Rumsfeld can't find the chemical weapons

[Mel]

Looks like Shemp's a good candidate for the vacant Iraqi Minister of Information position!

LOL!!!! It would seem so.



Did anybody actually believe we would overthrown a dictator PLUS zero in on his cache of hidden weapons all within weeks (or even months) of entering the country?

At this time the most important thing to worry about is that whatever is INSIDE Iraq stays in Iraq and then we can conduct a thorough and organized search.

Frankly, I see no pressing need to provide proof other than to satisfy the naysayers. The naysayers will still come up with all sorts of excuses and justifications for Iraq's arsenal AFTER they are shown proof positive........ so I don't see where they should be considered an important factor.

 

[aerocontrols]

Then you must have been living under a rock...It's not like anyone even tried to deny it!

I've read your links, and they say what I already know. The US sold strains of bacteria that can be used for military or civilian purposes. (Did Hussein use Anthrax to gas the Kurds, Shanek?) Also we sold pesticides and equipment to make pesticides. It has been my understanding that up until this point, it is your belief that pesticides are not chemical weapons. Have you changed your mind? Your sources list these pesticides as 'types that might be used for chemical weapons' without bothering to say exactly what types that would be. I remain skeptical. Are they mustard weapons? VX? Sarin? Or are they just pesticides?

It further seems to me that if the concern is that Iraq may create its own chemical weapons from dual-use equipment, then selling pesticides to a country that farms is far less damning (in fact, should be encouraged) when compared to selling them equipment to create their own.

Your rather flip comment, that Rumsfeld sold Iraq the chemical weapons that he used to gas the Kurds, has not been supported by your sources, I'm afraid.

MattJ

 

[crackmonkey]

It gets tiresome hearing this same canard ad nauseum...

show me evidence that the US sold Iraq chem weapons, specifically those used to gas Kurds. It's 'put up or shut up' time.

 

[iain]

LOL!!!! It would seem so.



Did anybody actually believe we would overthrown a dictator PLUS zero in on his cache of hidden weapons all within weeks (or even months) of entering the country?

Just to check, these are the same weapons that the CIA knew Saddam had. They had lots of evidence about these weapons, some of which we couldn't be told.

Just how strong must that evidence have been if the US now can't find those weapons in months? Doesn't that suggest that the evidence was not nearly as good as the US and UK were making out?

 

[shanek]

Did anybody actually believe we would overthrown a dictator PLUS zero in on his cache of hidden weapons all within weeks (or even months) of entering the country?

If there really were all of the evidence that Bush, Powell, et al said there were, then yes, it should have been no problem. There should be no need for a "thorough and organized search" unless this evidence never existed to begin with.

 

[subgenius]

And what's curious is how they let Iraq's Intelligence Ministry be looted, and thus it can be credibly (?) be asserted that they can't be found because the documents are missing. Same with the looting of the Health Lab which we had identified as a possible source/location of evidence of biological weapons.
Not to mention that looters made off with dangerous biological agents (viruses, bacteria, etc), and let loose lab animals carrying god knows what.

(And how bout the prosecution "accidentally" delivering classified documents to Mousaoui's cell a while back. Now if he divulges some information it can be claimed he got it from those documents. Ahh but that would have been a good thread. Stay tuned. It gets curiouser and curiouser.)

By the way I think we should have taken Saddam out 12 years ago, regardless of WMD's.

 

[shanek]

I've read your links, and they say what I already know. The US sold strains of bacteria that can be used for military or civilian purposes. (Did Hussein use Anthrax to gas the Kurds, Shanek?)

If you had actually read the links, you would have seen otherwise.

The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses,

When United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, they compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers,

DONALD RUMSFELD, the US Defence Secretary and one of the most strident critics of Saddam Hussein, met the Iraqi President in 1983 to ease the way for US companies to sell Baghdad biological and chemical weapons components,

(That one was from the first paragraph of the Times Online story, so no way could you have missed it if you'd actually read it.)

By the end of the decade, Washington had authorised the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications. These included poisonous chemicals and biological viruses,

You're displaying clear signs of being wilfully ignorant here.

 

[shanek]

show me evidence that the US sold Iraq chem weapons, specifically those used to gas Kurds. It's 'put up or shut up' time.

Just did. Proved it. Your turn.

 

[crackmonkey]

I'll admit that I just skimmed over the articles, but from the quotes you cite there is still no proof the US supplied any chem weapons to Iraq. It talks about poisonous chemicals... pesticides are poisonous, but not synonymous with chemical weapons. Many - dare I say most - industrial chemicals are poisonous, but aren't chemical weapons.
If legal dual-use chemicals are considered chem weapons, then the US has found a motherlode of chem weapons in Iraq. I assume you don't agree, so we should take this one off the table.
So - specifically, what chem weapons did the US sell Iraq? Whcih of these were used to gas the Kurds? Specificity is encouraged...

 

[aerocontrols]

If you had actually read the links, you would have seen otherwise.

I did read the links. Despite your direct quotes, "poisonous chemicals", "chemicals", and "poisonous chemicals" are not "chemical weapons".

"Chemical weapons components" would be closer if the article went the next step and demonstrated that those components were used for chemical weapons. Unfortunately it doesn't list any particular chemicals, and most of the articles make clear that other people supplied them with more than we did.

(That one was from the first paragraph of the Times Online story, so no way could you have missed it if you'd actually read it.)

I saw it. Even said so:

Also we sold pesticides and equipment to make pesticides. It has been my understanding that up until this point, it is your belief that pesticides are not chemical weapons. Have you changed your mind? Your sources list these pesticides as 'types that might be used for chemical weapons' without bothering to say exactly what types that would be. I remain skeptical. Are they mustard weapons? VX? Sarin? Or are they just pesticides?

You're displaying clear signs of being wilfully ignorant here.

It appears that I am the one looking for more information, while your mind is made up.

MattJ

 

[shanek]

I did read the links. Despite your direct quotes, "poisonous chemicals", "chemicals", and "poisonous chemicals" are not "chemical weapons".

They said CHEMICAL WEAPONS COMPONENTS!!!! THEY SAID THAT AND I QUOTED IT!!!

Some people aren't even willing to give an inch...

 

[crackmonkey]

They were referring to the 'insecticides believed to be used to make chem weapons', I gather. Not exactly anyone's definition of a smoking gun, unless you're prepared to consider all the insecticides found to be evidence of chemical weapons production.
In any case, is there any proof that these were used against the Kurds, as you asserted? What were the chem weapons used against the Kurds? What were the pesticides referred to in the Times article? Can the pesticides be used to make the Kurd-killing chemicals?
So far you have more faith than evidence...

 

[aerocontrols]

They said CHEMICAL WEAPONS COMPONENTS!!!! THEY SAID THAT AND I QUOTED IT!!!

Some people aren't even willing to give an inch...

You'll notice I had an entire paragraph in my reply (that you chose not to respond to) in response to that quote in particular.

 

[Mel]

If there really were all of the evidence that Bush, Powell, et al said there were, then yes, it should have been no problem. There should be no need for a "thorough and organized search" unless this evidence never existed to begin with.

Unless, Saddam was hiding the weapons in clear &/or overly obvious sights, I'd tend towards thinking it might take some time to locate them.

The fact that there was evidence of POSSESSING weapons does NOT mean there was also intelligence about locations.

The fact that there has been all that talk about MOBILE UNITS could also make it difficult to find a final destination?

 

[jema]

They said CHEMICAL WEAPONS COMPONENTS!!!! THEY SAID THAT AND I QUOTED IT!!!

Some people aren't even willing to give an inch...

Seems to be a form of head up orifice attitude common to Americans over this war the goal posts constantly moving, if you provide signed till receipts you would get told others sold him more, or that was all in the past, we are on the side of the angels today
I think the basic problem is that once they do give an inch and concede some of the blatent facts about past records, present intentions, and who has their greedy fingers in the pie, then they would be faced with a whole tapestry of cosy beliefs come tumbling down.....

jema

 

[subgenius]

Seems to be a form of head up orifice attitude common to Americans over this war the goal posts constantly moving, if you provide signed till receipts you would get told others sold him more, or that was all in the past, we are on the side of the angels today
I think the basic problem is that once they do give an inch and concede some of the blatent facts about past records, present intentions, and who has their greedy fingers in the pie, then they would be faced with a whole tapestry of cosy beliefs come tumbling down.....

jema

Like a house of cards.

 

[Mel]

Seems to be a form of head up orifice attitude common to Americans over this war

?????

As opposed to WHAT country?

 

[aerocontrols]

Seems to be a form of head up orifice attitude common to Americans over this war the goal posts constantly moving, if you provide signed till receipts you would get told others sold him more, or that was all in the past, we are on the side of the angels today

I thought I was just playing the same game that war opponents played before the war.

Are pesticides chemical weapons or not? He hasn't answered that question, (with regard to the current discussion) though I've offered it more than once.

 

[crackmonkey]

The 'evidence' presented so far falls considerably short of being persuasive. So far, we have the US selling pesticide to Iraq, that some are suspcious of being converted into some kind of weapon. There has been no proof that it WAS used as a WMD precursor, and these pesticides haven't been regarded as evidence of WMD possession by the anti-Bushies so far...
WHere's the link between the pesticides and the dead Kurds? Provide SOMETHING, for God's sake... if not, then just admit that it's a possibility but less than conclusive.
The US did aid the Iraqi bioweapons program, that has been documented and shown here. As far as the chem weapons, so far it's no more than speculation. How about some hard, incontrovertible facts? Not merely a musing by a newspaper that certain agricultural chemicals MAY have been used as a precursor to some unspecified chemical weapons...

 

[shanek]

I thought I was just playing the same game that war opponents played before the war.

Are pesticides chemical weapons or not? He hasn't answered that question, (with regard to the current discussion) though I've offered it more than once.

It's irrelevant to the discussion. They sold chemical weapons components to Iraq. End of story.

It was relevant in the other story because the alleged "chemical weapons" was nothing more that pesticide found in an agricultural facility. Gee, now what would an agricultural facility be doing with pesticide?