NationStates Jolt Archive

(from wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

In June 2006, the national Ground Intelligence Center, a Department of Defense Entity, released a report detailing the weapons of mass destruction that had been found in Iraq, including pre-1991 sarin gas and mustard agent. The report stated that, "While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal."[8]

The Bush administration commissioned the Iraq Survey Group to determine whether in fact any WMD existed in Iraq. After a year and half of meticulously combing through the country, the administration’s own inspectors reported[9]:

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

I know this is a Wikipedia article, but I found it interesting.

Thoughts?


EDIT: I know the title may be inflammatory, but its there for a reason.

"Found" meaning that "Hey, we found some pre-1991 stuff that the Iraqis lost track of?" stuff?

I'd call it not very important.

"Found" meaning that "Hey, we found some pre-1991 stuff that the Iraqis lost track of?" stuff?

I'd call it not very important.

Yeah, still... Kind of makes you think about what other things they might have "lost track of"

More importantly, why didnt we hear about this DOD report in June? or was i just not into the media during that time?

I think it shows that there were a small number of old, abandoned chemical agents found in Iraq. I'm not sure what a small number is, but the way they were being talked about in 2003, you would have thought that Saddam had the ability to blanket the US in poison gas.

And what's wrong with Wiki articles, by the way?

I think it shows that there were a small number of old, abandoned chemical agents found in Iraq. I'm not sure what a small number is, but the way they were being talked about in 2003, you would have thought that Saddam had the ability to blanket the US in poison gas.

And what's wrong with Wiki articles, by the way?

They can't be used as citations for essays, #1. :(

Yeah, still... Kind of makes you think about what other things they might have "lost track of"

More importantly, why didnt we hear about this DOD report in June? or was i just not into the media during that time?
We did. In fact, we heard about every single old chemical warhead shell that got dug up out of random abandoned buildings, tool sheds, or what-have-you. At least half of them were hyped by Fox News as proof that Saddam had been flouting the UN resolutions.

There's no quote marks around lost track of here. Most of these finds were stuff that didn't go off in the Iran-Iraq war, or that got lost during the 1991 war, IIRC mostly just a few 155mm artillery shells. I don't know if you noticed, but warfare tends to be disruptive. You lose track of things when the tanks roll over your country and military.

I suppose you might find it interesting if it were not very old news to you. As to what exactly else might be lying abandoned about the place, who only knows, although given the post-invasion search for weapons, there's good reason to suspect that nothing too dangerous is lying 'close to hand'.

As the OP no doubt realises, some missing military bits and bobs are not all that relevent to anything that happened prior to the invasion (including the decision to invade itself), however given the disintegration of law and order after the invasion it could pose a mild although rather unlikely threat, nothing for instance on parr with the danger posed by defunct/abandoned USSR military bits and bobs.

We did. In fact, we heard about every single old chemical warhead shell that got dug up out of random abandoned buildings, tool sheds, or what-have-you. At least half of them were hyped by Fox News as proof that Saddam had been flouting the UN resolutions.
Even further, some things that actually turned out not to be illegal weapons were reported as findings of illegal weaponary. At the time I watched a USA news programe (ABC), along with BBC news broadcasts and national news programes produced and broadcast locally (to me). Of the three (counting local news programes as one category) one stated that X had been found, the other two stated that something had been found and preliminary reports indicated that it could be X. Within 24 hours the latter two were stating that the initial suspicions had been found to be incorrect and that the something found was not X. The other news programe (the USA's ABC) never reported that the articals found did not turn out to be what they had stated they were the day before.

There's no quote marks around lost track of here. Most of these finds were stuff that didn't go off in the Iran-Iraq war, or that got lost during the 1991 war, IIRC mostly just a few 155mm artillery shells. I don't know if you noticed, but warfare tends to be disruptive. You lose track of things when the tanks roll over your country and military.
Heck if the USA military's ability to 'lose track' of their property is anything to go by, no war is necessary.

nothing for instance on parr with the danger posed by defunct/abandoned USSR military bits and bobs.

no, of course not, but i just found it interesting because i had often told people that there ought to be some wmds in iraq because of that ussr mention you have there.

the ussr weapons are massively more destructive than anything in iraq, btw...

Well, where were some chemical weapons left, which weren't destroyed yet.

But the UN weapon inspectors knew where they were in advance - in fact, if these weapons "disappeared", this would have been a sign that Saddam wants to use them.

And what's wrong with Wiki articles, by the way?

Due to the anonymous and fluid nature of wikipedia, it is generally an unreliable source especially with respect to political subjects.

"Found" meaning that "Hey, we found some pre-1991 stuff that the Iraqis lost track of?" stuff?

I'd call it not very important.

It is important in the sense that they can be safely disposed of....but thats about it.

We did. In fact, we heard about every single old chemical warhead shell that got dug up out of random abandoned buildings, tool sheds, or what-have-you. At least half of them were hyped by Fox News as proof that Saddam had been flouting the UN resolutions.

There's no quote marks around lost track of here. Most of these finds were stuff that didn't go off in the Iran-Iraq war, or that got lost during the 1991 war, IIRC mostly just a few 155mm artillery shells. I don't know if you noticed, but warfare tends to be disruptive. You lose track of things when the tanks roll over your country and military.

Yeah...the hype was incredible. I mean imagine what would have happened if they actually used one of those shells in anger....more danger to the gun crew than anything else.

Of course the rabid right went spare at the thought of these 'weapons'...even when they showed pictures of the degredated state of the shells they still bleated WMD WMD. Some of those bleating were also ex military who really should have known better.

no, of course not, but i just found it interesting because i had often told people that there ought to be some wmds in iraq because of that ussr mention you have there.
And there was. And the UN (indeed everyone) knew there was pre-1991 WMDs, which is why it had inspectors in Iraq checking and making sure they were being destroyed (the WMDs that is, not the UN inspectors).
And they were doing a pretty damn fine job of it too, considering the total amount found since the US invasion has amounted to a handful of seriously degraded, rusty and unusable missiles/warheads.

The whole argument the Bush Admin put fwd was not that Saddam had some WMDs left over from the 80's, but that he was actively pursueing and creating new WMDs which threatened the entire Western Hemisphere. These claims were made despite the UN inspectors telling them otherwise - their reports were dismissed and rubbished by the Bush Admin yet it's the UN inspectors which have proven to be correct.

Finding a few old unusable missiles in no way comes close to supporting and validating the outrageous lies the Bush Admin and their toady Blair made about Iraq's WMD capabilities.


You're going to have to try again to appease your tortured conscience that the war in Iraq was somehow justifiable.

They can't be used as citations for essays, #1. :(

For good reason.

Due to the anonymous and fluid nature of wikipedia, it is generally and unreliable source especially with respect to political subjects.

Apparently its very nearly as reliable as the encyclopedia brittannica.

Apparently its very nearly as reliable as the encyclopedia brittannica.
For sciency stuff, yes.
For political or current affairs it's debatable.

For sciency stuff, yes.
For political or current affairs it's debatable.

It is not only debatable for these matters it is a debate, without visible argumentation that is.

if nothing else it shows that the UN weapons inspectors were not quite doing the brilliant job they were often credited with, though I am aware they wanted more time.

Yeah, still... Kind of makes you think about what other things they might have "lost track of"

More importantly, why didnt we hear about this DOD report in June? or was i just not into the media during that time?
Cos' likely they were really insignificant in quantity thanks to UN resolutions? Add to that, if they did have WMDs capable of threatening the United States and its allies, they likely would have been lost by now. Plus, I don't think that finding WMD capable of devastating the United States and its allies would be much of a trump card for the Bush Administration - regardless of the fact they were misinformed and naive, or if they deliberately blew things out of proportion for their own profit - cos' it would be too little, too late.

Yeah, still... Kind of makes you think about what other things they might have "lost track of"



Mainly an assload of AK-47's and old artillery shells, much to our detriment.

The report stated that, "While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal

So they're in the same category as toilet duck then. Everything is 'potentially lethal' under the right/wrong circumstances. They might have been hazardous materials, ie, you should probably not drink them or anything, but they certainly were not 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' (unless you take the Domestos advertising campaign "millions of germs will die" far too seriously.)


Another thing worth mentioning is the fact that The U.S. went to war because they claimed Saddam did not account for all of his weapons (that the U.S. helped him to develop) But weapons material regularly goes missing from U.S. arms silos despite all the security precautions the U.S. has in place. So to claim that a few discrepancies in the records of the Iraqi MOD during the inspections process was any justification for the devastating war that followed is extremely dishonest.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.explosives/

http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/2002/09/16/saddam-klingon.jpg

http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/2002/09/16/saddam-klingon.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/mittens.gif

They can't be used as citations for essays, #1. :(
Use Uncyclopedia :)

snowballs in hell?

I know this is a Wikipedia article, but I found it interesting.

Thoughts?


EDIT: I know the title may be inflammatory, but its there for a reason.

did you give YOUR thoughts on this?

i found it mildly interesting. nothing i didnt know already but its good to know that they actually looked into it seriously. it turns out to be much easier to assess wmd potential after the fact when we have full access to anything we need to make the determination. much easier than relying on hussein to tell the truth or to trust the biased intelligence that was cherry picked by the administration.

june 2006 is a little late to say "OOPS".

if nothing else it shows that the UN weapons inspectors were not quite doing the brilliant job they were often credited with, though I am aware they wanted more time.
It shows no such thing. If their job had been to find old, abandoned munitions (as opposed to evidence of an active WMD programe and/or military capacity) you might have a point, but since that wasnt their job, you dont.

They can't be used as citations for essays, #1. :(

Nor can any generalised encyclopedia.

More importantly, why didnt we hear about this DOD report in June? or was i just not into the media during that time?
It was just you.

Old news. Lots of posts have been posted on this. No WMD's as Bush claimed, nor any programs. Have a nice day.

http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/2002/09/16/saddam-klingon.jpg
Do not let false Klingons send us to war.

I know this is a Wikipedia article, but I found it interesting.

Thoughts?


EDIT: I know the title may be inflammatory, but its there for a reason.Does the article mention the fact that the amount of warheads found is very similar to the amount the Iraqi government declared it couldn't find anymore?

Heres a few things it should mention as well......

"The report accuses a former top Pentagon official of running an alternative intelligence operation. "

"Mr Gimble said Douglas Feith's office had not acted illegally but some of its activities had been "inappropriate". "

"Under repeated questioning by Sen Levin, Mr Gimble said the conclusions reached in reports by Mr Feith were not fully supported by the available intelligence.

In particular, his conclusion there was a "mature and symbiotic relationship" between Iraq and al-Qaeda could not be justified on the basis of the available intelligence.

And an alleged meeting between an Iraqi intelligence officer and a leader of the 9/11 attacks, Mohamed Atta, never took place"

"Mr Feith told the inspector general his reports never pretended to be intelligence assessments, the report's executive summary says.

He added that even if they had been, they would have been appropriate because they were authorised by his superior at the Pentagon"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6348049.stm

Of course the maggots will still get away with it, but history will be fairly clear on who was guilty and of what.

I know this is a Wikipedia article, but I found it interesting.

Thoughts?


EDIT: I know the title may be inflammatory, but its there for a reason.

If enough people know about this, Bush will have the first 0% approval rating in history.