Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq

[gc1765]

it's important to note that most nerve agents that Iraq had did have a long shelf life. as the below link will prove. Used as an IED, where they found it is beyond my guess, but i'm assuming it was manufactured in the 90's left over from the 1 st gulf war.

Chemical wpn found

I followed the link, but I didn't find any reference to a long shelf life, or how the chemical was stored to give it a long self life. The fact that only two people were slightly injured could simply mean that most of the sarin had decomposed, even if the dispersal was "limited".

[Black Dog]

Check out this WaPo article on the subject. Same basic story, but a few interesting details that were omitted from the Fox News version.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) told reporters yesterday that weapons of mass destruction had in fact been found in Iraq, despite acknowledgments by the White House and the insistence of the intelligence community that no such weapons had been discovered.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Santorum said.

The lawmakers pointed to an unclassified summary from a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center regarding 500 chemical munitions shells that had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988.

[GostHacked]

Liberals and the MSM have been running around saying Iraq under Saddam never had WMD's and was never a threat, well thier proven wrong and will go down in history as being on the wrong side of the debate..

But then again, the U.S. Military and the coalotion stopped looking for weapons early last year. So how did they miraculously find these? Walking through the desert, stubbed a toe on the tip of a MWD, and found enough gold to make it worth talking about?

If Liberals and the MSM had their way, Bush would never have removed Saddam from power and in the near future Uday or Qusay would have taken over making Iraq even more dangerous..

OH jeese this again. Well let's se how effective your military will be after one huge Gulf War (which they deserved for invading Kuwait (was that war about oil as well??) Then 10 years of sanctions and two no fly zones. The U.S. was very aware of every move Saddam made.

Liam wrote :

The problem with right-wing nutbags is that there is absolutely nothing anyone can say or show to allow facts to penetrate their skulls. People who follow their government blindly, who do not bother to ask questions, who refuse to seek the truth are a greater threat to the future of their nation than a hundred million people who stand up and demand answers. It's so sad that you simply can't be men (or women) enough to even search within yourself to question whether or not we made the right decision.

And this is a point I have been making to people as well, but in a more simplified version.

The Left - So where are those WMDs that Saddam had? Why are they not founds yet? What is our real goal in Iraq? Why has the insugency been in the 'last throes' for the last 3 years?

The Right - You hate freedom and you are not a patriot.

It feels like The Left is everyone else and the Right is Cartman off South park. We cannot have a good debate, because when The Right cannot answer a question with any sense of conviction then they scream 'Screw you guys I am going home" Hard to win againts that type of mentality.

The lawmakers pointed to an unclassified summary from a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center regarding 500 chemical munitions shells that had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988.

Which also says to me, that they are really talking about the weapons the U.S. gave them back in the 80's Or maybe the U.S. knows how deadly it is due to them knowing how much they sold to Saddam. Or maybe it was just another propaganda peice by the U.S. to scare people into supporting the war.

It could hurt millions, right now, this very second, it could happen to you, right now, this very second. Are you willing to wait for millions to be killed before you take action?? Are you waiting for the SMOKING GUN to come in the form of a MUSHROOM CLOUD? Don't buy into this. Fearmongering is what they do best.

BlubberMiley

Everybody already knew Iraq had WMDs before 1991 because the U.S. sold them to Hussein.

People still seem to forget that important item. And as far as I know, the U.S. never voted on any resolution that condemned the killing/gassing of the Kurds to the North. They did not even think to propose one.

[Army Guy]

BD:

Considered WMD by whom? As I said, many experts in the chemical weapons field bristle at the idea of them being labeled WMD

The UN considers them WMD, NATO, ETC. Your links are alittle misleading, Yes a single chemical bomb and arty shell by it self is not going to kill thousands on an open battlefield, but on the battle field it's rarely used in singles but rather in several dozens, so getting a lethel dose is not a problem regardless of temp, weather, etc. another example would be a fighter a/c equiped with chemical agent sprayers flying at tree top level at over 600 km a hour, one pass would be all thats needed for a lethal dose. You'd be well on the way to dieing before you even figured out what was going on.

Now introduce the same wpn in an city enviroment and Yes a single 500 lb chemical wpn will kill thousands, your link down plays it's effects, considerably, perhaps they should check out research that was done in CFB Suffield, were large tracts of the training area are still out of bounds due to chemical testing in the 50's and 60's. Or ask those vets that are begging for compasation for exposure to chemical agents.

And Yes, soldiers are scared shitless when they are taught about Chemical warfare, for a good reason it's deadly. to the piont they expect 30 to 50 % cas and thats soldiers that have IPE gear(protective clothing) civilian cas are much higher.

Nerve gas.

[Liam]

I think we can debate whether or not chem agents are WMD separately as I think the scope of this thread is really on the announcement by Santorum and Hoekstra.

[Army Guy]

GC1765:

I followed the link, but I didn't find any reference to a long shelf life, or how the chemical was stored to give it a long self life. The fact that only two people were slightly injured could simply mean that most of the sarin had decomposed, even if the dispersal was "limited".

Perhaps this link will answer your question, please note that these are under perfect conditions, but both Sarin and Vx used by the US is from 27 to 100 years, and this was manufactured in the 50's.

My Webpage

The 155mm found was of french orgin, which stores the 2 main chemicals that make up Sarin apart in separate parts in the shell, and is mixed only after it is fired. those 2 that were injured "could have been from any one of a dozen reasons, but they don't get into details, But it did say they were EOD, and they normally pack large amounts of plastic explosives around the DUD to ensure that chemical agent is consumed in the explosion and fireball.

[Shady]

I was just about to post this under the category of "how long before gullible right wingers start flippin' out over this?"

I had the opposite reaction. I was just about to post this under the category of "how long before liberals make more excuses for the Butcher of Baghdad?"

It seems to me that many of you are missing the point. Saddam declared he had no WMD, not that he had no current/reliable WMD. His declaration to the United Nations was false, which was another direct violation of a litany of U.N. resolutions. His violations also include prohibiting U.N. inspectors for a period of four years. Deliberately defying inspections when allowed to inspect. Pursuing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and programs throughout the 90's and defying U.N. sanctions. Also violating the U.N. oil for food program, which greased the palms of nations opposed to Saddam's removal. Not to mention the funding of suicide bombers in Israel, and the firing on of pilots that patrolled the no-fly zones. He was bound by these agreements after he submitted to a cease-fire at the conclusion of his war-for-oil invasion of Kuwait.

Again people, stop making excuses for the Butcher of Baghdad. It's unbecoming.

[Liam]

I never saw anything I or others posted here as an excuse for Saddam. Everything I posted is a criticism of Santorum and Hoekstra... or are you of the mindset that people who think for themselves and criticize shamelss publicity stunts like Santorum's are aiding and abetting (or making excuses for) the enemy?

[Black Dog]

I had the opposite reaction. I was just about to post this under the category of "how long before liberals make more excuses for the Butcher of Baghdad?"

It seems to me that many of you are missing the point. Saddam declared he had no WMD, not that he had no current/reliable WMD. His declaration to the United Nations was false, which was another direct violation of a litany of U.N. resolutions. His violations also include prohibiting U.N. inspectors for a period of four years. Deliberately defying inspections when allowed to inspect. Pursuing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and programs throughout the 90's and defying U.N. sanctions. Also violating the U.N. oil for food program, which greased the palms of nations opposed to Saddam's removal. Not to mention the funding of suicide bombers in Israel, and the firing on of pilots that patrolled the no-fly zones. He was bound by these agreements after he submitted to a cease-fire at the conclusion of his war-for-oil invasion of Kuwait.

Again people, stop making excuses for the Butcher of Baghdad. It's unbecoming.

Ah, the old "question the war=supporting Saddam" claptrap. It was crap three years ago and it still stinks today. No one who opposed the war supported Saddam. As for the legal contortions hinted at above, it always struck me that if the legal arguments for war were so very cut and dried the administration would not have had to resort to the mainpulation and fear-mongering it did to sell the war.

[gc1765]

It seems to me that many of you are missing the point. Saddam declared he had no WMD, not that he had no current/reliable WMD. His declaration to the United Nations was false, which was another direct violation of a litany of U.N. resolutions.

Weapons of Mass Destruction implies that the weapons are capable of causing mass destruction, wouldn't you agree? Expired chemical weapons are not capable of causing mass destruction. He probably did lie when he said he destroyed all of the chemical weapons, I don't think anyone would argue against that. Does that mean we should invade every country whose leader is a liar? Either way those chemical weapons were useless. A better question to ask before invading a country would be "does this person/regime post an immediate threat to national/global security?" If that is the question that must be answered before a war begins, I think many people would say (in hindsight) that saddam was not a threat, at least not to the U.S.

His violations also include prohibiting U.N. inspectors for a period of four years. Deliberately defying inspections when allowed to inspect. Pursuing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and programs throughout the 90's and defying U.N. sanctions. Also violating the U.N. oil for food program, which greased the palms of nations opposed to Saddam's removal. Not to mention the funding of suicide bombers in Israel, and the firing on of pilots that patrolled the no-fly zones. He was bound by these agreements after he submitted to a cease-fire at the conclusion of his war-for-oil invasion of Kuwait.

These are good points, saddam is evil no question and I don't think anyone is trying to defend him. I would have to agree with Black Dog though, why did the bush administration need to make up excuses to invade iraq when they could have been honest about the reasons for invading iraq, whatever those reasons are.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Black Dog,

I would have to agree with Army Guy, and I personally equate chem/bio weapons as WMDs.

Shady,

You'll have to explain the difference between 'none'

and 'none' for us...

Saddam declared he had no WMD, not that he had no current/reliable WMD.

As far as the inspections have proven, it seems Saddam was one of the only ones that told the truth. Ironic, that.

[BHS]

As far as the inspections have proven, it seems Saddam was one of the only ones that told the truth. Ironic, that.

Especially ironic, if you believe the theory that he behaved as he did right up until the end because he actually believed that he had WMD.

[BHS]

Weapons of Mass Destruction implies that the weapons are capable of causing mass destruction, wouldn't you agree? Expired chemical weapons are not capable of causing mass destruction. He probably did lie when he said he destroyed all of the chemical weapons, I don't think anyone would argue against that. Does that mean we should invade every country whose leader is a liar? Either way those chemical weapons were useless. A better question to ask before invading a country would be "does this person/regime post an immediate threat to national/global security?" If that is the question that must be answered before a war begins, I think many people would say (in hindsight) that saddam was not a threat, at least not to the U.S.

And the goalposts get up and move themselves further downfield, resulting in yet another 3rd and ten.

These are good points, saddam is evil no question and I don't think anyone is trying to defend him. I would have to agree with Black Dog though, why did the bush administration need to make up excuses to invade iraq when they could have been honest about the reasons for invading iraq, whatever those reasons are.

And then you accuse the Bushies of making up excuses.

BUSH LIED! about WMD. Well, maybe not, but in his not lying he could of at least been honest. What a rat that guy is.

[August1991]

The question I have is why any terrorist would seek out hard to aquire, unreliable and unstable chemical weapons when good old fashioned explosives have a far superior ability to kill. Remember the Tokyo subway nerve gas attacks? Sarin gas used in ideal conditions (enclosed space, lots of people) caused very few casualties, especially compared to your average suicide bombing. I can see how gas might have a slight psychological edge, but I don't know what other benefit it would offer.

In Beirut, the most devastating terror weapon was car bombs. It makes a simple walk down a street a nerve-wracking experience.

----

As to the WMD debate:

Libya has said it will give up its programmes for developing weapons of mass destruction and allow unconditional inspections.

....

UK officials believe Libya was close to obtaining a nuclear weapons capability before the deal.

Libya says it has now agreed to immediate international monitoring of its facilities.

Tripoli also promised to negotiate a new deal with the United Nation's nuclear agency and provide guarantees on biological weapons.

BBC

Mission accomplished.

[sharkman]

Yes, this is a good thing, but all the MSM can do is whine about it. Well, they better keep it warmed up, they've got almost 2 more years of whining to do.

[gc1765]

Weapons of Mass Destruction implies that the weapons are capable of causing mass destruction, wouldn't you agree? Expired chemical weapons are not capable of causing mass destruction. He probably did lie when he said he destroyed all of the chemical weapons, I don't think anyone would argue against that. Does that mean we should invade every country whose leader is a liar? Either way those chemical weapons were useless. A better question to ask before invading a country would be "does this person/regime post an immediate threat to national/global security?" If that is the question that must be answered before a war begins, I think many people would say (in hindsight) that saddam was not a threat, at least not to the U.S.

And the goalposts get up and move themselves further downfield, resulting in yet another 3rd and ten.

I'll take this comment as meaning you have no actual rebuttal to my arguments, so I guess I have won this argument.

These are good points, saddam is evil no question and I don't think anyone is trying to defend him. I would have to agree with Black Dog though, why did the bush administration need to make up excuses to invade iraq when they could have been honest about the reasons for invading iraq, whatever those reasons are.

And then you accuse the Bushies of making up excuses.

BUSH LIED! about WMD. Well, maybe not, but in his not lying he could of at least been honest. What a rat that guy is.

Bush did lie. I am naive enough to believe that bush actually believed saddam had WMD's (due to intelligence errors), but bush clearly lied when he said saddam had ties to bin laden. bush was told after 9/11 that saddam had nothing to do with it, yet he still went on tv and said that they are linked, a complete lie.

[Army Guy]

GC1765:

Weapons of Mass Destruction implies that the weapons are capable of causing mass destruction, wouldn't you agree? Expired chemical weapons are not capable of causing mass destruction.

I'm still confused as how you came to the conclusion that those Chemical wpns found in Iraq were Expired.

When i've provided more than one link to prove that chemical wpns, be it shells, bombs ,storage containers, are capable of keeping chemical agents in lethal form for 10 to 100 years, as the below link says chemical shells unearthed from WWI, still are very lethal.

My piont is this if sadam has buried any chemical wpns anywhere even today they would still contain lethal chemical agent. Thier storage containers may be degrading but thier contents are still very lethal.

He probably did lie when he said he destroyed all of the chemical weapons, I don't think anyone would argue against that. Does that mean we should invade every country whose leader is a liar? Either way those chemical weapons were useless.

The fact that he did not destroy "all" his chemical wpns is in direct violation of the UN agreement. even for one to go missing would be a huge security issue, Sadam was very parnoid when it came to security, I'm sure he knew exactly where each one of these wpns were, at all times.

Historical experience indicates that chemical warfare agents dispersed in the environment, as through detonation of chemical weapons, lose their unique agent toxic effects essentially completely over a period ranging from minutes to weeks or months, depending on the agents, weather, soil, and other factors. Stable agent breakdown products may remain, however, in generally very low concentrations, which may in turn retain some much lower level of toxic effects associated with their chemistry (as for industrial chemicals, organic solvents, etc.).

Our experience indicates, however, that chemical warfare agents which remain in storage containers or munitions, or which are otherwise retained in bulk quantities, can retain essentially all of their toxic agent properties for many years. Even unexploded munitions recovered from the World War One era are often found to contain chemical warfare materiel that has been but little degraded in its toxic effects by the passage of time. For this reason, recovered suspect chemical warfare munitions and containers must be treated with extreme care, and handled and disposed of only by properly trained authorities.74

My Webpage

A better question to ask before invading a country would be "does this person/regime post an immediate threat to national/global security?" If that is the question that must be answered before a war begins, I think many people would say (in hindsight) that saddam was not a threat, at least not to the U.S.

What is the piont of having a UN resolution if your not going to back it up with force. whats the piont of having any law or rule if it's not going to be backed up with consquences. Was sadam a threat , the historical record will show yes, did he comply with all the UN resolutions, NO...So perhaps you can explain how he was not a threat to the region, to the rest of the world.

Both sides have little evidance that Iraq did or did not have WMD, after the 1 st gulf war, But that does not 100 % confirm that they don't exist, Chemical wpns have been found in Iraq, the question remains how did they get there, these wpns like i said before are strictly controled, you don't just lose one or leave one laying around. how do we explain the sudden appearance of this one used as an IED.

It's a question that needs an answer, just because this wpn did not go off as planed does not mean the next one will not. maybe next time it won't be used in Iraq but perhaps in the west.

[gc1765]

I'm still confused as how you came to the conclusion that those Chemical wpns found in Iraq were Expired.

When i've provided more than one link to prove that chemical wpns, be it shells, bombs ,storage containers, are capable of keeping chemical agents in lethal form for 10 to 100 years, as the below link says chemical shells unearthed from WWI, still are very lethal.

My piont is this if sadam has buried any chemical wpns anywhere even today they would still contain lethal chemical agent. Thier storage containers may be degrading but thier contents are still very lethal.

I followed your links and didn't see anywhere any reference to how the chemical weapons in iraq were stored as to give them a longer shelf-life. Even if the precursors are stored in separate containers, the precursors are just as unstable as the chemical weapons themselves. Your link shows how they were stored in the U.S., not how they were stored in iraq. The U.S. has obviously found a way to store them for long periods of time. As I said before, I would imagine they would keep them cool (frozen) under an inert gas to give them longer shelf-life but that is speculation on my part. If the chemical weapons were stored underground (in iraq) they would not be kept cool enough and would degrade in weeks/months. Since they are believed to have been made pre-1991, it is logical to conclude that they would have degraded. Plus, the defence department seems to agree with me:

"Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions."

and this

"Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."" (I added the bold font)

Link

That is the same link that started this entire thread.

The fact that he did not destroy "all" his chemical wpns is in direct violation of the UN agreement. even for one to go missing would be a huge security issue, Sadam was very parnoid when it came to security, I'm sure he knew exactly where each one of these wpns were, at all times.

You're probably right, I'm not denying that saddam violated the UN agreement by not destroying all his chemical weapons.

Historical experience indicates that chemical warfare agents dispersed in the environment, as through detonation of chemical weapons, lose their unique agent toxic effects essentially completely over a period ranging from minutes to weeks or months, depending on the agents, weather, soil, and other factors. Stable agent breakdown products may remain, however, in generally very low concentrations, which may in turn retain some much lower level of toxic effects associated with their chemistry (as for industrial chemicals, organic solvents, etc.).

Our experience indicates, however, that chemical warfare agents which remain in storage containers or munitions, or which are otherwise retained in bulk quantities, can retain essentially all of their toxic agent properties for many years. Even unexploded munitions recovered from the World War One era are often found to contain chemical warfare materiel that has been but little degraded in its toxic effects by the passage of time. For this reason, recovered suspect chemical warfare munitions and containers must be treated with extreme care, and handled and disposed of only by properly trained authorities.74

My Webpage

Chemicals weapons which have been hydrolyzed are much less toxic than the actual chemical weapons. They are also much less volatile, especially sarin and VX which contain a P-F bond that hydrolyzes. I'm sure if you ingested large amounts you would die, but their low volatility and low toxicity makes them poor chemical weapons.

What is the piont of having a UN resolution if your not going to back it up with force. whats the piont of having any law or rule if it's not going to be backed up with consquences. Was sadam a threat , the historical record will show yes, did he comply with all the UN resolutions, NO...So perhaps you can explain how he was not a threat to the region, to the rest of the world.

Never said he wasn't a threat to the region. He has shown that he is a threat to the middle east (i.e. Iran, Kuwait, his own people...). As far as I know iraq has never attacked america on american soil, and was not planning on it either. So I don't believe he was a threat to the U.S., and especially not a threat here in Canada.

Both sides have little evidance that Iraq did or did not have WMD, after the 1 st gulf war, But that does not 100 % confirm that they don't exist, Chemical wpns have been found in Iraq, the question remains how did they get there, these wpns like i said before are strictly controled, you don't just lose one or leave one laying around. how do we explain the sudden appearance of this one used as an IED.

Once again, expired chemical weapons were found in iraq not chemical weapons. Dont know how they got there, maybe they were stolen, maybe saddam wanted to use them in case of a possible coup who knows...the point is I doubt they would be used in the U.S. or Canada.

[Black Dog]

The fact that he did not destroy "all" his chemical wpns is in direct violation of the UN agreement. even for one to go missing would be a huge security issue, Sadam was very parnoid when it came to security, I'm sure he knew exactly where each one of these wpns were, at all times.

First, according to the WaPo report I cited earlier, these shells were buried before the first Gulf War, so that eliminates a deliberate attempt to conceal them from inspections. Second, I think you assume a degree of competence and knowledge on Saddam's part that is unwarranted. For example, I recall stories of Iraqi scientists creating fake weapons programs to elicit more funding from Saddam's government and exaggerating Iraq's capabilities to Saddam to keep him happy.

[Army Guy]

GC1765:

I followed your links and didn't see anywhere any reference to how the chemical weapons in iraq were stored as to give them a longer shelf-life. Even if the precursors are stored in separate containers, the precursors are just as unstable as the chemical weapons themselves. Your link shows how they were stored in the U.S., not how they were stored in iraq. The U.S. has obviously found a way to store them for long periods of time. As I said before, I would imagine they would keep them cool (frozen) under an inert gas to give them longer shelf-life but that is speculation on my part. If the chemical weapons were stored underground (in iraq) they would not be kept cool enough and would degrade in weeks/months. Since they are believed to have been made pre-1991, it is logical to conclude that they would have degraded. Plus, the defence department seems to agree with me:

There is no special warehouse storage practices, of nerve or mustard gas that will prolong the actual chemical itself. they don't freeze them or keep them cool, in fact in panama the US stored them in the open or just under a wooden structure, and if you can believe this in basements of barracks. Russians store most of thier wpns in old run down wooden sheds.

Proper warehousing would only prevent the corrision of the container, or shell itself, not the contents

Additives that are added to the agents are what is responsable for prolonging the agents life.

I read your link, and it does contridict what i'm saying but read my link below it's from the inspection team reports. Why they are differnet i do not know but they both raise the questions as to WHY?

Until 1995 Iraq denied any production of VX. After enquiries from UNSCOM, Iraq issued a declaration that it had produced only 260 liters of VX.

In the March 1995 Iraqi FFCD and its amendments, it was asserted that the VX program existed only from April 1987 to September 1988, conducted only laboratory-scale production and had been abandoned because of poor agent quality and instability. It is clear, however, that the VX program began at least as early as May 1985 and continued without interruption until December 1990

So which one was it none , or just alittle bit, inspection teams find hard evidence that it was more than alittle bit. how much could be produced in 5 years ?

Iraq has claimed, however, that its VX production program failed owing to the low purity and instability of the agent produced. UNSCOM's view is that Iraq was certainly able to produce VX, and probably produced it in quantity. However, the achieved level of verification of precisely how much VX was produced by Iraq is not satisfactory. Iraq claimed that it lacked the technology for industrial production of VX. However, documentation obtained by UNSCOM reveals that Iraq had in fact obtained sophisticated technology for the production of VX.

Iraq has stated that purity and stabilization problems caused the program to be abandoned in 1990, in favour of the production of Sarin and Cyclosarin. At the beginning of 1989, Iraq had in its possession the necessary quantities of precursors for the large-scale production of V-agents.

UNSCOM has concluded that VX was produced on an industrial scale. Precursor and agent storage and stabilization problems were solved. Furthermore, one of Iraq's documents on this subject, dated 1989, proposes "the creation of strategic storage of the substance (VX - hydrochloride, one step from conversion into VX) so it can be used at any time if needed".

Iraq denies that it weaponized VX. Sampling by UNSCOM of special warheads has thrown significant doubt upon this claim [s/1998/920]. Iraq stated that the VX it did succeed in producing had poor stability. Through sampling, however, UNSCOM said it has found traces of a VX stabilizer, indicating that in all probability the VX produced by Iraq was more stable than they have thus far admitted.

My whole piont of this is to show you that with this stabilsing agent, these munitions could last for many years.

"Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."" (I added the bold font)

And yet there is this report that says after 7 years the mustard agent found was still between 94 and 97% pure. This agent is still very lethal and still capable of inflicting mass cas. So was it degraded yes, but not beyond where it was no longer lethal. Besides if it was just a matter of laying them out in the sun to degrade until they were non lethal, why would the US and russia be spending millions on disposal sites.

A dozen mustard-filled shells were recovered at a former chemical weapons storage facility in the period 1997-1998. The chemical sampling of these munitions in April 1998 revealed that the mustard was still of the highest quality. After seven years, the purity of mustard ranged between 94 per cent and 97 per cent. Iraq still has to account for the missing shells and to provide verifiable evidence of their disposition. In July 1998, Iraq promised to provide clarifications on this matter. To date, only preliminary information has been provided by Iraq on its continuing internal investigation[s/1998/920].

My Webpage

Chemicals weapons which have been hydrolyzed are much less toxic than the actual chemical weapons. They are also much less volatile, especially sarin and VX which contain a P-F bond that hydrolyzes. I'm sure if you ingested large amounts you would die, but their low volatility and low toxicity makes them poor chemical weapons.

True, but these wpns are designed with such things in mind, and in the 90's chemical agent process such as the Iraqis had were able to produce very stable very deadly agents. to the piont when a small drop would lead to death. even after long term storage.

Never said he wasn't a threat to the region. He has shown that he is a threat to the middle east (i.e. Iran, Kuwait, his own people...). As far as I know iraq has never attacked america on american soil, and was not planning on it either. So I don't believe he was a threat to the U.S., and especially not a threat here in Canada.

The US has many interests in the region , one including Israel, the other OIL and it's price, one just has to go to the pump to find out what Iraq could have down to the US. Sadam has also supported terrorist organizations, in the region with funding etc. So he was a indirect threat to US interests.

As for a threat to Canada, i know i thank sadam and the US everytime i fill up my gas tank , but why threaten Canada we are a heaven for terrorists, and other scumbags.

[Army Guy]

BD:

First, according to the WaPo report I cited earlier, these shells were buried before the first Gulf War, so that eliminates a deliberate attempt to conceal them from inspections.

Yes they were buried before, were they still buried there after the inspections is the question, and although they did not deliberatly bury them for the UN inspection teams they wer'nt exactly giving them a road map to there location either.

Inspection teams found all kinds of evidance of Sadam moving his WMD around before and after the coalition air strikes. But that still does not answer the question of "where did this one chemical wpn" come from that was used for an IED. and is there any more...

Second, I think you assume a degree of competence and knowledge on Saddam's part that is unwarranted.

When it come down to his WMD yes, like i said he did take his security very serious and keeping a acurate account of a wpn that could kill him and override all his security measures in a blink of an eye...he may not have been the smartist brick in the building but you don't get to be a dictator of an entire country without some controls.

For example, I recall stories of Iraqi scientists creating fake weapons programs to elicit more funding from Saddam's government and exaggerating Iraq's capabilities to Saddam to keep him happy

[Black Dog]

The US has many interests in the region , one including Israel, the other OIL and it's price, one just has to go to the pump to find out what Iraq could have down to the US. Sadam has also supported terrorist organizations, in the region with funding etc. So he was a indirect threat to US interests.

As for a threat to Canada, i know i thank sadam and the US everytime i fill up my gas tank , but why threaten Canada we are a heaven for terrorists, and other scumbags.

Seen a map lately? From a security standpoint, its difficult to see what Saddam could have done to Israel beyond maybe lobbing more SCUDS their way.

Terrorism? As you say, Saddam suported terrorist groups in the region, but Iraq was never a major global sponsor of terror. Even in the region he was small potatoes (especially compared with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, two werstern allies and major sponsors of terrorist groups, and Iran).

As for oil, it's difficult to see what kind of threat Saddam posed there. As August helpfully points out, he was not a significant supplier of oil to the U.S. What's more, I'd argue that high oil prices aren't necessarily contrary to U.S. economic interests (again, I'm not talking about the interests of those filling up at the pump: they don't really figure in the equation).

Yes they were buried before, were they still buried there after the inspections is the question, and although they did not deliberatly bury them for the UN inspection teams they wer'nt exactly giving them a road map to there location either.

Again, there's the assumption of both awareness on the part of officialdom and competence on the part of leadership. If the shells were stashed without official knowlege (and in the midst of a war, 500 shells isn't much), then there's no reason to assume anyone remembered where these things were.

When it come down to his WMD yes, like i said he did take his security very serious and keeping a acurate account of a wpn that could kill him and override all his security measures in a blink of an eye...he may not have been the smartist brick in the building but you don't get to be a dictator of an entire country without some controls.

Look, Saddam himself (according to sources within the regime) acknowledge dthe WMD cupboard wa sbare just prior to the invasion. If Iraq had viable chemical weapons, why wasn't soem attempt made to us ethem in the 11th hour of the invasion.

ISG report: Iraq CW

[Army Guy]

BD:

Seen a map lately? From a security standpoint, its difficult to see what Saddam could have done to Israel beyond maybe lobbing more SCUDS their way

So what your saying is because they don't share a border, Iraq is no threat. That would answer the question as to Why Israel was on a war footing in both gulf wars. because they thought Sadam and is cronies did not share a border. Of course that was what everyone thought before 9/11.

Terrorism? As you say, Saddam suported terrorist groups in the region, but Iraq was never a major global sponsor of terror. Even in the region he was small potatoes (especially compared with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, two werstern allies and major sponsors of terrorist groups, and Iran).

Bullshit, Sadam did meet with Al quada members, which brings the question to WHY, if he was not interested in doing something...he regularly sponsored PLO terror groups, and has ties with Hamas and other Anti-Israel groups. And had the funds to create havoc anywhere. He may not of been top dog in area but he was a player and a threat.

As for oil, it's difficult to see what kind of threat Saddam posed there. As August helpfully points out, he was not a significant supplier of oil to the U.S. What's more, I'd argue that high oil prices aren't necessarily contrary to U.S. economic interests (again, I'm not talking about the interests of those filling up at the pump: they don't really figure in the equation).

You know as well as i do you don't have to sell directly to the US ,to effect the price, supply etc...And while high prices are good for the oil industry, it sucks for everything else.

Again, there's the assumption of both awareness on the part of officialdom and competence on the part of leadership. If the shells were stashed without official knowlege (and in the midst of a war, 500 shells isn't much), then there's no reason to assume anyone remembered where these things were

These are not simple arty rounds that litter the battle field, they are WMD, these 500 arty shells would be more than capable of killing everything in a city greater than toronto in a few hours. something you don't want your enemy finding and then using again'st you. something that is strictly controled, it's very use is controled by sadam himself. In fact there very presence on a battlefield could escalated into something much bigger. Sadam knew this very well, in fact he had already been told by the british in gulf I that if chemicals were used Britian would use tac nukes. He was crazy but not suicidal.

even Sadam is not that dumb as to bury them, then forgetting were he put them, i don't buy that for one second. Something of this value he would know it's exact location

Look, Saddam himself (according to sources within the regime) acknowledge dthe WMD cupboard wa sbare just prior to the invasion. If Iraq had viable chemical weapons, why wasn't soem attempt made to us ethem in the 11th hour of the invasion.

Even the UN inspection team has said there is evidance that he had capabilites to produce more than what was found, they highly suspected he did produce more ...which included a memo from Sadam not to destroy all his WMD. as for why he did not use them the same reason he did'nt use them the first gulf war. Because he knew that there use would cost him more than he could ever inflict on the coalition forces.

[gc1765]

Additives that are added to the agents are what is responsable for prolonging the agents life.

Yes, I suppose stabilizing agents would prolong the lifetime of chemical weapons, and I assume that is what the U.S. uses. But is there any proof that iraq was using stabilizing agents? I don't remember reading anything about it in any of your links, but perhaps I missed it. Perhaps my sources are wrong, but everything I have read seems to indicate that these chemical weapons have a short shelf-life (same reference as I provided earlier):

Shelf life

Sarin has a relatively short shelf life, and will degrade after a period of several weeks to several months. The shelf life may be greatly shortened by impurities in precursor materials. According to the CIA [1], in 1989 the Iraqis destroyed 40 or more tons of sarin that had decomposed, and that some Iraqi sarin had a shelf life of only a few weeks owing mostly to impure precursors.

Like other nerve agents, Sarin can be chemically deactivated with a strong alkali. Typically an 18 percent aqueous solution of sodium hydroxide is used to destroy Sarin.

Link

I suppose VX probably has a longer shelf-life (correct me if I'm wrong), but I haven't seen any evidence that anyone has found VX in iraq.

I guess my biggest question would be that if these agents were truly deadly, why has the U.S. defence department described them as "unusable" and "degraded"?

I read your link, and it does contridict what i'm saying but read my link below it's from the inspection team reports. Why they are differnet i do not know but they both raise the questions as to WHY?

Until 1995 Iraq denied any production of VX. After enquiries from UNSCOM, Iraq issued a declaration that it had produced only 260 liters of VX.

In the March 1995 Iraqi FFCD and its amendments, it was asserted that the VX program existed only from April 1987 to September 1988, conducted only laboratory-scale production and had been abandoned because of poor agent quality and instability. It is clear, however, that the VX program began at least as early as May 1985 and continued without interruption until December 1990

So which one was it none , or just alittle bit, inspection teams find hard evidence that it was more than alittle bit. how much could be produced in 5 years ?

Iraq has claimed, however, that its VX production program failed owing to the low purity and instability of the agent produced. UNSCOM's view is that Iraq was certainly able to produce VX, and probably produced it in quantity. However, the achieved level of verification of precisely how much VX was produced by Iraq is not satisfactory. Iraq claimed that it lacked the technology for industrial production of VX. However, documentation obtained by UNSCOM reveals that Iraq had in fact obtained sophisticated technology for the production of VX.

Iraq has stated that purity and stabilization problems caused the program to be abandoned in 1990, in favour of the production of Sarin and Cyclosarin. At the beginning of 1989, Iraq had in its possession the necessary quantities of precursors for the large-scale production of V-agents.

UNSCOM has concluded that VX was produced on an industrial scale. Precursor and agent storage and stabilization problems were solved. Furthermore, one of Iraq's documents on this subject, dated 1989, proposes "the creation of strategic storage of the substance (VX - hydrochloride, one step from conversion into VX) so it can be used at any time if needed".

Iraq denies that it weaponized VX. Sampling by UNSCOM of special warheads has thrown significant doubt upon this claim [s/1998/920]. Iraq stated that the VX it did succeed in producing had poor stability. Through sampling, however, UNSCOM said it has found traces of a VX stabilizer, indicating that in all probability the VX produced by Iraq was more stable than they have thus far admitted.

Saddam pursued VX, did he succeed? Who knows? But the topic of the threat is "WMDs found in Iraq". Like I said earlier, I haven't read anything about VX being found in iraq. But I could be wrong, so if I am then please show me there reference where it was found. If VX is a better chemical weapon, and it's stable, how come no one has used it against the U.S. in the past 3-3 1/2 years.

My whole piont of this is to show you that with this stabilsing agent, these munitions could last for many years.

What is the stabilizer they used? How pure was the VX?

"Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."" (I added the bold font)

And yet there is this report that says after 7 years the mustard agent found was still between 94 and 97% pure. This agent is still very lethal and still capable of inflicting mass cas. So was it degraded yes, but not beyond where it was no longer lethal. Besides if it was just a matter of laying them out in the sun to degrade until they were non lethal, why would the US and russia be spending millions on disposal sites.

A dozen mustard-filled shells were recovered at a former chemical weapons storage facility in the period 1997-1998. The chemical sampling of these munitions in April 1998 revealed that the mustard was still of the highest quality. After seven years, the purity of mustard ranged between 94 per cent and 97 per cent. Iraq still has to account for the missing shells and to provide verifiable evidence of their disposition. In July 1998, Iraq promised to provide clarifications on this matter. To date, only preliminary information has been provided by Iraq on its continuing internal investigation[s/1998/920].

My Webpage

Mustard gas is a blistering agent, not a nerve agent. It is incapacitating and causes injuries but is not very lethal. It would be much more effective to kill someone with a machine gun.

"After a failed attempt on the Eastern front, it was first used effectively in World War I by the German army against Canadian soldiers in 1917 and later also against the French – the name Yperite comes from its usage by the German army near the city of Ypres. It took the British over a year to develop their own mustard gas weapon, first using it in September 1918 during the breaking of the Hindenburg Line.

Mustard gas was dispersed as an aerosol in a mixture with other chemicals, giving it a yellow-brown color and a distinctive odor. Mustard gas was lethal in only about 1% of cases. Its effectiveness was as an incapacitating agent: a wounded soldier slows an advancing army much more than a dead one. The countermeasures against the gas were quite ineffective, since a soldier wearing a gas mask was not protected against absorbing it through the skin.

Link

Chemicals weapons which have been hydrolyzed are much less toxic than the actual chemical weapons. They are also much less volatile, especially sarin and VX which contain a P-F bond that hydrolyzes. I'm sure if you ingested large amounts you would die, but their low volatility and low toxicity makes them poor chemical weapons.

True, but these wpns are designed with such things in mind, and in the 90's chemical agent process such as the Iraqis had were able to produce very stable very deadly agents. to the piont when a small drop would lead to death. even after long term storage.

I think I've already covered this argument above.

Never said he wasn't a threat to the region. He has shown that he is a threat to the middle east (i.e. Iran, Kuwait, his own people...). As far as I know iraq has never attacked america on american soil, and was not planning on it either. So I don't believe he was a threat to the U.S., and especially not a threat here in Canada.

The US has many interests in the region , one including Israel, the other OIL and it's price, one just has to go to the pump to find out what Iraq could have down to the US. Sadam has also supported terrorist organizations, in the region with funding etc. So he was a indirect threat to US interests.

As for a threat to Canada, i know i thank sadam and the US everytime i fill up my gas tank , but why threaten Canada we are a heaven for terrorists, and other scumbags.

Are you suggesting that oil is part of the reason the U.S. went to war with iraq? So they could save some $$?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't iraq not allowed to sell it's oil on the world market because of the sanctions? So how would that affect global oil supplies? Also, it's been over 3 years since the invasion, and in that time gas prices have only increased? Either the insurgents are making it hard for the U.S. to get the oil, or there was an obvious mistake there since prices should be going down. Also, will the prices go down enough to justify spending over 200 billion on the war?

[newbie]

Bullshit, Sadam did meet with Al quada members, which brings the question to WHY, if he was not interested in doing something...he regularly sponsored PLO terror groups, and has ties with Hamas and other Anti-Israel groups. And had the funds to create havoc anywhere. He may not of been top dog in area but he was a player and a threat.

Given the terrible intel CIA and others had, which intel are you using to believe this? Why should anyone trust this info after the fact? The 911 commission totally denied any link existed, and any "meetings" Saddam would have had have been exaggerated to the extreme to forge a link and make the administation's case for war. There was no meaningful relationship.