|
Wmd? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Renegade |
I seriously cannot believe that people are using this find as proof that their WMD causus bellum was valid. Thousands of people died so that we could reclaim one, ancient artillery shell? Is this what I'm meant to think? Some things need to be said:
First of all, this is just one shell. While no conclusive testing has yet been done, and while the US has been too quick to jump the gun with finds like this before, I'll assume, for the sake of this argument, that the facts presented (a shell was found containing sarin gas) are accurate. One shell is not a stockpile, it does not constitute a significant threat to any nation (least of all any of the members of the "coalition of the willing") and it is not proof that successive UN inspection teams had been misled by the Baathist regime. As I said, the shell is decidedly old ("The shell appeared to have been manufactured before the Persian Gulf war in 1991, officials said[.]" - see here) and does not support any assumption that Iraq had commenced any chemical weapons programs after the Gulf War (the immediacy of these alleged programs was the only reason to favour warfare ahead of inspections). The shelf life of Sarin gas is decidely less than this, particularly given the low quality of the toxin manufactured in Iraq at the time. According to a report by the Department of Defence:
| quote: | | "Impure or improperly stored sarin is unstable and degrades over time. US experts consider chemical warfare agents less than 50 percent pure to be militarily ineffective. Western sources estimate the sarin Iraq produced never exceeded 60 percent purity, and Iraq reported that poor operating practices at Al Muthanna limited the purity of sarin to between 20 and 50 percent. Since it contained at least 40 percent impurities when manufactured, sarin produced at Al Muthanna had a short shelf life. |
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/al_muth/al_muth_s02.htm
The CIA even went so far as to suggest that the shelf life of Iraqi produced Sarin might be as short as "a few weeks" (see here). In either case, the shelf-life of Sarin (regardless of where it was made, or of what quality) is significantly less than thirteen years. For the Sarin to be still be considered a threat, it must have been introduced to the shell more recently, possibly in the 14 months since the fall of the Iraqi regime. If it wasn't introduced during this sort of time period, then the potency of the gas must be questioned and - as such - its status as a "WMD" must be questioned also.
The most disturbing part of al this - which no-one anywhere seems to be acknowledging - was that the Sarin gas wasn't found in the hands of some reminent of the Baathist regime, or hidden safely somewhere in the desert, it was in the possession of Iraqi insurgents, or - in the words of the Bush admin - terrorists. Prior to the commencement of the war, on this forum I suggested that Iraqi WMDs (should they exist) would be more likely to find their way into the hands of terrorists should the US go to war, rather than if they continued with the inspection process. The reasons include the fact that Saddam's secularism makes him nominally antipathetic to the religious fundamentalism of Islamic terrorists (such as Al-Qaeda) and that, while in power, Saddam would be unlikely to give away weapons he had gone to a lot of trouble (and spent a lot of money) on building and storing away. In the event of war however:
| quote: | How, by going to war, can the US be certain that - after a thorough search of the country - all the weapons have been accounted for? Who's to stop Saddam from hiding his weapons somewhere, to be reclaimed by his supporters long after the US invasion?
[...]
[A]s sfintj0r put it:
| quote: | | if field-level commanders have control over chemical weapons, and can use them without directives from iraqi leadership, then doesnt this pose a very serious risk? i wonder how loyal mr field-level commander would be if an al-qaeda operative offered him $1 million USD for a single warhead. |
If these weapons are being controlled by field-level commanders, what happens to them and the weapons once the control and power exerted by Saddam Hussein is cut off? Can we really trust Saddam's commanders to hand over all there weapons to American invaders when there's probably a very high demand for them on the blackmarket? Or, if they're faithful to Saddam, what's to stop them from using these weapons against the occupying American troops later on?
|
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...&threadid=96499
We should not be celbrating the fact that a chemical weapon has (potentially) been discovered. We should not try to use this as proof of Saddam's deception, nor as evidence to sure up the validity of the war. At the end of the day this should be remembered: chemical weapons have (potentially) ended up in the hands of terrorists - the exact scenario we (apparently) went to war to prevent! If all this hyperbole about Saddam's massive WMD stockpile is accurate (which it almost certainly isn't, but I'll indulge regardless...) then we should now be very concerned about where they've ended up. If you properly grasp the signifcance of the fact that sarin gas may have been used by terrorists against US armed forces (knowingly or otherwise) then everything I said about the war prior to its commencement - namely that disarming Saddam through force rather than inspections merely increases the risk of these weapons falling into the wrong hands - may well be accurate.
Now I want to stress here that I'm just detailing the worst case scenario. I don't believe that this "find" is a precursor to a discovery of large WMD stockpiles (the fact that it's the first hint of WMD agents found in 14 months is a clue there), nor do I believe that terrorists possess Iraqi-made WMDs. Even if they have stumbled upon a buried stock pile of ancient Sarin-carrying shells, as I said before, the age of the shells and of the Sarin itself is enough to rule out any significant threat to anyone, anywhere. Further to the point, if this is the scenario (the insurgents stumbled upon a buried WMD stockpile) this would fit in with the scenario elucidated by Hans Blix at the bottom of this article:
| quote: | Blix, the former U.N. weapons inspector, said in Sweden on Monday that before the war, his team found 16 empty warheads that were marked for use with sarin.
He said it was likely the sarin gas used could have been from a leftover shell found in a chemical dump. “It doesn’t sound absurd at all. There can be debris from the past, and that’s a very different thing from have stocks and supplies,” he said. |
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808
The shell might have just been dug up from munitions already destroyed (and therefore accounted for) by UNMOVIC. Ironically, the shell would then by a reminder of Saddam's co-operation with UN inspection teams rather than evidence of deception.
Quite aside from all this, I just want to note how vocal some of the pro-war constituency has been on this issue already. For the past 14 months the importance of (the lack of?) WMDs has been played down, yet the second any small hint of a find is announced (as has happened with a few false alarms prior to this one - remember the balloon trucks?) it's blared all over Faux News and the primary causus bellum is once again flaunted liberally ("See? Told you they had weapons all along!"). Apart from the fact that this doesn't even come close to satisfying the case made for war on the basis of WMD stockpiles, this duality (that weapons aren't an issue when they aren't there, but are the most important issue when they "are") is worrying. If this find - in your minds - somehow makes the case for war, can you also agree that there is no case for war if this find turns out to be false and no other weapons are found? At what point does the self-evident lack of weapons become an issue in your minds? Can you live like this, celebrating the discovery of one shell every 14 months while ignoring the weapons that haven't been found (you're quite welcome to read through Powell's UN speech and Bush's SOTU address if you want any pointers on things that haven't been found).
In any case, at the moment this is a non-issue. Think it through lads... |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
| damn, amen brother. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
I agree with renegade wholeheartedly.
Lets not forget either that it wasn't GW today saying during a live press conf. that we had found this.
The ground commanders didn't think it was that signigant to mention the other roadside bomb shell found a few days earlier containing old mustard gas until today. theres probably more mustard gas in the arab world than there is mustard. (sorry Yoepus) f**k, Libya just turned over 14 tons of it!
perspective is what media pigs lack in reporting something like this and it's easy for some to get caught up in it, put simply. |
|
|
| WhoaNellie1487 |
Geez,Your ego is just to important? Isn't it... Admit it, Mr.Bush was right. There were,and are WMD's.
But hey, If you don't. That's your problem,not mine. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
I agee with Renegade. We all knew Saddam had chemical weapons prior to 1991 (except Nellie perhaps), however the issue was whether those weapons were stil functional and whether he still had running WMD programs. This shell proves neither of those two claims.
PS. It's casus belli :p |
|
|
| borron |
Believe what you want, it seems that you cannot see beyond what your president was to say. That's naive to say the least.
In the highly improbable situation of the US finding Sarin shell stockpiles, i think the inscription in the shells will read: "Made in the US" :D
Anyway, this is a pointless discussion, since there is no conclusive proof (as of now...). |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487
Read the above, I'm not the one that is Naive here. |
That's untrue dear.
Recent Fox News distortions that I've noticed in the last several weeks (keep in mind I seldom watch or read Fox News) include:
1. Foxnews.com edited an AP story on their website about the recent women's rights march to downscale the number of estimated marchers from hundreds of thousands (or millions) to a few thousand.
I compared the AP story on Yahoo News to the one on Foxnews.com, and noticed the misleading distortion.
2. The Fox News cable channel announced that Pakistani forces had "captured" Al Zawahiri (Bin Laden's number 2 man).
That looks to have been total BS, and assuming Fox had been correct, it seems that Bush would want to bring the man out about now that his polling numbers are so low.
3. Misrepresenting the latest Newsweek poll on Bush's approval ratings.
The Fox News cable channel completely lied about Bush's job disapproval number when reporting the Newsweek poll.
4. Misrepresenting the number of supposed Sarin laced shells that had been found in Iraq to include a quantity greater than one.
I'm all for a conservative viewpoint in the media, and I'm sure there is an expansive market for that, but it's disheartening to see a supposed news organization sink to these kinds of lows to push an agenda.
That's not to say there are not left-wing propaganda websites that do the same. Misleader.org for example pulled a "Faux News" the other month about a story on the Bush Administration's AIDS funding.
It pisses me off to be manipulated in such a manner, and I like my facts straight - not shaded.
It's important that we, as media consumers, be ever wary of this influx of pseudo-journalism from both the left and right.
I actually hope most of the WMDs were destoryed, or it will become more dangerous for Iraqis and Westerners alike if they were to end up in the hands of terror elements.
I pulled these stories off google news:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht...11_sarin18.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...national/Africa |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
PS. It's casus belli :p |
Oops, yes, it's definitely casus but I think it can can be either bellum or belli (both come up in a google search). Bellum would seem to be the perfect infinitive of the noun "war", whereas belli (from what I can make from this table) would be the first person singular perfect indicitive ( :conf: ) of the verb "war" (probably wrong on both counts though). Gotta love Latin. |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487
Geez,Your ego is just to important? Isn't it... Admit it, Mr.Bush was right. There were,and are WMD's.
But hey, If you don't. That's your problem,not mine. |
:rolleyes:
Here we go again. “I'm right and you're wrong, I don't care about the evidence, it's true because I say it is so there!” You used Fox News, and Worldnetdaily as sources that the US had found WMD. Am I the only one who's starting to see a pattern here? Other than that, a big  to Renegade's post, no need for me to write out my opinion now, as you summed it up perfectly. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by arctic
:rolleyes:
Here we go again. “I'm right and you're wrong, I don't care about the evidence, it's true because I say it is so there!” You used Fox News, and Worldnetdaily as sources that the US had found WMD. Am I the only one who's starting to see a pattern here? |
Yes, you're the only one. She's right because she says so. She has proof and you don't.
Big difference.
2 possible precursers to a possible weapon equals a stockpile. 1 old possible chemical weapon was why we had to go to war. Even when final laboratory tests have proved initial field tests wrong thus far on any "WMD":
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast...main/index.html
| quote: | | A Pentagon official told CNN that a single field test indicated the shell contained sarin and that a more definitive laboratory test had not been conducted. Initial field tests are often incorrect. |
she's right and you're wrong.
Big difference.
Everything we have done, and everything we are currently doing in Iraq now (including those Frat pranks on those timid Iraqi prisoners) is therefore justified.
We are a Christian nation. They aren't. They need to be. We should do as Ann Coulter says,
"...we should invade their countries (Arab),
kill their leaders, and convert them to Chrisianity."
Big difference. |
|
|
| occrider |
| So is bush going to stop looking under his couch? |
|
|
| Shakka |
Boortz' comments. He may be a bit ahead of himself, but point well taken.
| quote: |
If you were listening to talk radio yesterday, or if you happened to be watching the Fox News Channel, you learned that Iraqi insurgents tried to use an artillery shell containing Sarin gas in a roadside explosive devise. A small amount of the deadly gas was released and a few American troops were treated for exposure.
There are two interesting aspects to this story. As of late yesterday afternoon, the media was virtually ignoring the find. Second, the appeasement crowd was quick to try to downplay the significance of the find.
I don't watch ABC, CBS or NBC news with any regularity. Every night it's Special Report with Brit Hume, and in the mornings it's CNN Daybreak with Carol Costello. I can tell you that as of last night my listeners were reporting that they never did see the Sarin gas story show up on CNN or on the CNN website, though it was featured on Fox all afternoon long.
I don't think that the media is going to be able to completely ignore this story, but they sure will try to downplay it. Remember the template: If the story benefits Bush, downplay. If the story hurts Bush ... run it hard. That's why the Nick Berg beheading had such a short lifetime, while the prison abuse story is still on the front pages today.
As for the appeasement crowd? Well, it didn't take long. Up until now the cry was that we had found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Now that some of those weapons have been discovered (mustard gas last week -- didn't hear about that one either, did you), the appeasement crowd is saying that these are just isolated old weapons being found ... and it doesn't mean there's a stockpile somewhere. No matter what we find...Hans Blix and his terrorist-appeasing, dictator-loving, Saddam apologist friends at the U.N. will never admit we were right. After all, to them, Saddam could do no wrong. It's all our fault, you know.
Just great. Last week the charge was that no WMDs were found. This week Blix is saying that no "stockpile" has been found. Find some more weapons and we can argue with the weenies over just what the definition of "stockpile" is. Pathetic.
Oh yeah ... and you're also going to hear that this was an old shell. Not a new one. The theory here, I guess, is that only new WMDs count, not the old ones. Once they start finding new WMDs in Iraq the left will come up with another excuse.
One thing is for certain. The leftist argument that Saddam didn't have any WMDs is now dead. What's next? |
:p |
|
|
|
|
