Iraqi WMD's Finally Found? In Syria?

[Soggy in NOLA]

See? What'd I tell you... now it's gas? No problem. Where's the nukes?

So you are saying that nerve gas alone in the hands of a country not kissing our ass is enough of a reason to invade and occupy? Long list there, the war profiteers should be happy to hear that opinion coming from the right.

 

[High_Gravity]

No. Not useless at all. Less dangerous, yes, but not at all useless and not at all non-lethal.

What makes the sarin-type nerve gases decompose is hydrolysis which is why keeping them as bicomponent weapons is desirable.

However, the hydrolysis of sarin (and other organophosphonates) is an equilibrium, meaning at any given time, there is still a significant amount of the dangerous product in existance.

With an LD50 of less than 1.5 mg with just dermal exposure (LD50 drastically reduces with inhalation - ~1000 fold), it doesn't take much at all to kill a single person. And, that's if the person is lucky enough to die after exposure.

So, even after years, sarin is quite lethal. And, if the weapons are bicomponent weapons? They are primely lethal.

I suppose, I am not anything like an expert in nerve gas, all they ever found was in decaying shell casings that were useless as weapons, but would a stockpile of nerve gas alone have been enough of a reason to invade and occupy the country? You know the answer to that question. Where are the nuclear missiles and industrial anthrax factories we were promised?

There were more than enough reasons to remove Saddam. He ran out of time in 1991.

We had 500,000 US Troops in theatre, plus the Kurds and Shites started an uprising. We should have finished the bastard back than.

 

[occupied]

See? What'd I tell you... now it's gas? No problem. Where's the nukes?

So you are saying that nerve gas alone in the hands of a country not kissing our ass is enough of a reason to invade and occupy? Long list there, the war profiteers should be happy to hear that opinion coming from the right.

That's another topic and there are valid arguments both pro and con.

Now, back to the current topic bub.. stop moving the goal posts.

We were promised WMDs, see that "s" on the end meaning Plural? We were assured along with the rest of the world that Iraq had active nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs running that were an immediate threat to Israel and Europe. That was the big lie, do not try to break it down to an argument that if anything at all was found that it justifies the entire thing.

 

[BlindBoo]

He did, but there was also a plan for rebuilding it. You can't rebuild a country if you blast it back to the stone ages.

Um, they were already back in the Stone Age. After more than 20 years of war and sanctions.

Afghanistan was in the stone age, Iraq not so much. They still had a functioning government, police, Military, schools, colleges, running water, electricity, roads, etc. compared to American standards they are not that good however they are leagues ahead of Afghanistan.

Considering they were the most modern of all Arab Nations in the early and mid 70's what they looked like in the 90 was the stone age. Afghanistan never got out of the stone age. 500,000 children starved.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo]Madeleine Albright Defends Mass-Murder of iraqi Children (500,000 Children dead) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[The T]

So you are saying that nerve gas alone in the hands of a country not kissing our ass is enough of a reason to invade and occupy? Long list there, the war profiteers should be happy to hear that opinion coming from the right.

That's another topic and there are valid arguments both pro and con.

Now, back to the current topic bub.. stop moving the goal posts.

We were promised WMDs, see that "s" on the end meaning Plural? We were assured along with the rest of the world that Iraq had active nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs running that were an immediate threat to Israel and Europe. That was the big lie, do not try to break it down to an argument that if anything at all was found that it justifies the entire thing.

and they were found IN iuraq proper. NOT in the amounts we thought...but the purpose of this thread is confirmation that Saddam MOVED THEM.

Pay attention s0n.

 

[hjmick]

The GOP thugs told us they had "WMD's and we know where they are", and were already found for the reason for the Iraq war. Does this now confirm W and the GOP were lying to us?

And the Democrats...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

So you are saying that nerve gas alone in the hands of a country not kissing our ass is enough of a reason to invade and occupy? Long list there, the war profiteers should be happy to hear that opinion coming from the right.

That's another topic and there are valid arguments both pro and con.

Now, back to the current topic bub.. stop moving the goal posts.

We were promised WMDs, see that "s" on the end meaning Plural? We were assured along with the rest of the world that Iraq had active nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs running that were an immediate threat to Israel and Europe. That was the big lie, do not try to break it down to an argument that if anything at all was found that it justifies the entire thing.

So, now you've been reduced to giving grammar lectures?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Bottom line folks, like it or not, and even our dear yet departed liberal friend Christopher Hitchens, noted... we had an "Appointment in Mesopotamia".

 

[Si modo]

Since everyone disregarded my last post on this I will repeat, even if Syria received every bit of Saddam's chemical weapons they would now be useless and dangerous to handle if they did not have a chemical weapons facility of their own to store and weaponize them and no active nuclear or bio-weapons programs existed at the time of invasion. Nerve gas alone was not enough of a reason to invade without the mushroom cloud scare and the little vial of white powder Powell scared the shit out of everyone with.

No. Not useless at all. Less dangerous, yes, but not at all useless and not at all non-lethal.

What makes the sarin-type nerve gases decompose is hydrolysis which is why keeping them as bicomponent weapons is desirable.

However, the hydrolysis of sarin (and other organophosphonates) is an equilibrium, meaning at any given time, there is still a significant amount of the dangerous product in existance.

With an LD50 of less than 1.5 mg with just dermal exposure (LD50 drastically reduces with inhalation - ~1000 fold), it doesn't take much at all to kill a single person. And, that's if the person is lucky enough to die after exposure.

So, even after years, sarin is quite lethal. And, if the weapons are bicomponent weapons? They are primely lethal.

I suppose, I am not anything like an expert in nerve gas, all they ever found was in decaying shell casings that were useless as weapons, but would a stockpile of nerve gas alone have been enough of a reason to invade and occupy the country? You know the answer to that question. Where are the nuclear missiles and industrial anthrax factories we were promised?

As a stockpile is not a definitive quantity, think of this. An average canister of a weapon for sarin - a 155 mm shell, for example - can hold up to 4 liters of sarin (for bicomponents, material to make up to 4 liters sarin). Since a bit more than a milliliter of sarin on your skin can kill you (1/1000 th of that if it's inhaled), and since there is about 3300 lethal doses in one shell of sarin - that's just dermal exposure - that's a lot of dead folks just from one shell.

Explode that shell? Multiply the lethal doses by 1000 - 3,300,000. Now, since it's impossible to get that many folks into the area that an explosion will cover, so, one is limited in efficacy of kill by area of coverage of explosion. It's pretty much guaranteed that close to everyone will die who IS in that area. And, if they don't die, most will wish they had.

So, IMO, abso-*******-lutely a stockpile of those mother fuckers is worth invasion.

I hate nerve agents and I hate chemical weapons. They are a brutal weapon and a brutal way to die. If I had my choice of which would kill me - nerve agent or nuke - I'd take nuke.

 

[The T]

The GOP thugs told us they had "WMD's and we know where they are", and were already found for the reason for the Iraq war. Does this now confirm W and the GOP were lying to us?

FYI doofus...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSwSDvgw5Uc]Democrats, WMD's & The Iraq War - YouTube[/ame]

Pay attention.

 

[Ariux]

However, the number two general in Saddam Hussein’s air force says that these chemical weapons are the WMD’s that we did not find in Iraq.

In 2006, Georges Sada, second in command of the Iraqi Air Force under Hussein before he defected, wrote a detailed narrative called “Saddam’s Secrets.”

Hey, jewish ass-******, the WMDs are a lie. Anytime you try to make the case for Saddam having WMDs, you're a liar just proving that you want to please Jews enough that they'll bend over and let you pound their ass.

Georges Sada hasn't served Saddam since 1991, and his service ended with being imprisoned for his conduct. That means he's in no position to know anything of which you claim he claims. But, he's in a position where he would want to lie to punish Saddam.

 

[Full-Auto]

However, the number two general in Saddam Hussein’s air force says that these chemical weapons are the WMD’s that we did not find in Iraq.

In 2006, Georges Sada, second in command of the Iraqi Air Force under Hussein before he defected, wrote a detailed narrative called “Saddam’s Secrets.”

Hey, jewish ass-******, the WMDs are a lie. Anytime you try to make the case for Saddam having WMDs, you're a liar just proving that you want to please Jews enough that they'll bend over and let you pound their ass.

Georges Sada hasn't served Saddam since 1991, and his service ended with being imprisoned for his conduct. That means he's in no position to know anything of which you claim he claims. But, he's in a position where he would want to lie to punish Saddam.

So dick licker, what was used in gassing the kurds?

 

[uscitizen]

Sada details how the Iraqi Revolutionary Guard moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria in the weeks leading up to the US-led operation to eliminated Hussein’s weapons threat.

rather than using them ... whats your point?

and they were well documented by their use against the Curds a decade earlier with no response from the US.

they found nothing (new) they claimed existed as reason for their unprovoked and unfunded invasion of a sovereign nation.

chemical weapons were used against the Iranians with the US taking an official no comment stance.

 

[The T]

However, the number two general in Saddam Hussein’s air force says that these chemical weapons are the WMD’s that we did not find in Iraq.

In 2006, Georges Sada, second in command of the Iraqi Air Force under Hussein before he defected, wrote a detailed narrative called “Saddam’s Secrets.”

Hey, jewish ass-******, the WMDs are a lie. Anytime you try to make the case for Saddam having WMDs, you're a liar just proving that you want to please Jews enough that they'll bend over and let you pound their ass.

Georges Sada hasn't served Saddam since 1991, and his service ended with being imprisoned for his conduct. That means he's in no position to know anything of which you claim he claims. But, he's in a position where he would want to lie to punish Saddam.

They were very REAL. YOU continue to ignore the evidence.

 

[Vel]

This has been common knowledge for a long time. It surprised me that there are so many on the board that didn't know this.
**************************************************************
Assad’s fall could solve Iraqi weapons mystery
f Syria’s regime falls, the U.S. will be in a better position to answer one of the lingering questions from the long Iraq War: Did Baghdad ship weapons of mass destruction components to Syria before the 2003 American-led invasion?

An opposition leader tells The Washington Times that a new, secular democracy in Syria would allow outside inspectors to survey and ensure destruction of what is believed to be one of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons in the Middle East.

Western and Israeli intelligence suspect that Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria also owns weaponized nerve agents.

Spy satellites tracked a large number of truck convoys moving from Iraq to Syria in the weeks before the 2003 invasion, raising suspicions that some carried weapons of mass destruction.

Among those who suspect a Syrian connection is retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James R. Clapper Jr., who is now the most senior U.S. intelligence officer.

He told The Times in 2003 that U.S. satellites documented waves of truck traffic out of Iraq and into Syria.

“I think personally that those below the senior leadership saw what was coming, and I think they went to some extraordinary lengths to dispose of the evidence,” said Gen. Clapper, who then headed the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and now is director of national intelligence. “I’ll call it an educated hunch.

“I think probably in the few months running up prior to the onset of combat that … there was probably an intensive effort to disperse into private homes, move documentation and materials out of the country,” he said. “I think there are any number of things that they would have done.”

On the activity on the Syrian border, Gen. Clapper said: “There is no question that there was a lot of traffic, increase in traffic up to the immediate onset of combat and certainly during Iraqi Freedom. … The obvious conclusion one draws is the sudden upturn, uptick in traffic which may have been people leaving the scene, fleeing Iraq and, unquestionably I’m sure, material as well.”
Assad's fall could solve Iraqi weapons mystery - Washington Times

 

[High_Gravity]

However, the number two general in Saddam Hussein’s air force says that these chemical weapons are the WMD’s that we did not find in Iraq.

In 2006, Georges Sada, second in command of the Iraqi Air Force under Hussein before he defected, wrote a detailed narrative called “Saddam’s Secrets.”

Hey, jewish ass-******, the WMDs are a lie. Anytime you try to make the case for Saddam having WMDs, you're a liar just proving that you want to please Jews enough that they'll bend over and let you pound their ass.

Georges Sada hasn't served Saddam since 1991, and his service ended with being imprisoned for his conduct. That means he's in no position to know anything of which you claim he claims. But, he's in a position where he would want to lie to punish Saddam.

Its funny seeing a racist ****** like you defending Saddam.

 

[occupied]

No. Not useless at all. Less dangerous, yes, but not at all useless and not at all non-lethal.

What makes the sarin-type nerve gases decompose is hydrolysis which is why keeping them as bicomponent weapons is desirable.

However, the hydrolysis of sarin (and other organophosphonates) is an equilibrium, meaning at any given time, there is still a significant amount of the dangerous product in existance.

With an LD50 of less than 1.5 mg with just dermal exposure (LD50 drastically reduces with inhalation - ~1000 fold), it doesn't take much at all to kill a single person. And, that's if the person is lucky enough to die after exposure.

So, even after years, sarin is quite lethal. And, if the weapons are bicomponent weapons? They are primely lethal.

I suppose, I am not anything like an expert in nerve gas, all they ever found was in decaying shell casings that were useless as weapons, but would a stockpile of nerve gas alone have been enough of a reason to invade and occupy the country? You know the answer to that question. Where are the nuclear missiles and industrial anthrax factories we were promised?

As a stockpile is not a definitive quantity, think of this. An average canister of a weapon for sarin - a 155 mm shell, for example - can hold up to 4 liters of sarin (for bicomponents, material to make up to 4 liters sarin). Since a bit more than a milliliter of sarin on your skin can kill you (1/1000 th of that if it's inhaled), and since there is about 3300 lethal doses in one shell of sarin - that's just dermal exposure - that's a lot of dead folks just from one shell.

Explode that shell? Multiply the lethal doses by 1000 - 3,300,000. Now, since it's impossible to get that many folks into the area that an explosion will cover, so, one is limited in efficacy of kill by area of coverage of explosion. It's pretty much guaranteed that close to everyone will die who IS in that area. And, if they don't die, most will wish they had.

So, IMO, abso-*******-lutely a stockpile of those mother fuckers is worth invasion.

I hate nerve agents and I hate chemical weapons. They are a brutal weapon and a brutal way to die. If I had my choice of which would kill me - nerve agent or nuke - I'd take nuke.

They are horrible, should we immediately invade Syria to prevent them from using them? Not so cut and dried is it?

 

[Si modo]

I suppose, I am not anything like an expert in nerve gas, all they ever found was in decaying shell casings that were useless as weapons, but would a stockpile of nerve gas alone have been enough of a reason to invade and occupy the country? You know the answer to that question. Where are the nuclear missiles and industrial anthrax factories we were promised?

As a stockpile is not a definitive quantity, think of this. An average canister of a weapon for sarin - a 155 mm shell, for example - can hold up to 4 liters of sarin (for bicomponents, material to make up to 4 liters sarin). Since a bit more than a milliliter of sarin on your skin can kill you (1/1000 th of that if it's inhaled), and since there is about 3300 lethal doses in one shell of sarin - that's just dermal exposure - that's a lot of dead folks just from one shell.

Explode that shell? Multiply the lethal doses by 1000 - 3,300,000. Now, since it's impossible to get that many folks into the area that an explosion will cover, so, one is limited in efficacy of kill by area of coverage of explosion. It's pretty much guaranteed that close to everyone will die who IS in that area. And, if they don't die, most will wish they had.

So, IMO, abso-*******-lutely a stockpile of those mother fuckers is worth invasion.

I hate nerve agents and I hate chemical weapons. They are a brutal weapon and a brutal way to die. If I had my choice of which would kill me - nerve agent or nuke - I'd take nuke.

They are horrible, should we immediately invade Syria to prevent them from using them? Not so cut and dried is it?

What?

 

[occupied]

As a stockpile is not a definitive quantity, think of this. An average canister of a weapon for sarin - a 155 mm shell, for example - can hold up to 4 liters of sarin (for bicomponents, material to make up to 4 liters sarin). Since a bit more than a milliliter of sarin on your skin can kill you (1/1000 th of that if it's inhaled), and since there is about 3300 lethal doses in one shell of sarin - that's just dermal exposure - that's a lot of dead folks just from one shell.

Explode that shell? Multiply the lethal doses by 1000 - 3,300,000. Now, since it's impossible to get that many folks into the area that an explosion will cover, so, one is limited in efficacy of kill by area of coverage of explosion. It's pretty much guaranteed that close to everyone will die who IS in that area. And, if they don't die, most will wish they had.

So, IMO, abso-*******-lutely a stockpile of those mother fuckers is worth invasion.

I hate nerve agents and I hate chemical weapons. They are a brutal weapon and a brutal way to die. If I had my choice of which would kill me - nerve agent or nuke - I'd take nuke.

They are horrible, should we immediately invade Syria to prevent them from using them? Not so cut and dried is it?

What?

It's a simple question, if nerve gas alone and the stated willingness to use them is sufficient grounds to invade and occupy a country then we should immediately invade Syria. Do you agree? In light of this thread the answer should be an unambiguous Yes.

 

[The T]

I suppose, I am not anything like an expert in nerve gas, all they ever found was in decaying shell casings that were useless as weapons, but would a stockpile of nerve gas alone have been enough of a reason to invade and occupy the country? You know the answer to that question. Where are the nuclear missiles and industrial anthrax factories we were promised?

As a stockpile is not a definitive quantity, think of this. An average canister of a weapon for sarin - a 155 mm shell, for example - can hold up to 4 liters of sarin (for bicomponents, material to make up to 4 liters sarin). Since a bit more than a milliliter of sarin on your skin can kill you (1/1000 th of that if it's inhaled), and since there is about 3300 lethal doses in one shell of sarin - that's just dermal exposure - that's a lot of dead folks just from one shell.

Explode that shell? Multiply the lethal doses by 1000 - 3,300,000. Now, since it's impossible to get that many folks into the area that an explosion will cover, so, one is limited in efficacy of kill by area of coverage of explosion. It's pretty much guaranteed that close to everyone will die who IS in that area. And, if they don't die, most will wish they had.

So, IMO, abso-*******-lutely a stockpile of those mother fuckers is worth invasion.

I hate nerve agents and I hate chemical weapons. They are a brutal weapon and a brutal way to die. If I had my choice of which would kill me - nerve agent or nuke - I'd take nuke.

They are horrible, should we immediately invade Syria to prevent them from using them? Not so cut and dried is it?

October surprise? Could Obama do this in keeping with his peace prize and another distraction when Americans are weary of war?

Be careful s0n...You're telegraphing Statist thoughts.

IDIOT.