Iraqi shells have no chemical weapons - big surprise

Remove all ads!

Well, guess what. After, of course, once again saying they have absolute proof that chemical weapons have been found and that they were right all along, there were none after all. Read the story here - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108390,00.html

 

While you are techinically correct Blackthorne, this is only about the 50th time this has happened. They have cried wolf so many times its not even funny and EVERY SINGLE TIME they were wrong. If it does end up being chemical weapons, give me your address and I will mail you $10.00. Its jsut another example of them saying they found something, hoping people will hear it, then whisper about it not being a WMD after all. No wonder over a 3rd of the population in America believe we've found WMDs. Hell even the president thinks so. Never mind its not true, but thats only a technicality.

 

It's interesting to note that amercian soldiers are using depleted plutonium bullets which "might" have adverse biological effects on the target.

 

I'd worry more about the cluster bombs which still kill regularly. Oooh pretty yellow BOOOOM.... oh sorry, did we forget to clean up all of our mess. Oh well, its Saddams fault, not ours.

 

But then, only an idiot walks through a bomblet area. I know, as i've through one!

Besides that, as far as I know, the warnings about uranium depleted rounds are somewhat exagerated. As long as you don't actually eat it or get it into the system some other kind of way. And again, it is only larger weapons that use UDR. Your normal average m16 does not. And I should know about this, as I'm using a modified m16 and have been walking around with a couple of rounds lying loose in my combat pants. I haven't had any ill effects yet...

 

Yeah those dumb idiotic children playing in the middle of a city where they were dropped. Freaking morons, they deserve to die.

 

What? Like killing them? Amazing what technology we have these days... bullets that kill people!

All factors considered, the UN and America gave the country enough warning before the seach for WMDs started. They could easily have reloacted them to another country. This doesn't mean they exist but if they do then the investigators are looking the the last place they will be: Iraq.

 

Yeah, we haven't been doing flybys, satelitte surveillance, and constant monitoring of the country non stop since the Gulf War. I guess we missed them moving 20,000 tons of chemical weapons that we supplied them with. But of course, we can't bring that up, just like we can't bring up the fact that we knew full well what they were doing with them and supported thier doing it. And Donald Rumsfeld was Saddam's best friend but who cares about any of that. If Saddam is guilty of mass murder, so is Rumsfeld and the Reagan administration. But its ok to support dictators who abuse their people, they just have to be on our side.

 

Would you like to name one country that would take the risk to accept these weapons within their border, knowing that this would mean the signing of USAs invasion in that country?
Because i don't know any.

 

Well, let's have a look at the map: Where could the unfound WMD have been brought to? Geographically Iraq borders to Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi-Arabia, Kuwait and Iran. Jordan, Turkey and Kuwait are staunchly pro-US, that is ruled out. Leaves Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Condi sez: It isn't Syria. And why should Syria acept Saddam's stuff? After all, they have a chemical weapons program of their own and their own problems.

Leaves Iran: Why on earth should Iran offer Iraq aid in hiding the WMD, after having been at their receiving end in the Iraq-Iran war, not to mention that they had all reason to hate and distrust him (eventually he killed and gassed some 200.000 ++ Iranians). Plus, Saddam's stuff was old, why shold they be so stupid to offer their territory to Saddam as a toxic waste dump?
That hardly makes sense. Except for the "They are evil and that's why they do evil things" fraction. The world is more complex.

As for the Saudi-Arabia part, I'll treat that in the Ultimate American Conspiracy Thread.

So after all Abomination, what are you talking about?

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108785,00.html

Well it's official, not that I ever had any doubt. What I'm surprised is that Foxnews has it on the front page. Typically they tend not to mention this news only briefly (as opposed to the hundreds of times by people like Hannity but then never apologize when they are wrong. Still waiting for O'Reilly to say he was wrong (he claimed that if no WMD's were found then he would say he was wrong in his support of the war - apparently he will wait 10 - 15 years before he says this lol).

 

Most likely becasue it was nothing more than normal munitions. It's not like the Bush administration would cover anything up, since any ligitimate find would pretty much lock him in for re-election since he would finally be able to justify the war to alot of people (yes I know it is justified for alot of people, but as more and more soldiers die, that number continues to drop).

 

The issue isn't who would accept them. The issue is where could Iraq 'put' them. These supposed weapons aren't exactly going to be that large and not every stretch of border has a checkpoint. There is a thing called smuggling and middle eastern countries are known for not being the most law-abiding countries. Besides the last thing a country would do when trying to move these illegal things into another country would be to tell that country they are moving them there. If they've been able to keep them hidden for a long time, why would they make it public that they are moving them?

 

Huh?????!

Uh, stereotypes everyone? The same applies to Mexico btw ....

According to the OSPs/ Bush administrations wildest guesses Saddam had thousands of tons of chemical weapons alone ... you seriously suggest they have been smuggled undetected over the border to neighbouring countries by Iraq .... to be secretly dumped behind the border? That's hilarious.

How do you imagine the transport? Like: Single shells carried on donkeys or camels? Or a truck convoy? Through the desert? Without anyone noticing, not even a casual beduine observer? Without Iraqis knowing (well, in the interrogations they surely lie) or telling? Without any of the neighbours noticing? .... Errrr ....

Why all the hassle? It is easier to simply take advantage of your own deserts and dump or destroy the stuff there. When I am able to keep them hidden for a long time in my own deserts, why should I risk make my ownership public by moving them out of my country at all, risking to get caught and grant the country that wants to undo me the proof they always wanted?

Short of that risk: When you hide your silver bullet, you might prefer to hide it somewhere where you can retrieve it, on a territory you control, just in case ... and the neighbour country is hardly the place I'd choose if I were a control maniac like Saddam: Because with hiding my WMD in my neighbour country I would loose control over them .... in that case I can go straight and destroy them, as they decay over time anyway - Iraqis chem weapons had a shelf life of 5 years, that didn't get lost on the Iraqis, eventually they developed and built them themselves.

After a while they would have still formed a toxic waste hazard. In this light destruction is a very favorable solution, and it denies proof just like hiding the stuff, yet it is safer, less risky, and probably cheaper too.

Sorry Abomination, your theory is about one of the stupidest things I ever heared - short of Bush's "they are evil people who hate our freedom" utterance.

*************************************************

As for the mysterious mortar rounds: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3407853.stm
.
And if I should bet what it might be: I bet on WP, white phosphorous. WP is used for target marking, obscuration and fire effect, and pretty common. It is built unlike standard HE-FRAG ammo, and has a chemical charge indeed - consisting of white phosphorous (not considered a chemical weapon) and a dispersion charge to ensure area effect.
A cutaway pic of a US 120mm WP mortar bomb, and now have a look at an old US 155mm mustard gas or H/ HD shell.

Mustard gas is a 'blister agent'. Originally developed in imperial germany in WW-I, the chemists who developed it, proudly named it after their names: Lommel & Stein - Lost - and it entered service as "Gelbkreuz" - named after the shell markings, yellow crosses. The US enthusiastically adopted it, developed it further, and coded it H or HD, depending on sub-type. It was called mustard gas by the unfortunate brits who encountered it, because it had a characteristic scent, reminding of mustard.

Looking at both shells you'll note the bursting charge running all the length down through the shell filling, just like in the 120mm WP mortar round - technically there isn't much of a difference between them - that would explain the initial confusion ... That'd be my informed guess.

[ January 19, 2004, 09:01: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Guesses don't account for fact. I'm presenting a hypothetical theroy here. Besides the whole idea of WMD is that you only need a few of them to do heaps of damage.

Trade convoy. Hidden in a sealed crate below a few barrels of oil. Driver has been paid and threatned with pain of death to 'not' open the crate. Deliver it to so said address and ask no qustions. When Saddam - so called believed all powerful dictator - gives you a transportation order you fill out that order to the letter.

Oh indeed. But there is a problem with trying to destroy dangerous weapons of mass destruction. You can't use them at all later. Besides I'm not talking about 'all' of their WMD. I'm talking about maybe a few. All you need are a few hidden somewhere else so you can take them back once the inspectors are gone and continue your work where you left off.

Why should I risk keeping them in the one country they are going to be looking for them? America is determined to find these and they'll probably go through every grain of sand to find them - every grain of sand in Iraq.

If you can put something somewhere, you most probably can retrieve it when the inspectors are gone. You lose control over them yes, but you don't want America to discover you have them. Its temporary. 5 years is a 'long' time, in 4 years the search would have stopped. However if it takes longer you can always smuggle the information used to create the WMD so you don't have to start from scratch when the inspectors leave.

Denies proof? A large contaminated area? Any idiot understands that type of significance. For there to be a large bio-chemical contamination of an area there must have been a large bio-chemical explosion of some type. It's proof just the same and 'very' hard to cover up (these contaminated areas would have a habit of killing the people trying to clean them).

This is just a theory. There are others. There actually could not be any WMD and there probably never were. And when you give a country as much warning that you're going to start looking for WMD in their country it's just like yelling "HIDE AND SEEK! One million, nine-hundred and ninety-nine thousand nine-hundred and ninety-nine, nine-hundred and ninety-nine thousand, nine-hundred and ninety-eight..." Whats more the inspectors have told you where they are going to look for them - YOUR OWN COUNTRY. Smartest thing to do: hide them in another country or - if they leave no tell-tale markings - destroy them. However the 'last' place they are going to be is Iraq, if anywhere at all.

 

That's true. It's hard to find a needle in a hay stack. Especially when the hay stack is so big. Yet, before they entered the hay-stack, they were quite confident about the existence and whereabouts of the needle. A quite dangerous needle, the needle might now be anywhere, east, west, in a subway in a metropole in a fairy tale. What gives. It was never about the needle anyway. About what it was, god knows what. Liberation and democratization and modernization and re-shaping and re-building. Time will tell, about what it was.

 

I find it amazing to see at what lenghts people go to maintain their belief that Saddam had WMD, against all evidence to the contrary.

The US inspection team was recently dissolved, Mr. Kay returned to the private sector, and the peeps who searched for WMD are now chasing the much more real "insurgents". That the US, during more than half a year full of control of the country, full and unrestricted access to the scientists and all sites, haven't found anything except some paper tigers, numerical oddities have been found to be bookeeping glitches - all that very much underlines, and proves wrong neocon claims to the contrary, that the inspections not only did work, that they succeeded in disarming Saddam.
That questions the necessity to disarm Saddam, and questions the claimed "imminent threat" he posed according to the administration.

Anno 2003 Saddam had no longer a WMD program. His arsenal was destroyed by the inspectors, and by himself. The numbers the US called were hopelessly hyped. Saddam posed no imminent threat to anyone else but his own people, and not at all to the US.

When the lack of findings in your opinion does not match the pre-war administration utterances, then the phantomous WMD don't necessarily need to be in a neigbour country. To see it as that the administration might have been lying/ hyping/ exaggerating/ spinning is actually another theory - of striking simplicity.
Then the lack of findings could then be explained by no WMD having been there. You can't find something that doesn't exist - it's as simple as that. The US have always, somewhat bold, claimed that Saddam had WMD and demanded from him the proof to the contrary. Without WMD that cannot work, not practically, let alone logically.

That is sure only half as romantic and thrilling as a cloak & dagger over-the-border myth of Ali Baba and his 40 WMD, but sadly that's how it looks in daylight.

" ... of course they exist, but how can they be found without an inspection team?"

[ January 20, 2004, 01:58: Message edited by: Ragusa ]