No WMD\'s eh?

BAGHDAD, Iraq — A roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent (search) exploded near a U.S. military convoy, but there were no casualties, the U.S. military said Monday.
 
"The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," said Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (search), the chief military spokesman in Iraq. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy.

"A detonation occurred before the IED could be rendered inoperable. This produced a very small dispersal of agent," he said.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

[GmanJoe]

Hope it wasn\'t "windy".

Small amounts of sarin nerve agent are not what the US meant by WMDs, and you know it.  It was well known that Iraq, along with pretty much every other \'poor\' nation in the world had chemical weapons.  The WMDs they were talking about were ones that could affect the US on US soil:

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime\'s own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq\'s eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

From Bush\'s speech outlining the threat.

Iraq was allowed to have a limited biological agent arsenal.  It was merely supposed to be limited in size, and range capabilities; and it was not allowed to grow, only shrink as it was slowly destroyed.  We all know that he had bio agents... but was he expanding his program to be able to strike at America?  Developing a (very expensive) nuclear program?  I don\'t think so.

Originally posted by FatalXception


Iraq was allowed to have a limited biological agent arsenal.  It was merely supposed to be limited in size, and range capabilities; and it was not allowed to grow, only shrink as it was slowly destroyed.  We all know that he had bio agents... but was he expanding his program to be able to strike at America?  Developing a (very expensive) nuclear program?  I don\'t think so.

Sarin can harm the US on US soil.  Since when is Sarin not a WMD?  The thing was in an artillery shell meaning it\'s original intent was to be used as a WMD.  He was allowed to have a biochemical weapons!?!?! What do you think biochemical weapons are?  Conventional weapons?

From your own LINK:

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th. "

Now you are about to be OWNED

"Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991."

The delivery method is a moot point.

He produced thousands of tonnes and so far they\'ve found ONE mortar head?  Bush just made up half of his speech.

He was allowed to have them in that he had tonnes BEFORE, and was supposed to be destroying them... a long and slow process.. which, apparantly he was complying with, since they\'ve found emptied shells and delivery systems... and this is the first real find (of a miniscule amount).
I might not like Saddam, but Bush just made up a reason to go in there.

Originally posted by FatalXception
He produced thousands of tonnes and so far they\'ve found ONE mortar head?  Bush just made up half of his speech.

He was allowed to have them in that he had tonnes BEFORE, and was supposed to be destroying them... a long and slow process.. which, apparantly he was complying with, since they\'ve found emptied shells and delivery systems... and this is the first real find (of a miniscule amount).
I might not like Saddam, but Bush just made up a reason to go in there.

:rolleyes: Say what you want... the fact is you said he was allowed to have a "limited" amount of chemical weapons aka WMD\'s... I proved you wrong - live with it... secondly where there is one there are more.  The shells and delivery systems they have found were destroyed when he was actually cooperating immediately after the first Gulf War.  

Bush made up half his speech?  Please point out the half he made up.  The misinformation he was given by CIA regarding the purchasing of Uranium hardly qualifies as half.  

And to set the record straight NO ONE with any intelligence would ever think Iraq would be capable of having a weapon that could hit the US from its own soil.  Do some research on ICBM\'s.  Why do you think the Soviets developed suitcase nuclear bombs?

You didn\'t prove anything...  He was allowed to have the WMDs while he was destroying them.  Destroying nerve agents isn\'t as easy as dumping down the sewer, or just leaving them somewhere... it takes a lot of knowledge and time.  He obviously can\'t destroy the large stockpiles he had instantly.  

Especially once Bush\'s agenda became obvious near the end for Saddam, he was cooperating with the weapons inspections, who were  unable to find the weapons of mass destruction, and unwilling to say there were.  (The first link is just cute).

Do you know what the difference between a teaspoon and tonnes is?  Frankly, since we know that his soldiers had access, it\'s easy for me to imagine a soldier taking something like that before its destruction - even in the US there have been cases of soldiers taking home rocket launchers and stuff.

[videoholic]

What exactly is a tonne?

a Canadian ton

Originally posted by FatalXception
You didn\'t prove anything...  He was allowed to have the WMDs while he was destroying them.  Destroying nerve agents isn\'t as easy as dumping down the sewer, or just leaving them somewhere... it takes a lot of knowledge and time.  He obviously can\'t destroy the large stockpiles he had instantly.  

Especially once Bush\'s agenda became obvious near the end for Saddam, he was cooperating with the weapons inspections, who were  unable to find the weapons of mass destruction, and unwilling to say there were.  (The first link is just cute).

Do you know what the difference between a teaspoon and tonnes is?  Frankly, since we know that his soldiers had access, it\'s easy for me to imagine a soldier taking something like that before its destruction - even in the US there have been cases of soldiers taking home rocket launchers and stuff.

You are wrong on so many levels... he was not allowed to have ANY WMD\'s.  He was not destroying them, he was not cooperating, what is so hard for you to understand about this?  Why did he kick the inspectors out if he had nothing to hide?  

The inspections were a joke and even the inspectors have agreed it was a farce.  As for US soldiers taking WMD\'s home, let alone rocket lauchers and "stuff" shows your lack of intellect.  Sure a gun gets taken home, but a rocket laucher!?!?   I guess I should expect that from a Canadian - do you even know what a rocket launcher looks like?

Your credibility = 0

Originally posted by GigaShadow

Your credibility = 0

Maybe if you keep saying stuff like that people who don\'t actually read things will believe you!

Read that second article.  I\'ll summarize it for you:

they now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994

Bush went into Iraq on contrived evidence because he had decided to do that early on.  He had an agenda, and I wish people would realize that.  He couldn\'t go in \'for the right reasons\', and say it was for the human rights violations, etc, because then he would be putting the US right into the role of world-police... something he didn\'t want.  Rather he uses an excuse, that if it works out, he could use on other regimes later, and if not (as it doesn\'t seem to be), he can later abandon, as a one time-reason for invasion.  His later assertions (after invading) about the horrible regime were because they were begining to realize that ... hey!  we\'re not going to find what we said we would!

Gigashadow,  there is alot of things that weren\'t there before but are there now.

Terrorists,  suicide bombers,  Al Quada,  etc

Finding one shell that has sarin in it could mean anything.  It could mean they just now decided to tap into Saddam\'s weapons,  or it could mean it was brought there by foreign entities.

Originally posted by FatalXception
Maybe if you keep saying stuff like that people who don\'t actually read things will believe you!

Read that second article.  I\'ll summarize it for you:

 

Bush went into Iraq on contrived evidence because he had decided to do that early on.  He had an agenda, and I wish people would realize that.  He couldn\'t go in \'for the right reasons\', and say it was for the human rights violations, etc, because then he would be putting the US right into the role of world-police... something he didn\'t want.  Rather he uses an excuse, that if it works out, he could use on other regimes later, and if not (as it doesn\'t seem to be), he can later abandon, as a one time-reason for invasion.  His later assertions (after invading) about the horrible regime were because they were begining to realize that ... hey!  we\'re not going to find what we said we would!

God help you if you are on trial... do you only read half of the paragraphs?

"It also goes further than prewar U.N. reports, which said no weapons had been found but noted that Iraq had not fully accounted for weapons it was known to have had at the end of the Gulf War in 1991."

Originally posted by alliswell
Gigashadow,  there is alot of things that weren\'t there before but are there now.

Terrorists,  suicide bombers,  Al Quada,  etc

Finding one shell that has sarin in it could mean anything.  It could mean they just now decided to tap into Saddam\'s weapons,  or it could mean it was brought there by foreign entities.

There were no terrorists in Iraq prior to our invasion?  Don\'t kid yourself clowd.

OK, so let\'s say Saddam had WMDs in the form of Sarin gas artillery rounds.  

1.  He didn\'t use them during our invasion.
2.  Iraqi rebels have not used them for an entire year while we\'ve been working on pacifying that country.
3.  ONE round gets wired as an IED in May 2004.

To me this suggests that the Iraqi Army didn\'t even know they had the stuff last year.  some Iraqi probably stumbled upon a crate of rounds that was overlooked in the disarmament procedures 10 years ago.

This doesn\'t exactly indicate that "tons of chemical agents" are still sitting somewhere.  It does look bad at the moment because probably a few more rounds are going to show up as bombs, but I don\'t see this as a huge smoking gun.  It\'s a little premature for anyone to be crowing "AH HAH."