UN Inspectors Find Empty Chemical Warheads

[Kropotkin]

Still nothing. While the US keeps saying they do have WoMD (I'm getting tired of that phrase). That might be true but it seems to be the time to prove it in some way. Otherwise people on the street will start getting arrested by the police because they can't prove that they haven't done anyting illegal.

[Jac de Molay]

edit: actually if they got hold of ebola virus and just spread it in daylight at New York airport or here in London. Now that would be a global catastrophe. I better not think about those things

Actually, ebola wouldn't be a good one to use. It spreads and kills so quickly that outbreaks are self-containing. That's why you see them fizzle out so quickly in Africa. Now an aerosoled version of the Rabies virus.....

This find doesn't sound like a big deal, and I doubt that Saddam even has 1/10 of the capacity he had pre gulf-war. The shelf life for the nastiest stuff like VX is long past. Again, like it matters to Bush.

[zulu9812]

I feel this has to be pointed out again. They were empty. Thay's not even chemical warheads, it's metal shells! And as far as that massive document that was produced, concluding that Saddam had no WOMDs - Bush probably didn't even read it. He's itching to finish off his daddy's war whether Iraq's a threat or not. These weapons inspections are a joke.

[Sandman]

I'm glad to see that I'm not alone in considering the category of 'weapons of mass destruction' a load of rubbish.

[Kropotkin]

Bushie-boy made a threatening speech about leading a coalition of volunter countries against Iraq. It seems weak. After all, if the US or any other country with a sizable military would be forced to do the same list I would think that eleven 'forgotten' and empty 120mm shells is within the margin of error.

[KrazyHorse]

As long as tehy were empty, I don't think this violates the agreement. You can fill them with conventional warheads too...

And the Iraqis claim that these were listed in their declaration of capabilities. The veracity of that claim is, to put it lightly, disputable...

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Sandman
I'm glad to see that I'm not alone in considering the category of 'weapons of mass destruction' a load of rubbish.

I think chemical weapons can do a **** load of damage. If dispersed from shells or other aerosol attack, yes, it is very difficult to handle them correctly. And this being their application for war does make them rather weak weapons (unless of course you have the sophistication to deliver them effectively). However, Chemicals can be applied very lethally when applied by terrorism, if used to poison water supplies, and the like. Many people could be killed from very little amounts of an agent.

I would consider chemicals WoMD, just perhaps not to the degree of nukes, or bio weapons (both of which mind you, also require a high level of sophistication to use properly)

Kman

[TCO]

The veracity of that claim is, to put it lightly, disputable...

Does that mean it's a lie?

[Sandman]

With regard to poisoning water supplies, why wouldn't the water company pick up on it before it reached people's homes? And how much poison would be needed to be tipped into a reservoir to make a single glass of water lethal? Something bigger than a barrel, I expect. Are there any historical instances of water supply being so effectively poisoned?

[chequita guevara]

According to the article I read, they box they were in was covered in dust and bird poop, indicating they'd been sitting around for a long while and had probably been forgotten about.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
While the US keeps saying they do have WoMD (I'm getting tired of that phrase).

There are quite a lot of weapons the Iraqis have yet to account for though.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GP


Does that mean it's a lie?

No, it means that whether it is true or not has very little to do with what the Iraqis say about. In addition to lying, they have a bad habit of lying about things which are easily verifiable (like whether or not these shells were listed).

[Chris 62]

More Iraqi appologists in this thread then you see on the news.

Maybe Bushie planted the shells there, eh?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
There are quite a lot of weapons the Iraqis have yet to account for though.

They've apparently accounted for them, it's just that the way they accounted for them was unverifiable. "We destroyed all other weapons"...

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Frogger
As long as tehy were empty, I don't think this violates the agreement. You can fill them with conventional warheads too...

No you can't.