Danish army: Iraqi shells WMD-free

CNN ^ | 1/18/04

[billbears]

COPENHAGEN, Denmark -- Mortar shells found in Iraq and believed to be suspicious in fact contained no chemical agents, the Danish army said after a week of tests.

The 36 shells, found 20 kilometers (12 miles) north of the city of Qurnah in southern Iraq on January 9, had initially been thought by Danish and British troops to contain a blister agent.

[billbears]

But further tests carried out in southern Iraq and the United States were negative, the Danish army said in a statement on Sunday,

Bump

[Mr. Mojo]

raised suspicions that weapons are unlikely to be found.

Wouldn't suprise me in the least if we found the motherlode (either in Iraq or Syria) sometime before Nov. .....and found bin Laden as well.

[sd-joe]

What the heck kind of gas would someone put in warheads???

Laughing gas?

[bolobaby]

Disappointing in a way, but ultimately these shells were irrelevant. They could easily be marginalized by the lefties.

The question stil remains: where is the good stuff? (Come on - time for a covert operation in Syria, just to be sure!)

[sd-joe]

Warheads = shells.

[White Eagle]

Something to induce amnesia, since nobody remembers thinking that Iraq had WMD in the first place. Not the French, not the Germans, not anybody.

[billbears]

Wouldn't suprise me in the least if we found the motherlode (either in Iraq or Syria) sometime before Nov.

Wouldn't suprise me if they are long gone

The interview with Hussein Kamel

During the interview, Major Izz al-Din al-Majid (transliterated as Major Ezzeddin) joins the discussion (p.10). Izz al-Din is Saddam Hussein's cousin, and defected together with the Kamel brothers. He did not return with them to Iraq in 1996, moving instead to Jordan and now to an unknown European country.

In the transcript of the interview, Kamel states categorically: "I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons - biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed" (p. 13).

Kamel specifically discussed the significance of anthrax, which he portrayed as the "main focus" of the biological programme (pp.7-8). Smidovich asked Kamel: "were weapons and agents destroyed?" Kamel replied: "nothing remained".

He confirmed that destruction took place "after visits of inspection teams. You have important role in Iraq with this. You should not underestimate yourself. You are very effective in Iraq." (p.7)

Kamel added: "I made the decision to disclose everything so that Iraq could return to normal." (p.8)

[Mr. Mojo]

It doesn't make sense to me that a murderous dictator like Saddam would willingly destroy his most effective weapons/deterrent. In fact, it would be unprecedented.

In the transcript of the interview, Kamel states categorically: "I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons - biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed"

Admitting Iraq had nukes?

[mtbopfuyn]

nobody remembers thinking that Iraq had WMD in the first place

Especially the UN and Blitz.

[blanknoone]

The soldiers reported they were filled with liquid, something that can be accurately determined without opening them. If not a chemical agent, what exactly was in them?

[billbears]

Perhaps he didn't do it willingly. I would suggest that he may even have thought he had WMDs. Now did he is a different story. The fact is that we have a confession that they were destroyed

[billbears]

Don't know. However after tests performed, as the article says, here, there was no evidence of WMDs

[Mr. Mojo]

The fact is that we have a confession that they were destroyed

The guy said that Iraq had nukes, so I don't exactly trust this confession.

[billbears]

Well whose confession would you trust? Or what facts would you trust? Those coming from the PNAC? National Review? Considering neither of those organizations have the best interest of this nation of states in mind based on previous articles, I'm going to trust hard facts more than I am some talking head. They can't find them!! They weren't sent to another nation, they just weren't there anymore.

I will give you that maybe some didn't get destroyed, there may even be some around here or there, but

A) they are probably not there on the scale that we were told and
B) based on Saddam Hussein's wishes for Iraqis not to ask for help from crazed Muslims, would not have been given into the hands of Muslim terrorists. He did not represent a current and direct threat to this nation of states. Saudi Arabia may, North Korea may, but Iraq?

[Mr. Mojo]

Well whose confession would you trust?

I don't trust confesssions (although one from Saddam himself would be an exception). We know for sure that Iraq had loads of the damned things (confirmed by inspectors, actually), and there are 3 possibilities why we haven't yet found them:

1) They're extraordinarily well-hidden. Remember, bio/chem weapons don't take up much space -- one can hide enough of them to kill millions of people in one small basement. And Iraq is a big place ....the size of CA. So yeah, there's a possibility that'll we'll never find them.

2) Saddam gave them to a 3rd party - probably Ba'athist Syria - for safekeeping until after the war -- a war that an egomaniac like Saddam probably thought he had a very good chance of surviving, as has been his wont.

3) Saddam destroyed his weapons at the UN's request. ....And as I mentioned above, that would be a highly unusual thing for a security-obsessed murderous dictator to do. Incomprehensibe, in fact.

[blanknoone]

Actually, the article did not say there was no evidence of WMDs

It said contained no chemical agents

Most blister agents are not very shelf stable..they deteriotate quickly. It is rhetorically possible that there was WMD residue in the shells, but not a functional WMD.

I know that sounds very conspiratorial, and I generally don't go in for that sort of thing, but I have never heard of a shell with a liquid inside of it that was not chemical. Granted, I am not a mortarman or ordinance expert, but I did command mortarmen, and the only liquid filled shells I can even envision is chemical. Even the illumination rounds are solid.

The other possibility is that the soldiers initial reports of liquid filled are wrong. I cannot see soldiers making that mistake. It is possible that it came from the telephone game of getting information from the source to the public, but even that seems pretty unlikely.

Thus the glaring, and unanswered, question: what was in them? If not chem, what kind of shells were they? Especially since field tests came back with a chemical positive.

[KC Burke]

Buried shells, especially if this was in the marshy part of the border area with Iran, could have had ground water get into the aging shells and remain after the rise and fall of water table, leaving water to breakdown seals and cause chemical breakdown of primer, explosive components and other items, into chemicals that caused a false positive -- corrosives, etc.

[SkyRat]

Sounds good. Best explanation so far.

But I've read the shells have been wrapped in plastic.

On the other hand, ten years is a long time

[blanknoone]

That is a possible explination of the liquid...which I think would have been mentioned. Dissolved explosives would not trigger the chem test kits. But it is possible that is one of at least two seperate things going on.