The WMD's May Have Been Found

[Mr Manifesto]

My, my, my, what short memories we all have.

The US needed a rationale to go to war with Iraq without UN backing. This is because we don't want to give countries the idea that they can invade and occupy another country just because they feel like it. Imagine China invading Taiwan because Taiwan seems a little threatening in a vague way. Or, how would we all like one of the Arab countries to invade Israel because, well, that Ariel Sharon is a nasty kind of person. Maybe Germany can invade Poland because Poland hasn't proven it won't invade other countries in the near future.

So, what was the rationale? Why, Iraq had an active WMD program. More! It had WMD's ready to go- which it was going to use on other countries! In other words, Iraq was an imminent threat, and the US could not afford to sit on her hands and suffer her civilians to be killed while the UN decided to act.

We choose to meet that threat now where it arises before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities.

Remember that, my amnesiac friends?

We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.
(Snip)
We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail.

Remember that, my memory-challenged friends?

Scott Ritter published a pamphlet before the war saying this was bollocks. Ritter said -and I will go on the record saying I agree with him 100%- that if Iraq has any WMD's, they will be too scattered and too outdated to be a real threat. So far he's right. The only thing that's been found are several dozen blister agent rounds that are over ten years old. Perhaps, as a little project, my five-minute memory friends could look up the shelf-life of WMD's. Hint: Less than ten years.

So what does that leave America with? Well, Saddam was a big nasty and had to be overthrown for those lovable little Iraqis. Well, I have some bad news- it's not up to America to decide who runs what country. If other countries decided they could overthrow whichever leader whenever they wanted, imagine the potential for chaos. The Queen of England isn't elected, is she? What if an overzealous democracy-loving country decided she should be overthrown.

Ah, but we only want to overthrow the bad people, you say. Ariel Sharon is bad. Ask any Arab. Imagine if the Arab nations got together and decided to overthrow him because he's so evil.

No, no, no, you say, we only want to overthrow people who oppress their own people. Well, that's George Bush overthrown. He's the Great Oppressor. Ask anyone in jail.

That's why we don't occupy countries and overthrow their leaders whenever we feel like it, especially without UN backing. But that wasn't good enough for the US cowboys. Maybe it was too smart. Now the precedent has been well and truly set. Already other countries, such as Israel, are grumbling about attacking other countries they think might sorta be a kind of threat in the future. World peace has been set back pretty much to the beginning of the Cold War.

Maybe that's how the PNAC like it, but what about reasonable thinking people?

 

[geni]

. Perhaps, as a little project, my five-minute memory friends could look up the shelf-life of WMD's. Hint: Less than ten years.

Nulear will last far longer than 10 years (not that Iraq had any).

The shelf life of will depend greatly on the weapon.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

It doesn't help that I got mustard gas (the blister agent Iraq is most likely to have, and the most likely chemical in the mortar rounds) mixed up with nerve gas. Nerve gas has a shelf life of about two years. Mustard gas can be a lot longer (no real agreement on just how long that is) if they're made correctly.

So, the jury's still out as to whether these particular weapons could have been effective.

However, the argument still stands- Iraq's WMD program were not a real threat to neighbouring countries, and certainly not a threat to the US, the country who claimed that they had to attack Iraq to protect her shores.

 

[Nasarius]

Nulear will last far longer than 10 years (not that Iraq had any).

The shelf life of will depend greatly on the weapon.

Tritium has to be replaced every few years or the power of the fusion bomb will be greatly diminished.

But to get back on topic, I think it's likely that if anyone wanted to use these shells of blister agent, they would have some work to do in making them usable again. Shells that are leaking sound like they would probably explode before leaving the mortar.
That's assuming anyone remembered where they were.

 

[Troll]

"I find it interesting troll, that you knock down or question the offered definitions of WMD while not attempting to offer one of your own..."

A WMD is anything that can be launched against Israel.

Yes I question the definitions as they are not consistent with the ones given when all this began. None were being found and people wondered where the Chemical, Biological or Nuclear weapons were. Now chemical weapons don't count if used in a smaller warhead?

I do apologize for some of the later posts not looking like they made sense. I should have called it a night a good deal sooner than I did. But I had the thoughts in my head even if I didn't have the ability to actually write them out well. But the above is what I was shooting for last night.

 

[Segnosaur]

Probably not, from a certain standpoint...how effective is any chemical after being stored in dirt for a decade or more? Is it even usable? My guess it that it would give you a nasty rash, which doesn't qualify as a WMD in my book.

Chemical weapons do have a 'shelf life'; however, they do remain very dangerious long after their shelf life has expired.

Occasionally, you'll hear a news report about some people uncovering chemical weapons left over from WW2 or the cold war, that somehow got misplaced, with people becomming ill as a result.

So, while having 10 year old chem weapons fired at you may not be as dangerous as having brand new chem weapons fired at you, I still wouldn't want to be exposed to either.

 

[shanek]

Yes I question the definitions as they are not consistent with the ones given when all this began. None were being found and people wondered where the Chemical, Biological or Nuclear weapons were. Now chemical weapons don't count if used in a smaller warhead?

Are you saying that all chemical weapons, regardless of size, are WMDs? Then pepper spray is a WMD.

 

[crackmonkey]

One criteria of a WMD is lethality. Pepper spray isn't designed to be lethal, mustard gas is.
If the WMD designation is giving you conniptions, just substitute 'chemical agent' or some such in its place. Blistering and nerve agents are precisely what we asserted Saddam had, and he denied.
He had them, as it turns out.

 

[Troll]

Are you saying that all chemical weapons, regardless of size, are WMDs? Then pepper spray is a WMD.

Never considered pepper spray to be a chemical weapon. It's more of a spice that has a dual purpose.

But let's call it a chemical weapon. Now you tell me of it's destructive nature. Not it's irritating nature, but destructive nature. See that's the d in wmd. So no I don't consider something like pepper spray to be a chemical weapon. I'm also not to familiar with anyone considering pepper spray a chemical weapon

Do you see the UN banning tear gas or pepper spray as a chemical weapon? I really expected better from you but you seem to be off your game lately.

If you'd like to know what I consider a chemical weapon feel free to check the following link.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/cw/agent.htm#b03

 

[geni]

Do you see the UN banning tear gas or pepper spray as a chemical weapon?

They are banned on the battle field. The reason is that there is concern that their use might lead to an an escerlation

 

[Bjorn]

Associated Press is writing:

The 120mm mortar shells are thought to be left over from the eight-year war between Iraq and neighboring Iran, which ended in 1988, U.S. Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said Saturday.

The shells were wrapped in plastic but had been damaged, and they appeared to have been buried for at least 10 years, the statement said.

After the first Gulf War in 1991, a U.N. resolution called for the destruction of all Iraqi nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, as well as missiles with a range of more than 93 miles. The resolution set up a U.N. inspections commission to oversee the process.

WMDs or not, was this really what we went to war for?

 

[Troll]

Associated Press is writing:

WMDs or not, was this really what we went to war for?

for those particular ones? Doubtful. We knew he had the stuff. We wanted to remove the stuff and him. This is but one find so far. It does, however prove that he has the stuff, doesn't it? And was that not the claim made?

 

[crackmonkey]

Weapons like this - chemical weapons which Saddam lied about and said he didn't have - are why we went to war, yes.

I expect some serious goalpost-moving by the 'no chem weapons in Iraq' crowd...

 

[Troll]

Weapons like this - chemical weapons which Saddam lied about and said he didn't have - are why we went to war, yes.

I expect some serious goalpost-moving by the 'no chem weapons in Iraq' crowd...

dude, they've moved them so many times now that there's not enough hard ground to even play the game on. The entire field is a big, dug up mess.

 

[geni]

dude, they've moved them so many times now that there's not enough hard ground to even play the game on. The entire field is a big, dug up mess.

when you have two teams playing in the goal post moving championships this is what you should expect.

 

[Troll]

when you have two teams playing in the goal post moving championships this is what you should expect.

I agree. But we only have one side playing that game. The claim from the other side was that he has the stuff. And lo and behold, he did. Goal posts on this end are still standing where they began.

 

[geni]

I agree. But we only have one side playing that game. The claim from the other side was that he has the stuff. And lo and behold, he did. Goal posts on this end are still standing where they began.

Lets see

One side said he WMD. The other said where are they.
Some low grade tactical chemical weapons have been found. the first side claims that these are WMD.

The 15 minute scondle clearly showed that there was a difference between battlefied chemical weapons and WMD.

 

[ssibal]

Weapons grade anthrax some of which was manufactured after you sighned the treaty. Your govenemt is planning to start developing battlefied nukes (con't think why its not like you need any more weapons.

These are the new crowd control measures???? Got a source on the anthrax? As for battlefield nuclear weapons, I see nothing wrong with that.

No we invaded Kuwait because it had been invaded (the the Iraqies were ripping babies of of incubators remember)

Iraq invaded and annexed Kuwait. If you are implying that our invasion of Iraq is the same thing as theirs of Kuwait then you are simply being ridiculous.

 

[Troll]

Lets see

One side said he WMD. The other said where are they.
Some low grade tactical chemical weapons have been found. the first side claims that these are WMD.

The 15 minute scondle clearly showed that there was a difference between battlefied chemical weapons and WMD.

"low grade tactical chemical weapons", is that a get out of jail free card you're trying to play? So now it's about the quality of the chemical weapons? So would a low yield tactical nuke not be a nuke or a wmd? Gee, and you wonder about the movement of the goal posts and who is doing the moving?

 

[geni]

"low grade tactical chemical weapons", is that a get out of jail free card you're trying to play? So now it's about the quality of the chemical weapons? So would a low yield tactical nuke not be a nuke or a wmd? Gee, and you wonder about the movement of the goal posts and who is doing the moving?

Nope the key word it tactical. In my view "tactical nuke" is an oxymoron.