WMD's found in Iraq

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by strk
Blister agents are not deadly unless they are not treated.  Period.  They do not qualify as Wepons of Mass Destruction.  Your evidence does not support your rhetoric, counsellor.

This statement is nonsense. Plenty of nerve agents have antidotes. There are treatments for a variety of bacterial and viral weapons, therea are even vaccinations for some too.  Does that not make them WMD?

I think you are really trying too hard to downplay this small and and yes rather unsubstantial find of old WMD, I wonder why - what are you really afraid of?

Would you apply the same reasoning if 1000 gallons of Mustard were found?  Dont say they havent found any yet, thats beyond the scope of the question. Just answer if you would say that you dont think 1000 gallons of mustard are not WMD...

[Yeager]

The mortor rounds contained a blister agent, not considered lethal unless the mortor round lands on your head.  These were not WMDs.  Rather these types of munitions are better used for terrorizing and incapacitating an enemy by forcing them to flee or wear protective gear.  These mortor rounds were very old but proves that munitions can last for a long time buried in the desert.

This is a moot discussion anyway.  Hussein has used WMDs in the past and had the capacity to use them again, at his whim.  It was enough, under the circumstances referred to as "Iraq" to justify military action in my opinion.

Everyone here knows this truth:
If any WMDs are found they will undoubtedly be many years old and buried in the desert and the people in support of Hussein will never accept it as an excuse to remove Hussein and the people opposed to Hussein could care less if WMDs are ever found.

The end of this story is Hussein is out.  Whatever happens now will happen without Hussein.

[strk]

This statement is nonsense. Plenty of nerve agents have antidotes. There are treatments for a variety of bacterial and viral weapons, therea are even vaccinations for some too. Does that not make them WMD?

No it does make sense, WMDs are weapons that kill almost instantly.  Ricin, Sarin, even Anthrax when inhaled is almost always fatal.  Nuclear weapons are the best example.

Maybe I shouldnt have listed nerve agents earlier, but I figured that not everyone would have a vial of atropine to stick in their thigh when it hit.  Forget nerve agents, they probably shouldnt be considered WMDs.

I think the kicker is they have to be lethal to a large percentage of those exposed in a short amount of time.  SOmeone spreading a cold virus is not proliferating WMDs

And yes, thousands of liters of mustard gas would be cause for alarm.  It is nasty stuff.  

strk

[Saurdaukar]

Originally posted by strk
No it does make sense, WMDs are weapons that kill almost instantly.  Ricin, Sarin, even Anthrax when inhaled is almost always fatal.  Nuclear weapons are the best example.
 

Are you being serious?  The definition of WMD is constantly changing to serve the arguments of those opposed to the war.  Do you even listen to what youre saying?

We find blister gas packed arty shells.

And since you seem to think blister gas does not kill 'immediately' its not considered a WMD?  What a crock of ****.

Blister gas is so bad that by the time youve been exposed you'll wish you were dead.  I cant believe you would actually go so far as to try and downplay the effects of chemical weapons in order to serve your own political agenda.

Thats just sick.

[Kieran]

Agree with MiniD on this one. WMD was the thing that caught the American attention, the item seized by the left as a weapon to villainize the war, but make no mistake, numerous reasons for the war were given. A simple search of the speeches will prove this to anyone willing to look.

Iraq lied about chemical weapons- is anyone surprised? But, instead of saying "yup, that looks bad" we get "well, that isn't so bad". Hmm, who's putting politics ahead of the truth?

[Cobra412]

Yeager I beg to differ on your "land on your head" statement.  Blister agent will stay in an area for long periods of time so long as the conditions are correct.  A victim left untreated can kill and any ingestion of a blister agent is lethal.  Do a search for blister agents used on the Turkish Kurds.  

Unlike a vapor based chemical weapon these agents though they are less likely to cause damage if your not in the blast area or come into direct contact are still very deadly weapons.  They are infact more detectable than a vapor weapon but again are still deadly if used correctly and precautionary measures aren't used or implemented early enough.

 Ingestion is lethal due to the fact large blister will form in your lungs and then in the end burst filling your lungs with fluids thus you can no longer breath.  While a vapor based agent requires immediate protection, equipped units will most likely be protected prior to the attack while civilians wouldn't.

No matter what way you look at it these type of weapons are weapons that inflict cruel and unusual torture on it's victims thus banned by the UN.

Strk some biological warfare is often spread through common colds and is why many rogue nations seek these for weapons.  The plague is a perfect example of such a weapon that can be spread fairly easily.  Granted it's not the common cold but it is very lethal and spreads extremely fast.

 And why would you say nerve agents aren't a weapon of mass destruction but yet Ricin, Sarin and anthrax are?  They can't be transmitted in the manner of a biological weapon and if anyone can remember the attack in the subway in Tokoyo the attack wasn't lethal as it only killed 12 and injured over 6.000.  Now use a biological weapon such as the common cold with a twist and those 6,000 could multiply to millions in just a matter of weeks.  Especially with as enclosed as some of these cities are with hundreds of thousands of people passing each other in the close confines of things such as subways and malls.

What determines if a weapon is considered part of WMD is how it could be used and what it's overall outcome could be.  So nuclear weapons though everyones worst fears aren't the only WMD to be concerned about.  Neither is such things as many chemical weapons as there deployment is much more difficult than lets say a biological weapon.  Carrier/Host delivered weapons should be the most feared weapon in the world due to the fact that an overwhelming amount of infections would be extremely hard to counter or nullify and detection is often discovered after it's too late.  There are even concerns of a strain of the flu that killed millions back in the day and because the flu strains are recurring it could be deadly the day it comes back, it's just a matter of when and where.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by strk
No it does make sense, WMDs are weapons that kill almost instantly.  Ricin, Sarin, even Anthrax when inhaled is almost always fatal.  Nuclear weapons are the best example.

There is a very effective vaccine for anthrax. Sarin cant be that bad because of the 5,000+ confirmed casualties exposed to it in the confines of Tokyo subway trains only 12 died.  Ricin, dont know much about ricin - but hey how bad can little castor beans really be?

In other words none of those are WMD either.  Right?

[strk]

cant believe you would actually go so far as to try and downplay the effects of chemical weapons in order to serve your own political agenda.

The same results can be hadfrom conventional weapons.  A mortar on your position or a grenade in your foxhole could hurt you so bad that you wanted to die.  

Let me put this in a way you might understand.  THere is not some bright line where we can say this is a WMD and this isnt.  A MOAB definately causes mass destruction.  So does a nuke, of course.  

There are conventional weapons and there are WMD's.  Mustard gas and  most nerve agents are conventional type weaponse (both in period of use and development and in their effects).  Nukes, Sarin and Ricin are WMDs - they cause near instant widespread death.  

You are overstating the importance of 10-20 year old mustard gas to support your political agenda.  

strk

[Kieran]

No, I am pointing out Iraq was under UN resolution to declare any weapons undestroyed, and a list of items was given. Assuming these types of weapons were on the list (and they almost certainly were) Iraq would have been in violation of sanctions, which means the terms of the ceasefire were breached and the ceasefire was null and void. Now we all know the UN was never going to act on this type of offense no matter what evidence could ever be found. This point was effectively made over and over in the months and years preceding Gulf War II.

So... the US unilaterally decided to take matters into its own hands, pointing out the obvious. Perhaps mistakenly the WMD argument was thrown in, and certainly imminent threat has not been proven, but... illegal weapons are being found, at least opening the possibility truly lethal WMD will be found.

FWIW, the reason the US can have the MOAB is the US isn't under UN sanction to not have it... in addition, it isn't the losing party in a war whose ceasefire is conditional on the US giving up such weapons.

There you go... I hope I put that in a way YOU could understand.

[Saurdaukar]

Originally posted by strk

You are overstating the importance of 10-20 year old mustard gas to support your political agenda.  

strk

I am doing no such thing.  I support the action WMD or no WMD.  Dont confuse 'shock and awe' over the arguments of the anti-war camp with serious consideration.

It would be nice if we found some large weapons caches, but since Im not losing sleep trying to think of new ways to villify Bush, it isnt high on my list of things that need attention.

Right now Id rather examine the ways in which Bush plans to stabilize the country, install a progressive government, ensure the growth of the Iraqi economy, provide for the security of the local population and our troops, and most importantly, get our troops back home following the completion of the above mentioned objectives.

[john9001]

blister agents (mustard gas) are in no way a threat, it's just redculus.*

* see WW1.



the liberal mind is a terrible waste.

[maslo]

Originally posted by Hortlund
So does that change the fact that they are chemical warheads, WMD's...?

Maniac *picture emoticon of a tard*

actualy Washington said , that Iraq have WMD, whitch can be used in 45 mins....

So basicaly this is not what they used to speak about
this is not what they used to scare you

[Kieran]

Actually, Iraq claimed they had no chemical agents. They obviously did.

You are right if you say we haven't found WMD capable of attacking the US in 45 minutes.

You are wrong if you are concluding with certainty no such weapons existed.

[maslo]

Originally posted by Eagler
no but it does appear the recent batch of nutbag terrorists are muslims with a hatred satified with only the death of those who are not

shouldn't let ur hatred of this admin blind u to who the real enemies are

If you will look on geographic area, you will find that 90% of people are muslims
so its pretty big chanse, that what ever they do, its quite possible that he will be 'muslim'

in our country is about 70% atheists.. so if somebody do something evil, you could consider, that evil atheist do a lot of bad things, because ... bla bla bla bla

If someone from ME is reported to be a muslim, its realy not surprise. Reporting it again and again is as silly as ... look that Jewish Sharon ****cked peace talks again

got it ?

[maslo]

Originally posted by Kieran
Actually, Iraq claimed they had no chemical agents. They obviously did.

You are right if you say we haven't found WMD capable of attacking the US in 45 minutes.

You are wrong if you are concluding with certainty no such weapons existed.

every body know that they had these from war with Iran

However WMD, whitch could be possible ready for use hasnt been found

so what has been found ... few pretty useless shells... just look at the pictures...

somehow i have problem to imagine, how could they use it even 5 years ago .. it appear to be horde of old iron

im still missing those, whitch US claimed that SH gonna use 60km around capital..

Well according to prewar, war speaches about WMD, im somehow not satisfy with these pictures