The WMD's May Have Been Found

Mr Manifesto said:
I think I understand why a few on this forum so desperately need to feel that the war was justified. It's because no-one wants to feel like a dupe. They believed what Bush said, trusted him, and now they look like a bunch of jackasses because they were lied to.
Click to expand...

I'd say the desperation is in those who feel the war was not justified. Get a freaking clue already, it's over.
 
Mr Manifesto said:

As it has been pointed out, the American government wouldn't know where all of her stockpiles of weapons are, why did we expect a higher standard from Iraq?
Click to expand...

The U.S. doesn't know where all their chemical weapons are? Says who?
 
BTox said:


The U.S. doesn't know where all their chemical weapons are? Says who?
Click to expand...

I don't know who said anything about chemical weapons. I mentioned weapons stockpiles. Click here for one example. I have read an article about missing weapons-grade plutonium as well, but can't find the reference for it... this article mentions it.
 
Mr Manifesto said:


I don't know who said anything about chemical weapons.
Click to expand...

What is the topic of this thread? Sheesh, some people are dense...
 
BTox said:


What is the topic of this thread? Sheesh, some people are dense...
Click to expand...

I'll say.

The point I was trying to make is that the United States, for all of her advanced technology and careful record keep, with a high level of accountability and a relatively low level of corruption, does not know where all of her weapons are. Yet, this country's rulers expect Iraq, with not as advanced technology, dodgy records, little accountability, and plenty of corruption, to know where all of her weapons are. Do you see how stupid that idea is?
 
Mr Manifesto said:
The point I was trying to make is that the United States, for all of her advanced technology and careful record keep, with a high level of accountability and a relatively low level of corruption, does not know where all of her weapons are. Yet, this country's rulers expect Iraq, with not as advanced technology, dodgy records, little accountability, and plenty of corruption, to know where all of her weapons are. Do you see how stupid that idea is?
Click to expand...

Clueless. Well, I tried...
 
Mr Manifesto said:

However, around '97 and '98, they endeavoured to cooperate as much as they could. Unfortunately, the US decided to use the inspections as an opportuinity to spy on Iraq, which Saddam didn't like. That was not the purpose of the inspections- once again the US jeopordised the cause of peace to further her own aims.
Click to expand...

umm...right, like those spies we sent to check out the earthquake in iran.
 
Mr Manifesto said:


I'll say.

The point I was trying to make is that the United States, for all of her advanced technology and careful record keep, with a high level of accountability and a relatively low level of corruption, does not know where all of her weapons are. Yet, this country's rulers expect Iraq, with not as advanced technology, dodgy records, little accountability, and plenty of corruption, to know where all of her weapons are. Do you see how stupid that idea is?
Click to expand...

So, they magically forgot where *all* their stockpiles were, and we recently uncovered some that were somehow buried...Also of interest would be the shell or two that the inspectors found before the war, while insignificant, it shows that a stockpile could have been stored at that site and was moved.
 
Apparently there is some theft of US munitions. An odd point, and one not even tangentially relevant here... but I give credit whee credit is due. You're right.
Regardless of whether or not Iraqis 'lost' these muntions after they buried them
(and then subsequently lied about having missing munitions or having forgotten where they're buried), Iraq had chemical weapons (WMD in common parlance) secreted away from prying eyes. Inspectors that we relied on to certify that Iraq had no WMD couldn;t fond them, and you seem to say that these inspectors couldn't be expected to find the 5% of WMD unaccounted for. This 5% is hundreds of liters of WMD, enough to present a serious threat. If inspectors are this ineffective, why the charade about them being of any use? If inspections can't
find missing WMD, why even argue that they were working?
 
Just a couple of items to add to the discussion, if they have been covered already my apologies, but I haven't the boss-dodging skills to read all 189 previous posts.

The M120 Mortar (at least the M120/M121 version used by the US Army) weighs about 315lbs and is transportable by trailer or Medium sized vehicle (think Hummer). It fires a 30 lb shell (weight includes cartridge, propellant, and warhead) approximately 2-7km (1.5-5 Miles) at a fire rate of 6 per minute.

Mustard Gas (there are several varieties, the most popular being Sulfur Mustard) is a powerful irritant and blistering agent that damamges the skin, eyes and respiratory track, it is usually not fatal. when sulfur mustard was used during WWI, it killed fewer than 5% of the people who were exposed and received medical care. Sulfur Mustard can damage DNA, however (from CDC)

Not knowing the exact type of Mustard Gas but using sulfur mustard as our basis (it was the first mentioned on the sites I checked and given that it could be produced in quantity in 1916, it would be the most likely for a less-developed power to produce) we have a weapon that is designed more to disable enemy soldiers and force them into protective gear, where their fighting ability is lessened. As a terror weapon, well, given that a terrorist could get both shells and mortar into the US, set it up within 5 miles of a target, and successfully fire all 36 rounds to date discovered, they would get panic and confusion and injury, but no infrastructure damage and a limited number of dead (medical help has improved slightly since 1916). Weapon-sure Mass--if you mean 9-11 numbers of ~3,000, doubtful. Destruction--no meaningful physical destruction and a low kill ratio doesn't sound like the type of destruction a committed terrorist would desire.

A question I posed earlier remains: Does the discovery of 36 shells designed for limited battlefield use and of limited fatal consequences that were buried for 15 years equal 500+ American deaths, $100B+ expenditure, the destabilization of a nation, and worsened relations with the other major democracies of the world? Maybe so, but it would be nice to have a report on the facilites needed to produce the items, the storage and maintenance of the weapon systems, and the paper trail of where the raw material came from.

Still, tempus fugit, and another 20 years should tell the tail--we humans are in such a rush sometimes.
 
Hutch said:

A question I posed earlier remains: Does the discovery of 36 shells designed for limited battlefield use and of limited fatal consequences that were buried for 15 years equal 500+ American deaths, $100B+ expenditure, the destabilization of a nation, and worsened relations with the other major democracies of the world? Maybe so, but it would be nice to have a report on the facilites needed to produce the items, the storage and maintenance of the weapon systems, and the paper trail of where the raw material came from.
Click to expand...

It shows that yes, they lied in their reports, and yes, chemical weapons are hidden in Iraq. The question remains what happened to the rest of the weapons? It seems most likely to me that they are all buried pretty much randomly.
 
Russ, granting your points (and the question of other, newer weapons that do pose a clear and present threat to our security is still to be answered) the question remains--was the threat such that it required the blood, toil, tears, sweat (and cold hard cash) that we have invested to date. My opinion is that at this time, our losses outweigh the results.

Now perhaps we'll find all those liters of sarin, or at least the paper trail showing when they were produced and located. And perhaps when we turn over at least some of the Government to the Iraquis this Summer, things will blossom and peace and stability will break out. That would be nice. But it also sounds like drawing to an inside straight, IMHO.

To repeat, any decision now is a good 10 years early--history is not for the sprinters.
 
Kodiak said:
For those of you who don't consider Blister Agents a WMD or a weapon coveted by terrorists:
Blister Agent Fact Sheet
Click to expand...

That they're nasty, I fully acknowledge. That terrorists covet them, I likewise do not dispute. But that still doesn't make them weapons of mass destruction. If it does, then why does that not mean that our government used WMDs against its own people at Waco?

I thought it had to be capable of killign a significant number of people at a significant distance to be a WMD...but then, the definition keeps changing so much who can keep up?
 
Zero said:
We do lose stuff all the time, in warehouses and stuff.
Click to expand...

You're right... For example, just recently the US military found a golden chest that had been misplaced in a warehouse since the 1930s...
 
Hutch said:
Russ, granting your points (and the question of other, newer weapons that do pose a clear and present threat to our security is still to be answered) the question remains--was the threat such that it required the blood, toil, tears, sweat (and cold hard cash) that we have invested to date. My opinion is that at this time, our losses outweigh the results.

Now perhaps we'll find all those liters of sarin, or at least the paper trail showing when they were produced and located. And perhaps when we turn over at least some of the Government to the Iraquis this Summer, things will blossom and peace and stability will break out. That would be nice. But it also sounds like drawing to an inside straight, IMHO.

To repeat, any decision now is a good 10 years early--history is not for the sprinters.
Click to expand...

There were other reasons for going to war with Iraq, but chemical, biological, and the rare likelyhood of a developing nuclear program were the largest. From what I understand, *everyone's* intelligence agency was basically saying "We know for sure he had them, we have no clue where they are now" and since the Iraqi government was already helping terrorists, the picture was bleak.

The Iraqi government was given 12 years to solve these problems diplomatically, they chose not to. It does seem a bit unjustified in hindsight, because where are the chemical weapons? Where are the labs? But like I said before, someone points a gun at you, you can only determine after the fact if its loaded.
 
I'd argue that these shells, though they are incontrovertible evidence of chemical weapons possession, would not alone justify the invasion of Iraq.
They do, however, point out the false assurance that weapons inspections gave us.
 
crackmonkey said:
I'd argue that these shells, though they are incontrovertible evidence of chemical weapons possession, would not alone justify the invasion of Iraq.
They do, however, point out the false assurance that weapons inspections gave us.
Click to expand...

No weapons inspections in the world was ever going to 100% disarm Saddam. The objective was to remove the possibilty that Saddam could use these weapons effectively. The inspections did that. The American invasion, therefore, was not justified. Unless you want to go down the path that America can decide who rules which countries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom