WMD in Iraq

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
bigflamer wrote:

Bush has consistantly stated that the war on terror would be a long, drawn out, very difficult undertaking.

The Iraq war has nothing to do with the war on terror, and has no effect on whether terrorists hit us or not.

You are showing a fundamental misunderstanding.

You could make a case that invading Iraq was not necessary for the war on terror but right now Iraq is in the middle of the war on terror.

I understand that.

However, they are in a civil war right now. It will worsen whether or not we are there, and I think that at this point, we don’t have much control over the situation (I don’t think it’s possible to have control over a foreign nation that is in as bad shape as Iraq is).

I’m going to post up the recent TIME article that is an excerpt from a new book coming out. The terrorists had every plan to bomb the NYC subways in 2003, and nothing stood in their way. For some reason, they called it off.

Again, living right next to the city, it scares the shit out of me. They found out about this by using the intelligence community in the right way…it had nothing to do with the war.

I wonder what would happen now if we got hit again, after all this bloodshed in the “War on Terror”. Would this prove that Iraq and Islamic terrorism are not intertwined in the way it seems? [/quote]

Supposedly the guys who were going to bomb the subways in US were involved in the London Underground bombings, at least according to the recent press. Supposedly CIA knew did not tell MI6 etc, etc.

62

[quote]harris447 wrote:
So, according to all the cheerleaders, we found some WMD’s.

They were from 15 or 20 years ago, but still…

Yet, the Bush administration (always ones to toot their own horn) have mentioned nothing about this.

I wonder why?[/quote]

Pick me! Pick me! Are these the ones we supplied him with?

63

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
bigflamer wrote:

Bush has consistantly stated that the war on terror would be a long, drawn out, very difficult undertaking.

The Iraq war has nothing to do with the war on terror, and has no effect on whether terrorists hit us or not. [/quote]

Well, this forum has debated quite extensively in the past on the finer points of whether Iraq was a fundamental part of the war on terror so I doubt I will change your mind at this stage of the game.

I believe however, that Iraq was an important step in our war on terror for all of the reasons that you don’t believe. We did find WMD’s (although not to the extent that some expected), we know that he had the intent, the will, and desire to wage chemical warfare on not only the west, but his own people.

Not to mention that we’ve still never disproved the plausable theory that WMD’s were shipped out prior to invasion. Saddam also proved that he could muster the resources to support terror with the oil for food program, a program which also proved that the UN does not give a shit about the security of the US, but rather the sweet deals they could get with Iraq under the table. So much for sanctions.

I know we’re not going to agree on this, but I’m glad we brought the fight to the enemy and made Iraq the frontline on the war on terror. By going on the offensive early, we put terror on defense. We picked the location of the battle and set the stage, and that, IMO, is a good thing.

Yes Iraq’s reconstruction has proven to be more difficult than we imagined, we underestimated the ability of the insurgency, and yes, the Bush administration made some mistakes in post war Iraq. But we’re driving on and hopefully we’ll make the right adjustments that will prove beneficial to both the US and the new government in Iraq.

Like I said, I doubt that we’re going to see eye to eye on this issue ever, but I personally hope that we can provide enough support on the homefront to allow us to finish the job in Iraq, and not diminish the sacrifice of all of the brave men and women who gave their lives in service.

I hope we don’t cut and run in the face of adversity.

-Bigflamer

64

[quote]vroom wrote:
harris447 wrote:
So, according to all the cheerleaders, we found some WMD’s.

They were from 15 or 20 years ago, but still…

Yet, the Bush administration (always ones to toot their own horn) have mentioned nothing about this.

I wonder why?

Pick me! Pick me! Are these the ones we supplied him with?[/quote]

Ssshhhhhhh!!!

65

At least the Senate had a moment of clarity and soundly defeated the ABBer’s bill to set a firm withdrawal date.

66

[quote]rainjack wrote:
At least the Senate had a moment of clarity and soundly defeated the ABBer’s bill to set a firm withdrawal date.
[/quote]

Just thinking… in the next election… the winner will indeed be ABB. Ahahahaha. There’s going to be a lot of happy people even if gumby is elected president.

67

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
You could make a case that invading Iraq was not necessary for the war on terror but right now Iraq is in the middle of the war on terror.[/quote]

That is our fault unfortunately.

I can’t believe you just admitted that.

It must have been a momentary lapse of reason.

68

[quote]rainjack wrote:
At least the Senate had a moment of clarity and soundly defeated the ABBer’s bill to set a firm withdrawal date.
[/quote]

The sponsor of one of the abb bills, carllevin, was claiming a victory today. He said he was celebrating the fact that most of the democratic senators voted for his proposal.

I’m comfortable with that “victory.” The same kind of “victory” claimed by francinebusby when she lost by 5% points to Bilbray.

Let’s keep up the strong work, dems.

JeffR

69

[quote]JeffR wrote:
The sponsor of one of the abb bills, carllevin, was claiming a victory today. He said he was celebrating the fact that most of the democratic senators voted for his proposal.

I’m comfortable with that “victory.” The same kind of “victory” claimed by francinebusby when she lost by 5% points to Bilbray.

Let’s keep up the strong work, dems.

JeffR
[/quote]

Wave those pom-poms Jerffy.

70

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
You could make a case that invading Iraq was not necessary for the war on terror but right now Iraq is in the middle of the war on terror.

That is our fault unfortunately.

I can’t believe you just admitted that.

It must have been a momentary lapse of reason.

[/quote]

LOL

71

Jerfy just e-mailed me his picture…

72

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
You could make a case that invading Iraq was not necessary for the war on terror but right now Iraq is in the middle of the war on terror.

That is our fault unfortunately.

I can’t believe you just admitted that.

It must have been a momentary lapse of reason.

LOL[/quote]

The fact that Zap fell off message is amusing but the topic is not.

73

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Jerfy just e-mailed me his picture…[/quote]

I think Jerffy is the dude with glasses and the string from his tampon dangling down the front of his shorts…

74

Hey, marma-prick!!!

That’s great!!!

Wanted to share with everyone the picture marm sent me from his suite in the Blue Oyster.

Let’s hear it for Mr. Independent!!!

JeffR

75

The real WMD…

UK radiation jump blamed on Iraq shells
The Sunday Times
February 19, 2006
RADIATION detectors in Britain recorded a fourfold increase in uranium levels in the atmosphere after the “shock and awe” bombing campaign against Iraq, according to a report.

Environmental scientists who uncovered the figures through freedom of information laws say it is evidence that depleted uranium from the shells was carried by wind currents to Britain.

Heads Roll At The Veterans Administration: Mushrooming Depleted Uranium (DU) Scandal Blamed
January 24, 2005 – The Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter today charged that the reason Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi stepped down earlier this month was the growing scandal surrounding the use of uranium munitions (DU) in the Iraq War.

Writing in the Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter # 169, Arthur N. Bernklau, Executive Director of the Veterans For Constitutional Law Center in New York, stated that “The real reason for Mr. Principi’s departure was really never given, however a special report published by eminent scientist Leuren Moret’s naming depleted uranium as the definitive cause of the ‘Gulf War Syndrome’ has fed a growing scandal about the continued use of uranium munitions by the US Military.”

Bernklau continued “This malady [from uranium munitions], that thousands of our military have suffered and died from, has finally been identified as the cause of this sickness, eliminating the guessing. The terrible truth is now being revealed.”

He added that "Out of the 580,400 soldiers who served in GW1, of them, 11,000 are now dead. By the year 2000, there were 325,000 on Permanent Medical Disability. This astounding number of “Disabled Vets” means that a decade later, 56% of those soldiers who served have some form of permanent medical problems. (Author’s note: The “Disabled” rate for the wars of the last century was 5%, and 10% in Viet Nam)

Bernklau added “The VA Secretary (Principi) was aware of this fact as far back as 2000. He and the Bush administration have been hiding these facts, but now, thanks to Moret’s report, [it]… is far too big to hide or to cover up!”

"Terry Jamison, Public Affairs Specialist, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, Department of Veterans Affairs, at the VA Central Office, recently reported that “Gulf Era Veterans” now on medical disability since 1991, numbers 518,739 Veterans," said Berklau.

“The long-term effects have revealed that DU [uranium oxide] is a virtual death sentence,” stated Berklau. “Marion Fulk, a nuclear physical chemist, who retired from the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab, and was also involved with the Manhattan Project, interprets the new and rapid malignancies in the soldiers (from the 2003 Iraq War) as ‘spectacular… and a matter of concern.’”

When asked if the main purpose for using it was for “destroying things and killing people,” Fulk was more specific: “I would say it is the perfect weapon for killing lots of people.”

Mr. Principi could not be reached for comment prior to deadline. A follow-up article will strive to obtain a response from Mr. Principi or from the VA.
http://www.axisoflogic.com/cgi-bin/exec/view.pl?archive=137&num=15334&printer=1

Contamination of Persian Gulf War Veterans and Others by Depleted Uranium
by Leonard A. Dietz
July 19, 1996 (last updated Feb. 21, 1999)
http://www.wise-uranium.org/dgvd.html

Researchers Claim Birth Defects Rising Across Southern & Central Iraq
In the wake of the 2003 attacks on Iraq, the anticipated rise in birth defects has begun, according to IRIN News. After analysing records from public hospitals around the country, researchers from Baghdad University have shown that the long-documented rise in deformities in the southern region of the country has spread to the capital, Baghdad.
http://www.cadu.org.uk/info/iraq/21_1.htm

Warning: Extremely graphic and bizarre pics
EXTREME BIRTH DEFORMITIES
“Unborn children of the region [are] being asked to pay the highest price, the integrity of their DNA.”

I think it’s safe to say there will be NO “winners” in Iraq… or possibly anywhere for that matter.

76

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
The real WMD…
[/quote]

Holy shit. I really hope this is wrong.

77

[quote]vroom wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
The real WMD…

Holy shit. I really hope this is wrong.[/quote]

Yeah, me too… unfortunately the evidence doesn’t bode well.

78

There is a theme that is missing here. 500 chemical weapons containers (particularly those that are not usable) do not constitute a massively destructive capability.

If you think about it, the MD portion of WMD is really the most important part of the phrase WMD. Otherwise you just have W. And everyone has W in their kitchens and tool boxes.

So, yes, Iraq had W. They just didn’t have any MD.

79

[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
There is a theme that is missing here. 500 chemical weapons containers (particularly those that are not usable) do not constitute a massively destructive capability.

If you think about it, the MD portion of WMD is really the most important part of the phrase WMD. Otherwise you just have W. And everyone has W in their kitchens and tool boxes.

So, yes, Iraq had W. They just didn’t have any MD.

[/quote]

Hey Todd.

Thanks for your input. Perhaps you were watching the House Armed Services Committee meeting today? No. Let me fill you in on the details. They were WMD. They were still dangerous.

There has been a lot of noise about how certain officials disavowed WMD found last week. I’ve been asking who these “officials” were. No answer.

Here is the Department of Defense official response to this TODAY.

"Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 ? The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center’s commander said here today.
“These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes … they do constitute weapons of mass destruction,” Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.

The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.

The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.

“Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent,” he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person’s lungs.

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.

While that’s reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. “We’re talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect,” he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.

This is true even considering any degradation of the chemical agents that may have occurred, Chu said. It’s not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it’s still toxic.

“Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic,” he said. “Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal.”

Though about 500 chemical weapons - the exact number has not been released publicly - have been found, Maples said he doesn’t believe Iraq is a “WMD-free zone.”

“I do believe the former regime did a very poor job of accountability of munitions, and certainly did not document the destruction of munitions,” he said. “The recovery program goes on, and I do not believe we have found all the weapons.”

The Defense Intelligence Agency director said locating and disposing of chemical weapons in Iraq is one of the most important tasks servicemembers in the country perform.

Maples added searches are ongoing for chemical weapons beyond those being conducted solely for force protection.

There has been a call for a complete declassification of the National Ground Intelligence Center’s report on WMD in Iraq. Maples said he believes the director of national intelligence is still considering this option, and has asked Maples to look into producing an unclassified paper addressing the subject matter in the center’s report.

Much of the classified matter was slated for discussion in a closed forum after the open hearings this morning."

If there are any open minded people on the left, they can google to read the fascinating hearing today.

I know you won’t, but hope springs eternal!!!

JeffR

80

From Today’s Defensenews.com

Exposure to Old Iraqi Chemical Rounds Could Prove Lethal: General

By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Exposure to chemical munitions found in Iraq could potentially be lethal, even in their degraded state, but insurgents are not actively using them, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency said June 29.
Lt. Gen. Michael Maples said insurgents have used high explosive rounds ?almost entirely? in making improvised explosive devices, and chemical weapons have been responsible for no deaths of U.S. service members in Iraq.
?The rounds in this report were found in a condition that we believe could not be used with their original intent,? he told the House Armed Services Committee.
?So to answer your question I would say I would fire the high explosive rounds,? the general said.
Republicans have portrayed the disclosure that U.S. forces have recovered about 500 chemical rounds in Iraq since 2004 as evidence of the weapons of mass destruction threat that justified the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.
In his testimony, Maples threaded cautiously between Republican efforts to highlight the threat posed by the munitions, and challenges by Democrats to their being labeled ?weapons of mass destruction.?
He said most of the 500 chemical rounds recovered by U.S. forces in Iraq since 2004 were made in the mid-1980s and all were assessed to have been produced before the 1991 Gulf War.
They contained sarin nerve agent or mustard agent in varying degrees of purity. Tests are being conducted to determine how degraded the agents have become over a period of at least 15 years.
?The agents within those munitions are still toxic and if exposed to them in enough of a degree would prove to be lethal,? said Col. John Chu, the head of the National Ground Intelligence Center that gathered the information on the munitions.
?We do believe they are hazardous and potentially lethal,? Maples said.
Maples also expressed concern that the chemical agents from degraded munitions might be combined in some other kind of weapon.
?This is a hypothetical situation, but if you take the aggregate amount there and use it and package it in a different way or a different form, that in fact it could be very hazardous and lethal,? he said.
Use of such a hypothetical weapon in a metropolitan area ?conceivably would have a very large impact,? Maples said. ?You are talking about chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect.?

JeffR