WMD Found in Iraq Declassified

[rocketman]

WASHINGTON — The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.

Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

Draw you own conclusions from this. I believe it proves many folks wrong.

[eternalfrost]

well first the declassified document really is more of a powerpoint slide then some super secret document. second, wmd's were not found, only small chemical shells, hardly anything that would cause mass destruction. thirdly, they have only found 500 in three years, and they are '"degraded" munitions from"pre-gulf war" stores, and its no secret that iraq had lots of chemical weapons at that time.

all in all this really isnt much story at all in my eyes, although chemical weapons in the hands of people willing to blow themselves to pieces in crowds of children is an unsettling thought to say the least. thanks for sharing

[Hippie3]

ONLY 500 eh ?

bet you wouldn't want that 'degraded' sarin gas buried in your backyard.

further the degree of 'destruction' is not based on
the size of the weapons-
one sarin-filled shell
could be every bit as devastating as the 9/11 attacks
if blown up in the right place.

but the 'cleopatras'** of the left won't admit eh.

**queens of denial

[eternalfrost]

i realize chemical wepons are nothing to joke about but all i am saying is that just about every country would have similar type weapons. and this is not proof that the government of iraq had wmd's that could reach the US or justification of the war etc. as the original post and the article seem to be implying.

[Gamera]

Well two things. The vast majority of countries have no chemical weapons capability as a result of treaties extending back almost to the first World War. Countries engaged in military use of chemical weapons are pariahs in the civilized international community. Iraq was, at one point, among them.

That being said the WMD's referred to in the declassified document have already been characterized by the Defense Department as relating to pre-1991 weapons programs which were eliminated in the first gulf war and never reconstitued. So perhaps not the smoking gun they are being played for, but hey, thats politics.

[Hippie3]

i think you are reading in something that wasn't there, EF
not a word in the first post implying anything about wmd reaching the usa
but that wasn't the point in the first place.
defending our interests doesn't stop at the coastline of america.

further ANY wmd means that
saddam was lying and was in fact
in material breach of UN resolutions & demands for
full and accurate disclosure and accounting for all wmd materials.

that was our stated official reason for resuming offensive operations
against iraq, its' persistant violation of the cease-fire agreement
and relevant UN resolutions.

[oibchip]

Do you really believe in what the media is telling us anyways?

It's all a spin IMHO

Originally Posted by Hippie3

i think you are reading in something that wasn't there, EF
not a word in the first post implying anything about wmd reaching the usa
but that wasn't the point in the first place.
defending our interests doesn't stop at the coastline of america.
further ANY wmd means that
saddam was lying and was in fact
in material breach of UN resolutions & demands for
full and accurate disclosure and accouinting for all wmd materials.
that was our stated official reason for resuming offensive operations
against iraq, its' persistant violation of the cease-fire agreement
and relevant UN resolutions.

Its so nice to have someone feel thats the reason we went to Iraq also. Thats why I've always believed we invaded Iraq. They were lying and blowing off the UN, laughing at us all and hiding their wmd's. I also feel the objections from France and Germany on invading Iraq stem from a lot of Iraqi money to be tied up in their countries interests. But thats just my theory of course.

[Hippie3]

Originally Posted by oibchip

Do you really believe in what the media is telling us anyways?

It's all a spin IMHO

it is meaningless to talk about the 'media'
as if there were only one source, one view.
is al jazeera the same as fox news ?
no.
the bbc is not msnbc, either.

there are many media outlets these days,
all at our fingertips over the internet.

so presumably what you really meant was that
we shouldn't believe anything that runs
contrary to your view ?


what media is the source of YOUR view ?
or do you use a crystal ball to find out
what's going on in iraq ?
or maybe satellite ??

[Hippie3]

all i am saying is that just about every country would have similar type weapons

wrong.
you're just making excuses for saddam hussein,
not a pretty thing, imhfo.

this is not proof that the government of iraq had wmd's

wrong. that is just exactly what this is.

The vast majority of countries have no chemical weapons capability as a result of treaties extending back almost to the first World War. Countries engaged in military use of chemical weapons are pariahs in the civilized international community

right.
even the usa and russia are destroying old stockpiles,
manufacture stopped long ago.

[rocketman]

if they find nukes then the left will say the war was started and the only nukes they found werent capable of striking the u.s. from iraq. make up your minds.

[Hippie3]

or
there were ONLY five HUNDRED nukes

[dead_diver]

Of course he had gas. Saddam had been gassing people for years. No big news.

[eternalfrost]

im not trying to defend anyone, and i am only making observations based on the linked article. im not looking for a fight or anything like that either.

Originally Posted by Hippie3

even the usa and russia are destroying old stockpiles,
manufacture stopped long ago.

does the US still have any chemical weapons? I honestly dont know. If we are in the process of destroying them as you say,then we still have some around too? more then 500, who knows? that puts us not too far from iraq and the munitions mentioned. (i am not trying to nit-pick your exact wording Hip, just raising the question and am curious)

the munitions mentioned in the article are pre gulf war, as stated repetedly, making them 10-15 years old. the way they are described as degrading also suggests they were not part of some current strategy etc. in my opinion, stockpiles of weapons in disrepair over a decade old is quite different then the current manufacture of new weapons.

Originally Posted by Hippie3

i think you are reading in something that wasn't there

i also find it interesting that the actual document states "UNCLASSIFIED" on the top and bottom of the last page. not 'declassified'. a small but meaningful difference, that this is not some information that was kept secret in the past, but has always been available. the even more interesting part is how both the fox news site, and the thread title say 'de'. it is human nature to project your own views into the assesment of situations.

Originally Posted by dead_diver

Of course he had gas. Saddam had been gassing people for years. No big news.

thats pretty much what i was trying to say earlier, but i guess i fouled it up

again not trying to get into an argument or whatever. Much respect

[Hippie3]

whether they were part of saddam's military strategy is utterly irrelevant to
the question of whether or not they pose a threat in the hands of people intent on using them

. if you remember, the argument wasn't that saddam himself was about to launch a wmd attack directly against the USA.
rather the point was that saddam could pass such weapons on to terrorists
like those in al qaeda, hamas, hezbollah, chechen rebels, etc.

even a rusty old sarin artillery shell,
if blown up by conventional explosives,
say like in a truck bomb,
could cause massive casualties in an urban center.
that is a very real threat.

btw
this story is playing on more than just fox news,
it is now an official part of the record of the US Senate.
and really,
your point about it being 'old news'
is rather obscure,
so what if there were earlier reports ?
i remember an incident reported where 'insurgents' tried
to use one of the old mustard gas shells
as an IED,
that was a couple years ago
but the Left dismissed it then
just as it is doing now.
but time doesn't make a fact 'obsolete'.
it's called history instead
and it's quite valid .

[roc]

All I can say is that Saddam will be hanged to death in public by his own people and they really don't give a shit about our media cause they know the reality!

[pskovinsky]

Originally Posted by dead_diver

Of course he had gas. Saddam had been gassing people for years. No big news.

Heh, yeah, pretty much.

On the plus side, those 500(woot?) are 500 that aren't in syria now.


I do have to wonder why they didn't declassify their findings a bit sooner, like when it was looking iffy for re-election.
It smells of a last gasp at getting some approval ratings back to me.



My veiw on why Iraq was invaded is that good ole Saddam was making the UN look as useless as it tends to be, something that the US didn't appreciate, for some reason or another.

Much like Iran is making it look now with it's "look, stop enriching uranium and we'll give you some nuceal tech, ok?" policy.

[Journeyman]

meh, chemical weapons isn't much of a weapon of mass destruction. it was standard to most arsenals (except in politically sensitive countries) in the cold war, and since it was used heavily in the iran-iraq war, this shouldn't be a surprise. but it's not a very effective weapon against soldiers who have NBC suits on. it degrades their fighting ability by making them wear pain in the ass suits in hot weather and all, but i doubt the iraqi army has chemical protection gear anywhere near as good as the american stuff, so it's not a very practical weapon for the iraqis to use against americans; iran on the other hand...
this story was basically dismissed because it's not a big deal. yeah saddam could've passed his weapons on to terrorists, but why in the hell would he do that? terrorists have a nasty habit of turning on secular governments, and why give away weapons which he might be able to use militarily.

[Hippie3]

civilians living in cities
don't have NBC [nuke-bio-chem] suits now do they ??
of course not,
they have no protection, no training.

as for what saddam would or would not do-
how in hell would you know ?
ever meet the man ?
of course not.

can you read minds, predict the future ?
of course not.


guess that's why
no one asked you
before we went to war eh ?

[BuckarooBanzai]

What bothers me is that our remote intelligence wasn't better on knowing where those things were initially.

I predict some heavy duty political dancing and re-directing in the next couple of days. BOTH parties will go spintastic over this news...

Should be fun to watch!

[mindovermycelia]

I still think the primary, real reason we attacked Iraq is because Saddam was trying to sell oil to other nations in currency other than us dollars, thereby avoiding paying the US our "tax" that we've been collecting from all countries in the world.

[cheddar_bob]

Originally Posted by mindovermycelia

I still think the primary, real reason we attacked Iraq is because Saddam was trying to sell oil to other nations in currency other than us dollars, thereby avoiding paying the US our "tax" that we've been collecting from all countries in the world.

all hail the Petrodollar

[Journeyman]

Originally Posted by Hippie3

civilians living in cities
don't have NBC [nuke-bio-chem] suits now do they ??
of course not,
they have no protection, no training.

er, obviously. what's your point? you think saddam is gonna invent some missiles to launch chemical weapons at new york city or something? the only civilians he was a danger to were his own and his neighbours, all of whom have militaries to protect them from just such an occurance.

Originally Posted by Hippie3

as for what saddam would or would not do-
how in hell would you know ?
ever meet the man ?
of course not.

can you read minds, predict the future ?
of course not.


guess that's why
no one asked you
before we went to war eh ?

it's just common sense that he's not going to arm people who have gone on record as saying they hate him or use weapons against the US that would impede his armies more than theirs. i don't need to know the guy personally to make that judgement, unless i assume he's retarded. i also don't need to know Tony Blair or Jacque Chirac to know they're not going to declare war on australia tomorrow. and obviously they never asked me, they didn't even listen to what their military advisors and military intelligence told them.

[Jaeger]

I think the problem is that he was lying to the UN. The gasses found are VERY dangerous.
As to "you think saddam is gonna invent some missiles to launch chemical weapons at new york city or something?"
Smuggle it in, put it on a decent bomb, blow up around a gathering of people. Bam thousands dead. No missles needed.

I would write more, but I feel I am wasting my energy.

[operationcultivation]

I don't know much about the updatings of wmd's in iraq, but even if there was nothing ever found there, sudamm was a wmd himself. It is fact that sudamm personally paid 25,000 to the family of any scuicide bomber in palestine. He tortured and killed millions of his own people. He was a world wide threat, and a threat to his own nation. Anyone who says he wasn't an influence of the terrorism that has and still is causing pain and suffering for innocent people caught in the middle is a blind man in my eyes. I never did and still don;t see any reason why we wouldn't go to war to get him out of there. As for the 500 chemical weapons, doesn't really suprise me.

[eternalfrost]

I did some quick looking around and found this on wikipedia:
"The original commitment in Phase III required all countries to have 45 percent of the chemical stockpiles destroyed by April 2004. Anticipating the failure to meet this deadline, the Bush administration in September 2003 requested a new deadline of December 2007 for Phase III and announced a probable need for an extension until April 2012 for Phase IV, total destruction"

"Possesses about 31,000 tons of chemical weapons agent. Is currently destroying its stockpiles of mustard, sarin, VX, and blister agent under the CWC."

by my understanding, the US is still in the process of destroying chemical weapons and thier precursors. The ammounts of munitons and raw poisons within our own country is huge. I realize we are taking a step in the right direction, but still.

Whats to say terrorists wont steal munitions right here within our borders? of course security is completly different here but still the argument is there.

all traces if WMd's are evil, unless of course we are the ones who have them

just a thought.

[Hippie3]

shells can be smuggled.
for that matter
you act like the people there don't matter
as long as it isn't us soil.
pretty short-sighted.
the real problem here
is simple-
you can't bear to admit
you and the left are WRONG
and so now you are jumping backflips trying to
find a way to still be 'right'
by trying to minimize
500 chemical warheads/artillery shells
as if they are harmless.

again, i say


further all one has to do is examine the case of A.Q.Kahn,
the renegade pakistani nuclear scientist to see that great harm
could have also been done by iraqis other than saddam himself,
perhaps by military officers sympathetic to terrorists,
such as the support given to the taliban by elements
of the pakistani military.

and here's a thought-
the USA never used its chemical weapons to kill tens of thousands
of its' neighbors and its own citizens
like saddam did.
so it's pretty easy for me to understand the difference
between saddam having chemical weapons
versus the USA.

[Bobcat]

The 'rights' argument isn't even remotely fair. They are taking something from the past and using it as righteous justification. Shit, using these standards they could build a case for war in any country. But I'm sure they'll be doing some backflips themselves to spin this out. Regardless, they can say what they want. This doesn't cover the lies they originally sold about real wmd.

And this whole 'defending saddam' stuff is crap. Someone doesn't like the cost of war or is critical of it and they are automatically 'defending saddam'. The true patriot questions why his brothers and sisters have to die.

And back to this (tired) media thing: the other day Fox did a big special on how nobody is going to the Dixie Chicks shows and how everyone hates them now (not that I necessarily disagree with that...). THis is news? The Dixie Chicks don't agree with fox news so they start doing negative smear campaigns against them when they start to tour? They did the same thing to tim robbins and susan sorandon and whoever else doesn't share their view. Sorry everyone, but free speech doesn't exist anymore, unless you are a conservative that is. No, there is no comparison between cnn, msnbc, bbc and fox news. The others are biased too, I can concede that, but not like fox. Two different ball games there folks.

[Journeyman]

well yeah, shells can be smuggled in from iraq, but seeing as how they only have 500, it's obvious they have very low stocks of them. if someone wanted to get some chemical munitions, they'd have a much easier time getting some from the old soviet stockpiles, but i don't see anyone advocating the invasion of the Ukraine. i'm not trying to minimize the danger, i'm putting it in context. you clearly haven't talked to any military men about chemical warfare, because 500 shells is small potatoes. the fact that saddam used chemical weapons against his own people is a damning indictment of his character, and that he used it against his neighbour is a testament to the brutality of the iran-iraq war. it's certainly not a danger to the US, let alone a danger large enough to justify the invasion of a country, killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians, and the loss of 2500 soldiers. it only takes fairly basic chemistry to make chemical weapons in your bathtub, but the fact is without overwhelming delivery capability it's a not very effective weapon on the battlefield against properly equipped troops, and even as a terror weapon it's wouldn't be reliable. a contrary wind or rain would pretty drastically reduce the impact, and it's pretty easy to see and avoid/evacuate for gas attacks. look how many people sarin killed in the tokyo terror attacks a few years ago (12 killed, 54 injured), and that's a much more powerful chemical agent than mustard gas.

[anticheffy]

500.......lol

I live very close to one of the top 2 chemical weapons storage facilities on domestic soil.

Look out over the valley,,,,,I bet theres 500 bunkers, each bigger than my house,each filled with thousands of VG rockets and binary shells.

few people get to see just how insane our war machine got like those of us who live near the fine , and prolific work they did