 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« The Workerless Recovery | Main | Iraq and Oklahoma City » May 17, 2004Yet More WMD in Iraq For The Left To DenySarin nerve gas - a weapon of mass destruction - found in a roadside bomb in Iraq. UPDATE: The AP reports: "U.S. officials said Monday they are concerned that other sarin-filled munitions may still exist in Iraq and may not be well marked after evidence indicated a roadside shell that exploded contained the nerve agent." But of course Saddam had no WMD. Posted in Weapons of Mass Destruction
| Linked By |
Please support HobbsOnline by doing your online shopping at Amazon.com Comments
an old , rusting , USA provided sarin chemical shell , with a range of 15 klm , and you call that a WMD ? I think you have lost touch with reality...want to find real WMD in the middle east ? nuclear ? biological? bacteriolical ? Israel is the only place you will find them . Posted by: mario at May 17, 2004 10:51 AMThis is funny. I read this this morning: A roadside bomb containing a small amount of the nerve agent Sarin has detonated near a U.S. military convoy in Iraq. There were no U.S. casualties and a "very small" amount of the gas was dispersed, according to Coalition spokesmen. 1523 GMT And I wondered how long it would take for someone to tout this as "proof of WMD". That was quick. I'm impressed. Posted by: Chris Wage at May 17, 2004 10:54 AMWhat a pathetic post. Looser, do you still think WMD will be found? When will Bush start to apologize to the rest of the world for destroying the world economy,invading a souvereign country and worsening relations with the Middele East? Posted by: Ben at May 17, 2004 11:06 AMan old , rusting , USA provided sarin chemical shell , with a range of 15 klm , and you call that a WMD ?First, unless you have proof of the shell having a Made in the USA sticker, STFU. Second, Iraq was banned from having this, period. And I wondered how long it would take for someone to tout this as "proof of WMD". That was quick. I'm impressed.Almost as fast as the left moved the goalposts as to what defines a NBC weapon. You don't make sarin in 2 litre quantities for a single shell. When will Bush start to apologize to the rest of the world for destroying the world economy,invading a souvereign country and worsening relations with the Middele East?How about after someone apologizes for ramming planes into the WTC, the Pentagon, and a field in Pa? Posted by: Marble at May 17, 2004 11:34 AM The existence of warehouses full of WMD was not required for legal justification for the war. All that was required was Saddam's failure to comply with UN Res. 1441. The list of ways Saddam failed to comply with UN Res. 1441 is extremely long. David Kay and, subsequently, Charles Duelfer of the Iraq Survey Group, have found proof of numerous such violations - ongoing clandestine weapons research, etc... We had casus belli. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at May 17, 2004 11:43 AMIt doesn't matter how much we find at this point. The Left has made its judgement. Posted by: CJ at May 17, 2004 11:56 AMBill -
While I agree that this does suggest that not all of Saddam's chemical weapons were destroyed, it does not prove much. This looks like an old war weapon left of over from the 80s. Probably missed during the cleanup of these weapons ten years ago - sitting in some rusting cache of old weapons... Clearly this does not show that Saddam had any meanacing WMD programs when we invaded. To suggest that would be pretty silly... Don't you think? Posted by: a. at May 17, 2004 11:58 AMWell, of course it is silly to suggest one old shell is proof Saddam "had any meanacing WMD programs when we invaded." But there are those on the Left who deny he ever had any "menacing" WMD programs (gassed Kurds nothwithstanding). And the war was not based on "menacing" programs. It was based on preventing his programs from every BECOMING menacing (to U.S.). Remember, Bush said we must act BEFORE the threat was imminent. And we did. And we had a legal right to do so, given his flagrant violations of all applicable U.N. resolutions including 1441, and his flagrant violations of the cease-fire terms that halted Gulf War 1. As for WMD, the Kay report and subsequent reports from his successor, Duelger, provided about DOZENS of examples of ongoing clandestine WMD work, including labs where chem/bio WMD were tested on human subjects. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at May 17, 2004 12:05 PMBut there are those on the Left who deny he ever had any "menacing" WMD programs (gassed Kurds nothwithstanding). Who? I've never heard this before. In fact, most of the people on "the Left" were the ones clamoring for action 10-15 years ago when he actually was an acting threat. (Example: ken roth and and HRW) Posted by: Chris Wage at May 17, 2004 12:18 PMWhat a pathetic post. Looser, do you still think WMD will be found? Really, more pathetic is people who - after all these years - still can't spell "loser". Posted by: Barry at May 17, 2004 12:33 PMIn re the first comment: What is it with the antiwar left and rust? Every damned time some suspicious shell crops up, someone on the left chimes in with, "So you think a few rust old shells were worth going to war over?" You thought al Qaeda nearly brought off a huge chemical attack in Amman a couple of weeks ago? Ha! Fool, their containers were rusty! Posted by: JPS at May 17, 2004 12:39 PMDid I miss something? Where was the Sarin-laden artillery shell described as old and rusting? Did a terrorist give it to a reporter to examine before he set it up to kill Americans? Did someone see it before it was destroyed? Could it have been old and in good shape? New and rusty? New and shiny? Anyone? But Chris is right...this was only ONE shell with a small amount of deadly gas. Most countries with chemical weapons only produce them one at a time, so it's likely that Iraq had only this ONE shell. And now it's destroyed, so that means Iraq is free of all WMD capable delivery devices and deadly chemicals, right? On to the world economy...wow, Bush has not only destroyed our economy, but the world's, too. Indian stock market collapse? Bush. Stagnant economies in Germany and France due to crushing socialist policies, runaway immigration, and high taxes? All Bush. Yup. Wait...what's this? Holy recovery, Batman, but America's economy is BACK and STRONGER than ever! Egad! Maybe if we don't report it, nobody will notice.... Now if we could just do something about our worsening relations with the Middle East. Let's see...all convert to Islam? Too easy. Let Arabia invade Israel and destroy it? Nah, that would backfire and Israel would occupy all the land from northern Syria to Morocco. How about this? How about we teach Muslims how to get along with their neighbors in Chechnya, the Middle East, India, the Phillipines, the Sudan and Malaysia? Nah, too unrealistic. Maybe we could all stop breathing? That might make the Arab Street happy...for a while. Posted by: Ivan at May 17, 2004 01:38 PMIn fact, most of the people on "the Left" were the ones clamoring for action 10-15 years ago when he actually was an acting threat. (Example: ken roth and and HRW) Ah. Yes. The myth-making begins. I remember what the left was saying 10-15 years ago. You know, around the Gulf War. It was a mix of "let sanctions work!" and "all the Middle East borders are artificial, anyway, who cares if Kuwait's part of Iraq" and -- a personal favorite -- "no war for salad shooters!" I remember pointing out Saddam's history of atrocities back then, and getting shrugs in return. The left wasn't much interested in hearing about that, even though the sources were overwhelmingly on the left. Maybe Ken Roth and HRW were calling for Saddam's removal 10-15 years ago. I dunno; I couldn't hear them over the choirs of "Give Peace a Chance". Posted by: Robert Crawford at May 17, 2004 01:48 PMI'm not sure what to make of this but from my rudimentary training in NBC from the start of the Gulf War, nerve agents made 10-15 years ago were not stable enough to make it this long. I wonder when this shell was really made, where it was made, and who provided it to the people who employed it. Posted by: jcrue at May 17, 2004 02:03 PMI'm thinking this one shell could optimally produce about a liter of Sarin. On a battlefield, that ain't much but I seem to remember the Aum Shinrikyo subway gassings used several devices spraying fractional OUNCES of vapor. Let's say the shell or it's contents was to make it's way to, I don't know, The Mall of America (That would be a good place for it! sez the Anti-Capitalist Left) and it is successfully introduced into the ductwork. Thousands would meet their end and not easily. Would this justify the predations of Evil Boosh? Would anything? Posted by: megapotamus at May 17, 2004 02:16 PMOoops, my bad. Apparently a 155 mm shell contains about 5 liters of combined agent. So let's hit 5 soft targets simultaneously. The Superdome offers excellent potential. Maybe some large commencement or several high school graduations (it is the season) in enclosed spaces; that would be a breeze, no? Posted by: megapotamus at May 17, 2004 02:26 PM"But there are those on the Left who deny he ever had any "menacing" WMD programs" I have never heard this sentiment stated before, and I frequent Atrios and many other very popular Lefty sites. "And the war was not based on "menacing" programs" Here are some neat quotes: "We are greatly concerned about any possible linkup between terrorists and regimes that have or seek weapons of mass destruction...In the case of Saddam Hussein, we've got a dictator who is clearly pursuing and already possesses some of these weapons.." "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." "Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have" "The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons." "After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more." "[Iraq] has rebuilt its civilian chemical infrastructure and renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard, sarin, and VX. It actively maintains all key aspects of its offensive BW [biological weapons] program." "The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it" "We know for a fact that there are weapons there." "I am absolutely convinced, based on the information that’s been given to me, that the weapon of mass destruction which can kill more people than an atomic bomb -- that is, biological weapons -- is in the hands of the leadership of Iraq." "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." "And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." "Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly" "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." I don't know about you, but when I read these quotes I think about shells and missiles loaded with biological and chemical warfare agents, ready to be launched at American troops on the ground. Cheney's statement that Iraq has probably reconstituted nuclear weapons makes me think of a functioning nuclear warhead, ready to be detonated at will. How are the programs outlined in the quotes above not menacing? And where are these weapons? Ok, so a shell containing 5 liters of sarin gas can kill a lot of people. Why were the troops defusing it only treated for 'minor exposure?' If it blew up in their faces, I would expect something more severe. Quote from a senior defense official: "The area that was affected was very minor," Kimmitt said. "There's no need for any further decontamination. The [ordnance team] people who went up there showed some minor traces of exposure, but it was so minor the doctors already have these people released." Posted by: Bolo at May 17, 2004 02:57 PM"I'm thinking this one shell could optimally produce about a liter of Sarin. On a battlefield, that ain't much but I seem to remember the Aum Shinrikyo subway gassings used several devices spraying fractional OUNCES of vapor..." Yep, it was Sarin. It was a little more than fractional ounces, but that hardly matters: "Just a quart of Sarin contains about 1 million lethal doses, according to the Stimson Center. Sarin gas is lethal from either skin contact or inhalation. The rate of action is swift, causing complete incapacitation within 1 to 10 minutes. Lethal effects take 2 to 15 minutes, depending on the contact. Sarin blocks the action of a body enzyme necessary for the transmission of nerve impulses. In Tokyo, the subway riders first experienced blurred vision and contraction of the pupils. They then had runny noses and tightness in their chests, soon followed by nausea and vomiting. Eventually, when the Sarin reached skeletal muscles, twitching and convulsions occurred. Their heart rates fluctuated wildly, they lost consciousness and had full seizures. For those who came in direct contact, there was paralysis and then death. That thousands did not die in Tokyo was attributed to botched chemistry. Aum Shinrikyo developed an impure mixture of the agent." 5 liters is quite a lot, but the question still remains as to why the soldiers were treated for only a small exposure... We need more details. Posted by: Bolo at May 17, 2004 04:03 PM5 liters is quite a lot, but the question still remains as to why the soldiers were treated for only a small exposure... We need more details. Might want to actually read the article before demanding more details: "The shell was an older round with two compartments containing two chemical components that need to be mixed before the agent is produced, Kimmitt said. It was designed to work after being fired from an artillery cannon and the ability to mix and distribute the gas from an improvised explosive device is ``very limited,'' Kimmitt said."
Ah, missed that part. Turns out it was also a controlled demolition, so people weren't necessarily standing right near it when it went off. Posted by: Bolo at May 17, 2004 05:38 PMI also heard (but haven't found an article on it yet) that apparently along with the announcement of this sarin shell, they announced that they had discovered some mustard gas last week. I'll post a link when I find one. Posted by: Big Dog at May 17, 2004 08:18 PM"U.S. officials said Monday they are concerned that other sarin-filled munitions may still exist in Iraq and may not be well marked...." May not be well marked? Are they expecting big signs saying "WMDs here" with a big red arrow? Posted by: Shto Eta at May 18, 2004 07:33 AMI work for a government agency that monitors one of the chemical weapons incinerators where we are destroying our chemical weapons here in the US. I have noticed a lot of misconceptions about the nature of chemical weapons here on this thread and on a number of others (ESPECIALLY on the DU threads! :p). This was a 155 millimeter artillery shell containing a binary form of the nerve gas "Sarin" (also called GB). A lot of these misconceptions can be cleared up with a small amount of knowledge. "Why didn't it kill the soldiers trying to disarm it?" or "Why were there only small exposures?" This has less to do with the controlled detonation than the binary nature of the agent. The way that a binary artillery shell works is that it contains 2 chemicals that, when mixed, become the chemical agent in question. The chemicals are mixed by the shock caused by the firing of the shell. When the shell reaches the target, a small explosive charge (called a "burster") blows the shell apart, releasing the gas. What appears to have happened in this case was the burster was detonated PRIOR to the mixing of the chemical (which makes sense, considering that the shell was never fired). As a result, the two compounds were dispersed independently and the only mixing that occurred was in vapor form in the atmosphere. Because the compunds are designed to be mixed in certain concentrations in an enclosed space while being "stirred" by the spinning of the shell, such a scenario is about as far from optimal as you can possibly get, so only a tiny amount of gas was formed. "The GB was really old, that's why it didn't hurt anyone" Right now, the US is destroying GB munitions that were filled in the late 50s and early 60s. Most are still nearly as potent as the day they were produced. The info you hear about how quickly GB deteriorates is based on exposure to oxygen in the environment, which is not true when it is packaged in a munition. In addition, binary agent is more stable than the type we used in most of our munitions. Posted by: HWWorker at May 18, 2004 07:42 AM"May not be well marked? Are they expecting big signs saying "WMDs here" with a big red arrow?" That means the shells themselves may not be marked. We mark all of out shells with distinctive markings so that the users, incventory clerks, etc. will know that it is a chemical munition. Apparently the Iraqis were not so safety concscious. Posted by: HWWorker at May 18, 2004 07:47 AM>>>Cheney's statement that Iraq has probably reconstituted nuclear weapons makes me think of a functioning nuclear warhead, ready to be detonated at will. You should Google the Cheney statement. It was made in the middle of a long exposition on Saddam's nuclear weapons "programs" during a live interview. Much ado was made about it, but it was clear, and was confirmed by Cheney within hours of the interview, that it was a slip of the tongue. In that one sentence he said "nuclear weapons" instead of "nuclear weapons programs." I asked this same question elsewhere today: Where are the people who know where the WMD's are hidden? Don't tell me they are afraid they will be harmed if they tell, because it should be no problem to provide for their anonymity and safety. Posted by: SemiPundit at May 19, 2004 11:51 AM"All that was required was Saddam's failure to comply with UN Res. 1441. The list of ways Saddam failed to comply with UN Res. 1441 is extremely long. David Kay and, subsequently, Charles Duelfer of the Iraq Survey Group, have found proof of numerous such violations - ongoing clandestine weapons research, etc... We had casus belli." My understanding is that our attempt to get U.N. permission to enforce their resolution was a failure. If so, this would make our enforcement of 1441 an oxymoron. "Casus belli" is an awfully legitimate-sounding term for something so smelly. Posted by: Wrecktafire at May 19, 2004 11:47 PMPost a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||
