“When we have investigated certain labs and contacted certain former experts in the WMD program, we have found that they are being recruited by anti-coalition groups,” Duelfer told FOX News. “They are being paid by anti-coalition groups. We’re seeing interest in developing chemical munitions.”

The same process seems to be happening in Afghanistan, he said.

He also told Fox News that about 10 or 12 sarin and mustard gas shells have been found in various locations in Iraq.

The shells are all from the first Gulf War era and thus weakened, though intelligence sources say they’re still dangerous.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123680,00.html

Nope no WMD in Iraq. I know it states the chemicals are old, but he destroyed them all didn't he. So even if they are old and weak they are still stronger than he said he had. This brings the count up to 11-13 not including the empty sheels found that he didn't have either.

Let's see I'm a dictator who rules by fear and death, I'm going to lose track of 11-13 shells with chemicals in them (enough to rock my world if used against me). Sounds far fecthed, almost like the U.S. losing trqck of a nuke. Chemical weapons are the nuke of the third world.

 

You're kidding, right? We were told that they had large containers of WMD's and that they were still producing them. This is nothing. Vietnam Vets have more than this in footlockers around the country.

 

No, this is not really a big deal. After all, since a single old shell can only kill about 60,000 people in the right hands, this means that this quantity of shells were only capable of killing a few more than 500,000. That's nothing. That only equates to the population of a small town...like Washington DC.

These shells may not be the evidence anti-Bush/anti-war folks want to see to justify the war, but publicly refering to weapons with this capability to kill as nothing is just wrong.

 

Those numbers must be from a scientific setting.
The airborn agent dissipates quickly.
If shell despersed sarin was so effective, five thousand shells wouldn't have been needed.

The sarin agent was used by terrorists in Japan back in the several years back.
I can't think of anything more crowded than a Tokyo subway.
Twelve people died.

 

Raoul, thank you for that information. By no means am I an expert on the potential impact of chemical weapons. I can only take the numbers cited by reputable sources that I've read in articles that estimate the number of potential casualties when a weapon is used correctly and under ideal circumstances and extrapolate from there.

An earlier thread discussed that the volume of sarin (4 litres if I recall correctly) found in a roadside bomb had the potential to kill several hundred thousand. If that number was overstated by even 95%, that would still mean it had the capability to kill several hundred. Times twelve, that could equate to several thousand...as many lives that were lost on 9/11.

Sorry, but all political leanings aside, I don't consider that to be "nothing." Some might. I don't. And one's political opinions should not even have to enter into that analysis.

 

I'm on shaky ground, debating the webmaster.

Let me just say I completely agree with whatever you think.

(Burt, this does not mean you)

 

Any articles about the sarin filled shell I've read stated that the gas was long past its effective life-span, but was still dangerous to a certain extent. As in causing blisters and possibly respiratory problems. Any agents such as sarin produced in Iraq in the eighties and early nineties are long past their effective dates and would be only marginally effective. Hardly what you'd call a "wmd".

 

First it does NOT matter when the WMD’S are from. Nobody every stated anything about dates on WMD’S. It has clearly been stated over and over that Iraq was to destroy ALL of their WMD’S period. The U.N. resolutions never stated anything about Iraq destroying new WMD’S but getting to keep the old stuff. Iraq HAD to declare how much WMD’S they had, ALL OF IT. Iraq did that and then they were supposed to destroy that and show proof. They did NOT destroy all their WMD’S and that is why we are finding some now.

I think people are confusing the definition of “large”. Most people think of a large catch of weapons something like a warehouse full of 500lb bombs. Nobody every stated we would find hundreds of warehouses full of WMD’S.

I think many of the experts that have every talked about “large catches” of WMD’S have stated it doesn’t take much to make something very deadly that could kill thousands of people. A simple 1 gallon milk jug filled with the right WMD could wipe out an entire city. That is a large catch or equal to many large warehouses full of 500lb bombs.

If you found say 3 - 6 normal garage sizes full of chemicals or biological weapons that would be a HUGE catch. So picture trying to find 3 - 6 normal size garages full of something like that in California. Not an easy task and very easy to hide and move around.

Here is the thing I “think” the left is caught up on. They will never admit to finding a large catch of WMD’S unless they see 50 semi-trucks with trailers parading it around for the news cameras.

Never going to see that because most likely there never was that much so no matter if 10 actual bombs with chemical or biological material is found the left will always revert back to ”That’s not a large catch”

This is more proof and ENDS any debate in my mind about Iraq having WMD’S. The left for the last few months, before the first little find of sirin gas has maintained there was NO WMD’S in Iraq. Now they have been proven wrong. Now they have changed their story line, spin lines to read, ”Well that’s not a large catch of WMD’S”

You could sit a 1 gallon jug of sirin in front of their house and tell them if dissipated or spread right they could kill hundreds of thousands of people and they would still maintain that’s nothing, it’s just a little milk jug…

It also does NOT matter how effective the chemical or biological material is because of age. A WMD is a WMD PERIOD!

So many excuses when the left is wrong…

 

 

Actually it does matter. Bush sold this war on two premises, he insinuated that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and he said they were actively developing WMD's. What's been found is a far cry from 30,000 liters made in 1995, so yes, dates were mentioned. So many excuses from the right.

"We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents."

Source: President Talks to Troops in Qatar, White House (6/5/2003).

"The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."

Source: President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003).

"One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraq intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in aquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner."

Source: President's Radio Address, White House (2/8/2003).

"All the world has now seen the footage of an Iraqi Mirage aircraft with a fuel tank modified to spray biological agents over wide areas. Iraq has developed spray devices that could be used on unmanned aerial vehicals with ranges far beyond what is permitted by the Security Council. A UAV launched from a vessel off the American coast could reach hundreds of miles inland."

Source: President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003).

"In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions."

Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).

"[Iraq] possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons."

Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).

"In defiance of the United Nations, Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

Source: President: Iraqi Regime Danger to America is "Grave and Growing", White House (10/5/2002).

 

First thanks for proving my point. As I stated and your post refers to as well we are not talking about Iraq making all kinds of “new” WMD’S.

You refer to one quoted statement of 30,000 liters of anthrax. Just to prove my point on how that is very easy to hide and thus hard to find lets do some math and then equate that to a real world storage unit.

First 3.7854 liters = 1 gallon
Therefore 30,000 liters = 7,925 gallons

One standard tanker truck can carry 4,000 gallons of liquid (i.e. fuel, water etc)
Therefore it would only take “two” tanker trucks to hold, store and hide 30,000 liters of a WMD liquid…

People like to throw around a big number (30,000) and then make it seem like it is something huge when in reality it isn’t.

WMD’S have been found in Iraq therefore the left’s argument of ”There is no WMD’S in Iraq” has been proven wrong. I could just act like the left and say the left has LIED to the American public and therefore put them at danger…

There is no more debating to do on this subject since the left has lost the debate big time. They were stating there was NO WMD’S in Iraq, there is, we have found some so CASE CLOSED…

 

Closed, like your mind when it comes to Bush! Find some "stockpiles" and I'll jump and down for joy.

 

Actually my mind is not closed nor has it ever been. It has nothing to do with President Bush, at least not for me.

You see I believed and supported Clinton’s position on the issue as well when he was President. I haven’t changed my mind about it since the 90’s, nor have I changed my mind on it with President Bush who has used the very same argument and intelligence that Clinton used.

The only ones, not you particularly because I don’t know where you stood on the issue when Clinton was in office, but the only ones “generally” that have changed their minds are those mostly on the left. They “use to” believe in the “facts” when Clinton presented it to them and they “use to” believe in it and back it as well just a year or so ago when they were just about ALL who backed President Bush…

So what happen?

Answer is politics for most on the left. How else can one answer for the reason many on the left, Kerry, Kennedy, Hilary and others have did a 180 on the issue as soon as a democrat left office.

That shows character, or lack thereof…

 

I can't argue with that! Dumping a position because the other side takes it up is just stupid. Voting party lines is dumb, unfortunately, so many do it. Did we just actually agree on something?

 

Slowly and one step at a time and you'll be just fine...