my whole point, i guess, is that if there aren’t actual chemicals IN the warheads, then they’re just empty warheads. No different than a bucket. no big deal.
Well, no, that just isn’t true.
That is like calling an unloaded pistol “no different than a bucket”.
My understanding is that the warheads are specifically designed to hold and deliver chemical agents, and that these have been specifically forbidden for Iraq to possess.
This isn’t some instance of dual-use technology that the UN can just shrug off and pretend that Saddam can be trusted to act in good faith. This is a rather clear violation, like the announcement yesterday by Hans Blix that Iraq had illegally imported material to build arms.
Incidentally, elucidator, CNN also reports that the inspectors are going to the private homes of those involved in Iraq’s weapons programs. CNN speculates that the inspectors know where they live based on tips supplied them by US intelligence.
For my money, the Bush administration is playing this with restraint. As is appropriate.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m assuming you were being sarcastic. Not to get picky, but the warheads were cited as looking fairly new. If you said 1998 you’d be closer to the mark.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/17/sprj.irq.bush.reax/
Ok, the warheads are in “excellent condition”, maybe that doesn’t necessarily mean new(at least according to this particular link), but I’m pretty sure Saddam didn’t polish them every week.
excellent condition just means they were packed away for storage properly. You can pack a rifle in grease and leave it in the ground for a hundred years, then pull it out, clean it off and it will work just like new.
One would expect a 25 year old rocket casing, properly stored, to be the same. The fact that they were empty suggests that they may have never been unpacked even once from their original shipping containers.
Incidently, the Iraqi’s have described these as ‘expired 10 years ago’. Does anyone know what that means? Do they perhaps have some sort of propellant in them?
I’d say both of your analogies are off since a warhead is more akin to a bullet than a gun. Empty shell casings is a lot closer.
So they found some scientist. Your point being?
With restraint in the relative terms of the Bush Administration. Anything short of war would be “restraint” from them.
If the inspectors had found something that was truly hidden instead of in a normal arms storage facility, I’d be more suspicious. If they were trying to hide them, I’m sure they could have done a better job. I honestly think they’d forgotten them. If the inspectors could verify that they were new, that also might add some weight. If they could show that had recently held chemical weapons, then they would definitely have a smoking gun. But I doubt that’s going to happen.
That’s why a big deal is being made over nothing - we probably know it’s all we’re gonna get.
Nit: I believe they were called chemical mortars because they were largely used at first for launching smoke, not chemical warheads. I don’t believe they were ‘converted’ to high explosive, but rather, always served as a dual-purpose mortar that was known for it’s ability to put up smoke screens.
Let’s not forget that these warheads are dated from 1988. This is before any post-gulf-war agreements.
It seems that Iraq was stocking up chemical warheads after the Iran-Iraq war, in case they ever needed them.
Assuming Iraq genuinely made an attempt to disarm and destroy their chemical weapons, it seems entirely plausible to me that they simply lost track of a few warheads out of thousands. The likeliness of them maliciously hiding a dozen empty warheads in the middle of an ammunition storage dump to do Nefarious Things seems pretty low to me.
There was a time back in the cold war where we signed a treaty with the Russians that required that we list every missile or rocket with a certain range and give the list to them. Years later, we ‘rediscovered’ a patch of missiles that we’d lost track of, and were in ‘material breach’ of that treaty, I guess. If we can make a mixup, I don’t find it hard to believe that Iraq can lose track of a few empty warheads.
I’m starting to get confused by this whole thing. The argument being used by governments (US and UK) is:
We have to remove Saddam because:
a. he’s developing WMD and
b. he is likely to use these WMD against neighbouring countries or
c. pass the WMD on to terrorists
So far there appears to be ZERO evidence for a, b, or c
So can someone remind me why we’re going to war?
The smoking gun was when Sadam kicked the inspectors out during the Clinton regeime, the the finger on the trigger is when the UN said their weapon report was inaccurate, the whole shabang caught on video tape was the finding of the chemical rockets (even w/o finding the chemicals themselves).
cite please
Not a very precise description of events, I think. No-one was "kicked out ". Even the US State department states that the inspectors left, they weren’t kicked anywhere (my italics):
I’ll do that
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/12/20122002184442.asp
I’m not sure about the finger on the trirger bit but the UN thought the Iraqi report was incomplete.
Slee
There’s a big difference between innaccurate and incomplete. k2dave’s statement is still unsupported.
What’s the difference? Iraq was required to provide a complete report. Incomplete is just as bad as inaccurate, isn’t it?
That’s a value judgement depending upon your perspective. Incomplete is in no way a synonym for innacurate.
k2dave was apparently misrepresenting or distorting what they said. That means that kdave’s statement was innacurate not incomplete. Capiche?
On the other hand, we shouldn’t blame k2dave for getting it wrong here; he may have been misled by reports in the “liberal” media!
By the way, another issue that seems to have vanished is the whole issue that the Iraqis justified their obstruction at the time by claiming that there were American spies on the UNSCOM team, a claim that was since supported by reports in major U.S. newspapers in 1999, but has now apparently gone back in the “liberal” media to being just an Iraqi allegation. [See also http://www.fair.org/activism/iraq-myths.html and http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html ]
This isn’t to excuse Iraq from complying with weapons inspections, but to point out that there are two sides to the story. Truth is sometimes a little bit harder to ascertain than idealogues like to believe.
people that are saying “its okay because they are empty” do you imagin that they store the actual chemicals in the actual weapons? are you insaine!? a warhead is specificly created to make sure the chemical at some point can come out. not somewhere you want to store anything long term! chemicals for such weapons, you store in big giant drums that are as hard to open as possible. you don’t fill the weapons untill your actually pulling them out to use them, sheesh
And this assumption is based on nothing except the fact that they have violated the ceasefire in multiple ways.
No, the cease fire agreement, in which they committed themselves not to have or develop any WMD, dates from 1991. It is now 2003. They are in violation of an agreement that is current now.
A distinction without a difference. The Iraqi report, in which they claimed they had no WMD, is both inaccurate, because they do, and incomplete, because they did not mention the WMD which they have.
elucidator was claiming that the US had not delivered any information to the UN inspectors. CNN claims that there is evidence that they did. It would make sense that the US would not publicize the information they gave, because the Iraqis would then use it to hide their WMD.
So now we have evidence that he is.
which he now has the capacity to do, in violation of the cease-fire agreement.
Read the cites. There is more than evidence, there is proof.
Because Iraq is in violation of the cease-fire agreement ending the last war, and we have substantial reason to believe that Saddam is preparing to do the same thing again.
Look, despite the warheads, this isn’t rocket science. Iraq has violated its sworn word. Again. It has the means and the will to threaten its neighbors. Again.
Why are you all trying so hard to justify what Iraq does?
Regards,
Shodan