Apparently WMD Have Been Found!!!!!!
- Thread starter Dreadsox
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Danish troops have found suspicious mortar shells in southern Iraq that officials believe contain blister agents, the United States and Denmark announced Saturday.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, a U.S. Army spokesman, said Saturday that the 120 mm mortars were filled with liquid.
The shells are at least 10 years old, and a U.S. Army official said he suspects the ordnance was surplus from the Iran-Iraq war in the mid-1980s. Blister agents are used in chemical weapons.
A release on the Danish army operational command Web site said that in a routine collection of old ammunition, the 36 heavy mortar grenades were found in a dried-up marsh Friday. They were buried and packed in plastic.
"Most were wrapped in plastic bags, and some were leaking," Kimmitt said.
The shells were found 20 kilometers (12 miles) north of the city of Qurnah by Danish engineers and Icelandic munitions experts.
Several hundred Danish soldiers are working with a British-led multinational force responsible for security in southern Iraq.
Both the U.S. and British governments cited the threat of illicit weapons of mass destruction as a main reason for launching the Iraq war. However, no such weapons have been found so far.
The U.S. pulled 400 weapons-disposal experts from Iraq this month in what The New York Times called "a sign that [the] administration might have lowered its sights." The move raised suspicions that weapons are unlikely to be found.
The White House played down the move, saying the group focused on hunting weapons was remaining in Iraq.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, a U.S. Army spokesman, said Saturday that the 120 mm mortars were filled with liquid.
The shells are at least 10 years old, and a U.S. Army official said he suspects the ordnance was surplus from the Iran-Iraq war in the mid-1980s. Blister agents are used in chemical weapons.
A release on the Danish army operational command Web site said that in a routine collection of old ammunition, the 36 heavy mortar grenades were found in a dried-up marsh Friday. They were buried and packed in plastic.
"Most were wrapped in plastic bags, and some were leaking," Kimmitt said.
The shells were found 20 kilometers (12 miles) north of the city of Qurnah by Danish engineers and Icelandic munitions experts.
Several hundred Danish soldiers are working with a British-led multinational force responsible for security in southern Iraq.
Both the U.S. and British governments cited the threat of illicit weapons of mass destruction as a main reason for launching the Iraq war. However, no such weapons have been found so far.
The U.S. pulled 400 weapons-disposal experts from Iraq this month in what The New York Times called "a sign that [the] administration might have lowered its sights." The move raised suspicions that weapons are unlikely to be found.
The White House played down the move, saying the group focused on hunting weapons was remaining in Iraq.
Last edited:
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Dreadsox said:
Its Official. now.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
So far the claims have been found false...just like all the others.
I hope they do find something. I hope they find the weapons listed that sent us to war. Honestly I hope I'm proven wrong.
I hope they do find something. I hope they find the weapons listed that sent us to war. Honestly I hope I'm proven wrong.
The war happened because of the failure of verifiable disarmament by Saddam.
Do you honestly believe that in the four years from 1998 to 2002 that Saddam willingly but secretly had all of his stocks of WMD destoryed, and if so, why would he not show the remains so he could verifiably show that he had disarmed and avoid his own overthrow and now imprisonment by coalition forces?
Do you honestly believe that in the four years from 1998 to 2002 that Saddam willingly but secretly had all of his stocks of WMD destoryed, and if so, why would he not show the remains so he could verifiably show that he had disarmed and avoid his own overthrow and now imprisonment by coalition forces?
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
I think there was a certain fear factor he had to keep with his neighbors.
This war was going to be his downfall, he was smart enough to know that. If he had any of these weapons, I think we would have used them.
This war was going to be his downfall, he was smart enough to know that. If he had any of these weapons, I think we would have used them.
Such weapons, Chemical and Biological, are really only effective against defenseless civilian populations and not against US forces with protective gear.
In addition, in order to survive the new inspections in 2002 and to make his case to the world that he did not have them, such WMD had to be well hidden. The war started with hours after the inspectors left. Certainly not enough to dig up or set up such stocks for their use on the battlefield or for terrorist uses.
Saddam believed he could sway the anti-war crowd(France, Germany, etc) into helping prevent the invasion. He miscaculated as he has so often done before.
How does one keep a fear factor with ones neighbors if one is claiming they have no WMD at all?
Why would Saddam destroy stocks of WMD but not let anyone know? Why not simply keep them hidden but make the same claim? If one is not going to Verifiably disarm, it makes no sense to disarm at all.
Ultimately, it comes down to whether Saddam complied with the conditions in the 1991 Ceacefire Agreement and he didn't. The resolutions were passed under Chapter VII rules allowing for the use of force to bring about enforcement. Not enforcing the resolutions not only would risk the security of the world, but would make the UN Security Council irrelevant.
Whats the point in passing such serious resolutions if there are no means to enforce them or no one does anything to enforce them despite having the means?
In addition, in order to survive the new inspections in 2002 and to make his case to the world that he did not have them, such WMD had to be well hidden. The war started with hours after the inspectors left. Certainly not enough to dig up or set up such stocks for their use on the battlefield or for terrorist uses.
Saddam believed he could sway the anti-war crowd(France, Germany, etc) into helping prevent the invasion. He miscaculated as he has so often done before.
How does one keep a fear factor with ones neighbors if one is claiming they have no WMD at all?
Why would Saddam destroy stocks of WMD but not let anyone know? Why not simply keep them hidden but make the same claim? If one is not going to Verifiably disarm, it makes no sense to disarm at all.
Ultimately, it comes down to whether Saddam complied with the conditions in the 1991 Ceacefire Agreement and he didn't. The resolutions were passed under Chapter VII rules allowing for the use of force to bring about enforcement. Not enforcing the resolutions not only would risk the security of the world, but would make the UN Security Council irrelevant.
Whats the point in passing such serious resolutions if there are no means to enforce them or no one does anything to enforce them despite having the means?
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
STING2 said:
So then you admit the claims of Saddam being an imminent threat to the U.S. or anyone else for that matter were greatly exageratted?
No
At any time, Saddam could have sent multiple divisons of the Republican Guard across the border into Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey or elsewhere. He could of also attempted to use WMD against large civilian population centers in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel. While such use of WMD would not be a big threat to mobile US forces with protective gear moving across the desert at a rapid pace, such weapons are a massive threat to a densly populated urban area's where civilians are not well protected and are an easy stationary target.
Instead Saddam chose to carefully hide his WMD in an attempt to convince world opinion that he did not have them and there for prevent the invasion from happening in the first place. The cost of this option was not having the WMD available to use if an invasion began. The only effective use of such WMD would have been to use it against Civilian populations in cities in other countries inflicting huge loss of life on the civilian population.
But the WMD would not be effective against well protected, mobile US troops and would not have prevented the downfall of Saddam's regime. Saddam could potentially of killed thousands of civilians in other countries as his regime went down, but instead he chose to carefully hide the means to do this in order to prevent the invasion in the first place. For Saddam personally, this was his best option if he wanted to retain the WMD and similar programs.
Saddam's real best option would have been to have verifiably disarm years ago completely. If he had, he would still be in power today.
At any time, Saddam could have sent multiple divisons of the Republican Guard across the border into Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey or elsewhere. He could of also attempted to use WMD against large civilian population centers in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel. While such use of WMD would not be a big threat to mobile US forces with protective gear moving across the desert at a rapid pace, such weapons are a massive threat to a densly populated urban area's where civilians are not well protected and are an easy stationary target.
Instead Saddam chose to carefully hide his WMD in an attempt to convince world opinion that he did not have them and there for prevent the invasion from happening in the first place. The cost of this option was not having the WMD available to use if an invasion began. The only effective use of such WMD would have been to use it against Civilian populations in cities in other countries inflicting huge loss of life on the civilian population.
But the WMD would not be effective against well protected, mobile US troops and would not have prevented the downfall of Saddam's regime. Saddam could potentially of killed thousands of civilians in other countries as his regime went down, but instead he chose to carefully hide the means to do this in order to prevent the invasion in the first place. For Saddam personally, this was his best option if he wanted to retain the WMD and similar programs.
Saddam's real best option would have been to have verifiably disarm years ago completely. If he had, he would still be in power today.
Klaus
Refugee
Mr. Blair told the public today that WMDs might never bin found, because Iraq is so big and the WMDs are so easy to hide in such a big country...
...so... i thought the coalition had evidence? Pictures of Factories producing WMDs, pictures of places where the WMDs are stored etc? (at least Blair argued that way pro war)
Klaus
...so... i thought the coalition had evidence? Pictures of Factories producing WMDs, pictures of places where the WMDs are stored etc? (at least Blair argued that way pro war)
Klaus
Anitrim,
"Presuming he could find them in such a vast land..."
Tell that to Kurdish civilians and the Iranians.
Klaus,
The only person required to produce evidence of anything was Saddam. Saddam was required to VERIFIABLY disarm and he never did.
UN inspectors documented the amount of WMD Saddam still had up to the end of 1998 when they were forced out and not allowed to come back in by Saddam. Saddam himself admitted to various stockpiles in 1998.
The only thing the coalition needs for authorization to invade is the failure of Saddam to Verifiably disarm, per the ceacefire agreement and multiple UN resolutions.
There were of course many suspected sites in Iraq, but its really impossible(short of a full scale military invasion) to fully Verifiably disarm a person like Saddam without their cooperation. Area's that could have been producing WMD could be swept clean or area's where such WMD was stored at one time could have been cleaned up as well.
This was the reason that Rumsfeld and Cheney did not want to have another round of inspections, because they would be essentially useless because Saddam never had any intention of fully cooperating. But Powell pressed for them and got them, not because they would be useful in actually disarming Saddam, but because they would be effective in building global support for military action, once it became clear that Saddam had no intention of Verifiably disarming.
"Presuming he could find them in such a vast land..."
Tell that to Kurdish civilians and the Iranians.
Klaus,
The only person required to produce evidence of anything was Saddam. Saddam was required to VERIFIABLY disarm and he never did.
UN inspectors documented the amount of WMD Saddam still had up to the end of 1998 when they were forced out and not allowed to come back in by Saddam. Saddam himself admitted to various stockpiles in 1998.
The only thing the coalition needs for authorization to invade is the failure of Saddam to Verifiably disarm, per the ceacefire agreement and multiple UN resolutions.
There were of course many suspected sites in Iraq, but its really impossible(short of a full scale military invasion) to fully Verifiably disarm a person like Saddam without their cooperation. Area's that could have been producing WMD could be swept clean or area's where such WMD was stored at one time could have been cleaned up as well.
This was the reason that Rumsfeld and Cheney did not want to have another round of inspections, because they would be essentially useless because Saddam never had any intention of fully cooperating. But Powell pressed for them and got them, not because they would be useful in actually disarming Saddam, but because they would be effective in building global support for military action, once it became clear that Saddam had no intention of Verifiably disarming.
Anitrim,
"Why? Have they found them?"
"I'm not talking about 15-20 years ago, but today."
The UN inspectors and Saddam himself both confirmed the fact that Iraq still had large stockpiles of Biological and Chemical weapons in late 1998.
The inspectors were kicked out at that point and only returned in 2002.
Per multiple UN Security Council Resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement, Saddam was required to VERIFIABLY Disarm of all WMD.
Has Saddam VERIFIABLY Disarmed of all WMD? If Saddam destroyed the WMD he was proven to have in 1998, where is the Evidence?
It is Saddam's responsibility to verifiably disarm of all WMD.
"Why? Have they found them?"
"I'm not talking about 15-20 years ago, but today."
The UN inspectors and Saddam himself both confirmed the fact that Iraq still had large stockpiles of Biological and Chemical weapons in late 1998.
The inspectors were kicked out at that point and only returned in 2002.
Per multiple UN Security Council Resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement, Saddam was required to VERIFIABLY Disarm of all WMD.
Has Saddam VERIFIABLY Disarmed of all WMD? If Saddam destroyed the WMD he was proven to have in 1998, where is the Evidence?
It is Saddam's responsibility to verifiably disarm of all WMD.
Basstrap
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2000
- Messages
- 10,726
okay...lets move onto our next country with a horrible human rights record...
we're gonna be going to war for years and years
we're gonna be going to war for years and years
DrTeeth
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Rono
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Cell phones are dangerous,.....
Last edited:
Similar threads
