Saddam's WMD in 2003 - Degrated Chemical Artillery Shells!

From a U.N. report on Saddams WMD.

First the UN clearly state in March 2003 that the Mustard gas shells they found are of HIGH QUALITY even it had been STORED FOR OVER 12 YEARS. Second the UN admit that there may still VIABLE i.e. EFFECTIVE Mustrad filled artillery shell hidden in Iraq, and yesterday we learned for a fact that there were indeed 500 Mustard gas artillery shells that were found in Iraq since the removal of Saddam. Also it is safe to conclude that the Mustard Gas shells found after the war are still in high quality and highly effective Chemical weapons.

I see you ignored all the other threads and had to come back and make another pointless post blaming Bush.

Funny, first you claim there were no WMD in Iraq and you had no doubt about it. We went in for nothing according to you. Now we have proof of WMD and you change your tune to they are old and can't reach the main land? What an ignorant fool you are Col. All your articles on the war in Iraq just got squashed by this information and the best you can do is claim that they are old and of short range. No wonder we lost the vietnam war, with people like you in the military we don't need enemies.

I have a distinct feeling if these had been shipped to the US in a shipping container, we'd have been greeted with

BUSH'S POLICIES ALLOWED WMDs TO BE SHIPPED INTO THE US, MILLIONS THREATENED!!!!!

They make IEDs out of reverse-engineered shells now, so I suppose it would have been imposible to fix up something with these, huh? Worse, they'd have attacked Iraqis and claimed the US used chemical weapons on them; an accusation you would have also carried here to exploit, no doubt.

Germany, France, and even Saddam's own people assumed he still had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons right up until the invasion. The fact that you have to make this about "ongoing" programs just shows how facetious your argument is. He broke the terms of his ceasefire. You need to make this about WMDs, no one else really does.

IslandDod

The shells discussed in OUR Intel report that was just released said the 500 shells were from 1980 and were of doubtful value. How did you say Saddam was to use those shells with a max range of 10 miles against the United States? How were these shells to produce the mushroom clouds which Bush and Cheney said was the reason we could not wait to invade Iraq in March 2003?

Charles C.

If you go back I said the ONLY WMD that was found were OLD gas filler Artillery Shells. That did not constitute ANY threat against this country which was the reason we went to war. How many other countries have the same shells--China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Syria to name a few. Shall we attack them as well? The more information that is released (declassified by Bush) the more clear it becomes; the United States was in NO DANGER from Iraq in 2003!!!!!!!

How did you say Saddam was to use those shells with a max range of 10 miles against the United States?

Maybe the same way 19 people brought down two 100+ story buildings. There are other ways of delivering destruction without the use of missiles.

How were these shells to produce the mushroom clouds which Bush and Cheney said was the reason we could not wait to invade Iraq in March 2003?

Maybe the same way they would cause the destruction the democrats said Saddam would do? Oh I forgot, they are democrats, you give them a pass when they said Saddam was a serious threat.

Hypocrit.

If you go back I said the ONLY WMD that was found were OLD gas filler Artillery Shells. That did not constitute ANY threat against this country which was the reason we went to war. How many other countries have the same shells--China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Syria to name a few. Shall we attack them as well? The more information that is released (declassified by Bush) the more clear it becomes; the United States was in NO DANGER from Iraq in 2003!!!!!!!

Are you like the dumbest person on this planet? Do you only consider a mushroom cloud over the US to be a terrorist act and everything else is just a crime? Is this guy stupid or what? I personally don't give 2 rats a$$e$ what you think is a good enough reason to fight terror, WMD were found and nothing you say or do can change that. People can make bombs out of fertirlizer these days and you think some old gas filled shells are no big deal? Thank God you're retired and not working in any military branch, otherwise we'd be screwed.

said the 500 shells were from 1980 and were of doubtful value.

Definitions

Doubtful: open to doubt or suspicion
Sure: certain(p): having or feeling no doubt or uncertainty

You see the difference here Col? "Of doubtful value" does not mean 100% sure. Example: I am 100% sure that you hate Bush and I am doubtful that your constant Bush Bashing has anything to do with the well being of the American people. Now, have we learned something today?

BTW, I noticed you ignored my article, you're pretty good at doing that when an argument that smashes your argument is posted. To scared to reply? I found a good paying job, I thought you said there were no good paying jobs. BTW I have no college degree or anything, just in case. Oh yea and how come you have not written an article about the deficit actually shrinking? It's all over the news.

CLINTON'S MISGUIDED POLICIES ALLOWED SADDAAM HUSSIEN TO STOCKPILE WMDs FOR YEARS WHILE INSPECTIONS WERE THRWARTED!!!


...and that was back before the "use before" date expired.

Bakerstreet

Where all the weapons stockpiled in Iraq during the Clinton Administration? The 500 old artillery shells were from the Reagan administration period.

Charles C.

I know a lot more about WMD then you apparently do. First, gas as a weapon is only effective if it can be contained and reach a lethal concentration. Bio weapons are much more potentially lethal and Nuclear are by far the worst. If the threat to this country was from Gas filled Artillery shells, Bush sold Congress and the American people a BILL OF GOODS about any danger to our country from Saddam and his WMD!!!!!

There was no terrorism in Iraq before we deposed Saddam and then both internal and external groups began to operate as terrorists. I agree there is terrorism today in Iraq but that is because of our actions. The situation in Afghanistan is becoming serious again with terrorism expanding every day. Bush NEVER finished the job in Afghanistan because he HAD TO INVADE IRAQ!

We had no beef with Hussein during the Reagan period, and he wasn't under the obligation to declare these shells and destroy them then. It was under Clinton's administration that enforcement of the ceasefire wasn't held to, and that these shells were stored away and hidden from inspectors. SO, again...

CLINTON'S MISGUIDED POLICIES ALLOWED SADDAAM HUSSIEN TO STOCKPILE WMDs FOR YEARS WHILE INSPECTIONS WERE THRWARTED!!!

I know a lot more about WMD then you apparently do. First, gas as a weapon is only effective if it can be contained and reach a lethal concentration. Bio weapons are much more potentially lethal and Nuclear are by far the worst. If the threat to this country was from Gas filled Artillery shells, Bush sold Congress and the American people a BILL OF GOODS about any danger to our country from Saddam and his WMD!!!!! There was no terrorism in Iraq before we deposed Saddam and then both internal and external groups began to operate as terrorists. I agree there is terrorism today in Iraq but that is because of our actions. The situation in Afghanistan is becoming serious again with terrorism expanding every day. Bush NEVER finished the job in Afghanistan because he HAD TO INVADE IRAQ!

You really are that stupid aren't you? I guess if it's not a nuke or a chemical made 3 days ago it's not a threat according to you. Oh BTW, a gas can be lethal even if degraded and in small amounts. But what do you care, you have to have the deaths of thousands of Americans citizens in order for you to believe anything. You would probably wait for Kim from N Korea to shoot his missile and hit the US before you would want accion against him. Sorry buddy but that don't work for me. Your explanations are worthless, WMD were found and nothing you say or do can change that. Period.

There was no terrorism in Iraq before we deposed Saddam and then both internal and external groups began to operate as terrorists. I agree there is terrorism today in Iraq but that is because of our actions. The situation in Afghanistan is becoming serious again with terrorism expanding every day. Bush NEVER finished the job in Afghanistan because he HAD TO INVADE IRAQ!

You know nothing cause you did not live in Iraq, were not currently active in the military and you have no legit sources of your own to back any of this up. This is what you call information of doubtful value. Terrorist were there, it's been proven time and time again. Not that you care about this either. You nut case.

CharlesC

Please explain even if the gas in the old Artillery shells was lethal how that endangered the United States? They could be fired over about 10 miles. How far do you think it is from Iraq to the U.S. I guess we would have allowed Saddam to ship an Artillery piece into the U.S. and then ship in the shells and then allow him to set up a position where he could open fire on us. You are just about as stupid as you can be. Many countries have such weapons. Does that mean we are to invade every country with such weapons?

The issue was that Bush and Cheney told us we were in danger from Saddam. I want you to explain HOW?

I already explained that armament is being reverse engineered in order to create improvised munitions in #3. Chemical weapons are no different. Your ignorance is feigned, you know as well as anyone that they wouldn't have to "fire" shells to kill people with them. You, yourself said that we were in dire danger of such weapons being smuggled in through our ports when the whole UAE farce was big.

"The issue was that Bush and Cheney told us we were in danger from Saddam. I want you to explain HOW? "

No, you want it explained, and then you want to ignore the answer, and then you will ask again, and repeat the process weekly. Why should anyone bother at this point. I remember you asking that quetion and being answered literally years ago now.

So... again...

*Clinton didn't get the job done and ignored the fact that the ceasefire required Hussein to give up weapons we now find that he had. Pre-1991 weapons are being poo-pooed now, but in 1993 they would have been minty fresh, and Clinton made little effort to see to it they were secured or destroyed.

*Also, we know that these shells DON'T have to be fired, and that they can be made into IEDs or reverse engineered for their components, as all the shells made into IEDs are already.

*"Dirty" bombs are a very, very ineffective misuse of armament, and yet they seem to be a bugbear for Dems when they want to scare us about the borders. Given that a stink was made about the UAE port deal being just bad enough for this kind of material to be smuggled in, such material MUST be of consequence.

*There's no question that if these shells had been found in a shipping container on a train in Kansas, the Col would consider them HIGHLY dangerous and a golden example of Bush's ineffective border security. They would no doubt be suitable to bring about the apocolypse if it were in the Col's interest.

I don't see where you have a leg to stand on here, Col. You are spinning the existence of something you claimed didn't exist. When we said that the stockpiles weren't destroyed, these are part of them. Gosh, if you were wrong about this, think what you might be wrong about next week...

We spent a trillion dollars, suffered 2,500 dead and 35,000 injured because Saddam had 500 old gas filled artillery shells. If after 9/11 Bush had secured our borders and ports, neither Saddam nor anyone else would have been able to smuggle in WMD of any type. The arguments to justify this war do not hold water. What about all the other dictators that have similar weapons and chemical agents? You need to read the article that I have quoted in this Blog site and in my book from Professor Record of the Army War College. He points out the otter nonsense of your logic and indicated we do not have the resources to invade every country that might have or even do have WMD that wish us harm. THE TERRORISTS WIN NO MATTER WHAT THE OUTCOME IN IRAQ because they are prompting us to spend our resources in ineffective ways to protect our country.

Every cent we are spending on this war is being borrowed and we not only will be required to pay the interest on that money but some day repay the money Bush is spending ineffectively in Iraq.

"We spent a trillion dollars, suffered 2,500 dead and 35,000 injured because Saddam had 500 old gas filled artillery shells."

Straw man argument. You set up a false situation and then point to it as proof. We forcefully removed Hussein because he ignored the terms of the cease fire and showed no hope of ever ceasing to be the maniac he was. Whether he had 500 old wmd's today or a nuclear bomb ten years from now, he needed to go. Either you do it yourself, or trust self-absorbed Dems to do it later.

Re: 500 old gas filled artillery shells. He didn't even have that much two weeks ago, according to you. I wonder what he might have a month from now? The problem wasn't what he had, rather it was the fact that it was impossible to know what he had, and he had no intention of cooperating with inspections. That, as you clumsily dodge, was what was proven here. The anti-war governments that opposed the invasion thought he had WMDs, as did Hussein's own generals.

There's nothing to stand on in this argument, so you'll shift it to 'terrorists' in Iraq, when we know Ansar al Islam was functioning in Iraq long before the invasion and that Zarqawi went there before we even invaded as well. Here's an idea, find something to shift to that hasn't already been refuted. That might work out better as a dodge. Ideally, you wouldn't need to dodge at all.

There were at least three terrorist in Iraq before the war: Saddam, Uday, & Qusay.
You're sure these 500 shells are no longer dangerous - OK - put your money where your mouth is - open one up and inhale deeply.

Bakerstreet

No Bush told us we invaded Iraq because of the danger to this country NOT because Saddam did not obey U N Resolutions. WE are NOT the enforcement agent for the UN. If Bush had said lets go to war to enforce U N resolution or to give the Iraqi people a chance to vote the answer would have been NO. That is NOT the reason Bush gave Congress or the American People to remove Saddam!

Fiesty

Those three had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and did not have the means to attack the United States!

Um, what UN resolution. There was no necessity in any other resolution thereafter. The UN has no authority over us. We were already parties in a war with Hussein, and we had a ceasefire agreement with him, and he didn't keep to it. Just because Clinton preferred getting a hummer than paying attention to it doesn't mean it wasn't an issue.

Bush gave many reasons to remove Saddam, you just want to home in on the ones that didn't pan out. You are even wrong about the reasons you cite. It was not that Hussein had this or that, it was that we had reason to believe that Hussein had them, and he refused to cooperate with any means of finding out for sure.

You can dance around and pretend the subject is different every time you post, but I don't think any third party is going to be convinced by your jig. The UN wasn't party to enforcement because they were being bribed. In the absence of real authority we decided to do the job.

You are trying desperately to spin the fact that you were wrong, but YOU WERE WRONG. You said that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and that had the inspectors been able to do their jobs they would have found that. Now, you see you were wrong.

You want to shift it to "new" weapons, etc., but the main job of the inspections was to find out what happened to the armament he didn't have proof he destroyed. You claimed he didn't have any of it, now we find he did. Spin it how you like, but the fact remains this is just your brand of damage control.

Usama didn't have any ICBMs - yet he found 19 weak-mind ignoramuses to crash jet airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Are you disappointed that The Forty on Flight 93 were victorious in preventing that plane from reaching its target?

Wake-up and smell the mustard gas!

No Bush told us we invaded Iraq because of the danger to this country NOT because Saddam did not obey U N Resolutions.

You mean to say Bush, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and many more democrats. Please don't leave them out in the future.

Those three had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and did not have the means to attack the United States!

Nobody said they were part of Sept. 11. The point being made here is some guy in a cave managed to down two 100+ story buildings in the U.S. He didn't have missiles, and still managed to do damage.

There was no terrorism in Iraq before we deposed Saddam and then both internal and external groups began to operate as terrorists.

There were many terrorists in Iraq before the war, including al-zaqarwi. I have been documenting the translated documents on how Saddam had ongoing relationships with terrorist organizations. These are things you don't know because they don't fit your obsessive "hate Bush" agenda.

This declassified intelligence report does NOTHING to show that in 2003 Saddam was a threat and does not in any way change the conclusion of the U. S. Former Weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer in 2004 that Saddam had discontinued his WMD program just after the 1991 war and that he had NO ACTIVE Chemical, Biological or Nuclear weapons programs in 2003!

The above was the conclusion of OUR chief weapons inspector in 2004. “NO ACTIVE CHEMICAL. BIOLOGICAL or NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM in 2003”!!!!!!!!!!! When Bush and Cheney said we had to attack Iraq it was because we were in danger-- Remember the mushroom clouds!!! It was NOT because he violated U N resolutions or because he was an evil person or because we wanted to allow the Iraqi people to vote. All the reasons except that WE WERE IN DANGER came AFTER we invaded Iraq. The reasons kept changing as each reason did not pan out!

Colonel, the Duelfer report noted how Saddam maintained the ability to restart a weapons program the moment the sanctions were lifted, which they very well may have. So either Iraq would be under permanent sanctions (which was a major reason for the hatred against the US and also the UN in Iraq and in the greater Arab world. Yes, Iraqis hated the UN too, hence the lack of sadness for the truck bombing of UN headquarter in Baghdad in August 2003), or the sanctions would be lifted and Saddam would reconstitute the weapons program. This would amount to generational baysitting.

Unfortunately, The Bush administration turned this venture into a nation-building exercise, so now it is turning into generational babysitting anyway. I say better a 3 week war every 3 years to remove the new troublemakers in power than a permanent occupation of Iraq.

Island Dog - What big teeth you have. Nice "bite"
COL Gene is yelling because you are correct.

Bushs' speech (Oct. 2002) says plenty about the 12 UN resolutions, the threat Saddam was to the other countrys in the middle east, his aid to terrorist, etc. He also talks about freedom for the people of Iraqi.
The liberals were jumping up & down blabbing about the war.

I think we are not aggressive enough in this war.

*tap tap* is this thing on?

This story is disturbing and if anything adds to my lack of confidence in what our government and then what the press reports. I feel that at times our government feeds info to the press to buttress what they want us to accept as either justification for what Bush has done or is about to do!