Turns out those chemical weapons don't constitute WMDs after all.?

Question

Of course, (surprise, suprise) the Republicans were just "exagerating" again.

From the article: "One of the report's key findings was that since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, coalition forces have recovered about 500 shells, canisters or other munitions that contain degraded mustard gas or sarin nerve agent."

"The intelligence officials also said that the munitions referred to in the report were produced before the Persian Gulf War in 1991 and that they had degraded and could not be used as designed. "There is no evidence today of any post-1991 WMD munitions," said the official, who agreed to speak with reporters only if his identity and his agency were not disclosed."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/22/AR2006062201839.html

Will we ever see a retraction, or any explenation from the party of "moral values and personal responsibility"?

Answer 1

I'm not holding my breath.

Answer 2

Have you ever seen the effects of chemical weapons? I have in small doses. It's horrible horrible stuff, no matter how degraded it is. Even if they "could not be used as designed", they are still weapons of mass destruction. Trust me from a person with first hand experience, they are bad news. Do you know why the US has a policy that we consider it a proper response to a chemical attack that we reserve the right to use nuclear weapons? It's because we do not have and will not use chemical weapons ourselves. They are simply too grotesque. We had them through out the Clinton administration, and then destroyed them out of conscience during the early days of the Bush administration at a army base in Utah. Well, I happen to support a party of "moral values and personal responsibility", I'm a republican.

Answer 3

What garbage. If this administration had found even an inkling of genuine wmds They'ed have saturated all the t/v networks with this proof.You conveniently forget that hans blicks(weapons inspector for un)personally saw the dumping of chemical weapons.So the usa recovers some useless weapons The integrity of this administration is abysmal.Would'nt they wish it to be otherwise

Answer 4

Ok, this is all great and fun, but first of all, you're not going to rely on spin and propaganda, are you? You don't buy it from the left, why buy it from the right? How many "reports" conflict on this? I know you'll pick the ones YOU want, just like many liberals choose theirs...

Funny enough though, it's irrelevant...they never used those weapons on anyone...and their government never specifically even threatened to use them...so what you're saying is that it's ok for the US to have nukes, threaten to use them, ACTUALLY use them and be considered a world power because of it, but the mere possibility of a nation we don't like having them allows us to go in and take over the nation. I wonder how you'll be feeling when the US isn't the most powerful nation on Earth any more...will you be that willing to let the powers in the world control our destiny?

Answer 5

Might be that there weren't all that many usable chemical weapons left over in 2003 given that Saddam had been diligent in using many of them against the Iranians and his own countrymen over the previous 20 years...

I'm certainly not a Bush apologist, and I don't like the precedent set by Iraq's "liberation" in terms of pseudo-coalition international action, but I also don't shed any tears over Saddam and his regime being removed from power. I also don't rule out that some level of chemical weapons capability may one day be found, although this always will be something of a matter of interpretation.

Why? Well, unlike other "munitions", chemical weapons readily break down into many sub-components, many of which have legitimate commercial and other industrial uses when taken individually. This is what has made the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) so complex to develop, implement, and administer. As an example, even a "democratic" country has issues with the potential scope of the inspection regime that is necessary to detect the production of chemical weapons, or the stockpiling of so-called "precursor chemicals" -- namely, those chemicals that, when combined, might create a usable chemical weapon.

Other than our separating the world's nations into the "good guys" and "bad guys", there's not really any difference between country A that is manufacturing chemical B as a component of a commonly-used industrial product (say, part of a strong cleaning solution, or a pesticide), and country X that also is manufacturing chemical B as part of the same industrial product, but is presumed to have the intent (and means) to make it into a usable chemical weapon.

In both cases, chemical B is but one of many potential precursor chemicals that might, if properly combined by the bad guys, make a harmful chemical weapon. So, sitting in the United States as a legitimate producer of chemical B, are you going to like it very much when an international chemical weapons inspector arrives to determine whether or not any of your week's production of chemical B has gone missing without appropriate records -- and you're potentially accused of contributing to the making (or hiding) of chemical weapons? That's how easy it is, in some cases, to blur the line between "weapon" and poor record-keeping or accidental loss/spillage.

Knowing how easy it actually is to create even rudimentary chemical weapons, the US military was rightly cautious about how it conducted military operations in Iraq. Believe me, a soldier does not put on chemical weapons protective gear because its comfortable or stylish -- they *endure* it because they think there is a potential threat, and that it is credible. Absent that, it gets tucked into the bottom of the gear bag or chucked.

Saddam's military in both Iraq conflicts had the practical means to deliver chemical weapons. To me, it matters little that the latest inspections have not found "ready-use" chemical munitions, or even ones that were up to date -- the artillery and missile systems were still there to deliver a credible chemical attack, had Iraq chose to do so at some point.

As for dismissing the effects of outdated chemical munitions, we'll see whether we take the "threat" of such things so lightly when thousands of tons of such munitions dumped into the oceans at the end of World Wars I and II (and later) start to rust through their containers, and potentially contaminate or kill large numbers of ocean creatures. If such degraded chemicals are so harmless in the view of some, go ahead and volunteer to have the local chemical weapons disposal unit set up their incinerators next to your neighbourhood... I think you'll take a different viewpoint on whether they're still something you feel safe about, even 20 years on...

Deas gu cath...

Answer 6

There were/are real WMD's that Saddam hid in Libya just before we invaded.
Saddam's sole surviving general told that to Fox News AND The Daily Show (to cover both ends)

Answer 7

If that same gas Saddam used on his own people were used in YOUR home town would it be a WMD then?
There sure are a lot of idiot anti-American losers in Yahoo answers like you.

Answer 8

Yea. Right on brother! That nerve gas ain't nothing. Tell that to the Kurds Saddam used it on. Oh, that's right you can't. Cause they're DEAD!

Answer 9

America is retaining her WMD's and making up new stories about little countries w. scud firecrackers having WMD's, what else is new?

Answer 10

lol those idiots .i don't think there will be one .bush never did say anything when this came out knowing that the report was just another misled lie.

Answer 11

read the book "Saddam's Secrets" by general Gorga Sada (sp?)
I am at work or I could give you the ISBN #, its written by an Iraqi general, good read.