 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs)
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton Date: 09 Jul 06 - 11:41 AM Everyone knows that what they call WMD's were useless remnants. It's a red-herring. Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: gnu Date: 08 Jul 06 - 07:26 PM Gee... I just re-read the first post to this thread... I thought everyone knew they were shipped to Syria. Shortly after the invasion, Blair and his buddy appeared arm in arm on TV.... smiling profusely. Laughing gas? Muammar's the word. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: Teribus Date: 08 Jul 06 - 06:54 PM "Churchill lived in far more testing times than ours" And most here would have vehemently opposed what he had to say and would have shouted him down as a war-monger. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: dick greenhaus Date: 08 Jul 06 - 05:41 PM To me, at least, the most pretty obvious proof that there weren't any WMDs is the fact that Hussein didn't try to use any. Unless someone can suggest to me what he might have been waiting for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: JohnInKansas Date: 08 Jul 06 - 02:12 AM In the same Vanity Fair issue, (with the same disclaimers, of course): Blair's Big Brother Legacy by Henry Porter might also be worth a look. It sort of comes right out and says some of what a few have suggested here. Seeing it all put together in one I'll note that my brief look at this unfamiliar magazine did reveal that not all their articles are negative. Their spread on Sandra Bullock made her appear quite the nice young lady. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: CarolC Date: 08 Jul 06 - 01:26 AM Nice disclaimer, JiK! Thanks for posting the article. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: JohnInKansas Date: 07 Jul 06 - 11:11 PM Conspiracy theorists (a possibly growing crowd) may be interested in the July 2006 Issue of Vanity Fair magazine: The War They Wanted, The Lies They Needed By CRAIG UNGER. I can't offer any comment on accuracy, etc., and I'm not familiar with either the magazine or the author of the article; but it appears to summarize1 many of the claims that have been made, in one place. 1 (summarized in a scant 26 or so pages - use the printer friendly version) The article was brought to my attention when one of the "key(?) characters" in the article, Silvio Berlusconi, reportedly was indicted on a number of charges quite recently. The Vanity Fair website promises an article on Ramblin' Jack "next week," which will probably be more interesting to most people. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Apr 06 - 04:09 PM What? Did they find those booby-trapped Brittney Spears inflatable dolls at last? What a despicable way to kill Americans! Only Saddam Hussein could come up with something so...so...diabolical! I understand that more than 50 American soldiers and oil industry reps have fallen prey to the seductive charms of these cunningly designed exploding dolls, left scattered around Iraq in camouflaged arms caches. The press, of course, has kept it all pretty hush-hush, because it's an embarrassing way for an American soldier or businessman to die, and they don't want to talk about it. Understandable. There is no doubt that those Iraqi WMD are among the most awful weapons ever manufactured...even worse than the terrible stuff the Poles had in '39, which prompted the Germans to make a pre-emptive strike on them, as explained by Hitler and Goebbels. Check the historical records. I think that if the Poles had gone so far as to manufacture similar dolls in large numbers, only making them look like Marlene Dietrich, that the Germans would have lost the war in '39, and the Poles might then have gone on to blackmail the entire world. A close-run thing, eh? Thank God we have strong-willed leaders who have the courage to attack and overrun other countries before they get a chance to attack us! Yes, indeedy. ;-P Hail to the Chief! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: bobad Date: 24 Apr 06 - 12:44 PM Is anyone surprised by this news? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: GUEST,TIA Date: 24 Apr 06 - 12:35 PM Yes, indeed. We should all looky here . ("...Tyler Drumheller, the former chief of the CIA's Europe division, revealed that in the fall of 2002, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and others were told by CIA Director George Tenet that Iraq's foreign minister — who agreed to act as a spy for the United States — had reported that Iraq had no active weapons of mass destruction program...") |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: GUEST,TIA Date: 19 Jun 04 - 10:39 AM A mushroom cloud over our heads? Unmanned drones loaded with anthrax? Uranium imported from Niger? You're welcome. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: Nerd Date: 19 Jun 04 - 02:03 AM Hi BeardedBruce. I did not accept as gospel what the military said about chemical weapons in Israel. There has, in fact, been no evidence at all of this except for your testimony that you've heard it from people who were in Israel. Your friends' evidence was not, by the way, "firsthand" in the traditional sense; the only way to know firsthand if there were chemical weapons would be to see people die before your eyes, and I seriously doubt if your friends did. They heard it on the news or what-have-you, just like we did, and as people have pointed out above, those early reports were soon shown to be mistaken. In the Television Age, their knowledge is no more privileged than anyone else's, unless they literally witnessed death by sarin. I also did not discount the statements of the military as to what they found. I have conceded that prohibited items were found. I do not think they constitute WMD. It's the mass destruction that matters to me. For me, therefore, WMD is simply this: enough of a chemical toxin to kill thousands of people alongside a weapon that was designed or adapted to deliver it enough of a biological agent to kill thousands of people alongside a weapon that was designed or adapted to deliver it An atomic or nuclear bomb sufficient to kill thousands of people alongside a weapon that was designed or adapted to deliver it. I have actually never endorsed or used the term WMD myself, because so many people take it to mean chlorine bleach and ammonia, or mustard gas, or any number of primitive chemical agents that most chemical laboratories or most countries' militaries have. This makes it easy to claim your enemies have WMD. I haven't seen anything in Saddam's remaining arsenal that could have inflicted "mass destruction." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jun 04 - 06:39 PM a stockpile of chemical warheads, for existing Iraqi artillary? The facilities to manufacture the chemicals to put in the warheads? Long range rockets, prohibited under UN sanctions? But thank you for at least having the decency to define what you would accept as proof. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: TIA Date: 18 Jun 04 - 06:24 PM CO's post read: "No one died when Clinton lied... except for his career... Didn't that pesky Somalia thing happen on his watch? " Although CO has clarified, and said that there was no intended implication in this post that Clinton did lie, the linking of these two comments carried (for me, and I'm truly sorry if I misinterpreted) an attempt to equate Bush lying us into Iraq with Clinton's handling of Somalia. My goal has been to determine whether there is any comparison at any level. Don Firth's historical context helped to answer, and the last issue for me was whether there was any record or even accusation of a lie by Clinton. I knew/know of none. Now to beardedbruce's question: "...what evidence would be acceptable...?" We were told repeartedly that if we did not invade Iraq, there would be a mushroom cloud over our heads, or unmanned drones would deliver chemical or biological weapons to our shores, or at least our allies, or Saddam would build and give nukes to Bin Laden. I would accept as evidence of a truly imminent danger from Iraqi W's of MD the discovery of facilities to make nasty stuff and/or relatively recent (not 10 or 20 year old) nasty stuff, and the vehicles to deliver it nearby and in working order. We were not told before the invasion that it was necessary because there were a few old Iran-Iraq war era chemical mortar rounds, and decrepit rocket parts, and trucks that might be used to incubate nasty microbes -- or possibly to make weather balloon gas. In short I want to see what we were told we would see, and in the quantities and readiness that we were told they would be before I say "yeah, looky here, you were right." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jun 04 - 05:49 PM Nerd: " You disregard the military's pronouncements on whether chemical weapons were used on Israel but accept as gospel their pronouncements as to what was found in Iraq. It seems to me you simply believe whatever supports your ideology, regardless of who makes the claim.)" I take into account the fact that I have firsthand testimony, by people who were there. It seems to me that YOU disregard the military's pronouncements on what was found in Iraq, but accept as gospel the prononcements on whether chemical weapons were used on Israel... Different point of view. We can agree to disagree, until more facts are known. "There has since been no evidence that it was true " ( in ref, WMDs in Iraq:) If one refused to accept any evidence that there were, then there will not be. I have repeatedly asked what evidence would be acceptable, and never gotten an answer. Why is that? Are those who think that chemical weapons are not WMD so worried that we will find something that even they have to accept as a WMD? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: GUEST,Casual Observer Date: 18 Jun 04 - 05:39 PM No, but he didn't do much to prevent it, either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: Amos Date: 18 Jun 04 - 02:49 PM It was a tactical change due to developing military situations. Under the circumstances, it could have been really dumb NOT to. Bush had a lot more room to plan in regarding Iraq than Clinton did, because Clinton didn't start his war. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: GUEST,Casual Observer Date: 18 Jun 04 - 02:40 PM Hypothetically speaking, if Kerry keeps US troops in Baghdad on his watch, and a bombing occurs, then yes, I'd say he was responsible; because as President, he can choose to remove the troops. Just like Clinton could have chosen not to send troops to Somalia. Now, if there are no US troops present in Baghdad in this hypothetical situation, then no, the President wouldn't be responsible. I don't think Clinton lied about Somalia, and I already said that wasn't my point. However, he did lie about bringing troops home from Kosovo one year. He had said, in public, they would be home before Christmas, and then later decided they needed to stay longer. Some people considered that a lie, anyway; I imagine some of you will just say it was a change of heart. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: artbrooks Date: 17 Jun 04 - 05:09 PM GUEST, Clint Walker: it was in the spring of 1968, perhaps March or April, in Skull Valley, Utah (northeast of Dugway, northwest of Salt Lake City). I was there at the time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: Don Firth Date: 17 Jun 04 - 04:38 PM TIA, I know of no particular lie about Somalia that Clinton might have made. I can't find anything on it, or that he was even accused of lying about anything having to do with Somalia. If you do know of something, please enlighten me. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Nerd Date: 17 Jun 04 - 01:54 PM BeardedBruce, we are arguing at cross purposes. I was arguing that the article posted by CO was poor propaganda. I wasn't really arguing against your slightly more measured stance. Once again, the headline: UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after Even by the lead, they have equivocated to "WMD components." Which components? Why, the ones that do not cause mass destruction, of course. By the time we get to the quotes, it turns out they are talking about scrap metal from dismantled weapons--scrap that obviously WAS revealed to the UN inspectors because it was "replete with UN tags." Also, some fermenters that we have no evidence were ever part of WMD manufacture. Are these items actually the same as "weapons of mass destruction?" I have been arguing that no, they are not. Now, you claim: I have referred to WMD ( weapons ) and prohibited materials (including the manufacturing facilities and the delivery systems. Fair enough. I was not arguing against this. I concede that there may have been some prohibited items found. Indeed, I think it's pretty inevitable. Nevertheless, I think the prohibited items that HAVE been found are a less serious matter than you do. We were not told by our President before this war that Iraq had "some prohibited delivery systems." We were told they had weapons of mass destruction and fed hysterical language about the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud. There has since been no evidence that it was true or that the mushroom cloud was even a remote possibility. (I confess, by the way, that I am suspicious of your handling of evidence. You disregard the military's pronouncements on whether chemical weapons were used on Israel but accept as gospel their pronouncements as to what was found in Iraq. It seems to me you simply believe whatever supports your ideology, regardless of who makes the claim.) Many Americans were also led to believe that 9/11 and Iraq were somehow linked, which both the "dodgy dossier" author AND now the 9/11 commission, have found to be false. But that's a topic for another thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: TIA Date: 17 Jun 04 - 01:26 PM Yes, but did he lie to us about Somalia? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Don Firth Date: 17 Jun 04 - 12:45 PM Here's a hypothetical: George W. Bush invades Iraq, makes a mess. "Insurgents" keep blowing up car bombs and shooting at Americans and the Iraqis who cooperate with them. In November 2004, John Kerry wins the election, and on January 20th, 2005, he assumes office. On January 25th, "insurgents" blow up a car bomb in front of a Baghdad hotel, killing a whole bunch of American troops, diplomats, and members of the press. Since Kerry is now Commander-in-Chief of the military and this happens on his watch, does that make him ultimately responsible? It strikes me that if something bad happens while you're trying to clean up someone else's mess, it's pretty hard to say that you are responsible. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST,Casual Observer Date: 17 Jun 04 - 12:22 PM Because Clinton was Commander-in-Chief of the military, doesn't that make him ultimately responsible for military operations that occurred during his administration, whether or not he actually orchestrated said operations himself? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: TIA Date: 17 Jun 04 - 12:18 PM Thanks for the clarification CO, and the historical context Don Firth. My (non-rhetorical) question still stands - did he lie to us about Somalia? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Don Firth Date: 17 Jun 04 - 12:01 PM According to what I've been able to dig up, the Somalia thing was a UN humanitarian operation. Some thirty countries were involved, sending in a peacekeeping force of 28,000, 5,300 of which were Americans. That was back in the days when the US considered itself part of the international community. Clinton did not invade Somalia on his own hook the way George W. Bush invaded Iraq. In fact, the troops were originally committed to Somalia by George Herbert Walker Bush, and Clinton inherited it. No comparison. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST,Casual Observer Date: 17 Jun 04 - 11:33 AM The point not being that he lied, but that people died while he was President on account of his military decisions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 16 Jun 04 - 05:59 PM And how did Clinton lie to us about Somalia? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST,Casual Observer Date: 16 Jun 04 - 05:07 PM No one died when Clinton lied... except for his career... Didn't that pesky Somalia thing happen on his watch? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST Date: 16 Jun 04 - 02:32 PM Between the first and second gulf wars No scuds etc. were launched at neighbouring states, so what makes you think he was going to do it anyway, you make it sound inevitable. WE all saw how he operated when cornered, make a lot of noise but do nothing, rather than loose his position he would have preffered to remain the big fish in the little pond, a similar situation to Ghadaffi. If over 12 years the inspectors kept finding more material then at least that was 12 years that the Iraqi's were not using them. No casualty list arose from their admittedly slow inspection work. It was the interpreters who said it was a missile site not Saddam, they drew their own conclusions, maybe with a little pressure from above. If the site was photographed in May 2003, then I am actually amazed there was much of anything to see after the rather intensive air campaign had already hit just about everything of military value. We can both be shown a picture but we may see different things in it according to our own preconceptions. It was not so long ago that US intelligence saw a dangerous group of armed Islamists getting ready to fight, Shame those at the wedding had to pay the price for poor interpretation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: CarolC Date: 16 Jun 04 - 02:26 PM beardedbruce, as far as I can see, that article does not in any way show or even suggest that WMD were being moved out of Iraq during the time when the UN inspectors were still in Iraq doing their job. Perhaps you can find some verification for this assertion of yours. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Jun 04 - 02:16 PM kendall: "No one died when Clinton lied. " 1. just when he used cruise missles on aspirin factories to get everyone's mind off his lies 2. Noone died when Nixon lied, either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Jun 04 - 02:06 PM And your explaination of why Saddam, under UN sanctions, would WANT to have a fake site? I regret all the casualties- but I can see the possible use of WMD as causeing far more. Should we just wait until the WMD were used, then nuke the entire region? THAT is what I suspect the previous administration would have done, after more than decimating US force levels, and from the use of cruise missles to attack suspected targets. My contention is that no matter how long we gave the inspectors, we would not have gotten rid of the WMD. In 12 years, they kept finding more... how long before you say enough? I do not want the next generation having to deal with the failure of the US in 1991 to finish the job. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: kendall Date: 16 Jun 04 - 02:04 PM All this tap dancing around the facts is boring. No one died when Clinton lied. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST Date: 16 Jun 04 - 01:58 PM BeardedBruce, I would rather that the inspectors had been given a year or two extra to do the job, rather than the 750+ list of US dead that you seem to accept as a price worth paying, not counting god knows how many others who died or suffered serious injury. A quick hint from history about how well airborne photographs can be manipulated to show just what the interpreter feels needs to be shown. The British employed a Magician to fool the Germans throughout the war, he developed blow up rubber tanks and a whole range of other fake weapons, the Germans accepted that they were real and reacted as they thought was appropriate, wasting time and resources. When the British first got pictures of the V2 at Penemunde it was first thought to be a giant torpedo, its easy to see what you want to see no matter how good you are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Jun 04 - 01:39 PM So, you concede the article is true? "The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003. The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam's missile and WMD program. The briefing contained satellite photographs that demonstrated the speed with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and during the war. Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had disappeared. " How do the weapons shipped out prior to the attack reflect on proliferation caused by the attack? And that goes back to my point: "TRUE- and that is a result of the delay and attempt to get a consensus in the UN. If the US had acted unilateraly, without months of debate and warning, we might have found them still in place- but that is not how we do things.... I wonder why?" So what is it? The inspectors were doing such a great job, but the attack would spread out all the WMD and prohibited material, even before the attack, although we should have given the inspectors more time? It seems to me that the spread could only have been stopped by uimmediate, unannounced action. Like a Nuclear strike. Is that what you think we should have done? Or given more time for Saddam to ship things out? Or what? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Amos Date: 16 Jun 04 - 01:36 PM I don't think anyone is claiming that chem warheads were used on Israel. The locations where the chem alarms were reported to have gone off, and the subsequent maximum MOPP alarms sounded, and the anecdotes of serious symptoms, were during Gulf War 1, not in Israel but in Iraq or Kuwait. There is no information indication that SCUDs were involved -- they could have used artillery shells, for all I know. BB, I hear you about first-hand information. Especially where the military is ocncerned. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: CarolC Date: 16 Jun 04 - 01:28 PM True- but I have never said that it would produce the exact opposite result: THAT is the claim of those who deny that the WMD even exist. No it's not. It's the argument that is being made by the article in the opening post of this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST Date: 16 Jun 04 - 01:27 PM I just knew beardedbruce would pull in Hitler and his V2 program as a way to divert the error of his previous posts, he does this all the time, mention Hitler that is! THERE WERE NO CHEMICAL WARHEADS DROPPED ON ISRAEL DURING THE FIRST GULF WAR, IN THIS YOUR FRIENDS ARE WRONG. The news reports at the time show many Israelis wearing gas masks but no other protection during this period, if they had been attacked by nerve agents that would have provided very little protection as such agents are quite capable of passing through the skin to attack the victim, normal street clothes would have been of no use either. If you need reminding of the effects of even a low grade chemical weapon attack, remember the Tokyo subway attacks, several dead and many injured, we saw nothing like that in Israel. Surely any such act would have given GWB the undeniable ammunition he needed to quell almost any critic, yet he never did, it never happened. The Prime minister of Israel would have reatliated, lets face it, they retaliate in the face of world opinion whenever they like anyway. False alarms happen all the time with electronic detection equipment, that they did so then is no suprise surely, it has happened several times in Iraq since when coalition forces have found chemical weapons only to state later (usually rather quietly) that it was a false alarm. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Jun 04 - 01:20 PM Nerd: "Where you're wrong, beardedbruce, is that it's the warhead, not the missile, that is a WMD. Finding missiles is not finding WMD" I have never said otherwise. I have referred to WMD ( weapons ) and prohibited materials ( including the manufacturing facilities and the delivery systems. PLEASE read what I posted! I have tried to be careful in my statements. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Jun 04 - 01:06 PM Amos: In regards to the SCUD having a chemical warhead, I was told that the sensors indicated a chemical attack. I could certainly be wrong- but I have more faith in the testimony of my friends than I do of a press ( and government) trying to reduce the tensions over the attack. As I keep repeating, the Iraqi stockpile of empty warheads, which were designed specifically for chemical weapons, and would have been filled just prior to use, were found. I state again: If the specialized container is not the WMD, and the actual chemicals are so easy to make that anyone could do it, and the (prohibited) material required to make it was in Saddam's possesion, WHAT WOULD YOU ACCEPT as a WMD? "It should be noted that SCUD missiles have notoriously poor accuracy and using one to deliver a chem or bio warhead would practically guarantee civilian deaths, as there is no way to aim it with any precision." Exactly... I do not see that there was any other intent. And don't say he would not have used them: Hitler used the V2 with even less accuracy. CarolC: "That just doesn't make any sense. If attacking Iraq is likely to produce the exact opposite result from the one you say you want, there really can not be any justification for it. " True- but I have never said that it would produce the exact opposite result: THAT is the claim of those who deny that the WMD even exist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Amos Date: 16 Jun 04 - 12:08 PM I have been looking into the SCUD issue a bit further. From what I have found so far, there is a no official record of SCUD-Bs carrying chem warheads being used. During the Gulf War under Bush Sr., there were recorded instances of soldiers being affected with symptoms consistent with chem weapons. There were instances reported of soldiers later being told not to report it; nbeing told it was hemmorhoids; and even, in a couple of cases, reportedly dying from symptoms that began. Most of these center around an Iraqi artillery attack that occurred on January 22. I have no way of confirming any of this. However, the anecdotes I have read sound genuine enough. There is a report that Syria developed a chemical warhead for the SCUD-B. It should be noted that SCUD missiles have notoriously poor accuracy and using one to deliver a chem or bio warhead would practically guarantee civilian deaths, as there is no way to aim it with any precision. As far as I know, there is no evidence of Iraq presently possessing any chemical warheads, whether for SCUDS or other delivery systems, except the one Sarin shell that was reported recently. If I understand it correctly that shell was not part of a stockpile of current weapons but was left-over from the Gulf War I era. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: CarolC Date: 16 Jun 04 - 11:39 AM IF it did exist, the US was justified in attacking Iraq, IMO. That just doesn't make any sense. If attacking Iraq is likely to produce the exact opposite result from the one you say you want, there really can not be any justification for it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST Date: 16 Jun 04 - 11:31 AM During the attacks on Israel by Iraq with Scud missiles during the first Gulf war there were several initial reports that chemical warheads had been used, these reports were later found to be in error, only conevntional explosive warheads were used, producing as far as I recollect no Israeli fatalities even though they fell on built up areas. If 125kg of nerve agent had fallen on any built up area then there would have been enourmous numbers of casualties, only a few miligrams of Sarin, GB, VX or Tabun is needed to kill, and if a persisntant agent had been used then the Israelis would have had large areas that would have been rendered uninhabitable for months while they attempted a clean up operation. No reports of that happening that I can find. Beardedbruce your information in this case is in error, while the panic and terror caused by the first reports was real enough, the reports of chemicals were in the end not true. The US president had a hard time convincing the Iraeli Prime Minister at the time, not reatliate to the HE warheads, do you seriously think he would have been successful if chemmical warheads had been landing on Tel-Aviv? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Nerd Date: 16 Jun 04 - 11:30 AM Where you're wrong, beardedbruce, is that it's the warhead, not the missile, that is a WMD. Finding missiles is not finding WMD. You put in one of your posts up above that there are backpack nukes. Thus if you truly defined "systems capable of delivering WMD" such as SCUD missiles as WMD, every Iraqi truck, car, moped, plane, chopper, wheelchair, and citizen was a WMD. The media, like CO's original article, like to exploit people's ignorance about this so they can say "WMD found" when all they have found is a delivery system which can be used to deliver conventional weapons, chemical weapons, or even propoganda bombs. When you find the actual warheads, you have found a WMD. As for there being a chemical weapons alert in Israel, this is not the same thing as there actually having been chemical weapons used there. I went to a school in NYC that endured about one bomb threat a year, and was evacuated accordingly, but there was never a bomb there. So, can anyone corroborate chemical weapons used in Israel? Just wondering.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Jun 04 - 11:13 AM IMO, that conclusion is subject to (valid) debate. But I agree that there should be concern about where all these "non-existant" WMD components and prohibited material are going. What I do not understand is how those people who say it did not exist are now saying that it is spreading uncontrolably due to the attack: IF it did not exist, it cannot go anywhere IF it did exist, the US was justified in attacking Iraq, IMO. So what is it to be? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: CarolC Date: 16 Jun 04 - 11:05 AM I respectfully have to disagree with you. If the UN inspectors were doing such a good job, where did the stockpile of chemical warheads found come from? Why were they finding new prohibited material right up to when they left? The vast majority of Saddam's WMDs had already been accounted for, and in most cases, dealt with accordingly. But the UN inspectors themselves said that they were not finish with the job. They said that they needed more time. They had a very good track record, and should have been given that time to finish the job. Had they been given the opportunity to do so, we wouldn't be worrying about these materials having gotten into the wrong hands. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: TIA Date: 16 Jun 04 - 11:02 AM Clint Keller - You are absolutely right in your recollections. Fact is, there are eight chemical weapons disposal facilities newly built or being built in the US (to dispose of US chemical weapons). The army has a Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program (CSDP), which, of course, would be a silly thing to have if we didn't have a chemical weapons stockpile. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Jun 04 - 10:59 AM CarolC, I respectfully have to disagree with you. If the UN inspectors were doing such a good job, where did the stockpile of chemical warheads found come from? Why were they finding new prohibited material right up to when they left? Amos, "I'm sorry. I don't think I have ever read of chemical warheads being used on SCUDS although I know they can be fitted to them. Can you provide me with some information on this practice? It was not used by Iraq against Israel, I am fairly sure." I was not there, so I must depend on my friend's statements that there were chemical warfare warnings because of the chemical warheads on SCUDs that impacted near their home. And your figures prove only that 125KG of chemicals, biologicals, or nuclear weapons could be delivered 800 km. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Amos Date: 16 Jun 04 - 10:51 AM I'm sorry. I don't think I have ever read of chemical warheads being used on SCUDS although I know they can be fitted to them. Can you provide me with some information on this practice? It was not used by Iraq against Israel, I am fairly sure. A A couple of references: ""The Iraqis had four versions: Scud itself (180-km range), longer-range Scud (half warhead weight, extra range attained by burning all propellant immediately rather than steadily through the flight of the missile), Al Hussein (650-km, attained by reducing warhead weight to 250 kg and increasing the fuel load by 15 percent), and Al Abbas (800-km, achieved by reducing warhead weight to 125 kg, with 30 percent more fuel)." http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/YuenWong.shtml The Iraqis developed four versions: Scud, longer-range Scud, Al Hussein, and Al Abbas. Apart from the almost unmodified weapon these were not successful missiles as they tended to break up in flight and had small warheads. General Characteristics DIA SS-1b SS-1c SS-1d SS-1e NATO Scud-A Scud-B Scud-C Scud-D Deployment Date 1957 1965 1965 1980s Withdrawn 1978 Range 130 km 300 km 575-600km 700 km CEP (NATO estimate) 4,000 m 900 m 900 m 50 m http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/s/sc/scud.html |
