The WMD's May Have Been Found [Archive]

Troll

10th January 2004, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
Well, Troll, how about this as a definition:

A supply of chemical, biological or nuclear agents which is sufficient to cause large amounts of death or suffering. 36 mortar shells which have been buried in the sand for over a decade just doesn't qualify.

Oh? And you've had them launched at you and as such qualify as an expert as to their usefullness?

I can make a chemical weapon in 4 minutes that will wipe out you and any other inbred within a 100 yard radius. But since it's so small a scale it doesn't qualify, does it?

Seriously, do your kind think before they speak or is it just cool to see multiple postings in order to think that makes you correct?

geni

10th January 2004, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by Troll

I can make a chemical weapon in 4 minutes that will wipe out you and any other inbred within a 100 yard radius. But since it's so small a scale it doesn't qualify, does it?

So what I can make a conventional weapion that can do that.

Troll

10th January 2004, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by geni

So what I can make a conventional weapion that can do that.

And? Would you qualify it as a WMD? pay attention here. There's a specific question being ignored by your kind. So answer the damned thing

Troll

10th January 2004, 07:00 PM

so I'll go slow here.

There is a claim as made by someone, not me, that mortar rounds filled with chemical weapons are not wmds because of ewither the size or age of said weapons.

Can they still function as a wmd? What is a wmd? who the hell is defining a wmd? Answer that then we can talk

ssibal

10th January 2004, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

America shouldn't have sold the materials to Iraq, then.

Sorry, there is no such thing as a time machine to go back and change that. Fact is Iraq agreed to destroy their weapons and they broke that agreement as evidenced by their burial of these shells (assuming this story is true). Another violation of resolution 687.

geni

10th January 2004, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by Troll

And? Would you qualify it as a WMD? pay atrention here. There's a specific question bewing ignored by your kind. So answer the damned thing

Well lets see then. The first thing that both sides seem to agree on is that it must be either chemical (and by that I mean poisnes gasses and that kind of thing not high explosives), biological or nuclear. so we can rule out conventional weapons.

My normal defintion is:
Any theromunuclear device (the easy one)
Strategic Biological agents with sufficent killing power and sufficant quantity to kill at ~10000 people in a normal urban enviroment (yes we know that this mean that one seringe contain the small pox virus is a weapon of mass disscrution it is)
Strategic chemical weapons

this does not mean that tactical chemical and biological weapons are accepterble (and I can't really se how you would make an effective taticle biological weapon that was not a strategic weapon as well) mearly that they are not WMD.

crackmonkey

10th January 2004, 07:13 PM

It's amusing how anti-war folks (the ones who have been screaming that there are no chemical weapons) now mock the find of a cache of chem weapons...
A modest find, to be certain, but it proves them wrong nonetheless.
Chemical weapons are WMD by definition. WMD have been found. You were wrong. Deal.

Zero

10th January 2004, 07:14 PM

Let's be realistic for a moment, shall we? We have heard a bunch of reports that turned out to be bogus. We have no idea who buried them, or why. America's military has a hard time keeping track of its own gear, why should be expect perfection from Iraq? And, please, spare me the "any noncompliance is worth invading over." Than's a load of crap. 36 shells lasts them 3 minutes, and then what? Wow, I'm so scared, whatever shall we do here in America, they could have launched those shells 6 WHOLE MILES!!!!!! Yep, that was the big threat.

Troll

10th January 2004, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by geni

Well lets see then. The first thing that both sides seem to agree on is that it must be either chemical (and by that I mean poisnes gasses and that kind of thing not high explosives), biological or nuclear. so we can rule out conventional weapons.

My normal defintion is:
Any theromunuclear device (the easy one)
Strategic Biological agents with sufficent killing power and sufficant quantity to kill at ~10000 people in a normal urban enviroment (yes we know that this mean that one seringe contain the small pox virus is a weapon of mass disscrution it is)
Strategic chemical weapons

this does not mean that tactical chemical and biological weapons are accepterble (and I can't really se how you would make an effective taticle biological weapon that was not a strategic weapon as well) mearly that they are not WMD.

Can you try that in english? Chemical mortars old ones or new, are they a WMD?

geni

10th January 2004, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
It's amusing how anti-war folks (the ones who have been screaming that there are no chemical weapons) now mock the find of a cache of chem weapons...
A modest find, to be certain, but it proves them wrong nonetheless.
Chemical weapons are WMD by definition. WMD have been found. You were wrong. Deal.

Really? The bleach under your sink is a chemical weapon. Kindly turn youself in as posessor of WMD.

Zero

10th January 2004, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
It's amusing how anti-war folks (the ones who have been screaming that there are no chemical weapons) now mock the find of a cache of chem weapons...
A modest find, to be certain, but it proves them wrong nonetheless.
Chemical weapons are WMD by definition. WMD have been found. You were wrong. Deal. Your idea of reality is pathetic...how does your family deal, besides with crack?

Troll

10th January 2004, 07:16 PM

geni

10th January 2004, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by Troll

Can you try that in english? Chemical mortars old ones or new, are they a WMD?

Mortars are tactical not strategic so no.

Zero

10th January 2004, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by Troll

Can you try that in english? Chemical mortars old ones or new, are they a WMD? Probably not, from a certain standpoint...how effective is any chemical after being stored in dirt for a decade or more? Is it even usable? My guess it that it would give you a nasty rash, which doesn't qualify as a WMD in my book.

Zero

10th January 2004, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by Troll

Well hell, you getting ass raped by a neo-nazi doesn't affect me. But would you like me to stop him? Yeah, unless your plan is to blow off my ass while you are doing it, in which case I would take my chances with the pain and humilation.Killing the patient to cure the disease is not exactly the most desirable method, is it?

Some Friggin Guy

10th January 2004, 07:24 PM

I have a standing policy of stopping participation in any debate where my opponant stoops to a personal insult.

My participation here ended with the comment "you and any other inbred within 100 yards".

Edit to get the insult correct.

ssibal

10th January 2004, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by Zero
And, please, spare me the "any noncompliance is worth invading over."

That is the attitude that had prolonged this Iraq mess for the past decade.

Zero

10th January 2004, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by ssibal

That is the attitude that had prolonged this Iraq mess for the past decade. If you say so...I would have been happy if America hadn't supplied Iraq with the weapons in the first place.

ssibal

10th January 2004, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by Zero
If you say so...I would have been happy if America hadn't supplied Iraq with the weapons in the first place.

Hey, maybe if the USSR and all those other European nations had not supplid Iraq with weapons they would not have invaded Kuwait! We cannot change the past. But if you want to blame the U.S. for Iraq's refusal to comply with its agreements might as well blame those other nations for Iraq invading Kuwait.

Zero

10th January 2004, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by ssibal

Hey, maybe if the USSR and all those other European nations had not supplid Iraq with weapons they would not have invaded Kuwait! We cannot change the past. But if you want to blame the U.S. for Iraq's refusal to comply with its agreements might as well blame those other nations for Iraq invading Kuwait. And America...you can't blame the other countries without blaming America...

None of this has anything to do with THIS discussion, though.

Troll

10th January 2004, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by geni

Mortars are tactical not strategic so no.

well me and that damned charcoal lined freaking sweatsuit may disagree with ya, but hey, I'm asking you to make the definitions here.

so you say a mortar round with chemical compounds is not a wmd, so what is? How many people must it be able to affect or kil for you to consider it a wmd?

ssibal

10th January 2004, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Zero
And America...you can't blame the other countries without blaming America...

Sorry, did Iraq use chemical weapons during that invasion? What equipment were they using? Where was it made?

Zero

10th January 2004, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by ssibal

Sorry, did Iraq use chemical weapons during that invasion? What equipment were they using? Where was it made? Don't know, don't care...I don't live in those countries...and it has nothing to do with this thread.

Troll

10th January 2004, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
I have a standing policy of stopping participation in any debate where my opponant stoops to a personal insult.

My participation here ended with the comment "you and any other inbred within 100 yards".

Edit to get the insult correct.

Wel to be honest, at the rate you were going you should have stopped five minutes prior. Because if you think about it, which may not be applicable due to inbreeding, you wouldn't have replied as you did to said post. :p

I'm just kidding really. When I mentioned inbreds I really was just refering to the idiots that think a chemical weapon loses it's ability to be a wmd if it has a smaller range.

You weren't one of those idiots were you?

Troll

10th January 2004, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Don't know, don't care...I don't live in those countries...and it has nothing to do with this thread.

dude, did you read the post you made that begat these questions?

WTF?????????

geni

10th January 2004, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by Troll

well me and that damned charcoal lined freaking sweatsuit may disagree with ya, but hey, I'm asking you to make the definitions here.

so you say a mortar round with chemical compounds is not a wmd, so what is? How many people must it be able to affect or kil for you to consider it a wmd?

Numbers of deaths is not the real issue after all MOAD it not consedered a WMD. If it is strategic then it and chemical or biological then it is a WMD (nuclear is always a WMD)

Zero

10th January 2004, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by Troll

Wel to be honest, at the rate you were going you should have stopped five minutes prior. Because if you think about it, which may not be applicable due to inbreeding, you wouldn't have replied as you did to said post. :p

I'm just kidding really. When I mentioned inbreds I really was just refering to the idiots that think a chemical weapon loses it's ability to be a wmd if it has a smaller range.

You weren't one of those idiots were you? You know, you really might want to rethink your position on that...

A weapon of MASS destruction should actually be able to do massive destruction., don't you think?

Troll

10th January 2004, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Yeah, unless your plan is to blow off my ass while you are doing it, in which case I would take my chances with the pain and humilation.Killing the patient to cure the disease is not exactly the most desirable method, is it?

who is the patient, who is killing them? Be specific as I'm grading here

Troll

10th January 2004, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by Zero
You know, you really might want to rethink your position on that...

A weapon of MASS destruction should actually be able to do massive destruction., don't you think?

so a mortar round, armed with chemicals that can increase the range of damage caused, still doesn't make a wmd?

Are you even thinking through the first part of this, let alone the overall concept?

Troll

10th January 2004, 07:49 PM

Again, I ask, define a WMD. How many people can a weapon kill before you call it such? Just one answer from any of you would be greatly appreciated

Troll

10th January 2004, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by geni

Numbers of deaths is not the real issue after all MOAD it not consedered a WMD. If it is strategic then it and chemical or biological then it is a WMD (nuclear is always a WMD)

define a WMD then.

That's what I've been asking

what makes a WMD. The best so far is that a mortar round with chemical compounds does not make a wmd. Not what I asked. Whjat does make a wmd?

And why can none of you answer that?

Troll

10th January 2004, 07:54 PM

You see how this crap works?

"It's not a WMD if someone thinks it is and as such may supoport that president guy I don't like"

Is this really the best I can get from this site?

geni

10th January 2004, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by Troll
Again, I ask, define a WMD. How many people can a weapon kill before you call it such? Just one answer from any of you would be greatly appreciated

Ok lets say ~10,000 in a normal urban enviroment.

Zero

10th January 2004, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by Troll
Again, I ask, define a WMD. How many people can a weapon kill before you call it such? Just one answer from any of you would be greatly appreciated

Better be alot, and all at once...or else a knife used repeatedly would be a WMD, and so would any firearm. We're certainly talking about more than mortars, since Iraq was actually allowed to legally have missiles.

Here's a question for you: Is tear gas a WMD?

Zero

10th January 2004, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by geni

Ok lets say ~10,000 in a normal urban enviroment. That sounds about right...something that is an order of magnitude or two higher than artillery or anti-tank missiles or the like.

geni

10th January 2004, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by Troll
what makes a WMD. The best so far is that a mortar round with chemical compounds does not make a wmd. Not what I asked. Whjat does make a wmd?

Tatical=not WDM

Strategic=WDM

geni

10th January 2004, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Here's a question for you: Is tear gas a WMD?

The real fun is to had is when you get onto percusor chemicals. I could in theory make a form of nearve gas from things you would find in almost every house (it migh time some time).

Troll

10th January 2004, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by Zero

Better be alot, and all at once...or else a knife used repeatedly would be a WMD, and so would any firearm. We're certainly talking about more than mortars, since Iraq was actually allowed to legally have missiles.

Here's a question for you: Is tear gas a WMD?

Tear gas does not destroy anything. It's a disperser at best. So no, it's not a WMD. But thanks for asking. I actually realize we disagree on more things than we agree upon, but you, Zero, have the balls to communicate and find answers without making them up as you go.

geni

10th January 2004, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by Zero
That sounds about right...something that is an order of magnitude or two higher than artillery or anti-tank missiles or the like.

Need to be careful. Some of the fuel air weapons could do that if you used them in the right place.

ssibal

10th January 2004, 08:03 PM

The semantic argument about what is a WMD is stupid. If the story is true then those were BANNED WEAPONS, does not matter if they could have killed 10 million people or 100 people, Iraq was not supposed to have them now, nor 10 years ago by their own agreement to the terms of the cease fire.

Troll

10th January 2004, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by geni

Tatical=not WDM

Strategic=WDM

Bull.

mortars are tactical. Add chemicals to expand the harm and the nomenclature changes in accordance.

Troll

10th January 2004, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by geni

Need to be careful. Some of the fuel air weapons could do that if you used them in the right place.

FAE's are big convential weapons. Like a really big boom with little to no extra effect added to the damage they can cause from the immediate blast. Just like a single round fired from a single weapon.

Troll

10th January 2004, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by geni

Ok lets say ~10,000 in a normal urban enviroment.

so in your moind a weapon is not a WMD unless it can kill 10,000 people? Is that your final answer?

geni

10th January 2004, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by ssibal
The semantic argument about what is a WMD is stupid. If the story is true then those were BANNED WEAPONS, does not matter if they could have killed 10 million people or 100 people, Iraq was not supposed to have them now, nor 10 years ago by their own agreement to the terms of the cease fire.

And you can put youe hand on your heart and tell me that your country has never posessed banned weapons? And has never broken and international treaty?

Troll

10th January 2004, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by ssibal
The semantic argument about what is a WMD is stupid. If the story is true then those were BANNED WEAPONS, does not matter if they could have killed 10 million people or 100 people, Iraq was not supposed to have them now, nor 10 years ago by their own agreement to the terms of the cease fire.

well that's only true if you follow international law. Some here seem to think other factors mustbe applied

geni

10th January 2004, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by Troll

Bull.

mortars are tactical. Add chemicals to expand the harm and the nomenclature changes in accordance.

Not really. If you built a relly big morter like the germans did in WW2 then it would become stategic.

geni

10th January 2004, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by Troll

FAE's are big convential weapons. Like a really big boom with little to no extra effect added to the damage they can cause from the immediate blast. Just like a single round fired from a single weapon.

Yep. Now imagine one over Tokyo.

Troll

10th January 2004, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by geni

Not really. If you built a relly big morter like the germans did in WW2 then it would become stategic.

Become strategic? Are you reading the words here or just playing some kid's game?

A mortar is a strategic weapon. It is a conventional weapon when typically armed as an HE device. Add chemicals, as I said, and you up the harm and the nomenclature. HE is strategic, chemical is not. Why are you unable to grasp that concept?

geni

10th January 2004, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by Troll

so in your moind a weapon is not a WMD unless it can kill 10,000 people? Is that your final answer?

Nope in my mind if it is strategic it is a WMD but you seem to have a fasination with numbers.

Remember my full statement was ~10,000 in a normal urban enviroment.

Troll

10th January 2004, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by geni

Yep. Now imagine one over Tokyo.

Okay I'm doing what you've apparently been doing throughout this thread and playing imagine the after effect. No radiation, just a big boom that destroyed everything within the boom radius. Your point?

ssibal

10th January 2004, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by geni

And you can put youe hand on your heart and tell me that your country has never posessed banned weapons? And has never broken and international treaty?

They were banned because Iraq agreed to their being banned, not because they were banned per se. This was not just any international treaty, it was the terms of a cease fire. You cannot equate breaking a treaty to not kill whales with breaking the terms of a cease fire.

geni

10th January 2004, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by Troll
A mortar is a strategic weapon.

Sorry a standard mortar armed with a standard HE charge is strategic? I sorry do some of these words have diferent meanings across the atlantic?

mortar= a weapon with a fixed elvation of 45 degrees often carried by infantry

strategic= not battlefield.(think total war bombing enemy cites etc)

Troll

10th January 2004, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by geni

Nope in my mind if it is strategic it is a WMD but you seem to have a fasination with numbers.

Remember my full statement was ~10,000 in a normal urban enviroment.

A freaking rifle is a strategic weapon. Does it kill or maim more than the targeted person? No. So what goes on in your mind is not reality. Conventional weaponry is not a WMD. If said weapon is made to kill or wound or produce or inflict more casualties than the weapon itself can create then it is a WMD. Several hundred pounds of explosives can create the boom of a nuke but create only casualties within the radius of the boom. A nuke creates more and as such can hold the title of wmd. a stick of dynomite is a weapon, as is a grenade. Add to them a chemical or radiological component and they can kill or injure more than the expected blast radius and as such are a wmd.

Hell according to you a good Marine sniper is a wmd as he can jikk mire than one person before being stopped.

geni

10th January 2004, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by ssibal

They were banned because Iraq agreed to their being banned, not because they were banned per se. This was not just any international treaty, it was the terms of a cease fire. You cannot equate breaking a treaty to not kill whales with breaking the terms of a cease fire.

who said anything about killing whales? I find the US's chemical and biological weapons programs intersting (you are aware that some of the new crowd controll measures you country is trying to develope are illeagal under international law? You and most of europe invaded Iraq the first time for ocupying a forign state quite rightly you are now ocupying a forign state....

Troll

10th January 2004, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by geni

Sorry a standard mortar armed with a standard HE charge is strategic? I sorry do some of these words have diferent meanings across the atlantic?

mortar= a weapon with a fixed elvation of 45 degrees often carried by infantry

strategic= not battlefield.(think total war bombing enemy cites etc)

Look, it's okay for you to hate war and such, but for pity's sake think before yoiu try to make a post here and argue a point, will ya?

And a mortar, like most weapons can be adjusted, it does not have a fixed elevation. where the hell are you getting this weak info from?

geni

10th January 2004, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by Troll
A freaking rifle is a strategic weapon.
No it is not. It is tatical.

geni

10th January 2004, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by Troll

And a mortar, like most weapons can be adjusted, it does not have a fixed elevation. where the hell are you getting this weak info from?

So you agree with my defition of stategic good.

The mortar defintion was overkill. What i used is technicaly the correct defition but real world morters rarely (probably never) ferfill this defention. the point is that most morters are small and by any reasonble defition of the word fit in the tatical weapon braket (with exceptions noted previuosly)

ssibal

10th January 2004, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by geni

I find the US's chemical and biological weapons programs intersting (you are aware that some of the new crowd controll measures you country is trying to develope are illeagal under international law?

Such as?

You and most of europe invaded Iraq the first time for ocupying a forign state quite rightly you are now ocupying a forign state....

No, we invaded Iraq because they ANNEXED Kuwait.

geni

10th January 2004, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by ssibal

Such as?
Weapons grade anthrax some of which was manufactured after you sighned the treaty. Your govenemt is planning to start developing battlefied nukes (con't think why its not like you need any more weapons.

No, we invaded Iraq because they ANNEXED Kuwait.

No we invaded Kuwait because it had been invaded (the the Iraqies were ripping babies of of incubators remember)

Troll

10th January 2004, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by geni

So you agree with my defition of stategic good.

The mortar defintion was overkill. What i used is technicaly the correct defition but real world morters rarely (probably never) ferfill this defention. the point is that most morters are small and by any reasonble defition of the word fit in the tatical weapon braket (with exceptions noted previuosly)

No I do not agree with your weak definition. that was made obvious earlier. And you've yet to define a WMD. Why? Because you're afraid the lame answer you give will get beaten down?

A mortar as designed has a limited kill radius. Add chemicals and you can increase that. You can apply that to all other weapons that go boom. Yet for some unkown reason, you want to deny that it applies to mortars and you've yet to degfne a wmd so it's a play as you go thing for you and I'm not freaking buying into the stupidity behind that. I'm sorry but you have to give an answer before you can critique the ones given by others

Hutch

10th January 2004, 10:25 PM

Geni seems to be on the right track when it comes to strategic vs tactical. The common military usage is that tactical is intimately committed to the battlefield and the immediate support elements therein, while strategic is to weaken the enemies' capabilities to continue the fight. For example, Attack Helicopters and A-10 Warthogs are in general tactical weapon systems used to attack battlefield targets and opposing Command Posts/Forward Ammo and/or Logistics bases. The B-2/B-52 type assets, now being supplanted by Cruise Missiles, are used as Strategic Weapons (after all, they do fall under the Strategic Air Command) to attack enemy shipping, airfields, plants, bridges and Rear Command/Logistics. Is there some overlap? Of course, but the terms are well understood in the way geni is using them.

Therefore, a mortar is a tactical weapon as it is designed for battlefield use to damage local enemy units within the battle zone. That a tactical weapon can fire a chemical weapon does not by necessity make it a strategic weapon, IMHO. After all, we called the weapons in Germany "Tactical" Nukes, after all.

I find it interesting troll, that you knock down or question the offered definitions of WMD while not attempting to offer one of your own. You will probably argue that it is the responsibility of Zero and geni to develop one, but I would rebut that in the interest reasonable debate a clear definition of what is being argued would be beneficial, no matter who defines it. I await with curiousity for your definition.

Since I put that out there like that, I guess I should offer one of my own. Off the top of my head (and trust me, there is precious little remaining on top of my head), I would define WMD as "Chemical, Biological, or Nuclear (CBW) weapons that are produced and maintained as either a Strategic Deterrent against attack/invasion or as a first-strike Strategic capability against a opposing power and are designed to produce large numbers of casulities and damage to the opposing nation's infrastructure." Given that the rounds found could not be projected over the border (unless right on the border) and were designed to be used with a weapon of limited range and capability, then no, I don't believe we can call these WMD's. Of course, I await your critique of my definition and your own submission.

The bigger question is, are 3 dozen mortar rounds 10 years old with a "blistering agent" (which is designed to incapacitate but not necessarily kill, if I remember my briefings correctly) worth 500 lives, $87B and the potential for increased terrorist recruiting? To me, the answer is no--but I am willing to be swayed once we find all those liters of Sarin gas mentioned by Sec. Powell and more importantly, the means of producing (and MAINTAINING) such weapons.

Time will tell, and the story is not yet written. Give it 20-30 years. We are impatient. Old man History is not.

Nasarius

10th January 2004, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by Hutch
The bigger question is, are 3 dozen mortar rounds 10 years old with a "blistering agent" (which is designed to incapacitate but not necessarily kill, if I remember my briefings correctly) worth 500 lives, $87B and the potential for increased terrorist recruiting? To me, the answer is no--but I am willing to be swayed once we find all those liters of Sarin gas mentioned by Sec. Powell and more importantly, the means of producing (and MAINTAINING) such weapons.

Apparently, "some [shells] were leaking", which strongly suggests they weren't stored very well and probably weren't even usable.
And don't forget the thousands of Iraqis killed.

corplinx

10th January 2004, 10:52 PM

So, is this the tip of the iceberg or is it the last remnants of an abandoned program?

It seems some of you have made up your minds already. So I invite you all to go on the record if you are so sure.

demon

10th January 2004, 11:04 PM

"I find it interesting troll, that you knock down or question the offered definitions of WMD while not attempting to offer one of your own..."

A WMD is anything that can be launched against Israel.

geni

11th January 2004, 04:04 AM

Originally posted by corplinx
So, is this the tip of the iceberg or is it the last remnants of an abandoned program?

The evidence we have so far supports the idea that it is the last remnants of an abandoned program. However I don't think it is safe to draw that concltion yet.

ceptimus

11th January 2004, 04:27 AM

"Conventional weapons" what the USA possesses and are OK to use.

"Deterents" what the USA possesses and are OK to use if their homeland or allies are invaded or seriously threatened.

"WMDs" what other countries, that the USA wishes to invade, possess. (Actually they don't actually have to possess any - the USA saying that it is so, is good enough.)

Mr Manifesto

11th January 2004, 05:06 AM

My, my, my, what short memories we all have.

The US needed a rationale to go to war with Iraq without UN backing. This is because we don't want to give countries the idea that they can invade and occupy another country just because they feel like it. Imagine China invading Taiwan because Taiwan seems a little threatening in a vague way. Or, how would we all like one of the Arab countries to invade Israel because, well, that Ariel Sharon is a nasty kind of person. Maybe Germany can invade Poland because Poland hasn't proven it won't invade other countries in the near future.

So, what was the rationale? Why, Iraq had an active WMD program. More! It had WMD's ready to go- which it was going to use on other countries! In other words, Iraq was an imminent threat, and the US could not afford to sit on her hands and suffer her civilians to be killed while the UN decided to act.

We choose to meet that threat now where it arises before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities.

Remember that (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html), my amnesiac friends?

We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.
(Snip)
We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail.

Remember that (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html), my memory-challenged friends?

Scott Ritter published a pamphlet before the war saying this was bollocks. Ritter said -and I will go on the record saying I agree with him 100%- that if Iraq has any WMD's, they will be too scattered and too outdated to be a real threat. So far he's right. The only thing that's been found are several dozen blister agent rounds that are over ten years old. Perhaps, as a little project, my five-minute memory friends could look up the shelf-life of WMD's. Hint: Less than ten years.

So what does that leave America with? Well, Saddam was a big nasty and had to be overthrown for those lovable little Iraqis. Well, I have some bad news- it's not up to America to decide who runs what country. If other countries decided they could overthrow whichever leader whenever they wanted, imagine the potential for chaos. The Queen of England isn't elected, is she? What if an overzealous democracy-loving country decided she should be overthrown.

Ah, but we only want to overthrow the bad people, you say. Ariel Sharon is bad. Ask any Arab. Imagine if the Arab nations got together and decided to overthrow him because he's so evil.

No, no, no, you say, we only want to overthrow people who oppress their own people. Well, that's George Bush overthrown. He's the Great Oppressor. Ask anyone in jail.

That's why we don't occupy countries and overthrow their leaders whenever we feel like it, especially without UN backing. But that wasn't good enough for the US cowboys. Maybe it was too smart. Now the precedent has been well and truly set. Already other countries, such as Israel, are grumbling about attacking other countries they think might sorta be a kind of threat in the future. World peace has been set back pretty much to the beginning of the Cold War.

Maybe that's how the PNAC like it, but what about reasonable thinking people?

geni

11th January 2004, 05:33 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
. Perhaps, as a little project, my five-minute memory friends could look up the shelf-life of WMD's. Hint: Less than ten years.

Nulear will last far longer than 10 years (not that Iraq had any).

The shelf life of will depend greatly on the weapon.

Mr Manifesto

11th January 2004, 05:45 AM

It doesn't help that I got mustard gas (the blister agent Iraq is most likely to have, and the most likely chemical in the mortar rounds) mixed up with nerve gas. Nerve gas has a shelf life of about two years. Mustard gas can be a lot longer (no real agreement on just how long that is) if they're made correctly.

So, the jury's still out as to whether these particular weapons could have been effective.

However, the argument still stands- Iraq's WMD program were not a real threat to neighbouring countries, and certainly not a threat to the US, the country who claimed that they had to attack Iraq to protect her shores.

Nasarius

11th January 2004, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by geni

Nulear will last far longer than 10 years (not that Iraq had any).

The shelf life of will depend greatly on the weapon.

Tritium has to be replaced every few years or the power of the fusion bomb will be greatly diminished.

But to get back on topic, I think it's likely that if anyone wanted to use these shells of blister agent, they would have some work to do in making them usable again. Shells that are leaking sound like they would probably explode before leaving the mortar.
That's assuming anyone remembered where they were.

Troll

11th January 2004, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by demon
"I find it interesting troll, that you knock down or question the offered definitions of WMD while not attempting to offer one of your own..."

A WMD is anything that can be launched against Israel.

Yes I question the definitions as they are not consistent with the ones given when all this began. None were being found and people wondered where the Chemical, Biological or Nuclear weapons were. Now chemical weapons don't count if used in a smaller warhead? :confused:

I do apologize for some of the later posts not looking like they made sense. I should have called it a night a good deal sooner than I did. But I had the thoughts in my head even if I didn't have the ability to actually write them out well. But the above is what I was shooting for last night.

Segnosaur

11th January 2004, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Probably not, from a certain standpoint...how effective is any chemical after being stored in dirt for a decade or more? Is it even usable? My guess it that it would give you a nasty rash, which doesn't qualify as a WMD in my book.

Chemical weapons do have a 'shelf life'; however, they do remain very dangerious long after their shelf life has expired.

Occasionally, you'll hear a news report about some people uncovering chemical weapons left over from WW2 or the cold war, that somehow got misplaced, with people becomming ill as a result.

So, while having 10 year old chem weapons fired at you may not be as dangerous as having brand new chem weapons fired at you, I still wouldn't want to be exposed to either.

shanek

11th January 2004, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Troll
Yes I question the definitions as they are not consistent with the ones given when all this began. None were being found and people wondered where the Chemical, Biological or Nuclear weapons were. Now chemical weapons don't count if used in a smaller warhead? :confused:

Are you saying that all chemical weapons, regardless of size, are WMDs? Then pepper spray is a WMD.

crackmonkey

11th January 2004, 10:00 AM

One criteria of a WMD is lethality. Pepper spray isn't designed to be lethal, mustard gas is.
If the WMD designation is giving you conniptions, just substitute 'chemical agent' or some such in its place. Blistering and nerve agents are precisely what we asserted Saddam had, and he denied.
He had them, as it turns out.

Troll

11th January 2004, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Are you saying that all chemical weapons, regardless of size, are WMDs? Then pepper spray is a WMD.

Never considered pepper spray to be a chemical weapon. It's more of a spice that has a dual purpose.

But let's call it a chemical weapon. Now you tell me of it's destructive nature. Not it's irritating nature, but destructive nature. See that's the d in wmd. So no I don't consider something like pepper spray to be a chemical weapon. I'm also not to familiar with anyone considering pepper spray a chemical weapon

Do you see the UN banning tear gas or pepper spray as a chemical weapon? I really expected better from you but you seem to be off your game lately.

If you'd like to know what I consider a chemical weapon feel free to check the following link.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/cw/agent.htm#b03

geni

11th January 2004, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by Troll
Do you see the UN banning tear gas or pepper spray as a chemical weapon?

They are banned on the battle field. The reason is that there is concern that their use might lead to an an escerlation

Bjorn

11th January 2004, 10:50 AM

Associated Press is writing:

The 120mm mortar shells are thought to be left over from the eight-year war between Iraq and neighboring Iran, which ended in 1988, U.S. Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said Saturday. The shells were wrapped in plastic but had been damaged, and they appeared to have been buried for at least 10 years, the statement said. After the first Gulf War in 1991, a U.N. resolution called for the destruction of all Iraqi nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, as well as missiles with a range of more than 93 miles. The resolution set up a U.N. inspections commission to oversee the process.WMDs or not, was this really what we went to war for? :confused:

Troll

11th January 2004, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Bjorn
Associated Press is writing:

WMDs or not, was this really what we went to war for? :confused:

for those particular ones? Doubtful. We knew he had the stuff. We wanted to remove the stuff and him. This is but one find so far. It does, however prove that he has the stuff, doesn't it? And was that not the claim made?

crackmonkey

11th January 2004, 11:37 AM

Weapons like this - chemical weapons which Saddam lied about and said he didn't have - are why we went to war, yes.

I expect some serious goalpost-moving by the 'no chem weapons in Iraq' crowd...

Troll

11th January 2004, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Weapons like this - chemical weapons which Saddam lied about and said he didn't have - are why we went to war, yes.

I expect some serious goalpost-moving by the 'no chem weapons in Iraq' crowd...

dude, they've moved them so many times now that there's not enough hard ground to even play the game on. The entire field is a big, dug up mess.

geni

11th January 2004, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Troll

dude, they've moved them so many times now that there's not enough hard ground to even play the game on. The entire field is a big, dug up mess.

when you have two teams playing in the goal post moving championships this is what you should expect.

Troll

11th January 2004, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by geni

when you have two teams playing in the goal post moving championships this is what you should expect.

I agree. But we only have one side playing that game. The claim from the other side was that he has the stuff. And lo and behold, he did. Goal posts on this end are still standing where they began.

geni

11th January 2004, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by Troll

I agree. But we only have one side playing that game. The claim from the other side was that he has the stuff. And lo and behold, he did. Goal posts on this end are still standing where they began.

Lets see

One side said he WMD. The other said where are they.
Some low grade tactical chemical weapons have been found. the first side claims that these are WMD.

The 15 minute scondle clearly showed that there was a difference between battlefied chemical weapons and WMD.

ssibal

11th January 2004, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by geni

Weapons grade anthrax some of which was manufactured after you sighned the treaty. Your govenemt is planning to start developing battlefied nukes (con't think why its not like you need any more weapons.

These are the new crowd control measures???? Got a source on the anthrax? As for battlefield nuclear weapons, I see nothing wrong with that.

No we invaded Kuwait because it had been invaded (the the Iraqies were ripping babies of of incubators remember)

Iraq invaded and annexed Kuwait. If you are implying that our invasion of Iraq is the same thing as theirs of Kuwait then you are simply being ridiculous.

Troll

11th January 2004, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by geni

Lets see

One side said he WMD. The other said where are they.
Some low grade tactical chemical weapons have been found. the first side claims that these are WMD.

The 15 minute scondle clearly showed that there was a difference between battlefied chemical weapons and WMD.

"low grade tactical chemical weapons", is that a get out of jail free card you're trying to play? So now it's about the quality of the chemical weapons? So would a low yield tactical nuke not be a nuke or a wmd? Gee, and you wonder about the movement of the goal posts and who is doing the moving?

geni

11th January 2004, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Troll

"low grade tactical chemical weapons", is that a get out of jail free card you're trying to play? So now it's about the quality of the chemical weapons? So would a low yield tactical nuke not be a nuke or a wmd? Gee, and you wonder about the movement of the goal posts and who is doing the moving?

Nope the key word it tactical. In my view "tactical nuke" is an oxymoron.

Troll

11th January 2004, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by geni

Nope the key word it tactical. In my view "tactical nuke" is an oxymoron.

Yeah well the question is, in your view is a tactical nuke still a wmd like a regular nuke of say more than 100 kilotons? Or can a smaller 20kiloton nuke qualify or does a nuke have to be in the megaton range. Or is a nuke a nuke and as such a wmd but you still contend that smaller amounts of chemical weapons will change the tune you sing. How much vx gas is required to be a wmd? I have to ask since you are applying qualifying factors and I need to know what those factors are to get a better understanding. I mean you must have some sort of amount in mind as you surely wouldn't be posting in a manner that merely allowed you to change your mind repeatedly to suit your claims when the information coming in may eventually include your previously stated qualifying facotrs, right?

Bjorn

11th January 2004, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by Troll
It does, however prove that he has the stuff, doesn't it? And was that not the claim made? Shouldn't that be had the stuff (if this is considered to be 'the stuff') back in 1988 or so? :confused:

geni

11th January 2004, 12:22 PM

I am yet to encounter a nuke that I would not consider strategic (some of the bunker busting nukes that the US seems to be considering developing might be tatical but that is another debate) for all intants and perposes all nukes are WMD.

For biological it depends on what is being used. In the case of small pox enough to infect a couple of people would be enough. For most of the other the stuff would have to be in a weaponised form exist in reasonble amounts (an enverlope full of anthrax in not a WMD enough anthrax to fill the tank on a crop spraying plane is)

For chemical agents it depend on the chemical the delivery system (if there is one) and the amount. The blitering agent found here it not a WMD unless you have it in very large quantites. Some of the more powerful nerve agents are WMD in even quite small amounts (fill a scud with VX nerve agent that is a WMD no question).

I think it is important to point out that I do not hold the view that Iraq did not have WMD. I reserve judgment on that for the time being.

Troll

11th January 2004, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Bjorn
Shouldn't that be had the stuff (if this is considered to be 'the stuff') back in 1988 or so? :confused:

Actually it should be considered as him having had them as right now he's got squat but a little space in a cell.;)

Troll

11th January 2004, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by geni
I am yet to encounter a nuke that I would not consider strategic (some of the bunker busting nukes that the US seems to be considering developing might be tatical but that is another debate) for all intants and perposes all nukes are WMD.

For biological it depends on what is being used. In the case of small pox enough to infect a couple of people would be enough. For most of the other the stuff would have to be in a weaponised form exist in reasonble amounts (an enverlope full of anthrax in not a WMD enough anthrax to fill the tank on a crop spraying plane is)

For chemical agents it depend on the chemical the delivery system (if there is one) and the amount. The blitering agent found here it not a WMD unless you have it in very large quantites. Some of the more powerful nerve agents are WMD in even quite small amounts (fill a scud with VX nerve agent that is a WMD no question).

I think it is important to point out that I do not hold the view that Iraq did not have WMD. I reserve judgment on that for the time being.

But an envelope of mustard gas can not create the area of damage that a mortar round can. so while I may agree with you on the delivery amount or capability of an envelope, it's not like we found a bunch of as yet to be sent mail. Nope, we found devices that explode and have a higher radius of deployment.

So again, I ask you, how big of a deployment is needed to qualify as a wmd to you? This is why I asked about nukes as you seem to feel that area or amount of damage capability is a key factor. So if a mortar round with chemical weapons is not enough, is an artillery shell? If not then what level of weapon makes a chemical weapon a wmd? simple question. No tricks up my sleeve. The only thing to fear here is that your answer may screw you over if something larger is found and you have previously qulaified such a weapon to be a wmd

geni

11th January 2004, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by Troll

If not then what level of weapon makes a chemical weapon a wmd? simple question. No tricks up my sleeve. The only thing to fear here is that your answer may screw you over if something larger is found and you have previously qulaified such a weapon to be a wmd

And once again the answer is strategic weaponry. Strategic is an accepted militery defintion why do you have such a problem with this?

Troll

11th January 2004, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by geni

And once again the answer is strategic weaponry. Strategic is an accepted militery defintion why do you have such a problem with this?

I don't have an issue with it. But you've yet to offer what you consider to be "strategic weaponry" So until you do offer that answer you cannot claim an enevelope of anthrax or a tactical nuke or anything in between to be a wmd as you've not shown the grounds for your reasoning.

Give me a range and an area of effect.

geni

11th January 2004, 12:59 PM

Strategic=Intended to destroy the military potential of an enemy

Substute material for military and you have WMDs

Range for WMD: anything down to 0 (a suitcase nuke is a WMD)

Area of effect not: posible to give a meaningfull ansewer. I mean what would you say the area of effect of injecting 50 people with small pox would be?

Zero

11th January 2004, 01:02 PM

There is obviously a lower limit to what ytou would call a WMD, right Troll? I'm seriously asking here.

crackmonkey

11th January 2004, 01:40 PM

So - using geni et al's pet definition of WMD, if a chemical or biological weapons factory was found it couldn't be classified as evidence of WMD unless it was determined that they were to be loaded into containers over a certain volume?
Nerve gas or biological agents alone don't comprise aren't the issue in your world, merely the size of the shells they're loaded into?
How utterly absurd.

Zero

11th January 2004, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
So - using geni et al's pet definition of WMD, if a chemical or biological weapons factory was found it couldn't be classified as evidence of WMD unless it was determined that they were to be loaded into containers over a certain volume?
Nerve gas or biological agents alone don't comprise aren't the issue in your world, merely the size of the shells they're loaded into?
How utterly absurd. The amount of agent does matter...unless you claim that a hypodermic needle full of poison is the same as a warhead, and a single warhead with no delivery system is the same as a warehouse full of warheads attached to missles.

crackmonkey

11th January 2004, 02:14 PM

In your hypothetical cases, I'd say that the needle contained poison yet not as much as a poison-filled warhead, and your warhead was a warhead without a delivery system... just as a small amount of WMD is not as dangerous as a large amount of WMD. This is trivially obvious...
No one said that a small amount of chemical weapons was the same as a large amount - I don't think anyone on my side of this discussion made any kind of equivalence whatsoever.
You seem to be agreeing with my observation that those who agree with your definition of WMD couldn't classify a chem weapons factory as being a WMD factory unless they found the shells the chemicals were to be loaded into. Do you really believe this absurdity? More to the point, do you really think that is the definition of WMD the US and the UN went by? You really believe that if the weapons inspectors found thousands of shells filled with nerve agent they would be acceptable as long as they were under a given volume?

Zero

11th January 2004, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
In your hypothetical cases, I'd say that the needle contained poison yet not as much as a poison-filled warhead, and your warhead was a warhead without a delivery system... just as a small amount of WMD is not as dangerous as a large amount of WMD. This is trivially obvious...
No one said that a small amount of chemical weapons was the same as a large amount - I don't think anyone on my side of this discussion made any kind of equivalence whatsoever.
You seem to be agreeing with my observation that those who agree with your definition of WMD couldn't classify a chem weapons factory as being a WMD factory unless they found the shells the chemicals were to be loaded into. Do you really believe this absurdity? More to the point, do you really think that is the definition of WMD the US and the UN went by? You really believe that if the weapons inspectors found thousands of shells filled with nerve agent they would be acceptable as long as they were under a given volume?

Do you understand what the words 'mass' and 'destruction' mean? Maybe when you do, what I posted will make sense to you.

Troll

11th January 2004, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by geni
Strategic=Intended to destroy the military potential of an enemy

Substute material for military and you have WMDs

Range for WMD: anything down to 0 (a suitcase nuke is a WMD)

Area of effect not: posible to give a meaningfull ansewer. I mean what would you say the area of effect of injecting 50 people with small pox would be?

You just described an automatic rifle. Good. All armed Iraqis had wmds according to your description

Troll

11th January 2004, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by Zero
There is obviously a lower limit to what ytou would call a WMD, right Troll? I'm seriously asking here.

Yeah. the pepper spray some claim is a wmd I would disagree with. But then, if they feel that it is, then they can't rightfully be making claims to the contrary about what was found in Iraq, huh?

geni

11th January 2004, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Troll

You just described an automatic rifle. Good. All armed Iraqis had wmds according to your description

Show how an automat rifle fits those descriptions

geni

11th January 2004, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
So - using geni et al's pet definition of WMD, if a chemical or biological weapons factory was found it couldn't be classified as evidence of WMD unless it was determined that they were to be loaded into containers over a certain volume?
Nerve gas or biological agents alone don't comprise aren't the issue in your world, merely the size of the shells they're loaded into?
How utterly absurd.

You are now talking about the capcity to produce WMD. If such a factory existed then Iraq would have had the caperbility to produce WMD and I find it hard to belive it would not have used it.

Troll

11th January 2004, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by geni

Show how an automat rifle fits those descriptions

"Intended to destroy the military potential of an enemy." An automatic rifle does that. You kill the people, you kill the military potential

"Range for WMD: anything down to 0" range for an automatic rifle, varies from 0 and up.

Any other easy questions like this?

Troll

11th January 2004, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by Zero

Do you understand what the words 'mass' and 'destruction' mean? Maybe when you do, what I posted will make sense to you.

Define mass. All weapons can create destruction. Adding certain chemicals can expand the mass or number of deaths or injuries a weapon is capable of.

Zero

11th January 2004, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by Troll

Yeah. the pepper spray some claim is a wmd I would disagree with. But then, if they feel that it is, then they can't rightfully be making claims to the contrary about what was found in Iraq, huh? Huh?? What sort of strawman is this?

Zero

11th January 2004, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Troll

Define mass. All weapons can create destruction. Adding certain chemicals can expand the mass or number of deaths or injuries a weapon is capable of. Really? A sharpened spoon handle can cause destruction? Dip it in cow poo and it becomes a WMD?

Troll

11th January 2004, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Huh?? What sort of strawman is this?

It's no strawman on my part.

If pepper spray is going to be considered a chemical weapon, then we cannot deny a true chemical weapon has been found, can we?

geni

11th January 2004, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by Troll

"Intended to destroy the military potential of an enemy." An automatic rifle does that. You kill the people, you kill the military potential

Define the difference between potential and actuality.

You must understand the difference between planes disigned to bomb cities and planes desighned for battlefied use. Why do you find it so difficult to extend this to chemical and biological weapons.

Zero

11th January 2004, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Troll

It's no strawman on my part.

If pepper spray is going to be considered a chemical weapon, then we cannot deny a true chemical weapon has been found, can we? I'm trying to figure out what pepper spray has to do with a WMD...and not every chemical weapon can be considered a WMD, so I don't see the inconsistancy...

geni

11th January 2004, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by Troll
If pepper spray is going to be considered a chemical weapon, then we cannot deny a true chemical weapon has been found, can we?

No one is denying that a chemical weapon has been found (assing the reports are correct).

Troll

11th January 2004, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Really? A sharpened spoon handle can cause destruction? Dip it in cow poo and it becomes a WMD?

No, dip it in cow poo and it only increases the effect it may have on the single target in can affect at a time. Load mustard gas into a mortar and you expand the number of people that can be killed or injured by the weapon.

Is this a difficult concept to grasp for you? I mean the whole expanding the kill capacity of a weapon and all. See most mortars kill or wound only in the radius of the blast or the boom of the weapon. Add mustard gas and you can kill or wound people within that range and even further with a slight breeze.

Now is mustard gas a wmd? Is Sarin or VX? Or are they only considered to be so by you if the weapon they are attacjed to has a big radius to begin with?

Troll

11th January 2004, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by geni

No one is denying that a chemical weapon has been found (assing the reports are correct).

Yes a chemical weapon has been found, but some claim it's not a wmd and is nothing more than pepper spray. The chemical weapon found is classified as a wmd. And that last part is what you and others are denying.

Zero

11th January 2004, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Troll

Yes a chemical weapon has been found, but some claim it's not a wmd and is nothing more than pepper spray. The chemical weapon found is classified as a wmd. And that last part is what you and others are denying. I don't see how any caustic chemical in any amount qualifies. Since a can of pepper spray doesn't count, according to you, then the amount DOES matter, not just the presence of any chemical.

geni

11th January 2004, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Troll
Load mustard gas into a mortar and you expand the number of people that can be killed or injured by the weapon.

Load a mortar shell with TNT (or whatever high explosive they use now) and you will kill a lot more people than you will with gunpowder. There is nothing special about a chemical weapons ability to kill more people.

Zero

11th January 2004, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Troll

No, dip it in cow poo and it only increases the effect it may have on the single target in can affect at a time. Load mustard gas into a mortar and you expand the number of people that can be killed or injured by the weapon.

Is this a difficult concept to grasp for you? I mean the whole expanding the kill capacity of a weapon and all. See most mortars kill or wound only in the radius of the blast or the boom of the weapon. Add mustard gas and you can kill or wound people within that range and even further with a slight breeze.

Now is mustard gas a wmd? Is Sarin or VX? Or are they only considered to be so by you if the weapon they are attacjed to has a big radius to begin with? If it can kill or would in a LARGE area, it counts. If it is only going to affect people in a football field sized area, it doesn't count(IMO).

Zero

11th January 2004, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by geni

Load a mortar shell with TNT (or whatever high explosive they use now) and you will kill a lot more people than you will with gunpowder. There is nothing special about a chemical weapons ability to kill more people. And since Iraq was legally allowed to have high explosive warheads for their mortars, I don't see how a blister agent is somehow worse, since it kills less people.

Troll

11th January 2004, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Zero
I don't see how any caustic chemical in any amount qualifies. Since a can of pepper spray doesn't count, according to you, then the amount DOES matter, not just the presence of any chemical.

Well if you wish to play the sematic game we can find a hair salon and say we found chemical weapons. But I prefer to use this site as a basis for what constitutes a chemical weapon

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/cw/agent.htm#b03

RussDill

11th January 2004, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Let's be realistic for a moment, shall we? We have heard a bunch of reports that turned out to be bogus. We have no idea who buried them, or why. America's military has a hard time keeping track of its own gear, why should be expect perfection from Iraq? And, please, spare me the "any noncompliance is worth invading over." Than's a load of crap. 36 shells lasts them 3 minutes, and then what? Wow, I'm so scared, whatever shall we do here in America, they could have launched those shells 6 WHOLE MILES!!!!!! Yep, that was the big threat.

Iraq is a pretty big place, its likely that munitions are buried all over the place, and some probably won't be found for hundreds of years. If they are all buried, then Iraq did not pose a threat for WMD. However, under UN agreements, they were required to point inspectors to these burial sites. If they would have done this, Saddam and his sons probably could have still been in power today. Why didn't they do that? Probably because they wanted to stand up to the western world, be their own independant nation, don't take crap from anybody, etc.

Zero

11th January 2004, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by Troll

Well if you wish to play the sematic game we can find a hair salon and say we found chemical weapons. But I prefer to use this site as a basis for what constitutes a chemical weapon

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/cw/agent.htm#b03 Again, 'chemical weapon' and 'weapon of mass destruction' are not the same thing.

Zero

11th January 2004, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by RussDill

Iraq is a pretty big place, its likely that munitions are buried all over the place, and some probably won't be found for hundreds of years. If they are all buried, then Iraq did not pose a threat for WMD. However, under UN agreements, they were required to point inspectors to these burial sites. If they would have done this, Saddam and his sons probably could have still been in power today. Why didn't they do that? Probably because they wanted to stand up to the western world, be their own independant nation, don't take crap from anybody, etc. And, of course, maybe they really didn't know where they were all buried. It happens all the time in America, so why hold Iraq to a higher standard?

Troll

11th January 2004, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by geni

Load a mortar shell with TNT (or whatever high explosive they use now) and you will kill a lot more people than you will with gunpowder. There is nothing special about a chemical weapons ability to kill more people.

But you have not expanded the weapon's capability to kill or maim by simply loading it with it's normal capacity of explosive. again your definition can be applied to a rifle. By your standards a 5.56 mm weapon is just a weapon that shoots a bullet. Make it an automatic and it becomes a weapon of mass destruction. Use an M-60 which is an automatic 7.63 mm weapon and you're using a weapon of mass destruction.

that's all based upon your previous postings.

Now you say there's nothing special about the weapon if it uses chemical components, like it doesn't add to the kill or injury factor, but shrapnel only travels so far, a breeze can carry a chemical agent for an undetermined distance, thus expanding the radius.

Troll

11th January 2004, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by Zero
And, of course, maybe they really didn't know where they were all buried. It happens all the time in America, so why hold Iraq to a higher standard?

It does? When was the last time we buried anything that could not be found, outside of Hoffa but then that was done my criminals.:p

Zero

11th January 2004, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by Troll

*snip* a breeze can carry a chemical agent for an undetermined distance, thus expanding the radius. And decreases its effectiveness by a huge factor. Chemicals disperse, you know.

Zero

11th January 2004, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Troll

It does? When was the last time we buried anything that could not be found, outside of Hoffa but then that was done my criminals.:p We do lose stuff all the time, in warehouses and stuff. Wouldn't it be EASIER to lose something buried 10 years ago in a hole, than something in a warehouse?

Troll

11th January 2004, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Again, 'chemical weapon' and 'weapon of mass destruction' are not the same thing.

Don't just tell me that and expect me to buy it. Define the two.

geni

11th January 2004, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by Troll

Now you say there's nothing special about the weapon if it uses chemical components, like it doesn't add to the kill or injury factor, but shrapnel only travels so far, a breeze can carry a chemical agent for an undetermined distance, thus expanding the radius.

Shrapnel only travels so far. Now imagain if I up the power of the explosives chemical weapon will cover a larger area but so will more powerful explosives.

Troll

11th January 2004, 03:17 PM

Troll

11th January 2004, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by geni

Shrapnel only travels so far. Now imagain if I up the power of the explosives chemical weapon will cover a larger area but so will more powerful explosives.

Yes and that's why we have larger bombs that are not chemically enhanced. No one has claimed that a mortar round alone is what makes the find significant. Hell we've found planes and artillery as well. Bigger booms for both but still not a wmd as chemically enhanced weapons are considered to be.

Oh, and this is for Zero, planes, dude, they freaking buried planes. Do you think those were buried 10 years ago?

Troll

11th January 2004, 03:22 PM

No offense, but if we found a freaking nuke I'd fully expect, based upon the examples of posts offered here, that we'd have a debate over the size of the nuke before some of you would accept it as a wmd.

Zero

11th January 2004, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by Troll
No offense, but if we found a freaking nuke I'd fully expect, based upon the examples of posts offered here, that we'd have a debate over the size of the nuke before some of you would accept it as a wmd. Strawman.

Zero

11th January 2004, 03:24 PM

Let me be a bit more specific...if it were a similar quantity of some virulent disease that could spread from person to person, I would have a completely different view of it. Nukes are different from chemicals. A chemical weapon that can do significantly less harm than the legal conventional weapons Iraq has doesn't count IMO.

RussDill

11th January 2004, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Zero
We do lose stuff all the time, in warehouses and stuff. Wouldn't it be EASIER to lose something buried 10 years ago in a hole, than something in a warehouse?

It would have been pretty hard for them to lose *all* their chemical weapons and delivery systems. Someone, somewhere, knows where some of these weapons were buried. UN inspectors were lead to none of these sites. Unless of course the killed all the people who buried them, and then raped their families.

Zero

11th January 2004, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by RussDill

It would have been pretty hard for them to lose *all* their chemical weapons and delivery systems. Someone, somewhere, knows where some of these weapons were buried. UN inspectors were lead to none of these sites. Unless of course the killed all the people who buried them, and then raped their families. Would you care to tell me where the rest of these weapons have been found by anyone?

RussDill

11th January 2004, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by Troll

But do we bury and hide stuff and claim we don't have it?

Probably, ya. A good portion of our miliary serivices operates in secrecy.

RussDill

11th January 2004, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Would you care to tell me where the rest of these weapons have been found by anyone?

OK, I'll go bury a bunch of stuff in california, in random places. We'll wait 10 years, and then you can go find them.

I like in Phoenix, Phoenix grows pretty fast, new developments all the time. Finding stuff that people buried in the ground around a thousand years ago or more is pretty common here.

Edited to add: Or do you mean when, like around the 1990's?

Troll

11th January 2004, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Let me be a bit more specific...if it were a similar quantity of some virulent disease that could spread from person to person, I would have a completely different view of it. Nukes are different from chemicals. A chemical weapon that can do significantly less harm than the legal conventional weapons Iraq has doesn't count IMO.

But we're talking about a chemically enhanced conventional weapon. By most countries standards that has always equated to a wmd. Granted, mustard gas doesn't kill as many as it maims, but you have to be careful in the definition here. VX and sarin does kill and to add those to a mortar will increase the number killed significantly. And, again, by most countries standards mustard gas is a wmd.

Zero

11th January 2004, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by RussDill

OK, I'll go bury a bunch of stuff in california, in random places. We'll wait 10 years, and then you can go find them.

I like in Phoenix, Phoenix grows pretty fast, new developments all the time. Finding stuff that people buried in the ground around a thousand years ago or more is pretty common here.

Edited to add: Or do you mean when, like around the 1990's? LOL

Yeah, I mean like the fact that evidence points to these weapons being buried back around Gulf War I...possibly in haste while expecting an invasion...

I know how bad American military record-keeping can be, which is why I bring up the posibility that the Iraqis really didn't know those weapons were there.

Troll

11th January 2004, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by Zero
LOL

Yeah, I mean like the fact that evidence points to these weapons being buried back around Gulf War I...possibly in haste while expecting an invasion...

I know how bad American military record-keeping can be, which is why I bring up the posibility that the Iraqis really didn't know those weapons were there.

Dude, planes were buried days before the invasion. It took a few months before we found some of them. Mortar rounds with chemicals can fit in much smaller packages.

Zero

11th January 2004, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by Troll

But we're talking about a chemically enhanced conventional weapon. By most countries standards that has always equated to a wmd. Granted, mustard gas doesn't kill as many as it maims, but you have to be careful in the definition here. VX and sarin does kill and to add those to a mortar will increase the number killed significantly. And, again, by most countries standards mustard gas is a wmd. Uh huh...I draw the line at stuff that just makes you feel bad.

ssibal

11th January 2004, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by Zero
And, of course, maybe they really didn't know where they were all buried. It happens all the time in America, so why hold Iraq to a higher standard?

Then they should have said "we burried our weapons but we do not know where they were burried" instead of lying about them and saying that they destroyed them all.

Zero

11th January 2004, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by ssibal

Then they should have said "we burried our weapons but we do not know where they were burried" instead of lying about them and saying that they destroyed them all. Uh huh...maybe alot of things. I don't think THIS find means anything at all, though.

ssibal

11th January 2004, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Uh huh...maybe alot of things. I don't think THIS find means anything at all, though.

This find would mean that they were in violation of Resolution 687.

Zero

11th January 2004, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by ssibal

This find would mean that they were in violation of Resolution 687. Then that would mean that the UN would have the say-so to invade, and not the U.S.

crackmonkey

11th January 2004, 05:33 PM

No one, as far as I can see, is arguing over whether Bush had the authority to invade or not. The argument is that WMD (by the definition being used by the weapons inspectors, the UN, the US, and everyone else in the loop - by convention, blister gas is considered to be WMD) have been found in modest quantity, thus giving lie to Saddam's assertion that he had none. And, also, proving false the assertions that the weapons inspectors found all there was to find, and that Iraq had no more chemical weapons. What's left to argue? If you were one of those who mocked the idea of there being chemical weapons in Iraq, why not just be an adult and admit you were wrong?

Zero

11th January 2004, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
No one, as far as I can see, is arguing over whether Bush had the authority to invade or not. The argument is that WMD (by the definition being used by the weapons inspectors, the UN, the US, and everyone else in the loop - by convention, blister gas is considered to be WMD) have been found in modest quantity, thus giving lie to Saddam's assertion that he had none. And, also, proving false the assertions that the weapons inspectors found all there was to find, and that Iraq had no more chemical weapons. What's left to argue? If you were one of those who mocked the idea of there being chemical weapons in Iraq, why not just be an adult and admit you were wrong? Some of us consider a 5-minutes worth of blister agent buried in a hole for ten years to be less than compelling. I don't see why that is hard to understand.

KelvinG

11th January 2004, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Some of us consider a 5-minutes worth of blister agent buried in a hole for ten years to be less than compelling. I don't see why that is hard to understand.

Because when you are incredibly desperate to find even the faintest evidence of WMDs in order to save face, this find will be ballyhooed by the pro-war crowd like nobody's business. Kind of sad actually.

Zero

11th January 2004, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by KelvinG

Because when you are incredibly desperate to find even the faintest evidence of WMDs in order to save face, this find will be ballyhooed by the pro-war crowd like nobody's business. Kind of sad actually. Yeah, it is like mobilizing a huge DEA team, raiding a suspected drug dealer's home, killing one of his kids, and finding half an ounce of weed and some papers. Sure, he was breaking the law, but are we supposed to be impressed?

Mr Manifesto

11th January 2004, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
No one, as far as I can see, is arguing over whether Bush had the authority to invade or not.

Then you didn't read the post I put on the top of page 3. Maybe I used too many big words like 'imminent threat'. Maybe you could get someone a little brighter than you to explain it to you in words you understand.

RussDill

11th January 2004, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Yeah, it is like mobilizing a huge DEA team, raiding a suspected drug dealer's home, killing one of his kids, and finding half an ounce of weed and some papers. Sure, he was breaking the law, but are we supposed to be impressed?

You're assuming that it's easy to find all the buried weapons. What happened to the other chemical weapons Saddam had in his arsenal then?

I would liken it more to police showing up at a released murderer's house, the guy coming out, point his gun at the cops, the cops filling him full of holes, then the cops examine his gun, and find that there are no bullets in it.

Zero

11th January 2004, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by RussDill

You're assuming that it's easy to find all the buried weapons. What happened to the other chemical weapons Saddam had in his arsenal then?

I would liken it more to police showing up at a released murderer's house, the guy coming out, point his gun at the cops, the cops filling him full of holes, then the cops examine his gun, and find that there are no bullets in it. Actually, it is more like his ex-roomate says he had a gun 5 years ago.

ssibal

11th January 2004, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Then that would mean that the UN would have the say-so to invade, and not the U.S.

Which they already had by Resolution 678, it gives them the power
to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

Mr Manifesto

11th January 2004, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by ssibal

Which they already had by Resolution 678, it gives them the power

One other thing some people have a hard time understanding is that 678 doesn't mean the US can do what she wants to Iraq, when she wants. She still needs UN approval before invading.

I think I understand why a few on this forum so desperately need to feel that the war was justified. It's because no-one wants to feel like a dupe. They believed what Bush said, trusted him, and now they look like a bunch of jackasses because they were lied to.

ssibal

11th January 2004, 06:19 PM

Troll

11th January 2004, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

One other thing some people have a hard time understanding is that 678 doesn't mean the US can do what she wants to Iraq, when she wants. She still needs UN approval before invading.

I think I understand why a few on this forum so desperately need to feel that the war was justified. It's because no-one wants to feel like a dupe. They believed what Bush said, trusted him, and now they look like a bunch of jackasses because they were lied to.

Not to bust your bubble but I felt it was justifiable to in before Bush was president. I was a little disappointed with being sent over there the first time and just making the guy move out of Kuwait. I mean if someone breaks into your house do you want the cops to arrest him or just make him leave?

And I read your infamous "top of page 3 " post. It had little to do with defining chemical weapons or wmds. But if you look at the site you linked to to start this whole thing off, you and possibly shanek would see the following:

"The United States launched its war to oust Saddam on March 20 saying the Iraqi leader violated United Nations resolutions by developing weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological weapons. "

So chemical weapons were included in the description of wmds that we felt he had.

WildCat

11th January 2004, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Then you didn't read the post I put on the top of page 3. Maybe I used too many big words like 'imminent threat'. Maybe you could get someone a little brighter than you to explain it to you in words you understand.
Just poking my head in here after one of the best NFL playoff weekends ever, to see that Manifesto is doing his usual spin doctoring. Manifesto, you may have used the phrase "imminent threat", but Bush never did. From the 2003 State of the Union Address: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/bushtext_012803.html)
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

Bush said quite the opposite! Don't let those facts stand in your way though, Mr. M. Just keep on spinning.

And one doesn't have amnesia if one doesn't remember what hasn't been said. In your case, Manifesto, when you remember what hasn't been said, it's called delusional. ;)

Mr Manifesto

11th January 2004, 06:32 PM

Yeah, Bush said there wasn't an imminent threat while painting the picture of an imminent threat the whole time. Why the imagery of WMD's dropping out of the skies? Why the references to rescue workers helping Americans on their own soil? He was trying to say that Iraq had this capability now.

All the quote demonstrates is that Bush knew Iraq wasn't a threat, but he had to sell the war to demonstrate that it was.

Mr Manifesto

11th January 2004, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by Troll

Not to bust your bubble but I felt it was justifiable to in before Bush was president. I was a little disappointed with being sent over there the first time and just making the guy move out of Kuwait. I mean if someone breaks into your house do you want the cops to arrest him or just make him leave?

And I read your infamous "top of page 3 " post. It had little to do with defining chemical weapons or wmds. But if you look at the site you linked to to start this whole thing off, you and possibly shanek would see the following:

"The United States launched its war to oust Saddam on March 20 saying the Iraqi leader violated United Nations resolutions by developing weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological weapons. "

So chemical weapons were included in the description of wmds that we felt he had.

That was simply the journalist's opinion. That opinion is quite simplistic, the other essential justification for the war was the imminent threat.

WildCat

11th January 2004, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Yeah, Bush said there wasn't an imminent threat while painting the picture of an imminent threat the whole time. Why the imagery of WMD's dropping out of the skies? Why the references to rescue workers helping Americans on their own soil? He was trying to say that Iraq had this capability now.

All the quote demonstrates is that Bush knew Iraq wasn't a threat, but he had to sell the war to demonstrate that it was.
!!!!!
Did you read the speech? The pic painted was what could happen through inaction!

You should really change your user name to "Rumpelstiltskin", you spin so well!

Cain

11th January 2004, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by WildCat

Just poking my head in here after one of the best NFL playoff weekends ever, to see that Manifesto is doing his usual spin doctoring. Manifesto, you may have used the phrase "imminent threat", but Bush never did. From the 2003 State of the Union Address: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/bushtext_012803.html)

Bush said quite the opposite! Don't let those facts stand in your way though, Mr. M. Just keep on spinning.

And one doesn't have amnesia if one doesn't remember what hasn't been said. In your case, Manifesto, when you remember what hasn't been said, it's called delusional. ;)

:rolleyes:

The Bush administration has difficulty with words. They called this a "preemptive" war, and if you look up that term in a military dictionary, it will most likely mention an "imminent threat". (See the appropriate Oxford reference book for confirmation.)

Of course, we were fighting a "preventive" war.

Bush frequently said the threat posed by Saddam's regime was "significant" and "urgent". He also spoke of "grave danger" and invoked the image a mushroom cloud.

Jesus f*cking Christ, if you want to rant about spin, direct it at the White House.

Troll

11th January 2004, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

That was simply the journalist's opinion. That opinion is quite simplistic, the other essential justification for the war was the imminent threat.

Well we can discuss what a threat or an imminent threat is if you'd like.

Would you consider someone who has openly stated he favors the destruction of you and has shown financial support for groups outside his country that kill others a threat to you? Would he supply someone with a weapon if they lacked one? I mean he's giving out the dollars, who knows what was being bought with them.

Mr Manifesto

11th January 2004, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by Troll

Well we can discuss what a threat or an imminent threat is if you'd like.

Would you consider someone who has openly stated he favors the destruction of you and has shown financial support for groups outside his country that kill others a threat to you? Would he supply someone with a weapon if they lacked one? I mean he's giving out the dollars, who knows what was being bought with them.

What was he going to supply others with? A mortar shell with mouldy mustard gas? Do you think Iraq is the only country in the world that can supply terrorists with this sort of weapon?

Troll

11th January 2004, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

What was he going to supply others with? A mortar shell with mouldy mustard gas? Do you think Iraq is the only country in the world that can supply terrorists with this sort of weapon?

haha. Maybe the money to buy better quality stuff from another country? The dude openly stated his disdain for the US and openly supported terrorists and violated UN resolutions, thus showing disdain for international law as well.

And sure there's other countries that can supply terrorists with this type of weapon. And getting money from Hussein would make buying them easier. Lybia could have supplied terrorists and has in the past. But they changed their tune without the hassle Hussein went through.

crackmonkey

11th January 2004, 07:11 PM

Manifesto - read this as slowly as you like. I'm not discussing reasons or rationalizations for invading Iraq. That's another discussion. I am merely pointing out that with regard to WMD in Iraq, and effectiveness of inspectors, you have been proved wrong.
I trust you can understand that this is a point quite distinct from any assertion or justification by the Bush administration; this is merely an affirmation that you and your self-righteous ilk were wrong on this issue.

Mr Manifesto

11th January 2004, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Manifesto - read this as slowly as you like. I'm not discussing reasons or rationalizations for invading Iraq. That's another discussion. I am merely pointing out that with regard to WMD in Iraq, and effectiveness of inspectors, you have been proved wrong.
I trust you can understand that this is a point quite distinct from any assertion or justification by the Bush administration; this is merely an affirmation that you and your self-righteous ilk were wrong on this issue.

No, you are wrong. You are wrong because you don't know anything about the history of the weapons inspections.

When Ritter and co were conducting their searches of Iraq, the Iraqis made an ill-advised decision to destroy records of where records were kept. We can only speculate as to why they did this. Some think that Iraq was trying to hide the fact that she ever possessed them.

However, around '97 and '98, they endeavoured to cooperate as much as they could. Unfortunately, the US decided to use the inspections as an opportuinity to spy on Iraq, which Saddam didn't like. That was not the purpose of the inspections- once again the US jeopordised the cause of peace to further her own aims.

What this eventually left us with was an environment where about 5% of the WMD's were unaccounted for. The likely explanation is that no-one knows where they are. Maybe they were destroyed but the destruction wasn't recorded properly. Or maybe they were wrapped in plastic bags and buried, forgotten. As it has been pointed out, the American government wouldn't know where all of her stockpiles of weapons are, why did we expect a higher standard from Iraq?

crackmonkey

11th January 2004, 07:40 PM

I know a fair bit about the inspections. The fact that you assert that Iraq was cooperating in '97 and '98 is evidence that you DON'T know as much as you boast... in '97 SAddam was still preventing inspectors from inspecting sites. His intransigence led to the bombing in '98 by Clinton. In fact, Ritter himself declared that at that time Saddam was avoiding cooperating as much as he possible.

In any case, you now do admit that the inspectors couldn't locate a sizeable quantity of WMD in Iraq (5% of all WMD is not a small amount) after all. This is prima facie evidence that relying on the inspectors to ensure Iraq had destroyed all WMD was foolish. As you admit, they couldn't be expected to find as much as 5% of the Iraqi WMD... so why have any confidence in them at all?
As I have been saying all along - Saddam had hidden WMD, just as I and many others asserted. We found some of them. You were wrong.

I don't know where you get your idea that the US loses weapon stockpiles, and I doubt you have any kind of source for this nonsense...

BTox

11th January 2004, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I think I understand why a few on this forum so desperately need to feel that the war was justified. It's because no-one wants to feel like a dupe. They believed what Bush said, trusted him, and now they look like a bunch of jackasses because they were lied to.

I'd say the desperation is in those who feel the war was not justified. Get a freaking clue already, it's over.

BTox

11th January 2004, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

As it has been pointed out, the American government wouldn't know where all of her stockpiles of weapons are, why did we expect a higher standard from Iraq?

The U.S. doesn't know where all their chemical weapons are? Says who?

Mr Manifesto

11th January 2004, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by BTox

The U.S. doesn't know where all their chemical weapons are? Says who?

I don't know who said anything about chemical weapons. I mentioned weapons stockpiles. Click here (http://home.btclick.com/caab/2003-05-11laxarsenal.htm) for one example. I have read an article about missing weapons-grade plutonium as well, but can't find the reference for it... this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1859560.stm) article mentions it.

BTox

11th January 2004, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

I don't know who said anything about chemical weapons.

What is the topic of this thread? Sheesh, some people are dense...

Mr Manifesto

11th January 2004, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by BTox

What is the topic of this thread? Sheesh, some people are dense...

I'll say.

The point I was trying to make is that the United States, for all of her advanced technology and careful record keep, with a high level of accountability and a relatively low level of corruption, does not know where all of her weapons are. Yet, this country's rulers expect Iraq, with not as advanced technology, dodgy records, little accountability, and plenty of corruption, to know where all of her weapons are. Do you see how stupid that idea is?

BTox

11th January 2004, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
The point I was trying to make is that the United States, for all of her advanced technology and careful record keep, with a high level of accountability and a relatively low level of corruption, does not know where all of her weapons are. Yet, this country's rulers expect Iraq, with not as advanced technology, dodgy records, little accountability, and plenty of corruption, to know where all of her weapons are. Do you see how stupid that idea is?

Clueless. Well, I tried...

Mr Manifesto

11th January 2004, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by BTox

Clueless. Well, I tried...

You're as sharp a debater as ever. Have you ever made any kind of point in P, CE & H?

RussDill

12th January 2004, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

However, around '97 and '98, they endeavoured to cooperate as much as they could. Unfortunately, the US decided to use the inspections as an opportuinity to spy on Iraq, which Saddam didn't like. That was not the purpose of the inspections- once again the US jeopordised the cause of peace to further her own aims.

umm...right, like those spies we sent to check out the earthquake in iran.

RussDill

12th January 2004, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

I'll say.

The point I was trying to make is that the United States, for all of her advanced technology and careful record keep, with a high level of accountability and a relatively low level of corruption, does not know where all of her weapons are. Yet, this country's rulers expect Iraq, with not as advanced technology, dodgy records, little accountability, and plenty of corruption, to know where all of her weapons are. Do you see how stupid that idea is?

So, they magically forgot where *all* their stockpiles were, and we recently uncovered some that were somehow buried...Also of interest would be the shell or two that the inspectors found before the war, while insignificant, it shows that a stockpile could have been stored at that site and was moved.

crackmonkey

12th January 2004, 02:43 AM

Apparently there is some theft of US munitions. An odd point, and one not even tangentially relevant here... but I give credit whee credit is due. You're right.
Regardless of whether or not Iraqis 'lost' these muntions after they buried them
(and then subsequently lied about having missing munitions or having forgotten where they're buried), Iraq had chemical weapons (WMD in common parlance) secreted away from prying eyes. Inspectors that we relied on to certify that Iraq had no WMD couldn;t fond them, and you seem to say that these inspectors couldn't be expected to find the 5% of WMD unaccounted for. This 5% is hundreds of liters of WMD, enough to present a serious threat. If inspectors are this ineffective, why the charade about them being of any use? If inspections can't
find missing WMD, why even argue that they were working?

Hutch

12th January 2004, 11:55 AM

Just a couple of items to add to the discussion, if they have been covered already my apologies, but I haven't the boss-dodging skills to read all 189 previous posts.

The M120 Mortar (at least the M120/M121 version used by the US Army) weighs about 315lbs and is transportable by trailer or Medium sized vehicle (think Hummer). It fires a 30 lb shell (weight includes cartridge, propellant, and warhead) approximately 2-7km (1.5-5 Miles) at a fire rate of 6 per minute.

Mustard Gas (there are several varieties, the most popular being Sulfur Mustard) is a powerful irritant and blistering agent that damamges the skin, eyes and respiratory track, it is usually not fatal. when sulfur mustard was used during WWI, it killed fewer than 5% of the people who were exposed and received medical care. Sulfur Mustard can damage DNA, however (from CDC)

Not knowing the exact type of Mustard Gas but using sulfur mustard as our basis (it was the first mentioned on the sites I checked and given that it could be produced in quantity in 1916, it would be the most likely for a less-developed power to produce) we have a weapon that is designed more to disable enemy soldiers and force them into protective gear, where their fighting ability is lessened. As a terror weapon, well, given that a terrorist could get both shells and mortar into the US, set it up within 5 miles of a target, and successfully fire all 36 rounds to date discovered, they would get panic and confusion and injury, but no infrastructure damage and a limited number of dead (medical help has improved slightly since 1916). Weapon-sure Mass--if you mean 9-11 numbers of ~3,000, doubtful. Destruction--no meaningful physical destruction and a low kill ratio doesn't sound like the type of destruction a committed terrorist would desire.

A question I posed earlier remains: Does the discovery of 36 shells designed for limited battlefield use and of limited fatal consequences that were buried for 15 years equal 500+ American deaths, $100B+ expenditure, the destabilization of a nation, and worsened relations with the other major democracies of the world? Maybe so, but it would be nice to have a report on the facilites needed to produce the items, the storage and maintenance of the weapon systems, and the paper trail of where the raw material came from.

Still, tempus fugit, and another 20 years should tell the tail--we humans are in such a rush sometimes.

RussDill

12th January 2004, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Hutch

A question I posed earlier remains: Does the discovery of 36 shells designed for limited battlefield use and of limited fatal consequences that were buried for 15 years equal 500+ American deaths, $100B+ expenditure, the destabilization of a nation, and worsened relations with the other major democracies of the world? Maybe so, but it would be nice to have a report on the facilites needed to produce the items, the storage and maintenance of the weapon systems, and the paper trail of where the raw material came from.

It shows that yes, they lied in their reports, and yes, chemical weapons are hidden in Iraq. The question remains what happened to the rest of the weapons? It seems most likely to me that they are all buried pretty much randomly.

Kodiak

12th January 2004, 01:24 PM

For those of you who don't consider Blister Agents a WMD or a weapon coveted by terrorists:

Blister Agent Fact Sheet (http://www.pdhealth.mil/wot/downloads/Vesican-Blister_Agent_Fact_Sheet.doc)

Hutch

12th January 2004, 01:25 PM

Russ, granting your points (and the question of other, newer weapons that do pose a clear and present threat to our security is still to be answered) the question remains--was the threat such that it required the blood, toil, tears, sweat (and cold hard cash) that we have invested to date. My opinion is that at this time, our losses outweigh the results.

Now perhaps we'll find all those liters of sarin, or at least the paper trail showing when they were produced and located. And perhaps when we turn over at least some of the Government to the Iraquis this Summer, things will blossom and peace and stability will break out. That would be nice. But it also sounds like drawing to an inside straight, IMHO.

To repeat, any decision now is a good 10 years early--history is not for the sprinters.

shanek

12th January 2004, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Kodiak
For those of you who don't consider Blister Agents a WMD or a weapon coveted by terrorists:
Blister Agent Fact Sheet (http://www.pdhealth.mil/wot/downloads/Vesican-Blister_Agent_Fact_Sheet.doc)

That they're nasty, I fully acknowledge. That terrorists covet them, I likewise do not dispute. But that still doesn't make them weapons of mass destruction. If it does, then why does that not mean that our government used WMDs against its own people at Waco?

I thought it had to be capable of killign a significant number of people at a significant distance to be a WMD...but then, the definition keeps changing so much who can keep up?

Segnosaur

12th January 2004, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by Zero
We do lose stuff all the time, in warehouses and stuff.

You're right... For example, just recently the US military found a golden chest that had been misplaced in a warehouse since the 1930s...

RussDill

12th January 2004, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Hutch
Russ, granting your points (and the question of other, newer weapons that do pose a clear and present threat to our security is still to be answered) the question remains--was the threat such that it required the blood, toil, tears, sweat (and cold hard cash) that we have invested to date. My opinion is that at this time, our losses outweigh the results.

Now perhaps we'll find all those liters of sarin, or at least the paper trail showing when they were produced and located. And perhaps when we turn over at least some of the Government to the Iraquis this Summer, things will blossom and peace and stability will break out. That would be nice. But it also sounds like drawing to an inside straight, IMHO.

To repeat, any decision now is a good 10 years early--history is not for the sprinters.

There were other reasons for going to war with Iraq, but chemical, biological, and the rare likelyhood of a developing nuclear program were the largest. From what I understand, *everyone's* intelligence agency was basically saying "We know for sure he had them, we have no clue where they are now" and since the Iraqi government was already helping terrorists, the picture was bleak.

The Iraqi government was given 12 years to solve these problems diplomatically, they chose not to. It does seem a bit unjustified in hindsight, because where are the chemical weapons? Where are the labs? But like I said before, someone points a gun at you, you can only determine after the fact if its loaded.

LFTKBS

12th January 2004, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by BTox
Get a freaking clue already, it's over.

No (http://www.thewbalchannel.com/news/2758122/detail.html) it's (http://www.hipakistan.com/en/detail.php?newsId=en50500&F_catID=&f_type=source) not. (http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/news/011104_APlocal_ftbraggsoldiers.html)

crackmonkey

12th January 2004, 05:07 PM

I'd argue that these shells, though they are incontrovertible evidence of chemical weapons possession, would not alone justify the invasion of Iraq.
They do, however, point out the false assurance that weapons inspections gave us.

Mr Manifesto

12th January 2004, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I'd argue that these shells, though they are incontrovertible evidence of chemical weapons possession, would not alone justify the invasion of Iraq.
They do, however, point out the false assurance that weapons inspections gave us.

No weapons inspections in the world was ever going to 100% disarm Saddam. The objective was to remove the possibilty that Saddam could use these weapons effectively. The inspections did that. The American invasion, therefore, was not justified. Unless you want to go down the path that America can decide who rules which countries.

RussDill

12th January 2004, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by LFTKBS

No (http://www.thewbalchannel.com/news/2758122/detail.html) it's (http://www.hipakistan.com/en/detail.php?newsId=en50500&F_catID=&f_type=source) not. (http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/news/011104_APlocal_ftbraggsoldiers.html)

So does that mean the civil war is still not over due to our domestic terrorism?

BTox

12th January 2004, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Have you ever made any kind of point in P, CE & H?

Of course, although they appear to sail over your head (e.g. as above). C'est la vie...

crackmonkey

12th January 2004, 06:25 PM

The fact that many found the inspections process to have solved the Iraq problem (particularly when Saddam was not cooperating) is in itself a problem.

Inspections can only work when the inspectee cooperates with the process. If Saddam was determined to hide munitions, there is no way that inspectors could find it all. That's not what they were trained to do.

Mr Manifesto

12th January 2004, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
The fact that many found the inspections process to have solved the Iraq problem (particularly when Saddam was not cooperating) is in itself a problem.

Inspections can only work when the inspectee cooperates with the process. If Saddam was determined to hide munitions, there is no way that inspectors could find it all. That's not what they were trained to do.

We seem to be at a bit of an impasse here. In the interests of forwarding the debate, would you cite a source for Saddam not cooperating? I know he wasn't cooperating, but I think you need to learn a bit more about what was happening at the time.

Mr Manifesto

12th January 2004, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by RussDill

So does that mean the civil war is still not over due to our domestic terrorism?

There's a bit of a difference between 100 years and not-quite one year. The war isn't over just because George says so.

Tricky

12th January 2004, 08:54 PM

I think it can be argued that the war is over. The coalition hasn't faced any government soldiers in months. I agree that the guerilla actions that are ongoing are not a real war, at least if we all agree that the "war on terrorism" is not a real war. The coalition won, as everyone knew they would. But the war didn't accomplish it's major stated objective, which was to find WMDs. Although they have removed Saddam, the people of Iraq are no safer, and in fact are in greater danger, than they were immediately before the war. International terrorism has not abated, and seems to be stronger than ever, especially in Iraq. There is no guarantee that the next regime will be any more tractable than Saddam's was, and indications are that we may have ourselves a brand new Islamic fundamentalist government that we all love so much.

I suppose you could say that the most important, if unstated, objective that was accomplished (from the US standpoint) was the capture of Iraqi oil. Time will tell if the US will return this resource fully to the Iraqi people, or if they will continue to "help" (in very expensive ways) to rebuild the industry.

I said before the war started, and I still stand by it. Winning the war would be easy. Winning the peace would be very difficult. Recovering our honor may be harder still.

Zep

12th January 2004, 09:47 PM

WMD's? Here they are!

http://www.trincoll.edu/zines/tj/tj04.17.97/images/slingshot.ap.jpg

RussDill

12th January 2004, 10:02 PM

Don't worry, with great expense and effoct, the US has developed a weapon under secrecy in area 51 to counter the sling shot threat:

http://www.actionfig.com/simpsons/board_with_nail.jpg

Zep

12th January 2004, 10:05 PM

Been there, seen it. Old technology, I'm afraid!

http://www.texasindians.com/cadaxe2.jpg

RussDill

12th January 2004, 10:47 PM

I didn't know the Iraqi insurgents were this far along! I weep for the american way of life.

Zep

12th January 2004, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by RussDill
I didn't know the Iraqi insurgents were this far along! I weep for the american way of life. Not QUITE ICBM's, but getting there...

Troll

13th January 2004, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

There's a bit of a difference between 100 years and not-quite one year. The war isn't over just because George says so.

Yeah but it is over since you lost the poll. :p

Troll

13th January 2004, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
The fact that many found the inspections process to have solved the Iraq problem (particularly when Saddam was not cooperating) is in itself a problem.

Inspections can only work when the inspectee cooperates with the process. If Saddam was determined to hide munitions, there is no way that inspectors could find it all. That's not what they were trained to do.

Libya has been more cooperative in less than a year than Saddam was in 12

Zep

13th January 2004, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by Troll
Libya has been more cooperative in less than a year than Saddam was in 12 Libya was bombed by the USA also, by Reagan, if I recall.

LFTKBS

15th January 2004, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by RussDill
So does that mean the civil war is still not over due to our domestic terrorism?

Lincoln is considered by many to be last casualty of the American Civil War. He died April 15, 1865, six days after Lee surrendered. On the other hand, May 13th of that year saw the Battle of Palmito Ranch and the CSS Shenandoah didn't surrender until November 6 of 1865. So let's take the Shenandoah's surrender as the last action of the American Civil War. That's about 207 days after Lee's surrender. There's obviously a difference between the end of a war and the end of hostilities.

It's been over 255 days since President Bush announced the end of combat operations on May 1, 2003. American soldiers are still dying. Iraqi civilians are still dying.

The war is not over, even if BTox, RussDill, and the President all say so.