Chemical Weapons found in Iraq!

Fox News

[Snuffington]

They could catch these guys with a live nuke, on an old Soviet missile, aimed at Washington D. C., and to the same-old crowd that wouldn't prove anything.

In fact, I'll bet the rhetoric "We KNOW there were no WMD's, " won't change a bit.

[randita]

Really doesn't sound that exciting to me. Old stuff left over from an old war.

Doesn't matter. As part of the ceasefire ending the Gulf War, SH agreed to destroy ALL his WMD, no matter what war they were left over from, and submit proof to the UN that he carried out the destruction.

The UN knew he wasn't destroying the weapons (despite 17 resolutions), yet refused to force his hand until the U.S. dragged them along kicking and screaming.

[hobson]

They just interviewed a guy, I didn't catch his name and I have never seen him before, who was talking about Iraq's WMD being moved to Syria. He said immediately following the war testing of tank trucks returned positive chemical readings and further tests showed it was fuel. There is a pattern emerging. They now believe the trucks were used to tranport WMD to Syria and then filled with fuel. He also described three specific locations in Syria/Lebanon WMD have been buried.

[bushfamfan]

Not surprising the media and Demonrats are all 'so what?' about this. Leftovers from the Iran-Iraq war. Sure, but what is it with them being buried? Seems as if we're going to find other evidence, buried under the sand seems to have been their method for hiding them.

[From The Deer Stand]

I consider ANY chemical weapon, a WMD

Agree. Seems to me that the WMD issue is a non-issue anyway. Saddam killed tens of thousands of his own countrymen and women. That's enough proof of WMD for me! If that isn't mass destruction I don't know what is.

[Bowana]

He said immediately following the war testing of tank trucks returned positive chemical readings and further tests showed it was fuel.

I heard that too! Things that make you go Hmmmm.

[Fresh Wind]

They just interviewed a guy, I didn't catch his name...

John Loftus

[hobson]

Thanks!

[johnb838]

"But.. there are no new chemical weapons"..

You mean like when they used to say "Yeah, but you still haven't caught Saddam and Usama", and now they say "yeah,but you still haven't caught Usama?"

[johnb838]

And a story about two battalions of the Syrian military in the desert guarding "something".

HE also said our bombs aren't hot enough to destroy chem bio weapons. I would submit that *some* of our bombs ARE hot enough to do away with the chem-bio.

[John H K]

It can destroy people's lungs, eyes, or lives in the right amount.

I can destroy your lungs, eyes, or your life with a screwdriver.

Is a screwdriver a WMD?

A surprise German night bombing attack destroyed an American Ship in Bari harbor in Italy in 1943. The ship was chock full of Mustard gas.

The released gas killed a grand total 69 people.

It's absurd to lump chemical weapons in with (real) nukes or contagious biologicals.

Chemical weapons are no more effective or efficient at killing people than "regular" weapons. What bugs people is that they're creeped out at HOW chemicals kill and injure; for whatever reason being dismembered by high explosives or burned doesn't bother people as much as the prospect of dying from chems.

If I were Osama Bin Laden and Saddam led me to his super-secret stash of 36 old corroded 120mm mortar shells that he was offering me(I think a lot of people don't grasp how small a 120mm mortar shell is) filled with Mustard gas, I wouldn't be excited, I'd burst out laughing at the silliness of it.

You could probably kill more people with the collective stock of guns and ammo at your local Wal-Mart than this particular "find."

[Bowana]

"I can destroy your lungs, eyes, or your life with a screwdriver.

Is a screwdriver a WMD?"

A srewdriver can only injure one person at a time, a gas can injure many people in one instance. So since it could destroy the lungs, eyes, or lives of multiple people that makes it a WMD.

"It's absurd to lump chemical weapons in with (real) nukes or contagious biologicals."

In dealing with the Iraq war, chemical weapons were considered a WMD.

[John H K]

A srewdriver can only injure one person at a time, a gas can injure many people in one instance. So since it could destroy the lungs, eyes, or lives of multiple people that makes it a WMD.

With a lucky shot, at exposed people, a 120mm mortar filled with high explosive can kill several dozen people.

The issue is how MASS is MASS? Is every weapon capable of killing more than one person at a time a Weapon of MASS destruction?

I realize that because of its inclusion in WMDs, and a lot of scare stories in the media by people that don't really know what they are talking about, chems have taken on this mystical overrated status...

You don't believe that a single 120mm mortar shell filled with blister agent can kill hundreds or thousands of people, do you?

[RandallFlagg]

Indiscrimination.

High explosive ordinance hits and kills at a radius expected to bring damage and incapacitation to a specified area.

Chembioweps indiscriminately kill at the changing of the wind; no expectation on kill radius.

[John H K]

Point is give me 36 new 120mm mortar shells in good condition filled with high explosive and some tubes and I'll kill more people with them than this stash of "WMD" in any conceivable terror attack scenario you can come up with.

Main effect of wind on chems is to disperse them and ruin their effect.

The "dispersal" from a little 120mm round isn't exactly going to make it to the next country.

If it's more "indiscriminate" than 120mm HE, then you were attempting to kill an individual person with a 120mm round and leave someone else 50 feet away unharmed, and you're using the wrong weapon.

[Bowana]

You don't believe that a single 120mm mortar shell filled with blister agent can kill hundreds or thousands of people, do you?

No I don't, but what I am going by is the statement early on that Saddam had and could use weapons of mass destruction including chemical and biological weapons.

The nay-sayers kept saying that Bush had no proof that Saddam still had WMD's.

This evidence seems to back up the original statement. That is all that I am saying.

OK, time for my shameless plug:

We Don't Need No WMD's

[William Tell]

John H K said: You could probably kill more people with the collective stock of guns and ammo at your local Wal-Mart than this particular "find."

While that may be true, it is not the relevant point.

All chemical weapons were prohibited to Saddam because some of them might be quite useful to terrorists.

What purpose can be served by hiding a centrifuge used to refine Uranium. Such a centrifuge was found hidden and represents a clear intention to make use of it in the future. To wait for an enemy to use it to make a bomb and destroy a US city would be very foolish.

One of the most effective weapon to date which has been used by our enemies is the box-cutter. The arsenals of our enemies are rendered ineffective by our own efforts and our own weapons. That is a good thing.