Chemical Weapons found in Iraq

[GePap]

Originally posted by 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.

Do you know what the league of nations was like? Its laws, and who the members were?

Here is a hint: none of its decsions were binding on states, ever.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap
Extremely instructive post shawnmmcc

50 pounds...very interesting.

I agree...and frightening.

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.

Nothing from the UNSC prevented US invasion...nothing. That's the point. The UNSC itself laid the groundwork...the authorization, although debateable by many, was there. The fact that the UNSC did not believe that there was a world wide will to enforce its resolutions is where the problem is. Once it was clear that the US was going to use 1441 for an invasion then the UNSC disentigrated and thus proves itself useless when spheres of influence are affected. Much as it has with the Arab-Israeli conflict...but that is a completely different story good for another thread. I include it as further proof of the ineffectiveness of the UNSC.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by PLATO


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

Wasn't resolution 1441 enacted AFTER the war with Iran?

[NeOmega]

Resolution 1441:

serious consequences:

If they had meant war, what word do you think would have best described their intentions? I can only think of one... it starts with a w and ends with a r.

Resolution 1441:

Have you ever considered exactly where the UN draws any kind of power from? It draws it from it's body politik. That's it. If a vast majority of the people, and even governments of the world disagree with a war, then trying to lawyer with them that they actually agreed to it is at it's base absurd.

Finally mustard gas shells:

look at them for one second please..... and then with a straight face tell me you believe they were going to bring the world's superpower to it's knees. That they were going to provide any kind of deterrent to anyone, much less actually inflict any damage.
After you have delivered this nonsense, go look in the mirror and try it again.... I guarante you will laugh at absolutely how rediculous you sound trying to appear like a serious contender.

Sorry-ass conservatives, trying to point to these rusted, corroded shells as justification for war. You look pathetic, and would be better off waiting for real evidence.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by PLATO
Nothing from the UNSC prevented US invasion...nothing.

This is true. By the same token, nothing by the UNSC prevented the Iran invasion.

1441 mentionned "serious consequences" and did NOT mention who would inflict these consequences, nor the timeline. The US led attack on Iraq is exactly as 'legal' as if Iran had decided to use 1441 to justify an invasion of Iraq. None of these countries had been abilitated by the UN to attack Iraq.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by PLATO
Nothing from the UNSC prevented US invasion...nothing. That's the point.

Granted, but you were looking to legitimise the US invasion in UNSCR 1441, and it simply is not there.

Originally posted by PLATO
The UNSC itself laid the groundwork...the authorization, although debateable by many, was there.

Not so, or the US would not have sought an authorisation from the UNSC.

Originally posted by PLATO
The fact that the UNSC did not believe that there was a world wide will to enforce its resolutions is where the problem is.

IIRC, the UN weapons inspectors were making progress.

Originally posted by PLATO
Once it was clear that the US was going to use 1441 for an invasion then the UNSC disentigrated and thus proves itself useless when spheres of influence are affected.

It is extremely disappointing to see a charter member of the UN ignoring its own pledges. It is also ironic that W used a lie to justify its actions.

Originally posted by PLATO
Much as it has with the Arab-Israeli conflict...but that is a completely different story good for another thread. I include it as further proof of the ineffectiveness of the UNSC.

Are we coming to this again? I submit this has nothing to do with the legitimacy of US's attack and occupation on Iraq.

[Ned]

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.

OB, I can accept they are leftovers from that time frame.

The question is, why were they buried?

A second question, is how the Danes found them?

The answers to these question will tell us more whether this is some sort of aberation or is sympthomatic of a plan to bury at least some of the Saddam's chemcial weapons.

It seems to me that Saddam must have buried most of his chemical weapons that he did not account for and that were not destroyed during the 90s. The problem he had, of course, is that they corrode while buried and become useless. Thus he maintained the technology to produce the weapons and was prepared to do so once he got the UN off his back.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by VJ
Iraq was required in the cease fire treaty to destroy all it's WMD.

And burying chells in a manner in which they quickly become usely doesn't count as destroying them how?

According to my dictionary, weapons of mass destruction are divided into nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. All weapons included in to those categories simply are WMD.

So mace is a WMD now?

I hardly think that burying mortar shells filled with mustard gas is a proper form of destroying weapons of mass instruction.

Its not proper, but it still makes them unusable.

[dannubis]

Originally posted by Ned
People who actually believe that this is "normal" storage of chemical weapons have simply got to be living an extreme form of denial motivated by politics.

it's funny. Some years back the administration discovered large sums of money unaccounted for in the pentagon's book keepings. They even 'lost' 4 F16 jet fighters if i'm not mistaken.

now given the tight organisation of your army and compare this to the Iraqi 'army', couldn't it just be possible that these shells were lost during the iraq iran war ?

and finding some 30 shells with chemical agent inside them does not declare them as WoMD. So please, find another justification for your occupation of Iraq.

PS exactely which countries keep the smallpox alive ? now, that's a real threat to the world population. a WoMD so to speak ...

[Chaos_BF1942]

Originally posted by Boshko

And burying chells in a manner in which they quickly become usely doesn't count as destroying them how?

But it doesn't disable the weapon, if you said that they don't cound because they are buried, can the US say they 'destoried' our ICBMs because they are kinda buried.

[Bosh]

But it doesn't disable the weapon

Yes it does. Just look at the photos of them, you think those thing are usuable?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boshko
And burying chells in a manner in which they quickly become usely doesn't count as destroying them how?

Verifiably destroy is the key part you seem to be missing.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by dannubis
PS exactely which countries keep the smallpox alive ?

France.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ned
The question is, why were they buried?

A likely scenario is the Iraqi troops were leaving in a hurry, perhaps running away from the Iranians, so they buried the shells so the other side couldn't get at them, and those were subsequently forgotten.

[Mr. Harley]

GePap, there are suspicions, fairly strong ones, that a substantial amount of that plutonium ended up in the hands of Israel (in violation of various nuclear anti-proliferation treaties the US has signed). Given what the Isreal was facing at the time, it was reasonable to give them a last ditch weapon, until the 1967 war they were facing a fairly constant threat from the surrounding rulers (all dictatorships of one flavor or another created by France and Britian and/or supported by the Soviet Union) whose stated intent was extermination of the Jews in Palestine. Please note this DOES NOT mean I support the Isreali adminstration of the West Bank, that's another thread and I've posted abundantly on that, it's an outrage.

Ned, mustard gas is low-tech WMD. They used it in WW1. If you have any kind of chemical industry, you can make WW1 level gas. WW2 WMD's include the first really effective nerve agents (one droplet on the skin and you die), the first practical bioweapons, and big klunky nuclear devices. That's why North Korea very likely has all three. It's technology from over 60 year ago! Mustard gas is almost 90 years old. Of course Saddam retained the ability to make the older WMD's.

Small fission bombs, thermonuclear devices, bioweapons with increased virulence, and two part nerve agents (MUCH safer handling) are all post-WW2 WMD's. Much of the world could make them if they chose. Small thermonuclear devices and custom DESIGNED bioweapons are modern WMD's, with the latter as far as anybody knows potential only. Even Saddam was going to have WW2 level technology.