Text 48856, 103 rader
Skriven 2007-03-27 16:46:39 av Ward Dossche (2:292/854)
     Kommentar till en text av shannon talley
Ärende: Re: Any or all
======================
Shannon,
 
> To state unequivocally there were no WMD's is absolutely incorrect and
> doesn't coincide with the final UN inspection report.
 
I totally accept that. With some minor modications my kitchen could be used to
produce a number of substances as well which can pass as WMDs. That does not
qualify this country as WMD-capable (although I'm certain it is, it just isn't
a renegade country willing to go that way).
 
> Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons
> munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.
 
I do not believe that. Had it been the case it would have been broadcasted all
over the globe.
 
At some points brand-new shells and never-used rockets were found that had a
capability of carrying a chemical load. Which in itself is a nonsense-remark
because you virtually can put any load in a shell. So the intended use could
have been conventional ... or even nuclear. The fact is that no traces exist to
underline either theory.
 
> Various nuclear facilities, including the Baghdad Nuclear Research
> Facility
> and Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center, were found looted in the month
> following the invasion. (Gellman, 3 May 2003)
 
OK.
 
> On June 20, 2003, the
> International Atomic Energy Agency reported that tons of uranium, as well
> as
> other radioactive materials such as thorium, had been recovered, and that
> the vast majority had remained on site. There were several reports of
> radiation sickness in the area.
 
Which means nothing had happened to it, it had not been put to any
inappropriate use nor was there an indication of such intention. Thorium, by
the way, maybe sounds awful as a name, but it has no direct weapons-usage.
 
> On May 16, 2004 a 152mm artillery shell was used as an improvised
> bomb.(Iraq's Chemical Warfare Program Annex F. Retrieved on 2005-06-29.)
> The
> shell exploded and two U.S. soldiers were treated for minor exposure to a
> nerve agent (nausea and dilated pupils). On May 18 it was reported by
> U.S. Department of Defense intelligence officials that tests showed the
> two-chambered shell contained the chemical agent sarin, the shell being
> "likely" to have contained three to four liters of the substance (in the
> form of its two unmixed precursor chemicals prior to the aforementioned
> explosion that had not effectively mixed them).
 
Very unlikely. There are no known 152mm artillery shells but that was possibly
a typo and needed to be 155mm. Having been an artillery-officer it seems
unlikely to me that a shell of that caliber can have a detonator, an explosive
charge strong enough to rip the shell apart and still have two separate
chambers. If that were a weapon to be fired from a canon on impact it would
certainly burst and not inflict any nerve-gas damage at all.
 
Other than that, sarin is not produced by crudely mixing two substances but is
a relatively complicated synthesis-process in a chemical lab or facility.
 
But I do remember the news report which was generally disregarded here as
nonsense.
 
> In some cases, equipment and materials subject
> to UN monitoring had been kept hidden from UN inspectors. "So there was a
> WMD program. It was going ahead. It was rudimentary in many areas", Kay
> would say in a later interview.
 
There was nothing that would allow unbiased people to subscribe to that theory.
 
> In addition, if there weren't coalition troops sitting right next to Iran
> at
> this moment, who would keep that country in 'check' while they attempt to
> come up with a means in which to completely destroy Israel?
 
Definitely if and when the current government of Iran gets an opportunity it
will destroy, or at least attempt to destroy, Israel. Others have tried in the
past and were very "unsuccessful" to use an understatement.
 
But this is just looking for clues of justification for the illegal invasion of
Iraq about 5 years ago. The given reason has always been "support to
terrorists" and "WMDs".
 
Both have been proven unfounded ... Iraq did not support international
terrorism (the way Khadaffi did) and had no way of being any threat to the US.
 
The result of the past 5 years is a very unstable Iraq, a very unstable
Middle-East, a world which has never been as unsafe as it is today and the US
with more sworn enemies than ever before ...
 
Pulling-out is impossible the way it is going now there but I do not see any
short term, or even mid-term, solution without US troops on the ground.
 
Sorry, Shannon, but it was said often enough that by invading Iraq, Pandora's
box would be opened. I can only say this is exactly what happened.
 
Take care,
 
 \%/@rd

--- D'Bridge 2.68
 * Origin: Many Glacier -o=O=o- Preserve - Protect - Conserve (2:292/854)