Weapons of Mass destruction found.

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Gaard
If conjur has said...$20 I can prove this to have been brought in from outside of Iraq or to be some leftover shell that the U.S. supplied Saddam with 20 years ago...you might have a legitimate argument etech.

Logic is lost on etech.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech
Origin of WMD


"This term for a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon is older than you might think. It actually dates to 1937, before the existence of nuclear or biological weapons. It was first used by the London Times on 28 December of that year, "Who can think without horror of what another widespread war would mean, waged as it would be with all the new weapons of mass destruction?" The original reference is to aerial bombing of cities, which had become a reality that year in the Spanish Civil War, chemicals, and other modern weaponry.
...."

Thanks, I stand corrected. They didn't coin the term. They just dusted it off for their purposes.

Are you saying that Iraq never had any WMD.

With all due respect, how in the hell do you get that out of anything I said?

I actually am amazed at the people that believe that the sole reason to remove Saddam was WMD. Oh well, ignorance abounds.

WMD was never the reason Bush invaded Iraq. It was merely the excuse George used to sell the invasion to a spooked public. The real reasons may never be known, but I think it's some combination of PNAC, a psychological compulsion to one-up his Dad, irritation at Hussein's defiance, oil, and delusions of grandeur and/or being on a mission from God.

IMO, of course.

Etech? Care to explain where I suggested Iraq never had any WMDs? You'll note I'm not the only one who thought that little straw man was absurd.

Care to remind us all who said, "You are not worth discussing anything with if you won't stand behind what YOU SAID."?

Still waiting.

Just the fact that you said that the administration "dusted off" the term WMD for their own purposes. It was a term that had been coined many years before. Since you said for their own purposes, I was merely wondering if you knew that Iraq did have WMD, that Iraq had used that WMD, that Iraq had WMD proprams in place while UN inspectors were in country. Now much of that was long ago but some posters on this board apparently are not aware of those facts. I was curious if you were one and decided to dust off my curiosity and ask you.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Gaard

$20 we'll find this to have been brought in from outside of Iraq or to be some leftover shell that the U.S. supplied Saddam with 20 years ago.

excuse me a sec...

doesn't "we'll find" represent future tense?

Dang it, Gaard...you blew the fun.

No, he didn't. Want to set a time limit. What's acceptable to you. One week, one month. How long will it take you to prove that the US supplied Saddam with Sarin? I don't think you can given any length of time but if you need a month, that would be fine with me. It's up to you to prove it so I can be generous with a time limit.

Oh, you just want proof about the Sarin?

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/globalissue/usforeignpolicy/iraq1980scontent.html

Western companies that helped build Iraq's weapons arsenal .
a U.S.

i Biological.

(A) American Type Culture Collection

(1) Several biological precursor agents for diseases like anthrax, gangrene, and the West Nile virus. [Associated Press 12/21/02]


ii Chemical.

(A) Alcolac International

(1) Thiodiglycol, the mustard gas precursor. [New York Times 12/21/02b]


(B) Al Haddad

(1) 60 tons of a chemical that could be used to make sarin. [New York Times 12/21/02b]

Abstract of NY Times article:

By PHILIP SHENON (NYT) 926 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 11 , Column 1
ABSTRACT - American officials and private weapons specialists say 12,000-page weapons declaration that Iraq delivered to UN on December 7 lists 31 major foreign companies that sold chemicals and equipment needed for Iraq's chemical weapons program before 1991; list reportedly includes Alcolac International of Maryland and Al Haddad trading company of Tennessee, both now defunct, 14 German companies, three each from Netherlands and Switzerland and two each from France and Austria; list, obtained by lawyers for ailing Gulf War veterans, could be important as veterans pursuit lawsuits against some companies over their health problems (M)

http://www.insightmag.com/news/2003/02/18/World/Eurobiz.Is.Caught.Arming.Saddam-357431.shtml

Until 1984, when the United States interdicted a small shipment of nerve-gas precursors from Al Haddad Trading in Nashville, there were no regulations banning commerce in chemical- weapons precursors or production equipment. But after that, at U.S. insistence, the major chemical-producing nations in the West agreed to require export licenses for a list of chemical-weapons (CW) precursors that gradually was expanded as evidence of Iraq's battlefield use against Iran and Iraqi Kurds became available.

http://www.mideastfacts.com/cmpnies_soldchmcals2iraq.html

Alcolac, the Baltimore company, pleaded guilty in 1989 to federal export violations involving shipments of chemicals that could be used by Iraq to make mustard gas.

According to the Iraqi declaration, officials said, Alcolac provided thiodiglycol, the mustard gas precursor, while Al Haddad, the other American company, was the source of 60 tons of a chemical that could be used to make sarin.

That's nice and all, where is the US supplied artillery shell?

If the US supplied it, than why did Alcolac have to plead guilty to federal export violations?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: etech
Just the fact that you said that the administration "dusted off" the term WMD for their own purposes. It was a term that had been coined many years before. Since you said for their own purposes, I was merely wondering if you knew that Iraq did have WMD, that Iraq had used that WMD, that Iraq had WMD proprams in place while UN inspectors were in country. Now much of that was long ago but some posters on this board apparently are not aware of those facts. I was curious if you were one and decided to dust off my curiosity and ask you.

Ahhh, I see. I think if you'd read my post -- the one you replied to -- it would be apparent that I am not one of those people. In particular, this paragraph should have clinched it for you:

• The better question would be what quantity of "WMDs" would satisfy me that Bush and his minions did not lie? That's easy. Show me Iraq had the "massive stockpiles" and "thousands of liters" and "reconstitued nuclear weapons programs" and UAVs poised to strike the US mainland with chemical or biological agents, and all the other BS they used to sell their war. Show me that Iraq had all of these things in January, 2003, not in 1990 or 1998. Show me that, and I will believe them. Until then, I'll remain convinced they're a pack of scheming liars.

If not, you could have picked it up from any of the dozens of threads where I railed against people who couldn't tell the difference between the "WMDs" Iraq had up through 1998 and the apparent lack of them when Bush announced his invasion. Ask Cad how many times I patiently (and impatiently) explained to him that we all knew Iraq had WMDs in the 80's and early 90's. The question that mattered is what did he have in January, 2003.

Some of the posters on this board shut out unpleasant realities like that. They do not like to clutter their Bush devotion with facts. In fact, one of the neo-YABAs raised exactly that nonsense again in the last day or so, proving there is no diversion so old it can't be trotted out again. I thought perhaps you've joined their ranks.

 

[joelT33]

the war was supposidly won a few months ago and now what are we doing. One missile of sarin gas could be a wmd but its one. Granted if i was saddam and i saw america coming to kill me i'd clean out my arsenal also but all i'm saying is it doesn't matter anymore i feel we should get out of there its getting hostile again and this time its not saddams army its Iraq. I thought we were supposed to help them?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Did Canada's tank fire this?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: etech

That's nice and all, where is the US supplied artillery shell?

If the US supplied it, than why did Alcolac have to plead guilty to federal export violations?

Your question to which I replied was:

"How long will it take you to prove that the US supplied Saddam with Sarin?"

I gave you links showing a U.S. firm supplied Sarin components (60 TONS of it) to Iraq.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't know Winston, but can you imagine if the shell had fallen into the hands of terrorists and fired into the US from Cananda. It was sure lucky we went to war.

 

[leeboy]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
i want a straight answer from all you intellectually enlightened liberals
exactly what qualifies as having "weapons of mass destruction" in your world view.

i want an exact answer, such as

"one ton of plutonium"
or
"100 liters of Sarin nerve agent"
or
"1 nuclear weapon"

inexact answers are not helpful, such as "vast", or "hugh", or "alot"

i need to get a handle on how the liberal mind perceives threats.

a second question might be how many civilian casualties would an attack have to involve to qualify in your mind as an atack with a WMD. Please, provide an exact number such as 1,000, or 10,000 or 100,000.

I'm not very hopeful than anyone will actually answer these simple questions, but here it goes anyway...

Why answer what we perceive as a threat when we already know that YOU perceive anyone that has a better tan than yourself a threat. It is painfully obvious HS that you are afraid of some invisible boogie man from the middle east. This administration has done quite a number on your ability to reason intellectually but that was its goal all along.. to find simple minded folks like yourself to fanboy and apologize for all the administrations decisions, good or bad and hopefully champion the party all the way to 2008. Well got news for you bud, it ain't going to happen. The fat ladies are already warming up.

 

[etech]

Conjur

Your question to which I replied was:

"How long will it take you to prove that the US supplied Saddam with Sarin?"

I gave you links showing a U.S. firm supplied Sarin components (60 TONS of it) to Iraq.

1. A US firm is not the US.

" a U.S. firm supplied Sarin components (60 TONS of it) to Iraq. "
2. But, if true, which you seem to be saying that it is. What happened to it all?

3. News reports in the 1980's identified the company's owner as Sahib al-Haddad, an Iraqi by birth, who denied that he had shipped any chemicals to Iraq for use in weapons.

Related to 1. It was not the US that supplied those chemicals but an Iraqi by birth if he actually did.


Is that all that the people claiming that the US supplied Iraq with chemical weapons have to go on?

 

[conehead433]

"I don't know Winston, but can you imagine if the shell had fallen into the hands of terrorists and fired into the US from Cananda. It was sure lucky we went to war."

Absolutely. One or even two people could have gotten sick. With a missile range of 100 miles and the massive collection of WMD in the Iraqi arsenal, we are just lucky to still be here. We should give thanks to the Almighty for inspiring the Dubya to protect us.

 

[HotHardware]

So.... what if there are lot's and lot's of these,
Hidden in the desert for anyone to find.

And what if they wind up in New York?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: HotHardware
So.... what if there are lot's and lot's of these,
Hidden in the desert for anyone to find.

And what if they wind up in New York?

Then real estate prices will drop dramatically in Manhattan.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: etech
Conjur

Your question to which I replied was:

"How long will it take you to prove that the US supplied Saddam with Sarin?"

I gave you links showing a U.S. firm supplied Sarin components (60 TONS of it) to Iraq.

1. A US firm is not the US.

" a U.S. firm supplied Sarin components (60 TONS of it) to Iraq. "

Oh? American companies are now considered foreign entities??

2. But, if true, which you seem to be saying that it is. What happened to it all?

The U.N. weapons inspectors helped to dismantle Saddam's biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs before they were removed in 1998. The inspections that were reinstated failed to find anything and nothing has been found in the year-plus that the U.S. has had hundreds and hundreds of people scouring the nation looking for WMDs.

Also, anything left over and not stored properly would be ineffective now.

3. News reports in the 1980's identified the company's owner as Sahib al-Haddad, an Iraqi by birth, who denied that he had shipped any chemicals to Iraq for use in weapons.

Related to 1. It was not the US that supplied those chemicals but an Iraqi by birth if he actually did.


Is that all that the people claiming that the US supplied Iraq with chemical weapons have to go on?

Is that all? An American company sending 60 TONS of nerve gas components to Iraq is pretty serious stuff.

 

[etech]

Oh? American companies are now considered foreign entities??

American firms acting against US law and later prosecuted for that infraction are not the US( implied US government).

The U.N. weapons inspectors helped to dismantle Saddam's biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs before they were removed in 1998. The inspections that were reinstated failed to find anything and nothing has been found in the year-plus that the U.S. has had hundreds and hundreds of people scouring the nation looking for WMDs.

Also, anything left over and not stored properly would be ineffective now.

Yep, when told where it was by defectors the UN inspectors did pretty well. As to whether they got it all. I wouldn't bet on it. There are still gaps between what was reported and what can be confirmed as destroyed. But of course the real danger was the regime itself that had been willing to make and use those weapons.


I'm not sure if binary components degrade. I'll have to try and find some information on that.

Is that all? An American company sending 60 TONS of nerve gas components to Iraq is pretty serious stuff.

yep, is that all. Most of the people desperately saying that the US (government) was exporting chemical weapons, or even chemical filled artillery shells, just don't know what they are talking about and don't want to learn any better.

The US (government) was imposing sanctions against the export of those chemicals to Iraq.

Can I drop the (government) now Conjur? When you type US I'm going to assume you mean the government unless the context implies otherwise.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: HotHardware
So.... what if there are lot's and lot's of these,
Hidden in the desert for anyone to find.

And what if they wind up in New York?

Maybe three people would get sick?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: HotHardware
So.... what if there are lot's and lot's of these,
Hidden in the desert for anyone to find.

And what if they wind up in New York?

Maybe three people would get sick?

Spencer, does it give you some sort of pleasure to display your ignorance on the web?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: etech

Oh? American companies are now considered foreign entities??

American firms acting against US law and later prosecuted for that infraction are not the US( implied US government).

Apparently, you don't read very well:

"Until 1984, when the United States interdicted a small shipment of nerve-gas precursors from Al Haddad Trading in Nashville, there were no regulations banning commerce in chemical- weapons precursors or production equipment. But after that, at U.S. insistence, the major chemical-producing nations in the West agreed to require export licenses for a list of chemical-weapons (CW) precursors that gradually was expanded as evidence of Iraq's battlefield use against Iran and Iraqi Kurds became available"

The U.N. weapons inspectors helped to dismantle Saddam's biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs before they were removed in 1998. The inspections that were reinstated failed to find anything and nothing has been found in the year-plus that the U.S. has had hundreds and hundreds of people scouring the nation looking for WMDs.

Also, anything left over and not stored properly would be ineffective now.

Yep, when told where it was by defectors the UN inspectors did pretty well. As to whether they got it all. I wouldn't bet on it. There are still gaps between what was reported and what can be confirmed as destroyed. But of course the real danger was the regime itself that had been willing to make and use those weapons.

Hmm...you seem willing to bet on a tongue-in-cheek joke but not willing to bet that all of the WMDs were destroyed? (Considering after over a year and with hundreds and hundreds of people scouring the land, none have been found. You sure do like taking losing bets.)

I'm not sure if binary components degrade. I'll have to try and find some information on that.

Is that all? An American company sending 60 TONS of nerve gas components to Iraq is pretty serious stuff.

yep, is that all. Most of the people desperately saying that the US (government) was exporting chemical weapons, or even chemical filled artillery shells, just don't know what they are talking about and don't want to learn any better.

The US (government) was imposing sanctions against the export of those chemicals to Iraq.

Can I drop the (government) now Conjur? When you type US I'm going to assume you mean the government unless the context implies otherwise.

Ah...so now, to suit your purposes, US means "government"?

I see. Any other rules and/or definitions you have up your ass?

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: HotHardware
So.... what if there are lot's and lot's of these,
Hidden in the desert for anyone to find.

And what if they wind up in New York?

Maybe three people would get sick?

Spencer, does it give you some sort of pleasure to display your ignorance on the web?

Oh I'm sure etech I'm not scared about some old chemicals that are not very affective to beging with. Any non-nuecler "WMD" is more hype then destruction. Your stadard u-haul with a fretilizer bomd going to be a lot easyer to kill people with then your trace amounts of saren gas.

 

[etech]

Apparently, you don't read very well:

"Until 1984, when the United States interdicted a small shipment of nerve-gas precursors from Al Haddad Trading in Nashville, there were no regulations banning commerce in chemical- weapons precursors or production equipment. But after that, at U.S. insistence, the major chemical-producing nations in the West agreed to require export licenses for a list of chemical-weapons (CW) precursors that gradually was expanded as evidence of Iraq's battlefield use against Iran and Iraqi Kurds became available"

You are the one that isn't reading well. The US is the country that insisted that all other nations agree to require export licences for a list of CW precursors and yet you were the one joking that the weapon in Iraq would be from the US. An artillery shell even which could have only come from the US government.

Hmm...you seem willing to bet on a tongue-in-cheek joke but not willing to bet that all of the WMDs were destroyed? (Considering after over a year and with hundreds and hundreds of people scouring the land, none have been found. You sure do like taking losing bets.)

Only after I called you on it did you start calling it a tongue-in-cheek joke. There was no smiley or other indication that you were lying your ass off and were later going to call it a joke. No, there was just your stupid attempt to smear the US by saying that it supplied Saddam with chemical weapons and the artillery shells to use them when the situation was that the US was the country that instigated the ban on shipping certain precusors to Iraq.

Ah...so now, to suit your purposes, US means "government"?

I see. Any other rules and/or definitions you have up your ass? [/q}

So are you now saying that the US government did not have anything to do with supplying Iraq with chemical weapons. It was only the two companies(one headed by a Iraqi born nationlized citizen) that is all you have on the US supplying Iraq with CW?

That's it?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: HotHardware
So.... what if there are lot's and lot's of these,
Hidden in the desert for anyone to find.

And what if they wind up in New York?

Maybe three people would get sick?

Spencer, does it give you some sort of pleasure to display your ignorance on the web?

Oh I'm sure etech I'm not scared about some old chemicals that are not very affective to beging with. Any non-nuecler "WMD" is more hype then destruction. Your stadard u-haul with a fretilizer bomd going to be a lot easyer to kill people with then your trace amounts of saren gas.

True, but with a little knowledge they could be mixed and dispersed effectively. It would require removal from the shell and a different method of delivery, but it could be done. The effectiveness of them would be more on the fear they would generate than their actual danger.
It seems the main reason "these" were trace amounts was that they were not completely mixed and then dispersed by being fired from artillery.

BTW, these were not my trace amounts of sarin. If anyone's, they were Saddam's. At least he was the previous owner.

 

[Steeplerot]

Bah they found some conventional bomb (I think it blew up too) next to some railroad tracks at the port of Oakland a few years ago left over from VIETNAM. (A rail car dumped a bunch of bombs when it derailed back in the 60's and oops some got lost) I think this is more a case of Mohammed finding an old shell while digging or something and making / giving it to someone for a IED. The shelf-life of these gases seem to fit what happened -a dud from the 80's.
When there is a war shells get left over. Groundscored artillery shells are most likley in high demand in Iraq seeing as the need for IEDs.
Calling an old shell like that WMD is a joke. Leftovers from a long gone war. If it is from "Saddams Stash" he took pretty crappy care of them.
Back to your Bush apologizing nothing to see here. Sorry!

 

[Format C:]

Perhaps the question wasn't asked quite clearly enough for some of you so allow me to try another way because its a good question that deserves an answer...

What is your definition of a Weapon Of Mass Destruction?

... I don't want to know what you think isn't one, I'd like to know specifically what weapon/s you would consider meet the requirements of a WMD as you would define one. This is not a trick question. I'd really like to know.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Format C:
Perhaps the question wasn't asked quite clearly enough for some of you so allow me to try another way because its a good question that deserves an answer...

What is your definition of a Weapon Of Mass Destruction?

... I don't want to know what you think isn't one, I'd like to know specifically what weapon/s you would consider meet the requirements of a WMD as you would define one. This is not a trick question. I'd really like to know.

Nukes. Everything else is either a tactical battlefield weapon or a terrorist device.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
an binary artillery shell containing Sarin Nerve gas was detonated today in Iraq in a terrorist attack on U.S. troops. Two G.I.'s were exposed and treated.


gee....i thought all you liberals claimed they didn't exist..

i already know what you're going to claim..

"they only found one?...that doesn't count.."

well, does any rational person believe they produced only one Sarin Gas artillery shell?


no WMD?

Ha.

This message authorized by the Bush Apologists of America (BAA): grasping at straws since 1980.