Chemical Weapons found in Iraq

[DinoDoc]

I wasn't supportive of the invasion to begin with even though I did/do believe Iraq had WMD at the time. So I fail to see the point of the question.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


1441 did not sanction an invasion.

You either follow it or you don't, you can't have both.

Wouldn't you at least agree that "serious consequences" could be interpreted that way? I mean c'mon, what else was left to do? We already had an embargo, Saddam was already internationally isolated, and we already had air patrols over half the country. What did you think that "serious consequences" meant?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Ned, can't you understand that they are leftovers from the Iran-Iraq war? In any case, the resolution did not plan an outright invasion- the Iraqis would obviously be given the chance (if WMDs had been found) to destroy them.

The resolution puts the responsibility for turning over all WMD on the Iraqis. Not on the UN to find them. There was no provisio for old Iran-Iraq weapons being exempted.

I agree with Ned. Why keep looking for a way to support Saddam when the evidence that he needed to be ousted continues to mount?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


And let's say they are mostly in an unusable state, buried beneath the desert. Will that prove that Iraq was a threat?

It will certainly provide more proof that they were in violation of 1441.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
And let's say they are mostly in an unusable state, buried beneath the desert. Will that prove that Iraq was a threat?

No, it will proof that Saddam was a self destrutive egomaniac. Withholding madated infromation and cooperation, and obstructing the Inspections and thus creating rational suspicions, for little purpose beyond feeding his inflated ego.

[Verto]

Originally posted by PLATO

What did you think that "serious consequences" meant?

No more HBO!

[Lefty Scaevola]

In Res 1441, "serious consequences" was meant to be ambigous, intended for the very purposes of different parties interpreting it and reporting its supposed meaing as they please to their own constituants. It was intend for the thoses aligned one way to say it means armed force, and for thoses aligned a different way to say it does not.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, et al., I hardly think that burying mortar shells filled with mustard gas is a proper form of destroying weapons of mass instruction.

Correct, it is an imporper way of dispossing of them..Do you think the iraqis would only use proper ways of disposal? Why? Many states burried thier chemical munitions, yet agian, the Japanese example of burrying these munitions in China.

Burying them under sand is not a proper form of storage.

Burying things under sand is a known method for hiding things from UN weapons inspectors.

If they are not a proper form of storage, meaning they will be suelss anyway, why hide them? Hmm., logic problem here.

So we find mortar shells buried under sand, and enemies of the United States and/or Bush conclude that they were not burried to hide them from UN weapons inspectors, but to destroy them!

And just who is living in the land of conspiracy theories?

Given that these are for all intenet and purposes destroyed- what is your point?

[GePap]

The simplest way to know that this is not what the admin. meant is to how how little play the admin. has given this discovery. I mean, would not the amdin. want to publicize this find to al four corners of the world if it was the sort of proof they sought? Why wasn't this stash found in the 6 months plus special WMD hunters were looking? Did we not have some clues? Did not iraqis come forward to tell us? (hey, huge stockpile of WMD's are burried over there!)

The admin is dowplaying this BECAUSE it brings back the WMD debate, a debate that right now looks like the Admin. has lost- this is not even a consolation price find, so the amdin. would preffer we move on from WMD's to the liberation theology they now espouse doublequick. Its nice to know though we have true believers here in POly, people who are more Catholic than the Pope when it comes to the admins. public case for war.

[Mr. Harley]

Uh, people, those rounds would probably be more dangerous to the unit firing them than the intended target. A mortar round is different than a conventional artillery round in that it is an single unit - warhead and propellent. You never "store" them that way. Anybody with any kind of military experience would know that their usable lifespan buried under the sand would be short. If the claimed premise of a comprehensive, malice aforethought "hiding" them (for future use) is true, then they would have dug them up IMMEDIATELY on throwing out the inspectors, to see what was salvagable.

If they were trying to hide them, at least initially, it was obviously done on an ad hoc basis. Remember, Saddam figured we would all forget about him, and he would have wanted them available for domestic use (see my thread about turning him over to the Kurds). After this much time I seriously doubt though that anybody had been keeping track of them, for the reason stated above. Also, accountability for mortar rounds - you've got to be joking. A heavy weapons squad with four 120mm mortars (smallest deployable unit I know of - they could have as many as six) can have sustained of 24-48 rounds PER MINUTE (depending on SOP). Saddam used them fairly indiscriminately, so I doubt they kept track of each individual round. How many were produced - I'll bet thousands. This represents what per cent. Come on.

Before some of you start demonizing me, remember that the USA cannot account for around 50 POUNDS of plutonium, in complete violation of several international accords. That is serious WMD. Until I see evidence of a much larger cache of weapons, possibly with nerve agents (real WMD and very handy for terrorists), I will have to side with those who consider this silly. Good god, accounting for each mortar round. This is ridiculous. Occam's razor, or for those of you who aren't familiar with it, "Keep it simple, stupid!"

[debeest]

For those who keep citing UN Resolution 1441 as a justification for the U.S.' unilateral invasion of Iraq without UN approval:

Is it of any interest to you to know that, of the 1400 or so UN resolutions that the UN has determined have ever been violated, about 90% of the violations have been by the U.S. or Israel? OK, maybe Israel gets targeted for some unfair resolutions, but let's look at who's violating UN law on a regular basis before we use it as a rationale for killing people, OK?

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by debeest
For those who keep citing UN Resolution 1441 as a justification for the U.S.' unilateral invasion of Iraq without UN approval:

Is it of any interest to you to know that, of the 1400 or so UN resolutions that the UN has determined have ever been violated, about 90% of the violations have been by the U.S. or Israel?

Excuses. Are you respecting UN decisions or not?

If they were trying to hide them, at least initially, it was obviously done on an ad hoc basis. Remember, Saddam figured we would all forget about him, and he would have wanted them available for domestic use (see my thread about turning him over to the Kurds). After this much time I seriously doubt though that anybody had been keeping track of them, for the reason stated above. Also, accountability for mortar rounds - you've got to be joking. A heavy weapons squad with four 120mm mortars (smallest deployable unit I know of - they could have as many as six) can have sustained of 24-48 rounds PER MINUTE (depending on SOP). Saddam used them fairly indiscriminately, so I doubt they kept track of each individual round. How many were produced - I'll bet thousands. This represents what per cent. Come on.

I agree with this, and fail to understand why anyone wouldn't.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by PLATO
Wouldn't you at least agree that "serious consequences" could be interpreted that way?

Yes, it could be, but the exact nature of that "serious consequence" needed to be hammered out by the UNSC. It is not something drawn up by the Duyba cabinet and rubber-stamped by everybody else.

[Patroklos]

The only consequence left at the time of drafting was war.

It is a good thing some members of the League of Nations decided to act unilaterally, anyone remeber their view on the dictators of the time. At every turn the UN shows its uselessness, hopefully the next incarnation will be better.

[GePap]

Extremely instructive post shawnmmcc

50 pounds...very interesting.

NOw, on 1441- what I can;t figure out, and patroklos post is nice and helpfull is that some of the people who say this war is vaid becuase of 1441 are the same people who denoucne the UN system as is:

If 1441 is a valid and legitimate document, that means (or should mean in a sensible world) that the body that wrote and passed it is valid and legitimate. This by extension means that those who whish to act with legitimacy should keep the rules of the body. After all, a vigelantee is a criminal nonetheless, even if they couch their crimes in the name of law enforcement. Now, if some people here dismiss the UN< how can you validate anything on a UN written and approved document? Make up your minds- either the UN is illegitimate, which means 1441 is worth squat, or the UN is legitimate, 1441 bound Iraq, but the UN system also bounds the US.... you can't have both.