Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Chemical Weapons in Iraq??Follow

#27 May 18 2004 at 12:01 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Are you telling me you think we gassed our own soldiers?!?

The insurgents had chemical munitions-- regardless of its' age, they are chemical weapons. I see how this is going to play out. First it was, "See? There are no WMD in Iraq." Now it's, "That's not enough chemicals to be called WMD." Just out of curiosity, what constitutes enough chemicals to be considered WMD for you guys? 10 shells? 100 shells? 1000 shells? How about nukes? 1 nuke? 10 nukes? 100 nukes? I ask that because it is a matter of time before terrorists get their hands on one-- from Pakistan for instance --and I'll be asking the same question when you once again tell us, "Oh, that little dirty bomb doesn't count as a WMD. It needs to go at the very least to the 20 kiloton range before I call that a WMD."

I also suppose that you undoubtedly believe that one shell just happens to be the only chemical shell in Iraq-- and they *just happened* to stumble across this one and use it out of all the hundreds of thousands of shells across the country, right? Pure luck, I'm sure.

Ridiculous.

Totem
#28 May 18 2004 at 12:14 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,453 posts
Quote:
Are you telling me you think we gassed our own soldiers?!?


No, I'm telling - quite ******* obviously - that if Clinton were still president, the Republicans would be jumping up and down screaming bloody murder about the timing of this "discovery", and claiming that it was planted by the insidious forces of Slick Willie to draw attention away from the current prisoner abuse scandal.

Quote:
I also suppose that you undoubtedly believe that one shell just happens to be the only chemical shell in Iraq-- and they *just happened* to stumble across this one and use it out of all the hundreds of thousands of shells across the country, right? Pure luck, I'm sure.


No, what I believe is that Iraq and any weapons they may have possessed or produced were never a threat to the security of this country. Ever. They were not, and are not capable of delivering them against any target in the US. And if they dared to smuggle one via a container ship or other method, it would be akin to suicide. Not the single suicide or squad sized suicide we've already seen, but suicide on a city or country wide scale. Because if anyone successfully uses a nuke or significant WMD against any US target, the country of that weapon's origin is going to vanish in a wave of mushroom clouds.
#29 May 18 2004 at 12:54 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
I'm no expert on the terms, but that doesn't sound like it was fired from an artillery piece.
That's not what I meant. Yes, the shell in question was rigged to an explosive as an improvised bomb. However, rigging the shell was the "wrong" way to do it and resulted in a pretty minor incident. Regardless of the WMD implications, no one was seriously hurt -- namely due to poor bomb construction.

To properly disperse the sarin in the shell (assuming it is), you have to fire the shell from an artillery piece. Again, I'm no military equipment expert, but a quick Google on "155mm gun" turns up some pretty hefty machinery. Not a mortar or shoulder launched shell, but a howitzer. My point was that it's unlikely that someone is going to smuggle a howitzer into Baghdad to make full use of the shell. Can the shell be, say, dismantled and the components somehow used? I dunno.

As for Totem, you'd be saying the war was justified regardless. You jumped up and down yelling "How's it feel to eat crow?!" each time one of your Sno-Cone trucks was found. You said it when the dead-end cache in January was found. When you have something that at least the military is willing to call a smoking gun, let me know. I said back on the uBB board when this all started that I'd be suprised if we never ever found anything. I also said I didn't think Iraq was enough of a threat to divert resources from Afghanistan and the search for Bin Laden. I still don't and your twenty year old shell doesn't suddenly make me think that we needed to invade when we did.

But, as I said at the top of the thread, any port in a storm I suppose.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#30 May 18 2004 at 12:58 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
I'm going to have to take your word for it that that is what you meant, because I've read and re-read your post and it seems to say that you'd be receptive to the notion that we somehow planted the bomb and gassed our own troops to divert attention from the prisoner scandal.

Maybe that was your intent, but it certainly didn't come across that way, Death.

Totem
#31 May 18 2004 at 1:06 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Yes, Jophiel, it appears it was a binary type artillery shell, where the spinning action of the round mixes the two agents together in flight.

I understand what you are saying about any port in a storm, but it has been my contention that there have been chemical munitions in Iraq all along and the evidence pointed to that, regardless of the actual lack of munitions being found prior to today. Just as I believe Hussein was working diligently to assemble a nuclear weapon, as evidenced by the trigger assembly buried under the rose bush in that scientist's garden.

It just always struck me as silly that there have been a large number of people who firmly believed Saddam had actually given up on achieving those goals, despite his willingness to use chemical weapons in the past and his budding nuclear weapons program which was mere months from seeing fruition back in gulf War 1.

Totem
#32 May 18 2004 at 1:13 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
it has been my contention that there have been chemical munitions in Iraq all along and the evidence pointed to that, regardless of the actual lack of munitions being found prior to today. Just as I believe Hussein was working diligently to assemble a nuclear weapon, as evidenced by the trigger assembly buried under the rose bush in that scientist's garden.
Of course, had Rumsfeld not laughed off the manpower estimates given by everyone and hadn't been in such a rush to reach Baghdad so we could say we "won", perhaps all those hundreds of suspected WMD sites wouldn't have been stripped bare by looters and we'd have some of the proof you're craving Smiley: wink
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#33 May 18 2004 at 1:16 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
I don't need proof anymore-- unless you're willing to take the position that this particular arty shell was the only chemical munition in the entire country. The proof is that sarin gas that was released. My position has been vindicated and the naysayers have been shown to be naive.

Totem
#34 May 18 2004 at 1:29 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
No, I gave my position above: Iraq was not an imminent threat that needed to be dealt with in 3/03 to the detriment of the Afghanistan effort and the hunt for Bin Laden.

As I already stated, I would have been honestly suprised if we never found anything. Back in January, I was the sole person to point out that source saying that he knew where other munitions had been dumped in a river and I said I'd be interested in hearing the outcome of it. Granted, there was no outcome, but regardless. I bring this up to avoid anyone trying to paint me into the "Saddam was in full compliance!" camp. Hell, if you want to simply say that being in violation of the UN sanctions was sufficent reason to invade, I'd agree that Saddam's tapdancing around allowing inspectors was a violation.

The question is whether or not we needed to invade Iraq when and how we did. I'm not convinced that the answer is "yes". I'm not convinced that it was worth blowing off Afghanistan (which I did feel was fully justified) to go play in Iraq. Even the moral argument about liberating the country falls flat in my opinion when one considers that we left the vast majority of Afghanistan in the hands of Taliban fragments and warlords who are no kinder to the people than the previous government was.

I'll point out one important thing: I'm not running for election. It's really not my job to convince you that the war wasn't "justified". It's Bush's job to convince the majority of the voting public that it was.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#35 May 18 2004 at 3:28 AM Rating: Decent
****
5,372 posts
Quote:
what constitutes enough chemicals to be considered WMD for you guys


Oh, I don't know. Enough to cause mass destruction maybe?
#36 May 18 2004 at 3:42 AM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Patrician wrote:
Quote:
what constitutes enough chemicals to be considered WMD for you guys


Oh, I don't know. Enough to cause mass destruction maybe?


Pat. Not to overdo the obvious, but that's exactly what this warhead *could* have done if those who used it had used it properly.

I don't know any details about the design of those shells, but I imagine that in addition to firing it from a gun, you could presumably remove the warhead and activate it as a bomb. I'm thinking that simply triggering the mix somehow (have no idea what mechanism is used, but it could presumably be rigged), then rolling it into a building with a short timer on the primary explosive would pretty much mess up everyone's day.

If they have more of the same shells, you can bet your *** that someone, right now, is working on how to rig them in just that way. You that sure that that was the only one?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#37 May 18 2004 at 4:00 AM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Deathwysh, King of Bards wrote:
This in no way justifies the war. This is crap that Saddam had twenty years ago, that we probably gave him. Of course if I was a Republican and Clinton was still president, I would have to point out the incredible timing of this "find", and how it very conventiently draws attention away from the prisoner abuse scandal.

One shell means nothing. Even if Iraq had a thousand bunkers filled with millions of these shells, it would still not justify the war, because they still would not have been a threat to the US in any way.


Well... Two out of three branches of the US government disagree with you on that one.

At least you are honest and admit that you don't think the war is justified for any reason. That's fine. I totally disagree with you, but I can respect that opinion. But for all of those arguing that it was the lack of WMD found in Iraq that meant that the war wasn't justified, how do you now justify moving your line in the sand back a step (assuming of course that this is what we're hearing it is).

At what point will those arguing that the war isn't justified agree that it is? What is your "threshold of proof"? Of all the reasons listed in HR 114 as justification for the war, the present possession of WMD in Iraq was the *only* issue that could be demonstrated but had not been (other issues like forward looking threat potential are subjective and purely within the right of Congress to determine). With this new information, there really isn't any more wiggle room here folks. You have to agree that Congress and the President acted as they believed best based on *accurate* information. Your only remaining disagreement is purely one of the decision itself. You're free to have that disagreement, but now you are disagreeing with the entire elected government of the US, with no recourse to say that they would have done something different "if only they'd known the truth".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#38 May 18 2004 at 7:26 AM Rating: Decent
Well we all will agree that they are importing foreign fighters why not foreign munitions. <shrug> prove it was made in Iraq after Gulf 1, and that it actually contained Sarin gas.

Yup thought so unjustified invasion.
#39 May 18 2004 at 7:59 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
Well we all will agree that they are importing foreign fighters why not foreign munitions. <shrug> prove it was made in Iraq after Gulf 1, and that it actually contained Sarin gas.

Yup thought so unjustified invasion.


It's not a budweiser there isnt a born on date on the label. Do you think the US puts a made on/use by date on our munitions? (besides the fact that it doesnt matter when it was made refer to Gbagi's post) I have never been particually intimate with our arty shells or bombs but I have been close enough to tell you that there isnt a made in the GOOD ole USA stamped in big letters on them. So why would a rogue nation producing munitions that it isnt supposed to have do it??

It is a weapon that Iraq had but said they destroyed. Now one pops up. I think it is far more likely (especially since the people who used it didnt know what they had) that the shell was found somewhere in Iraq. See GBaji's post for the possibilities of what that means I think he covered it pretty well.
#40 May 18 2004 at 8:17 AM Rating: Decent
Totem wrote:
I don't need proof anymore--
Totem


Bwa. You didn't need proof to begin with.
#41 May 18 2004 at 8:36 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
I don't know any details about the design of those shells, but I imagine that in addition to firing it from a gun, you could presumably remove the warhead and activate it as a bomb
No offense, but if you know nothing about the details of the shell, your opinion on whether or not it can be used as a bomb means jack sh[/i]it.

Quote:
It's not a budweiser there isnt a born on date on the label. Do you think the US puts a made on/use by date on our munitions?
The sources quotes above said it was of Iran Iraq war manufacture. Presumably, the type and sophistication of the shell at least lets you know what era it's from. If you found a Sherman tank somewhere, would you say it might have been made three years ago?

I'm willing to accept at face value that the shell is of Iraqi origin simply because if some other nation or group was supplying the shells, they'd probably have had a clue as to how to use it.

Edit: From a thread on another forum I read, someone notes that: [i]"All artillery and especially special munitions will have batch lots stenciled onto the shell, so as to determine the shelf life of a particular shell. My own guess is that the particular shell , was as mentioned binary ,which would have a different design , than say a 155 HE or Ap or AT round."


Edited, Tue May 18 09:50:26 2004 by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#42 May 18 2004 at 8:53 AM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
"Now, if you have trouble hitting your objective, you secondary targets are here and here: an accordion factory and a mime school. "
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#43 May 18 2004 at 10:48 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
Edit: From a thread on another forum I read, someone notes that: "All artillery and especially special munitions will have batch lots stenciled onto the shell, so as to determine the shelf life of a particular shell. My own guess is that the particular shell , was as mentioned binary ,which would have a different design , than say a 155 HE or Ap or AT round."


Yeah they do but if you dont have the proper documentation to identify what numbers mean what how would you know who made it.

Again what era it was from is really irrelevant. Iraq could have produced it back in 1910 the fact is they werent supposed to have them. Now if this is just one shell that was misplaced and they didnt destroy it that is one thing. What do you think the chances are that the insurgents/terrorist just happened to find that shell and rig it as a bomb? About the same odds as that boat on Mt Arrarat being Noah's arc???

#44 May 18 2004 at 10:49 AM Rating: Decent
*
144 posts
Quote:
Just remember fox is very biased in reporting the "War on Terror".


Fox is the network that is biased...riiiggghhht! For years we have been subjected to the leftist bias that is the three major networks. The right finally has a voice and the liberal elite can't take it.
For the record CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and any other news organization you can think of also reported these findings. It's not a big surprise. He has the weapons hidden and we will stumble across them someday, then all the Bush haters can find another excuse to hate on him.
#45 May 18 2004 at 11:04 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,458 posts
Youre a fu'cktard. Did I ever say the other networks weren't biased. No. I was referring the the article mentioned in the OP. I'm sure FOX has some great articles...but when it comes to the issue at hand they are "right" biased. You should take any networks( be it CBS, CNN, etc.)article with an open mind.

Edited, Tue May 18 12:04:32 2004 by spawned
#46 May 18 2004 at 11:13 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
Yeah they do but if you dont have the proper documentation to identify what numbers mean what how would you know who made it
And you're saying they don't? There's no one in the Iraqi military who may be working with the US has any idea how to read Iraqi shells? It's not like this is a find from ancient Mesopotania here that needs to be studied by scholars, it's a fairly contempory weapon. Seriously, the dating of the shells is probably the least up in the air aspect of this.

Quote:
Now if this is just one shell that was misplaced and they didnt destroy it that is one thing. What do you think the chances are that the insurgents/terrorist just happened to find that shell and rig it as a bomb?
I think it's pretty unlikely that they knew the shell contained sarin. The military thinks it's unlikely that they knew, given the poor method of using it, or at least that's what's being reported. I can't say how many more they may have, but I'd say the chance of them stumbling across the shell(s) and trying to use it as a bomb are pretty damn good. What else are they going to do with a 155mm shell? Drive their howitzer to Fallujah and fire it once?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#47 May 18 2004 at 11:22 AM Rating: Decent
a) I already stated that I didnt think when the shell was made as they were not allowed to have them regardless of when they were made.

b) I definitely believe that the insurgents didnt know what they had. I am saying I dont think the shell that they used was the only one. I think they came across a bunch of them and happened to use one as a bomb not knowing that it had Sarin gas inside. I hope that they dont figure out how to use the others that they may/maynot have to launch a chemical attack on coalitioin forces in the future.
#48 May 18 2004 at 11:26 AM Rating: Decent
*
144 posts
Quote:
Youre a fu'cktard.


Wow, I am very impressed that you have the intelligence to debate without resorting to namecalling. I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. Most liberals resort to this tactic when their arguments begin to fall apart.
#49 May 18 2004 at 11:33 AM Rating: Good
***
3,458 posts
ntredame wrote:
Quote:
Youre a fu'cktard.


Wow, I am very impressed that you have the intelligence to debate without resorting to namecalling. I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. Most liberals resort to this tactic when their arguments begin to fall apart.


Wow I am impressed you continue to prove my labeling of you correct. Go back to stroking Dubya's **** or something.
#50 May 18 2004 at 11:35 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
I already stated that I didnt think when the shell was made as they were not allowed to have them regardless of when they were made.
Erm, okay. Then why exactly do you keep arguing about how we can't possibly know how old it is? You compared it to a can of beer and said it wouldn't be labelled and we wouldn't know how old it is. I pointed out that it IS labelled. You said we can't read the label. I said we most likely can. You're putting a lot of effort into something you claim has no importance.

It is relevant to a lot of people because we were told that Saddam was actively persuing bio/chemical weapons and that he was an immediate threat because of it. In the past 14 months we have found one confirmed chemical weapon (IIRC, the January cache was never confirmed) from the mid 80's. Actually, we didn't "find" it, it was given to us in a manner of speaking, but it hardly qualifies as an active and dangerous program.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#51 May 18 2004 at 1:04 PM Rating: Decent
*
144 posts
Quote:
Go back to stroking Dubya's **** or something.


Now now little one. You wouldn't want your Mommy to find out that you're typing such offensive things on the computer. I don't think she would like that very much. She might be inclined to take away your priviledges. Then where would you be? No friends and no computer. You would have nothing to do except reflect on how empty your life really is. I would hate for that to happen to such a nice person=)
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 306 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (306)