Chemical Weapons found in Iraq

[PLATO]

The job of inspectors was to find continuing programs and weapons being store for future use, NOT to locate each wepaon which the Iraqis might have disposed of incorrectly. Is that too hard for you to get?

Is it to hard for you to get that this is just blantantly NOT TRUE. 1441 specifically said to account for all weapons of mass destruction.

Quit kidding yourself.

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO
No I am claiming that the Iraqi's were in violation of UN resolutions ONCE AGAIN. And that the outcome of that violation was openly discussed by all prior to the passage oif 1441. And that the results happened. And that disputing that is just plain silly at this point. Nice try at a twist of the facts though...well on second thought it does look like the logic you used was from elementary school...so maybe it wasn't such a nice try

Sorry, no, you were claiming these weapons were being hidden. That is different from claiming that thier faulty disposal constituted a failure of conforming to 1441 (which is questionable). Don't make me have to quote you previous posts.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap




Sorry, no, you were claiming these weapons were being hidden. That is different from claiming that thier faulty disposal constituted a failure of conforming to 1441 (which is questionable). Don't make me have to quote you previous posts.

Perhaps you might want to quote the post about how good the Iraqi's were at record keeping?

[yaroslav]

Originally posted by VJ
Yaroslav, look the definition of WMD from a dictionary. Chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction, mustard gas one of the most widely used of them.

I'm not very smart, but I've always believed that chemichal and biological weapons are "weapons of mass destruction" only if they can effectively, well, do "mass destruction". If yahoo's quote isn't wrong, it appears that it isn't a very efective or danger weapon - it can kill, but it's not the idea behind the weapon (always quoting yahoo).

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO


Is it to hard for you to get that this is just blantantly NOT TRUE. 1441 specifically said to account for all weapons of mass destruction.

Quit kidding yourself.

Lets see: the only people who knew how much was made were the Iraqis, becuase they were the only people who COULD KNOW this- now, if they say: we made X amount- Y amount was used, Z amount was disposed and we know where, W amount was disposed ad-hoc so we can;t tell you were (which is exactly what happened).

Your confusion does bring up one of the porblems with 1441- the Iraqis could NEVER fully account for eerything, becuase no one can ever fuly account for everything (anymore than the US can account for what happened to every single US citizen who went to fight a war- that is what MIA is for)- which mean that they could have never met the requirements of 1441, since they were beyond possible, since as long as the US and UK kept claiming: "When you tel us some stuff was smply dumped and we can;t tel you exactly were", they would pull what you are pulling, which is to claim such acts are somehow utterly impossible, that somehow in war everything is always kept track off, and thus the Iraqis must have been lying when they said: guys on the field knew to get rid of the stuff andf did it ad-hoc and without good record keeping.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Colon


Yes, I think we can all agree on that.

You will go far in bizness. Get right down to simplicity.

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO


Perhaps you might want to quote the post about how good the Iraqi's were at record keeping?

Why would I quote a statement you made without providing anything even coming close to evidence for its validity? Interestingly enough, I have seen no one report that Iraqi record keeping, if voluminous, was also highly accurate.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by PLATO
So the liberal line changes from "See! He didn't have them!" to "So what that he had them! He couldn't use them!"

I don't know if I'm a liberal now. Ever since the end of the war (where no wommdies had been found to my suprise), I believes that the troops would eventually find traces of Saddam's WMD programme, and blow them out of proportion for political gain.

So far, I haven't been wrong, except that I assumed the revelations to come later during the presidential campaign.

[VJ]

I'm not very smart, but I've always believed that chemichal and biological weapons are "weapons of mass destruction" only if they can effectively, well, do "mass destruction". If yahoo's quote isn't wrong, it appears that it isn't a very efective or danger weapon - it can kill, but it's not the idea behind the weapon (always quoting yahoo).

You're a smart guy by not pulling definitions, based on your common sense, from thin air, and instead simply asking questions from things you're not exactly sure about but think are true, according to your common sense...

Mustard gas, the substance which was (probably) used in the warhead to make it more effective against the Iranian troops, is IMO the most commonly used chemical weapon, because it's cheap, relatively easy to produce and still effective.

I've read quite a bit reports and descriptions of mustard gas, and IIRC they all stated that it was a weapon of mass destruction.

According to my dictionary, weapons of mass destruction are divided into nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. All weapons included in to those categories simply are WMD.

I can't give direct quotes, since the book is in Finnish, it's a giga-dictionary produced in the late 70's -- I always used to read that dictionary-serie as a kid, but that's another story.

I could probably find an English dictionary from somewhere around my apartment, but it probably wouldn't cover so trivial definitions.

[Ned]

People who actually believe that this is "normal" storage of chemical weapons have simply got to be living an extreme form of denial motivated by politics.

[yaroslav]

VJ,

you're right in your definition (see, for instance: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wea...%20destruction). I'm only trying to explain you how I've understood the term until now... I don't see too much sense in calling "mass destruction" if they can't do... well.. mass destruction, you know.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
People who actually believe that this is "normal" storage of chemical weapons have simply got to be living an extreme form of denial motivated by politics.

You are right Ned, this isn;t a normal fomr of storage- storage assumes you want it back- so you try to keep it in a manner that means you can use it again- not in a manner that leaves it corroded and leaking. After all, If I wanted to store my car, I would put it in a garage, not burry it in the ground, since burrying it like that may damage it beyond my ability to use it, thus not fulfilling the notion of 'storage".

[VJ]

Yaro -- > Oh, missed your point. Sorry.

People who actually believe that this is "normal" storage of chemical weapons have simply got to be living an extreme form of denial motivated by politics.

No, I don't think that it's a a normal storage for chemical weapons. Has anyone said so?

[Nubclear]

I can't believe you commienazis are defending this. Clearly it leaking and all is actually a clever way of promoting terrorism!
You see, he loaded them up with chemical weapons to fool the American spies (Not that they could EVER be fooled, of course), and then he would launch them against NYC and in 45 minutes an EMPTY shell would hit. It's designed to cause mass panic!
So not only does this prove Saddam has nukes, it also proves hes a TERRORIST! And, of course, by extension it also proves he's sleeping with Bin Laden.

Bush for finally exposing this.

[Oncle Boris]

It's sad to see how the debate turns. Of course, they would find somewhere, some kind of WMD. GePap has been absolutely right from the beginning- these rusted shells were not a threat to anyone.

Now to the true question: how many countries in the world do NOT have some kind of WMD? And of those who do, what is the one that used them in the most significant way? Hmmmm...

[VJ]

Now to the true question: how many countries in the world do NOT have some kind of WMD? And of those who do, what is the one that used them in the most significant way? Hmmmm...

A point most often made by anti-war hippies, but it's bs when it comes to Iraq. Iraq was required in the cease fire treaty to destroy all it's WMD. There was even a UN resolution made out of this -- if Iraq would've developed WMD, it would've had redeclared war and thus could be freely attacked.

[Winston]

Um, Oncle Boris, hate to break this to you, but I believe this thread is about Iraq.

You'll have to vent your frustration at the cruel World in general some other place.

[yaroslav]

Originally posted by VJ
Yaro -- > Oh, missed your point. Sorry.

There is not need to say "Sorry". It's probably my fault, because I'm not a very good writer an that is in Spanish, so guess how bad I'm in English

[General Ludd]

I mentioned earlier that Canada has alot of mustard gas. If I remember correctly, it's because it's very dificult to dispose of properly, and they figured it was easier to just keep it around. That might give credance to the argument that these where weapons which where barried in a half-assed attempt to dispose of.

[Oncle Boris]

So if the thread is about Iraq then we can not talk about anything else in the world that might related?

If you can't make out of my post that my point was "Iraq was not any more of a threat than X", then you may be the one who needs to post somewhere else.

And where in the world did I say the war was unjustified? My sole point remains: it was not a threat to the US. If you think wars are about preventing a threat from arising, then you should open some history books, along with your dictionary at the definition of the word "conquest".

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
It's sad to see how the debate turns. Of course, they would find somewhere, some kind of WMD. GePap has been absolutely right from the beginning- these rusted shells were not a threat to anyone.

Now to the true question: how many countries in the world do NOT have some kind of WMD? And of those who do, what is the one that used them in the most significant way? Hmmmm...

Ah hah! The next tactic of the left when the facts confront their conspiracy theories.

Divert attention.

[GePap]

And we are back to the Nedaverse....

[Ignorance]

Originally posted by Ned

Ah hah! The next tactic of the left when the facts confront their conspiracy theories.

Divert attention.

Look who's talking. When you can't confront the argument, attack the person who made it.

[debeest]

"However, US officials played down the find, saying the shells were probably left over from Saddam Hussein's 1980-88 war with Iran. "

So, these are leftovers from the chemical weapons Saddam was using against the Iranians and the Kurds back when the U.S. was supporting him. Major find, huh.

Who knows? Maybe these were buried in the sand because they were with some of the helpless Iraqi troops that U.S. troops buried with bulldozers in the first Gulf War.

[Patroklos]

"However, US officials played down the find, saying the shells were probably left over from Saddam Hussein's 1980-88 war with Iran. "

Sure sounds liek the US is over emphasizing this one for political gain, yessery.

Yep, I was there, buried them alive (you forgot the while laughing, and then pissing on the grave afterwards). If only I knew shooting at me from entrenched positions was a sign of surrender...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by PLATO
Is it to hard for you to get that this is just blantantly NOT TRUE. 1441 specifically said to account for all weapons of mass destruction.

Quit kidding yourself.

1441 did not sanction an invasion.

You either follow it or you don't, you can't have both.

[Ned]

GePap, et al., I hardly think that burying mortar shells filled with mustard gas is a proper form of destroying weapons of mass instruction.

Burying them under sand is not a proper form of storage.

Burying things under sand is a known method for hiding things from UN weapons inspectors.

So we find mortar shells buried under sand, and enemies of the United States and/or Bush conclude that they were not burried to hide them from UN weapons inspectors, but to destroy them!

And just who is living in the land of conspiracy theories?

[Oncle Boris]

Ned, can't you understand that they are leftovers from the Iran-Iraq war? In any case, the resolution did not plan an outright invasion- the Iraqis would obviously be given the chance (if WMDs had been found) to destroy them.

[DinoDoc]

Well there's about 5k more to find according to the UN.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Well there's about 5k more to find according to the UN.

And let's say they are mostly in an unusable state, buried beneath the desert. Will that prove that Iraq was a threat?