Gawain 0 #51 May 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteIt would be helpful if you could at least point in the direction of DoE's web-site where someone could read about that themselves. I found it using Google. So can you. It's not exactly a secret. They blame it on inventory control. This in the country and the organization with the most sophisticated inventory control that exists anywhere. So, out of the 40,000 documents that Google found (using "missing plutonium" as the parameter), most about missing materials in Japan and a couple of vials of "low grade" in Los Alamos. Meanwhile, someone else has rebuffed the "tons missing" comment already.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #52 May 18, 2004 Irrespective of missing links on Google for Pu... What about sarin in the bomb in Iraq? See, what I find interesting is that we are yet again having a conversation about how bad the US is, when the story is SH/Iraq had things that the UN said he couldn't. He said he didn't. He did. Someone higher up on the thread made a very valid point - and that was, for those who say "well, it was stolen...", how do you steal something from someone if he didn't have it in the first place? We have now found WMD in Iraq. Incontrovertible fact. So for me, the question now becomes: where's the rest of it? Still in Iraq, or in Syria or ??? Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cloudseeker2001 0 #53 May 18, 2004 It is far too late in the game to just now find some kind of WMD.........Outsiders, or, maybe, if you cannot find them, plant them! "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #54 May 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt would be helpful if you could at least point in the direction of DoE's web-site where someone could read about that themselves. I found it using Google. So can you. It's not exactly a secret. They blame it on inventory control. This in the country and the organization with the most sophisticated inventory control that exists anywhere. So, out of the 40,000 documents that Google found (using "missing plutonium" as the parameter), most about missing materials in Japan and a couple of vials of "low grade" in Los Alamos. Meanwhile, someone else has rebuffed the "tons missing" comment already. No he didn't. He trotted out the standard DOE excuses which are all speculation. It is a FACT that for whatever reason, the USA has a discrepancy of several tons in its Pu inventory, and some hypotheses have been advanced as to why. But the FACT remains that the discrepancy is big enough to make several hundred nuclear weapons. It is also a fact that the US has only ever used 3.4 tons in ALL of it's nuclear tests since 1945. That gives you some indication of the size of the discrepancy.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #55 May 18, 2004 QuoteIrrespective of missing links on Google for Pu... What about sarin in the bomb in Iraq? See, what I find interesting is that we are yet again having a conversation about how bad the US is, when the story is SH/Iraq had things that the UN said he couldn't. He said he didn't. He did. Someone higher up on the thread made a very valid point - and that was, for those who say "well, it was stolen...", how do you steal something from someone if he didn't have it in the first place? We have now found WMD in Iraq. Incontrovertible fact. So for me, the question now becomes: where's the rest of it? Still in Iraq, or in Syria or ??? Ciels- Michele Very bad logic, Michele. You make an assumption and then treat it as fact. You have NO IDEA where this shell originated, all you know is where it ended up.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #56 May 18, 2004 QuoteIt is far too late in the game to just now find some kind of WMD.........Outsiders, or, maybe, if you cannot find them, plant them! Wow. Man, that didn't even take 24 hours like I had thought it would! LOL!!! Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #57 May 18, 2004 QuoteIt is far too late in the game to just now find some kind of WMD.........Outsiders, or, maybe, if you cannot find them, plant them! We've only been there 1 year for crying out loud and that's been fighting uphill the entire time. How soon after we got there would be an appropriate amount of time to you for the US to find WMD? You see, I think that the general US population is so used to getting what they want "fast food" style that they've got no gumption to stick it out for the long haul. I'm so sick of hearing people bellyache over something that takes actual work and sacrifice to achieve. I refuse to dishonor those who have fallen in that way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #58 May 18, 2004 QuoteI'm so sick of hearing people bellyache over something that takes actual work and sacrifice to achieve. I refuse to dishonor those who have fallen in that way. Hear, hear. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #59 May 18, 2004 >and that was, for those who say "well, it was stolen...", how do you > steal something from someone if he didn't have it in the first place? There's no question that he had it; we sold it to him. The issue is - was he complying with UN regulations? And if terrorists stole a shell from the Iran/Iraq war (when we were supporting his usage of chemical weapons) that does not indicate he was in violation of UN directives. >We have now found WMD in Iraq. Incontrovertible fact. And we sold them to him. Another incontrovertible fact. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #60 May 18, 2004 QuoteVery bad logic, Michele. You make an assumption and then treat it as fact. You have NO IDEA where this shell originated, all you know is where it ended up. I can't believe I just read that. So, even if we find a stockpile, you'll call "BS"?? WTF is that?So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #61 May 18, 2004 QuoteThe issue is - was he complying with UN regulations? I dunno. It sure doesn't seem like it, and from his prewar behavior, I would doubt anyone would think he had. Even the UN didn't think he was complying...they just didn't have the same thought as to how to handle it. QuoteAnd if terrorists stole a shell from the Iran/Iraq war (when we were supporting his usage of chemical weapons) I must've missed the lot number when it was released and indicated it was from the Iran/Iraq war. Irrespective of that episode, didn't the UN mandate that he not have any WMD, and destroy any remaining? Not, "hey, just don't make any more, but go ahead and keep whatcha already got. It's cool....". I don't think they've determined when the sarin gas filled shell was manufactured. I have heard they found some mustard gas from the time period you're talking about. But not about Sarin. Again, however, that's a moot point; the mandate said NONE. Quotethat does not indicate he was in violation of UN directives Sure it does. He was supposed to have none. One is more than none. It had to be there (regardless of when it was manufactured) for whomever used it to actually use it, or they couldn't have used it. You just don't like that it was used, detonated, and thus concretely demonstrated that Iraq had sarin, which is a WMD, and which is a violation of the UN mandate that there be NO wmd... I understand your not liking it. Kinda creates a dent in the whole "he didn't have them anymore, so why invade" theory. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #62 May 18, 2004 QuoteSo, even if we find a stockpile, you'll call "BS"?? WTF is that? Absolutely. That's exactly what's being said, Gawain. What's funny is the conspiracy theories about this have already begun to crop up. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #63 May 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteVery bad logic, Michele. You make an assumption and then treat it as fact. You have NO IDEA where this shell originated, all you know is where it ended up. I can't believe I just read that. So, even if we find a stockpile, you'll call "BS"?? WTF is that? Seems to be the strategy. Give everybody the benefit of the doubt before the U.S. Should be ashamed. I sincerely believe that these bleeding hearts will call BS when/if a stockpile is found. No amount of evidence will be enough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3ringheathen 0 #64 May 18, 2004 Quote I suppose you think the CIA launched it at our personal and civilians as well? It's premature to favor any particular theory about the origins of that Sarin bomb. However, the CIA has a disturbing history of disregard for the health and well being of US citizens, so such a theory isn't totally unreasonable. -Josh If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me* *Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #65 May 18, 2004 Quote What about sarin in the bomb in Iraq? The bomb went off but didn't contaminate a wide area. Enough gas to detect, but not enough to seriously injure the people around it: from one of the articles Quote He said the shell had been rigged as a makeshift bomb that resulted in a small dispersal of the agent when it exploded before an ordnance team could disarm it. [cut] "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." All in all it's consistent with a device that has been constructed long ago and put away somewhere to rot, which is how most 3rd world (1st world?) munitions are disposed if they are not used in anger. IOW, it's not a WMD anymore if it goes off in the middle of a group of people and doesn't incapacitate any of them. Sounds most like it was disposed of, just not quite in the way we do it in the west. Disposed of and stumbled upon by someone without much of a clue as to what it was or how to use it--ie that it could not be used anymore. The question of whether Iraq ever had WMD is moot, Iraq used them in the '80s. The question of whether any lasted into the late '90s is less definite, and unfortunately this device offers only additional proof of the former. nathanielMy advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #66 May 18, 2004 QuoteAnd which means there's a good chance that we sold them the ingredients for it. You know, I see you and Kallend bring this up time after time. What's your point? Everyone with even a half a clue knows that the US sold WMD to Iraq - it's old news. I ask again, what's your point? Or is it simply just more USA bashing? I hear that's trendy these days. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #67 May 18, 2004 >I dunno. It sure doesn't seem like it . . . From Blix's final report: --------------------------------- The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect. And with one exception, it has been [without] problems. We have further had a great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable. Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas Day and New Year's Day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct. . . . Mr. President, we now have an inspection apparatus that permits us to send multiple inspections teams every day all over Iraq by road or by air. Let me end by simply noting that that capability, which has been built up in a short time and which is now operating, is at the disposal of the Security Council. ----------------------------------- > Irrespective of that episode, didn't the UN mandate that he not >have any WMD, and destroy any remaining? No, he had to account for all of it. Heck, he had uranium in labs that was under UN seals; we knew where it was and were OK with it. Unfortunately, since we had pounded the crap out of him for years, a lot of it was blown to bits and could not be accounted for. Take the opposite example. Prove to me that 3000 people were killed in the WTC disaster. For many people who are theoretically deceased, there are no bodies! Therefore they didn't really die; you can't account for them. But that's an absurd requirement - many of their bodies were destroyed by the attacks. It is just as absurd to require someone to account for all the artillery shells in a military base we destroyed. >He was supposed to have none. One is more than none. It had to be > there (regardless of when it was manufactured) for whomever used > it to actually use it, or they couldn't have used it. We know he had it; we sold it to him, a point which you continually ignore. If it was stolen while he was using it with US approval, then he was complying with our wishes - both when he was using it with our approval against the Iranians and later when he tried to round up and destroy all the WMD's that we had not yet destroyed in our bombardment. >I understand your not liking it. Kinda creates a dent in the whole "he >didn't have them anymore, so why invade" theory. Uh, this isn't the first trace of chemical weapons we've found. We found traces of chemical weapons almost a year ago in empty shells. I am sure if we sift through the sands of a bunch of storage bunkers we demolished, we will find some more traces of WMD's we destroyed. Claiming that he should have dug them up - even as we continued to kill the people digging them up, and as the weapons themselves leaked into the sand - to make his balance sheets tally is a pretty far reach. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #68 May 18, 2004 "This article referes to biological weapons .... sarin is a chemical one :-) " Potaytoe, potahtoe. The article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997766/) was actually about using bad intel as a justification to go to war. "Powell said his presentation “was based on the best information that the Central Intelligence Agency made available to me. ... In the case of the mobile trucks and trains, there was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out to be not accurate....... As recently as January, Vice President Dick Cheney referred to the trucks as "conclusive" proof that Iraq was producing weapons of mass destruction. But CIA Director George Tenet later testified to Congress that he had called Cheney to warn him that the evidence was in doubt” Also... "Current and former U.S. officials, including David Kay, the former chief weapons inspector in Iraq, have said that most of the evidence came from an Iraqi defector code-named “Curveball.” According to newspaper accounts, U.S. officials didn't know the defector's name until after the war, when they learned that he was a brother of one of the top aides of Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi exile who was an important advocate for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. "Kay has said that Curveball was a "downright swindler," and charged that the case suggested "a lack of due diligence and care" by U.S. officials" It would appear that we were duped. I just saw the irony in one article indicating the finding of what sounds like a chemical artillery shell (similar to the ones that were found shortly after the liberation began), on the same headlines as Colin Powell formally admitting that his evidence for war was at best, flawed. Thats irony in my book. I'm disappointed because Powell actually impressed me during Gulf War1, and he's been uncomfortable (whilst remaining staunchly loyal to his CinC) with the lack of any real evidence to go to war this time round. I'd echo Pajarito's relief that no one was injured in uncovering this device. Its just a shame its blown apart, and its contents cast to the 4 winds, now we'll never know the truth. Find 'something' and destroy it before anyone can do any analysis on it.....A far more plausible conspiracy and even more sinister than aliens placing them there.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #69 May 18, 2004 QuoteAll in all it's consistent with a device that has been constructed long ago and put away somewhere to rot, which is how most 3rd world (1st world?) munitions are disposed if they are not used in anger. IOW, it's not a WMD anymore if it goes off in the middle of a group of people and doesn't incapacitate any of them. You are missing some information. This particular round is meant to be fired, not detonated. For the components to form sarin, they must mix (which would've happened if it was fired the way it was intended). The only reason US personnel didn't die of nerve agent exposure is that the makers if the IED didn't do their homework. They will next time (or the press has done it for them; free information, ain't it a bitch). It was a WMD right up until the IED blew it apart. If I had a small nuke and put it in a roadside IED, but didn't know it had to be activated to "go off," would that make it any less of a WMD? Also, if it's "put away somewhere," then it is still there, isn't it? That leads to the following statement of the obvious: there were (and are) WMDs in Iraq.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #70 May 18, 2004 "No amount of evidence will be enough." I'd like to ask our respective leaders just to show us the evidence they have, right now, the evidence upon which we started this conflict. You know, the stuff they couldn't release because it might compromise their sources. Our leaders are going to have to show it sooner or later anyways, during the inevitable formal examination and investigation of events leading up to the war, so why hold on to it?-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #71 May 18, 2004 Yea apparently it was a 155 arty shell and it wasn't marked. Like you said it wa looted and the guys who had it most likely didn't know what they had. Also due to the binary nature of the munition unless fired from a artillary piece the explosive wouldn't be all that effective.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #72 May 18, 2004 Quote From Blix's final report: --------------------------------- The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect. And with one exception, it has been [without] problems. Given his history of noncompliance, one exception is unacceptable. We don't give free passes to felons on parole, do we? And no, Iraq and Saddam are not a sovereign nation, not while under the conditions of a surrender. From the beginning the inspector teams should have been escorted by a tank or a gunship, one that could demolish the building if entry was refused. Quote Take the opposite example. Prove to me that 3000 people were killed in the WTC disaster. For many people who are theoretically deceased, there are no bodies! Therefore they didn't really die; you can't account for them. But that's an absurd requirement - many of their bodies were destroyed by the attacks. It is just as absurd to require someone to account for all the artillery shells in a military base we destroyed. It's not that hard to document said destruction and disposal. IF you intend to act in good faith. In the 1991-2003 period he very clearly demonstrated otherwise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newbie 0 #73 May 18, 2004 QuoteHow did I know somebody was going to come out and say "but, but, this doesn't really count as WMDs, so Bush is still the anti-Christ..." edit: where in that article does the BBC claim is doesn't qualify as a WMD? did i say Bush was the anti christ? I think that's a little unfair, he makes the anti christ look like papa smurf No but seriously, i don't think party politics should enter into this - all i'm doing is reporting on what the BBC said. I had no intention to discredit anyone, and i would LOVE them to find a huge cache of WMD (seriously, it would give us allies the backing/justification for being there, and morale boost needed right now). I just think this thing does not qualify as WMD, that's all. From the original BBC article.... QuoteHowever, a senior coalition source has told the BBC the round does not signal the discovery of weapons of mass destruction or the escalation of insurgent activity. "Skydiving is a door" Happythoughts Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #74 May 18, 2004 So what qualifies as a WMD in your opinion. Do Chemical weapons including one of the nastiest nerve agents known not qualify as WMDs to you? This was obviously a NBC weapon. It was fully capable of killing thousands. That is equivalent to WMD as far as I'm concerned. Tell me why I'm wrong, and don't say because some unnamed "coalition source" says so.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #75 May 18, 2004 QuoteQuote?? You can't buy AK-47's, RPG's or remotely detonated bombs at K-Mart either. But terrorists generally have different methods of getting them. Stealing them from the military is one popular method. What's your point Bill? You mean they steal them from the military that doesn't have any? They were all destroyed - right? Hell, no! We still have humploads! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
