Talk:WMD

The article states:

Quote: "This claim is now widely disputed, because the US currently has priorities other than finding the WMDs."

There seems to be no support for this statement - especially as the comprehensive American-Government-sponsored Iraq survey group reported in Sept 2004.

Nuclear weapons:

• Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.

Chemical weapons

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.

The ref is here.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf

To be fair, the group also stated that he would have liked to re-create his stockpiles if he could.

Should all this be in the article?

Probably not. What's more important: some unverifiable research or supporting the troops? Sometimes I wonder if people here understand the gravity of what this site is about. Children are reading this, perhaps forming their first impressions of various issues. "Swing voters" might read this very article as their only research. Leave it the way it is, which reflects what we all know in our hearts is probably the truth. Even if Saddam didn't have the weapons (and I think we can all agree that he probably did, even if they haven't been found), is there any doubt that he would have gotten them if he could have? That's the important issue here. ATB 15:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Hello ATB

There is absolutely not doubt he would have gotten then if he could.

The point is that, after months of searching by American troops, the American Government sponsored report said that he didn't have them at the time of the attack.

As for saying things that might influence vulnerable groups - isn't the truth the most important thing?

--british_cons 15:10, 12 March 2007 (EDT)