A few old shells hardly represent the "grave and gathering danger" sort of threat to western interests that was initially cited as the primary reason for going to war. Yes, they're weapons of war and yes, they're potentially lethal, but don't forget - Hussein was contained after about 1992 or 1993. His troops could barely take a pee without us knowing about it. Let's say he tried to re-deploy artillery to the border with Kuwait (for example). We'd have immediately known and wiped it out immediately.

More likely than not these were either kept around for defensive use or simply forgotten about or mis-categorized. Remember - to our knowledge, no chemical or bio agents were used against troops when they pushed up from the south. If Hussein had them and wasn't a complete tactical imbicille, he'd have ordered their use then (think about it - the writing was on the wall and the ROW thought he had 'em anyway - what's to lose?) More likely they were simply missed. Hell, the U.N. inspectors didn't even find 'em.

First time I have ever heard of over 500 of anything considered a "few"....much less WMD (chemical shells). Just how many does it take to exceed a few?

"We have found people, technical information and illicit-procurement networks that, if allowed to flow to other countries and regions, could accelerate global proliferation." -- David Kay

Re: Senator Rick Santorum and classified WMD documents
 

Grasping at straws.

SH had tactical chemical weapons. Not in dispute, never has been. The recovery of 500, or 5000, or 50,000 such (degraded) shells dating from god knows when is meaningless in the context of Saddam having any capability to threaten the US or US or western interests, or in his having a viable WMD capability.

The biggest danger these munitions represent is that they fall into the hands of the insurgents. This is only a danger because of the invasion.

How is a chemical weapon shell that can be fired 10 or 20 miles a threat to you, Joe?

Im sure this will read well in certain circles, and its interesting, but ultimately, its irrelevent.

No, Joe, I wouldn't allow storage of conventional warheads here, either. That's why they store them in special bunkers, with blast resistant doors, so that if one bunker goes up, the rest of them probably won't. If you'd ever been in an Ammo Supply Point, you'd have known that.

Of course, I was refering to actual use in war time, not in storage. You would have known that too if you'd had, um, military experience.

Next time a US government military unit goes to war, let's limit it to just 500 of each munition.

They wouldn't last more than a couple of hours.

That's right, you're a former airman and not familiar with Army combat operations.

From a FoxNews.com article.

That's what you call WMD? You guys are really desperate to justify these "weapons" as a legitimate reason to sacrifice 2,500 US soldiers and untold number of Iraqi civilians.

You act like they are something that we can give to the kids to play with, that they have degraded to that point, which they have not.

From the CDC:

Bulk MUSTARD can persist for decades in soil or water.

MUSTARD and its hydrolysis products do not significantly degrade in sunlight and are stable at less than 49°C.

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/sulfurmustard/erc505-60-2.asp

Lets see, our own specialists at the CDC say that this agent is dangerous FOR DECADES when out in the open in soil or water, and the agent found in Iraq was for the most part still sealed in containers or shells. What part of "ready to use and still dangerous" against anyone Saddam did not like does everyone not understand?

My military experience did not include "bedpan holding" like yours. Last time I looked they did not train nurses in 74D or 54A/B/F, the MOS related to operations with chemical weapons. Trust me, my speciality was shooting and I got more than enough practice with a weapon while in the Army.

Please put your MOPP gear on, sit in your basement watching the monitors while holding one of your hundreds of automatic weapons and wait for the invasion. They are coming to get you as we speak...

Hardly, as I stated above, I'd have neither chemical warheads, old or new; nor conventional warheads at my home. That's because they're not playthings, they're large, dangerous weapons. That said, I will tell you again that chemical arty shells are not considered more dangerous to enemy troops than conventional warheads. They have special, specific uses; and in fact are less useable in most cases than conventional warheads.

Quote:

From the CDC: Bulk MUSTARD can persist for decades in soil or water. MUSTARD and its hydrolysis products do not significantly degrade in sunlight and are stable at less than 49�C. http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/sulfurmustard/erc505-60-2.asp Lets see, our own specialists at the CDC say that this agent is dangerous FOR DECADES when out in the open in soil or water, and the agent found in Iraq was for the most part still sealed in containers or shells. What part of "ready to use and still dangerous" against anyone Saddam did not like does everyone not understand? My military experience did not include "bedpan holding" like yours. Last time I looked they did not train nurses in 74D or 54A/B/F, the MOS related to operations with chemical weapons. Trust me, my speciality was shooting and I got more than enough practice with a weapon while in the Army. Please put your MOPP gear on, sit in your basement watching the monitors while holding one of your hundreds of automatic weapons and wait for the invasion. They are coming to get you as we speak...

Joe, what I was and was not trained to do is for you to wonder about, and for me to know. Suffice it to say that I have considerable training in combat operations; and in leading platoon and company strength units in combat.

Your quote of CDC material is of limited interest to me, what we're discussing is chemical weapons that are useable for military attacks. None of those found were of that type.

In short, there were no WMD's in Iraq in March of 2003, period.

It would appear that if your debate has degraded to the point where you're splitting hairs on whether WWI mustard gas is a viable weapon, then there's not much of a WMD leg to stand on.

Big claims require big proof. The administration made some big claims, and has come up empty-handed on the proof - so empty in fact that they've admitted they can't find any WMD's and have changed their reason for invasion to 'humanitarian' and 'democractic' reasons.

A subset of the right-wing blogosphere hangs onto the WMD hope in the same way that a certain segment of the population refuses to accept the fact that Elvis is dead.

The Administration made the claims, it's their job to back them up. "WMD found!" claims by congressmen, right-wing pundits or 'sword sharpeners ' like Mul aren't worth the electrons they're printed on.

Santorum...bahahah.

*Of course* Mul and the usual retard brigade are out in full force. What a joke.

Blind faith in anything will kill ya, Mul.

SmileWavy

I'm not saying that these shells were usable or even the smoking gun WMD that we thought was there. Here are my two points and I'd be interested to hear responses:

1). Somehow in the space of about 20 posts the chemical munitions have gone from possibly pre-1990 to WWI era? How's zat? Let's keep things reasonable, shall we?

2). This is the important one: If the UN Weapons inspectors missed 500 chemical filled artillery shells during their years of inspections, what else might they have missed? What else is out there that we haven't found yet?

Rick,

Excellent point and over 500 shells are not "a few old shells" by a long shot.

Also, as I have said before, I could care less how old the chemical agent is in the shells, if its properly stored, its still viable and able to kill soldiers and civilians. Mustard gas is considered a WMD, period and this stuff was still a weapon. I am not using it to defend the invasion of Iraq but this is a WMD.

Only jackasses still stick by their ridiculous bleating of "there were no WMD!!!....Bush lied!!!"...There were connections between Saddam and al qaeda and there were operational ties for WMD manufacture and delivery between Saddam and al qaeda...Open and shut case as to why we invaded.

It just so happens that the war has gone better than the Democrats expected, as has the economy for that matter.

"It just so happens that the war has gone better than the Democrats expected........"

Do us all a favor then, enlist.

That the best you have?...You aren't the sharpest tool in the chest, are you?

Mul
Would you mind explaining, as coherently and concisely as you can muster, exactly what you believe the 'Libs/Dems' real motivation is, what their real goals are? Edit- And by this, I mean the big picture, not just on a single issue. The 30,000 ft overview. What does the left want, ultimately?

You should read a book called Them: Adventures With Extremists by John Ronson.

Quick question:...Why is the investigation into our Marines in Haditha worthy of greater media focus than the fact that we have found WMD?

The media bias is blinding, their silence deafening.

Good show...At least you haven't offered that "shanking" me would please you, this time that is.

The Lib/Dem motivation is creating a failure in Iraq and undermining the economy...Both of these failures are successes for them...It is all about power to these people, irrrespective of the good of the country. They are blinded by power-lust.

And why does the media and the 'human rights' groups focus on bogus stories of torture at Guantanamo and avoid real torture and butchering of US soldiers?