More WMD Found

[KrustyKidd]

Iraqi chemical weapons

Polish troops in Iraq recently have discovered "16 or 17" warheads containing sarin or mustard gas, according to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

[idealisttotheend]

Hmm 16 or 17 containing mustard or sarin gas. No age of weapons or anything else. Not exactly definative.

I wonder if I could find the same in Canada, (leftovers from WW II or such).

[Hugo]

I wonder if I could find the same in Canada, (leftovers from WW II or such).

Probably, but then Canada was not bound by several UN resolutions to destroy all such weapons and abandon efforts at development and manufacture as the conditions for a peace signed 12 years previously.

[Black Dog]

Probably, but then Canada was not bound by several UN resolutions to destroy all such weapons and abandon efforts at development and manufacture as the conditions for a peace signed 12 years previously.

Any proof these "warheads" were manufactured since 1991?

[Bryan]

Now that it's over a year into the occupation, there's not much we can say regarding anything we may find. People are coming into Iraq from all over the middle east to fight the Americans, bringing all kinds of things with them. Also, during the Iran/Iraq war thousands of such weapons were fired into the desert. It makes sense that someone would have been able to collect the undetonated ones at some point without anyone knowing about it.

[Hugo]

Any proof these "warheads" were manufactured since 1991?

There doesn't need to be. Their existence now is proof that they were not destroyed after 1991.

[KrustyKidd]

Now that it's over a year into the occupation, there's not much we can say regarding anything we may find. People are coming into Iraq from all over the middle east to fight the Americans, bringing all kinds of things with them. Also, during the Iran/Iraq war thousands of such weapons were fired into the desert. It makes sense that someone would have been able to collect the undetonated ones at some point without anyone knowing about it.

Exactly. These undamaged shells which hit the ground at speeds exceeding the velocity of sound by three to four times would provide ample material for physics studies.

As for packing them in from other countries, yes. None of the neighboring regimes would miss their WMD that they covet so much. They probably hand them out to anybody who asks. Matter of fact, I have a few in the trunk of my car. The shells only weigh about a hundred pounds each so packing them in is easy. Just put them in a duffle bag, wear your CBW suit as you get on the bus and don't drop it whatever you do.

As for somebody collecting the undetonated ones, nobody moved in Iraq without official permission. It is one of the ways Saddam and Rregime kept control. Saddm kept meticulous records of everything from food to fuel to torture. The only shortfalls in his record keeping system it seems are the things that he valued the most - WMD.

[Black Dog]

As for somebody collecting the undetonated ones, nobody moved in Iraq without official permission. It is one of the ways Saddam and Rregime kept control. Saddm kept meticulous records of everything from food to fuel to torture. The only shortfalls in his record keeping system it seems are the things that he valued the most - WMD.

It doesn't seem a trifle odd to you that Saddam would, as supporters of the invasion contend, expend enormours amounts of time, money and effort to build and conceal a comprehensive WMD program, and then not even bother to keep decent records of it? It's possible that these shells (mor ethan likey of pre-gulf War vintage) were concealed and forgotten, or lost in the bureaucratic shuffle (military equipment goes missing all the time).

The point is, everyone knows Iraq had WMD prior to Gulf 1. Most of it was certified destroyed. No doubt there are portions that are missing or undocumented. The real question is: does a handful of 12+ year old shells constitute an "urgent threat"?

[caesar]

. The real question is: does a handful of 12+ year old shells constitute an "urgent threat"?

Probably, only to anyone dumb enough to try to fire them.

The desperate search for WMD goes on. geeesh

[Montgomery Burns]

The real question is: does a handful of 12+ year old shells constitute an "urgent threat"?

Bush never said it was urgent. Where did you get that from? He said that they must act before the threat was imminent, i.e don't wait until thousands of more innocents are killed, before acting.

[caesar]

How soon we forget that which proves false; Bush said that Iraq was an imminent threat to the USA and was capable of striking the USA in 45 minutes, I believe was the figure. That is how he got the okay to attack. Then suddenly it changed to fee the Iraqis. He did that to many. Freed them from the shackles of this world.

The invasion of Iraq was discussed long before 9/11.

Bush was just looking for ANY excuse.

[Black Dog]

The real question is: does a handful of 12+ year old shells constitute an "urgent threat"?

Bush never said it was urgent. Where did you get that from? He said that they must act before the threat was imminent, i.e don't wait until thousands of more innocents are killed, before acting.

"Today the world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq. A dictator who has used weapons of mass destruction on his own people must not be allowed to produce or possess those weapons. We will not permit Saddam Hussein to blackmail and/or terrorize nations which love freedom."

Source: President Bush Speaks to Atlantic Youth Council, CNN (11/20/2002).

"On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . it has developed weapons of mass death."

Source: President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution, White House (10/2/2002).

and he wasn't alone in characterizing Iraq as an immediate threat.

"[N]o terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq."

Source: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Senate Armed Services Committee (9/19/2002).

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

Source: Vice President Speaks at VFW 103rd National Convention, White House (8/26/2002).

All of these statements were, at best, misleading, as they suggested that Iraq posed an urgent threat despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence community had deep divisions and divergent points of view regarding Iraq's WMD capabilities. As Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet noted in February 2004, "Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an 'imminent' threat."

Furthermore, to those who suggest (hope?) that smatterings of finds like the one that is the subject of this thread will some how vindicate pre-war claims of Iraq's WMD threat, the question I have is: if Iraq had WMD and a willingness to use them, why didn't they?

[Hugo]

the question I have is: if Iraq had WMD and a willingness to use them, why didn't they?

This question has been answered so many times on this forum it is not even funny. I don't know which is more ridiculous from you, the fact that you can't remember how many times you've been told this (slow learner, Blackdog?), or the fact that you can't figure it out for yourself.

The USA and Britain have spent a lot of money and resources developing anti-WMD measures for their troops. Most of this stuff was developed during the Cold War and we had to assume that a European battlefield would be irradiated and contaminated because the Soviets made it no secret that they were building all the WMD they could and fully intended to use them.

Because of this, Coalition forces are well-prepared for WMD attacks. Had Saddam used them, it would have slowed their advance, at best. They would not have been stopped and would not have sustained serious casualties.

However, if Saddam was to have fired his WMD at the Coalition, he would have instantly galvanised world opinion against him, proven Bush and Blair right and lost his only hope - that morally bankrupt nations such as France, Germany, Russia and Canada and pacifist US citizens would have put enough pressure on Bush to force him to call it off.

In short, Saddam had everything to lose and little to gain from using any WMD he might have had. A man like Saddam is many bad things, but he isn't a moron.

I shall be sure to bookmark this post, so that when you inevitably ask this question yet again I don't need to type it all out for you.

[Black Dog]

B+ foR effort, Hugo, but a C- analysis.

In short, Saddam had everything to lose and little to gain from using any WMD he might have had. A man like Saddam is many bad things, but he isn't a moron.

.

This is the lynchpin of your argument.

It's also bogus. By the time the invasion was underway, it was obvious to all that it wasn't going to be called off.

Given the disparity between conventional military forces, the outcome was not in doubt: Saddam would have been well aware that his regime was doomed. There would have been no advantage for stashing or removing any WMD stocks (unloess you honestly believe that Saddam was intent on proving his invaders wrong: "Sure I'm facing certain death, my regime is over: but I sure made you look silly over the WMD's! Nyah nyah!")

Therefore, it would be reasonable that any military leader would exploit whatever tactical resopursce at his disposal to either delay the inevitable or at least inflict the maximum amount of casualties on the invading force.

In other words, you've got it backwards: from the moment the first U.S. tank crossed the Iraqi border, Saddam had absolutely nothing to lose.

A far more reasonable explanation is that he didn't use WMD becasue he didn't have the capability.

[Hugo]

It's also bogus. By the time the invasion was underway, it was obvious to all that it wasn't going to be called off.

However, a shadow of a hope is better than no hope at all. Saddam knew that his WMD, while successful against badly-trained and poorly-equipped Iranians, would have very little impact on Coalition troops. Using them would have been pointless. Better to stash them away in the hopes that he could fight a guerilla war later.

[Black Dog]

It's also bogus. By the time the invasion was underway, it was obvious to all that it wasn't going to be called off.

However, a shadow of a hope is better than no hope at all. Saddam knew that his WMD, while successful against badly-trained and poorly-equipped Iranians, would have very little impact on Coalition troops. Using them would have been pointless. Better to stash them away in the hopes that he could fight a guerilla war later.

Ah, yes, but a shadow of a hop eis better than no hope at all: in which case he could have used the WMD in hopes of slowing the coalition advance enough or causing just enough casualties...

Anyway, it's all pointless speculation. I won't beleive Saddam had significant WMD capability until I hear him admit it or see them for myself.

[caesar]

I guess Saddam forgot to tell his buddies (The insurgents) where he stashed them. Very silly of him eh.

Give it up. Nobody, not even Bush, himself; believes that there were any viable weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The USA Congress doesn't believe it. Geeeesh.

[Hugo]

Give it up. Nobody, not even Bush, himself; believes that there were any viable weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The Poles seem to believe it. Proof of the pudding, you might say.

[KrustyKidd]

LOL. What does it matter now? We all did when the decision had to be made. Even the Left Leaders thought there were. At the very least, the legalities of it were in place. The spirit of the UN Resolution which Iraq was to abide by were broken over and over again with Saddam being the one breaking them in WMD, Human Rights, Repatriation of Kuwaitis, Repayment of Debts to Kuwait and more. WMD was a selling point to the American Public and a plus to gain more members for the Coalition, not the reason for the war, legal or moral.

One thing was certain, Saddam went to great lengths to stall, thwart and hamper UN inspections as well as hide his and keep his (at the time as now becomes apparent) unknown level of WMD capability to any degree that he could. This was NOT the spirit or intent of the UN resolutions against him. He was to rid himself and Iraq of every stinking speck of WMD and the capability to manufacture or use same. Delivery systems were still being developed the week prior to the US invasion, what the hell does that tell you?

BTW, Ihave a theory about the alluminum tubes. What did they end up being used for? Irrigation? What are irrigation pipes usually made of? Are they not usually made of galvanized steel or PVC piping?

Anyhow, my theory rests on the fact that he was not alloowed to have material that could be 'dual purpose.' Certain sizes of tubes were not permitted.

Ever eat a pizza in front of the family dog? Stupid animal wants some but knows he will get a TV remote on the head if he tries so he sits at the end of the room .... watching .... wating. You take a bite and then watch the Alien snag another crew member and then turn, he's on his stomach doing a 'below radar' sneak. You turn back to the TV and then back to the pizza, dammed dog is on his belly two stinking feet away figuring you never would notice his slow, stealthy approach.

Aluminum tubes for irrigation are say 31/2 inches this year. Hmmmmm, 41/2 inches next year and the following, suddenly, nobody cares as they are only irrigation pipes ..... the exact diameter needed for a nuclear project. All the time they are the same quantity and lengths.

[caesar]

No, We did not believe that there were any large stores of WMD when the USA wished to invade. Speak for yourself. neither did Former American intelligence agents for Sanity. They warned Bush prior to the invasion that his intelliigence sources were suspect.

As soon as Bush and co started producing fraudulent information and forgeries; anyone with half a brain knew their "evidence" was suspect.

That is why the majority of countries wished to allow the weapons inspectors to carry on. There was NO need to invade.

[Stoker]

Aluminum tubes for irrigation are say 31/2 inches this year. Hmmmmm, 41/2 inches next year and the following, suddenly, nobody cares as they are only irrigation pipes ..... the exact diameter needed for a nuclear project. All the time they are the same quantity and lengths.

I always thought it rather strange as to why the Iraqis need Aluminum tubes for irrigation, when most of the free world uses the much cheaper and durable PVC pipe

[KrustyKidd]

No, We did not believe that there were any large stores of WMD when the USA wished to invade. Speak for yourself. neither did Former American intelligence agents for Sanity. They warned Bush prior to the invasion that his intelliigence sources were suspect.

As soon as Bush and co started producing fraudulent information and forgeries; anyone with half a brain knew their "evidence" was suspect.

That is why the majority of countries wished to allow the weapons inspectors to carry on. There was NO need to invade.

You're playing checkers on a chess board Ceasar. WMD had dick to do with the actual reasons for America taking out Saddam. Terrorism breeds in places where there is dictatorships, theocracies, poverty and so on and forth, not in democracies and countries that are run by the people themselves.

Iraq is situated in the heart of the Middle East. To turn it into a democracy would provide a solid foundation to move freedom outward into all countries. It had oil to ensure it's survival economicly, a fairly educated population and nobody of any worth would miss Saddam. To illustrate that, there is no way this would have worked in Egypt or Iran.

His human rights and resolutions reguarding repatriation of Kuwaitis as well as WMD and delivery systems violations provided the legal basis and not one leader on the planet has called for his reinstatement. Saddam was a thorn in everybody's side and so was probably the most dispensable leader in the entire world.

I mentioned it over and over again that WMD was at best, a sell job to the American publ;ic and world to gain support for an action that had been decided on over two years earlier.

As soon as Bush and co started producing fraudulent information and forgeries; anyone with half a brain knew their "evidence" was suspect.   

And as soon as the focus went from WMD to 'Regime Change' any dolt would have seen what was really going on. I know I did and I'm sure as hell not the sharpest pencil in the box.

As for their being no need to invade, I agree. However, sooneer or later you would have had to invade, Saddam had every intent on holding onto whatever fragments of his WMD programe that he could in order to reconstitute it once inspections had been completed and sanctions lifted. Five or ten years down the road, with WMD in his pocession purchased from other countries as he was attempting, manufactured in Iraq using the bare bones remanents of his programs he would have invaded Kuwait or threatened Jordan, Saudi or whatever kind of mischief a blood thisty dictator would do and point an Al Samoud missile or two at Israel and dare us to boot him out.

Disarmament of WMD, As Colin Powell put it reffering to South Africa and the two months or whatever it took them to totally get rid of theirs under the auspices of the UN "This isn't f***ing brain surgery." What was the hold up Ceasar? Why, after twelve years and threats on the lives of the Inpectors ans well as their families back home, and fourteen resolutions did nothing happen? Nothing that is, until the US poised a hundred some odd thousand troops on their border. Then they were still trying to make conditions in an area where they were to have no conditions other than total dissarmament?

I wonder often that if there truely was a 'majority of countries' who wished the inspection to go on why they didn't bring forth a UN resolution that would provide a cancellation to all the previous ones that authorized force. Are you sure that there really was an official list of countries that actually stood up in the UN to be counted for a vote on a resolution rather than a popularity poll?

Another thought stuck me the other day. 'There was no need to invade.' Every country on the planet save probably Iraq was all for the invasion, it was only the timing that was different. Some said now, some said after further inspections.

[caesar]

krusty; The USA did not have the right or the mandate to invade Iraq. It was against nternational law to invade a country that has not attacked another. The war on terrorism should have been finished.

No one is really concerned about Saddam but how abut some concern for the thousands of Iraqis killed and maimed; the young American and British soldiers who died; not in defense of their homeland; but on Bush's whim.

Then there are the REAL terroists who were allowed to escape and rebuild. The invasion of an Arab/Muslim country without just cause will only lead to young people from those regions in believing that joining the terrorists is the only answer for them. This has happened and North America is NOW in more danger of more terrorist attacks. The USA's continued support and use of their veto to protect the government of Israel when the majority find them in contempt of human rights abuses and aggression. Even now, the World Court has found that the fances built by Israel are illegal; wait and see; The USA will, yet again, come forth with another veto to protect them from removing the illegal barrier.

The Palestinians are entitled to their rights being protected, too. They are NOT all terrorists. The Palestinians are entitled to live in peace, too.

You just don't get it. American courts and Congress ARE now "getting it" Bush was wrong and his actions have made him no better than Saddam.

Torture is NOT acceptable just because Americans are the ones doing the torturing. When they allowed themselves to come down to the level of the barbarians; they lost the world's respect. There are many Americans who do realize this invasion was wrong; their young people died for the lies coming from their leaders.

We expected more from a "civillized" country that we thought the USA represented.

[August1991]

The USA did not have the right or the mandate to invade Iraq. It was against nternational law to invade a country that has not attacked another.

KK made and long and good case above that the war was perfectly justified under UN security council resolutions.

Even now, the World Court has found that the fances built by Israel are illegal; wait and see; The USA will, yet again, come forth with another veto to protect them from removing the illegal barrier.

What in God's name is the World Court getting involved in this question for? (I don't think the US has a veto on World Court decisions.)

Then there are the REAL terroists who were allowed to escape and rebuild. The invasion of an Arab/Muslim country without just cause will only lead to young people from those regions in believing that joining the terrorists is the only answer for them.

You really don't get it, do you.

******

Several years ago, there was a vast movement in the West in favour of nuclear disarmament. Everyone was afraid of a nuclear war. Ever heard that song by Sting? Reagan wanted to install Pershing missiles in Europe and the Left went nuts. Huge anti-American demos in Europe.

Nobody hears much about nuclear disarmament anymore. Why? Because the US won the Cold War. And frankly, I don't care if they won it legally or illegally.

True, those idiots who flew those planes into big buildings pose a different kind of threat. But the US must prevail.

[caesar]

"What in God's name is the World Court getting involved in this question for? (I don't think the US has a veto on World Court decisions.)"

Because it is a world issue, The World Court makes the legal findings / The UN then acts on these decisions. The USA uses their veto continuously to avoid Israel taking responsibility for its illegal actions. Israel is now asking them to use their veto, again. Round and round we go.

"You really don't get it, do you."

I DO get it; you probably do too; you just refuse to acknowledge it.

US experts HAVE, reluctantly acknowledge it, recently.

Terrorism has increased. The terrorist were dinged but most have just been scattered; ready and able to rebuild.