Chemical weapons confirmed in Iraq

kafromTN · #1 05-17-2004, 06:25 PM

According to this article sarin&mustard gas were confirmed to have been found in Iraq.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

Does this change your opinion on the Iraq war?

The1calledTKE · #2 05-17-2004, 06:32 PM

One shell? And no amount mustard gas listed? And the article said it hasn't been independantly confirmed yet.

"However, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the results were from a field test, which can be imperfect, and said more analysis was needed. If confirmed, it would be the first finding of a banned weapon upon which the United States based its case for war. "

This has happen before shortly after the war and after the independant non field test came back it turned out not to be.

If it does come back that it is sarin then Bush has something to stand on when it comes to WMD's.

I myself would have to see them find alot more than a few shells filled with chemical weapons before I would say Bush's reason for war was justifed .

Rudey · #3 05-17-2004, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The1calledTKE
If it does come back that it is sarin then Bush has something to stand on when it comes to WMD's.

I myself would have to see them find alot more than a few shells filled with chemical weapons before I would say Bush's reason for war was justifed .

A) Why is this just a Bush thing?

B) First you say that it stands if they determine it is sarin, but then you say that it won't stand no matter what because it has to be "more than a few shells filled with chemical weapons". The two seem to conflict.

-Rudey

The1calledTKE · #4 05-17-2004, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rudey
A) Why is this just a Bush thing?

B) First you say that it stands if they determine it is sarin, but then you say that it won't stand no matter what because it has to be "more than a few shells filled with chemical weapons". The two seem to conflict.

-Rudey

Well even one shell of sarin would help the Bush administration pr wise because one is better than nothing.

The needing more than one shell is my personal belief.

swissmiss04 · #5 05-17-2004, 07:50 PM

Where would the Iraqis get mustard gas and sarin? Maybe from what we gave them back in the early 80s when they were fighting Iran? Or not. They definitely need to find where this stuff came from.

PhiPsiRuss · #6 05-17-2004, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The1calledTKE
Well even one shell of sarin would help the Bush administration pr wise because one is better than nothing.

The needing more than one shell is my personal belief.

Do you honestly believe that there is only one shell, and that this only shell with sarin would be used in a road side bombing? Zero shells is far more believable than one shell. Now that one has been found (and a NYT reporter on the Newshour on PBS just confirmed that it is real,) the question should be, "where is the rest?"

The1calledTKE · #7 05-17-2004, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by PhiPsiRuss
Do you honestly believe that there is only one shell, and that this only shell with sarin would be used in a road side bombing? Zero shells is far more believable than one shell. Now that one has been found (and a NYT reporter on the Newshour on PBS just confirmed that it is real,) the question should be, "where is the rest?"

Oh there probably are some more. I doubt they will ever find the stock piles they claimed to have when Powell went to the UN before the war.

Colin Powell: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent."

edited to add quote from UN speach.

James · #8 05-17-2004, 09:59 PM

Well I never had a real problem with going into IRaq. If the administration wants to kill arabs and take over the country, thats ok with me.

I have problems with using things like WMD as an excuse to do it. Especially if we don't find any

.

It insults our intellegence. Just tell us we are doing it because we can, and I am on board.

Its not right against wrong here, its us against them, and that should be simple enough for everyone to grasp.

DeltAlum · #9 05-17-2004, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by PhiPsiRuss
Do you honestly believe that there is only one shell, and that this only shell with sarin would be used in a road side bombing?

James comment above regarding WMD's (not the comment about killing Arabs) is pretty much how I think on this issue.

Regarding the gas shell, the US Spokesgeneral (Kimmit, I beleive) said early on that the Army feels that this was a shell somehow left over from before the first Gulf War, and that the people who planted it probably had no idea that there was gas in it.

Nobody disputes that Saddam had WMD's back then. That does not mean that there are any in usable quantities now.

Proof needs to be a lot stronger than that. Sorry.

RACooper · #10 05-17-2004, 11:25 PM

One shell does not a stockpile make....

More than likely it was detrius of a previous war (Iran or Gulf I), which of its self is not that damning, afterall more chemical shells have been turned up this year in France left over from WWI.

DeltAlum · #11 05-18-2004, 12:13 AM

Which is what the General said -- even FOX reported it that way. Sort of.

swissmiss04 · #12 05-18-2004, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The1calledTKE
Oh there probably are some more. I doubt they will ever find the stock piles they claimed to have when Powell went to the UN before the war.

Colin Powell: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent."

edited to add quote from UN speach.

How does one go about hiding 100-500 tons of chemical weapons? Furthermore, how is it that we haven't found them? We've bombed the hell out of Iraq and been pretty much everywhere, yet we still haven't found them. Doesn't sound like a conservative estimate to me.

Kevin · #13 05-18-2004, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by swissmiss04
How does one go about hiding 100-500 tons of chemical weapons? Furthermore, how is it that we haven't found them? We've bombed the hell out of Iraq and been pretty much everywhere, yet we still haven't found them. Doesn't sound like a conservative estimate to me.

One moves them to Syria and buries them where US troops aren't able to look.

AlphaSigOU · #14 05-18-2004, 09:04 AM

What's not generally reported is that the contents of the mustard gas shell had already crystallized, rendering it useless. Mustard gas has a limited 'shelf life' if stored improperly.

Jadey28 · #15 05-18-2004, 09:52 AM

hijack...

Mustard "gas" will not crystalize. Mustard is a thick, syrupy substance that will break down into hydrocholoric acid and thiodiglycol when sodium hydroxide and water are added. This process is called hydroloysis. Mustard is dependant on pH and moisture and can remain active up to three years in soil. Mustard will not decompose until reaching the temperature of 300-351 degrees F.

and others concluded the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective." ~ very misleading statement. Optimal conditions might not have existed, however, mustard doesn't 'deactivate' itself. For instance, if the mustard is stored in cold conditions, it will remain a solid substance, thus decreasing exposure to anyone. If mustard is stored in hot conditions, it will liquify (think runny syrup) yet remain stable.

Sorry, I deal with the Chemical Warfare Agents on a daily basis and I wanted to correct what the article had implied.

end hijack