Serin IDD detonated

Status
Not open for further replies.
I shouldnt respond to this, as it is clearly in violation of the new direction from Oleg. But I'll hope I can get a little common sense in to the discussion before they shut it down.

No one ever said Saddam never had WMDs. No one ever said 100% of the WMD were disposed of after GW I. That some insurgents got their hands on an artillery shall should come as no surprise. That they would eventually use any WMDs they may have on our troops was also predicted from the begining. That the current grab-bag of insurgents would have less inhibitions against using them is also predictable.

For the comments above, do a search on "paper tiger argument."
 
No one ever said Saddam never had WMDs. No one ever said 100% of the WMD were disposed of after GW I.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, a significant number of Bush bashers have said repeatedly that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Several are on this board, and conspicuously absent from this thread. ;)

I suppose they are just honoring Oleg's wishes, because I'm sure they have a great explanation for all this. :rolleyes:
 
No one ever said 100% of the WMD were disposed of after GW I.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's exactly what the dems said. That bush was a liar, saddam didn't have any more WMDs, there were no more WMDs in Iraq, and that we went into Iraq based on "a lie." John "Flapper" kerry has said numerous times that bush lied about saddam having WMDs.

The fact that they're being used now, SHOULD completely absolve bush of any more "liar" calls.

Won't happen though. The dems will state that this is a right wing conspiracy of some kind.
 
Some facts on this artillery shell.

This explosion occured a few days ago. Another Sirin gas shell was found as well.

The shells are old, about 15-20 years old. They are not marked as they normally would be.

It sounds like the Iraqi insurgents found a stash of them.
 
It sure is easy to argue whan you make up the other side's argument, isn't it?
Actually, that's exactly what the dems said.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing for "the dems", whatever that means. Scott Ritter estimated that about 95% of the WMD had been accounted for and that their capacity to represent any kind of threat had been destroyed.

Jeez, no one's talking about a few rounds lying around some storage shed. These things are supposed to have some sort of military capacity.
 
You guys had to know that this wouldn't shut em' up. This isn't about truth, this is about getting rid of Bush--nothing else.
 
From a technical ("gun") perspective, what seems to have happened is, this was a "binary agent" shell. Two liquids were supposed to be mixed well during the shell's flight (probably via the spin) and hit in that state.

Instead, the explosion managed to mix a small part of the two liquids enough to make a little bit of Sarin...but most of it was "wasted".

"Schmuck" pretty much sums up the best guess :rolleyes:.
 
So how much Sarin does it take to be considered a danger? Exactly please, I don't want you to back down and change your mind later. :) Furthermore, why does it have to be from the Iran-Iraq war? Are you suggesting he didn't manufacture any since then? How do you know it wasn't recent production? Come to think of it, how do you know all the stuff isn't there and we just haven't stumbled into it yet?

Occam's Razor. Which is more likely?

a. Saddam secretly eliminated all WMD programs and stockpiles, deliberately hiding this fact from the whole world because he wanted to be reduced to living in a hole.

b. We just haven't found the stuff yet.
 
We know that Al Qaeda did R&D on sarin & other nerve & chemical agents--in places other than Iraq.

We know that Al Qaeda is now an active wing of the resistance to American occupation.

The appearance of sarin proves only that it's in Iraq now (like Al Qaeda); not that it was there before we entered. That's not evasion or conspiracy thinking, is it?
Click to expand...
Why would AQ, which has no artillery, produce artillery munitions? That's like me handloading a shotgun shells so I can fling the pellets at you by hand.

Do you really think the whole argument excluded the possibility that there might be a few cannisters left over from the Iran-Iraq war?
Click to expand...
Iraq used unitary nerve agents extensively during the Iran/Iraq war, but had problems with stability and shelf life. Therefore after the war (and right before DS1) they started researching and producing binary shells. Since the shell found was a binary type shell, it's unlikely it was Iran/Iraq War vintage.
http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/960715/72569.htm
http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/960705/73919_01.htm
Could a few newly minted artillery shells have gone missing? Maybe, but then you'd want to be real careful in declaring that you had disposed of all of them. Maybe let inspectors search everywhere, just to make a good faith effort and show that you were really attempting to comply. Unless the few gone missing was intentional. In which case you were intentionally retaining WMDs, for whatever reason, in violation of the ceasefire agreement.
 
Hmmmm... isn't it interesting that CNN hasn't even mentioned the Sarin find yet. They're probably still trying to convince themselves that Saddam never had WMD's.
 
OK, Mr. Occam, which is more likely?

1. The insurgents have access to a large stockpile of militarily deleverable WMD but instead have decided to use a couple of rusty old artillery shells in an improvised device,

or

2. There are just a few shells left over from pre-GW I that these creatures have gotten ahold of.

1. Bush was right, Saddam had enough WMD capacity to be a threat to the US, but decided not to use it when he was invaded by an antagonist whose purpose was to kill him or remove him from power (same thing) because, I dunno, maybe his basic humanitarian nature took over,

or

2. He really was essentially disarmed by GW I and the inspections, and really didn't have the capacity.

Remember, at his peak he barely had the capacity to fend off Iran.

I'm not going to rise to the bait regarding "how much." It's not up to me to set a technical threshold. Inspectors like Scott Ritter said he was disarmed for all practical intents and purposes. History has, thus far, proved them more right than Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush boys.
 
Howdy, Malone

your last remark is fair enough. I wish the antiwar folks had extended the same courtesy to our side.
 
1. The insurgents have access to a large stockpile of militarily deleverable WMD but instead have decided to use a couple of rusty old artillery shells in an improvised device,

or

2. There are just a few shells left over from pre-GW I that these creatures have gotten ahold of.
Click to expand...

The two theories are not mutually exclusive. But I commend you on your ability to answer a question with a question. :D
 
They are not mutually exclusive because they could have both. The fact that I have a crappy old SKS that shoots 4 moa on a good day does not mean that I could not have a sub moa bolt gun.
 
So how much Sarin does it take to be considered a danger? Exactly please, I don't want you to back down and change your mind later.
Click to expand...
My recollections of unclassified lectures on the subject when I was in the Air Force are LD-50 for skin exposure 50-100 mg. This will kill about half the troops exposed. This is roughly 1-2 drops.

For incapacitation, 1/10 of that amount.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Frustrated, U.S. Arms Team to Leave Iraq
Replies
1
Views
560
Preacherman
P
R
  • Locked
FBI mines records of ordinary Americans
Replies
14
Views
874
javafiend
J
J
  • Locked
Fortress Amerika??
Replies
8
Views
659
twoblink
T
A
  • Locked
Both Jews and Gentiles might find the following of interest
Replies
2
Views
676
alan
A
Back
Top