[Drjones]

I don't get it.

All this talk of "we haven't yet found any evidence of WMD" is pissing me off.

We found banned missiles capable of carrying chem/bio weps.

We found banned missiles LOADED WITH chemical weapons.

We found "pesticide" factories.

We found, IIRC, at least several barrels of chem/bio weapons.

We found lots of documents on chemical weapons research, field use instructions for handling chemical weapons, lots of chem/bio weapons protection suits, chem/bio masks, bio weapon antidotes, and scrubbing rooms at entrances to bunkers.

We found an UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR FACILITY, FOR CRYING OUT FRICKING LOUD!!!

But none of the above qualify as WMD???

***????
:cuss:

[QuickDraw]

Doc Jones,
Man,I'm glad I'm not the only one wondering.
It seems these things never make it very far in the news.
Bias perhaps?

QuickDraw

[Standing Wolf]

Intelligent people know Iraq had lots of weapons of mass destruction. No one's ever going to convince leftists of the obvious.

[tyme]

We found banned missiles, though they were only banned because their range. Those do not qualify as WMD.

We found empty chemical shells. Empty = no WMD.

We found an underground nuclear research facility. Again, no actual nuclear material found or reported to be found that I'm aware of.

Pesticide factories are not necessarily WMD factories. Unless we find WMD, the presumption is that facility + obvious produced pesticide = civilian pesticide plant. Yes, it can be dual use, and the former regime casts doubt on such facilities' legitimacy, but without detecting traces of chemical weapons it's not reasonable to call such facilities "evidence" of WMD programs.

We did not find several barrels of chem/bio weapons. The media is still misreporting that sort of stuff based on preliminary analyses. The same sort of preliminary analyses that showed both botulinum toxin and plague in a powder in SeaTac, WA.US.

If suspected WMD are discovered and confirmed by the theater-level teams, it will be all over the news and so will news of Chirac getting all friendly with Bush. I don't think anyone needs to worry about missing that sort of news. It's understandable that you're upset over all the sortof-kindof-suspicious finds and preliminary WMD discovery reports. I'm sick of them too, but it's the media at fault.

[JitsuGuy]

The end doesn't justify the means.

We have nuclear weapons, should we be attacked?

(Note: I do believe Saddam is a bad guy, just playing devils advocate here.)

Jits

[SkunkApe]

I thought the story now was "Hussein moved all his WMDs to Syria, so we should kill them next."

This replaced the "we just now found a super-secret 1000-acre chemical weapons plant" story that got laughed to death in the early days of the war.

Don't sweat it too much, DrJones. There's no way we're not going to "find" some WMDs. We're probably just waiting to "find" them when it serves some other political goal.

By the way, Hans Blix offered to go back to Iraq to verify they are WMD-free, so the UN sanctions can be lifted, but the U.S. refused. I wonder why...

And isn't Blix the guy all you war supporters were ridiculing a few months ago for his inability to locate any WMDs in Iraq?

I gotta give Bush credit though, what a strategy. Talk a guy into disarming, then go kill him.

[ahenry]

We found an underground nuclear research facility. Again, no actual nuclear material found or reported to be found that I'm aware of. Weapons grade plutonium was found. Or rather, it was only determined to be weapons grade plutonium by several separate “field” tests. But I'm sure those tests were in error. :rolleyes:

Pesticide factories are not necessarily WMD factories. I agree. However, what does your logic tell you when a factory (of some sort of chemical) is built from the ground up to be hidden and is being run by the Iraqi military? Of course there are some possible explanations but it sure doesn’t appear to have been out there so that the Iraqi farmer can grow better crops...

If suspected WMD are discovered and confirmed by the theater-level teams... They have been. Multiple items (plutonium, hundreds of gallons of chem weapons, etc) have been found to be WMD by “theater-level teams”. Additionally, quite a few items have recently been brought back to the States for more “conclusive” tests. It takes a little time. And you can rest assured that when the administration comes out and says they have a list of all we have found so far, they know full well the international scrutiny will be incredibly intense. Playing ones cards close to ones vest allows for the maximum advantage to be achieved.



The media is still misreporting that sort of stuff based on preliminary analyses. I have been trying to follow this pretty closely and I haven’t seen anything yet that says the preliminary tests were incorrect. Could you point me to such a statement?

[Byron Quick]

lots of chem/bio weapons protection suits, chem/bio masks, bio weapon antidotes, and scrubbing rooms at entrances to bunkers.


All of those are items of defense against chemical weapons...granted they are needed for offense with chemical weapons also.

I'm not aware of bioweapon "antidotes," do you mean antibiotics and vaccines?:D Atropine injectors have been found...they are the common "antidote" for nerve type agents. Not really an antidote in that atropine doesn't counteract the effect of the nerve agent...it just supports your body systems until the effects of the nerve agent dissipates. But once again, atropine injectors are a defensive agent.

On the underground nuclear facility...after what Israel did to your first nuclear plant...where exactly would you put your second?

[hammer4nc]

Regarding the al-Tuwaitha underground nuclear site: The site was originally reported to be a "smoking gun" of the first magnitude. Link: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31966

excerpt "It's amazing," Flick said. "I went to the off-site storage buildings, and the rad detector went off the charts.

Yet, the latest report I read about the evidence was much less dramatic: AP Wire, April 10: http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/5605347.htm

excerptAmerican troops who suggested they uncovered evidence of an active nuclear weapons program in Iraq unwittingly may have stumbled across known stocks of low-grade uranium, officials said Thursday...The uranium was inspected by the U.N. nuclear agency twice a year and was kept under IAEA seal - at least until early this week, when the Marines seized control of the site.

More recently, an Iraqi scientist stated that many chemical stocks were destroyed just days before the war started...pretty damning if true.

That said, I too question the reason why these initial stories don't have more follow up. The stories just seem to fade away? Even if the Bush administration is holding back, as ahenry suggests, you would think that reporters would not let go of a story of this magnitude. After all, presence or absence of WMD evidence would support (or not) the central rationale behind invading Iraq. Puzzling.

[MeekandMild]

Byron, et al.

Considering the Iraqis have used poison gas in the recent past, killing hundreds of thousands of Iranian and Kurds and considering that given the raw materials anyone with a basic college level knowledge of chemistry can make nerve gas and considering a large amount of these raw materials have been found I would not think it unreasonable to assume the history of use plus ability to use plus components equal WMD.

This is the same as having a Klansman who has already blown up one building then you find primers and dynamite and a plan for a bomb. You can add 1+1+1 and find 3.

[Justin Moore]

Weapons grade plutonium was found

That report was later corrected to indicate that it was low grade Uranium.

This is the problem. The media reports these preliminary findings, makes a big hullabaloo about it, but then when it comes time to retract them, the story isn't given much attention.

From AP:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2003/apr/10/041002726.html

U.S. Nuke Find Claim in Iraq Critiqued
By WILLIAM J. KOLE
ASSOCIATED PRESS

VIENNA, Austria (AP) -

American troops who suggested they uncovered evidence of an active nuclear weapons program in Iraq unwittingly may have stumbled across known stocks of low-grade uranium, officials said Thursday. They said the U.S. troops may have broken U.N. seals meant to keep control of the radioactive material.

Leaders of a U.S. Marine Corps combat engineering unit claimed earlier this week to have found an underground network of laboratories, warehouses and bombproof offices beneath the closely monitored Tuwaitha nuclear research center just south of Baghdad.

The Marines said they discovered 14 buildings at the site which emitted unusually high levels of radiation, and that a search of one building revealed "many, many drums" containing highly radioactive material. If documented, such a discovery could bolster Bush administration claims that Saddam Hussein was trying to develop nuclear weaponry.

Lt. Cmdr. Charles Owens, a spokesman for the U.S. Central Command, said officials there have not heard anything through military channels about a Marine inspection at Tuwaitha.

The Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, which has inspected the Tuwaitha nuclear complex at least two dozen times and maintains a thick dossier on the site, had no immediate comment.

But an expert familiar with U.N. nuclear inspections told The Associated Press that it was implausible to believe that U.S. forces had uncovered anything new at the site. Instead, the official said, the Marines apparently broke U.N. seals designed to ensure the materials aren't diverted for weapons use - or end up in the wrong hands.

"What happened apparently was that they broke IAEA seals, which is very unfortunate because those seals are integral to ensuring that nuclear material doesn't get diverted," the expert said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Several tons of low-grade uranium has been stored at Tuwaitha, Iraq's principle nuclear research center and a site that has been under IAEA safeguards for years, the official said. The Iraqis were allowed to keep the material because it was unfit for weapons use without costly and time-consuming enrichment.

Tuwaitha contains 1.8 tons of low-grade enriched uranium and several tons of natural and depleted uranium.

The uranium was inspected by the U.N. nuclear agency twice a year and was kept under IAEA seal - at least until early this week, when the Marines seized control of the site.

The U.N. nuclear agency's inspectors have visited Tuwaitha about two dozen times, including a dozen checks carried out since December, most recently on Feb. 6. It was among the first sites that IAEA inspectors sought out after the resumption of inspections on Nov. 27 after a nearly four-year break.

On at least one occasion, inspectors with special mountaineering training went underground there to have a look around, according to IAEA documents.

David Kay, a former IAEA chief nuclear inspector, said Thursday that the teams he oversaw after the 1991 Gulf War never found an underground site at Tuwaitha despite persistent rumors.

"But underground facilities by definition are very hard to detect," he said. "When you inspect a place so often, you get overconfident about what you know. It would have been very easy for the inspectors to explain away any excessive radiation at Tuwaitha. The Iraqis could have hidden something clandestine in plain sight."

American intelligence analysts said before the U.S.-led campaign began that new structures photographed at Tuwaitha might indicate a revival of weapons work. IAEA inspectors checked but found nothing.

The Tuwaitha complex, run by the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission on a bend in the Tigris River about 18 miles south of Baghdad, was the heart of Saddam's former nuclear program and was involved in the final design of a nuclear bomb before Iraq's nuclear program was destroyed by U.N. teams after the 1991 Gulf War.

The IAEA, charged with the hunt for evidence of a nuclear program in Iraq, told the Security Council just before the war that it had uncovered no firm evidence that Saddam was renewing efforts to add nuclear weapons to his arsenal.

IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei, clearly wary of any coalition claims, said this week that any alleged discoveries of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq would have to be verified by U.N. inspectors "to generate the required credibility."

ElBaradei said the inspectors should return as soon as possible, subject to Security Council guidance, to resume their search for banned arms.

Even Rumsfeld has said there hasn't been any WMD discovery's yet.

[Monkeyleg]

Are we home yet? Are we there yet? :rolleyes:

The UN had twelve years to inspect. We've been in the country for less than five weeks, and our forces have had to focus on not getting dead.

The WMD may be there, or they may have been scattered about the country in small enough quantities to escape detection. They may have been taken into Syria. They may have been taken by senior Baath Party members for barter or sale to other anti-US elements.

They may have been destroyed prior to the invasion (it's not like the UN gave us the chance for a surprise attack).

Or maybe they were gone years ago.

It doesn't matter to me. From what I've learned of the Hussein regime's gruesome torture and murder machine, that alone would justify the invasion.

But listening to the Islamic fundamentalists who, with their first words celebrate their freedom from Hussein by the US, and then with their second words tell the US to get the hell out, I wonder why we went.

Sometimes it feels like one step forward, two steps back.

[ahenry]

Justin,

That report (found weapons grade plutonium) was later corrected to indicate that it was low grade Uranium. I believe that is incorrect. The UN and the IAEA, from the beginning reports of this plant, have tried to say it was all known low-grade uranium that was difficult to turn into weapons grade that the Marines found. However, at least two separate field tests were done on some of the material and it was determined to be weapons grade plutonium (so far, only according to the field tests). Originally both the Marine initially in charge of the facility, as well as at least one person that was part of the field tests said that the material was weapons grade plutonium (I saw the quotes). Then the story died. Nobody actually part of the testing that I am aware of has actually said that the initial tests were incorrect. That is my point. The media has dropped a lot of the stories, but not with the usual small almost hidden retractions that follow actual errors but rather with complete abandon. Like is done for stories they don’t want to report on (for whatever reason). I would wager that somebody at “some” level has also told the military to keep their mouths shut. The need for some operational security still exists.

[SkunkApe]

"But listening to the Islamic fundamentalists who, with their first words celebrate their freedom from Hussein by the US, and then with their second words tell the US to get the hell out, I wonder why we went. " - Monkeyleg

Seems that the liberation effort may have been more popular with the liberators than the liberatees, eh?

Its pretty obvious now that there weren't any weapons of mass distraction. If there were, why wouldn't the Iraqi's have used them against the foriegn invaders?

And its becoming clearer that the Iraqi people aren't too fond of the foreigners that invaded their country, bombed their cities, and killed their families. Well, surprise, surprise (in my best Gomer Pyle voice).

Pretty much all you're left with is the argument that the war was justifiable just to kill an evil man. We all have to decide for ourselves if removing dictators (whom we previously supported, in this case) is the business of the United States.

By the way, pretty nice deal Shultz and Weinberger got on their contract to rebuild Iraq, huh. $650 million for starters, with billions to follow, wasn't it?

[ahadams]

LOL - I'm sorry skunkape but your cynicism doesn't appear to be backed up by anything other than, well, cynicism. there is no use in sending Hans Blix and company back since he made it clear in several interviews that he was more concerned with what he perceived as America's problems with seening things in terms of good and evil than he was in finding banned weapons, when his searches just happened to be leaked to the Iraqis ahead of time.

It's also useless to point to the now Iranian influenced Shiites in Iraq as being a reason to think the Iraqis are sorry we invaded. They aren't - it's just that some of them wish we would go away so they could massacre others of them, and we're not going to let that happen.

Now, when you drop the conspiracy theories and figure that anybody in charge is going to hire people to do a rapid rebuild job whom they *know* can do a rapid rebuild job, how much crow are you willing to eat when we get our folks out of there in 24 months or less?

hmm?

[ahenry]

Its pretty obvious now that there weren't any weapons of mass distraction. How so? Come on; show me facts that support this. I won’t even ask you to give it time, I’ll just ask you to show me actual credible facts that the already found WMD are not actually WMD. If it’s so “obvious” that there weren’t/aren’t any WMD it should be pretty easy to provide the evidence of that, right? I’ll be waiting with bated breath...

[SkunkApe]

ahadams, that's a good response. It deserves some thought. I'm not clear yet on how much crow I need to eat because Bush's cronies make good time when they take the money and run. $650 million dollars worth of crow, perhaps?

I'll get back to you.

[TexasVet]

Maybe someone in Iraq was smart enough to actually believe President Bush when he said that if they used WMD we would respond with WMD. And since the only ones we have are nukes, they decided that defeat was better than destruction.

[SkunkApe]

ahenry, its just logic. You better belive if there were any WMDs found, Bush would be milking it for all its worth.

I suspect the Bush administration knew there were no WMDS sometime before the war changed from "get the WMDs" to "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

Think, man, think.

[SkunkApe]

Ah, my old friend TexasVet is back. Prepared, I'm sure, to once again threaten me with spittle.

Let me get this straight... The United States, unprovoked, invades a foreign state, based on the premise of eliminating weapons of mass destruction.. If that state uses chemical weapons to defend itself, the United States is then justified in using NUCLEAR weapons in response? Doesn't any of that sound a little strange to you?


Good to see you. I'll keep some paper towels handy.

[Byron Quick]

Its pretty obvious now that there weren't any weapons of mass distraction. If there were, why wouldn't the Iraqi's have used them against the foriegn invaders?

Well, for one thing the operational commanders might have been just a mite concerned about two realities: 1) The US response to WMD use. 2) The personal consequences if they were captured alive after ordering such use.

Just an aside. The WMD thingie. Chemical weapons haven't been successfully banned in combat since WWI because they are so sinful and awful. Basically, they didn't work all that well. You employ the weapon and then the wind changes...and it kills your troops instead of the enemy. Same thing with biological weapons: two scenarios-one is a self limiting agent that is not effective in a military sense...the other is a global epidemic that kills your people and military, too. Not really acceptable.

There is really just one weapon that is a WMD...nuclear devices.

[JitsuGuy]

Let's say they do find WMD's... And?

The biggest flaw in Bush's reason for attacking Iraq is because they're "terrorists." But then again, if you read the Patriot Acts, many of us could be labeled "terrorists." So, uhh, why did we attack Iraq unprovoked again? Oh yeah, to liberate the Iraqi people, no wait, because of WMD's, no wait, because they posed a threat to us. But I don't dare question Bush or this war in fear of being labeled "unpatriotic." Looks like Roosevelt had it right when he said...

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American Public."
--Former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt, in challenge to President Woodrow
Wilson's crackdown on dissent following America's entry into World War I (1918)

Jits

[Drjones]

All: See this thread: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19778

[ravinraven]

"If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit."

[tyme]

Ahenry, there have been a handful of reports of field tests showing chem weapons in Iraq (like at the pesticide plant) which were later invalidated by more sophisticated tests. The SeaTac incident Tuesday showed clearly that the media is ready to jump at anything, preliminary or not. They need to stop.

From google, there are multiple stories containing the clause "Rumors that they found plutonium there turned out to be false;" so it must have been released by AP or some other news service.

The hundreds of barrels of chemical weapons were pesticide, I believe. There are so many stories about chemical weapons and Iraq that I'm not inclined to sort through the stories on google news to cite some specific evidence.

I maintain they have found nothing because nothing major has been reported in the news with the confidence I assume would accompany an official pronouncement of Iraq's possession of WMD. I think this might have even been a massive CI campaign by Saddam to make us think they had chemical weapons so we'd go in and destabilize the region, or so he hoped. Whether it was such a campaign or whether there are real WMD that have been moved to Syria is irrelevant. He was a moron to even fake highly suspicious activity (see intercepted communications in Powell's early-Feb. U.N. presentation) when that activity would violate the Gulf War I treaty in whatever form it still exists and U.N. Security Council resolutions.

The intercepted communications indicate either supreme stupidity, a CI campaign as mentioned above, or actual possession of WMD. The first is most problematic, but is highly unlikely and, coupled with a despotic dictator (sorry, I mean *president*), is enough I think to justify the war. The other two clearly do, whether or not in the second case we end up playing into Saddam's hand (if he's still alive and even has his hands left). Further, the war ended highly questionable dealings between Iraq and the anti-war coalition on the U.N. S.C. (Russia, France, and their adherents). That fact is independent of whatever goals Saddam may have had by provoking us.

[TarpleyG]

Did Iraq have all the things we went in looking for? No doubt. Do they still have it? I doubt that. Looks like all that is left now is some paraphernalia that will not satisfy the people that were/are against this war no matter how good the humanitarian reason.

GT

[Thumper]

"But listening to the Islamic fundamentalists who, with their first words celebrate their freedom from Hussein by the US, and then with their second words tell the US to get the hell out, I wonder why we went. " - Monkeyleg

Seems that the liberation effort may have been more popular with the liberators than the liberatees, eh?

Two observations in Monkeyleg's post, yet Skunk finds some way to ignore the first.

Can anyone argue that leaving Saddam Hussein in power was in the U.S.'s best interest? As someone else noted, if Iraq DIDN'T have WMD by invasion day, they certainly did before at some point.

So if they didn't, U.S. pressure successfully disarmed the enemy before going in to dispatch him. I like that a lot.

Two different views represented here: One with the U.S.'s best interests in mind, and one with 'World Opinion' in mind (I guess...maybe it's just blind hatred of the U.S.).

[ahenry]

ahenry, its just logic. You better belive if there were any WMDs found, Bush would be milking it for all its worth. That sort of logic must be the reason you don’t hold a political office. If I were prez, I wouldn’t be telling anybody about what we found until I was good and ready and could capitalize on every possible advantage. Of course, that doesn’t mean anything, one way or the other. All it means is that just because you haven’t heard anything yet doesn’t mean that they don’t exist or that they haven’t been found.

I suspect the Bush administration knew there were no WMDS sometime before the war changed from "get the WMDs" to "Operation Iraqi Freedom." Changed?! Nothing changed. Go read both of his speeches from the Oval Office in the couple of days before the war and see what his main theme was. Since I’m pretty sure you won’t bother doing that, I’ll just tell you myself. It was to eliminate a threat to the United States of America. Tossing in “freedom for Iraqi’s” was just a little gravy. Shesh, man, where do you come up with this stuff?

[ahenry]

The biggest flaw in Bush's reason for attacking Iraq is because they're "terrorists." What? Bush has never said that Saddam or anybody in his regime are terrorists. He has said that they support terrorism. He has said that they support and are working with al-Quida (you know, the group that killed thousands of Americans). He has said that Saddam would continue to aid our enemies and that aid would soon (if not already) take the form of WMD given to an enemy that is doing their dead-level best to kill as many Americans as possible. So far, those claims have been born out. Or have you just forgotten about the al-Quida camps and individuals captured in Iraq?

[ahenry]

Ahenry, there have been a handful of reports of field tests showing chem weapons in Iraq (like at the pesticide plant) which were later invalidated by more sophisticated tests. I’m not necessarily saying you’re wrong but I will say that I have followed this pretty closely and I haven’t seen anything that has said “those field test were incorrect”.

"Rumors that they found plutonium there turned out to be false;" so it must have been released by AP or some other news service. When I go search for all that, all I can come up with are those comments by the UN and IAEA inspectors. And those guys aren’t even there or privy to any of our test results until they’re made public to the world. What they’ve been saying seems like a lot of sour grapes to me.

The hundreds of barrels of chemical weapons were pesticide, I believe. There are so many stories about chemical weapons and Iraq that I'm not inclined to sort through the stories on google news to cite some specific evidence. Well you certainly don’t have to find anything for me, but the request is still there. I certainly have not been able to verify that the large stockpile (the one that the Iraqi soldier told us about) turned out to actually be pesticides. I’ve looked, and I haven’t found anything yet. Seems to me that the administration is not saying anything, and maybe even letting a few people jump to whatever conclusions they want. In the world of politics however, that doesn’t mean anything. In fact, it could even be a very smart move. I’m not saying that I know for a fact one way or the other. All I am saying is that a lot of “stuff” was found and then all the information about that “stuff” just dried up. To the best of my knowledge there were no official retractions (of the main findings, some smaller stuff turned out to be nothing and it was admitted to be nothing by CENTCOM). Nor have there been any official confirmations. However, until I see some official word retracting what they found, I don’t think I’m going out on a limb to say that those items that were initially reported were in fact WMD.

[CMichael]

I would imagine that just about all farmers keep their pesticides in military bunkers :rolleyes:

Any farmers out there who would like to verify this please?

[CMichael]

I wanted to add that if I was Saddam Hussein and I knew the coalition forces were closing in on me and that I wouldn't use WMD, one of the first things I would do is destroy the WMD or hide them real REAL good so that evidence couldn't be used me in a war crimes trial if I am caught.

[SkunkApe]

So Saddam Hussein, who is so evil that we had to invade his country to remove him from power, who was targeted for death from the opening minute of the war, who has been repeatedly and publicly villified for atrocities (even by me), thought he had better destroy his WMDs so he wouldn't be charged with "war crimes"?

Hussein: "Hmmm. Those darn infidels are trying to kill me again. I'd better destroy my WMDs so they can't be used against me in a trial."

Either we had enough justification to kill Hussein when we started the war, or we didn't. Which is it?

Its too bad the moderators can't add a logic filter to this forum. It would save time on some of these posts.

[CMichael]

Well Ape since for the past 12 years Hussein has been denying WMD and he wasn't going to use them against the coalition forces I find it rather logical that he would destroy them before they were found.

I guess we look at logic a lot differently.

[Thumper]

CMike...unless I misunderstand him, Skunk seems to be saying that since he didn't use 'em, he didn't have 'em.

Of course, his 'logic' fails to take '91 into consideration...Or the split atom at our disposal (world opinion notwithstanding).

[Master Blaster]

Its odd that pesticides would be stored in underground bunkers.

Lets just suppose that these pesticides are the precursor chemicals to nerve agent, and with a small amount of simple processing could be turned into nerve agent (pesticides and nerve agent are very chemically similar organophosphate compounds) Now imagine that one mounted a chemical lab on a truck, and went to the bunker to get the precursor barrel with that truck and drove to the weapon bunker processing as one went. Then one could simply pump the converted end product into a shell or missile.

They did find at least one mobile chemical processing plant mounted in a double walled truck that was reported on the news.
Maybe they have found many others not yet reported.

This would be an elegant and simple way of keeping chemical weapons on hand, while being able to withstand inspection by the UN if the precurrsors / "pesticides" were found.

The precusors are probably more stable and easier/ safer to store and handle as well.

Anyone know anything about how long a fully manufactured chemical agent like VX can be stored before it degrades???

Anyone know the formulation of the "pesticides" that were found and how close it was to Mustard gas or VX, or Sarin????

If I were Sadaam I would have done it just the way described above due to the obvious advantages.

JMHO

JMHO

[Derek Zeanah]

considering that given the raw materials anyone with a basic college level knowledge of chemistry can make nerve gas and considering a large amount of these raw materials have been found I would not think it unreasonable to assume the history of use plus ability to use plus components equal WMD.
That only goes so far, though. You can buy a book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0970148534/qid=1051207693/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_2/102-7370510-7212153?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) on Amazon that details how to manufacture nerve agents from dry-cleaning chemicals (IIRC); you can't reverse that to prove that possession of dry cleaning chemicals = intent to commit mass-murder.

[Thumper]

My dry cleaner operates above ground...also, when I picked up my cleaning this morning, I saw no evidence of a military guard.

[Destructo6]

Its too bad the moderators can't add a logic filter to this forum. It would save time on some of these posts.
If there was such a thing, you'd never get to post. You have no argument, only simple negation.

Master Blaster, Ahenry, et al have made some good arguments, with supporting evidence, yet you ignore them in favor of negation, personal attack (spittle comment), and innuendo.

[bountyhunter]

You wrote:

"An underground Nuclear facility is not evidence of WMD???
I don't get it.

All this talk of "we haven't yet found any evidence of WMD" is pissing me off.

We found banned missiles capable of carrying chem/bio weps.

We found banned missiles LOADED WITH chemical weapons.

We found "pesticide" factories.

We found, IIRC, at least several barrels of chem/bio weapons.

We found lots of documents on chemical weapons research, field use instructions for handling chemical weapons, lots of chem/bio weapons protection suits, chem/bio masks, bio weapon antidotes, and scrubbing rooms at entrances to bunkers.

We found an UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR FACILITY, FOR CRYING OUT FRICKING LOUD!!!

But none of the above qualify as WMD???"

Let's actually stick to what we know: the secret underground nuclear "facility" was actually just an extension of a civilain nuclear facility which has long been known to exist and has been inspected numerous times. It has been weeks since this momentous discovery and there has been dead silence. Do you really think the Bush administration would not be screaming aloud if they had found anything related to weapons?

The "banned missiles" were conventional missiles whose motors supposedly gave them range farther than the limit set by the UN. That has been disputed, and nobody has test fired them to see who was right. Whoppee do. They found some missiles that may fly farther than 90 miles.

They supposedly found canisters of "biologicals" and "chemicals" weeks ago, and again, the phone has gone dead silent since then. The US says it takes time to analyze them. Really? It takes two weeks to see if they are Sarin, VX, mustard gas, or the like? Actually, they have field test kits that reveal it in seconds. The problem is, they jumped to the conclusion it was chemical weapons and (so far) haven't backed it up with proof from anybody. I'll wait and see on that one.

They found warheads filled with chems? Maybe, but again, no tests have been performed so I would like to know what they are.

One thing I do know for sure: if and when any tests actually do show that any of these finds are actually what Bush claimed he would find, he will break into programming on every TV channel with an "I told you so" speech and the republicans will be stampeding to stand next to him. It may happen, but it hasn't happened yet.

As for chem weapons, I am genuinely surprised we haven't found tons of them by now. We know Saddam had them because he used them against Iran and the Kurds. I am starting to think maybe they did destroy most of them, as strange as that might sound. The other possibility is that they were trucked into Syria, but I would think our satellites would have picked that up.

[ahenry]

Let's actually stick to what we know: the secret underground nuclear "facility" was actually just an extension of a civilain nuclear facility which has long been known to exist and has been inspected numerous times. If this is something that “we know” then please show me just one single solitary statement by anybody saying that the UN/IAEA/US/”International Community” knew there were underground facilities. As far as I have been able to determine, there was supposition on the part of people not actually present that the materials found “just had to be” chemicals that the UN/IAEA already knew Iraq had. Not that the underground facilities were a regular part of the inspections, were a part of the inspections that took place at the end of 2002, or that the IAEA even knew there was any underground facilities. All I am asking you to do is back up your assertion. You do have something that can back it up, right?

Do you really think the Bush administration would not be screaming aloud if they had found anything related to weapons? I think it is entirely possible that the lid is being kept on things until the most politically advantageous time. Do you really dislike the administration so much that you aren’t even willing to concede possibility that they might now something and not be shouting it from the rooftops just yet?

They supposedly found canisters of "biologicals" and "chemicals" weeks ago, and again, the phone has gone dead silent since then. See the myriad of comments on the possible reasons for silence.

The US says it takes time to analyze them. Really? It takes two weeks to see if they are Sarin, VX, mustard gas, or the like? Actually, they have field test kits that reveal it in seconds. The field test did determine that the chemicals were these various weapons. Just because the president doesn’t have somebody come out and announce to the world what has been found and just because you think that he should, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

They found warheads filled with chems? Maybe, but again, no tests have been performed so I would like to know what they are. Yes they did. Field tests determined that they missiles were filled with chemical weapons.

One thing I do know for sure: if and when any tests actually do show that any of these finds are actually what Bush claimed he would find, he will break into programming on every TV channel with an "I told you so" speech and the republicans will be stampeding to stand next to him. How do you know this? Is he really taking any heat over this issue yet? Have you ever played any sort of a game that has trumps? Do you play your trumps at the beginning or save them for the right timing? Don’t you know that politics is a game.

[tech]

I have a problem with people that run there mouth and then think that there should be no reprocussions. My son has the freedom to call his mom foul name. I have the freedom to correct him.

Freedom of speech ensures the goverment can't censure people or the press. It does not protect the speakers from censure from the public or their peers as a certain country music group found out.

I am suprised that adults would not realize that they are accountable for what they say.

I know if I verbaly oppose a veiw or statement made by my wife, she will likely retaliate by withholding something I desire that only she can provide(I am a faithfull husband).

NOW BACK ON TOPIC

I know officer that I have been caught breaking into houses in this neighborhood several times before, and that I am in a strangers back yard, and that I have burglery tools in my possesion, But I thought the owner might be locked out and wanted to help really.............


Mike

[Derek Zeanah]

show me just one single solitary statement by anybody saying that the UN/IAEA/US/”International Community” knew there were underground facilities

How about here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2553203,00.html):
However, the Vienna-based IAEA said that Iraq was allowed to keep several tons of low-grade uranium and other nuclear material there under IAEA seal because the material could not be used directly for weapons.

Initial word was that the Marines broke seals that the IAEA had placed on storage compartments, though later reports suggested it was the Army that did it instead.

I'd argue this facility was no surprise -- the International Atomic Energy Agency had been on-site, had said possession of the radioactive materials in question was ok, and had placed seals on the area to insure it wasn't tampered with.

Good enough? There's a reason that these initial stories aren't followed up loudly...

[ahenry]

That is exactly my point. You have an article (essentially the only one, others just reword the same thing this one says) that quotes individuals that were not present at the discovery the Marines made that make a guess at what was found. Moreover, don’t you think it’s just slightly possible that the IAEA and UN has a somewhat vested interest in discrediting this discovery? After all, if we did find just what the Marines think (thought?) we found it sure makes the IAEA look like a bunch of bumbling idiots, and I mean even more bumbling than they already do. Additionally, why would you take the word of an IAEA spokesman who wasn’t present at the site and didn’t even see much less test, the material the Marines said was weapons grade plutonium, over that of a couple of Marines? You’ll forgive me if I give a bit more credibility to our own American boys putting their lives on the line than some international type that isn’t real keen on America in the first place. I know, crazy patriotism. :rolleyes:

[Derek Zeanah]

Additionally, why would you take the word of an IAEA spokesman who wasn’t present at the site and didn’t even see much less test, the material the Marines said was weapons grade plutonium, over that of a couple of Marines?Well, we have one side saying "See! Secret underground nuke research lab! Lots of radioactive stuff too, that we think is plutonium."

And we've got another side that says "yeah, we've known about that for years, we put the OK on the radioactive materials we found, and placed our seal on them so we'd all know they were ok....WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU REMOVED OUR SEALS!!!?!?!!?"

Then no real follow-up, and as far as I know no UN inspectors have been allowed into Iraq since the war started.

You're welcome to interpret that any way you want. I'll interpret it as "highly suspect evidence of secret, illegal nuke research" until someone steps up and loudly proclaims that tests prove it was weapons-grade fissionable material that they weren't supposed to have. Call me cynical, but 8 years of Clinton (after a republican who pretended to be pro-gun but pushed though the assault-weapons ban) leads me to distrust my government. Hell, name one administration in the last 40 years that wasn't engaged in some secret behavior that is now viewed as "dishonest" and "corrupt" and "an abuse of power."

I'm not forgetting that just because George W is in office now. I'm more scared because it seems he can get anything (including the Patriot Act) through a friendly legislature.

[ahenry]

See! Secret underground nuke research lab! Lots of radioactive stuff too, that we think is plutonium." And we've got another side that says "yeah, we've known about that for years, we put the OK on the radioactive materials we found, and placed our seal on them so we'd all know they were ok....WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU REMOVED OUR SEALS!!!?!?!!?" No what we have is one side that says, “See! Secret hidden nuke research and storage lab! Lots of radioactive stuff too. We tested some of the stuff two different times out here in the field and those tests said some of the material was weapons grade plutonium.” And we’ve got the other side that says, “Oh posh! We have inspected that site and know that they have a large amount of non-weapons grade uranium. Therefore, the only thing the US military could possibly have found is what we already found.” I bet they even took off the seals of those barrels too. Bumbling fools”.

Then no real follow-up, and as far as I know no UN inspectors have been allowed into Iraq since the war started. HECK no, there haven’t been any UN inspectors back inside Iraq. Give me one reason why we should let them in. Have they ever done anything except obfuscate and complicate things?

You're welcome to interpret that any way you want. I'll interpret it as "highly suspect evidence of secret, illegal nuke research" until someone steps up and loudly proclaims that tests prove it was weapons-grade fissionable material that they weren't supposed to have. I’m not sure where the disagreement is then. Unless its on the fact that there were field tests done, and they did say that those tests indicated the material was weapons grade plutonium. Are you disagreeing with that, or are you saying that the lack of follow up indicates further tests show that the material wasn’t actually weapons grade plutonium?

[Derek Zeanah]

Give me one reason why we should let them in. Have they ever done anything except obfuscate and complicate things? Because to get things done internationally, you need to either be the biggest badass in the world with no fear for the consequences, or you need to develop some agreement with your allies about what needs to be done.

There's a significant percentage of the world's population that believes that we're a bunch of "cowboys" who are on a "crusade" in the middle east. Rightfully or not, they believe we're making the evidence we used to support going into Iraq up. It would be good from an international relations point of view to offer them evidence that we were justified.

Plutonium provides that justification, if the world believes it is plutonium and that it's Iraq's and not something we grabbed from the nearest ballistic missile sub. There are going to be people out there who will saw we're lying about the tests and about the existence of the material itself unless we have an unbiased third party step in to verify our claims.

Like it or not (and I hate the organization and many of its goals), the UN is the closest we're going to come to an unbiased third party with enough internal expertise to verify our claim.

Unless its on the fact that there were field tests done, and they did say that those tests indicated the material was weapons grade plutonium. Are you disagreeing with that, or are you saying that the lack of follow up indicates further tests show that the material wasn’t actually weapons grade plutonium?I was the guy in my platoon tasked with running the chemical sensors out and staffing the geiger counter we were issued, but I never ran into any radiological tests. We did have some chemical tests that we could run on-site, but they were only offering a probability that a gives substance was/was not a chemical agent; you don't know for sure until real testing is done.

Imagine a test with a 60-80% accuracy rate -- good enough to tell you whether to don and clear your protective gear, but not nearly enough to justify couterattack with tactical nukes.

I'd assume it's the same in this case. If Clancy's right, we ought to be able to run tests that identify the isotope and tell us where it was manufactured. I want to see the results of that data, and preferably a second opinion from someone who's not an employee of the US Gov't or beholden to it.

[tech]

THE COWBOYS WON, AND WILL AGAIN!

[ahenry]

Because to get things done internationally, you need to either be the biggest badass in the world with no fear for the consequences, or you need to develop some agreement with your allies about what needs to be done. Uh, you do realize that we have a huge international consensus don’t you? In all honesty the only nations against this have been France, Germany, and Russia (and we can make a pretty good guess at why they were/are against it).

Like it or not (and I hate the organization and many of its goals), the UN is the closest we're going to come to an unbiased third party with enough internal expertise to verify our claim. We can get plenty of third party confirmation without the UN. The UN done stepped right in it and I see nothing but positives by completely bypassing them in this. Let them whine and moan and scream like a little child all they want. If they wanted to participate they should have joined up when they were given the opportunity.

I was the guy in my platoon tasked with running the chemical sensors out and staffing the geiger counter we were issued, but I never ran into any radiological tests. We did have some chemical tests that we could run on-site, but they were only offering a probability that a gives substance was/was not a chemical agent; you don't know for sure until real testing is done. I know. That is why we have at least two Mobile Exploitation Teams in Iraq. To the best of my knowledge, the “field testing” on the plutonium was done by them.

Imagine a test with a 60-80% accuracy rate -- good enough to tell you whether to don and clear your protective gear, but not nearly enough to justify couterattack with tactical nukes. I can’t actually verify one way or the other what tests were done and what the capabilities of those tests are, but the initial reports implied far more substantial testing than the normal platoon level testing you're talking about. Again, who do you want to believe, the IAEA and UN or some good ol’ American grunts. Me, I’ll take even a 19 year wet-behind-the-ears pfc with his life on the line over the 60 year old scientist trying desperately to get the egg off his face.

[ahenry]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/21/international/worldspecial/21CHEM.html

By Judith Miller, April 20th
The linked article can be read, but you have to register. For those that don’t feel like doing that, I have pulled out some of the more pertinent parts.

An American military team hunting for unconventional weapons in Iraq, the Mobile Exploitation Team Alpha, or MET Alpha, which found the scientist, declined to identify him, saying they feared he might be subject to reprisals. But they said that they considered him credible and that the material unearthed over the last three days at sites to which he led them had proved to be precursors for a toxic agent that is banned by chemical weapons treaties. The officials' account of the scientist's assertions and the discovery of the buried material, which they described as the most important discovery to date in the hunt for illegal weapons, supports the Bush administration's charges that Iraq continued to develop those weapons and lied to the United Nations about it.

Under the terms of her accreditation to report on the activities of MET Alpha, this reporter was not permitted to interview the scientist or visit his home. Nor was she permitted to write about the discovery of the scientist for three days, and the copy was then submitted for a check by military officials. Those officials asked that details of what chemicals were uncovered be deleted. They said they feared that such information could jeopardize the scientist's safety by identifying the part of the weapons program where he worked. The MET Alpha team said it reported its findings to Washington after testing the buried material and checking the scientist's identity with experts in the United States. A report was sent to the White House on Friday, experts said. While this reporter could not interview the scientist, she was permitted to see him from a distance at the sites where he said that material from the arms program was buried. The officials quoted him as saying he had watched several months before the outbreak of the war as Iraqis buried chemical precursors and other sensitive material to conceal and preserve them for future use. The officials said the scientist showed them documents, samples, and other evidence of the program that he claimed to have stolen to prove that the program existed. The potential of MET Alpha's work is "enormous," said Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the 101st Airborne Division. "What they've discovered," he added, "could prove to be of incalculable value. Though much work must still be done to validate the information MET Alpha has uncovered, if it proves out it will clearly be one of the major discoveries of this operation, and it may be the major discovery."

Now, do you still think that the administration doesn’t know or have anything at all? Could it possibly be that what I have been saying about maximizing the political advantage is true?

[Vladimir Berkov]

I would not think it unreasonable to assume the history of use plus ability to use plus components equal WMD.

By this, I also assume that you completely agree with the BATF position that possession of a legal, semi-automatic firearm, plus a couple full-auto parts which could conceivably convert the semi into a full-auto firearm, means that you are guilty of owning a machinegun?

Or at the very least, conspiracy to manufacture a machinegun?

[ahenry]

How do individual rights compare to nations? Surely you’re not suggesting that nations have rights are you?

[Vladimir Berkov]

I am not talking about rights, I am talking about definitions. You define a "WMD" in the same way the BATF defines a "machinegun." Essentially, saying that even something which technically isn't a machinegun, will be considered one.

You say the same thing about "WMD," that even if something is not a "WMD" by definition, you say it should be considered one anyway.

[Powderman]

From the small amounts I remember from NBC training:

Nerve gas (aka sarin, tabun, etc.) attacks the muscles in the body via the nerve endings.

Your nerve endings secrete two different items to make your muscles expand and contract: cholinesterase and accetylcholine.

Nerve agents block the cholinesterase, thus making the body secrete more and more accetylcholine. The muscles spasm and seize, eventually locking up. This includes the respiratory tract. Death occurs in minutes.

With that in mind, go look at a can of pesticide. Raid will do nicely.

What is pesticide?

CHOLINESTERASE INHIBITOR.

Hello!!! Anybody smelling the coffee yet?

Can you say hide in plain sight?

Hello?!?!? :scrutiny:

[edamon]

I'm certain we'll find the stuff they didn't send to Syria or destroy.

Iraq is a big country, basically the size of california of all desert.

Digging a hole and hiding stuff in it is both easy to do and very hard to find.

The war just ended... i'm not certain why people think we would already have found stuff. We are just now capturing the people who'd know where alot of the stuff is.. once we break a few fingers they'll start talking.

Regardless.. one less problem in the world to worry about.

-d

[CMichael]

Since my last comment there have been numerous posts so I want to make some general points.

1) If you are looking for a legal argument for the war. Hussein violated the terms of the cease fire agreement which stated that he must show proof that he destroyed his WMD.

2) Perhaps it was good working the the UN. The US assembled a coalition of about 60 nations. The security of the US doesn't and shouldn't depend on what France wants to veto.

3) Hans Blix was against the war from the very start. The US never wanted him in this role. He has consistently shown his political leanings.

4) It seems that the Iraqi government penetrated the inspectors.

5) The danger wasn't that Hussein would attack the US directly but that Hussein would attack the US by proxy using terrorist groups. And that is even more concerning since he has WMD

6) Hussein had WMD. How do we know

a. He used them before and never showed proof that he destroyed them.

b. There were seven mobile bio labs found.

c. There were chemical projectiles found.

d. There was an underground nuclear facility found that we know sent the radiation readings wild when soldiers took the test. Now what reason whatsoever would have have the uranium no matter what level? Gigantic x ray machine?

e. There were nerve agents founds. The excuse was that they were pesticides. However, what farmers store their pesticides in military bunkers?

Perhaps you can find reasons for the two of these but I don't think you can reasonable for all of them.

7) Bill Clinton showed the US' enemies how weak the US can be, i.e. the cruise missiles at the empty tents, Somalia. George Bush is showing them how strong the US can be, i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq.

[moa]

A few things I like to mention in this most interesting debate.

1. I find it curious that thousands of Iraqi chem/bio suits have been found, along with antidotes to chemical weapons and decontamination gear.

But, and this is a big but, I have not heard of reports of Iraqi chem/bio sensors being found.

That means to me that the Iraqis did not need the sensors because they knew they would employ the weapons and we would not.

2. For chem/bio weapons to be of some use, you have to have an number of favorable conditions. One of these is an immobile enemy force massed at some point in time and place. I think our forces, moving with the speed they did, did not present a suitable target.

3. From the actions of the Iraqi military, it appears that much of the leadership was incompentent and/or fearful of acting. Notice how the oil fields were hardly sabotaged, or critical bridges and dams were not blown even though they were rigged with explosives.

The Iraqi Air Force has something like 300 combat aircraft. Not one flew a mission during the war. Saddam kept personal control over his Air Force and air defenses.

4. Early in the war apparently serious traces of cyanide and mustard gas was found in the Euphrates river downstream. Cyanide can be a nerve agent precursor.

This was a very bizarre war, if you can even call it that.

[edamon]

Guess who else felt saddam was a huge threat?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The president asks the nation to consider this question: What if Saddam Hussein...

fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction...If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal...
Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM. In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and chief organizer of Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth...

We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.

Bill Clinton February 18, 1998

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[TexasVet]

If that state uses chemical weapons to defend itself, the United States is then justified in using NUCLEAR weapons in response?

-------------------------------------------------------------

Strange, I don't remember saying anything pro or con about that strategy, much less whether or not I agreed or disagreed with it. I just mentioned it. I see you are still creating your own meanings in everybody else's posts.:rolleyes:

[Vladimir Berkov]

If that state uses chemical weapons to defend itself, the United States is then justified in using NUCLEAR weapons in response?

Actually, the United States retaliating in kind like that would violate international law, specifically the Geneva accords, which the US is a signatory to.

Thus, we would be placed in a very similar position to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.

[Sir Galahad]

So, then, Vlad, since you're such a big believer in "international law", then you must believe also in UN definitions of small arms prohnitions applying to civilian arms as well, yes? The UN is working on a resolution to ban small arms in the hands of non-military persons, i.e. civilians aka citizens. So, then, you must believe this as well since you're such a big believer in the sanctity of "international law", hmm?

Kind of shoots a lot of holes in your point that a country possessing nuclear weapons is akin to the right to keep and bear arms by private citizens since "interantional law" wants to forbid privately-owned weapons, yes?

[Vladimir Berkov]

So, then, Vlad, since you're such a big believer in "international law", then you must believe also in UN definitions of small arms prohnitions applying to civilian arms as well, yes? The UN is working on a resolution to ban small arms in the hands of non-military persons, i.e. civilians aka citizens. So, then, you must believe this as well since you're such a big believer in the sanctity of "international law", hmm?

Nope. I was merely expressed the point of view of the Bush administration. Since war with Iraq was justified because they were in violation of international war, if we violate international law through nuclear retaliation, that gives other countries the right to invade us.

[Sir Galahad]

Let them invade. Bring it on, baybee, bring it on!:evil:

[Powderman]

Nope. I was merely expressed the point of view of the Bush administration. Since war with Iraq was justified because they were in violation of international war, if we violate international law through nuclear retaliation, that gives other countries the right to invade us.

Gratuitous target practice!!! Oh, yeah! :evil:

[Sir Galahad]

How hard could it be to spot blue helmets and white APCs amongst sagebrush?:evil: