Sarin-loaded artillery shell in Iraq [Archive]

corplinx

17th May 2004, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by American

Yes, but why did this happen in Iraq and not HERE??

We froze the frequent flyer accounts of every person with an arab sounding name after 9-11?

Look, there is no empirical way to link the lack of imported terrorism in america to the war in iraq. Mind you, I supported the war in iraq (even though as a younger man I cried "no blood for oil" during gulf war I).

As many have pointed out, by renewing the Gulf War we have made Iraq the frontline in the war on terror. Homocidal muslim theocrats don't need complicated visa schemes or to recruit white muslims to carry out the jihad against the west. Instead, they can just drive from SA, UAE, Iran, Syria, etc and join in the battle. Yes it is bloody.

However, your question as to why the shell wasn't exploded here is easy. Its because terrorists are too lazy to smuggle it into Mexico, swim across a creek, and detonate it in Austin. I mean really, we still have a long way to go on the domestic front. The war in Iraq is a nice distraction to our enemies but we are still vulnerable.

Kerberos

17th May 2004, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by Jocko
A convoy encountered an improvised roadside bomb that released sarin gas today. Pretty scary stuff.

Yes, I know this comes under the heading of "grasping at straws" on the WMD question. But I think it's safe to assume the insurgents didn't build the shell themselves.

From Fox (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html)

CNN has a bulletin but no story yet. I would love to know where they found the the thing, because I doubt it was the only one.
Definitely interesting, but I'll wait on further investigations before I conclude that it was from Saddam’s arsenal. It wouldn't be a huge shock to me if that turned out to be the case, since I originally though that Saddam had some sort of arsenal, but it does seem odd that nothing has been found until now.

American

17th May 2004, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by corplinx
However, your question as to why the shell wasn't exploded here is easy. Its because terrorists are too lazy to smuggle it into Mexico, swim across a creek, and detonate it in Austin. I mean really, we still have a long way to go on the domestic front. The war in Iraq is a nice distraction to our enemies but we are still vulnerable.

Nice to see one person who isn't asleep during class.

Kerberos

17th May 2004, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by American

Nice to see one person who isn't asleep during class.
I generally never sleep in class, but if you're the teacher:
:s2: :s2: :s2: :s2: :s2:

peptoabysmal

17th May 2004, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/05/17/international1027EDT0555.DTL&type=printable

Confirmed by the Iraq Survey Group.

From your link:

He said he believed that insurgents who rigged the artillery shell as a bomb didn't know it contained the nerve agent, and that the dispersal of the nerve agent from such a rigged device was very limited.

If that's the case they likely got it from a hidden and unmarked stockpile. Interesting that it is an old-style binary shell.

If the insurgents didn't find it in Iraq, but brought it in with them, who gave it to them? If they knew what it was, it really doesn't make any sense to use it that way... in a bag as a home-made artillary shell pipe-bomb.

American

17th May 2004, 10:26 AM

They are now saying that mustard gas was also found.

Jocko

17th May 2004, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

If that's the case they likely got it from a hidden and unmarked stockpile. Interesting that it is an old-style binary shell.

If the insurgents didn't find it in Iraq, but brought it in with them, who gave it to them? If they knew what it was, it really doesn't make any sense to use it that way... in a bag as a home-made artillary shell pipe-bomb.

That's what scares me. If they didn't know what it was before, they sure as hell know now. Let's just hope they can't lay their hands on any artillery pieces.

Kerberos

17th May 2004, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Jocko

That's what scares me. If they didn't know what it was before, they sure as hell know now. Let's just hope they can't lay their hands on any artillery pieces.
Is it really that scary? The Iraqi survey group’s article says that it can be treated. I'm not denying it is dangerous, but unless it's significantly more dangerous than a normal shell, there really is no cause for panic. Just because it's called a weapon of mass destructions, it doesn't automatically become capable of causing massive destruction.

Silicon

17th May 2004, 10:50 AM

I change my tune.

This war is now officially GREAT! They found the WMD!

America is SO much safer now that terrorists in a state with porus borders have the WMD's, rather than Saddam.

Jocko

17th May 2004, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos

Is it really that scary? The Iraqi survey group’s article says that it can be treated. I'm not denying it is dangerous, but unless it's significantly more dangerous than a normal shell, there really is no cause for panic. Just because it's called a weapon of mass destructions, it doesn't automatically become capable of causing massive destruction.

That's not really what I meant; I know the troops are equipped to counter the threat. But because the insurgents have been linked to al Qaeda and God knows who else, imagine one of these things going off on a crowded train. Or airport. Or a stadium.

A properly primed shell of this type could kill thousands if detonated under optimal conditions, the articles are saying, and civilians don't have countertoxins available on hand. Could make Madrid look like a firecracker in comparison.

Jocko

17th May 2004, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by Silicon
I change my tune.

This war is now officially GREAT! They found the WMD!

America is SO much safer now that terrorists in a state with porus borders have the WMD's, rather than Saddam.

Your goalposts just switched area codes. Just so you know.

I premised the entire thread with a caveat that this, in itself, is not a big deal as far as WMDs go. But such items would not be stored one at a time, would they?

Plus, I'd rather they were used against troops in Iraq who can counter the effects rather than seeing them smuggled to New York, London, Madrid or your home town. Ideal situation? Of course not. But could be a whole lot worse.

Silicon

17th May 2004, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by Jocko

Your goalposts just switched area codes. Just so you know.

Please point out for me where I set the posts in the first place.

I don't seem to recall making a post where I said:

"The only reason this war sucks is that we didn't find WMD's. If only we found them, this war would be perfect."

I ALWAYS thought Iraq had WMD's. Why? I believed Powell when he spoke of mobile weapons labs in front of the UN. HELL, I believed Bush when he said that Saddam was attempting to reconstitute his nuclear arsenal.

I thought, however, that Bush was rushing into this war. I thought that perhaps Blix and crew should have had a chance to get to the bottom of things. I thought the UN should have been a stronger part of the entire process.

When the nuclear issues turned out to be willfully fudged, I was pissed. When Powell admitted that the mobil weapons labs didn't exist (Yesterday!), I felt by now this was par for the course.

Before the war, I felt SURE that Saddam had WMD's, and I thought that toppling him was the more dangerous route. I was VERY AFRAID that causing chaos and a power-vacuum in Iraq would cause those weapons to disappear immediately, and fall into the hands of terrorists and other non-state actors.

Read my old posts. I said this.

So I'm going to assert that my goalposts haven't budged one bit.

I'm not glad they found this WMD. Not because I'm sad that I can't gloat about another Bush failure. But because it means there's likely more of them, and the terrorists found them before we did.

corplinx

17th May 2004, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by Silicon

But because it means there's likely more of them, and the terrorists found them before we did.

Perhaps. You have to realize that some of those we are labeling terrorists were former Iraqi military and baathists. I'm not sure some foreign terrorist group stumbled across a cache of Saddam's weapons in the desert.

Of course, the last time we heard about artillery shells leaking an agent, the story panned out in the next few days. I think it might be wise or prudent to let this one simmer a bit before wasteing breath on speculation.

crimresearch

17th May 2004, 11:38 AM

Well of course NOW they find poison gas shells...didn't Rumsfeld just leave Iraq?

I bet he not only had time to plant another round of WMD evidence, but also to bury all the body parts that the Israelis whisked out of the rubble in Jenin, the thousands of missing votes from Florida2000, and the clothes that Bush wore when he personally hijacked the 9/11 airliners, plus the parachute he used to bail out before impact.

:rolleyes:

Silicon

17th May 2004, 11:50 AM

You should build a house, since you have all that straw, crimresearch.

Kerberos

17th May 2004, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by Jocko

That's not really what I meant; I know the troops are equipped to counter the threat. But because the insurgents have been linked to al Qaeda and God knows who else, imagine one of these things going off on a crowded train. Or airport. Or a stadium.

A properly primed shell of this type could kill thousands if detonated under optimal conditions, the articles are saying, and civilians don't have countertoxins available on hand. Could make Madrid look like a firecracker in comparison.
True enough civilians don't have protection as handy as soldiers, but we still have good medical service in both USA and Europe. You say that such a shell could kill thousands, but do you have any basis for making such a claim? Perhaps you have, but I have heard a lot of scary claims in regard to non-conventional weapons, but very little that seemed even remotely solid. USA has been hit with anthrax, which is one of the most lethal non-conventional weapons, and it killed less people than when two maniacs with a sniper rifle went amok, not to mention the Bali or Madrid bombings. I simply fail to see any evidence that non-conventional weapons, as a group, are that scary.

Jocko

17th May 2004, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by Kerberos

True enough civilians don't have protection as handy as soldiers, but we still have good medical service in both USA and Europe. You say that such a shell could kill thousands, but do you have any basis for making such a claim? Perhaps you have, but I have heard a lot of scary claims in regard to non-conventional weapons, but very little that seemed even remotely solid. USA has been hit with anthrax, which is one of the most lethal non-conventional weapons, and it killed less people than when two maniacs with a sniper rifle went amok, not to mention the Bali or Madrid bombings. I simply fail to see any evidence that non-conventional weapons, as a group, are that scary.

I just pulled it from the article on Fox.

One official told Fox News that a conventional 155-mm shell could hold as much as "two to five" liters of sarin, which is capable of killing thousands of people under the right conditions in highly populated areas.

Even ham-handed attempts like the Tokyo subway is enough to make me worry, let alone the gassing of the Kurds. Like I said, it all depends on the delivery and the knowledge of the bomber.

I keep on qualifying that I don't see this as the threat posed by, say, a nuke... and if you're not just a little concerned then I'm thinking you never ride the subway. :D

Chaos

17th May 2004, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by Tmy
Maybe insurgents did make it. Isnt Sarin gas kinda easy to create. Wasnt that the stuff used in that japanese subway terror attack?

FWIW when the Tokyo subway attack (also using Sarin) occured the teacher in high school chemistry class told us: "Every one of you would be able to do that, too."

The problem that the Aum sect had was not creating the Sarin but distributing it properly. If it had worked out as planned, it would have killed thousands, if not tens of thousands.

Skeptic

17th May 2004, 12:27 PM

Look, there is no empirical way to link the lack of imported terrorism in america to the war in iraq. Mind you, I supported the war in iraq (even though as a younger man I cried "no blood for oil" during gulf war I).

Confirming yet again G. B. Shaw's famous saying, "if you're not a liberal at 20 you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at 30 you have no brains."

Tmy

17th May 2004, 12:30 PM

We've had top Iraqi officials and Saddam himself in our hands for months. If there was a big WMD cache somewhere dont you think somebody wouldve given it up by now??

I often here people saying the stuff was shipped offto Syria. Is Syria that chummy wh Saddam?? I thought all his neighbors found him rather unlikeable.

Jocko

17th May 2004, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by Tmy
We've had top Iraqi officials and Saddam himself in our hands for months. If there was a big WMD cache somewhere dont you think somebody wouldve given it up by now??

Apparently not, which is why these things are being found in ones and twos, when they're found at all.

I often here people saying the stuff was shipped offto Syria. Is Syria that chummy wh Saddam?? I thought all his neighbors found him rather unlikeable.

As I recall, Syria's economy relied on the flow of Iraqi oil through their pipelines. Syria has no serious oil deposits, so it cashes in where it can.

Skeptic

17th May 2004, 12:58 PM

I often here people saying the stuff was shipped offto Syria. Is Syria that chummy wh Saddam??

Yup. Both were (and in Syria, still are) ruled by a Ba'athist regime.

iain

17th May 2004, 01:22 PM

However, a senior coalition source has told the BBC the round does not signal the discovery of weapons of mass destruction or the escalation of insurgent activity.

He said the round dated back to the Iran-Iraq war and coalition officials were not sure whether the fighters even knew what it contained. BBC website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3722255.stm)

Kodiak

17th May 2004, 01:43 PM

Latest concerning the Sarin and Mustard Gas shells found in Iraq (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html)

From the FOXNews webarticle:

"Everybody knew Saddam had chemical weapons, the question was, where did they go. Unfortunately, everybody jumped on the offramp and said 'well, because we didn't find them, he didn't have them,'" said Fox News military analyst Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney.

"I doubt if it's the tip of the iceberg but it does confirm what we've known ... that he [Saddam] had weapons of mass destruction that he used on his own people," Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, told Fox News. "This does show that the fear we had is very real. Now whether there is much more of this we don't know, Iraq is the size of the state of California."

Kerberos

17th May 2004, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by Jocko

I just pulled it from the article on Fox.
Ahh, I missed that when I read it. Honestly though I don't take such estimates seriously. I don't know if you remember this supposed plan of a terrorist attack using chemical weapons against the US embassy in Jordan I think. I heard estimates of IIRC 50.000 dead if it had succeeded, which was obviously utter nonsense. I strongly suspect that ideal conditions mean something like the victims would have to line up and be administered the exact dose required to kill, and not seek medical attention. Fox news, or any other news agency, simply know that they'll get more attention, if they say thousands of dead than if they say ten, twenty, fifty or whatever a realistic estimate would be.

Originally posted by Jocko
Even ham-handed attempts like the Tokyo subway is enough to make me worry, let alone the gassing of the Kurds. Like I said, it all depends on the delivery and the knowledge of the bomber.

I keep on qualifying that I don't see this as the threat posed by, say, a nuke... and if you're not just a little concerned then I'm thinking you never ride the subway. :D
I do in fact practically never ride the subway, but I doubt I'd be worried even if I were. The risk of a terrorist attack is absolutely insignificant compared to dying from say smoking, lack of exercise or not paying attention to traffic and you have much less chance of doing anything about it. I would of course be happier if Al-Qaida did not have chemical weapons, but I'd also be happier still if they didn't have explosives. So far there hasn't to my knowledge been a single really devastating terrorist attack with non-conventional weapons, but there have been many with explosives.
It's not just that I think that there's a difference between nukes and other non-conventional weapons. From what I know I simply don't think there's anything to justify treating non-conventional weapons, with the exception of nukes of course, as if they were in a different category than conventional weapons. At least not when it comes to terrorists, who are not capable of using such weapons the way a real army could. A MOAB (Massive Ordnance Air Burst or Mother Of All Bombs) is way more destructive than any chemical or biological weapon, which is why I personally practically never use the term weapons of mass destruction; I'm simply not convinced that it's justified

NightG1

17th May 2004, 02:32 PM

Anyone remember this (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/news/040703_nw_iraq.html) from over a year ago? It was sarin then and its sarin now. Same story, same glee from those desperate to defend the Administration. I'll invoke the 48 hour rule and wait.

Tmy

17th May 2004, 02:50 PM

Can you count this thing as a WMD?? The thing actually explodes and the result is what........... 2 soilders treated for exposer?

Doesnt sound very mass destroying.

Mr Manifesto

17th May 2004, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Tmy
Can you count this thing as a WMD?? The thing actually explodes and the result is what........... 2 soilders treated for exposer?

Doesnt sound very mass destroying.

Yeah, but it proves that Saddam didn't destroy all of his WMD's. And all means all. Not 99.99999999%! 100% or nuthin'! And if you think that's not realistic, especially in a regime rife with corruption and unable to keep a decent record to save its butt (literally in this case), then you're a terrorist-lover!

crimresearch

17th May 2004, 03:01 PM

You should build a house, since you have all that straw, crimresearch"

Nice try, troll...its called accountability...when people make wild and ludicrous assertions in public, they deserve to be reminded of their own words later.

And every one of those assertions regarding Jenin, 9/11, 2000, etc. has been put forth in the past few years, without any credible evidence to back up any of them.
Now I'm sure that those same people wish they could rewrite their personal history as easily as they rewrite the rest of reality, but it just isn't going to go away like that..too bad.

So as is standard practice for this forum, the person crying 'strawman', is in fact the one with manure under their own fingernails.

ceo_esq

17th May 2004, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by Tmy
Can you count this thing as a WMD?? The thing actually explodes and the result is what........... 2 soilders treated for exposer?

Doesnt sound very mass destroying. According to the press, the reason offered for this was that the two isolated compounds inside the shell, which were designed to mix after the shell was fired but before it exploded, apparently didn't mix properly in this case. If the shell had been used in the manner for which it was designed, the explosion could have been vastly more lethal

ceo_esq

17th May 2004, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by Tmy
Can you count this thing as a WMD?? The thing actually explodes and the result is what........... 2 soilders treated for exposer?

Doesnt sound very mass destroying. According to the press, the reason offered for this was that the two isolated compounds inside the shell, which were designed to mix after the shell was fired but before it exploded, apparently didn't mix properly in this case. If the shell had been used in the manner for which it was designed, the explosion could have been vastly more lethal.

EDITED TO ADD: Sorry about the double post. I guess you can't delete posts like you used to be able to.

Grammatron

17th May 2004, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Yeah, but it proves that Saddam didn't destroy all of his WMD's. And all means all. Not 99.99999999%! 100% or nuthin'! And if you think that's not realistic, especially in a regime rife with corruption and unable to keep a decent record to save its butt (literally in this case), then you're a terrorist-lover!

Interesting spin, I give you a gold star for the imagination.

The main point of the problem UN (not even USA) had with Iraq was its inability to say just exactly what it did with the weapons and programs.

Jocko

17th May 2004, 03:08 PM

Mr Manifesto

17th May 2004, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

Interesting spin, I give you a gold star for the imagination.

The main point of the problem UN (not even USA) had with Iraq was its inability to say just exactly what it did with the weapons and programs.

Dat's wight, wabbit, and the reason Iraq couldn't say exactly what they did with them all is a combination of lousy record-keeping and an incident where they burnt records to try to conceal from the US that they ever had WMD's. The UN didn't want to wage war over it, they just wanted to investigate further.

I wonder which option would have been more prudent? Let's ask the head of the Iraqi ruling council... Oops!

demon

17th May 2004, 03:17 PM

This is old news. Iraq had been producing Sarin since 1984 and, between 1984 and 1990, they produced about 795 tonnes of Sarin type agents (of which 732 tonnes were weaponized). The vast bulk of this (600 tonnes +) was consumed during 1985-88 and 35 tonnes were destroyed by allied bombing in GW1. Iraq destroyed a further 127 tonnes under UNSCOM supervision.
UNSCOM was also able to verify from documentary evidence that the purity of Sarin-type agents produced by Iraq were, on average, below 60%, and dropped below Iraq’s ,established quality control acceptance level of 40% by purity some 3 to 12 months after production.' 'Sarin-type agents produced by Iraq were largely of low quality and as such, degraded shortly after production.'

It was this poor quality that encouraged Iraq to develop crude 'binary' devices, using alcohol (binaries are munitions in which one precursor chemical is added to another shortly before use, in order to extend shelf-life). Iraq destroyed 337 alcohol-filled aerial bombs and 14 alcohol-filled missile warheads under UNSCOM supervision. UNSCOM was able to verify the unilateral destruction of 527 alcohol-filled aerial bombs and 20 alcohol-filled missile warheads through documentary evidence and observation of remnants.

Iraq also had a stab at using 'true' binary weapons systems using artillery shells and rockets between 1983 and 1990. Supposedly, while the results were promising they were not able to move to full production.

UNSCOM and UNMOVIC reported no evidence of any precursors remaining in Iraq and there were several that Iraq could not produce indigenously. Since there was no evidence of any supplies being imported after 1991, one can be pretty sure that the shell found today was probably a 122mm shell left over from the 80s -most likely a binary since it's hard to believe any of the original 84 vintage could have survived.

(Information mostly from UNMOVIC Working Document 6 March 2003)

Grammatron

17th May 2004, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Dat's wight, wabbit, and the reason Iraq couldn't say exactly what they did with them all is a combination of lousy record-keeping and an incident where they burnt records to try to conceal from the US that they ever had WMD's. The UN didn't want to wage war over it, they just wanted to investigate further.

I wonder which option would have been more prudent? Let's ask the head of the Iraqi ruling council... Oops!

No it's cool, let's investigate for another 12 years even though they have no interest in co-operation and see more and more there are no serious consequences for their actions.

I'm sure you can come up with better excuses for Iraq so I await your response.

Renfield

17th May 2004, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by Tmy
We've had top Iraqi officials and Saddam himself in our hands for months. If there was a big WMD cache somewhere dont you think somebody wouldve given it up by now??

I often here people saying the stuff was shipped offto Syria. Is Syria that chummy wh Saddam?? I thought all his neighbors found him rather unlikeable.

Considering all the Iraqi scientific and military types we've captured by now, yes. Especially since they no longer need to fear reprisals from Saddam.

Mr Manifesto

17th May 2004, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

No it's cool, let's investigate for another 12 years even though they have no interest in co-operation and see more and more there are no serious consequences for their actions.

I'm sure you can come up with better excuses for Iraq so I await your response.

No point. America has made her choice, and is currently running to the UN like a slapped bitch asking them to help her out of the mess they've made. Ya gotta love irony.

Silicon

17th May 2004, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by crimresearch

So as is standard practice for this forum, the person crying 'strawman', is in fact the one with manure under their own fingernails.

Bullflop.

I called "strawman" to this post:

Crimresearch said:

Well of course NOW they find poison gas shells...didn't Rumsfeld just leave Iraq?

I bet he not only had time to plant another round of WMD evidence, but also to bury all the body parts that the Israelis whisked out of the rubble in Jenin, the thousands of missing votes from Florida2000, and the clothes that Bush wore when he personally hijacked the 9/11 airliners, plus the parachute he used to bail out before impact.

Find one post where I said any of that nonsense. Trolly troll troll.[

Gimme a big trolly kiss, you trollish trolly-troll.

http://www.kewlplaces.net/cine/ss25.jpg

(P.S..........TROLL!)

Grammatron

17th May 2004, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by demon
This is old news. Iraq had been producing Sarin since 1984 and, between 1984 and 1990, they produced about 795 tonnes of Sarin type agents (of which 732 tonnes were weaponized). The vast bulk of this (600 tonnes +) was consumed during 1985-88 and 35 tonnes were destroyed by allied bombing in GW1. Iraq destroyed a further 127 tonnes under UNSCOM supervision.
UNSCOM was also able to verify from documentary evidence that the purity of Sarin-type agents produced by Iraq were, on average, below 60%, and dropped below Iraq’s ,established quality control acceptance level of 40% by purity some 3 to 12 months after production.' 'Sarin-type agents produced by Iraq were largely of low quality and as such, degraded shortly after production.'

It was this poor quality that encouraged Iraq to develop crude 'binary' devices, using alcohol (binaries are munitions in which one precursor chemical is added to another shortly before use, in order to extend shelf-life). Iraq destroyed 337 alcohol-filled aerial bombs and 14 alcohol-filled missile warheads under UNSCOM supervision. UNSCOM was able to verify the unilateral destruction of 527 alcohol-filled aerial bombs and 20 alcohol-filled missile warheads through documentary evidence and observation of remnants.

Iraq also had a stab at using 'true' binary weapons systems using artillery shells and rockets between 1983 and 1990. Supposedly, while the results were promising they were not able to move to full production.

UNSCOM and UNMOVIC reported no evidence of any precursors remaining in Iraq and there were several that Iraq could not produce indigenously. Since there was no evidence of any supplies being imported after 1991, one can be pretty sure that the shell found today was probably a 122mm shell left over from the 80s -most likely a binary since it's hard to believe any of the original 84 vintage could have survived.

(Information mostly from UNMOVIC Working Document 6 March 2003)

Interesting report although I think you have selectively quoted a bit. Here is some info from the same report regarding the R-400 Sarin/Cyclosarin bombs:

During the period 1992-1998, Iraq changed its declaration on the quantity of bombs it had produced from 1,200 to 1,550. Over the same period, Iraq changed its declaration as to the types of CBW agent fill, leaving UNMOVIC with little confidence in either the numbers produced or types of agent filled. It is not clear from Iraqi statements and documentation how many R-400 bombs had been ordered for CW purposes and the fill between unitary weapons and binary components. Although Iraq has stated that it ordered the production of 200 R-400A bombs, this may not have been the only order.
In addition, photographic evidence shows that R-400A bombs had been located at Al Walid Airbase in October 1991. This contradicts the declaration by Iraq that R-400A bombs had only been deployed to Al Azzizziyah and Airfield 37 and that all such bombs had been destroyed in July or August 1991.
.....
However, questions remained with regard to the manner of the destruction of 160 aerial bombs that Iraq declared as having been destroyed during the Gulf War. These questions may have implications on the accounting of aerial bombs filled with biological agents.
In the absence of further documentation, it cannot be ascertained whether Iraq developed its true binary weapons system for Sarin into large-scale production of binary artillery shells and rockets. To help resolve this issue, Iraq should identify all facilities (in addition to MSE and TRC) that had been involved in production/modification of artillery shells and rockets as true binary weapons. In addition, Iraq should also provide clarification of all details concerning its design for binary weapons systems.
To produce Sarin-type agents, Iraq must have the key precursor MPC as well as hydrogen fluoride (HF) and alcohols. No MPC has been declared or noted during inspections. The alcohols are widely available and have legitimate civilian uses in Iraq. Some 300 tonnes of HF was declared stored at the Arab Detergent Company (ARADET) in December 2002. This represents a significant increase from the amount declared stored there in 1988.
UNSCOM could not fully verify Iraq’s accounting for precursors it had acquired for the production of Sarin-type agents due to the manner in which they were destroyed and stored. Iraq may have retained imported chemicals to produce MPC, which is stable if properly stored. Such imported chemicals, thionyl chloride and phosphorus trichloride (PCl3) (if redistilled), may be viable after years in storage. Documentary evidence and the properties of PCl3, support to some extent Iraq’s assertion that the chemical was lost during storage. However, it cannot be excluded that Iraq has retained some portion of the 1772 tonnes UNSCOM could not account for. The import of thionyl chloride and PCl3 became problematic for Iraq, from 1988 onwards, due to export/import restrictions introduced by the Australia Group. Thionyl chloride and PCl3 were subsequently included in the UN export/import monitoring lists.

Grammatron

17th May 2004, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

No point. America has made her choice, and is currently running to the UN like a slapped bitch asking them to help her out of the mess they've made. Ya gotta love irony.

No we can handle it we just asked if UN would like to help, but in true UN fashion it can't do jack when a country is in need with out the major world powers. Since USA, UK, Australia, Italy were already there and Russia, German, France are sort of in the middle of a scandal with the whole oil for food program they are kind of disinterested in helping at the moment. I do love UN hypocrisy though...well more like hate with a passion.

Kerberos

17th May 2004, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by crimresearch

Nice try, troll...its called accountability...when people make wild and ludicrous assertions in public, they deserve to be reminded of their own words later.

And every one of those assertions regarding Jenin, 9/11, 2000, etc. has been put forth in the past few years, without any credible evidence to back up any of them.
Now I'm sure that those same people wish they could rewrite their personal history as easily as they rewrite the rest of reality, but it just isn't going to go away like that..too bad.

So as is standard practice for this forum, the person crying 'strawman', is in fact the one with manure under their own fingernails.
Cerainly these claims have been made, but so have claims that UN is a giant satanistic conspiracy with the sole purpose of destroying the USA and that the Earth is flat. Why don't you try to defend those claim. They can't be straw men after all, since apparently a straw man must now be a claim that was never made by anyone, not even the wackiest conspiracy theorist.

fishbob

18th May 2004, 12:48 AM

No it's cool, let's investigate for another 12 years even though they have no interest in co-operation and see more and more there are no serious consequences for their actions.

How many Americans, Brits, Poles, Aussies were killed in Iraq over the 12 year investigation? How many billions of dollars less were spent each year? How many more Iraqis were killed or tortured in prisons during those 12 years?

Zero, 80ish billion per year, about zero. I vote for investigations.

Kerberos

18th May 2004, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by fishbob

How many Americans, Brits, Poles, Aussies were killed in Iraq over the 12 year investigation? How many billions of dollars less were spent each year? How many more Iraqis were killed or tortured in prisons during those 12 years?

Zero, 80ish billion per year, about zero. I vote for investigations.
I agree with point one and two, but do you honestly think that Saddam did not torture the people in prisons in the last 12 years?

Grammatron

18th May 2004, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by fishbob

How many Americans, Brits, Poles, Aussies were killed in Iraq over the 12 year investigation? How many billions of dollars less were spent each year? How many more Iraqis were killed or tortured in prisons during those 12 years?

Zero, 80ish billion per year, about zero. I vote for investigations.

You can't judge success by how many soldiers from those countries did not die and how much money was not spent. That would make Rwanda a success in your book and somehow I think you would not label that as such.

BillyTK

18th May 2004, 02:42 AM

...a senior coalition source has told the BBC the round does not signal the discovery of weapons of mass destruction or the escalation of insurgent activity.

He said the round dated back to the Iran-Iraq war and coalition officials were not sure whether the fighters even knew what it contained.
Source: BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3722255.stm)

NB. Let's hope the BBC aren't trying to sex down this one.

BillyTK

18th May 2004, 02:54 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic
Confirming yet again G. B. Shaw's famous saying, "if you're not a liberal at 20 you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at 30 you have no brains."
Wrong and wrong; the quote is attributed to Winston Churchill and refers to socialists not liberals; considering the political structure of Britain during Churchill's time the latter wouldn't make sense. It's also exactly the kind of patronising remark a member of the privileged classes would make, and an equivocation fallacy (between conservative in its general meaning and its party political meaning) except that it's been mis-attributed, if not made up entirely (http://www.ranea.org/watts/archives/000081.html).

Drooper

18th May 2004, 05:09 AM

Originally posted by fishbob

How many Americans, Brits, Poles, Aussies were killed in Iraq over the 12 year investigation? How many billions of dollars less were spent each year? How many more Iraqis were killed or tortured in prisons during those 12 years?

Zero, 80ish billion per year, about zero. I vote for investigations.

Errr.

Did you say about zero Iraqis killed or tortured in prisons from 1991 to 2003? I would be very interested to see your evidence for that.

Also , any other comments on the social welfare implication of the trade embargo and the criminal tyranny of the oil for food program?

a_unique_person

18th May 2004, 05:21 AM

Originally posted by Drooper

Errr.

Did you say about zero Iraqis killed or tortured in prisons from 1991 to 2003? I would be very interested to see your evidence for that.

Also , any other comments on the social welfare implication of the trade embargo and the criminal tyranny of the oil for food program?

I think an economist should be able to work out that no matter your political views are, the ROI on this venture is about 0. May as well have dub a big Keynsian hole and filled it with dollar bills.

Drooper

18th May 2004, 05:27 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I think an economist should be able to work out that no matter your political views are, the ROI on this venture is about 0. May as well have dub a big Keynsian hole and filled it with dollar bills.

This nonsense is relevant to my question how?

[edited]

If you want to pretend to have some academic ability, please provide some working for your claim.

Kodiak

18th May 2004, 05:33 AM

Originally posted by Tmy
Can you count this thing as a WMD?? The thing actually explodes and the result is what........... 2 soilders treated for exposer?

Doesnt sound very mass destroying.

The reason it did not work as designed is two-fold:

1) The shell had no markings and it is unlikely the terrorists knew what type of artillery shell they had when they wired it up. The two reagents are designed to mix at a controlled rate and ratio while in the air on its way to the target.

2) The shell was wired with an independant explosive device so that it could be used as a roadside bomb. Instead of a big explosion like you get with an HE shell, all the independent explosive device probably did was rip open the shell casing. Any mixing of the reagents would be minimal and uncontrolled.

BillyTK

18th May 2004, 05:34 AM

Originally posted by Drooper
Also , any other comments on the social welfare implication of the trade embargo and the criminal tyranny of the oil for food program?
I have; they stink. But bombing what little infrastructure the Iraqis had left and opening up their country to infiltration by fundamentalist terrorists seems a bit of a price to pay. And who was behind the embargo and oil for food program, exactly?

Kodiak

18th May 2004, 05:38 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

I have; they stink. But bombing what little infrastructure the Iraqis had left and opening up their country to infiltration by fundamentalist terrorists seems a bit of a price to pay. And who was behind the embargo and oil for food program, exactly?

Who opened up the country for fundy jihadists?!? :eek:

Care to explain that, or offer evidence?

a_unique_person

18th May 2004, 05:44 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

Who opened up the country for fundy jihadists?!? :eek:

Care to explain that, or offer evidence?

That has been one of the big negatives of the war. Saddam was secular, fundies are not. The jihadists were not in Iraq prior to the US invasion. Now they are having a picnic.

BillyTK

18th May 2004, 06:06 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

Who opened up the country for fundy jihadists?!? :eek:

Care to explain that, or offer evidence?

Sadam Hussein was a murdering f***head but he was a secular murdering f***head and as such no great friend to Bin-Laden and his ilk; IIRC the only evidence of Al-Queda (poss. spelling mistake) infiltration into Iraq was in the Kurd homelands over which Hussein had no influence anyway. We are led to believe that the current violence against USUK forces is to some extent the result of fundamentalist agitation which in part can be attributed to foreign nationals entering into Iraq (see here: Al-Qaeda 'seeking base in Iraq' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3442413.stm) for instance).

I think it's useful to remind ourselves that after the first Gulf War, when Bush the First exhorted southern Shi-ites and Republican Guards to rise up against Hussein, loyalist forces were allowed access to restricted air space to suppress the former and the latter were refused access to weapons. A conclusion one might draw from this was that Bush preferred a secular murdering f***head in charge to the possibility of a fundamentalist murdering f***head, and that the former would be useful in preventing the rise of the latter.

Kodiak

18th May 2004, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

That has been one of the big negatives of the war. Saddam was secular, fundies are not. The jihadists were not in Iraq prior to the US invasion. Now they are having a picnic.

I do not dispute that the jihadists have gone where the targets are. What I dispute is the assertion that the coalition is responsible for allowing them into the country.

Syria has had sanctions imposed on it by the U.S. for either their incompetence or their collusion regarding the movement of fundy terrorists into Iraq from that country.

I guess the U.S. was responsible for the NVA being in South Vietnam, too... :rolleyes:

Tmy

18th May 2004, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

What I dispute is the assertion that the coalition is responsible for allowing them into the country.

Well they are in control of the country. Its up to them to monitor the borders. They havent purposly let them in but they are at fualt in their negligence.

Kodiak

18th May 2004, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

Sadam Hussein was a murdering f***head but he was a secular murdering f***head and as such no great friend to Bin-Laden and his ilk; IIRC the only evidence of Al-Queda (poss. spelling mistake) infiltration into Iraq was in the Kurd homelands over which Hussein had no influence anyway.

Al-Qaeda isn't the only terrorist group out there. Saddam provided aid and comfort to several different Islamic terrorist groups, included, but not limited to, Hezbollah (sp?).

a_unique_person

18th May 2004, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

I do not dispute that the jihadists have gone where the targets are. What I dispute is the assertion that the coalition is responsible for allowing them into the country.

Syria has had sanctions imposed on it by the U.S. for either their incompetence or their collusion regarding the movement of fundy terrorists into Iraq from that country.

I guess the U.S. was responsible for the NVA being in South Vietnam, too... :rolleyes:

Considering the NVA was in Vietnam, and the North/South construct was a totally artificial one, I guess the US was not responsible for them being there. They were just in their own country. I think the US was responsible for the US being there, however.

Tmy

18th May 2004, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

Al-Qaeda isn't the only terrorist group out there. Saddam provided aid and comfort to several different Islamic terrorist groups, included, but not limited to, Hezbollah (sp?).

Yeah but Hezbollah aint OUR terrorists. They're more of Israels problem. You dont see US troops going after Chechnyia terrorists. Thats Russias deal.

Kodiak

18th May 2004, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by Tmy

Well they are in control of the country. Its up to them to monitor the borders. They havent purposly let them in but they are at fualt in their negligence.

A nicely biased spin you put on that, choosing the word 'negligence'.

While coalition efforts have been unsuccessful in keeping the borders completely sealed off, I'd love for you to provide evidence of the neglect your word implies.

Kodiak

18th May 2004, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Considering the NVA was in Vietnam, and the North/South construct was a totally artificial one, I guess the US was not responsible for them being there. They were just in their own country. I think the US was responsible for the US being there, however.

Fine.

I guess the U.S. was responsible for the Chinese and Soviets being in Korea, too...

Kodiak

18th May 2004, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by Tmy

Yeah but Hezbollah aint OUR terrorists. They're more of Israels problem. You dont see US troops going after Chechnyia terrorists. Thats Russias deal.

The President's WOT makes no such distinctions. Israel is a much closer ally than Russia.

As far as Chechnyia is concerned? Do not think that because U.S. troops haven't invaded that no steps are being taken against other terrorist groups around the world.

Tmy

18th May 2004, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

A nicely biased spin you put on that, choosing the word 'negligence'.

While coalition efforts have been unsuccessful in keeping the borders completely sealed off, I'd love for you to provide evidence of the neglect your word implies.

My spin? You said it was Syria's incompetence. Ever think that maybe both sides are to blame. THe wackos have to come in from somewhere.

Tmy

18th May 2004, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

The President's WOT makes no such distinctions. Israel is a much closer ally than Russia.

Bullflop I say.

There are all sorts of terror groups all around the world. Do we have troops and aid going to all these places? No. Theres probably some terror groups we want around.

We are concearned with the ones after the US, rightfully so.

Kodiak

18th May 2004, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by Tmy

My spin? You said it was Syria's incompetence. Ever think that maybe both sides are to blame. THe wackos have to come in from somewhere.

Yes. Your word. Your spin.

Yes, they are coming in from somewhere. The SYRIAN border.

The movement of terrorists across Syria's border has been widely reported and, as I've already posted, resulted in an official diplomatic backlash from the United States, namely trade sanctions.

I've backed up my claim about Syria's role in allowing the emtrance of terrorists into Iraq.

Care to back up your claim of border neglect by coalition forces?

Kodiak

18th May 2004, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by Tmy
Theres probably some terror groups we want around.

:eek:

Evidence, please!!!

Kerberos

18th May 2004, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

The President's WOT makes no such distinctions. Israel is a much closer ally than Russia.
First of all the statement is utter and obvious nonsense, of course the priority is groups that might target the US. Secondly it's self-contradicting; if no distinction is made, then it’s irrelevant that Israel is a closer ally.

Tmy

18th May 2004, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

I've backed up my claim about Syria's role in allowing the emtrance of terrorists into Iraq.

Care to back up your claim of border neglect by coalition forces?

How about the fact that they are coming from Syria. A country is ultimately in control of its own border. If unwanted peeps are coming across dont blame the other side, blame yourself.

Kodiak

18th May 2004, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos

First of all the statement is utter and obvious nonsense, of course the priority is groups that might target the US. Secondly it's self-contradicting; if no distinction is made, then it’s irrelevant that Israel is a closer ally.

Please pay closer attention.

I never said there was 'no priority', only that terrorist organizations will not be ignored, nor indeed supported (as Tmy suggests) if they are not considered a threat.

Since that's cleared up, it now makes perfect sense that the U.S. would act on behalf of Israel's interests before Russia's.

Kodiak

18th May 2004, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by Tmy

How about the fact that they are coming from Syria. A country is ultimately in control of its own border. If unwanted peeps are coming across dont blame the other side, blame yourself.

Sorry, but we are not talking about jobless Mexicans crossing the Rio Grande here...

Still no defense of your 'negligence' crack?

Kodiak

18th May 2004, 08:44 AM

'Negligence', indeed... (http://washingtontimes.com/specialreport/20040516-121025-3508r.htm) :rolleyes:

Tmy

18th May 2004, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

Since that's cleared up, it now makes perfect sense that the U.S. would act on behalf of Israel's interests before Russia's.

But to invade and occupy another country in order to take out a piece of a 3rd countries terror threat??? Thats a little overkill in the generic leg of the WOT.

We have a war on drugs, and we didnt even bother to take out the Afgan poppy fields.

Kerberos

18th May 2004, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

Please pay closer attention.

I never said there was 'no priority', only that terrorist organizations will not be ignored, nor indeed supported (as Tmy suggests) if they are not considered a threat.

Since that's cleared up, it now makes perfect sense that the U.S. would act on behalf of Israel's interests before Russia's.
I did pay attention, you said "The president's WOT makes no such distinction” my emphasis. “no such distinction" means that no distinctions is made, not that we sort of make a distinction, but we don't like terrorist of any kind. Anybody can misstate their position, but don't accuse me of not paying attention, because what you said, wasn't what you meant.

In any case the argument doesn't hold water, Iraq is by far the single most expensive part of the war against terrorism, both in lives and in dollars. I have absolutely no doubt that Bush is willing to help Israel with Hizbollah (Or however that's spelled), but you don't spend tens of billions of dollars and several hundred lives, to deal a fairly minor blow to one of many terrorist groups, who doesn't even attack you. No-one is that good allies.

Kodiak

18th May 2004, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by Tmy

But to invade and occupy another country in order to take out a piece of a 3rd countries terror threat??? Thats a little overkill in the generic leg of the WOT.

We have a war on drugs, and we didnt even bother to take out the Afgan poppy fields.

Just because invasion and occupation was used in Afghanistan and Iraq, does not mean that there are not other methods at our disposal for other instances.

Your sad but accurate point about the poppy fields is a good one, though... :(

In related news, from a AP article I found online regarding the sanctions imposed against Syria: "John Kerry, Bush's probable Democratic opponent in November's election, endorsed the sanctions but said Bush had waited too long to impose them."

Kodiak

18th May 2004, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos

I did pay attention, you said "The president's WOT makes no such distinction” my emphasis. “no such distinction" means that no distinctions is made, not that we sort of make a distinction, but we don't like terrorist of any kind. Anybody can misstate their position, but don't accuse me of not paying attention, because what you said, wasn't what you meant.

In any case the argument doesn't hold water, Iraq is by far the single most expensive part of the war against terrorism, both in lives and in dollars. I have absolutely no doubt that Bush is willing to help Israel with Hizbollah (Or however that's spelled), but you don't spend tens of billions of dollars and several hundred lives, to deal a fairly minor blow to one of many terrorist groups, who doesn't even attack you. No-one is that good allies.

Sorry. What I said, I meant. What you read isn't what I posted.

Where I come from, 'such' is meant to mean "certain" or "specific", "exemplified" or "specified quality", not "NO distinctions are made".

The most expensive part of the WOT in lives was 9/11. If you had told me that the cost in American lives to invade and occupy Iraq for over a year was less than 800 lives, I would've told you that you were crazy and way too low.

Saddams involvement with terrorist groups was just one of a half dozen reasons for invading Iraq and deposing Saddam. You can't compare the monetary cost to the accomplishment of only that single objective.

BillyTK

18th May 2004, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

Al-Qaeda isn't the only terrorist group out there. Saddam provided aid and comfort to several different Islamic terrorist groups, included, but not limited to, Hezbollah (sp?).
Can you supply evidence for this please? Is there any indication that he permitted them a presence in his country?

At the end of the article I linked to was an interesting statement:
However, earlier this month US officials told the New York Times newspaper that documents found with Saddam Hussein at his capture seemed to show that the ousted Iraqi leader had warned his followers against forging links with Arab fighters.

The ousted Iraqi president may have feared that foreigners might hijack the insurgency for their own ends, the newspaper quoted the officials as saying.
My emphasis.

If accurate, it's certainly revealing.

BillyTK

18th May 2004, 09:31 AM

Okay here we go; here's the link to the NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/20/international/worldspecial/20ASSE.html) (registration required) and here's a freely available version:

Hussein Warned Against Using Foreign Arab Fighters in Iraq (http://www-tech.mit.edu/V123/N64/64wn_long3.64w.html)
Officials said Saddam apparently believed that the foreign Arabs, eager for a holy war against the West, had a different agenda from the Baathists, who were eager for their own return to power in Baghdad. As a result, he wanted his supporters to be careful about becoming close allies with the jihadists, officials familiar with the document said.

[O]fficials said they had no evidence that the document found with Saddam was a fabrication.
Whatever Hussein's relationship with extra-national terrorist groups, it would appear her preferred to keep them extra-national.

Kodiak

18th May 2004, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

Can you supply evidence for this please? Is there any indication that he permitted them a presence in his country?

In a word, Yes.

See here (http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/bu/iraq/iraq_f_a.htm)

Here (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040330-094233-2002r.htm)

Or here (http://www.terrorismfiles.org/countries/iraq.html#)

Kerberos

18th May 2004, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

Sorry. What I said, I meant. What you read isn't what I posted.

Where I come from, 'such' is meant to mean "certain" or "specific", "exemplified" or "specified quality", not "NO distinctions are made".
I have never in my life heard "such" used to mean certain or specific. I also checked two online dictionaries and couldn't find any trace of such a use of "such" in either of them. I did find something about "such that" meaning specified quality, but no quality was specified anywhere so that's a moot point. Perhaps "such" is used in some weird way in your village/town, but it's hardly my fault if you use words in ways that are totally different from the way they're used in standard English.

Edited to add: And I never claimed that "such" meant no distinction was made, "no distinction" meant no distinction was made. "Such" was used (at least in normal English) to indicate that it was the distinction in question that we were talking about, namely the one of whether terrorist were "our" problem or somebody elses.

Tmy

18th May 2004, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

Sorry, but we are not talking about jobless Mexicans crossing the Rio Grande here...

Still no defense of your 'negligence' crack?

I think thats helps my point. THe reason we dont crack down on the Mex border is cause we dont really care about the jobless mexicans. Now if psycho terrorists were running across, we'd have a hell of alot more presence on the Rio Grande. We wouldnt sit back and say "Mexico do sumthin!"

Maybe there shoudl be morethan 75 men plugging the holes from Syria.

Kodiak

18th May 2004, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK
Okay here we go; here's the link to the NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/20/international/worldspecial/20ASSE.html) (registration required) and here's a freely available version:

Hussein Warned Against Using Foreign Arab Fighters in Iraq (http://www-tech.mit.edu/V123/N64/64wn_long3.64w.html)

Whatever Hussein's relationship with extra-national terrorist groups, it would appear her preferred to keep them extra-national.

That was during and after the coalition invasion. He sang a different tune when he was operating freely.

Kodiak

18th May 2004, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos

I have never in my life heard "such" used to mean certain or specific. I also checked two online dictionaries and couldn't find any trace of such a use of "such" in either of them. I did find something about "such that" meaning specified quality, but no quality was specified anywhere so that's a moot point. Perhaps "such" is used in some weird way in your village/town, but it's hardly my fault if you use words in ways that are totally different from the way they're used in standard English.

Edited to add: And I never claimed that "such" meant no distinction was made, "no distinction" meant no distinction was made. "Such" was used (at least in normal English) to indicate that it was the distinction in question that we were talking about, namely the one of whether terrorist were "our" problem or somebody elses.

I got my info from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary and Thesaurus.

Regardless of our differing uses of 'such', you are now clear at least on the specific distinction I meant, namely that IT IS NOT TRUE THAT the President's W.O.T. ignored, or was unconcerned with (or indeed looked favorably upon, as Tmy suggests) some forms/organizations of terrorism. While some forms/organizations of terrorism would have different priorities for the Bush Administration, all were considered targets of the WOT.

Tmy

18th May 2004, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

IT IS NOT TRUE THAT the President's W.O.T. ignored, or was unconcerned with (or indeed looked favorably upon, as Tmy suggests) some forms/organizations of terrorism. .

Well Bush didnt seem to have a problem when the rebels ousted President whozits in Haiti.

And GW would plotz in his pantaloons if the Iran govt was overthrown.

Kodiak

18th May 2004, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by Tmy

Well Bush didnt seem to have a problem when the rebels ousted President whozits in Haiti.

And GW would plotz in his pantaloons if the Iran govt was overthrown.

Come on...

You consider those terrorist groups?!

BillyTK

18th May 2004, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

In a word, Yes.

See here (http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/bu/iraq/iraq_f_a.htm)
Okay... forgive me for being skeptical, but I do get a little suspicious about how reams of documents just happen to fall into certain people's laps, but as Hussein is on record (IIRC) offering aid to families of suicide bombers, I won't contest this.

Here (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040330-094233-2002r.htm)
This one is hereby debunked as being vague, contradictory and post-invasion anyway.

Or here (http://www.terrorismfiles.org/countries/iraq.html#)
I've no way to evaluate the credibility of this website, and it opens up a ton of commercial pop-ups which I never find particularly endearing.

From Kodiak:
That was during and after the coalition invasion. He sang a different tune when he was operating freely.
You've yet to evidence that; just to clarify, I'm not necessarily contesting that Hussein supported terrorist activity in other countries, but that he allowed them a presence in his country.

Kodiak

18th May 2004, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

Okay... forgive me for being skeptical, but I do get a little suspicious about how reams of documents just happen to fall into certain people's laps, but as Hussein is on record (IIRC) offering aid to families of suicide bombers, I won't contest this.

This one is hereby debunked as being vague, contradictory and post-invasion anyway.

I've no way to evaluate the credibility of this website, and it opens up a ton of commercial pop-ups which I never find particularly endearing.

You've yet to evidence that; just to clarify, I'm not necessarily contesting that Hussein supported terrorist activity in other countries, but that he allowed them a presence in his country.

Sorry about the post-invasion article.

Instead of diregarding the evidence based solely on the website, could you address the content?

Kodiak

18th May 2004, 10:53 AM

A goverment website detailing their info on this subject (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/19988.htm)

Jocko

18th May 2004, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

That has been one of the big negatives of the war. Saddam was secular, fundies are not. The jihadists were not in Iraq prior to the US invasion. Now they are having a picnic.

What you call having a picnic, I call being driven into the open to face troops instead of hiding in shadows to better murder civilians.

Seems like a decent deal to me. Iraq has become the world's largest roach motel.

Besides, It's well-known (and Kodiak has well supported) that Saddam paid big bucks to foreign suicide bombers. Kinda odd behavior for the secular xenophobe some are describing, ain't it?

Tricky

18th May 2004, 11:51 AM

Most people acknowledge that Saddam had WMDs at some time in the past. Considering that the US can't even keep track of it's own uranium (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/specialreports/buriedlegacy/s_87948.html), it seems unreasonable to think that Iraq could ever account for every single shell ever created. Too many people had access to them. Not all of those people were absolutely loyal to Saddam (recall he had a rather tough program for keeping them in line.)

Personally, I am still dumfounded that we have found so few WMDs. I expected from the very beginning to find a few which had grown legs, so to speak. Trying to hype this incident into a story to support the WMD contentions made prior to the war is hyperbole of the highest order.

TAILGUNNER

18th May 2004, 11:57 AM

the finding of this alledged sarin packed shell i say alledged because it is yet to be quantified other than in the field opens up a whole yard of possibilities

if this is part of the original arsenal of saddam that was supposed to be destroyed where's the rest and thats important in itself as the arsenal has far worse than just sarin

if it is not part of the original then who's making new batches and how many batches have been made and naturally what else is being prepared

its inconcievable that these terrorists and militia would let off a large cloud that would resort in the deaths of many iraqi civilians however in a military base it would be seen as a great victory for them

on a positive note the device was not the greatest attempt at sarin dispersal and does seem to suggest it is in the hands of those who are of yet to gain the knowledge to use such weapons effectively

for thank many people will be grateful

Nie Trink Wasser

18th May 2004, 12:00 PM

woo doggy

I came in here thinking I could read about 'Sarin-loaded artillery shell in Iraq', but as usual with the JREF forum, it's a completely different thread now

TAILGUNNER

18th May 2004, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
woo doggy

I came in here thinking I could read about 'Sarin-loaded artillery shell in Iraq', but as usual with the JREF forum, it's a completely different thread now

its not i just posted about it above

rikzilla

18th May 2004, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by NightG1
Anyone remember this (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/news/040703_nw_iraq.html) from over a year ago? It was sarin then and its sarin now. Same story, same glee from those desperate to defend the Administration. I'll invoke the 48 hour rule and wait.

I guess I'm the only one who wondered why they were pouring insecticides into arty shells? Oh, BTW:

Sarin originally was developed in 1938 in Germany as a pesticide.

Sarin is no joke. When I was in the Army and taking NBC classes they didn't call it Sarin, they just called it "nerve agent". If you get a drop of this crap on you, you have only a few seconds (depending on exposure) to use an auto-injecter with 2mg of atropine inside. They taught us to inject ourselves in the meaty part of the thigh.

If you don't hit it in time, the DI told us we would suffer "the 9 second watusi" ...9 seconds of hellish convulsions so strong that some of your bones will be broken. Not exactly a great way to go.

I sure hope they don't have more of these along with an artillery piece to deliver them.....they could sit well back and lob these rounds into the green zone if they do.

-z

Kerberos

18th May 2004, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by Kodiak

I got my info from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary and Thesaurus.

Regardless of our differing uses of 'such', you are now clear at least on the specific distinction I meant, namely that IT IS NOT TRUE THAT the President's W.O.T. ignored, or was unconcerned with (or indeed looked favorably upon, as Tmy suggests) some forms/organizations of terrorism. While some forms/organizations of terrorism would have different priorities for the Bush Administration, all were considered targets of the WOT.
I couldn't find your use of the word on their web-addition, but be that as it may. I obviously agree that cutting of aid to a terrorist organisation is good, but I feel, and you have indicated you agree, that it fails to justify the cost of the war. The only thing that would do that IMO, is either the finding of a program for non-conventional weapons so extensive that it could actually be considered a serious threat, which seems extremely unlikely, or if you actually manage to make Iraq a stable democracy, and at this point I'm not too optimistic about that.

Kerberos

18th May 2004, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by rikzilla

I guess I'm the only one who wondered why they were pouring insecticides into arty shells?

Who were pouring insectides into shells?

subgenius

18th May 2004, 01:16 PM

Rumsfeld says it wasn't necessarily sarin

Washington-AP -- Don't jump to any conclusions just yet. That warning comes from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, after the U-S military in Iraq announced that a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve gas had exploded near a U-S military convoy.

Rumsfeld told a Washington, D-C audience that the "field test" showing the presence of sarin may not be accurate. He says more analysis needs to be done -- and that it may take some time to find out just what the chemical was.
....
http://www.wtkr.com/Global/story.asp?S=1873574&nav=0oa8AfMQ

Jocko

18th May 2004, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by subgenius
Rumsfeld says it wasn't necessarily sarin

Get on today's paper, Sub.

NEW YORK — Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm that it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve agent sarin (search), Defense Department officials told Fox News Tuesday.

Fox link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html)

subgenius

18th May 2004, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Jocko

Get on today's paper, Sub.

Fox link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html)

Well as a matter of fact, the story I linked is dated May 18....as is yours....that would be today if my calendar is correct.
But whatever.

AtheistArchon

18th May 2004, 01:51 PM

- Hmm. Re: the munitions...

- From what I know now, the round in question was a binary round with two chemical chambers that mix when armed, and disperse over a large area (airburst probably) when detonated. That, at least, is the theory behind chemical munitions.

- The reason why it didn't detonate properly is probably because these munitions contain a spin timer in order to protect the firing crew from short rounds. In other words, the weapon has to spin a certain number of times while in the air before it arms itself. You see the same thing on M203 grenades launched from underneath an M-16, because otherwise you could point the thing at your feet and blow yourself up. Granted, an artillery shell like this isn't likely to be aimed at a near target by mistake, but it can happen. Even worse, you don't want a live shell stuck in an artillery piece.

Skeptic

18th May 2004, 01:53 PM

How many Americans, Brits, Poles, Aussies were killed in Iraq over the 12 year investigation? How many billions of dollars less were spent each year? How many more Iraqis were killed or tortured in prisons during those 12 years?

Zero, 80ish billion per year, about zero. I vote for investigations.

"About zero" Iraqis were killed by Saddam in the last 12 years of the "investigations"? You're off by a few tens of thousands, at least, if not more.

To be more specific, have you seen the picture in the NY post of seven Iraqi merchants arrested by Hussein who had their arm cut off... in the very same Abu Gharib prison... who were flown to the US to get a new prosthetic arm? Why don't you tell them they are a few of those "about zero" victims of Saddam. See what they say.

And, of course, you must also include the thousands upon thousands of Iraqi children Saddam let starve for propaganda purposes to get the world to remove the "genocidal UN sanctions", while building himself more palaces and rearming the republican guard, etc., etc.

But, put together, a lousy hundred thousand--if not many more--of dead and mutilated Iraqis is "about zero" since, after all, if victims can't be blamed on the west, they don't count.

P.S.

By the way, according to the left, weren't the sanctions and inspections an evil imperialistic genocidal zionist republican conspiracy... until the moment GWB decided to invade Iraq, when they turned out into a wonderful thing, the silver bullet to preserve peace, virtually overnight?

An Infinite Ocean

18th May 2004, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
[B]To be more specific, have you seen the picture in the NY post of seven Iraqi merchants arrested by Hussein who had their arm cut off... in the very same Abu Gharib prison... who were flown to the US to get a new prosthetic arm? Why don't you tell them they are a few of those "about zero" victims of Saddam. See what they say.

If only Saddam had restricted himself to the torture technique of stripping his enemies naked and pointing at their penises. Then I might have been slightly less pro-war.

demon

18th May 2004, 05:51 PM

"If only Saddam had restricted himself to the torture technique of stripping his enemies naked and pointing at their penises. Then I might have been slightly less pro-war."

Are you implying that the US has restricted its torture techniques to stripping prisoners and pointing at their penises?

demon

18th May 2004, 06:59 PM

Zilla:
"I sure hope they don't have more of these along with an artillery piece to deliver them.....they could sit well back and lob these rounds into the green zone if they do."

Ah bless....are you worried that they may adopt the tactics of the US forces? Damned inconsiderate of the blighters, eh?
It's just not cricket is it? I remember the day when the baath street kids made do with peashooters and catapults...

Grammatron

18th May 2004, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by demon
Ah bless....are you worried that they may adopt the tactics of the US forces? Damned inconsiderate of the blighters, eh?
It's just not cricket is it? I remember the day when the baath street kids made do with peashooters and catapults...

Are you saying US forces shoot artillery shells full of Sarin?

demon

18th May 2004, 07:41 PM

I didn`t say they were...was talking more about the tactic of lobbing artillery into designated areas, eg Fallujah.

But, on a slight tangent, it is funny how people consider the "enemy" using chemical weaponry as such a low blow while our cluster bombs and DU for example, aren`t.

What is the actual difference to the blind man whether Sarin blinded him or the schrapnel from a bomb did? Does the guy injured by Sarin feel hard done by while another guy merely feels miffed that he happen to get caught in the crossfire during a good honest set to between foes? Does the kid who picks up a cluster bomb and looses his arms feel better than the kid who gets napalmed?

I guess it`s only the most loony anti-semite (or Brit-&-Yank hater) who would stoop so low and be so moronized as to say bombing over ten thousand civilians from near-orbitial heights could in anyway be worse than killing them in an inhumane way....just a thought.

Grammatron

18th May 2004, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by demon
I didn`t say they were...was talking more about the tactic of lobbing artillery into designated areas, eg Fallujah.

But, on a slight tangent, it is funny how people consider the "enemy" using chemical weaponry as such a low blow while our cluster bombs and DU for example, aren`t.

What is the actual difference to the blind man whether Sarin blinded him or the schrapnel from a bomb did? Does the guy injured by Sarin feel hard done by while another guy merely feels miffed that he happen to get caught in the crossfire during a good honest set to between foes? Does the kid who picks up a cluster bomb and looses his arms feel better than the kid who gets napalmed?

I guess it`s only the most loony anti-semite (or Brit-&-Yank hater) who would stoop so low and be so moronized as to say bombing over ten thousand civilians from near-orbitial heights could in anyway be worse than killing them in an inhumane way....just a thought.

I think if you want a problem with a country that blindly bombs the city you want to go yell at Russia and how the pounded Groznyy into a fine powder. USA goes to great length to minimize the civilian deaths. As opposed to the "freedom fighters" in Iraq who just suicide bomb civilians. Does the kid who gets suicide bombed feel better because a "Freedom fighter" did it?

Mr Manifesto

18th May 2004, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

I think if you want a problem with a country that blindly bombs the city you want to go yell at Russia and how the pounded Groznyy into a fine powder. USA goes to great length to minimize the civilian deaths.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Funny (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36012-2002Feb19?language=printer)

Since I'm not in a google-for-bad-news mood, here's some you can look up for yourself:

Chukar Kariz, 22 10 2001, 36 dead. No combatants in the area.
Bekhere, 20 12 2001, 40+ dead. No combatnants in the area.
Basra, 05 04 2003, 10 killed in an attack meant to get "Chemical Ali" (it missed). Five of these were under the age of eighteen, in fact under the age of fourteen.
And let's not forget that restaurant that was bombed on 07 04 2003 because Saddam maybe was in it. Of course, he wasn't, and even if he was, was it worth the lives of the civilians killed (14 this time) to get one leader who was no longer in control of his country (the statue of Saddam was pulled down two days later)?

peptoabysmal

18th May 2004, 11:40 PM

Well it's been confirmed. We found a WMD.

http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=1877848&nav=EyAzNEEl

Now the left will have to change it's mantra from "No WMD" to "Miniscule Amount of WMD. Is it me or it just doesn't have the same ring to it?

Interesting quote from the story:

An Iraqi Kurdish official had no doubt similar substances will be found as the weapons hunt continues.

"We don't know where they are, but we suspect they are hidden in many locations in Iraq," Howar Ziad, the Kurdish representative to the United Nations, told Fox News on Tuesday. "It's quite possible that even the neighboring states who are against the reform of Iraq ... are helping the Saddamites in hiding."

"As we know, the Baathist regime had a track record of using" these chemicals against people in Iraq, such as the Kurds, Ziad continued. "He's [Saddam] never kept any commitment he's ever made to the international committee nor to the people" to not use such deadly materials.

Saddam's regime used sarin in mass amounts during an air attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988, toward the end of the Iran-Iraq War. More than 5,000 people are believed to have died in Halabja and surrounding villages, with more than 65,000 were injured.

Both Iraq and Iran used chemical weapons during the 1980-88 war.

Ziad said the United Nations, the World Health Organization and others had not "bothered" to travel to the Iraqi Kurdistan to see the firsthand effects sarin and other chemical weapons had on people and to get proof that Saddam did in fact possess such weapons.

"We have evidence — we have victims of the use of those agents, and we're still waiting for WHO and the U.N. to come investigate," Ziad said.

BillyTK

19th May 2004, 02:23 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

Sorry about the post-invasion article.
No problem. :)

Instead of diregarding the evidence based solely on the website, could you address the content?
As I said, I've no way to evaluate the credibility of the website—short of verifying the accuracy of the content myself, which I'm hesitant to do— so I'm unwilling to address the content on that basis. And it means loading up all those damn pop-ups ;)

BillyTK

19th May 2004, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Well it's been confirmed. We found a WMD.

http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=1877848&nav=EyAzNEEl

Now the left will have to change it's mantra from "No WMD" to "Miniscule Amount of WMD. Is it me or it just doesn't have the same ring to it?

Interesting quote from the story:

Some more interesting quotes from the article:
"It's not out of the ordinary or unusual that you would find something [like these weapons] in a haphazard fashion" in Iraq, Edward Turzanski, a political and national security analyst, told Fox News on Tuesday.

But "you have to be very careful not to be entirely dismissive of it," he added. "It remains to be seen whether they have more shells like this."
[...]
"Clearly, if we're gonna find one or two of these every so often — used as an IED or some other way — the threat is not all that high, but it does confirm suspicion that he [Saddam] did have this stuff," said Ret. U.S. Army Col. Robert Maginnis.
[...]
Some experts suggested that the two shells, which were unmarked, date back to the first Persian Gulf War. The mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles that Saddam failed to account for in his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began. Iraq also failed to account for 450 aerial bombs containing mustard gas.
[/b]
That Hussein had chemical weapons or used them, especially against Iraqi Kurds, is not especially controversial. But neither was it the basis of Gulf War II, which was about the threat Hussein currently posed—nuclear weapons programme, 45 minute launch capability, that kind of thing— not about what he had or did 20 years ago, before Gulf War I and UNSCOM. This is weak.

Edited to clean up quotes

Drooper

19th May 2004, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

Some more interesting quotes from the article:

That Hussein had chemical weapons or used them, especially against Iraqi Kurds, is not especially controversial. But neither was it the basis of Gulf War II, which was about the threat Hussein currently posed—nuclear weapons programme, 45 minute launch capability, that kind of thing— not about what he had or did 20 years ago, before Gulf War I and UNSCOM. This is weak.

Edited to clean up quotes

Really?

I thought it was about the terms and conditions of the 1991 cease fire at the end of the first war and numerous UNSC resolutions ever since. These all stiplulate that Saddam must fully and openly cooperate with the UN and appointed agents to document, verify the existance of and destroy all WMDs (including nerve agents etc.).

The war was predicated on UNSC resolution 1441, which directed Iraq to comply with the numerous previous resolutions (particularly 687) or face serious consequences. The US and Britain and others read this to mean military action. France and co. thought it meant bringing yet another resolution.

If these shells were part of a lost or hidden consignment they are exactly what the UN demanded be revealed and destroyed.

It matters not one jot when they were made, or whether they were deployed. Read UNSC Resolution 687 for the reason why:

UNSC Resolution 687 (http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement)

Those issues were all part of the political jockeying before the war and were irrelevant to the UN demands and reason for intervention.

Here, go read it:

UNSC Resolution 1441 (http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement)

BillyTK

19th May 2004, 07:24 AM

Originally posted by Drooper

Really?

I thought it was about the terms and conditions of the 1991 cease fire at the end of the first war and numerous UNSC resolutions ever since. These all stiplulate that Saddam must fully and openly cooperate with the UN and appointed agents to document, verify the existance of and destroy all WMDs (including nerve agents etc.).

The war was predicated on UNSC resolution 1441, which directed Iraq to comply with the numerous previous resolutions (particularly 687) or face serious consequences. The US and Britain and others read this to mean military action. France and co. thought it meant bringing yet another resolution.

If these shells were part of a lost or hidden consignment they are exactly what the UN demanded be revealed and destroyed.

It matters not one jot when they were made, or whether they were deployed. Read UNSC Resolution 687 for the reason why:

UNSC Resolution 687 (http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement)

Those issues were all part of the political jockeying before the war and were irrelevant to the UN demands and reason for intervention.

Here, go read it:

UNSC Resolution 1441 (http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement)
I'm quite familiar with these resolutions, thank you, as I'm sure you are, in which case you will be aware that the previous resolutions refer to Iraq's aggression against Kuwait (see Resolution 660 (http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0660.htm)), as well as against member states who supplied forces to repel Iraq from Kuwait. Therefore invoking these resolutions to legitimise an attack on Iraq is a non-sequitir, as Iraqi forces are no longer in Kuwait.

As I'm also sure you're aware, the interpretation that the US/UK chose to impose on the phrase, "serious consequences" is irrelevant, as the phrase that the UN uses to authorise military action is, "using all available means" (see for instance, Resolution 678 (http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm)).

As you seem somewhat vague about the justifications I posted for the Iraq invasion, I'd like to remind you of, for instance, the infamous Iraq dossier compiled by the UK government to present its case to the UK populace.

Ashi

19th May 2004, 07:34 AM

Drooper-

Thank you for posting this information. I am sure that everyone is aware of the actual reasons for this action in Iraq. I have posted the same information myself ad nauseum. Apparently, political ideology is more powerful or more important than critical thinking. There is so much intellectual dishonesty in the political forum of the JREF that I no longer refer people here because I am ashamed that that this is actually considered a skeptic's forum.

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

19th May 2004, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

Now the left will have to change it's mantra from "No WMD" to "Miniscule Amount of WMD. Is it me or it just doesn't have the same ring to it?

the left? How is the lack of hard evidence of WMDs in Iraq a left or right issue? How is asking for evidence just associated by yourself to the left? People all over the political spectrum are questioning the lack of evidence and the intelligence failures as in regards the Bush and Blair's claims regarding WMDs.

Now that the US forces have finally found one shell, where did it origionate from? Is the Sarin inside potent? Are there more? If so lets find them, keep them out of the hands of desperate Baathists and Islamic men bent on Jihad.

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

19th May 2004, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by Tmy
Can you count this thing as a WMD?? The thing actually explodes and the result is what........... 2 soilders treated for exposer?

Doesnt sound very mass destroying.

maybe this has already been responded to but

depending on what kind of round it is, if they come in multiples and can be delivered on civilian populations in several salvos or on conventional troops, then the end result is massive cassulaties. Sarin is devastating on a biological level, it damages tissues, and inflicts a lot of pain on those exposed.

Multiply the 2 soldiers affected by one round and multiply that by how many rounds couldbe delivered. One round would not be concentrated but 2 dozen in close proximity and in a short time could incapacitate and possibly kill dozens.

Jocko

19th May 2004, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe

the left? How is the lack of hard evidence of WMDs in Iraq a left or right issue? How is asking for evidence just associated by yourself to the left? People all over the political spectrum are questioning the lack of evidence and the intelligence failures as in regards the Bush and Blair's claims regarding WMDs.

I think the left/right split falls more along the lines of the left assuming there are no WMDs because none (or at least no significant) weapons have been found in the last year, and the right's predisposition to wait decades for proof if necessary.

Now that the US forces have finally found one shell, where did it origionate from? Is the Sarin inside potent? Are there more? If so lets find them, keep them out of the hands of desperate Baathists and Islamic men bent on Jihad.

The sarin was potent, but incorrectly detonated. That's why there were only 2 injuries. The issues at hand, as I see them, are twofold:

1. Gas-loaded artillery shells are built/bought by the military, not terrorist groups, so it is logical to work under the presumption that they came from an Iraqi stockpile, and

2. It was likely not found by itself, and now that the bombers know what they have, they will be better able to leverage these weapons in Iraq and elsewhere.

It's vital these stocks are found, not so much for the WMD justification fig leaf as for world safety.

Agammamon

19th May 2004, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by American

Yes, but why did this happen in Iraq and not HERE??

Well, could be that since it was a 155 mm shell, it is in Iraq because we sold it to them. 155 mm is a size used almost exclusively by NATO militaries, especially the US. While China has 155 mm pieces most of their stock (along with Warsaw Pact) is 152 mm.

On another note it looks like those guys exposed got sort of lucky. Since the shell wasn't launched the binary agent didn't mix well and very little agent was made.

Tmy

19th May 2004, 08:28 AM

Our biggest fear was that Saddam woudl hand over gas weapons to terrorist. Now that we've invaded and thrown parts oof Iraq into anarchy, the odds of that happening have greatly increased.

D'oh!

Agammamon

19th May 2004, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla
. . .Sarin is no joke. When I was in the Army and taking NBC classes they didn't call it Sarin, they just called it "nerve agent". . .If you don't hit it in time, the DI told us we would suffer "the 9 second watusi" ...9 seconds of hellish convulsions so strong that some of your bones will be broken. Not exactly a great way to go. . .

Sarin is one of several types of nerve agents, Tabun (for example) being another. The differing types are somewhat different in their lethality but mainly in their persistence (how long the stay around before breaking down)

I think your DI was exaggerating for effect, nerve agents in sufficient quantities do cause convulsions, but not bone-breaking ones (well, i suppose if you were strong enough). In normal dose a soldier could expect, respitory paralysis is the cause of death and symptoms are usually diziness, nausea, and very mild convulsions - followed by euphoria and finally death in a large enough exposure. As ways to buy the farm this one ain't so bad. Better than dieing of dehydration, shock, or infection from the chemical burns of blister agents or drowning as your lungs fill with fluid caused by inhalation of this stuff

You usually have a minute or two to auto-inject after symptoms are observed.

FYI nerve agents are closely related to both the most common pesticides sprayed on crops and the active ingredient in Raid and its like.

Agammamon

19th May 2004, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
. . .Sarin is devastating on a biological level, it damages tissues, and inflicts a lot of pain on those exposed. . .

What the heck are you talking about. Nerve agents are pretty much painless, certainly much less so than being torn apart by shrapnel. And conventional artillery works on a biological level too - by separating tissue it disrupts the smooth functioning of an organism, much like nerve agents disrupt the smooth functioning of the nervous system.

The chem rounds could kill hundreds, not dozens - chemical weapons are extemely efficient when used properly (much more so than conventional explosives) their real problem is that it is difficult to control once released. Agent persistence and spread make them unsuitable for use in proximity to civilian. Wind shifts unexpectedly and all this poison comes back onto your own people (not a problem with conventional weapons)

BillyTK

19th May 2004, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Jocko

I think the left/right split falls more along the lines of the left assuming there are no WMDs because none (or at least no significant) weapons have been found in the last year, and the right's predisposition to wait decades for proof if necessary.
For this leftist, the case is unproven; not disproven, although the imminent threat that our PM was banging on about would appear to be disproven. It's the right's position as you describe it kind of unskeptical, as it assumes there is prove to be found?

It's vital these stocks are found, not so much for the WMD justification fig leaf as for world safety.
Agreed, although it does kind of beg the question as to which is more important–Iraqi liberation or WMD security?

BillyTK

19th May 2004, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by Agammamon

What the heck are you talking about. Nerve agents are pretty much painless, certainly much less so than being torn apart by shrapnel.

[...]
Wouldn't respiratory paralysis be pretty painful?

Jocko

19th May 2004, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

For this leftist, the case is unproven; not disproven, although the imminent threat that our PM was banging on about would appear to be disproven. It's the right's position as you describe it kind of unskeptical, as it assumes there is prove to be found?

Okay, gross generalization time.

Talking about the American leftys and righties here. I find the left's "conclusion" that there are no WMDs to be utterly naive. We've found some, and it's only been a year. Those that HAVE been found have been buried, not stored, so of COURSE it's going to take a long time to find any such weapons.

At the same time, I object to the right's declaration that half a dozen gas shells is justification for the WMD premise to the war. It's premature at best, disingeuous at worst.

Neither side is "skeptical" in the true sense of the term; each is simply parroting the same nonsense we've heard for 18 months. The only logical and skeptical conclusion I can come to is that there may be significant WMDs to be found, and that it may take 20 years to find them. Everything that has come to pass so far makes this obvious.

Agreed, although it does kind of beg the question as to which is more important;Iraqi liberation or WMD security?

I think most of the world would tell you that they are one and the same issue.

BillyTK

19th May 2004, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Jocko

Okay, gross generalization time.

Talking about the American leftys and righties here. I find the left's "conclusion" that there are no WMDs to be utterly naive. We've found some, and it's only been a year. Those that HAVE been found have been buried, not stored, so of COURSE it's going to take a long time to find any such weapons.

At the same time, I object to the right's declaration that half a dozen gas shells is justification for the WMD premise to the war. It's premature at best, disingeuous at worst.

Neither side is "skeptical" in the true sense of the term; each is simply parroting the same nonsense we've heard for 18 months. The only logical and skeptical conclusion I can come to is that there may be significant WMDs to be found, and that it may take 20 years to find them. Everything that has come to pass so far makes this obvious.
Surely the only logical, skeptical position to take is unproven until satisfactorily dis/proven, not to presume either way? I'd be willing to go out on a limb and suggest there's probably a proverbial ton of ordinance like this left lying around from the Iraq/Iran war and Hussein's attacks on the Kurds, but I'd be hesitant in concluding that it constituted an arsenal of WMDs.

I think most of the world would tell you that they are one and the same issue.
I'd be skeptical that this is the case, but I don't have time to ask everyone to check. Regardless, can Iraq be left as an autonomous state before US/UK forces have finished searching for WMDs?

Jocko

19th May 2004, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

Surely the only logical, skeptical position to take is unproven until satisfactorily dis/proven, not to presume either way?

Yes, which is why I went out of my way to say these things may exist. I presume nothing, but my expectation is that they will be found. I have seen evidence, but no compelling proof... but I don't see absence of proof as proof of asbence, as they say. The jury is very much out on this one.

I'd be willing to go out on a limb and suggest there's probably a proverbial ton of ordinance like this left lying around from the Iraq/Iran war and Hussein's attacks on the Kurds, but I'd be hesitant in concluding that it constituted an arsenal of WMDs.

Sarin, mustard gas and a uranium-enriching centrifuge? Never mind that they are all technically UN violations and WMDs in their own right, but ask the Kurds about how deadly such toys can be. I've probably said it a hundred times in this thread already, but here goes again- I know these don't equate to a live nuke or an anthrax plant. But they are WMDs nonetheless. Whether you or I deem them as serious WMDs is really academic.

I'd be skeptical that this is the case, but I don't have time to ask everyone to check. Regardless, can Iraq be left as an autonomous state before US/UK forces have finished searching for WMDs?

Iraq was an autonomous state during 12 years of inspections. Why should this be any different? Apart from the systemic deception and obstruction, of course...! ;)

Drooper

19th May 2004, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

I'm quite familiar with these resolutions, thank you, as I'm sure you are, in which case you will be aware that the previous resolutions refer to Iraq's aggression against Kuwait (see Resolution 660 (http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0660.htm)), as well as against member states who supplied forces to repel Iraq from Kuwait. Therefore invoking these resolutions to legitimise an attack on Iraq is a non-sequitir, as Iraqi forces are no longer in Kuwait.

What a Straw Man. I am aware of 660 and also aware that it is irrelevant as it was issued to deal with the invasion of Kuwait. I never said it was invoked for the second war.

Resolution 678 was constructed to address the situation after the war, the disarment of Iraq, setting out its obligatons for revealing and destroying any WMDs in their possession and any manufacturing or researcg facilities for the same. It was the repeated violation of the terms of this resolution that led to 1441 and hence the war.

As I'm also sure you're aware, the interpretation that the US/UK chose to impose on the phrase, "serious consequences" is irrelevant, as the phrase that the UN uses to authorise military action is, "using all available means" (see for instance, Resolution 678 (http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm)).

They also tended to interpret the phrase "final opportunity" as just that, as opposed to the last opportunity befroe another opportunity.

They also tended to interpret "comply with in 30 days" as just that, as opposed to comply within 30 years.

In the end the US and UK and others just got sick of the procrastination and took action. We now know why Jacque Chirac and his buddies would have preferred another 12 years of the oil for food program.

As you seem somewhat vague about the justifications I posted for the Iraq invasion, I'd like to remind you of, for instance, the infamous Iraq dossier compiled by the UK government to present its case to the UK populace.

I'm not vague at all. You said an I will quote you:

the basis of Gulf War II, which was about the threat Hussein currently posed—nuclear weapons programme, 45 minute launch capability, that kind of thing— not about what he had or did 20 years ago, before Gulf War I and UNSCOM

It had everything to do with what had gone on over the last 20 years insofar as Iraq's WMD capaibility was built over that time and remained. It had nothing per se to do with a nuclear weapons program beyond the fact that it would fall within the definition of WMDs. It had everything to do withn UNSCOM, given that it was the failure to cooperate with UNSCOM that was a direct violation of 1441 (and all preceding resolutions on this subject).

Mr Manifesto

19th May 2004, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by Ashi
Drooper-

Thank you for posting this information. I am sure that everyone is aware of the actual reasons for this action in Iraq. I have posted the same information myself ad nauseum. Apparently, political ideology is more powerful or more important than critical thinking. There is so much intellectual dishonesty in the political forum of the JREF that I no longer refer people here because I am ashamed that that this is actually considered a skeptic's forum.

Read: "I'm right and everyone else is wrong, but I can't back up my own arguments, so I've spat the dummy and told my Mom she can't post here either."

Mr Manifesto

19th May 2004, 03:22 PM

I see this thread is descending into a game of Whack-the-Warmonger-Rat.

"This proves Saddam was in possession of WMD's!"
"No it doesn't, and even if it did, it isn't justification for the war in Iraq." >WHACK<
"But he violated UN Regulations!"
"Not proven, even if it was, not a justification to go to war." >WHACK<
"Are you just going to sit around while he makes more WMD's!?"
"It hasn't been proven that he was in the process of making more WMD's... Or even that he was capable of doing same after GW I... It's pretty much a given that the UN strategy was working." >WHACK<
"What about all the Iraqis who were dying under Saddam's tyranny?"
"It's not your job to decide who runs what country, and before you wring your hands over those civilians who you love so much, just remember who put Saddam where he was." >WHACK<
"What about the Iraqis who were dying under the sanctions?"
"Your sanctions." >WHACK<
"But Saddam was in possession of WMD's..!"

Drooper

19th May 2004, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I see this thread is descending into a game of Whack-the-Warmonger-Rat.

"This proves Saddam was in possession of WMD's!"
"No it doesn't, and even if it did, it isn't justification for the war in Iraq." >WHACK<
"But he violated UN Regulations!"
"Not proven, even if it was, not a justification to go to war." >WHACK<
"Are you just going to sit around while he makes more WMD's!?"
"It hasn't been proven that he was in the process of making more WMD's... Or even that he was capable of doing same after GW I... It's pretty much a given that the UN strategy was working." >WHACK<
"What about all the Iraqis who were dying under Saddam's tyranny?"
"It's not your job to decide who runs what country, and before you wring your hands over those civilians who you love so much, just remember who put Saddam where he was." >WHACK<
"What about the Iraqis who were dying under the sanctions?"
"Your sanctions." >WHACK<
"But Saddam was in possession of WMD's..!"

funny that,

I see this as having descended into debating with a socialist political reactionary.

As with many things it's mind over matter.

I don't mind that you don't matter.

Mr Manifesto

19th May 2004, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by Drooper

funny that,

I see this as having descended into debating with a socialist political reactionary.

As with many things it's mind over matter.

I don't mind that you don't matter.

Yeah, "War is a last resort" is sooooooooo reactionary.

Ashi

19th May 2004, 10:18 PM

Mr Manifesto -

How about a bit of actual intellectual debate? Your infantile responses and inability to actually address the issue at hand seem to be par for the course for this forum.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Read: "I'm right and everyone else is wrong, but I can't back up my own arguments, so I've spat the dummy and told my Mom she can't post here either."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can blather on about my inability to back up my arguments but I have yet to see you actually address the issue without running off at the mouth with ad hominem attacks and unjustifiable assertions. Why don’t you attempt to make a legitimate argument and act like the critically thinking skeptic you pretend to be. You probably can’t do this so I won’t hold my breath for a reasoned response but I will give it a shot anyway.

If you have the ability, please read the following points and try to look at the situation from a non-biased perspective. Again, actually read the information without filtering the facts through your personal political ideology. I am more than willing to change my mind on the issue if I am mistaken about the facts but I have yet to hear a decent rebuttal to my argument.

1. After the first Gulf war, Iraq agreed to the UN resolutions (1991) that are listed here http://fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/ as the conditions for a cease-fire.

2. Iraq consistently did not fulfill its obligations concerning the conditions for the cease-fire. There are examples such as this http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/981228/1998122833.html where Iraqi military fired upon UN aircraft and there is also the failures listed by Hans Blix http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix/ among other actual, documented, factual evidence that Iraq was breaking the conditions of the original cease-fire as well as later UN resolutions.

3. UN resolution 1441 was drafted after over a decade of Iraq blatantly refusing to fulfill the above mentioned conditions. This resolution states that Iraq is in clear material breach and was unanimously signed by every nation on the UNSC. Prior UN resolutions such as 687 as well as the US Congress authorized the US to use military force to bring Iraq into compliance.

“….Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area.”

It is my argument that this is the primary, official and absolutely legal reason for the second Gulf war. I have yet to see any examples of statements made my Bush, Blair, Powell or other high ranking government officials that contradict this. The factual reason we are in Iraq seems clear to me without having to infer/imply diabolical political plots, corporate conspiracy theories, religious crusades or tidal influences from Planet X.

The question of the “real” reason for the war seems to be simply politics as usual, or people making up “facts” to support their political ideology. I continually see people who rant on and on about Bush “lying about WMD’s”, “wanting Iraqi oil” or “tying 9/11 to Iraq” along with other statements that they cannot find any facts to justify. I feel that the majority of people are just so caught up in their own ideological righteousness that they cannot step back and look at the facts. I have seen tons of anecdotal evidence supporting other “real” reasons for this action, but I have yet to see any factual evidence that supports any of them. I have also seen tons of anecdotal evidence for UFO’s and Bigfoot but that does not make them any more “real”.

Ok, now you can bring the ad hominem attacks. I expect no more from you but I have been wrong before.

peptoabysmal

19th May 2004, 10:43 PM

peptoabysmal

19th May 2004, 10:45 PM

Oh yeah, and if you don't know that the cry of the wild liberal this last year has been "No WMD's!", where on Earth have you been?

:p

Mr Manifesto

19th May 2004, 10:53 PM

Ashi: What you seem to be forgetting is that it isn't up to the US to enforce 1441. That is a decison for the UN Security Council. The Security Council did not decide if a breach had been made yet, and, if a breach had occurred, whether armed force was required.

That's why Bush got all itchy, coalition of the willing, blah-blah-blah.

In other words, not only have you been wrong before, but you're wrong now.

peptoabysmal

19th May 2004, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Ashi: What you seem to be forgetting is that it isn't up to the US to enforce 1441. That is a decison for the UN Security Council. The Security Council did not decide if a breach had been made yet, and, if a breach had occurred, whether armed force was required.

That's why Bush got all itchy, coalition of the willing, blah-blah-blah.

In other words, not only have you been wrong before, but you're wrong now.

The representative of the United States noted that, while primary responsibility rested with the Council for the disarmament of Iraq, nothing in the resolution constrained any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by that country, or to enforce United Nations resolutions protecting world peace and security.

Press Release SC/7564 (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm)

Mr Manifesto

19th May 2004, 11:39 PM

That's right, Peppy, and what threat to the United States, world peace or security was Iraq?

>WHACK<

Drooper

20th May 2004, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Yeah, "War is a last resort" is sooooooooo reactionary.

reaction; in response to action (taken after a 12 year procrastination).

Like shooting socialist reactionary fish in a barrel. <BANG>

Mr Manifesto

20th May 2004, 04:36 AM

Originally posted by Drooper

reaction; in response to action (taken after a 12 year procrastination).

Like shooting socialist reactionary fish in a barrel. <BANG>

Do yourself a favour- look up 'reactionary' in the dictionary.

Drooper

20th May 2004, 04:37 AM

This has become like shooting fish in a barrel.

The ubiquitous Socialist Worker placards are waving around this forum, with their catchy, but intellectually vacuous statements.

Socialist Reactionary: The war had nothng to do with UNSCOM!!!
A: then why did nearly every UNSC resolution on Iraq after 678 claim it was?? <POW>

Socialist Reactionary: We didn't give UNSCOM enough time!!!!
A: 12 years? Are you revolving in close orbit around a black hole? <BANG>

Socialist Reactionary: Just because two sarin spiked warheads have been found, which originated from a batch hidden from UNSCM by the Iraqis doesn't mean there is any evidence that Saddam did have WMDs!!!!!
A: errrrrrr. OK :rolleyes: <POP>

Socialist Reactionary: Those were old weapons, so they don't count!!!!!!
A: Old WMDs, well that's alright then. But you better tell the UNSC who forgot to put mitigation into any resolution covering Iraqi disarmament. <POW>

Socialist Reactionary: It wasn't up to the US to enforce resolution 1441!!!!!!
A: Who then was going to enforce it then, you? <BANG>

Wow, I'm not usually one for animal cruelty, but this is just so easy.

Drooper

20th May 2004, 04:41 AM

OED:

Reactionary: tending to oppose change and advocate return to a former system

Oh, so its Saddam you want and the WMD issue is all a smoke screen.

I see. <BANG>

EGarrett

20th May 2004, 06:10 AM

Drooper,

You have to add >WHACK!< after each answer. That somehow makes them true.

Drooper

20th May 2004, 06:16 AM

Originally posted by EGarrett
Drooper,

You have to add >WHACK!< after each answer. That somehow makes them true.

:D

BillyTK

20th May 2004, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by Drooper

What a Straw Man. I am aware of 660 and also aware that it is irrelevant as it was issued to deal with the invasion of Kuwait. I never said it was invoked for the second war.

Resolution 678 was constructed to address the situation after the war, the disarment of Iraq, setting out its obligatons for revealing and destroying any WMDs in their possession and any manufacturing or researcg facilities for the same. It was the repeated violation of the terms of this resolution that led to 1441 and hence the war.
Not a strawman. The argument offered by US/UK was that the (alleged) Iraqi violations of the various UN resolutions gave automatic authority for military action against Iraq, when in fact, the action that is authorised (via tracing the various resolutions back to 660) is to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait

There is scope within the ceasefire agreement as laid out in 678 for military action, for military action, but this is only in response to Iraqi aggression against UN members and their forces. Use of WMDs might constitute such a threat, but possession, in and of itself, doesn't. Whilst possession is a violation of 678, this doesn't automatically grant authority for use of force, because, as you agree, 660 is irrelevant. Use of force would require a new resolution.

They also tended to interpret the phrase "final opportunity" as just that, as opposed to the last opportunity befroe another opportunity.

They also tended to interpret "comply with in 30 days" as just that, as opposed to comply within 30 years.
Irrelevant; "serious consequences" is not the same as, "using all available means"

In the end the US and UK and others just got sick of the procrastination and took action. We now know why Jacque Chirac and his buddies would have preferred another 12 years of the oil for food program.
We do? Maybe Powell is implicated in there as well, as he was calling for a change to the sanction system (for "smart sanctions" IIRC) in 2001. Regardless of the smearing, if US/UK want to act outside of the authority of the UN, they should do so, and not try and justify their actions in terms of the institution and its process they've rejected.

I'm not vague at all. You said an I will quote you:
Originally posted by me:
the basis of Gulf War II, which was about the threat Hussein currently posed—nuclear weapons programme, 45 minute launch capability, that kind of thing— not about what he had or did 20 years ago, before Gulf War I and UNSCOM

It had everything to do with what had gone on over the last 20 years insofar as Iraq's WMD capaibility was built over that time and remained. It had nothing per se to do with a nuclear weapons program beyond the fact that it would fall within the definition of WMDs. It had everything to do withn UNSCOM, given that it was the failure to cooperate with UNSCOM that was a direct violation of 1441 (and all preceding resolutions on this subject).
That's really odd; you've quoted me but your response here would indicate that you haven't paid any attention to what I said. By the way, when did Hans Blix say there was a material failure in cooperation with UNSCOM? How exactly does 1441 authorise military action against Iraq anyway?

BillyTK

20th May 2004, 06:47 AM

oh and >WHACK!< :p ;)

BillyTK

20th May 2004, 06:55 AM

Originally posted by Jocko

[...]Whether you or I deem them as serious WMDs is really academic.

[...]
I guess the answer to that one lies in the meaning of the term WMDs? "serious WMDs" strikes me as a pleonasm*.

*It's my new favourite word! (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870457269&highlight=pleonasm#post1870457269)

Mr Manifesto

20th May 2004, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by Drooper
This has become like shooting fish in a barrel.

The ubiquitous Socialist Worker placards are waving around this forum, with their catchy, but intellectually vacuous statements.

Socialist Reactionary: The war had nothng to do with UNSCOM!!!
A: then why did nearly every UNSC resolution on Iraq after 678 claim it was?? <POW>

Socialist Reactionary: We didn't give UNSCOM enough time!!!!
A: 12 years? Are you revolving in close orbit around a black hole? <BANG>

Socialist Reactionary: Just because two sarin spiked warheads have been found, which originated from a batch hidden from UNSCM by the Iraqis doesn't mean there is any evidence that Saddam did have WMDs!!!!!
A: errrrrrr. OK :rolleyes: <POP>

Socialist Reactionary: Those were old weapons, so they don't count!!!!!!
A: Old WMDs, well that's alright then. But you better tell the UNSC who forgot to put mitigation into any resolution covering Iraqi disarmament. <POW>

Socialist Reactionary: It wasn't up to the US to enforce resolution 1441!!!!!!
A: Who then was going to enforce it then, you? <BANG>

Wow, I'm not usually one for animal cruelty, but this is just so easy.

Try wrapping your head around one, simple concept: war is a last resort.

The US forgot that. Vietnam, it seems, was too long ago. Now they are caught in an expensive, bloody mess in the Middle East. Their credibility on the international stage is sod-all. They have given more people the means, motive and opportunity to become terrorists by their ill thought-out actions in Iraq. This is what happens when you ride off like cowboys to fight a war with no puropse, and no goal, like the US and the 'Coalition of the Willing' did.

Kerberos

20th May 2004, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by EGarrett
Drooper,

You have to add >WHACK!< after each answer. That somehow makes them true.
Nah, not necessary, calling your opponents socialist reactionaries works just as well.

Agammamon

20th May 2004, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

Wouldn't respiratory paralysis be pretty painful?

Not really, you just can't breath and very quickly become stuperous so you don't really know what's going on. I can think of worse ways to go.

Drooper

20th May 2004, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Try wrapping your head around one, simple concept: war is a last resort.

The US forgot that. Vietnam, it seems, was too long ago. Now they are caught in an expensive, bloody mess in the Middle East. Their credibility on the international stage is sod-all. They have given more people the means, motive and opportunity to become terrorists by their ill thought-out actions in Iraq. This is what happens when you ride off like cowboys to fight a war with no puropse, and no goal, like the US and the 'Coalition of the Willing' did.

Last resort, last resort. you fail to identify what exactly is a last resort.

Try using some mental faculty to try and figure out that after 12 years and repeated warning after repeated warning, that last resort can be reached.

For years nobody has cared what the UN has said. Saddam thunmbed his nose at it for 12 years (12 years!!!!!!!!!!) knowing that 30 day ultimatums and final warnings and serious consequences meant nothing of the sort.

After some countries decided to put some backbone into international law by enforcing the UN resolutions, the UN now has some restored credibility thanks to the action taken over Iraq and Afghanistan.

Evidence? Iran kicked out the international atomic energy commission and then let them back in after being warned not to disobey UN directions to do so.

Libya is opening up and starting to come clean, realising that they have a little more to worry about than yet another UNSC resolution.

The only time the UN has had any credibility has been when countries have taken the initiative and preempted official UN

The US in Kosovo, another unsanctioned military gung ho venture with less post conflict planning as Iraq.

East Timor, an Australian force acted without UN endorsement and headed off a possible massacre.

Look what happens when we wait for the UN to decide we have reached a "last resort". Rwanda.

You deal in global political rhetoric. In the real world we need practical soutions to intractable problems; the least worst option in most cases. Sure it would be better putting flowers in each others hair, but the world ain't like that.

Drooper

20th May 2004, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos

Nah, not necessary, calling your opponents socialist reactionaries works just as well.

What wit, what reparte. How did you manage to think up that wonderfully original retort?

Mr Manifesto

20th May 2004, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by Drooper

Last resort, last resort. you fail to identify what exactly is a last resort.

Try using some mental faculty to try and figure out that after 12 years and repeated warning after repeated warning, that last resort can be reached.

For years nobody has cared what the UN has said. Saddam thunmbed his nose at it for 12 years (12 years!!!!!!!!!!) knowing that 30 day ultimatums and final warnings and serious consequences meant nothing of the sort.

After some countries decided to put some backbone into international law by enforcing the UN resolutions, the UN now has some restored credibility thanks to the action taken over Iraq and Afghanistan.

Evidence? Iran kicked out the international atomic energy commission and then let them back in after being warned not to disobey UN directions to do so.

Libya is opening up and starting to come clean, realising that they have a little more to worry about than yet another UNSC resolution.

The only time the UN has had any credibility has been when countries have taken the initiative and preempted official UN

The US in Kosovo, another unsanctioned military gung ho venture with less post conflict planning as Iraq.

East Timor, an Australian force acted without UN endorsement and headed off a possible massacre.

Look what happens when we wait for the UN to decide we have reached a "last resort". Rwanda.

You deal in global political rhetoric. In the real world we need practical soutions to intractable problems; the least worst option in most cases. Sure it would be better putting flowers in each others hair, but the world ain't like that.

Iraq wasn't Rwanda. Iraq was Iraq: a country under great global scrutiny, with no means to continue its weapons programs. So what if it took twelve years to get to this stage? As we've seen, Iraq disarmed. Oh... Except for an artillery shell from who-knows-when that could have come from who-knows-where.

And for all of your bad-mouthing of the UN for Rwanda, at least they don't bomb civilian targets on the off-chance that a person of interest might be lunching there. Frankly, if it came between trusting the UN and trusting the morons who run the US military, it isn't hard to guess who I'd be backing.

Drooper

20th May 2004, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Iraq wasn't Rwanda. Iraq was Iraq: a country under great global scrutiny, with no means to continue its weapons programs.

oh, but Vietnam was Iraq?? You crack me up.

Rwanda was an example of waiting for the UN to reach the last resort before doing anything of substance.

So what if it took twelve years to get to this stage? As we've seen, Iraq disarmed. Oh... Except for an artillery shell from who-knows-when that could have come from who-knows-where.

We didn't know what Iraq's potential was, because they wouldn't co-operate. Hans Blix said so at the expiration of the "final" 30 day "ultimatum"

We now see a couple of sarin shells that came from a large suspected stockpile. Where are they now??? They are STILL unaccounted for.

And for all of your bad-mouthing of the UN for Rwanda, at least they don't bomb civilian targets on the off-chance that a person of interest might be lunching there.

Yes, and as for Rwanda some estimate up to one million peple were murdered. That is about as close to genecide as one could come. Nobody needs to badmouth the UN over its failure to act in Rwanda, it there for all to see, except those blinded by political idealogy.

[qoute]Frankly, if it came between trusting the UN and trusting the morons who run the US military, it isn't hard to guess who I'd be backing. [/QUOTE]

Well, as an Aussie, I wouldn't want any help from the UN if my nation was threatened.

Kerberos

20th May 2004, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Drooper

What wit, what reparte. How did you manage to think up that wonderfully original retort?
*shrugs* It's a gift, besides, not having to think up clever names for my opponents, gives me time for other pursuits.

Edited to add: Wit is fun, you should try it someday.

Ashi

20th May 2004, 11:01 AM

Mr Manifesto -

Well, I really hoped for a bit more from you but you did about as well as I expected. Maybe if you ask nicely someone can help you out here, or at least explain it to you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Ashi: What you seem to be forgetting is that it isn't up to the US to enforce 1441. That is a decison for the UN Security Council. The Security Council did not decide if a breach had been made yet, and, if a breach had occurred, whether armed force was required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not forgetting anything. You're the one who seems to be having trouble either reading or comprehending. Look, I know that you can read, and I provided you with links to the actual information. So, why is it that you mysteriously cannot understand the plain wording of the resolutions. I even posted it for you. Here, I'll try it again, and I'll even emphasize the more important words for you since you seem to be having trouble finding them:

“….Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized MEMBER STATES to use ALL NECESSARY MEANS to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and ALL RELEVANT RESOLUTIONS SUBSEQUENT TO RESOLUTION 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area.”

1441 finds Iraq in material breach. It states it in plain words. Again, since you either haven't actually read it or you are too dense to understand it I'll post it here for you to make it a bit easier.

"1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA......"

Please, take a look at the facts before you spout off.

demon

20th May 2004, 05:22 PM

Grammatron:
"I think if you want a problem with a country that blindly bombs the city you want to go yell at Russia and how they pounded Groznyy into a fine powder."

Couldn't agree more. Funnily enough, once the (pretence of) the "Cold War" ended, Russia was permitted any and all acts of destruction - Russian war-crimes since Putin have been entirely glossed over, forgiven, and even encouraged, in "The West" (if by "The West" we mean the US top-dog and the UK lap-dog elites).

"The USA goes to great lengths to minimize the civilian deaths."

Either you have an masterfully intuitive sense of irony, or George Orwell wants to have your babies;)

Mr Manifesto

21st May 2004, 06:39 AM

Originally posted by Drooper

oh, but Vietnam was Iraq?? You crack me up.
Strawman.

Rwanda was an example of waiting for the UN to reach the last resort before doing anything of substance.
Say, what did the US do about the Rwanda massacre while the UN sat on their hands? Did they try to bring in a batallion of heroic marines, but were held back by the UN? Hmm...

And while we're on the subject, how many other massacres have the US ignored, if not condoned?

We didn't know what Iraq's potential was, because they wouldn't co-operate. Hans Blix said so at the expiration of the "final" 30 day "ultimatum"
>WHACK<

We now see a couple of sarin shells that came from a large suspected stockpile. Where are they now??? They are STILL unaccounted for.
>WHACK<
See my previous posts in which these points were already addressed. Whack-a-rat is such a fun game.

Yes, and as for Rwanda some estimate up to one million peple were murdered. That is about as close to genecide as one could come. Nobody needs to badmouth the UN over its failure to act in Rwanda, it there for all to see, except those blinded by political idealogy.

I'll ask again: What did the US and other 'Coalition of the Willing' nations do while this was happening?

Mr Manifesto

21st May 2004, 06:40 AM

BillyTK

21st May 2004, 07:00 AM

Originally posted by Ashi
Mr Manifesto -

Well, I really hoped for a bit more from you but you did about as well as I expected. Maybe if you ask nicely someone can help you out here, or at least explain it to you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Ashi: What you seem to be forgetting is that it isn't up to the US to enforce 1441. That is a decison for the UN Security Council. The Security Council did not decide if a breach had been made yet, and, if a breach had occurred, whether armed force was required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not forgetting anything. You're the one who seems to be having trouble either reading or comprehending. Look, I know that you can read, and I provided you with links to the actual information. So, why is it that you mysteriously cannot understand the plain wording of the resolutions. I even posted it for you. Here, I'll try it again, and I'll even emphasize the more important words for you since you seem to be having trouble finding them:

“….Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized MEMBER STATES to use ALL NECESSARY MEANS to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and ALL RELEVANT RESOLUTIONS SUBSEQUENT TO RESOLUTION 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area.”
As your quote here states,Resolution 678 (http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0678.htm) only authorises use of force to uphold resolution 660, which calls for the unconditional withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait.

1441 finds Iraq in material breach. It states it in plain words. Again, since you either haven't actually read it or you are too dense to understand it I'll post it here for you to make it a bit easier.

"1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA......"

Please, take a look at the facts before you spout off.
1441 also says: (http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm)
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;
[...]
4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

1441 in and of itself offers no grounds for attacking Iraq, which would require a further resolution, and the whole thing is a bunch of pants anyway because it was nothing more than a pretext constructed by USUK, to try and legitimate their intentions.

demon

21st May 2004, 11:20 AM

BillyTK:
"1441 in and of itself offers no grounds for attacking Iraq, which would require a further resolution, and the whole thing is a bunch of pants anyway because it was nothing more than a pretext constructed by USUK, to try and legitimate their intentions."

Well said.
1441 was hijacked by the US and the UK because the UN refused to rubber stamp their desire to attack Iraq. There is a veritable mountain of evidence in the lead up to the "war" that shows just this.

Ashi

21st May 2004, 03:37 PM

Mr Manifesto -

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
You clearly have no idea how the Security Council works, yet you tell me to to look at the facts. Physician, heal thyself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How about trying to address the issue. I stated my argument, I supplied my references. Rebut my argument like an adult or keep your smart a**ed comments to yourself. You are just proving my original post in this thread to be true.

BillyTK -

First, I would just like to thank you for debating this issue in an intelligent and reasonable manner. I wish that the majority of "skeptics" in these forums could follow suit. :)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BillyTK
As your quote here states,Resolution 678 only authorises use of force to uphold resolution 660, which calls for the unconditional withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not understand why you continually seem to ignore the full wording in the resolutions. You seemed to do the same thing when we last tried to come to a conclusion on this issue at the end of this thread:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36568

Resolution 1441 recalls that Resolution 678 authorizes the use of force, as you have agreed, to uphold 660 and "......ALL RELEVANT RESOLUTIONS SUBSEQUENT TO RESOLUTION (660)........". (emphasis mine)

Please explain why you are not acknowledging this part of the wording.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BillyTK
1441 in and of itself offers no grounds for attacking Iraq, which would require a further resolution, and the whole thing is a bunch of pants anyway because it was nothing more than a pretext constructed by USUK, to try and legitimate their intentions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have never stated that 1441 offers anything other than declaration of material breach and a recalling of past issues. All legal authority for military action against Iraq for breach of cease-fire conditions is determined in the resolutions preceding 1441.

Resolution 1441 was clearly implemented in order to give Iraq another shot at fulfilling its obligations under the cease-fire. It is my opinion that the UNSC went above and beyond the call with this resolution. Even still, Iraq did not comply even after the deadline set in 1441.

I can understand how someone could possibly view 1441 as a way for the USUK to "legitimize" additional action in Iraq. However, we both seem to agree that 1441 offers no grounds for military action in and of itself and I have never heard anyone else legitimately make that an argument. So, I cannot accept your premise that anyone is attempting to use 1441 for that purpose when it clearly doesn't support that argument.