Information.
Type of material Quantity (tons) Remarks
1. Precursor chemicals produced and procured = More than 20 000 Some 4,000 tons of declared precursors are not verified owing to the absence of information sought by the Commission from suppliers.
2. Chemical warfare agents produced = 3 850 Whether several hundred tons of additional chemical warfare agents were produced cannot be established owing to the uncertain quantities of precursors (mentioned in 1 above).
3. Chemical warfare agents consumed in the period from 1981 to 1988 = 2 870 No documents or information on the consumption of CW has been provided by Iraq to support the declared quantities consumed. Without supporting documents the verification of this part of the material balance is impossible.
4. Chemical warfare agents destroyed under UNSCOM supervision 690 = Declared quantities were verified by the Commission.
5. Chemical warfare agents discarded during production, or destroyed during aerial bombardment in 1991 290 = Iraq has not provided supporting documentation for 130 tons of chemical warfare agents declared to have been discarded or destroyed.
In the area of chemical warfare munitions, based on Iraq's FFCD of June 1996, a material balance of munitions either procured abroad and produced by Iraq, for CW purposes, in the period from 1981 to 1990 was presented by UNSCOM in October 1997 [S/1997/774]:

Type of munitions Quantity Remarks
1. Empty munitions produced and procured 247 263 = Some 107,500 empty casings have not been verified owing to the absence of information sought by the Commission from the suppliers.
2. Munitions filled with chemical warfare agents or components 152 119 = Whether several thousand additional munitions were filled with chemical warfare agents cannot be established owing to the uncertain quantities of procured munitions (mentioned in 1 above).
3. Filled munitions consumed in the period from 1981 to 1988 101 080 = No documents or information on the consumption of chemical munitions has been provided by Iraq to support the declared quantities consumed. Without supporting documents the verification of this part of the material balance is impossible.
4. Filled and empty munitions destroyed unilaterally by Iraq 29 172 = Unilateral destruction of 15,620 munitions is not verifiable owing to the destruction methods used by Iraq (melting and demolition).
5. Filled and empty munitions destroyed under UNSCOM supervision 38 537 = Declared quantities were verified by the Commission.
6. Filled and empty munitions discarded by Iraq or destroyed during aerial bombardment in 1991 78 264 = Iraq has not provided supporting documentation for 16,038 discarded chemical munitions.

Source: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/unscom.htm

Yes, we couldn't be 100% certain that he had no weapons, but that's beside the point. My point was the administration was saying there's no doubt he had weapons. I'm just saying where's the evidence that removed all doubt? And where's ANY evidence that Saddam ever made a deal with OBL? Saddam was weak and contained. I don't see how spending half a trillion dollars (so far) and killing 10's of thousands of Iraqi civilians and almost 5000 of our troops to destabilize the region, make Iran stronger, and allow Al Qaeda to set up a camp in Iraq has benefited us in ANY way.

Maybe the records of the entry of precursors and the lack of records to show what happened to it coupled with the fact that matter is neither created nor destroyed? Maybe it was his past history of playing shell games?

Like I said some stockpiles were destroyed secretly. This isn't just my belief, in fact it's based on an interview with a former Saddam insider that I saw on TV.

When did this insider come forward?

I don't remember exactly when but it was well after our invasion and Saddam's capture naturally.

If true, too bad he didn't do it publicly and keep records of it. Could've saved a lot of grief.

Doubt it. According to this article there was another defector in the 90's who too claimed the stockpiles had been destroyed secretly. The administration and the media conveniently ignored this claim in the run-up to the war while instead focusing on the same defector's admissions of Saddam's past trickery.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1139

Does anyone here still think the real reason for the Iraq invasion had anything to do with WMD's? It was all about oil, dummies.

"Fair" is your source? Oh please.

B

IOW, at the time of the war, it was NOT known to anyone. Credibility was not verified or verifiable.

No kidding. It was about the oil. Do you mean that we wouldn't care if it was someplace in BFE with no strategic value? Of course it is about the oil. Look at his history. He has done things that did hurt our interests. Hence, we all got together and stopped him. Do we give a rip about Darfur? No. Why? No strategic value. If oil had dried up in 2000 in that region, would we care? Not a whit. So yes, it is about the oil and the idea that he has WMD and might threaten our supply. It is kinda selfish but it is life. We wouldn't give a rip if it was some stupid country that had no value to us. However, that region is critical to us and so we cared that he had WMD and could hurt our interests.

Google it yourself. I saw the same article on many websites. I don't know anything about fair.org and I just picked it randomly.

"Fair" is not.

very astute. It is hard to fathom that some people don't get it. it is about oil and security. oil is security, not just to run our cars, but it is in virtually everything. without it, our economy, nay the world economy would grind to a halt.

I don't think there's anyone here who doesn't understand the importance of oil and the first Gulf War made sense for that reason alone. The 2nd one, not so much.