Sarin-loaded artillery shell in Iraq

[Mr Manifesto]

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.

Funny

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]

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]

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]

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]

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


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

 

[BillyTK]

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


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

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), 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).

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Re: Re: Re: Sarin-loaded artillery shell in Iraq

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]

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]

Re: Re: Smoking gun....

. . .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]

. . .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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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), 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).

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).