NationStates Jolt Archive

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20040517/ts_nm/iraq_sarin_dc

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A small amount of the nerve agent sarin was found in a shell that exploded in Iraq, the U.S. army said Monday in the first announcement of discovery of any of the weapons on which Washington made its case for war.

Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt told a news conference the substance had been found in an artillery shell inside a bag discovered by a U.S. convoy a few days ago. The round had exploded, causing a small release of the substance, he said.

"The Iraq Survey Group has confirmed today that a 155 (mm) artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found. The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) that was discovered by a U.S. force convoy," he said.

"A detonation occurred before the IED be could be rendered inoperable," Kimmitt said, adding that two members of an explosives team had been treated for exposure to the substance.

Kimmitt said the round, designed to mix the sarin in flight, belonged to a class of ordnance that the ousted government of Saddam Hussein claimed to have destroyed before the 1991 Gulf war.

"It is a weapon that we believe was stocked from the ex-regime time, and it had been thought to be an ordinary artillery shell set up to explode like an ordinary IED... when it exploded it indicated that it actually had some sarin in it," he said.

IEDs are bombs usually planted at the side of the road to explode as coalition vehicles pass.

The United States launched its invasion of Iraq last year, accusing then-president Saddam Hussein of developing chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. Failure to find such weapons has stirred criticism in the United States and Britain, Washington's closest ally in the war.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I guess the people saying we were not justified in invading Iraq can shut up now.

(Oh yeah, and the server sucks)

thank God the terrorist wern't smart enough to figure out how it works (though it should be fairly self-explainitory)

There's another thread on this exact topic.

I hardly think that an old shell of unknown origin justifies the claim that Saddam had WMD's. I also do not think that one shell justifies God knows how many billion of dollars and human lives. How many more people could he kill with a rusty shell than with a pistol?

Please come up with something more solid than a single shell.

The origin is precisely what is so interesting. Or rather, the calibre.

Standard Soviet shell calibres: 100, 122, 152, 180, 203mm

Standard US shell calibres: 105, 155, 175 and 203mm. (These are the ones I can remember).

Now, I wonder if anyone can answer a few questions:

1) What is the "shelf life" of sarin,
a) If not kept in ideal conditions and
b) If kept in ideal conditions;

2) What did we supply Saddam with back in the era of the Iran-Iraq war;

3) How accurate is the information on the shell;

4) Are my shell calibres correct?

A small amount of the nerve agent sarin was found in a shell that exploded in Iraq.


OH NOES!!! TEH ALL POWERFUL WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!! HIDE THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN, WE MUST ALL FEAR FOR OUR LIVES!!!




Seriously. Do you consider fireworks WMDs as well?

We were looking for Weapons of Mass Destruction. Not "a weapon of Possible Minimal Destruction. :roll:

Seriously, if that's all that G.W. has going for him, then i'd say he's dug himself up in some deep shit.

We were looking for Weapons of Mass Destruction. Not "a weapon of Possible Minimal Destruction. :roll:
here is was a little od Sarin can do

http://www.sc-ems.com/images/subway.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/810000/images/_811167_stretcher300.jpg
http://www.weta.org/pressroom/avoiding/images/image2_lo.jpg
http://usembassy.state.gov/vietnam/wwwjlmhtmad1.jpg
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/humantoll/htimages/gas1.jpg

On March 20, 1995, members of Aum Shinrikyo released sarin nerve gas on five Tokyo subway trains. Twelve people were killed and just under 3,800 were injured. 3,800 people injured from one release of sarin is with out a doubt mass distruction.

No one's denying Sarin's a nasty weapon. There are other things to consider, though. Namely, this was a old shell dating back to the Iraq-Iran war when we were keeping Saddam supplied with Sarin. Additionally, the amount released was far less than that of the Tokyo railway attacks. Right now, the best money is on some "insurgent" getting hold of an old shell that was misplaced, not knowing what they had, rigging it up as a IED and then being just as surprised as everyone else when it went off like it did.

It most certainly does not count as a WMD nor does one shell justify the invasion.

We were looking for Weapons of Mass Destruction. Not "a weapon of Possible Minimal Destruction. :roll:
here is was a little od Sarin can do

[EMOTIVE PICTURES]

On March 20, 1995, members of Aum Shinrikyo released sarin nerve gas on five Tokyo subway trains. Twelve people were killed and just under 3,800 were injured. 3,800 people injured from one release of sarin is with out a doubt mass distruction.

Differences between these two event.

In Japan it had been properly kept
properly released
it was in a confined area
there were many people in aforementioned confined area
The release was effectively not the same

In Iraq
It was old.
In a fauly explosive
open air realease
not many people

Do not try and equate the two, they are different. It is like comparing one night of the Blitz to the Dresden Firebombing.

Still this incident does not prove that he had weapons on mass distruction.

Damn you have to be a COMPLETE dumbass to think that should constitutes as a WMD. Oh wait :roll:

First of all, there are minimal details on it's origin--hell, it could've been planted. Unlikely so, but seriously... who gives a damn?

And dumbass, you think the "terrorists" are that stupid?
First of all, if you KNEW you had a sarin shell, you'd just fire it into an enemy encampment, not blow the shit off the side of some road.

What likely happened was that whoever got their hands on that shell didn't know it was sarin, and simply rigged it as an IED thinking it was just a normal bomb.

Damn you have to be a COMPLETE dumbass to think that should constitutes as a WMD. Oh wait :roll:

First of all, there are minimal details on it's origin--hell, it could've been planted. Unlikely so, but seriously... who gives a damn?

And dumbass, you think the "terrorists" are that stupid?
First of all, if you KNEW you had a sarin shell, you'd just fire it into an enemy encampment, not blow the shit off the side of some road.

What likely happened was that whoever got their hands on that shell didn't know it was sarin, and simply rigged it as an IED thinking it was just a normal bomb.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20040517/ts_nm/iraq_sarin_dc

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A small amount of the nerve agent sarin was found in a shell that exploded in Iraq, the U.S. army said Monday in the first announcement of discovery of any of the weapons on which Washington made its case for war.

Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt told a news conference the substance had been found in an artillery shell inside a bag discovered by a U.S. convoy a few days ago. The round had exploded, causing a small release of the substance, he said.

"The Iraq Survey Group has confirmed today that a 155 (mm) artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found. The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) that was discovered by a U.S. force convoy," he said.

"A detonation occurred before the IED be could be rendered inoperable," Kimmitt said, adding that two members of an explosives team had been treated for exposure to the substance.

Kimmitt said the round, designed to mix the sarin in flight, belonged to a class of ordnance that the ousted government of Saddam Hussein claimed to have destroyed before the 1991 Gulf war.

"It is a weapon that we believe was stocked from the ex-regime time, and it had been thought to be an ordinary artillery shell set up to explode like an ordinary IED... when it exploded it indicated that it actually had some sarin in it," he said.

IEDs are bombs usually planted at the side of the road to explode as coalition vehicles pass.

The United States launched its invasion of Iraq last year, accusing then-president Saddam Hussein of developing chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. Failure to find such weapons has stirred criticism in the United States and Britain, Washington's closest ally in the war.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I guess the people saying we were not justified in invading Iraq can shut up now.

(Oh yeah, and the server sucks)
Ummm the title of your thread is a tad misleading? Perhaps it should have been more like the article that you quote here?

"U.S. Assessing Reports of Sarin Gas in Iraq"

Some comments from experts on another thread:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/

Two former weapons inspectors — Hans Blix and David Kay — said the shell was likely a stray weapon that had been scavenged by militants and did not signify that Iraq had large stockpiles of such weapons.

Kimmitt said he believed that insurgents who planted the explosive didn’t know it contained the nerve agent.

Well, I guess the people saying we were not justified in invading Iraq can shut up now.
If you found a mountain of sarin, it still does not justify the US invading Iraq. Two reasons:

1. The UN inspectors were still looking for WMD, and doing a fantastic job until Bush told them to leave.

2. "The accounting for sarin was one of a dozen remaining disarmament tasks that inspectors submitted to the U.N. Security Council in March 2003, said Ewen Buchanan, a spokesman for the U.N. inspectors."

Nice try New Auburnland

A small amount of the nerve agent sarin was found in a shell that exploded in Iraq.


OH NOES!!! TEH ALL POWERFUL WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!! HIDE THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN, WE MUST ALL FEAR FOR OUR LIVES!!!




Seriously. Do you consider fireworks WMDs as well?i agree we shouldnt get all worked up its just 1 WMD

answers to some of DontPissUsOff's questions
i believe the shelf life for it is five yrs (not sure if its for ideal or bad conditions)
We supplied Saddam with some ground to air missles, some type of fire arm, and alot of ground stuff is all i remember
France became the major source of Iraq's high-tech weaponry, in no small part to protect its financial stake in that country. The Soviet Union was Iraq's largest weapon's supplier, while jockeying for influence in both capitals. Israel provided arms to Iran, hoping to bleed the combatants by prolonging the war. And at least ten nations sold arms to both of the warring sides.
well up till now thats all the standard shells the us uses but soon we will also us the 120mm which is experimental Not sure about the soviets though

I have found out this afternoon.. there was in fact Sarin agent still left in Iraq that had already been tagged and slated for destruction by the UN weapons inspectors. However, since Bush invaded before the UN could complete their job.. that Sarin may still exist. Saddam fully admitted to the Sarin in his 11,000 page report. The UN knew about it. So, if in fact the Iraqi fighters have found it.. and use it.. well I guess you've got no one to blame but Bush for kicking out the inspectors before they had a chance to destroy it. More over, the question I'm asking myself is this, if the UN had it slated and tagged before Bush told them to leave because he was invading.. why didn't the Americans destroy it when it was common knowledge that it was there? Is this another example but yet again of the gross incompetence of this administration?

The origin is precisely what is so interesting. Or rather, the calibre.

Standard Soviet shell calibres: 100, 122, 152, 180, 203mm

Standard US shell calibres: 105, 155, 175 and 203mm. (These are the ones I can remember).

Now, I wonder if anyone can answer a few questions:

1) What is the "shelf life" of sarin,
a) If not kept in ideal conditions and
b) If kept in ideal conditions;

2) What did we supply Saddam with back in the era of the Iran-Iraq war;

3) How accurate is the information on the shell;

4) Are my shell calibres correct?

Also, the small amount found suggests that it was taken either from the US along time ago or from the iran iraq war where there was WMDS made in Iraq.

A small amount of the nerve agent sarin was found in a shell that exploded in Iraq

Goodo you found one shell, only 15,999 to go.

I have found out this afternoon.. there was in fact Sarin agent still left in Iraq that had already been tagged and slated for destruction by the UN weapons inspectors. However, since Bush invaded before the UN could complete their job.. that Sarin may still exist. Saddam fully admitted to the Sarin in his 11,000 page report. The UN knew about it. So, if in fact the Iraqi fighters have found it.. and use it.. well I guess you've got no one to blame but Bush for kicking out the inspectors before they had a chance to destroy it. More over, the question I'm asking myself is this, if the UN had it slated and tagged before Bush told them to leave because he was invading.. why didn't the Americans destroy it when it was common knowledge that it was there? Is this another example but yet again of the gross incompetence of this administration?

Not that I doubt you, I would love to believe it ;) , but do you have source for this.


PS does anyone believe that this one shell constitutes as being a WMD? When MOABs and Daisycutters are considered weapons of limited destruction ?

I have found out this afternoon.. there was in fact Sarin agent still left in Iraq that had already been tagged and slated for destruction by the UN weapons inspectors. However, since Bush invaded before the UN could complete their job.. that Sarin may still exist. Saddam fully admitted to the Sarin in his 11,000 page report. The UN knew about it. So, if in fact the Iraqi fighters have found it.. and use it.. well I guess you've got no one to blame but Bush for kicking out the inspectors before they had a chance to destroy it. More over, the question I'm asking myself is this, if the UN had it slated and tagged before Bush told them to leave because he was invading.. why didn't the Americans destroy it when it was common knowledge that it was there? Is this another example but yet again of the gross incompetence of this administration?

Not that I doubt you, I would love to believe it ;) , but do you have source for this.


PS does anyone believe that this one shell constitutes as being a WMD? When MOABs and Daisycutters are considered weapons of limited destruction ?

My husband told me that he read it in an article this afternoon. He said he will try to find it later, kids are still awake right now.. , but I'll ask him to look for it later and make a post..

Hmm . . . American chemical shell, dating from the 1980s. Wait. Wasn't that when Saddam Hussein was gassing the Kurds? America would never sell WMD to someone who was using it to commit mass murder. Thus it must all be a mistake.

[Does not even give a damn]

This was the best I could find.. (Thanks CanukHeaven) .. but I will still get my husband to try and find the article he told me about this afternoon..when the kids go to bed..

Blix, the former U.N. weapons inspector, said in Sweden on Monday that before the war, his team found 16 empty warheads that were marked for use with sarin.

He said it was likely the sarin gas used could have been from a leftover shell found in a chemical dump. “It doesn’t sound absurd at all. There can be debris from the past, and that’s a very different thing from have stocks and supplies,” he said.

U.N.: 20 percent of Saddam chemical weapons sarin-linked
According to U.N. weapons inspectors, sarin-type agents constituted about 20 percent of all chemical weapons agents that Saddam’s government declared it had produced.

The accounting for sarin was one of a dozen remaining disarmament tasks that inspectors submitted to the U.N. Security Council in March 2003, said Ewen Buchanan, a spokesman for the U.N. inspectors.

“Iraq was known to possess a lot of this material, and there were questions about the accounting,” Buchanan said.

Iraq declared that between 1984 and 1990, it produced 795 tons of sarin-type agents. About 732 tons was put in bombs, rockets and missile warheads. Iraq further declared that about 650 tons was consumed during the period 1985 to 1988, which included the Iran-Iraq war, and 35 tons was destroyed through aerial bombardment during the Gulf War in 1991.

Iraq destroyed 127 tons of sarin-type agents under U.N. supervision, including 76 tons in bulk and 51 tons from munitions.

Well, it's not going to change my stance on the war for two reasons:

1: They likely can't prove it was Iraq's. Since the war "ended," dozens of foreign and local terrorist cells have emerged or moved into Iraq, it could belong to anyone of them.

2: Even if it did belong to Iraq (as it was under Saddam), the Bush Administration has since changed their story so many times and lied about the reasons for war to cover themselves, and in the process of the war have killed many innocent civilians, and refuses to be held accountable for War Crimes at the World Court (Britain is being charged on mirroring offences). Not to mention the war is going to result in much more death for both sides in years to come, and will likely incite fundamentalist hatred for America making it LESS safe.

So Kudos to them if they do find and seize WMD, but it doesn't change my stance on the war nor my opinion of Bush. Although it would undoubtably be a positive.

Thankyou very much to the two people who posted the info I was after, most interesting. I would conclude that this device is either:

a) An old shell from the Iran-Iraq war era that was kept in some degree of preservation until recenntly and deployed only now, possibly without knowledge of its' exact nature;

b) A shell acquired by outside sources (Al-Qu'aeda (SP?)?) by other means;

c) An indigenously-manufactured shell using Iraqi sarin and French 155mm shell designs.

Personally I'm putting my money on...well, I think number one for now.

Again, much obliged to Recon Marines and Pyro Kittens, and Stepthistan. We do live in interesting times, eh?

Added: GOD DAMN THE NS SERVERS! :evil:

While I don't doubt that there are WMDs somewhere, and an unmarked shell testing "maybe" for Sarin give a good idea as to how they're so hard to find, this probably ain't it. Could easily have been smuggled from a foreign terrorist, have something else on it, or legitimately unknown by Hussein. The people using it obviously didn't know it was a chemical weapon.
Right now, we have an artillery shell, marked as regular artilley and used improperly as a makeshift explosive, which exploded in the face of two people killing no-one, and has trace amounts of what initial testing says may be Sarin. Didn't we already have a "maybe Sarin" that ended up melted boot rubber or something of the like?

Copied directly from this post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4867855&postcount=24) by someone else on another board...
Whatever.

Look, it's really simple. The Bush Administration, from the President on down, sold us the war based on Saddam's WMDs representing a 'grave and gathering' threat that couldn't be allowed to ripen. Particularly worrisome, they said, was the possibility that Saddam's WMDs could find their way into the hands of terrrorists.

So when we invaded Iraq, what was priority #1? To quickly secure the most likely WMD sites to keep the WMDs from falling into the wrong hands?

As I beat to death in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=183669) about a year ago, Rumsfeld's war plan didn't allow for enough troops both to secure WMD sites we came across, and race towards Baghdad at optimum speed. So which goal did we sacrifice? Guarding the WMD sites. So we roared on to Baghdad, leaving the prospective WMD sites unguarded, then when our special find-the-WMD squad got to these sites a few days later, they'd find the sites had been looted to the ground.

IOW, the war was never about WMDs.

In fact, there are three possibilities:

(1) The Bushies knew in advance that the WMD claim was largely bullshit - that if Saddam had any, they didn't represent a threat.

That's a pretty serious allegation, but it's the kindest of the three.

(2) There were WMDs, the Bushies knew that, but they just didn't bother to secure them during the invasion.

If this is true, then some terrorists somewhere may well have their hands on looted WMDs from Saddam's stash, and are just waiting for the best chance to use them on us.

If this should turn out to be true, I'd regard the Bush/Rumsfeld war plan as an act of treason.

(3) The Bushies believed there were WMDs, but they were wrong.

In terms of their personal depravity, this is equivalent to #2, but we dodged the bullet.

So you see, at this point, finding WMDs does not let Bush off the hook. It would have quite the opposite effect, once you think it through.
Read the bolded text very carefully.

Just a couple more thoughts on this topic.

In the MSNBC article on this subject, the following:

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the results were from a field test, which can be imperfect, and more analysis needed to be done. “We have to be careful,” he told an audience in Washington Monday afternoon.

Rumsfeld said it may take some time to determine precisely what the chemical was.

Why would it take so long to determine the exact nature of the device and its' properties?

You would think that when sending your troops into a combat zone where there are SUPPOSED to be WMD, that a fully equipped testing lab would be readily available?

During the Gulf War, Iraq had tons of biochemical weapons and never used them against the coalition:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/non-use.htm

At the time of the Gulf War, the Iraqis possess many chemical delivery systems, including aircraft sprayers, bombs and missiles, multiple rocket launchers, and artillery (from 122mm and larger). However, no chemical weapons were used in the KTO and no chemical rounds were found in captured munitions stockpiles.

There are several possible explanations for this, the most likely being Baghdad's fear of US and multinational Coalition forces retaliation for the use of chemical weapons.

Interrogations of senior Iraqi officers revealed they were unanimous in their assertion that there was no intent to employ chemicals, and that there were no chemical munitions issued to their divisions. Most believed that Saddam Hussein recognized that President Bush would react in a manner unacceptable to Iraq if it employed chemicals.

This is yet another compelling reason to doubt George Bush's claim about Iraqi intentions to use WMD against the US.

Will we now see coalition troops wearing their anti-biochemical suits in the hot Iraqi environment as a result of this most recent find? I doubt it.

Is this news item a diversionary ploy to distract from the news yesterday about Rumsfeld's alleged complicity regarding abuse of Iraqi prisoners?

Alas I am becoming more and more skeptical as this whole nightmare unfolds.

lots of good stuff

That's the thing that really got me, and I'm surprised more people don't pick up on it.

Lets assume Bush and Blair were telling the truth (and / or believed they were telling the truth based on accurate information)

This means they took a massive gamble in Iraq, with the lives of Iraqi civilians, the lives of Coalition troops and the lives of their own civilian populations.

They gambled on a ground invasion being sufficiently swift enough to be able to secure the vast arsenal of "VX, sarin, cyclosarin, and mustard gas, anthrax, botulism, and smallpox." in weapons that could be deployed within 45 minutes and had the ballistic capabilities to strike as far as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Not to mention his reconsituted nuclear programmes.

Imagine if it had gone horribly wrong. Knowing Saddam's mindset, he'd have no qualms about a last ditch attack against Isreal or the invading Coalition army. Or did Bush and Blair think he was of the same Western mindset that it's ok to gas Arabs but not Whites?

And let us still assume that the weapons were there and existed. What was done in the post war vaccum that occured after the fall of Baghdad to secure this vast arsenal? Surely the chaos was the perfect opportunity for Al'Queda or other psudeo-Islamic terror groups to slip into Iraq and aquire them for themselves?

Why is this potential threat never mentioned?

Why the complaceny?

IF Bush and Blair were correct then the danger is greater now than it was in March of last year. With these WMD unaccounted for, for all we know Al'Queda is already at the stages in which it's going to detonate a dirty bomb in London or Washington.

That's my real question.

Why the complaceny to this obvious danger?

Is it because those who parrot the WMD excuse know it was a load of bollocks from the start?

Here (http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/960715/72569.htm) is some DoD old unrefined intelligence of Iraq's sarin production and the techniques used to obviate the shelf life issue (for the link impaired see below).

The CIA has some general information on Sarin and other CW here (http://www.odci.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/1996/go_appendixb_032796.html) and an index [url=http://www.cia.gov/search?NS-search-page=results[here[/url].

Distilled, the information is;

Sarin is a G series agent with a short term respiratory hazzard. To be lethal, very large quantities in a very condensed form must be dispersed in a relatively confined environment.

By contrast V series agents (VE, VG, VM, VS, and VX) are more toxic and more persistent than the G-agents and present a greater skin hazard. They are used for long-term contamination of territory.

The shelf life issue was resolved by 1990 by using, "... Binary Chemical weapons. In a binary munition, the two precursor chemicals are stored separately and only mixed to form the chemical agent immediately before or when the round is in flight. Thus, the shelf life of the agent becomes irrelevant

The volume found and the context of it's use is not indicative of a stockpile of any magnitude. As for the ignorance or ineptitude of the insurgents/terrorsts. Never underestimate your opponent but instead grant him more skill than he has. Then your overestimation will result in a greater chance of success.

Anyone doubting this approach should look into the 16 acre by 60 foot deep pit called "The WTC Site" and reconsider the wisdom of arrogant presumption.

SHL

:twisted: server tonight

Who cares if this shell is a remnant of Saddam's WMD aresenal or not? Bush sold this war (originally) as a pre-emptive strike to ward off a direct Iraqi threat. If Saddam was in posession of this weapon and more of its kind, he would have used them against his Arab neighbors or against Israel, NOT against the USA, the world's only superpower. Saddam was stupid when it came to international diplomacy (and war, being an extension of diplomacy), but not that stupid!

Unleash some UN weapons inspectors in the USA's basement, see what WMD they can find.

Who cares if this shell is a remnant of Saddam's WMD aresenal or not? Bush sold this war (originally) as a pre-emptive strike to ward off a direct Iraqi threat. If Saddam was in posession of this weapon and more of its kind, he would have used them against his Arab neighbors or against Israel, NOT against the USA, the world's only superpower. Saddam was stupid when it came to international diplomacy (and war, being an extension of diplomacy), but not that stupid!

Unleash some UN weapons inspectors in the USA's basement, see what WMD they can find.
Hammer meets nail on head and drives home the point!! :shock:

Well stated!!

Well, I'm not surprised. Maybe that shell was one of those which the United States sold to Iraq in the 1980s. :roll:

ah yes...the conspiracies abound here. We sold WMD to iraq, we trained OBL, we're hiding him till the week before the election. Hold on while I get my tinfoil hat.

Granted its only one shell but thats means he HAD them. We know he was capable of using them against his own people (Kurds). Sarin is sarin and mustard gas is mustard gas. Where there is smoke there is fire.

Yes this war is about taking the fight to those who wish us harm. If the intelligence wasn't good than you need only to look at the precious UN. They said he had them. So did france, germany and russia. BILL CLINTON AND JOHN KERRY said he had them. We're we ALL wrong? If so then thats another problem.

What liberals, socialists, hippies, and Anti Americans fail to realize is that this is a war like no other in history. We aren't fighting a nation like Nazi Germany or Japan. We're not staring down the Soviets. We are fighting an organization bent on our destruction. Saddam was doing his part to help that organization.

Say whatever you want about our president. He has clearly labeled good and evil in this fight just like another great American president, Ronald Regan. Look back at our history liberals we've defeated evil all throughout our history. Gotta love us for saving Europe TWICE. If you want to count us beating the Soviets to save Europe 3x go right ahead.

Like I said this war is like no other and GWB has taken the fight to them. I'd rather see our brave soldiers fight the battle in Iraq instead of in Iowa. The cold war took 50 years to win. I don't know how long this war will last but it must be won. Every American live lost is tragic but necessary to ensure our freedom.

May God continue to bless America, our president, our fighting men and women and all of us.

Mate, the way you go on like that is the way you will surely LOSE this war. The sheer arrogance I encounter time and again in dealing with Americans is breathtaking. Is it any wonder you make yourselves enemies? In the aftermath of Sept. 11th you lot had almost universal sympathy and support, and in the time since you've managed to comprehensively squander it with your gung-ho, "we are the best and we will tell you what to do" attitude, which not only irritates everyone who comes across it and aharms your status with foreign powers (and let me let you in on a secret: you lot aren't omnipotent either, so you'd better take them seriously) but also means that whatever you do is generally marred by breathtaking over-confidence and incompetence.

here is was a little od Sarin can do

[EMOTIVE PICTURES]

On March 20, 1995, members of Aum Shinrikyo released sarin nerve gas on five Tokyo subway trains. Twelve people were killed and just under 3,800 were injured. 3,800 people injured from one release of sarin is with out a doubt mass distruction.

Funny you should mention that, Because I was just about too. Where do you think the Aym Shinrikyo cult got that sarin. They Didnt Buy it from Iraq. They made it themselves.

Mate, the way you go on like that is the way you will surely LOSE this war. The sheer arrogance I encounter time and again in dealing with Americans is breathtaking. Is it any wonder you make yourselves enemies? In the aftermath of Sept. 11th you lot had almost universal sympathy and support, and in the time since you've managed to comprehensively squander it with your gung-ho, "we are the best and we will tell you what to do" attitude, which not only irritates everyone who comes across it and aharms your status with foreign powers (and let me let you in on a secret: you lot aren't omnipotent either, so you'd better take them seriously) but also means that whatever you do is generally marred by breathtaking over-confidence and incompetence.
DITTO!

A WMD from before 1991? Oh dear Lord what's next, mustard gas from WWII being found in Germany?

That has happened in the past.

I think Sarin actually has a life of around 8 years. But its truly amusing to hear so many of the broadcasters preening about how this is FINALLY PROOF! A bullet.....1 bullet. Compared to the ammunition used by coalition forces constructed of depleted uranium.

Hrmm....a bullet that had a small amount of sarin....or millions of bullets with shell casings made from depleted uranium.

Well, I'm not surprised. Maybe that shell was one of those which the United States sold to Iraq in the 1980s. :roll:
It almost certainly was. 155mm is a NATO, not a Warsaw Pact calibre, and during the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam Hussein was being openly backed by the US and UK.

If anyone recalls the events of several months ago, a dozen empty chemical shells were found in some bombed-out building - they were 122mm, a Warsaw Pact calibre.

So there are obviously a few bits and pieces lying around in old disused and bombed-out facilities. Maybe some insurgents looted a munitions dump and didn't realise the shell they were using as a remote bomb was hollow and wouldn't explode when blown up. Hence some minor contamination from 15+ year old nerve agent, stuff that rarely keeps well over those time periods, as the former weapons inspector, Scott Ritter said.

If this is the WMD they were talking about, I am laughing.

Well, I'm not surprised. Maybe that shell was one of those which the United States sold to Iraq in the 1980s. :roll:
It almost certainly was. 155mm is a NATO, not a Warsaw Pact calibre, and during the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam Hussein was being openly backed by the US and UK.

If anyone recalls the events of several months ago, a dozen empty chemical shells were found in some bombed-out building - they were 122mm, a Warsaw Pact calibre.

So there are obviously a few bits and pieces lying around in old disused and bombed-out facilities. Maybe some insurgents looted a munitions dump and didn't realise the shell they were using as a remote bomb was hollow and wouldn't explode when blown up. Hence some minor contamination from 15+ year old nerve agent, stuff that rarely keeps well over those time periods, as the former weapons inspector, Scott Ritter said.

If this is the WMD they were talking about, I am laughing.

"Hi, I'm back here as an invader 20 years later, and complaining about the WMD I sold to these guys 20 years earlier." The government of the US is calling itself a hypocrite.

Well, I'm not surprised. Maybe that shell was one of those which the United States sold to Iraq in the 1980s. :roll:
It almost certainly was. 155mm is a NATO, not a Warsaw Pact calibre, and during the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam Hussein was being openly backed by the US and UK.

If anyone recalls the events of several months ago, a dozen empty chemical shells were found in some bombed-out building - they were 122mm, a Warsaw Pact calibre.

So there are obviously a few bits and pieces lying around in old disused and bombed-out facilities. Maybe some insurgents looted a munitions dump and didn't realise the shell they were using as a remote bomb was hollow and wouldn't explode when blown up. Hence some minor contamination from 15+ year old nerve agent, stuff that rarely keeps well over those time periods, as the former weapons inspector, Scott Ritter said.

If this is the WMD they were talking about, I am laughing.Problem is that the news media certainly won't present this story with the detail you just did. In fact, the media is presenting it as some variation of exactly what NA said--shell with Sarin found in Iraq. The more radical parts of the media are touting it as a WMD find, and the more traditional parts are simply reporting it, but none of them are going into any detail.

And we wonder why more people in the US know who Boston Rob is than know that Bush admitted there was no connection between the 9-11 attacks and Saddam Hussein.

I won't believe it for a while.

I HATE NEW AUBURNLAND!

He has the same Initials as me.

I HATE NEW AUBURNLAND!

He has the same Initials as me.My bad. I won't do it again. :oops:

Differences between these two event.

In Japan it had been properly kept
properly released
it was in a confined area
there were many people in aforementioned confined area
The release was effectively not the same

In Iraq
It was old.
In a fauly explosive
open air realease
not many people

Do not try and equate the two, they are different. It is like comparing one night of the Blitz to the Dresden Firebombing.

Still this incident does not prove that he had weapons on mass distruction.
It may have not been old at all. The Sarin Iraq produced was of low quality and if not properly kept the sarin would not be deadly. Two soldiers were treated for sarin exposure, which would not be the case if this shell was produced for the Iran Iraq War. This warhead was almost certianly produced after the 1991 Gulf War.

Your comparision of the open air to contained area, not many people injured to many people injured, and the differance in the release of the chemical are not vaild points because Sarin is classified as a nerve agent, no matter what the amount, how its used, or hw many it kills. If the US dropped a small nuclear bomb in Iraq and it only injured a few people, it would still be the US using WMD in Iraq. WMD is WMD no matter what the size or the number of victims.

A small amount of the nerve agent sarin was found in a shell that exploded in Iraq.


OH NOES!!! TEH ALL POWERFUL WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!! HIDE THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN, WE MUST ALL FEAR FOR OUR LIVES!!!




Seriously. Do you consider fireworks WMDs as well?i agree we shouldnt get all worked up its just 1 WMD

its not even ONE weapon of MASS DESTRUCTION.

Read the very first line again until you understand it.

"Contained a SMALL amount of Sarin gas."

Well, I'm not surprised. Maybe that shell was one of those which the United States sold to Iraq in the 1980s. :roll:
It almost certainly was. 155mm is a NATO, not a Warsaw Pact calibre, and during the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam Hussein was being openly backed by the US and UK.

If anyone recalls the events of several months ago, a dozen empty chemical shells were found in some bombed-out building - they were 122mm, a Warsaw Pact calibre.

So there are obviously a few bits and pieces lying around in old disused and bombed-out facilities. Maybe some insurgents looted a munitions dump and didn't realise the shell they were using as a remote bomb was hollow and wouldn't explode when blown up. Hence some minor contamination from 15+ year old nerve agent, stuff that rarely keeps well over those time periods, as the former weapons inspector, Scott Ritter said.

If this is the WMD they were talking about, I am laughing.


Has any one here humped a round? Besides me. and I wasn't a cannon cocker. Ya'll got some of the facts right but missing others. NATO, the Warsaw Pact, Israel, South Africa and many more made armanents that were copies of their enemies since WW II. The shelf life of this crap? The US is still trying to destroy the "low tech" stockpiles from before WW II. The UN destroyed weapons? Really, why was there no evidence of environmental impact? I could go on, Blix et al would be making a lot more money "inspecting" under the food for oil program.

It may have not been old at all. The Sarin Iraq produced was of low quality and if not properly kept the sarin would not be deadly. Two soldiers were treated for sarin exposure, which would not be the case if this shell was produced for the Iran Iraq War. This warhead was almost certianly produced after the 1991 Gulf War.

Your comparision of the open air to contained area, not many people injured to many people injured, and the differance in the release of the chemical are not vaild points because Sarin is classified as a nerve agent, no matter what the amount, how its used, or hw many it kills. If the US dropped a small nuclear bomb in Iraq and it only injured a few people, it would still be the US using WMD in Iraq. WMD is WMD no matter what the size or the number of victims.Not to pick nits, but the article I read (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/) said that the soldiers were treated for "minor exposure." That could be anything, including simply taking the precaution to check them out in case this wasn't another false positive. In fact, Rumsfeld himself was saying that he wanted to wait for more definitive results before saying it was indeed Sarin.

heh the title of this thread is misleading. For weapons of mass destruction to be found in Iraq, wouldn't they have to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? 'Conventional' weapons the American happily use would do more damage than one shell with a small amount of gas in it. When a weapon that can actually cause mass destruction (hence the term 'wmd') is found, come and find me.

155 mm is a NATO caliber. However, it is not NATO exclusive. It is an international standard, being produced by the PRC, South Africa, Sweden, Austria, and others. Iraq was one of South Africas biggest customers.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/ground-equipment.htm
Iraq had 85 AUF-1s (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/auf1.htm) 155 mm SP howitzers and 100 G5 and GHN45 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rsa/g5.htm) South African 155mm towed howitzers.

yes, the US has pleanty of 155mm rounds,
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/155.htm

so did the Soviets
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/m-389.htm

as did the Iraqis
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/ground-equipment.htm

along with the South Africans
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rsa/weapons.htm

and do the Lybians (via Italy)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/libya/army-equip.htm

and even the lowly Canadians have 155mm arty pieces.
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-artym109.htm

in summary, everyone uses 155mm arty.

heh the title of this thread is misleading. For weapons of mass destruction to be found in Iraq, wouldn't they have to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? 'Conventional' weapons the American happily use would do more damage than one shell with a small amount of gas in it. When a weapon that can actually cause mass destruction (hence the term 'wmd') is found, come and find me.
actually the real term of WMD is NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical). I tried using that term on here over a year ago and every civilian thought I was talking about the TV network.

I HATE NEW AUBURNLAND!

He has the same Initials as me.
The feeling is mutual my friend :twisted:

The Artillery in Command and Conquer Red Alert used 155mm rounds I believe.

Well, we all know the most likely source of that stuff. Kinda ties in with why Rumsfeld was shaking Saddam Hussein's hand while the Kurds were getting oppressed, and Pakistan being told to get bent when it suggested the UN might get together and say something bad about Iraq.

Well, we all know the most likely source of that stuff. Kinda ties in with why Rumsfeld was shaking Saddam Hussein's hand while the Kurds were getting oppressed, and Pakistan being told to get bent when it suggested the UN might get together and say something bad about Iraq.
That just shows that the dynamics of international relations can change over night.

Well, we all know the most likely source of that stuff. Kinda ties in with why Rumsfeld was shaking Saddam Hussein's hand while the Kurds were getting oppressed, and Pakistan being told to get bent when it suggested the UN might get together and say something bad about Iraq.

You think Rummy was selling South African G5s to Iraq???? (the g5 made up the bulk of Iraqi artillery.) Or maybe he sold Saddam some AUF-1s???

Well, we all know the most likely source of that stuff. Kinda ties in with why Rumsfeld was shaking Saddam Hussein's hand while the Kurds were getting oppressed, and Pakistan being told to get bent when it suggested the UN might get together and say something bad about Iraq.

You think Rummy was selling South African G5s to Iraq???? (the g5 made up the bulk of Iraqi artillery.) Or maybe he sold Saddam some AUF-1s???
A Canadian named Gerald V. Bull, the dude that designed the G-series of Arty for the South Africans, was the same dude that Saddam hired to build his SuperGun

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/other/supergun.htm

Well, we all know the most likely source of that stuff. Kinda ties in with why Rumsfeld was shaking Saddam Hussein's hand while the Kurds were getting oppressed, and Pakistan being told to get bent when it suggested the UN might get together and say something bad about Iraq.

You think Rummy was selling South African G5s to Iraq???? (the g5 made up the bulk of Iraqi artillery.) Or maybe he sold Saddam some AUF-1s???
A Canadian named Gerald V. Bull, the dude that designed the G-series of Arty for the South Africans, was the same dude that Saddam hired to build his SuperGun

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/other/supergun.htm


Oh, Canada, Oh, Canada...

Well, we all know the most likely source of that stuff. Kinda ties in with why Rumsfeld was shaking Saddam Hussein's hand while the Kurds were getting oppressed, and Pakistan being told to get bent when it suggested the UN might get together and say something bad about Iraq.

You think Rummy was selling South African G5s to Iraq???? (the g5 made up the bulk of Iraqi artillery.) Or maybe he sold Saddam some AUF-1s???
A Canadian named Gerald V. Bull, the dude that designed the G-series of Arty for the South Africans, was the same dude that Saddam hired to build his SuperGun

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/other/supergun.htm

Yep. And he is supposed to have been assassinated by Israel for doing so.

Well, that guarantees Canada will not be attacked by fundamental Muslims. :P

http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war/wmd/nerve-agents/

Well, that guarantees Canada will not be attacked by fundamental Muslims. :P
If they ever cow America, Europe and the rest of the west will feel their wrath. They hate you just as much as they do us you know.

Well, that guarantees Canada will not be attacked by fundamental Muslims. :P
If they ever cow America, Europe and the rest of the west will feel their wrath. They hate you just as much as they do us you know.

Muslims don't hate me. I'm safe and sound cuddling in Mother China while I watch you people battle to your dooms.

Well, that guarantees Canada will not be attacked by fundamental Muslims. :P
If they ever cow America, Europe and the rest of the west will feel their wrath. They hate you just as much as they do us you know.

Muslims don't hate me. I'm safe and sound cuddling in Mother China while I watch you people battle to your dooms.
You'll be on the chopping block. Someday, when they unite under a new Caliph, who will they see as their largest thread? Their neighbors with the populations measured in the billions (India, China).

WMD's were only a pretense for invasion, anyway. Saddam was an evil suminabitch, a Hitler of our day, murderer and poisoner of his own people, instigator of belligerence for the sole pursuit of conquest. The suffering he perpetrated on his own people can not even be conceptualized by pampered, materialistic, spoiled capitalists like us, much less understood.
It was just going to go on and on, with the cool calculating Qusay taking over after Saddam was gone, or the mad butcher Uday in a power play. Point is, the regime was genocidal to its own people, a threat to its neighbors, and certainly a strong potential threat to the US. Was Saddam linked to 9/11? Did have have WMD? (We know he had them, but at invasion time) It doesn't even MATTER. The administration has decided to take the fight to the likeliest candidates for supporting terror operations against the US. We know Saddam would have been the first person to willingly harbor terrorists (their omnipresent existence confirms this as true), or contribute funding to something like 9/11. Being that Osama and the terrorists who declared war on us represent no specific country, we have to get past the idealistic cowardice of certain bureaucratic pinko types by giving some justification to take out those who need to be taken out, by listing WMD to qualm their childish whining. To me, they could find not a single M-80 and it's still a justified war. For those who die on the other side....perhaps they should not be supporting someone who MURDERS them. As for big money types who profited from the regime, they should be put to death by the new Iraqi government for profiting from the oppression of their own people. That includes the French. In taking out Saddam, we've even drawn lots of foreign hostiles into American gunsights. Better they be getting blasted into the ground by an M1A2 than flying airliners into buildings. If they're willing to murder innocent Iraqi women and children indiscriminately, they're certainly the type who are willing to perpetrate another 9/11. Past national security you have the "war for oil". Even if this commie bullspit was true, it would be WORTH it. Nothing keeps the vitality of the modern world alive like oil. If this gives us easier access, if this prevents more oil well burnings like after Desert shield, GREAT. Look at some casualty statistics of some of the larger battles on the Eastern Front in World War II. 600 some doesn't seem so staggering anymore. Millions upon millions more have died for much much less. That many people get murdered for crack in my hometown (Baltimore) every year. In the end, if the liberal left doesn't have its way, we will stay in Iraq long enough to ensure that a representative, friendly government determined to rule with justice and benevolence will stand in place of a barbarous madman who slaughtered millions and intended to slaughter millions more. To argue against the war is to say that this would be a bad thing. Maybe it will give some other governments something to think about before crossing the line. It worked in Libya (with some trade incentives, nothing wrong with that). To do nothing is to invite attack, which is to invite defeat. The same people who crow against the war today were certainly the first to buy gasmasks in droves and cower behind the chemical attack blocking black tape on their windows. And that is letting them WIN. Hell, in the end this "offensive defense" may be the wrong strategy. But it is *A* strategy, and that's something democrats don't have. John Kerry's policy is "diplomacy and closely working with law enforcement and intelligence agencies." That's not a plan, that's an invitation for disaster. This is a time of testing for the U.S. and as long as big GWB is in office we're gonna give em a helluva fight. These men don't respect whimpering UN debating, these men don't respect diplomacy, these men respect POWER. All they know in most of these countries is violence and death. It's a way of life for many of these men growing up. Once we subjugate and convince them of our own power and resolve, perhaps THAT is the time for peaceful negotiation and resolution. That is not going to happen at the current time without them accepting a conditional surrender. Those conditions will be in THEIR favor, and give them power of authority concerning where we may station our own troops, which we cannot have. You can't "declare peace" with terrorists, you can't back down, you must show them that they cannot win, and then you must extend the opportunity for them to show they are willing to work with you. This is not a war we started, this is a war declared on US. We can not ignore it, we can not hope it goes away, we must WIN it, and then we must do our best to move past it. It's not pretty, but again, it's not anything we asked for. These men try to deceive and play to the subsersive power of the worldwide liberal left for support, try to cower behind the bureaucratic weakness of the UN, declaring war but not in the name of any state so as to cast a shadow of darkness on the US's intentions. It's a shame so many people are naive and foolish enough to be fooled by it, to believe their lies, to believe the ridiculous notion that we are somehow a belligerent nation bent on death and destruction. We are a peace loving land, and in order to enjoy that peace, sometimes we must defend that peace. Sometimes the best way to defend is not sitting around and hoping nothing happens. Or constantly complaining about what we are doing, while providing no insight as to what could be done better. As Eric Cartman says, "Democrats piss me off." also "Hippies say they wanna change the world but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad".

The muslims don*t hate the PRC? That must be news to the terrorist in Xinjiang...

Wow He sure should have stopped typing right after he began.

And yes Dai is right. China has an oppressed Muslim Minority.

As Eric Cartman says, "Democrats piss me off." also "Hippies say they wanna change the world but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad".
Great post, awesome ending!

Well, I'm not surprised. Maybe that shell was one of those which the United States sold to Iraq in the 1980s. :roll:
It almost certainly was. 155mm is a NATO, not a Warsaw Pact calibre, and during the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam Hussein was being openly backed by the US and UK.

If anyone recalls the events of several months ago, a dozen empty chemical shells were found in some bombed-out building - they were 122mm, a Warsaw Pact calibre.

So there are obviously a few bits and pieces lying around in old disused and bombed-out facilities. Maybe some insurgents looted a munitions dump and didn't realise the shell they were using as a remote bomb was hollow and wouldn't explode when blown up. Hence some minor contamination from 15+ year old nerve agent, stuff that rarely keeps well over those time periods, as the former weapons inspector, Scott Ritter said.

If this is the WMD they were talking about, I am laughing.

"Hi, I'm back here as an invader 20 years later, and complaining about the WMD I sold to these guys 20 years earlier." The government of the US is calling itself a hypocrite.

Manufacturing nerve agents is not the exclusive domain of the US and (refer to my earlier post (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3182885#3182885)) binary production was within Iraqs ability following the war with Iran (post 1988). This kills off the time factor. It could have been 16 years old or 16 days old.

So then, this particular armament in the news, in and of itself, proves nothing regarding the pre invasion situation.

I do however reiterate my earlier point regarding Saddam Hussein's ties to al Qaeda.

The daisy chain goes like this. Hussein had ties to to Syria sufficient to ship them oil beyond the amount allowable by UN sanctions. In short a decent working relationship. The documentation of this goes back to at least 1997-8. One Source (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/irq9910.htm) (there are many others.)

"Syria has functioned as a hub for al-Qaeda operatives who moved Islamic extremists and money from Italy to north-eastern Iraq, where the recruits fought alongside the recently defeated Ansar al Islam terrorist group, according to an Italian investigation." . . . "We are not interested in the politics of it," an Italian law enforcement official said. "The investigation shows that there were several leaders in Syria - that's the bottom line." This from a LA Times article dated April 17, 2003 SOURCE (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/16/1050172655079.html)

A BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2149499.stm) dated July 24, 2002 states, "A captured Iraqi intelligence officer of 20 years' standing, Abu Iman al-Baghdadi, who is held by the PUK, said Abu Wa'il is actively manipulating the Ansar on behalf of Iraqi intelligence.

"I was captured by the Kurds after Iraqi intelligence sent me to check what was happening with Abu Wa'il, following rumours that he'd been captured and handed over the CIA," al-Baghdadi said.

He added that Baghdad smuggles arms to the Ansar through the Kurdish area, and is using the group to make problems for the PUK, one of the opposition factions ranged against Saddam Hussein.

SHL

Well, that guarantees Canada will not be attacked by fundamental Muslims. :P
If they ever cow America, Europe and the rest of the west will feel their wrath. They hate you just as much as they do us you know.

Muslims don't hate me. I'm safe and sound cuddling in Mother China while I watch you people battle to your dooms.
You'll be on the chopping block. Someday, when they unite under a new Caliph, who will they see as their largest thread? Their neighbors with the populations measured in the billions (India, China).

Yes, by the time they recognise the threat, China would have grown so large and smart she would learn to keep out of Middle Eastern affairs. You know what's the fundamental hatred some fundamental Muslims bear to the West? Imperialism. China bore a huge brunt of such barbaric behaviour it understands the Third World. China will grow from the Third World to the First World, not jumping straight into super-power status like the United States or Britain. In the near future, up to 20 years, China will not be attacked by Muslim fundamentalists.

I'll see your one binary sarin gas shell and raise you an improperly stored mustard gas bomb.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

Yup. They found a old mustard gas bomb in Iraq as well...

If eliminating Saddam Hussein was the objective of this war, why the fuss about finding WMDs? I agree, Hussein was a friggin madman and unfit to rule, but why wasn't that the reason given for invading Iraq, from the outset, instead of relying on something we're so unsure of?

Well, that guarantees Canada will not be attacked by fundamental Muslims. :P
If they ever cow America, Europe and the rest of the west will feel their wrath. They hate you just as much as they do us you know.

Muslims don't hate me. I'm safe and sound cuddling in Mother China while I watch you people battle to your dooms.


yeah, dont fuck with china. they will mess your shit up.

If eliminating Saddam Hussein was the objective of this war, why the fuss about finding WMDs? I agree, Hussein was a friggin madman and unfit to rule, but why wasn't that the reason given for invading Iraq, from the outset, instead of relying on something we're so unsure of?
Because then an inconvenient precendent would be set. People would ask, why are you not removing any of the other 70 or so nutcase dictator rulers around the world? It it because they have a lot less oil? Let's face it, anything other than that truth sounds lame, and the truth itself cannot be handled.

ah yes...the conspiracies abound here. We sold WMD to iraq, we trained OBL, we're hiding him till the week before the election. Hold on while I get my tinfoil hat.
Well 2 out of 3 are right so far.....lets see if the 3rd one comes true?

Granted its only one shell but thats means he HAD them. We know he was capable of using them against his own people (Kurds). Sarin is sarin and mustard gas is mustard gas. Where there is smoke there is fire.
During the Gulf War, Iraq had tons of biochemical weapons and never used them against the coalition:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/non-use.htm

At the time of the Gulf War, the Iraqis possess many chemical delivery systems, including aircraft sprayers, bombs and missiles, multiple rocket launchers, and artillery (from 122mm and larger). However, no chemical weapons were used in the KTO and no chemical rounds were found in captured munitions stockpiles.

There are several possible explanations for this, the most likely being Baghdad's fear of US and multinational Coalition forces retaliation for the use of chemical weapons.

Interrogations of senior Iraqi officers revealed they were unanimous in their assertion that there was no intent to employ chemicals, and that there were no chemical munitions issued to their divisions. Most believed that Saddam Hussein recognized that President Bush would react in a manner unacceptable to Iraq if it employed chemicals.

This is yet another compelling reason to doubt George Bush's claim about Iraqi intentions to use WMD against the US.


Yes this war is about taking the fight to those who wish us harm. If the intelligence wasn't good than you need only to look at the precious UN.
They said he had them. So did france, germany and russia. BILL CLINTON AND JOHN KERRY said he had them. We're we ALL wrong? If so then thats another problem.
AND the UN was looking for them when Bush kicked the inspectors out.

What liberals, socialists, hippies, and Anti Americans fail to realize is that this is a war like no other in history. We aren't fighting a nation like Nazi Germany or Japan. We're not staring down the Soviets. We are fighting an organization bent on our destruction. Saddam was doing his part to help that organization.
You mean to say that Japan and Germany weren't bent on destroying the US? Did you forget about Pearl Harbour? What about German subs that were in the St. Lawrence River?

AND maybe just maybe, Iraq would love to sink the US but with WHAT? NO air force, NO WMD, a crippled army, NO navy, and NO money.

Say whatever you want about our president. He has clearly labeled good and evil in this fight just like another great American president, Ronald Regan. Look back at our history liberals we've defeated evil all throughout our history. Gotta love us for saving Europe TWICE. If you want to count us beating the Soviets to save Europe 3x go right ahead.
Old Dubya isn't looking too much like a saint these days.

Like I said this war is like no other and GWB has taken the fight to them. I'd rather see our brave soldiers fight the battle in Iraq instead of in Iowa.
Iraq had no ties to 9-11, so including Iraq on the list was a huge mistake.

The cold war took 50 years to win. I don't know how long this war will last but it must be won. Every American live lost is tragic but necessary to ensure our freedom.
There are thousands upon thousands of Iraqis who have lost there life due to this immoral war, and there didn't need to be any loss of American lives. Saddam was no threat to the US.

May God continue to bless America, our president, our fighting men and women and all of us.
Do you figure God has blessed the US so far, what with the thousands of US casualties, the publishing of US atrocities at Iraqi jails, failures by the CIA and the FBI to communicate, and several other controverseys swilrling around?

I'll see your one binary sarin gas shell and raise you an improperly stored mustard gas bomb.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

Yup. They found a old mustard gas bomb in Iraq as well...
Ahhhhh SNAP!

If eliminating Saddam Hussein was the objective of this war, why the fuss about finding WMDs? I agree, Hussein was a friggin madman and unfit to rule, but why wasn't that the reason given for invading Iraq, from the outset, instead of relying on something we're so unsure of?

because the us would have to take out half the world leaders if it was just based on fighting terrible dictators. it would have declared war on the entire third world, and im pretty sure the un would be even less supportive of that.

How much do we have to find to justify the war? As much as Bush claims there is?

How much do we have to find to justify the war? As much as Bush claims there is?
I thought the US/UK troops found enaugh mass graves already to justify the fact that Saddam did not need to be running a country.

If eliminating Saddam Hussein was the objective of this war, why the fuss about finding WMDs? I agree, Hussein was a friggin madman and unfit to rule, but why wasn't that the reason given for invading Iraq, from the outset, instead of relying on something we're so unsure of?
Because then an inconvenient precendent would be set. People would ask, why are you not removing any of the other 70 or so nutcase dictator rulers around the world? It it because they have a lot less oil? Let's face it, anything other than that truth sounds lame, and the truth itself cannot be handled.

So why choose Hussein, when there are plenty more dangerous leaders not being dealt with?

The truth does sound lame :)

How much do we have to find to justify the war? As much as Bush claims there is?
No, the time for all that has been and gone. No-one cares any more. Of far greater importance is the situation they're in now, and how they are going to get out with their dignity intact.

How much do we have to find to justify the war? As much as Bush claims there is?
I thought the US/UK troops found enaugh mass graves already to justify the fact that Saddam did not need to be running a country.

They based their action on finding the WMDs first, though. Without WMDs, hes just like any other homicidal dictator.

Well, that guarantees Canada will not be attacked by fundamental Muslims. :P
If they ever cow America, Europe and the rest of the west will feel their wrath. They hate you just as much as they do us you know.

Muslims don't hate me. I'm safe and sound cuddling in Mother China while I watch you people battle to your dooms.


yeah, dont f--- with china. they will mess your shit up.

YEAH!

I thought the US/UK troops found enaugh mass graves already to justify the fact that Saddam did not need to be running a country.
They never based any action on that.
Yeah, see you have to stick to the script.

I thought the US/UK troops found enaugh mass graves already to justify the fact that Saddam did not need to be running a country.
They never based any action on that.
Yeah, see you have to stick to the script.

Haha, how ironic- I changed my script. But see, I can take my words back. Hard to do that once you start a war.

How much do we have to find to justify the war? As much as Bush claims there is?
No, the time for all that has been and gone. No-one cares any more. Of far greater importance is the situation they're in now, and how they are going to get out with their dignity intact.

I care if Bush started an unjustified war, I have to vote for/against him. Although he's done more than that to upset me, so I'm pretty much decided.

I'll see your one binary sarin gas shell and raise you an improperly stored mustard gas bomb.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

Yup. They found a old mustard gas bomb in Iraq as well...
Ahhhhh SNAP!

I've always found that to be the most insanely stupid expression ever spoken. It categorizes people for me quite well, though.

As for the article, they admit that they don't know "if it's old or new stuff," which means it's about as significant as the first item. It is significant, in that it means that someone has gained access to old nerve gas. It's not significant in the terms of finally finding Saddam's lost arsenal.

Or, perhaps it is. :wink:

Really, do some of you actually think that two improperly stored shells are a major find?! You really are grasping...

heh the title of this thread is misleading. For weapons of mass destruction to be found in Iraq, wouldn't they have to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? 'Conventional' weapons the American happily use would do more damage than one shell with a small amount of gas in it. When a weapon that can actually cause mass destruction (hence the term 'wmd') is found, come and find me.
actually the real term of WMD is NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical). I tried using that term on here over a year ago and every civilian thought I was talking about the TV network.

FEMA uses B-NICE

Biological - Biological agents are found in nature. Some countries, however, have devised ways to weaponize biological agents so that they can be disseminated to affect broad segments of the population, animal populations, or crops. Many, but not all, biological agents take days or even weeks for their symptoms to appear. It is possible for a biological attack to occur and remain unnoticed for some time.

Nuclear - A terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon would be much different from an attack with a conventional explosive device. There would be potential for physical injury and death to persons who were not injured in the initial attack. The affected area would be much larger than in a conventional attack, and debris and other usually harmless items would be contaminated. The long-term health effects would be more difficult to ascertain and manage.

Incendairy - Incendiary devices are mechanical, electrical, or chemical devices used intentionally to initiate combustion and start a fire.

Chemical - . Unlike biological agents or nuclear materials, which are difficult to produce or purchase, the ingredients used to produce chemical weapons are found in common products and petrochemicals.

 Blister agents cause blisters, burns, and other tissue damage. Exposure may be made through liquid or vapor contact with any exposed skin, inhalation, or ingestion. Blister agents include several families of chemicals, including mustard and lewisite. The effects of blister agents may be similar to those experienced with riot control agents (e.g., CS gas) but do not clear upon movement into fresh air. In fact, the effects of most blister agents increase with time and may not reach their full impact for 12 to 18 hours.

 Blood agents are absorbed into the bloodstream and deprive blood cells of oxygen. Exposure may be made through liquid or vapor contact with any exposed skin, inhalation, or ingestion. Blood agents include two main families of chemicals, including hydrogen cyanide and cyanogen chloride. Those who are affected by blood agents may appear “bluish” across the nose and cheeks and around the mouth. As the symptoms of blood agents progress, the victim will convulse and lose consciousness.

 Choking agents attack the lungs. Following exposure through inhalation, the lungs fill with fluid, which prevents oxygen from being absorbed by, and carbon dioxide from being removed from, the blood. Death results from lack of oxygen and is similar to drowning. Two common examples of choking agents are phosgene and chlorine.

 Nerve agents affect the central nervous system. These agents act most quickly and are the most lethal of all chemical agents, acting within seconds of exposure. Victims of nerve agents experience constricted pupils, runny nose, shortness of breath, convulsions, and cessation of breathing. Sarin is an example of a nerve agent.

 Riot-control agents cause respiratory distress and tearing and are designed to incapacitate rather than kill. Riot-control agents cause intense pain, especially in the moist areas of the body. Common riot-control agents include CS (also known as “tear” gas) and capsicum (also called pepper spray).


Explosive (conventional) - Conventional explosives have been the “weapon of choice” for most terrorists who have used them in more than 80 percent of attacks. While terrorists have used military munitions such as grenades, mortars, and shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, experts rate conventional explosives in the form of improvised explosive devices as a greater threat.

SHL

I'll see your one binary sarin gas shell and raise you an improperly stored mustard gas bomb.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

Yup. They found a old mustard gas bomb in Iraq as well...
Ahhhhh SNAP!
Maybe tomorrow they will find a missle than can actually travel more than 120 miles? Or even better even yet, they will find 1 or 2 nuclear warheads?

Do you really think Iraq was a long distance threat to the USA? :shock:

Maybe tomorrow they will find a missle than can actually travel more than 120 miles? Or even better even yet, they will find 1 or 2 nuclear warheads?

Do you really think Iraq was a long distance threat to the USA? :shock:
They can't even properly detonate a ready-made chemical weapon by strapping explosives to it. Jeez. We went to war for this? :roll:

If you search the whole of the US and the UK how many shells or items that under this definition could be classed as WMD would you find that the gov could not account for? More than one I'll bet.
Yes get rid of Sadam, but be honest about it. On the WMD case why was nothing done about India and Pakistan (more likley to use nukes than Iraq)?
All this shell proves was that at some time in the past Sadam had chemical and biological agents.

I'll see your one binary sarin gas shell and raise you an improperly stored mustard gas bomb.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

Yup. They found a old mustard gas bomb in Iraq as well...
Ahhhhh SNAP!

I've always found that to be the most insanely stupid expression ever spoken. It categorizes people for me quite well, though.
Sorry, I have watched Zoolander one too many times.

Maybe tomorrow they will find a missle than can actually travel more than 120 miles? Or even better even yet, they will find 1 or 2 nuclear warheads?

Do you really think Iraq was a long distance threat to the USA? :shock:
They can't even properly detonate a ready-made chemical weapon by strapping explosives to it. Jeez. We went to war for this? :roll:
it was not a ready made chemical weapon. it was the bi-anary type which mixes after being shot from an arty piece. the bi-anary kind is kind of a saftey so that is does not detonate the chemical until you shoot it at your enemy (or in Saddam's case, your own people).

Anyone ever considered North Korea to also be a threat?

I remember Bush talking about an Axis of evil, so when will the other wars be announced?

Maybe tomorrow they will find a missle than can actually travel more than 120 miles? Or even better even yet, they will find 1 or 2 nuclear warheads?

Do you really think Iraq was a long distance threat to the USA? :shock:
They can't even properly detonate a ready-made chemical weapon by strapping explosives to it. Jeez. We went to war for this? :roll:
I guess they forgot that it was supposed to be fired from a howitzer, to allow the gases to mix properly? Silly Iraqis :roll:

I'll see your one binary sarin gas shell and raise you an improperly stored mustard gas bomb.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

Yup. They found a old mustard gas bomb in Iraq as well...
Ahhhhh SNAP!

I've always found that to be the most insanely stupid expression ever spoken. It categorizes people for me quite well, though.
Sorry, I have watched Zoolander one too many times.

Well, at least you've admitted that you have a problem. NOw the healing starts. :wink:

Maybe tomorrow they will find a missle than can actually travel more than 120 miles? Or even better even yet, they will find 1 or 2 nuclear warheads?

Do you really think Iraq was a long distance threat to the USA? :shock:
They can't even properly detonate a ready-made chemical weapon by strapping explosives to it. Jeez. We went to war for this? :roll:
it was not a ready made chemical weapon. it was the bi-anary type which mixes after being shot from an arty piece. the bi-anary kind is kind of a saftey so that is does not detonate the chemical until you shoot it at your enemy (or in Saddam's case, your own people).
And I guess the US wouldn't know anything about using weapons against their own people? For that matter you could include England, France, Russia, China, Viet Nam, Korea, Australia, South Africa ad nauseum.

Anyone ever considered North Korea to also be a threat?

I remember Bush talking about an Axis of evil, so when will the other wars be announced?
North Korea is only a threat if the US makes them one. However, I imagine that Iran will be next on Bush's hit list if he survives in November?

Here we go with more morality stuff from NA.

OMG he gassed his own people!!!

America was heavily into selling him military kit at the time, and blocked a UN Resolution against it even before one could be drafted. Spare me the BS. Until you accept that the US knowingly sold him the stuff, as he was using it.

Here we go with more morality stuff from NA.

OMG he gassed his own people!!!

America was heavily into selling him military kit at the time, and blocked a UN Resolution against it even before one could be drafted. Spare me the BS. Until you accept that the US knowingly sold him the stuff, as he was using it.
and France, and Germany, and Russia...

Here we go with more morality stuff from NA.

OMG he gassed his own people!!!

America was heavily into selling him military kit at the time, and blocked a UN Resolution against it even before one could be drafted. Spare me the BS. Until you accept that the US knowingly sold him the stuff, as he was using it.
and France, and Germany, and Russia...
And you.

Until you people accept it, no-one is going to take you seriously.

Here we go with more morality stuff from NA.

OMG he gassed his own people!!!

America was heavily into selling him military kit at the time, and blocked a UN Resolution against it even before one could be drafted. Spare me the BS. Until you accept that the US knowingly sold him the stuff, as he was using it.
You are right and wrong. The US did sell Saddam Chemical weapons. But it was under the Carter and Regan Administrations, not under Bush 2's administration. We once sold F-14s to Iran, we once did not even give mainland china the status they deserved, and we once had sanctions against South Africa. International relations is a very fluid game, situations change over night.

Remember that the Bush Jr. had nothing to do with previous administrations selling chemical weapons to Iraq.

Well, that guarantees Canada will not be attacked by fundamental Muslims. :P
If they ever cow America, Europe and the rest of the west will feel their wrath. They hate you just as much as they do us you know.

Muslims don't hate me. I'm safe and sound cuddling in Mother China while I watch you people battle to your dooms.
You'll be on the chopping block. Someday, when they unite under a new Caliph, who will they see as their largest thread? Their neighbors with the populations measured in the billions (India, China).

Yes, by the time they recognise the threat, China would have grown so large and smart she would learn to keep out of Middle Eastern affairs. You know what's the fundamental hatred some fundamental Muslims bear to the West? Imperialism. China bore a huge brunt of such barbaric behaviour it understands the Third World. China will grow from the Third World to the First World, not jumping straight into super-power status like the United States or Britain. In the near future, up to 20 years, China will not be attacked by Muslim fundamentalists.
Appeasement propaganda. "Withdraw from the Middle East and they'll leave you alone!" Bull. They hate everything that isn't them. They hate you, they hate your government, the U.S. is just the largest threat and symbol of anti-islamofascism in the world at the moment. You'll get your turn.

What liberals, socialists, hippies, and Anti Americans fail to realize is that this is a war like no other in history. We aren't fighting a nation like Nazi Germany or Japan. We're not staring down the Soviets. We are fighting an organization bent on our destruction. Saddam was doing his part to help that organization.
You mean to say that Japan and Germany weren't bent on destroying the US? Did you forget about Pearl Harbour? What about German subs that were in the St. Lawrence River?

AND maybe just maybe, Iraq would love to sink the US but with WHAT? NO air force, NO WMD, a crippled army, NO navy, and NO money.

You were doing fine until you hit this one. It kind if makes the case for SH supporting the likes of al Qaeda.

Like I said this war is like no other and GWB has taken the fight to them. I'd rather see our brave soldiers fight the battle in Iraq instead of in Iowa.
Iraq had no ties to 9-11, so including Iraq on the list was a huge mistake.

Hmm... he did have ties to al Qaeda. See my notes on page 4 of this thread


The cold war took 50 years to win. I don't know how long this war will last but it must be won. Every American live lost is tragic but necessary to ensure our freedom.
There are thousands upon thousands of Iraqis who have lost there life due to this immoral war, and there didn't need to be any loss of American lives. Saddam was no threat to the US.

Not true, as above, see page 4

SHL

If eliminating Saddam Hussein was the objective of this war, why the fuss about finding WMDs? I agree, Hussein was a friggin madman and unfit to rule, but why wasn't that the reason given for invading Iraq, from the outset, instead of relying on something we're so unsure of?
Because then an inconvenient precendent would be set. People would ask, why are you not removing any of the other 70 or so nutcase dictator rulers around the world? It it because they have a lot less oil? Let's face it, anything other than that truth sounds lame, and the truth itself cannot be handled.

So why choose Hussein, when there are plenty more dangerous leaders not being dealt with?

The truth does sound lame :)

I'll also refer you to Page 4 where I have presented the tie between SH & al Qaeda. A compelling set of circumstances, and that from what we do know.

SHL

And I guess the US wouldn't know anything about using weapons against their own people? For that matter you could include England, France, Russia, China, Viet Nam, Korea, Australia, South Africa ad nauseum.
I haven't had a history class in a few semesters, so show me where the US government has used weapons against our own citizens.

Here we go with more morality stuff from NA.

OMG he gassed his own people!!!

America was heavily into selling him military kit at the time, and blocked a UN Resolution against it even before one could be drafted. Spare me the BS. Until you accept that the US knowingly sold him the stuff, as he was using it.
You are right and wrong. The US did sell Saddam Chemical weapons. But it was under the Carter and Regan Administrations, not under Bush 2's administration. We once sold F-14s to Iran, we once did not even give mainland china the status they deserved, and we once had sanctions against South Africa. International relations is a very fluid game, situations change over night.

Remember that the Bush Jr. had nothing to do with previous administrations selling chemical weapons to Iraq.
I can't imagine that you keep trying to make excuses for Bush, considering the US's relations with Iraq over the past 25 years, as per the following summary of a US/Iraqi timeline:

http://www.bluebus.org/archives/000046.php

"This chronology of the United States' sordid involvement in the arming of Iraq can be summarized in this way: the United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The U.S. supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The U.S. supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was known that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked U.N. censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology.

So what do these events have to do with the current conflict?

Just this: If we do go to war with Iraq, it is important to know why! War will not really be about terrorism! Twenty years ago the United States threw its support behind Saddam Hussein in a geopolitical bid for enhanced access to oil. The trajectory given him by our support lead directly to the Gulf War and to the current crises. War, after all, will be about a history of misdeeds and miscalculations. And war will not be about morality. War will be about cynicism, deceit and a thirst for oil that knows no boundaries."

John King
Long Prairie, MN, USA.

There is enough conspiracy here to choke a horse!!

And I guess the US wouldn't know anything about using weapons against their own people? For that matter you could include England, France, Russia, China, Viet Nam, Korea, Australia, South Africa ad nauseum.
I haven't had a history class in a few semesters, so show me where the US government has used weapons against our own citizens.
Civil War?

And I guess the US wouldn't know anything about using weapons against their own people? For that matter you could include England, France, Russia, China, Viet Nam, Korea, Australia, South Africa ad nauseum.
I haven't had a history class in a few semesters, so show me where the US government has used weapons against our own citizens.
Civil War?
There were citizens of the CSA and the USA fighting each other. The CSA was a recognized country during the Civil War by both France and England.

And I guess the US wouldn't know anything about using weapons against their own people? For that matter you could include England, France, Russia, China, Viet Nam, Korea, Australia, South Africa ad nauseum.
I haven't had a history class in a few semesters, so show me where the US government has used weapons against our own citizens.

Aside from the War Between The States or Civil War depending on which side of the Mason-Dixon Line you live or the draft riots from that period or Kent State?

SHL

I can't imagine that you keep trying to make excuses for Bush, considering the US's relations with Iraq over the past 25 years, as per the following summary of a US/Iraqi timeline:

http://www.bluebus.org/archives/000046.php

text

There is enough conspiracy here to choke a horse!!

Where was Dubya's connection with the previous administrations' dealing of WMD in Iraq?

Did you blame the Clinton adminstration for the WMD in Iraq while the UN inspectors were being hassled?

Reagan and Carter sold chemical weapons to Iraq, nor Bush Sr, Bush Jr., or Clinton.

And I guess the US wouldn't know anything about using weapons against their own people? For that matter you could include England, France, Russia, China, Viet Nam, Korea, Australia, South Africa ad nauseum.
I haven't had a history class in a few semesters, so show me where the US government has used weapons against our own citizens.

Aside from the War Between The States or Civil War depending on which side of the Mason-Dixon Line you live or the draft riots from that period or Kent State?

SHL
The Kent St. incident was no where near the genocide Saddam was doing. Those National Guardsmen fired without orders into the students. The President never called down to Kent St. and told the soldiers to open fire on the protesters. Saddam gave the order to gas the Kurds.

Here we go with more morality stuff from NA.

OMG he gassed his own people!!!

America was heavily into selling him military kit at the time, and blocked a UN Resolution against it even before one could be drafted. Spare me the BS. Until you accept that the US knowingly sold him the stuff, as he was using it.
You are right and wrong. The US did sell Saddam Chemical weapons. But it was under the Carter and Regan Administrations, not under Bush 2's administration. We once sold F-14s to Iran, we once did not even give mainland china the status they deserved, and we once had sanctions against South Africa. International relations is a very fluid game, situations change over night.

Remember that the Bush Jr. had nothing to do with previous administrations selling chemical weapons to Iraq.
I can't imagine that you keep trying to make excuses for Bush, considering the US's relations with Iraq over the past 25 years, as per the following summary of a US/Iraqi timeline:

http://www.bluebus.org/archives/000046.php

"This chronology of the United States' sordid involvement in the arming of Iraq can be summarized in this way: the United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The U.S. supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The U.S. supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was known that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked U.N. censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology.

So what do these events have to do with the current conflict?

Just this: If we do go to war with Iraq, it is important to know why! War will not really be about terrorism! Twenty years ago the United States threw its support behind Saddam Hussein in a geopolitical bid for enhanced access to oil. The trajectory given him by our support lead directly to the Gulf War and to the current crises. War, after all, will be about a history of misdeeds and miscalculations. And war will not be about morality. War will be about cynicism, deceit and a thirst for oil that knows no boundaries."

John King
Long Prairie, MN, USA.

There is enough conspiracy here to choke a horse!!

Would that be the same Strange Days horse whose are are whipped etc.? Nice source of dispassionate information. :roll: This guy is still seriously influenced by Jim Morrison's The End. Probably watched Apocalypse Now a few times too many.

And I call myself Slap Happy Lunatic!

SHL

I can't imagine that you keep trying to make excuses for Bush, considering the US's relations with Iraq over the past 25 years, as per the following summary of a US/Iraqi timeline:

http://www.bluebus.org/archives/000046.php

text

There is enough conspiracy here to choke a horse!!

Where was Dubya's connection with the previous administrations' dealing of WMD in Iraq?

Did you blame the Clinton adminstration for the WMD in Iraq while the UN inspectors were being hassled?

Reagan and Carter sold chemical weapons to Iraq, nor Bush Sr, Bush Jr., or Clinton.
Ummmm who was Reagan's Vice President?????

And I guess the US wouldn't know anything about using weapons against their own people? For that matter you could include England, France, Russia, China, Viet Nam, Korea, Australia, South Africa ad nauseum.
I haven't had a history class in a few semesters, so show me where the US government has used weapons against our own citizens.

Aside from the War Between The States or Civil War depending on which side of the Mason-Dixon Line you live or the draft riots from that period or Kent State?

SHL
The Kent St. incident was no where near the genocide Saddam was doing. Those National Guardsmen fired without orders into the students. The President never called down to Kent St. and told the soldiers to open fire on the protesters. Saddam gave the order to gas the Kurds.
Yes agreed the shooting of students was not on the scale and neither was it a planned event so they could never be compaired. This may be a note for another thread but do US citizens not have a constitutional right to free assembly and freedom of expression? So why call out the soldiers? This is not a funny question but comming from the UK I am woefully ignorant of the circumstances.

I can't imagine that you keep trying to make excuses for Bush, considering the US's relations with Iraq over the past 25 years, as per the following summary of a US/Iraqi timeline:

http://www.bluebus.org/archives/000046.php

text

There is enough conspiracy here to choke a horse!!

Where was Dubya's connection with the previous administrations' dealing of WMD in Iraq?

Did you blame the Clinton adminstration for the WMD in Iraq while the UN inspectors were being hassled?

Reagan and Carter sold chemical weapons to Iraq, nor Bush Sr, Bush Jr., or Clinton.
Ummmm who was Reagan's Vice President?????
I omit Bush Sr. then.

Yes agreed the shooting of students was not on the scale and neither was it a planned event so they could never be compaired. This may be a note for another thread but do US citizens not have a constitutional right to free assembly and freedom of expression? So why call out the soldiers? This is not a funny question but comming from the UK I am woefully ignorant of the circumstances.
I cannot answer that question off the top of my head, refer to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

here is your answer:
May 2nd
Following a night of civil unrest in Kent, Kent city Mayor Leroy Satrom declared a state of emergency on May 2nd and, later that afternoon, asked Ohio Governor James Rhodes to send the National Guard to Kent to help maintain order.

When the National Guard arrived in town that evening, a large demonstration was underway; and the campus ROTC building was burning, having been set on fire by protesters. Protesters prevented the fire department from extinguishing the blaze, and the National Guard cleared the campus.

I guess thats why the National Guard was called.

(edited for answer)

I can't imagine that you keep trying to make excuses for Bush, considering the US's relations with Iraq over the past 25 years, as per the following summary of a US/Iraqi timeline:

http://www.bluebus.org/archives/000046.php

text

There is enough conspiracy here to choke a horse!!

Where was Dubya's connection with the previous administrations' dealing of WMD in Iraq?

Did you blame the Clinton adminstration for the WMD in Iraq while the UN inspectors were being hassled?

Reagan and Carter sold chemical weapons to Iraq, nor Bush Sr, Bush Jr., or Clinton.
Ummmm who was Reagan's Vice President?????
I omit Bush Sr. then.

Those of us outside of the US don't really care which US administration was responsible.
Strangely, we do not see world events as being directly connected to US internal politics.
We just don't care if it was Democrat or Republican.
Just that it was American.
US foreign affairs has an unfortunate habit of being rather consistent over time, irrespective as to who is governing.

And I guess the US wouldn't know anything about using weapons against their own people? For that matter you could include England, France, Russia, China, Viet Nam, Korea, Australia, South Africa ad nauseum.
I haven't had a history class in a few semesters, so show me where the US government has used weapons against our own citizens.

Aside from the War Between The States or Civil War depending on which side of the Mason-Dixon Line you live or the draft riots from that period or Kent State?

SHL
The Kent St. incident was no where near the genocide Saddam was doing. Those National Guardsmen fired without orders into the students. The President never called down to Kent St. and told the soldiers to open fire on the protesters. Saddam gave the order to gas the Kurds.

I was simply offering a historically accurate response to your original statement, which was, "I haven't had a history class in a few semesters, so show me where the US government has used weapons against our own citizens."

Now, as to the Kent State shootings, I reserve my doubts as to who said what to whom that set that in motion. You may be right but the way LBJ and RMN conducted themselves, and the national mood(s) at that time were pretty extreme. For me it's an open question.

Please. Don't confuse my love of country with a love of politicians. They are virtual polar opposites.

SHL

And I guess the US wouldn't know anything about using weapons against their own people? For that matter you could include England, France, Russia, China, Viet Nam, Korea, Australia, South Africa ad nauseum.
I haven't had a history class in a few semesters, so show me where the US government has used weapons against our own citizens.

Aside from the War Between The States or Civil War depending on which side of the Mason-Dixon Line you live or the draft riots from that period or Kent State?

SHL
The Kent St. incident was no where near the genocide Saddam was doing. Those National Guardsmen fired without orders into the students. The President never called down to Kent St. and told the soldiers to open fire on the protesters. Saddam gave the order to gas the Kurds.

I was simply offering a historically accurate response to your original statement, which was, "I haven't had a history class in a few semesters, so show me where the US government has used weapons against our own citizens."

Now, as to the Kent State shootings, I reserve my doubts as to who said what to whom that set that in motion. You may be right but the way LBJ and RMN conducted themselves, and the national mood(s) at that time were pretty extreme. For me it's an open question.

Please. Don't confuse my love of country with a love of politicians. They are virtual polar opposites.

SHL

Yes agreed the shooting of students was not on the scale and neither was it a planned event so they could never be compaired. This may be a note for another thread but do US citizens not have a constitutional right to free assembly and freedom of expression? So why call out the soldiers? This is not a funny question but comming from the UK I am woefully ignorant of the circumstances.
I cannot answer that question off the top of my head, refer to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

here is your answer:
May 2nd
Following a night of civil unrest in Kent, Kent city Mayor Leroy Satrom declared a state of emergency on May 2nd and, later that afternoon, asked Ohio Governor James Rhodes to send the National Guard to Kent to help maintain order.

When the National Guard arrived in town that evening, a large demonstration was underway; and the campus ROTC building was burning, having been set on fire by protesters. Protesters prevented the fire department from extinguishing the blaze, and the National Guard cleared the campus.

I guess thats why the National Guard was called.

(edited for answer)
Thanks for that.
Appears like things got out of hand, but the gathering where student were shot came after the burning incident and form the reports there was no violence until it was initiated by the tear gas. Better trained riot police needed. Unfortunatly in the UK ours have every cause to be well trained as we learnt the same leason earlier in our history, so we are no better.
Anywho, back to the thread.

Those of us outside of the US don't really care which US administration was responsible.
That attitude would be like me holding a grudge against Gerhard Schröder for what Hitler did while he was in control of Germany.

Please. Don't confuse my love of country with a love of politicians. They are virtual polar opposites.

SHL

LMAO! Great way to put it...

DP

I can't imagine that you keep trying to make excuses for Bush, considering the US's relations with Iraq over the past 25 years, as per the following summary of a US/Iraqi timeline:

http://www.bluebus.org/archives/000046.php

text

There is enough conspiracy here to choke a horse!!

Where was Dubya's connection with the previous administrations' dealing of WMD in Iraq?

Did you blame the Clinton adminstration for the WMD in Iraq while the UN inspectors were being hassled?

Reagan and Carter sold chemical weapons to Iraq, nor Bush Sr, Bush Jr., or Clinton.
Ummmm who was Reagan's Vice President?????
I omit Bush Sr. then.

Those of us outside of the US don't really care which US administration was responsible.
Strangely, we do not see world events as being directly connected to US internal politics.
We just don't care if it was Democrat or Republican.
Just that it was American.
US foreign affairs has an unfortunate habit of being rather consistent over time, irrespective as to who is governing.

Ah! An international spokesman for those only capable of an overly simplistic approach. So then it must be your point that elections and such are meaningless since it doesn't affect what is done? So Bush is not an issue because it would have happened if Clinton or Gore were in the driver's seat?

Hmm...Anarchist by chance? A Law of the Jungle type?

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/8396/newdisciplinarymeasure.jpg

SHL

Those of us outside of the US don't really care which US administration was responsible.
That attitude would be like me holding a grudge against Gerhard Schröder for what Hitler did while he was in control of Germany.
Good job ofdrawing a parallel between Reagan's administration and Hitler. :twisted:
Presumably, subsequent U.S. presidents have disowned Reagan and apologised for his administration's actions (e.g. support for the wonderful humanitarians like Saddam Hussein, Gulbeddin Hikmatyar, Jonas Savimbi...). Or have they?

Those of us outside of the US don't really care which US administration was responsible.
That attitude would be like me holding a grudge against Gerhard Schröder for what Hitler did while he was in control of Germany.
Good job ofdrawing a parallel between Reagan's administration and Hitler. :twisted:
Presumably, subsequent U.S. presidents have disowned Reagan and apologised for his administration's actions (e.g. support for the wonderful humanitarians like Saddam Hussein, Gulbeddin Hikmatyar, Jonas Savimbi...). Or have they?
Either way, you cannot place the blame of an entire country's past mistakes on a guy who will be the "face of that nation" for at most 8 years.

Those of us outside of the US don't really care which US administration was responsible.
That attitude would be like me holding a grudge against Gerhard Schröder for what Hitler did while he was in control of Germany.
Good job ofdrawing a parallel between Reagan's administration and Hitler. :twisted:
Presumably, subsequent U.S. presidents have disowned Reagan and apologised for his administration's actions (e.g. support for the wonderful humanitarians like Saddam Hussein, Gulbeddin Hikmatyar, Jonas Savimbi...). Or have they?
Either way, you cannot place the blame of an entire country's past mistakes on a guy who will be the "face of that nation" for at most 8 years.
Funny how it is, you demand to be love and obeyed b/c the U.S. bailed out France during WWI and WWII, helped Europe with the Marshall Plan, &c. Yet when it comes to some rather less flattering pages from your history you suddenly develop a severe case of amnesia.

American foreign policy chieftans like to scream themselves hoarse about how U.S. FP is all about promoting freedom, democracy, individual rights. And then they turn around and do a bit of realpolitik by perhaps aiding and abetting some local scumbags & despots b/c U.S. national interests (maintaining influence, access to oil, thwarting a strategic adversary, &c.) require so. And then they turn around and do that "beacon of freedom" song-and-dance once again, as if nothing happened. Well, please excuse the rest of the world for refusing to forget what hypocrites your leaders are.

Those of us outside of the US don't really care which US administration was responsible.
That attitude would be like me holding a grudge against Gerhard Schröder for what Hitler did while he was in control of Germany.
Good job ofdrawing a parallel between Reagan's administration and Hitler. :twisted:
Presumably, subsequent U.S. presidents have disowned Reagan and apologised for his administration's actions (e.g. support for the wonderful humanitarians like Saddam Hussein, Gulbeddin Hikmatyar, Jonas Savimbi...). Or have they?
Either way, you cannot place the blame of an entire country's past mistakes on a guy who will be the "face of that nation" for at most 8 years.
Funny how it is, you demand to be love and obeyed b/c the U.S. bailed out France during WWI and WWII, helped Europe with the Marshall Plan, &c. Yet when it comes to some rather less flattering pages from your history you suddenly develop a severe case of amnesia.

American foreign policy chieftans like to scream themselves hoarse about how U.S. FP is all about promoting freedom, democracy, individual rights. And then they turn around and do a bit of realpolitik by perhaps aiding and abetting some local scumbags & despots b/c U.S. national interests (maintaining influence, access to oil, thwarting a strategic adversary, &c.) require so. And then they turn around and do that "beacon of freedom" song-and-dance once again, as if nothing happened. Well, please excuse the rest of the world for refusing to forget what hypocrites your leaders are.

All "leaders" or more acurately, all politicians are two faced liars. Is your country really any different?

"Never give power to anyone who wants it." - Robert Heinlein

SHL

All "leaders" or more acurately, all politicians are two faced liars. Is your country really any different?

"Never give power to anyone who wants it." - Robert Heinlein

SHL

I think you missed the point. He/She said that you use history to exonerate yourself and make other countries (eg France) look ungrateful. Yet if History is used against you you say that it was a different administration, so doesn't count.

Orwell had a word for this.

Good Heinlein quote though.

"Never give power to anyone who wants it." - Robert Heinlein

SHL

what a stupid quote (not you, the guy). everybody wants power.

"Never give power to anyone who wants it." - Robert Heinlein

SHL

what a stupid quote (not you, the guy). everybody wants power.

Well then, no one should have power. Hardly a surprising philosophy for a Libertarian like Heinlein.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20040517/ts_nm/iraq_sarin_dc

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A small amount of the nerve agent sarin was found in a shell that exploded in Iraq, the U.S. army said Monday in the first announcement of discovery of any of the weapons on which Washington made its case for war.

"The Iraq Survey Group has confirmed today that a 155 (mm) artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found. The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) that was discovered by a U.S. force convoy," he said.

Kimmitt said the round, designed to mix the sarin in flight, belonged to a class of ordnance that the ousted government of Saddam Hussein claimed to have destroyed before the 1991 Gulf war.

1 shell does not constitute the term WMD to be used. Yes saddamn is now proven to hae had a chemical weapon but does that really justify a war?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20040517/ts_nm/iraq_sarin_dc

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A small amount of the nerve agent sarin was found in a shell that exploded in Iraq, the U.S. army said Monday in the first announcement of discovery of any of the weapons on which Washington made its case for war.

"The Iraq Survey Group has confirmed today that a 155 (mm) artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found. The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) that was discovered by a U.S. force convoy," he said.

Kimmitt said the round, designed to mix the sarin in flight, belonged to a class of ordnance that the ousted government of Saddam Hussein claimed to have destroyed before the 1991 Gulf war.

1 shell does not constitute the term WMD to be used. Yes saddamn is now proven to hae had a chemical weapon but is that really justify a war?

Yes well, that has already been proven. And it is page 7 of a hysterical thread so it went off topic long ago.

Those of us outside of the US don't really care which US administration was responsible.
That attitude would be like me holding a grudge against Gerhard Schröder for what Hitler did while he was in control of Germany.
Good job ofdrawing a parallel between Reagan's administration and Hitler. :twisted:
Presumably, subsequent U.S. presidents have disowned Reagan and apologised for his administration's actions (e.g. support for the wonderful humanitarians like Saddam Hussein, Gulbeddin Hikmatyar, Jonas Savimbi...). Or have they?
Either way, you cannot place the blame of an entire country's past mistakes on a guy who will be the "face of that nation" for at most 8 years.
Funny how it is, you demand to be love and obeyed b/c the U.S. bailed out France during WWI and WWII, helped Europe with the Marshall Plan, &c. Yet when it comes to some rather less flattering pages from your history you suddenly develop a severe case of amnesia.

American foreign policy chieftans like to scream themselves hoarse about how U.S. FP is all about promoting freedom, democracy, individual rights. And then they turn around and do a bit of realpolitik by perhaps aiding and abetting some local scumbags & despots b/c U.S. national interests (maintaining influence, access to oil, thwarting a strategic adversary, &c.) require so. And then they turn around and do that "beacon of freedom" song-and-dance once again, as if nothing happened. Well, please excuse the rest of the world for refusing to forget what hypocrites your leaders are.

All "leaders" or more acurately, all politicians are two faced liars. Is your country really any different?

"Never give power to anyone who wants it." - Robert Heinlein

SHL
No, my country's pols just find military quagmires closer to home.

In my opinion, the main reasons why the U.S. is reviled more then others are these:
1. Insufferably sanctimonious attitude. Which means that, yeah, Blair is the spawn of devil. Perhaps we should thank our lucky stars that Bush, not Blair, is the U.S. Pres.
2. Immence power of the U.S. creates among American policymakers a false sense of omnipotence -- and this encourages them to be so meddlesome around the world, hence so hated.

Interesting that no war supporter answered my question so I will reiterate it.

As Bush and Blair told the truth about Saddam's vast arsenal, why the complecency in finding it? Surely the danger of these WMD falling into the hands of Al'Queda of other psuedo-Islamic terror groups is GREATER in the post Ba'athist anarchy than it was under the regime.

WHY THE COMPLACENCY?

Or when the dirty bomb goes off in London or San Francisco are you going to scream in apoplectic partisan fury "See you stupid liberals, we told you he had them."

Why does NOBODY and I mean nobody talk up this threat? Is it because they know the WMD story is a load of crock?

i fail to see what this has to do with iraq possesing WMDs; making sarin is a relatively straightforward (if dangerous) process, and any moderately well-funded lab could have rpoduced that shell anywhere. And to correct the original poster, WMDs wern't "found"-a single chemical shell was used in an attack against US forces. The difference is huge.

ah yes...the conspiracies abound here. We sold WMD to iraq, we trained OBL, we're hiding him till the week before the election. Hold on while I get my tinfoil hat.

It is a historical FACT that the USA, Great Britain, France, West Germany, U.S.S.R, China, South Africa, Libya, Brazil and Poland to name just but a small handful sold weaponry to Iraq.

The USA provided Saddam with helicopter engines, communications equipment, 21 batches of lethal anthrax strains, and hundreds of tons of Sarin nerve gas in 1989, merely a year before the invasion of Kuwait.

We know he was capable of using them against his own people (Kurds).

I think the Kurds would resent being called Saddam's own people.

But yes lets bring up that old chestnut of Halabja in 1988.

Do these words sound familiar?

"You are a force for moderation in the region and the United States wants to broaden her relationship with Iraq."

Words uttered AFTER the gassing of the poor old Kurds.

Yes this war is about taking the fight to those who wish us harm. If the intelligence wasn't good than you need only to look at the precious UN. They said he had them. So did france, germany and russia. BILL CLINTON AND JOHN KERRY said he had them. We're we ALL wrong? If so then thats another problem.

Ahh partisan politics.

IF Bush and Blair were right then the UN, Germany, France, Russia, Clinton and Kerry were also right.

IF Bush and Blair were wrong then so was the UN, Germany, France, Russia, Clinton and Kerry.

The only thing to differentiate between the groups is that IF Bush and Blair were wrong they are the only ones who invaded a country and caused this chaos on the basis of a mistake. Not the UN, Germany, France, Russia, Clinton or Kerry.

What liberals, socialists, hippies, and Anti Americans fail to realize is that this is a war like no other in history. We aren't fighting a nation like Nazi Germany or Japan.

Anti-American, I love that word. Yes I hate Colombians, Canadians, Mexicans and Argentineans. Really anti-them.

But you're right this is a war like no other.

You are facing a stateless, nationless, largely invisible enemy that operates in small sleeper cells and is scattered across the globe.

Afghanistan was a good tactical move, destroy their power base.

But other than that this is not a war which can be fought with conventional bombs and ground drops. Shock and aweing Baghdad, particularly on false pretexts does not a victory in the war on terror make, and if anything pictures of the invasion broadcast around the world on CNN, BBC and Al-Jeezera serve as the perfect propoganda videos for Osama bin Laden. Nice one.

Here's a crazy liberal idea. Maybe the key to combating terror is to look to your own home security, international cooperation and sharing of information to crack down on these sleeper cells (Look at the sucess already in England, France, Germany and Italy. Nobody had to shock and awe Rome or Lyons to get the bad guys). Maybe treating terrorist groups as a political ideal. By no means legitimize them, but understand the cause of their actions. Look at the support bases and why they support them. Take out the support base, and you are left with literally handfuls of people who have nowhere to turn and will find no safe haven.

Hows that for a crazy liberal solution? Less body bags, more good will to the USA, less "anti-Americanisms"

Say whatever you want about our president.

Ok I think he's an arrogant and small minded bigot, but he's merely a sock monkey puppet for the real power behind the throne a la Cheny and Rumsfeld.

He has clearly labeled good and evil

God good, Allah bad.

Don't you think that might slightly piss off the moderate Muslims and push them towards open support for Al'Queda.

Not to mention God and Allah are the same diety but that's by the by.


Gotta love us for saving Europe TWICE. If you want to count us beating the Soviets to save Europe 3x go right ahead.

Not Saving Private Ryan syndrome again. Hello, remember us? The Allies? British, Free French, Poles, Canadians, Indians, South Africans? Remember them?

Did you fight in the war? Hmmm?

Seems to me if you want us to love you for the actions of your Grandparents you must be prepared on the same token to accept those who hate you for the actions of your parents. Can't have it both ways old chap. Can't have blind adulation on one hand and scream 'Anti-American' on the other.

I'd rather see our brave soldiers fight the battle in Iraq instead of in Iowa. The cold war took 50 years to win. I don't know how long this war will last but it must be won. Every American live lost is tragic but necessary to ensure our freedom.

I'm sure the Iraqi's are overjoyed that their new found liberation really means they cop the bullets in the crossfire instead of you.

But hey wait a minute, didn't you say this was a fight of Good against Evil? This is a monumentous time in history a real struggle against th dark forces in order to ensure the freedom of America.

Why aren't you in Iraq? Why aren't you fighting for the freedom of your countrymen? It's your patriotic duty to lay down your life for the cause. No snivelling in Iowa please, don't be an Anti-American, sign up today and save the world!

May God continue to bless America, our president, our fighting men and women and all of us.

God bless America. And everybody else.

Interesting that no war supporter answered my question so I will reiterate it.

As Bush and Blair told the truth about Saddam's vast arsenal, why the complecency in finding it? Surely the danger of these WMD falling into the hands of Al'Queda of other psuedo-Islamic terror groups is GREATER in the post Ba'athist anarchy than it was under the regime.

WHY THE COMPLACENCY?

Or when the dirty bomb goes off in London or San Francisco are you going to scream in apoplectic partisan fury "See you stupid liberals, we told you he had them."

Why does NOBODY and I mean nobody talk up this threat? Is it because they know the WMD story is a load of crock?

HW...currently there are two task forces assigned to the search for WoMD's, but they are hampered by the fact that (1) Iraq is a huge country, with enough desert to easily camoflauge a facility, that doesn't even include those that are below ground ..(2) They are a little bit busy having to deal with Security issues primarily in the Sunni Triangle.

Listen...the world told the US to let the UN Inspectors do their thing, we gave them 12 yrs....don't you think that the US under very extraordinary circumstances be given at least a couple of years?

1 Shell yes...they've found..but even the UN could not account for over 500 TONS of sarin THEY said that Saddam had...so bearing that in mind, while this may not be the smoking gun..hell..it make not even be the smoke, it damn sure is a match.....shells simply do not come packaged 1 at a time....I know US forces will place approx 8 shells I believe to a ammo pallet..now if the these shells followed NATO standards..there are at least 7 unaccounted for...usually a magazine will have upwards of over 100 shells per bunker...that's at least 99 shells unaccounted for.

HW...currently there are two task forces assigned to the search for WoMD's, but they are hampered by the fact that (1) Iraq is a huge country, with enough desert to easily camoflauge a facility, that doesn't even include those that are below ground ..(2) They are a little bit busy having to deal with Security issues primarily in the Sunni Triangle.

Listen...the world told the US to let the UN Inspectors do their thing, we gave them 12 yrs....don't you think that the US under very extraordinary circumstances be given at least a couple of years?

1 Shell yes...they've found..but even the UN could not account for over 500 TONS of sarin THEY said that Saddam had...so bearing that in mind, while this may not be the smoking gun..hell..it make not even be the smoke, it damn sure is a match.....shells simply do not come packaged 1 at a time....I know US forces will place approx 8 shells I believe to a ammo pallet..now if the these shells followed NATO standards..there are at least 7 unaccounted for...usually a magazine will have upwards of over 100 shells per bunker...that's at least 99 shells unaccounted for.

EXCUSES EXCUSES!

if you can't find them, you can't find them. don't have to blame it on geographical difficulties.
I think no one country can barge into another to search the other for WMDs without consent. Well, it doesn't matter now, does it, cuz the colonial government is controlled by the US. :roll:

Interesting that no war supporter answered my question so I will reiterate it.

As Bush and Blair told the truth about Saddam's vast arsenal, why the complecency in finding it? Surely the danger of these WMD falling into the hands of Al'Queda of other psuedo-Islamic terror groups is GREATER in the post Ba'athist anarchy than it was under the regime.

WHY THE COMPLACENCY?

Or when the dirty bomb goes off in London or San Francisco are you going to scream in apoplectic partisan fury "See you stupid liberals, we told you he had them."

Why does NOBODY and I mean nobody talk up this threat? Is it because they know the WMD story is a load of crock?

HW...currently there are two task forces assigned to the search for WoMD's, but they are hampered by the fact that (1) Iraq is a huge country, with enough desert to easily camoflauge a facility, that doesn't even include those that are below ground ..(2) They are a little bit busy having to deal with Security issues primarily in the Sunni Triangle.

Listen...the world told the US to let the UN Inspectors do their thing, we gave them 12 yrs....don't you think that the US under very extraordinary circumstances be given at least a couple of years?

1 Shell yes...they've found..but even the UN could not account for over 500 TONS of sarin THEY said that Saddam had...so bearing that in mind, while this may not be the smoking gun..hell..it make not even be the smoke, it damn sure is a match.....shells simply do not come packaged 1 at a time....I know US forces will place approx 8 shells I believe to a ammo pallet..now if the these shells followed NATO standards..there are at least 7 unaccounted for...usually a magazine will have upwards of over 100 shells per bunker...that's at least 99 shells unaccounted for.
I think no one country can barge into another to search the other for WMDs without consent. Well, it doesn't matter now, does it, cuz the colonial government is controlled by the US. :roll:

Well...seems to me the Japanese government has been a done sight better then a suicidal society based on a man they considered a living god. Good thing those colonialist Americans and other Allies forced this cruel democracy on them.

Interesting that no war supporter answered my question so I will reiterate it.

As Bush and Blair told the truth about Saddam's vast arsenal, why the complecency in finding it? Surely the danger of these WMD falling into the hands of Al'Queda of other psuedo-Islamic terror groups is GREATER in the post Ba'athist anarchy than it was under the regime.

WHY THE COMPLACENCY?

Or when the dirty bomb goes off in London or San Francisco are you going to scream in apoplectic partisan fury "See you stupid liberals, we told you he had them."

Why does NOBODY and I mean nobody talk up this threat? Is it because they know the WMD story is a load of crock?

HW...currently there are two task forces assigned to the search for WoMD's, but they are hampered by the fact that (1) Iraq is a huge country, with enough desert to easily camoflauge a facility, that doesn't even include those that are below ground ..(2) They are a little bit busy having to deal with Security issues primarily in the Sunni Triangle.

Listen...the world told the US to let the UN Inspectors do their thing, we gave them 12 yrs....don't you think that the US under very extraordinary circumstances be given at least a couple of years?

1 Shell yes...they've found..but even the UN could not account for over 500 TONS of sarin THEY said that Saddam had...so bearing that in mind, while this may not be the smoking gun..hell..it make not even be the smoke, it damn sure is a match.....shells simply do not come packaged 1 at a time....I know US forces will place approx 8 shells I believe to a ammo pallet..now if the these shells followed NATO standards..there are at least 7 unaccounted for...usually a magazine will have upwards of over 100 shells per bunker...that's at least 99 shells unaccounted for.

Finally someone who answered and someone who supported the war.

My point remains, assuming this vast arsneal exists, Bush and Blair took a massive gamble on being able to secure them before they fell into the hands of Al'Queda which as Mr. Blair certainly stressed was a far greater threat than Saddam himself using them.

If Al'Queda is able to slip into the post fall of Baghdad chaos and obtain a weapon and use it against us, then Bush and Blair lost their war. In many ways they may have helped expediate the circumstancs in which such a scenario was possible.

Of course whilst we're counting our dead, the right will scream "I told you so" and the left will make apologies for Al'Quedas' actions viz a viz the partisan arguments we have already seen in this very thread, develop.

Interesting that no war supporter answered my question so I will reiterate it.

As Bush and Blair told the truth about Saddam's vast arsenal, why the complecency in finding it? Surely the danger of these WMD falling into the hands of Al'Queda of other psuedo-Islamic terror groups is GREATER in the post Ba'athist anarchy than it was under the regime.

WHY THE COMPLACENCY?

Or when the dirty bomb goes off in London or San Francisco are you going to scream in apoplectic partisan fury "See you stupid liberals, we told you he had them."

Why does NOBODY and I mean nobody talk up this threat? Is it because they know the WMD story is a load of crock?

HW...currently there are two task forces assigned to the search for WoMD's, but they are hampered by the fact that (1) Iraq is a huge country, with enough desert to easily camoflauge a facility, that doesn't even include those that are below ground ..(2) They are a little bit busy having to deal with Security issues primarily in the Sunni Triangle.

Listen...the world told the US to let the UN Inspectors do their thing, we gave them 12 yrs....don't you think that the US under very extraordinary circumstances be given at least a couple of years?

1 Shell yes...they've found..but even the UN could not account for over 500 TONS of sarin THEY said that Saddam had...so bearing that in mind, while this may not be the smoking gun..hell..it make not even be the smoke, it damn sure is a match.....shells simply do not come packaged 1 at a time....I know US forces will place approx 8 shells I believe to a ammo pallet..now if the these shells followed NATO standards..there are at least 7 unaccounted for...usually a magazine will have upwards of over 100 shells per bunker...that's at least 99 shells unaccounted for.

Finally someone who answered and someone who supported the war.

My point remains, assuming this vast arsneal exists, Bush and Blair took a massive gamble on being able to secure them before they fell into the hands of Al'Queda which as Mr. Blair certainly stressed was a far greater threat than Saddam himself using them.

If Al'Queda is able to slip into the post fall of Baghdad chaos and obtain a weapon and use it against us, then Bush and Blair lost their war. In many ways they may have helped expediate the circumstancs in which such a scenario was possible.

Of course whilst we're counting our dead, the right will scream "I told you so" and the left will make apologies for Al'Quedas' actions viz a viz the partisan arguments we have already seen in this very thread, develop.

Granted...it was a huge gamble....I'll agree with you. But it is doubtful that Al-Queda could have obtained any WoMD ammunition in that it's unlikely they would have either the locations or access to such facilities. No..the shell would have had to come from a military ammunition depot formerly of the Iraqi Army, possibly taken by Republican Guard as they vanished...I've repeatedly said that at least 3 full Divisions of Republican Guard under orders dispersed themselves into the General population. Literally thousands of trained soldiers with access to sites, storage bins, bunkers, armories..etc..

DP

DP

About the caliber of the artillery shell found. The standard artillery gun of Iraq was the South African G6 155mm gun, not a 152mm Soviet one.

About the caliber of the artillery shell found. The standard artillery gun of Iraq was the South African G6 155mm gun, not a 152mm Soviet one.

The United States sold the bulk of its weapons to Iraq from 1982-1991, well into Bush Sr.'s presidency. It was sold even after Iraq used chemicals against Iran. It was sold after the initial mass graves were reported to have been discovered. It was sold after the Kurdish population in the north was struck (though there is still question as to which side did more damage to the Kurds: Iran or Iraq).

Listing of some of the chemical agents supplied to Iraq through the American and British governments:

Bacillus Anthracis
Clostridium Botulinim
Clostridium Tetani
Histoplamsa Capsulatum
Brucella Melitensis
Clostridium Perfringens

Keeping in mind of course that at the time Hussein's political party was widely known to support Abu Nidal's terrorist organization. This was around 1982. Even though Hussein was known to support Nidal, the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the list of nations known to support terrorism. France, Germany, and Russia were also known to have provided Iraq with weaponry, but to a lesser extent than the British and American governments.

I am a very proud American, but as an American I believe it is our duty to know and understand what our government has done so that we are not victims of ignorant beliefs.

Oh, someone said earlier that England and France recognized the Confederate States of America. This isn't completely true. Neither government ever recognized the CSA as a legitimate country. As late as 1864 the CSA was requesting that England recognize them as a country and even offered to end slavery to achieve such recognition and aid. However, France refused to recognize the CSA. Their stated reason was due to the CSA's ineffective ability to break the Union blockade of the coastline. England's royalty and nobility was extremely sympathetic to the CSA cause but never publicly supported the CSA because the overwhelming majority of the English people supported the Union's cause, largely due to immigration patterns of the time.

:)

Hmm... he did have ties to al Qaeda. See my notes on page 4 of this thread


SHL


Ummm - your "proof" of this tie to Al Qaeda is from that single source, Abu Iman al-Baghdadi, who provided uncorroberated testimony regarding Saddam before the invasion.

One of many such uncorroberated stories funneled to the West via Kurdish and expatriot Iraq groups - including that good-old favourite about mobile weapons labs.

His specific statement was that Saddam was funding Ansar Al Islam via Syria and providing them with WMD - OOOHHH Saddam giving chemical weapons to terror groups... how nicely does THAT tie into his scaremongering! And then that tangental tie between Al Qaeda and Ansar AL Islam was is your connection.

The problem?

Like much of the prewar single-source intelligence - it turned out to be somebody telling you what you wanted to hear - probably in return for some special treatment (like getting taken out of the Kurdish jail)

When the US took out the compound at Ansar Al Islam (which they did right at the very beginning of the war because they were worried about possible WMD there) .... there was nothing sinister there (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraq_nochemweapons_030329.html).


Sorry. You haven't made the connection with that attempt.

Except for that repeated connection between CIA inteligence estimates and Grimm's Fairy Tales.

-Z-

Interesting that no war supporter answered my question so I will reiterate it.

As Bush and Blair told the truth about Saddam's vast arsenal, why the complecency in finding it? Surely the danger of these WMD falling into the hands of Al'Queda of other psuedo-Islamic terror groups is GREATER in the post Ba'athist anarchy than it was under the regime.

WHY THE COMPLACENCY?

Or when the dirty bomb goes off in London or San Francisco are you going to scream in apoplectic partisan fury "See you stupid liberals, we told you he had them."

Why does NOBODY and I mean nobody talk up this threat? Is it because they know the WMD story is a load of crock?

HW...currently there are two task forces assigned to the search for WoMD's, but they are hampered by the fact that (1) Iraq is a huge country, with enough desert to easily camoflauge a facility, that doesn't even include those that are below ground ..(2) They are a little bit busy having to deal with Security issues primarily in the Sunni Triangle.

Listen...the world told the US to let the UN Inspectors do their thing, we gave them 12 yrs....don't you think that the US under very extraordinary circumstances be given at least a couple of years?

1 Shell yes...they've found..but even the UN could not account for over 500 TONS of sarin THEY said that Saddam had...so bearing that in mind, while this may not be the smoking gun..hell..it make not even be the smoke, it damn sure is a match.....shells simply do not come packaged 1 at a time....I know US forces will place approx 8 shells I believe to a ammo pallet..now if the these shells followed NATO standards..there are at least 7 unaccounted for...usually a magazine will have upwards of over 100 shells per bunker...that's at least 99 shells unaccounted for.

Finally someone who answered and someone who supported the war.

My point remains, assuming this vast arsneal exists, Bush and Blair took a massive gamble on being able to secure them before they fell into the hands of Al'Queda which as Mr. Blair certainly stressed was a far greater threat than Saddam himself using them.

If Al'Queda is able to slip into the post fall of Baghdad chaos and obtain a weapon and use it against us, then Bush and Blair lost their war. In many ways they may have helped expediate the circumstancs in which such a scenario was possible.

Of course whilst we're counting our dead, the right will scream "I told you so" and the left will make apologies for Al'Quedas' actions viz a viz the partisan arguments we have already seen in this very thread, develop.

Granted...it was a huge gamble....I'll agree with you. But it is doubtful that Al-Queda could have obtained any WoMD ammunition in that it's unlikely they would have either the locations or access to such facilities. No..the shell would have had to come from a military ammunition depot formerly of the Iraqi Army, possibly taken by Republican Guard as they vanished...I've repeatedly said that at least 3 full Divisions of Republican Guard under orders dispersed themselves into the General population. Literally thousands of trained soldiers with access to sites, storage bins, bunkers, armories..etc..


Hmmm... going from one 20-year old chemical artillery shell to a dirty bomb is quite a leap. I think even the President wound up with a fair sized bit of egg on his face about playing up any sort of dabbling in nukes by Saddam......

And going from one shell to a "Vast arsenal" is also an unproven connection.

Let's face it - if the guy who found this old shell had any idea what it was... would he have wired it up as a roadside bomb to try and take out a Hummer?

Not likely.

I think that people like Kay hit the nail on the head. There were hundreds and thousands of these shells built during the IRan-Iraq war that were distributed throughout the military and used in a tough war by artillery batteries ont he move. The thought that a few survived and wound up in some of the caches here and there is not really surprising, nor in any way indicative of any ongoing WMD aspirations by Saddam as was warned by GW.

Did Saddam deliberately hide a few remaining shells away. Maybe. I doubt it though. It would really be pointless. Sarin is easy to make, and having even a hundred shells would not have provided any real tactical battlefield advantage. So why bother hiding and caring for them?

My worry for now is more that the person who planted this shell now knows what it was, and he might just remeber where he got that first one. Even a small pile of 20 could do a fair bit of damage if set off inthe right spot...

-Z-

Interesting that no war supporter answered my question so I will reiterate it.

As Bush and Blair told the truth about Saddam's vast arsenal, why the complecency in finding it? Surely the danger of these WMD falling into the hands of Al'Queda of other psuedo-Islamic terror groups is GREATER in the post Ba'athist anarchy than it was under the regime.

WHY THE COMPLACENCY?

Or when the dirty bomb goes off in London or San Francisco are you going to scream in apoplectic partisan fury "See you stupid liberals, we told you he had them."

Why does NOBODY and I mean nobody talk up this threat? Is it because they know the WMD story is a load of crock?

HW...currently there are two task forces assigned to the search for WoMD's, but they are hampered by the fact that (1) Iraq is a huge country, with enough desert to easily camoflauge a facility, that doesn't even include those that are below ground ..(2) They are a little bit busy having to deal with Security issues primarily in the Sunni Triangle.

Listen...the world told the US to let the UN Inspectors do their thing, we gave them 12 yrs....don't you think that the US under very extraordinary circumstances be given at least a couple of years?

1 Shell yes...they've found..but even the UN could not account for over 500 TONS of sarin THEY said that Saddam had...so bearing that in mind, while this may not be the smoking gun..hell..it make not even be the smoke, it damn sure is a match.....shells simply do not come packaged 1 at a time....I know US forces will place approx 8 shells I believe to a ammo pallet..now if the these shells followed NATO standards..there are at least 7 unaccounted for...usually a magazine will have upwards of over 100 shells per bunker...that's at least 99 shells unaccounted for.

Finally someone who answered and someone who supported the war.

My point remains, assuming this vast arsneal exists, Bush and Blair took a massive gamble on being able to secure them before they fell into the hands of Al'Queda which as Mr. Blair certainly stressed was a far greater threat than Saddam himself using them.

If Al'Queda is able to slip into the post fall of Baghdad chaos and obtain a weapon and use it against us, then Bush and Blair lost their war. In many ways they may have helped expediate the circumstancs in which such a scenario was possible.

Of course whilst we're counting our dead, the right will scream "I told you so" and the left will make apologies for Al'Quedas' actions viz a viz the partisan arguments we have already seen in this very thread, develop.

Granted...it was a huge gamble....I'll agree with you. But it is doubtful that Al-Queda could have obtained any WoMD ammunition in that it's unlikely they would have either the locations or access to such facilities. No..the shell would have had to come from a military ammunition depot formerly of the Iraqi Army, possibly taken by Republican Guard as they vanished...I've repeatedly said that at least 3 full Divisions of Republican Guard under orders dispersed themselves into the General population. Literally thousands of trained soldiers with access to sites, storage bins, bunkers, armories..etc..


Hmmm... going from one 20-year old chemical artillery shell to a dirty bomb is quite a leap. I think even the President wound up with a fair sized bit of egg on his face about playing up any sort of dabbling in nukes by Saddam......

And going from one shell to a "Vast arsenal" is also an unproven connection.

Let's face it - if the guy who found this old shell had any idea what it was... would he have wired it up as a roadside bomb to try and take out a Hummer?

Not likely.

I think that people like Kay hit the nail on the head. There were hundreds and thousands of these shells built during the IRan-Iraq war that were distributed throughout the military and used in a tough war by artillery batteries ont he move. The thought that a few survived and wound up in some of the caches here and there is not really surprising, nor in any way indicative of any ongoing WMD aspirations by Saddam as was warned by GW.

Did Saddam deliberately hide a few remaining shells away. Maybe. I doubt it though. It would really be pointless. Sarin is easy to make, and having even a hundred shells would not have provided any real tactical battlefield advantage. So why bother hiding and caring for them?

My worry for now is more that the person who planted this shell now knows what it was, and he might just remeber where he got that first one. Even a small pile of 20 could do a fair bit of damage if set off inthe right spot...

-Z-

That was my point though - I don't believe in the whole vast arsenal thing.

I'm asking why those who do cite Saddam's WMD as just cause for invasion, why don't they talk about the huge threat that remains as long as they're unaccounted for?

Because many of those who parrot the WMD excuse don't believe it themselves. If they did they'd be talking up the threat of unaccounted WMD falling into "insurgent" hands.

Interesting that no war supporter answered my question so I will reiterate it.

As Bush and Blair told the truth about Saddam's vast arsenal, why the complecency in finding it? Surely the danger of these WMD falling into the hands of Al'Queda of other psuedo-Islamic terror groups is GREATER in the post Ba'athist anarchy than it was under the regime.

WHY THE COMPLACENCY?

Or when the dirty bomb goes off in London or San Francisco are you going to scream in apoplectic partisan fury "See you stupid liberals, we told you he had them."

Why does NOBODY and I mean nobody talk up this threat? Is it because they know the WMD story is a load of crock?

HW...currently there are two task forces assigned to the search for WoMD's, but they are hampered by the fact that (1) Iraq is a huge country, with enough desert to easily camoflauge a facility, that doesn't even include those that are below ground ..(2) They are a little bit busy having to deal with Security issues primarily in the Sunni Triangle.

Listen...the world told the US to let the UN Inspectors do their thing, we gave them 12 yrs....don't you think that the US under very extraordinary circumstances be given at least a couple of years?

1 Shell yes...they've found..but even the UN could not account for over 500 TONS of sarin THEY said that Saddam had...so bearing that in mind, while this may not be the smoking gun..hell..it make not even be the smoke, it damn sure is a match.....shells simply do not come packaged 1 at a time....I know US forces will place approx 8 shells I believe to a ammo pallet..now if the these shells followed NATO standards..there are at least 7 unaccounted for...usually a magazine will have upwards of over 100 shells per bunker...that's at least 99 shells unaccounted for.

Finally someone who answered and someone who supported the war.

My point remains, assuming this vast arsneal exists, Bush and Blair took a massive gamble on being able to secure them before they fell into the hands of Al'Queda which as Mr. Blair certainly stressed was a far greater threat than Saddam himself using them.

If Al'Queda is able to slip into the post fall of Baghdad chaos and obtain a weapon and use it against us, then Bush and Blair lost their war. In many ways they may have helped expediate the circumstancs in which such a scenario was possible.

Of course whilst we're counting our dead, the right will scream "I told you so" and the left will make apologies for Al'Quedas' actions viz a viz the partisan arguments we have already seen in this very thread, develop.

Granted...it was a huge gamble....I'll agree with you. But it is doubtful that Al-Queda could have obtained any WoMD ammunition in that it's unlikely they would have either the locations or access to such facilities. No..the shell would have had to come from a military ammunition depot formerly of the Iraqi Army, possibly taken by Republican Guard as they vanished...I've repeatedly said that at least 3 full Divisions of Republican Guard under orders dispersed themselves into the General population. Literally thousands of trained soldiers with access to sites, storage bins, bunkers, armories..etc..


Hmmm... going from one 20-year old chemical artillery shell to a dirty bomb is quite a leap. I think even the President wound up with a fair sized bit of egg on his face about playing up any sort of dabbling in nukes by Saddam......

And going from one shell to a "Vast arsenal" is also an unproven connection.

Let's face it - if the guy who found this old shell had any idea what it was... would he have wired it up as a roadside bomb to try and take out a Hummer?

Not likely.

I think that people like Kay hit the nail on the head. There were hundreds and thousands of these shells built during the IRan-Iraq war that were distributed throughout the military and used in a tough war by artillery batteries ont he move. The thought that a few survived and wound up in some of the caches here and there is not really surprising, nor in any way indicative of any ongoing WMD aspirations by Saddam as was warned by GW.

Did Saddam deliberately hide a few remaining shells away. Maybe. I doubt it though. It would really be pointless. Sarin is easy to make, and having even a hundred shells would not have provided any real tactical battlefield advantage. So why bother hiding and caring for them?

My worry for now is more that the person who planted this shell now knows what it was, and he might just remeber where he got that first one. Even a small pile of 20 could do a fair bit of damage if set off inthe right spot...

-Z-

That was my point though - I don't believe in the whole vast arsenal thing.

I'm asking why those who do cite Saddam's WMD as just cause for invasion, why don't they talk about the huge threat that remains as long as they're unaccounted for?

Because many of those who parrot the WMD excuse don't believe it themselves. If they did they'd be talking up the threat of unaccounted WMD falling into "insurgent" hands.

Oh I believe it..listen..vast arsenal...now..I can't speak for the Iraqi system of ammunition storage..but I can from knowledge of our own. Camp Lejeune NC, a base consisting of roughly 60,000 Marines has an Ammunition Supply Point that you could put into 3 football fields side by side, now..it's done that way to provide space between bunkers in the event of a magazine explosion..now..of those bunkers mebbe 3 might be consigned to artillery shells..and of those three mebbe one might catalogued capable of securing chemical shells...I wasn't referring to some huge factory..but perhaps a military ammo dump...all it would take is for a man to c-4 the lock, and voila..open magazine.

As I said..this is probably left over ordinance...should it have been destroyed as per the Armistice that Saddam signed..yep...sure as hell should have been..he wasn't supposed to have one rocket, not one shell, not so much as a paint design. Everything was to have been accounted for....EVERYTHING or he would have been in violation of not only the Armistice but of the original UN Resolution back in 1991.

Now..I concur with both of you HW and Zep...the thought that some insurgent might have gotten hold of a magazine's worth of ordinance is scary...and like I told HW....there are two task forces assigned to comb the entire country chasing down leads from Iraqis or other sources of intel. But they have been a tad bit busy as well trying to secure the Sunni Triangle..forces allocated have to be reallocated, material expended elsewhere..etc..We gave the UN 12 yrs to do their job..and still they managed to find stuff right up to the invasion..now the least you could do is give the US a few years..fair is fair.

If that much Sarin could be used as an excuse to invade a country, and oust its government, then america has free license to take out the majority of the planet.

Seriously, if that much Sarin, in that bad condition, counts as one of the horrific 'WMDs' that threaten america, and the rest of the civilised world, then Bush's a paranoid nut... oh... wait... :lol:

Well, after all the hype of yesterday, still no conformation it was even Sarin... even if it was, I think we can safely say, still no WMD has been found in IRAQ, one shell with a minor amount of Sarin, WMD does not make.

Well, after all the hype of yesterday, still no conformation it was even Sarin... even if it was, I think we can safely say, still no WMD has been found in IRAQ, one shell with a minor amount of Sarin, WMD does not make.

Actually Steph..it was confirmed..it was sarin..or rather the binary chemicals that upon firing would combine to make sarin..and where there is one..I'd bet good money there are more..the odds that just only one shell exists would be a sucker bet.

Booya you anti-invading Iraq-ers

Well, after all the hype of yesterday, still no conformation it was even Sarin... even if it was, I think we can safely say, still no WMD has been found in IRAQ, one shell with a minor amount of Sarin, WMD does not make.

Unless WMD now means Weapon of Minor Distraction. More and more, I'm becoming convinced that this is an administration that is on the run. In a way, that's good because it speaks to their eventual downfall. However, it's also worrisome, because I keep wondering what they'll do next to try and regain traction.

Well, after all the hype of yesterday, still no conformation it was even Sarin... even if it was, I think we can safely say, still no WMD has been found in IRAQ, one shell with a minor amount of Sarin, WMD does not make.

Actually Steph..it was confirmed..it was sarin..or rather the binary chemicals that upon firing would combine to make sarin..and where there is one..I'd bet good money there are more..the odds that just only one shell exists would be a sucker bet.

As of an hour ago the "pentagoon" says still no conformation. Sorry, it was checked by a local pre-test in IRAQ, which has given out false positives before. It is now in the hands of the "professionals" and still no confirmation has been given. At least not as of an hour ago, I'm tuned to news.. so unless you've heard some thing in the last hour I haven't.. you're wrong.

Well, after all the hype of yesterday, still no conformation it was even Sarin... even if it was, I think we can safely say, still no WMD has been found in IRAQ, one shell with a minor amount of Sarin, WMD does not make.

Unless WMD now means Weapon of Minor Distraction. More and more, I'm becoming convinced that this is an administration that is on the run. In a way, that's good because it speaks to their eventual downfall. However, it's also worrisome, because I keep wondering what they'll do next to try and regain traction.

I'd hate for you to be on that convoy Berk..I'm pretty sure the soldiers who discovered that IED didn't consider it minor.

Now..I concur with both of you HW and Zep...the thought that some insurgent might have gotten hold of a magazine's worth of ordinance is scary...and like I told HW....there are two task forces assigned to comb the entire country chasing down leads from Iraqis or other sources of intel. But they have been a tad bit busy as well trying to secure the Sunni Triangle..forces allocated have to be reallocated, material expended elsewhere..etc..We gave the UN 12 yrs to do their job..and still they managed to find stuff right up to the invasion..now the least you could do is give the US a few years..fair is fair.With all due respect, Salishe, the reason that our forces have been so busy is because of the lack of planning and foresight by this DoD, namely, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. General Shinseki said we would need at least 300,000 men; other estimates put it closer to 600,000, and yet we went in with less than 200,000 with all coalition troops included.

And the UN did do its job, pretty effectively, I might add. The nuclear program that was within 6 months of a bomb prior to Gulf War I was non-existent. The vast storehouses of WMD that this administration claimed Hussein had have not turned up. The best we've discovered is a single piece of ordnance that might have been from the Iran-Iraq war and that might have had Sarin and we're not even sure about that much yet.

Besides, it's already past the Sarins shelf life no? So no matter how much of it there is, it's no longer any good supposedly.

Now..I concur with both of you HW and Zep...the thought that some insurgent might have gotten hold of a magazine's worth of ordinance is scary...and like I told HW....there are two task forces assigned to comb the entire country chasing down leads from Iraqis or other sources of intel. But they have been a tad bit busy as well trying to secure the Sunni Triangle..forces allocated have to be reallocated, material expended elsewhere..etc..We gave the UN 12 yrs to do their job..and still they managed to find stuff right up to the invasion..now the least you could do is give the US a few years..fair is fair.With all due respect, Salishe, the reason that our forces have been so busy is because of the lack of planning and foresight by this DoD, namely, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. General Shinseki said we would need at least 300,000 men; other estimates put it closer to 600,000, and yet we went in with less than 200,000 with all coalition troops included.

And the UN did do its job, pretty effectively, I might add. The nuclear program that was within 6 months of a bomb prior to Gulf War I was non-existent. The vast storehouses of WMD that this administration claimed Hussein had have not turned up. The best we've discovered is a single piece of ordnance that might have been from the Iran-Iraq war and that might have had Sarin and we're not even sure about that much yet.

It has been confirmed..the chemicals would have made sarin...second..I acknowledge the troops question (always thought Rumsfeld was dreaming when he said 150,000 would do the job...150,000 to do the combat, 300,000 to do the peace).

As for the vast storehouses..Powell merely quoted the EXACT same numbers the UN said it couldn't account for..so in effect we relied on UN numbers

Honestly, a defective, old shell full of some gas is not a justification for a war. There is NO proof that Saddam had anywhere near the resources to pose a threat to ANYONE. The ONLY nation in the worl that has a large quantity of WMD's and has shown a willingness to use them is the US. They do not follow the UN disarmerment regulations, while threatining anyone else who does the same. They spend half of their annual budget on the militairy, while their schools colapse around their children (only a VERY slight exageration). Hell, they have the most powerfull militairy in the world, but they won't cut funding even though they are in MASSIVE debt. Why, then, do we make war whith a small country who can't even support their own people because of sanctions the rest of the world placed on them? Why did the US attack? Two reasons, the first being that they were the one's who put Saddam in power, big mistake, and they were the ones who gave him WMD's in the first place to fight with Iran. They are covering their tracks. The second reason, Oil. They need gas. The US has NO milleage restrictions on SUV's, the rugged vehicle favoured by Yuppies who never leave the city. And, of course, guess who had a Huge amount of stock in the company that rebuilt the oil infastructure in Iraq after the first gulf war. Dick Cheny. This war was not justified by ANY of the reasons that the US gave the UN. Now, I'm not saying that Saddam was a Saint. He did horrible things to the Iraqi people, and he needed to be ousted. If the US had said that 'Saddam is an evil dictator who has done awful things and horrible human rights violations,' then the whole world would have supported them. Why didn't they? Because then they would have had to face flak about China, who also have a horrible record of human rights violations. But, anyway, the US position and justifications are no more right now that we found this forgotten, decrepid shell then they were when the UN denied them support. They cannot feel right or justified now, this is not proof.

Now..I concur with both of you HW and Zep...the thought that some insurgent might have gotten hold of a magazine's worth of ordinance is scary...and like I told HW....there are two task forces assigned to comb the entire country chasing down leads from Iraqis or other sources of intel. But they have been a tad bit busy as well trying to secure the Sunni Triangle..forces allocated have to be reallocated, material expended elsewhere..etc..We gave the UN 12 yrs to do their job..and still they managed to find stuff right up to the invasion..now the least you could do is give the US a few years..fair is fair.With all due respect, Salishe, the reason that our forces have been so busy is because of the lack of planning and foresight by this DoD, namely, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. General Shinseki said we would need at least 300,000 men; other estimates put it closer to 600,000, and yet we went in with less than 200,000 with all coalition troops included.

And the UN did do its job, pretty effectively, I might add. The nuclear program that was within 6 months of a bomb prior to Gulf War I was non-existent. The vast storehouses of WMD that this administration claimed Hussein had have not turned up. The best we've discovered is a single piece of ordnance that might have been from the Iran-Iraq war and that might have had Sarin and we're not even sure about that much yet.

It has been confirmed..the chemicals would have made sarin..

It has NOT been confirmed. You're WRONG! The little test they do in the feild is what they have.. it has given out false positives before. It is now in the hands of the "professionals" they have not confirmed it, nor is the "pentagoon" confirming it. Unless of course you have daily chats with Rummy yourself.. I'm going to assume you get your info from the media like the rest of us.. It has not, I repeat has not been confirmed.. not as of an hour ago any way.

The only thing that has been confirmed thus far is that the shell that exploded was of the type that would be used to disperse sarin.

Oh I believe it..listen..vast arsenal...now..I can't speak for the Iraqi system of ammunition storage..but I can from knowledge of our own. Camp Lejeune NC, a base consisting of roughly 60,000 Marines has an Ammunition Supply Point that you could put into 3 football fields side by side, now..it's done that way to provide space between bunkers in the event of a magazine explosion..now..of those bunkers mebbe 3 might be consigned to artillery shells..and of those three mebbe one might catalogued capable of securing chemical shells...I wasn't referring to some huge factory..but perhaps a military ammo dump...all it would take is for a man to c-4 the lock, and voila..open magazine.

As I said..this is probably left over ordinance...should it have been destroyed as per the Armistice that Saddam signed..yep...sure as hell should have been..he wasn't supposed to have one rocket, not one shell, not so much as a paint design. Everything was to have been accounted for....EVERYTHING or he would have been in violation of not only the Armistice but of the original UN Resolution back in 1991.

Now..I concur with both of you HW and Zep...the thought that some insurgent might have gotten hold of a magazine's worth of ordinance is scary...and like I told HW....there are two task forces assigned to comb the entire country chasing down leads from Iraqis or other sources of intel. But they have been a tad bit busy as well trying to secure the Sunni Triangle..forces allocated have to be reallocated, material expended elsewhere..etc..We gave the UN 12 yrs to do their job..and still they managed to find stuff right up to the invasion..now the least you could do is give the US a few years..fair is fair.

Well I can respect your integrity in believing that to be the case. However you seem to be a lone voice.

Not just here, but on other message boards and in the Media we were positively awash with those screaming with an almos rabid fever about Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction and labelling anyone who dared speak against the war as traitors and who would have blood on their hands when London or Washington vanished in a mushroom cloud.

Where is their fever now? Why do they not continue to show concern about the threat? By their own logic the danger is GREATER now in the chaos than it was before. I'm honestly at a loss as to why these people who screamed about the WMD threat then are silent now, yet if such WMD do turn up will be the first to smugly gloat "See you silly liberals we we right?"

I'm not interested in being right that the WMD don't exist. If they turn up and Bush and Blair turn out to have been right all along, I will admit to this. But if they turn out to be wrong, I won't do a jig and dance about it to prove my point.

There sad reality is it increasingly looks like the slaughter of Iraqi's is on our hands, based on a lie. Even if we apply a generous spin and say Bush and Blair were mistaken then their mistake has caused the death of countless people from Iraqi civilians, to Coalition forces, to international contractors.

Bush and Blair said we couldn't afford to wait with the UN Inspection teams. The danger was imminent, 45 minute ready to be deployed imminent I seem to recall.

Given the case they presented we can't afford to give them 12 years to stop this imminet threat. There is no fair.

Well, after all the hype of yesterday, still no conformation it was even Sarin... even if it was, I think we can safely say, still no WMD has been found in IRAQ, one shell with a minor amount of Sarin, WMD does not make.

Unless WMD now means Weapon of Minor Distraction. More and more, I'm becoming convinced that this is an administration that is on the run. In a way, that's good because it speaks to their eventual downfall. However, it's also worrisome, because I keep wondering what they'll do next to try and regain traction.

I'd hate for you to be on that convoy Berk..I'm pretty sure the soldiers who discovered that IED didn't consider it minor.

Come on, you're just fudging words now, I imagine you'd bristle if someone made the comment "Well I doubt the Iraqi mother who had to scrape her daughter off the floor after Coalition bombing refers to her slaughtered offspring as 'collateral damage"

The only thing that has been confirmed thus far is that the shell that exploded was of the type that would be used to disperse sarin.

Exactly... and the UN knew about them.. I will take every one back to what I posted yesterday...

Blix, the former U.N. weapons inspector, said in Sweden on Monday that before the war, his team found 16 empty warheads that were marked for use with sarin.

He said it was likely the sarin gas used could have been from a leftover shell found in a chemical dump. “It doesn’t sound absurd at all. There can be debris from the past, and that’s a very different thing from have stocks and supplies,” he said.

U.N.: 20 percent of Saddam chemical weapons sarin-linked
According to U.N. weapons inspectors, sarin-type agents constituted about 20 percent of all chemical weapons agents that Saddam’s government declared it had produced.

The accounting for sarin was one of a dozen remaining disarmament tasks that inspectors submitted to the U.N. Security Council in March 2003, said Ewen Buchanan, a spokesman for the U.N. inspectors.

“Iraq was known to possess a lot of this material, and there were questions about the accounting,” Buchanan said.

Iraq declared that between 1984 and 1990, it produced 795 tons of sarin-type agents. About 732 tons was put in bombs, rockets and missile warheads. Iraq further declared that about 650 tons was consumed during the period 1985 to 1988, which included the Iran-Iraq war, and 35 tons was destroyed through aerial bombardment during the Gulf War in 1991.

Iraq destroyed 127 tons of sarin-type agents under U.N. supervision, including 76 tons in bulk and 51 tons from munitions.

Honestly, a defective, old shell full of some gas is not a justification for a war. There is NO proof that Saddam had anywhere near the resources to pose a threat to ANYONE. The ONLY nation in the worl that has a large quantity of WMD's and has shown a willingness to use them is the US. They do not follow the UN disarmerment regulations, while threatining anyone else who does the same. They spend half of their annual budget on the militairy, while their schools colapse around their children (only a VERY slight exageration). Hell, they have the most powerfull militairy in the world, but they won't cut funding even though they are in MASSIVE debt. Why, then, do we make war whith a small country who can't even support their own people because of sanctions the rest of the world placed on them? Why did the US attack? Two reasons, the first being that they were the one's who put Saddam in power, big mistake, and they were the ones who gave him WMD's in the first place to fight with Iran. They are covering their tracks. The second reason, Oil. They need gas. The US has NO milleage restrictions on SUV's, the rugged vehicle favoured by Yuppies who never leave the city. And, of course, guess who had a Huge amount of stock in the company that rebuilt the oil infastructure in Iraq after the first gulf war. Dick Cheny. This war was not justified by ANY of the reasons that the US gave the UN. Now, I'm not saying that Saddam was a Saint. He did horrible things to the Iraqi people, and he needed to be ousted. If the US had said that 'Saddam is an evil dictator who has done awful things and horrible human rights violations,' then the whole world would have supported them. Why didn't they? Because then they would have had to face flak about China, who also have a horrible record of human rights violations. But, anyway, the US position and justifications are no more right now that we found this forgotten, decrepid shell then they were when the UN denied them support. They cannot feel right or justified now, this is not proof.

Son...you are wrong on more then one point...no proof?..the UN itself had a very hefty and lengthy report of the materials Saddam had....the Secretary of State merely used the same numbers to justify the actions we took..

My sons schools were extremely well-kept, well stocked with good teachers and material..not a brick falling out of place..

As for Saddam..."We" didnt put Saddam in power...I don't ever recall telling my Senator or Representatives.."Sir..would you kindly put in an obscure Iraqi military officer in power so that 30 yrs later we can kick him out"..."We"..didn't do anything....now if you wish to clarify that a past Administration for which the present one should feel no moral attachment to decided in it's best interests to install a pro-western government that was right on the border of the USSR during the Cold War then you might be right..and if..if a previous administration did see fit to install Saddam..or rather his party..who else but to go back in decades later to stop his abuses?...The Russian?...the French..no..they were getting rich off of a corrupt UN Food for Oil plan...they counted on the sanctions lasting as long as possible.

As for Cheney..he has not..nor has he been on any decision making capability with Halliburton since he left their employ....he sold ALL of his stock, now..he does have approx $475,000 in stock options which are not the same thing, which he probably should have gotten rid of...but it's a pittance to what he's worth, almost like asking me to get rid of 10 bucks in my pocket when I'm have 400 in my wallet.

Now that school is over, go back, reread the chapters on doing your homework and you'll be better off.

Well, after all the hype of yesterday, still no conformation it was even Sarin... even if it was, I think we can safely say, still no WMD has been found in IRAQ, one shell with a minor amount of Sarin, WMD does not make.

Unless WMD now means Weapon of Minor Distraction. More and more, I'm becoming convinced that this is an administration that is on the run. In a way, that's good because it speaks to their eventual downfall. However, it's also worrisome, because I keep wondering what they'll do next to try and regain traction.

I'd hate for you to be on that convoy Berk..I'm pretty sure the soldiers who discovered that IED didn't consider it minor.

I'd hate to be on that convoy as well, Salishe, because it would mean something has gone horribly wrong. At the same point in time, no one got hurt, there is no confirmation that this was Sarin gas in the first place and it happened several days ago and is only being released now while the White House and DoD are trying to spin multiple attacks on their credibility from over the weekend. I don't want anyone over there to die, Iraqi or Coalition, but I'm also not going to throw up my hands and say that Bush was right for invading a country, poisoning international opinion, getting thousands of people killed and destabilizing the entire region for one old artillery shell that may or may not have been filled with a small amount of a potential neurotoxin. This is looking more and more like a PR stunt that this administration is fond of pulling and it sickens me to see my country manipulated in this fashion.

Now..I concur with both of you HW and Zep...the thought that some insurgent might have gotten hold of a magazine's worth of ordinance is scary...and like I told HW....there are two task forces assigned to comb the entire country chasing down leads from Iraqis or other sources of intel. But they have been a tad bit busy as well trying to secure the Sunni Triangle..forces allocated have to be reallocated, material expended elsewhere..etc..We gave the UN 12 yrs to do their job..and still they managed to find stuff right up to the invasion..now the least you could do is give the US a few years..fair is fair.With all due respect, Salishe, the reason that our forces have been so busy is because of the lack of planning and foresight by this DoD, namely, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. General Shinseki said we would need at least 300,000 men; other estimates put it closer to 600,000, and yet we went in with less than 200,000 with all coalition troops included.

And the UN did do its job, pretty effectively, I might add. The nuclear program that was within 6 months of a bomb prior to Gulf War I was non-existent. The vast storehouses of WMD that this administration claimed Hussein had have not turned up. The best we've discovered is a single piece of ordnance that might have been from the Iran-Iraq war and that might have had Sarin and we're not even sure about that much yet.

It has been confirmed..the chemicals would have made sarin..

It has NOT been confirmed. You're WRONG! The little test they do in the feild is what they have.. it has given out false positives before. It is now in the hands of the "professionals" they have not confirmed it, nor is the "pentagoon" confirming it. Unless of course you have daily chats with Rummy yourself.. I'm going to assume you get your info from the media like the rest of us.. It has not, I repeat has not been confirmed.. not as of an hour ago any way.

Damn..but you're stubborn..but ok..I respect that Steph...but let me ask you a serious question....just what would you accept?...Now..I would hope that you're not one of those diehard "Never could be proved to my satisfaction types"...what if they did manage to locate a cache of sarin-tipped shells..of sizeable quantity..remember...the UN only supervised the destruction as has been stated 127 tons...that left a sizeable portion unaccounted for..and I don't have any faith that Saddam had over 500 tons of it destroyed without being told to do so while being watched.

But just for purposes sake..what would it take to convince you...you've all be stated that even if they did manage to find it you would practically die before you'd believe anything else other then the fiction that we planted it to make the actions we took accepted..so I ask you...what would it take to convince you?..Just curious.

As for Saddam..."We" didnt put Saddam in power...I don't ever recall telling my Senator or Representatives.."Sir..would you kindly put in an obscure Iraqi military officer in power so that 30 yrs later we can kick him out"..."We"..didn't do anything....now if you wish to clarify that a past Administration for which the present one should feel no moral attachment to decided in it's best interests to install a pro-western government that was right on the border of the USSR during the Cold War then you might be right..and if..if a previous administration did see fit to install Saddam..or rather his party..who else but to go back in decades later to stop his abuses?

Have to agree with you here, but for the benefit of those (Not you Salishe) who feel the need to bring their American party poltics into everything it was John F. Kennedy who was the President at the time of the first failed Ba'athist regime coup in 1963.

So it was the liberals fault all along :lol:

exactly. JFK was the devil.

As for Saddam..."We" didnt put Saddam in power...I don't ever recall telling my Senator or Representatives.."Sir..would you kindly put in an obscure Iraqi military officer in power so that 30 yrs later we can kick him out"..."We"..didn't do anything....now if you wish to clarify that a past Administration for which the present one should feel no moral attachment to decided in it's best interests to install a pro-western government that was right on the border of the USSR during the Cold War then you might be right..and if..if a previous administration did see fit to install Saddam..or rather his party..who else but to go back in decades later to stop his abuses?

Have to agree with you here, but for the benefit of those (Not you Salishe) who feel the need to bring their American party poltics into everything it was John F. Kennedy who was the President at the time of the first failed Ba'athist regime coup in 1963.

So it was the liberals fault all along :lol:

See HW...I'm not a raving right wing dog all the time...I can even be a cheery-eyed centrist when I wish to be..lol....

Seriously, if that's all that G.W. has going for him, then i'd say he's dug himself up in some deep shit.

Who's to say that it wasn't planted.

And damn. Over a year in Iraq and a chemical weapon appears. Hmm. It COULDN'T have been outside the country prior to the invasion and brought in to fight the Capitalist Pigs.

But just for purposes sake..what would it take to convince you...you've all be stated that even if they did manage to find it you would practically die before you'd believe anything else other then the fiction that we planted it to make the actions we took accepted..so I ask you...what would it take to convince you?..Just curious.

I think the window has come and gone to convince me. Mostly because no matter what they may or may not find at this point no one can deny the Bush administration lied to the world. For this I hold them in contempt. All the death all the people dead that didn't have to die. All the lies told to try and justify what has turned out to be a war that didn't need to be fought. The bad decisions that were made. The incompetence of this administration has been earth shaking.

Because of all these reasons and more I could certainly list, I don't believe any thing they say. Then again, why should any one? They have lost all credibility and not just with me, but with the world.

Perhaps if the Brits were to find a large stockpile of WMD I might believe it. But they would have to have a independent source swear there was no doubt that they weren't planted there by the Americans. Bush is in trouble, any one who has their hand on the pulse of the political situation knows this. I would not put any thing past this man to try and save himself.

I honestly don't think any thing at this point will change my mind. The war was illegal, the war was immoral.. the war was based on lies.. there is no way for me to get around that. Maybe you can justify it to yourself, maybe you can't get past the propaganda being spoon fed to you. That's fine.. I have no problem agreeing to disagree as I shake my head..

I know all about propaganda all too well.. I spend a long time learning about it in University.. this has been classic propaganda at it's best. Only perhaps rivaled by Nazi Germany.. Now don't go wild, I'm not saying that the USA is any thing like Nazi Germany, I'm simply saying the level of propaganda has been second to none since the start of this.

There is nothing that will change my mind.. the damage has been done. I don't believe any thing these people say. I will believe in America again when I see change.. and that will not and can not happen until this administration is changed. Then we'll talk.

All "leaders" or more acurately, all politicians are two faced liars. Is your country really any different?

"Never give power to anyone who wants it." - Robert Heinlein

SHL

I think you missed the point. He/She said that you use history to exonerate yourself and make other countries (eg France) look ungrateful. Yet if History is used against you you say that it was a different administration, so doesn't count.

Orwell had a word for this.

Good Heinlein quote though.

Unless you are using the corporate you, which is demeaning to your intelligence, I believe you have me confused with another poster. I do not see where I have used history as a rationalization and I have not commented on France yet. Sufficient to say no one's robe is white.

SHL

"Never give power to anyone who wants it." - Robert Heinlein

SHL

what a stupid quote (not you, the guy). everybody wants power.

It must be seen in the complete context I used it in. There are no absolute truths save there is no absolute truth.

SHL

Well, after all the hype of yesterday, still no conformation it was even Sarin... even if it was, I think we can safely say, still no WMD has been found in IRAQ, one shell with a minor amount of Sarin, WMD does not make.

Actually Steph..it was confirmed..it was sarin..or rather the binary chemicals that upon firing would combine to make sarin..and where there is one..I'd bet good money there are more..the odds that just only one shell exists would be a sucker bet.
On and on it goes. How is it you disagree, even with your own US experts?

Feb. 13, 2004, 7:00AM

Kay to Bush: Give up looking for WMD caches

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/2401229

Former U.S. weapons inspector David Kay is advising President Bush to acknowledge he was wrong about hidden storehouses of weapons in Iraq and move ahead with overhauling the intelligence process.

In an Associated Press interview, Kay said the "serious burden of evidence" suggests Saddam Hussein did not have caches of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons at the beginning of the Iraqi war, but was seriously engaged in developing missiles.

"You are better off if you acknowledge error and say we have learned from it and move ahead," Kay said in a 90-minute session Thursday with AP editors and reporters.

"I'm afraid if you don't acknowledge error, and everybody knows why you are afraid to acknowledge error, your political opponents will seize on it, the press will seize on it, and no one will give you credit," Kay said.

Since resigning last month, Kay has said repeatedly that U.S. intelligence was wrong in claiming that Saddam had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and advanced nuclear weapons programs. Those programs were the main justification for the Iraq war.

WMD were a pretense for war on a very militarily weak country. A country unable to defend itself against most of its' neighbours, nevermind a combined US/UK alliance.

I just brewed a fresh pot of coffee......anybody want to smell it?

"Never give power to anyone who wants it." - Robert Heinlein

SHL

what a stupid quote (not you, the guy). everybody wants power.

It must be seen in the complete context I used it in. There are no absolute truths save there is no absolute truth.

SHL

But just for purposes sake..what would it take to convince you...you've all be stated that even if they did manage to find it you would practically die before you'd believe anything else other then the fiction that we planted it to make the actions we took accepted..so I ask you...what would it take to convince you?..Just curious.

I think the window has come and gone to convince me. Mostly because no matter what they may or may not find at this point no one can deny the Bush administration lied to the world. For this I hold them in contempt. All the death all the people dead that didn't have to die. All the lies told to try and justify what has turned out to be a war that didn't need to be fought. The bad decisions that were made. The incompetence of this administration has been earth shaking.

Because of all these reasons and more I could certainly list, I don't believe any thing they say. Then again, why should any one? They have lost all credibility and not just with me, but with the world.

Perhaps if the Brits were to find a large stockpile of WMD I might believe it. But they would have to have a independent source swear there was no doubt that they weren't planted there by the Americans. Bush is in trouble, any one who has their hand on the pulse of the political situation knows this. I would not put any thing past this man to try and save himself.

I honestly don't think any thing at this point will change my mind. The war was illegal, the war was immoral.. the war was based on lies.. there is no way for me to get around that. Maybe you can justify it to yourself, maybe you can't get past the propaganda being spoon fed to you. That's fine.. I have no problem agreeing to disagree as I shake my head..

I know all about propaganda all too well.. I spend a long time learning about it in University.. this has been classic propaganda at it's best. Only perhaps rivaled by Nazi Germany.. Now don't go wild, I'm not saying that the USA is any thing like Nazi Germany, I'm simply saying the level of propaganda has been second to none since the start of this.

There is nothing that will change my mind.. the damage has been done. I don't believe any thing these people say. I will believe in America again when I see change.. and that will not and can not happen until this administration is changed. Then we'll talk.
CanuckHeaven stands up and applauds, and is in total agreement.

My country was not about to take part in a witch hunt and I admire their courage in coming to that decision. We in Canada don't hate the US, we are just skeptical of the current administration.

The "coalition of the willing", is starting to look like the coalition of the damned?

This finding of Sarin hints at what else there might be. If there's one artillery shell of Sarin gas, maybe there is a small bunker more of them somewhere in the desert.

This finding of Sarin hints at what else there might be. If there's one artillery shell of Sarin gas, maybe there is a small bunker more of them somewhere in the desert.

I believe there are quite likely several small buried dumps and forgotten disposal sites littered throught Iraq. This absolutely does not constitute the clear and present immediate danger that the war was sold on.

A few well hidden and (very importantly) insignificantly small chemical weapons dumps, would explain both the behavior of US intelligence anmd Saddam. US intelligence could esily exagerate estimates in order to go forth with an already intended war, especially in light of what appears to have been encouragement (at best) from Bush.
It would also explain the paranoid and evassive behavior of Saddam - "they wont get the last few bits and pieces I have!"

But It Does Not Equal What Was Sold!

I sell you a race horse that has won before, saying it is whole. I promise it will be a winner again. Furthermore, I promise it has a sweet gentel dispostition. The race horse turns out to be a lame former champion that can barely walk, and will not ever race in the forseeable future. Plus it is as mean as a rattlesnake. Have I cheated you?

This is EXACTLY what the Iraq war has turned out to be.

I was sold on Saddam being an imminent threat due to the WMDs. I had doubts. But I saw Powell, a man I have the utmost respect for and trusted, go before the UNSC and testify that they were there. So I said ok. That imminent danger turns out to have been a few lousy mustard gas shells and a sarin shell that the bombers couldn*t even use properly.

That is one of the biggest reasons why I am mad as all hell at Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

For the record, the other reasons are the awful prosecuition of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the disgraceful war crimes that I blaim squarely on the the White House and the atmosphere permissve of and, it increasingly appears, encouraging of, said war crimes.

Hmm... he did have ties to al Qaeda. See my notes on page 4 of this thread


SHL


Ummm - your "proof" of this tie to Al Qaeda is from that single source, Abu Iman al-Baghdadi, who provided uncorroberated testimony regarding Saddam before the invasion.

One of many such uncorroberated stories funneled to the West via Kurdish and expatriot Iraq groups - including that good-old favourite about mobile weapons labs.

His specific statement was that Saddam was funding Ansar Al Islam via Syria and providing them with WMD - OOOHHH Saddam giving chemical weapons to terror groups... how nicely does THAT tie into his scaremongering! And then that tangental tie between Al Qaeda and Ansar AL Islam was is your connection.

The problem?

Like much of the prewar single-source intelligence - it turned out to be somebody telling you what you wanted to hear - probably in return for some special treatment (like getting taken out of the Kurdish jail)

When the US took out the compound at Ansar Al Islam (which they did right at the very beginning of the war because they were worried about possible WMD there) .... there was nothing sinister there (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraq_nochemweapons_030329.html).


Sorry. You haven't made the connection with that attempt.

Except for that repeated connection between CIA inteligence estimates and Grimm's Fairy Tales.

-Z-

My reference to the DoD and CIA regarding Sarin production was for informational purposes on sarin. The DoD raw intelligence report was advanced by the Federation of American Scientists (http://www.fas.org/join.html), an independent group which is what lends it credibility as to the facts.

The Global Policy Forum (http://www.globalpolicy.org/visitctr/about.htm) (another independent group but one with international membership and stature with consultative status at the United Nations) put forth in April, 1999 the connection between Saddam and Syria with regard to their rediscovered level of cooperation.

There is also the matter of the findings of Italian investigators as reported in the LA Times article (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/16/1050172655079.html) and the statements an ex-Iraqi intelligence officer as reported by the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2149499.stm) in April, 2002.

So when I used the term "Daisy Chain" it did not refer to a single source but several diverse sources whereby an inference can reasonably be drawn.

SHL

PS - Ansar al-Islam is not a place but an organization. It's approach to Islam is similar to that of the Taliban.

Hmm... he did have ties to al Qaeda. See my notes on page 4 of this thread


SHL


Ummm - your "proof" of this tie to Al Qaeda is from that single source, Abu Iman al-Baghdadi, who provided uncorroberated testimony regarding Saddam before the invasion.

One of many such uncorroberated stories funneled to the West via Kurdish and expatriot Iraq groups - including that good-old favourite about mobile weapons labs.

His specific statement was that Saddam was funding Ansar Al Islam via Syria and providing them with WMD - OOOHHH Saddam giving chemical weapons to terror groups... how nicely does THAT tie into his scaremongering! And then that tangental tie between Al Qaeda and Ansar AL Islam was is your connection.

The problem?

Like much of the prewar single-source intelligence - it turned out to be somebody telling you what you wanted to hear - probably in return for some special treatment (like getting taken out of the Kurdish jail)

When the US took out the compound at Ansar Al Islam (which they did right at the very beginning of the war because they were worried about possible WMD there) .... there was nothing sinister there (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraq_nochemweapons_030329.html).


Sorry. You haven't made the connection with that attempt.

Except for that repeated connection between CIA inteligence estimates and Grimm's Fairy Tales.

-Z-

My reference to the DoD and CIA regarding Sarin production was for informational purposes on sarin. The DoD raw intelligence report was advanced by the Federation of American Scientists (http://www.fas.org/join.html), an independent group which is what lends it credibility as to the facts.

The Global Policy Forum (http://www.globalpolicy.org/visitctr/about.htm) (another independent group but one with international membership and stature with consultative status at the United Nations) put forth in April, 1999 the connection between Saddam and Syria with regard to their rediscovered level of cooperation.

There is also the matter of the findings of Italian investigators as reported in the LA Times article (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/16/1050172655079.html) and the statements an ex-Iraqi intelligence officer as reported by the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2149499.stm) in April, 2002.

So when I used the term "Daisy Chain" it did not refer to a single source but several diverse sources whereby an inference can reasonably be drawn.

SHL

PS - Ansar al-Islam is not a place but an organization. It's approach to Islam is similar to that of the Taliban.

Points:
1.) The instructional on Sarin in general is irrelevant.

2.) Iraq and Syria cooperating on some things is also irrelevant. They are neighbors. Saddam was entitled to look for allies and economic cooperation at a time when his economy was a shambles. Without proof of cooperation specifically regarding Al Qaeda this is of no value as you could also attempt to imply along similar lines that Canada supports the war in Iraq because we cooperate on so many other things with the US. Clearly that is not the case.

3.) The LA times article clearly states that while people traversed through Syria to get to the Ansar al-Islam compound, it also states that they had no indication that official Syria was aware of this - and they had the phone lines tapped for much of their evidence so it seems unlikely that they would not have discovered such a link. The fact that it was a conduit to the compound in Northern Iraq, or that they use the word Iraq in the article does not imply any official Iraqi connection. After all, the Ansar al-Islam compound was founded in Northern Iraq after the US put it under their control via the no-fly zone. Saddam never had any control over it.

From the article:
Italian investigators say they have no evidence that the Syrian Government was aware of the network or protected it. Still, the activity of the alleged terrorist network raises questions because Damascus has aggressive security services that would likely be aware of extremists operating in the country.

"We are not interested in the politics of it," an Italian law enforcement official said. "The investigation shows that there were several leaders in Syria - that's the bottom line."

Syria has helped the US-led crackdown on al-Qaeda that began after the September 11 attacks. In an unusual act of co-operation with US authorities, Syrian agents in late 2001 arrested and interrogated a Syrian-German suspect accused of recruiting Mohamed Atta and other September 11 hijackers.


If you are assuming that because Al Qaeda managed to get some operatives within Syrian borders that this implies official complicity, then I guess you will have to accept that the US government cooperated with Al Qaeda on the 9-11 attack because they managed to get operatives within US borders. Is that your claim?

ALL security forces tightened up on Al Qaeda post-9/11. Pointing to any laxity in that area beforehand is self serving.

4) I already pointed out the flaw with that single-source statement about supplying WMD to Ansar al-Islam, and gave you the link that showed that the investigation after the US captured the compound didn't bear out the intelligence. Hint: The operative was stuck in a Kurdish prison. How badly do you think he wanted out?

But I suppose you are also going to claim that because somebody stated that there were mobile weapons labs that this is still true as well?


Sorry, but the only reasonable inference to be drawn from your "sources" is that you have nothing of any substance whatsoever.


Oh - and I am very well aware of who Ansar al-Islam is. Sorry that while editing I left the word "at" instead of "of" in that sentence. My understanding should be fairly clear from the preceding sentences.

Anyway - nice little conspiracy theory you have going. Come on back when you can back it up with those pesky little details that we all call.... FACTS!

-Z-

it doesnt matter. chemical weapons were found in Iraq. that means iraq had chemical weapons (even if we did sell them to Saddam). we went into Iraq to make sure Saddam did not sell any of that shit to the terrorists and to stop the mass graves. we have stopped the mass murders and how we are slowly discovering the chemical weapons program Saddam said he destroyed.

If one aged sarin shell is evidence of a functional WMD programme then I'm a unicorn. That's like saying that finding a single piece of a Roman mosaic in England indicates that this was the actual location of Rome. There are quite some possibilities as to the origin of the shell. It could be from a long-forgotten stockpile, it could have been brough in from without, it could indeed have been manufactured in the US and kept in storage after you handed the damned things out to him.

This war was started on the back of the "clear and present danger" posed by Saddam's WMD programmes. There is so far a singular LACK of any evidence for a pogramme of WMD production or purchasing. Admittedly it is possible that they're buried somewhere in Iraq. If that's the case they were hardly an immediate threat, were they? Evidently the Iraqis didn't in any case take the time to either find or deploy them when their country was about to fall, and frankly that's usually the point at which you're most likely to use such systems, is it not? Why, when the chips were down and he knew he was finished, did Saddam not use the weapons? Might be because he didn't have them.

That rusty old crap is more of a danger to farmers ploughing their fields than to the Americans.

This finding of Sarin hints at what else there might be. If there's one artillery shell of Sarin gas, maybe there is a small bunker more of them somewhere in the desert.Or maybe there's nothing else and we went there on a lie. Don't forget, the Bush administration said they were not only certain that the weapons existed, but that they were a imminent threat both to the region and to the US and that we knew where they were stored--obviously that's none of that is the case. The Bush administration has sought to move the goalposts almost since the invasion started so that now a single IED that might have had sarin in it is now justification for this horrid mess. It's crap, plain and simple.

Oh - and I am very well aware of who Ansar al-Islam is. Sorry that while editing I left the word "at" instead of "of" in that sentence. My understanding should be fairly clear from the preceding sentences.

Anyway - nice little conspiracy theory you have going. Come on back when you can back it up with those pesky little details that we all call.... FACTS!

-Z-

**AHEM**

OK, Zep, there is no connection whatsoever. I made it all up just to get your goat.

It is clear that your superior mind is made up. No matter what there could never be any connection. All the players are straight shooters and would never obfuscate their intrigues because they had none. After all they aren't Blair & Bush. They keep fastidious personnel and financial records that are open to audit by you. There are no Syrian members of Ansar al-Islam. Syria had no involvement or even awareness of what went on within their borders. Saddam had no interest in their possibly harrassing the Kurds and Iraq had no links with Syria. "Saddam was entitled to look for allies and economic cooperation at a time when his economy was a shambles." (No UN sanctions apply to him because he is not B & B.)

I even give you your awareness that Ansar al-Islam is not a place (but neither is it a person, try again?)

Seriously, I may be wrong. The difference is, I am open to changing my mind given an exposition of all the facts. (I know, you think I am closed minded on this, save your bandwidth.)

SHL

Oh - and I am very well aware of who Ansar al-Islam is. Sorry that while editing I left the word "at" instead of "of" in that sentence. My understanding should be fairly clear from the preceding sentences.

Anyway - nice little conspiracy theory you have going. Come on back when you can back it up with those pesky little details that we all call.... FACTS!

-Z-

**AHEM**

OK, Zep, there is no connection whatsoever. I made it all up just to get your goat.

It is clear that your superior mind is made up. No matter what there could never be any connection. All the players are straight shooters and would never obfuscate their intrigues because they had none. After all they aren't Blair & Bush. They keep fastidious personnel and financial records that are open to audit by you. There are no Syrian members of Ansar al-Islam. Syria had no involvement or even awareness of what went on within their borders. Saddam had no interest in their possibly harrassing the Kurds and Iraq had no links with Syria. "Saddam was entitled to look for allies and economic cooperation at a time when his economy was a shambles." (No UN sanctions apply to him because he is not B & B.)

I even give you your awareness that Ansar al-Islam is not a place (but neither is it a person, try again?)

Seriously, I may be wrong. The difference is, I am open to changing my mind given an exposition of all the facts. (I know, you think I am closed minded on this, save your bandwidth.)

SHL

Ah yes. When somebody takes the time to dismantle your argument… go with condescension. I’m sure it makes you feel better, but it just diminishes you in the eyes of everybody who reads you little diatribe.

Here’s a thought – if you want to change my mind try coming up with facts.

I stated my disagreement regarding your statements with a rational argument. Don’t ask me to change my mind based on facts not in evidence simply because you like your viewpoint better. I can at least come up with a convincing case for my beliefs.

The best you can come up with at this point seems to be petulant childishness.

Too bad. It might have been an interesting debate.

But I guess a mature response just can’t be expected from everybody.

-Z-

p.s. In the English language “who” is used both as a singular and also a plural expression. As in “who are the Taliban”. And “who are these juvenile idiots I keep running into on the internet.”

Oh - and I am very well aware of who Ansar al-Islam is. Sorry that while editing I left the word "at" instead of "of" in that sentence. My understanding should be fairly clear from the preceding sentences.

Anyway - nice little conspiracy theory you have going. Come on back when you can back it up with those pesky little details that we all call.... FACTS!

-Z-

**AHEM**

OK, Zep, there is no connection whatsoever. I made it all up just to get your goat.

It is clear that your superior mind is made up. No matter what there could never be any connection. All the players are straight shooters and would never obfuscate their intrigues because they had none. After all they aren't Blair & Bush. They keep fastidious personnel and financial records that are open to audit by you. There are no Syrian members of Ansar al-Islam. Syria had no involvement or even awareness of what went on within their borders. Saddam had no interest in their possibly harrassing the Kurds and Iraq had no links with Syria. "Saddam was entitled to look for allies and economic cooperation at a time when his economy was a shambles." (No UN sanctions apply to him because he is not B & B.)

I even give you your awareness that Ansar al-Islam is not a place (but neither is it a person, try again?)

Seriously, I may be wrong. The difference is, I am open to changing my mind given an exposition of all the facts. (I know, you think I am closed minded on this, save your bandwidth.)

SHL

Ah yes. When somebody takes the time to dismantle your argument… go with condescension. I’m sure it makes you feel better, but it just diminishes you in the eyes of everybody who reads you little diatribe.

Here’s a thought – if you want to change my mind try coming up with facts.

I stated my disagreement regarding your statements with a rational argument. Don’t ask me to change my mind based on facts not in evidence simply because you like your viewpoint better. I can at least come up with a convincing case for my beliefs.

The best you can come up with at this point seems to be petulant childishness.

Too bad. It might have been an interesting debate.

But I guess a mature response just can’t be expected from everybody.

-Z-

p.s. In the English language “who” is used both as a singular and also a plural expression. As in “who are the Taliban”. And “who are these juvenile idiots I keep running into on the internet.”

Let's try it again.

Like most things, there appears to be a division of opinion on the liklihood of a ties between SH & al Qaeda. Bush never declared SH had no such ties, the statement was re 9-11 per se. President Clinton was also of the opinion based on (you're not going to like this)FACTS. Here is one such article on the subject http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp I have given sources and comments from a variety of sources not just the CIA or DoD (which were relevant in the thread at the time) but also from Human Rights Watch to the Federation of American Scientists. You have either not bothered to look them over or have dismissed them because they are inconvenient to you beliefs.

I have read your cites and I am aware that there is a variety of opinion. What I have suggested is that there was a spider web of FACTS here that indicate some connection. The extent of that connection no one can say since it was meant to be kept secretive by the parties. The case I have presented is a conclusion of the FACTS that can be reasonably inferred. I am not about to go back and reconstruct this entire conversation again. It is virtually all within this thread with a reference to one other. I have also stated it is my OPINION. Since neither you or I have all the data that is the best that can be expected.

With regard to the semantics issue. It may well be Canadian English has variations from American English as spoken in New York City. Here we refer to an organization as a thing.

I will leave it for others, if they even care, to determine who is "adolescent" or overly emotional in their method of debate. Sarcasm is a legitimate method of highlighting another arguments fallacies. Sufficient to say, the posts speak for themselves.

SHL

I just want to see a camel with an A-bomb strapped around its ass...

it doesnt matter. chemical weapons were found in Iraq. that means iraq had chemical weapons (even if we did sell them to Saddam). we went into Iraq to make sure Saddam did not sell any of that shit to the terrorists and to stop the mass graves. we have stopped the mass murders and how we are slowly discovering the chemical weapons program Saddam said he destroyed.
no, my money is that the shell was smuggle dinto Iraq(possibly a relic of the Shah's US-supported WMD program, trak of Iranian chemical weapons were lost after the islamic revolution-and anyway, think! the Baasists, the onyl ones who would know of any chemical weapons dumbs, are hardly going to use chemcial weapons since it would go in the US' s favour). And as for stopping the mass graves, firtsly it was definately not a US war aim, secondly they dated back to the isnurections sponsored and then abandoned by the US in the early 90s and are therefore directly the US's fault, and thirdly the mass murders havn't stopped-they've been resumed, by the US troops themselves this time 'round.
Oh, and also:
People, you have no idea if the chemicla shell malfunctioned; in fact, it is improbable it did, because even if the troops escaped without casualties (which was never explicitly stated), if they just sped through a small cloud of Sarin gas(such as that created by a single shell) in vehicles, even open ones, their is very little chance of them suffering any real harm.

Yeah, there are a lot of WMD in Iraq. They're called US soldiers. These letal weapons drop cluster bombs on markets and schools, torture prisoners, shoot wedding ceremonies and as a side effect make everyone shudder at the words "human rights".

Edit: go have a look at the Washington Post articles of today, and then dare tell us further about this sarin bomb.

Yeah, there are a lot of WMD in Iraq. They're called US soldiers. These letal weapons drop cluster bombs on markets and schools, torture prisoners, shoot wedding ceremonies and as a side effect make everyone shudder at the words "human rights".

Just as one shouldn't stereotype all Muslims based on the actions of a few, one should also not do the same to the American military. That's a grossly unfair and untrue assumption.