping or some sort of cynlinders and they claimed they were 'missile casings'... so there is some talk of 'wmd found in iraq' it's just obviously lies and distortion.
 
rs said:
The discovery of WMDs would have meant there was a clear "stake in the ground" and would have been impossible to ignore.
But if they wanted to stay in Iraq, there would have been nothing to stop them then using the claim that they are currently using: that they are there to prevent Iraq becoming a terrorist state.
 
Cyre2067 said:
you're also neglecting the neocon propaganda that supposes they did find WMD in iraq, and the 'liberal' media covered it up.

Foxnews said:
WASHINGTON — The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.

Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."
There was also a story where they found some PVC piping or some sort of cynlinders and they claimed they were 'missile casings'... so there is some talk of 'wmd found in iraq' it's just obviously lies and distortion.
But this is "old" news dating back to the Iran/Iraq war where both sides used nerve gas chemical weapons. Remember the "Sadam gassed his own people" story? The fear about "new" WMDs was that they were binary devices (which by some metric makes them "safer"... assuming that nerve gas can ever be considered "safe"). Or that they were biological devices. Or that there was a preliminary nuclear program.

That they have chemical weapons is something that has been known since the 1980s.
Joe said:
But if they wanted to stay in Iraq, there would have been nothing to stop them then using the claim that they are currently using: that they are there to prevent Iraq becoming a terrorist state.
Which is, of course, incredibly ironic, because Iraq was not considered a terrorist state as an enemy to the US until we invaded it.

But also, I don't think that the Bush administration has a consistent story on why we are still there other than we are still there because we can't leave and we can't leave because we are still there. Other than that, it is all bull sh*t with the excuse du jour varying according to the news cycle.
 
Joe said:
But if they wanted to stay in Iraq, there would have been nothing to stop them then using the claim that they are currently using: that they are there to prevent Iraq becoming a terrorist state.
It seems they need this to be the focus. The shift in people minds to weapons of mass destruction would have moved away from the '9/11 terrorist' trigger Americans have embedded in their minds. They need this to remain center stage so they can continue the 'War on Terror' where ever they want, particularly at home.
 
maybe they need to have these imaginary WMD as a possibility to reach the hands of the terrorists. If they find them, who cares about iraq becoming the property of a terorist government who has no weapons? maybe the inconcious propaganda's threat is unfound WMD+terrorists"
 
yes indeed so we all can see

'tis absolutely nothing to do with WMD......

any fake call can be expanded until infinity.. just as so-called war on terrror keep it vague keep it undefinable and keep it going
 
If this war had occurred 6 decades earlier people would have accepted the stories much more uncritically and then after a few years we would start seeing books published about gas chambers, er, um, weapons of mass-destruction, and all else would fade away. The climate is different today and that can't be done so easily anymore. It doesn't mean that the people at the top wouldn't like too.
 
MKRNHR said:
maybe they need to have these imaginary WMD as a possibility to reach the hands of the terrorists. If they find them, who cares about iraq becoming the property of a terorist government who has no weapons? maybe the inconcious propaganda's threat is unfound WMD+terrorists"
The US is well aware of what the WMD consist of. After all, they developed them, sold the technology and infrastructure components to Saddam, and tracked their movement to the Syrian border and the Bekaa Valley prior to the 2003 invasion. This was sprayed over the MSM in mid-2003, many times with reports of Russian assistance in hiding, destroying, and transporting the WMD.
The engineering project seems to consist of the original Iraq/US technology transfer, the inspections, the hiding/transport, the invasion, and now the US/Israeli bombing of Syria (and/or Syrian held Lebanon). The project mushrooms from here to N. Korea, Iran, etc., etc.
These are clumsy, deadly, baldface machinations for world war.
If WMD were found, the US would have had to sweep up and go home.
The trouble with all the clumsiness is that a heck of a lot of people of all persuasions can see this, and they ain't buying it.
The psychopaths are getting desperate, look for them to make some grave errors soon.
 
Ignatious said:
He understands that the Iraq invasion was based on lies and deception but he doesn't understand why WMD weren't just planted somewhere in Iraq and 'discovered' . Hence legitimizing the whole invasion and avoiding much of the backlash the lack of subsequent evidence has caused. Any theories are welcome.
'Cos, they didn't have the forsight to plan the 'operation' like they did 9/11 and they were banking on the public's "they'll swallow anything" gullibility.... and.... assuming that once they were there, it simply wouldn't matter anymore and they could just get on with re-writing history to suit themselves.

Why exert any effort if you privately believe that the public are morons?... And don't give a toss about them anyway? Perhaps they think that after a certain period of time its too late for people to come forward with the truth.
 
Back
Top Bottom