More Wmd Found In Iraq

[Busyman]

Originally posted by rollwave@3 July 2004 - 13:43
Polish troops found 17 rockets armed with warheads containing cyclosarin, a deadly nerve agent. I wonder why nobody has mentioned that yet? Hmmmm? Oh that's right. The media has already settled the issue. There are and never were WMD in Iraq. Lybia, Iran, Syria North Korea, yes. Bush lied so his friends could get rich!!!! Oh yeah, I forgot about oil. Haliburton wanted the oil so they could get rich!

And there it is!!!

[Rat Faced]

OK...to answer the original post...

1st off:

The Polish say there were 17 Rockets containing cyclosarin which they hande over to the Americans for analysis....thus suggesting that they had not analysed them themselves and were using conjecture and repeating what they were told by the sellers..

The Americans analysed them (although they say there was 18 Rockets handed over, not 17)...and 2 of these (not 17) had traces of Sarin, and there was no trace of cyclosarin in any of them.

The Sarin was dated from the 80's and its believed was removed from the Rockets some 12 years ago..leaving Traces of what was originaly there.

Of course you could go on the Conspiracy Theory that all these WMD that are found and then disproved are being hoarded...in order to "find" a real catch just before the election, but then that goes against your argument that everything is true...



No one has ever doubted that there were WMD in Iraq during the 80's and early 90's...however we were sent to war because of a "Clear and present danger"... ie: he had WMD....now.

Lets see how far back Bush knew there were probably no WMD shall we? From his own words in "The State of the Union Speech" in January 2003...... ie: Before any invasion..


BUSH: The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.


Analysis:

According to the House Armed Services Committee, Iraq had 2,160 kg of bacterial growth media — enough to produce 26,000 liters of anthrax.

What is bacterial growth media you ask?

Food for bacteria. Remember those school science experiments where you grew cultures on agar? Agar (that clear, jelly-like substance) was the growth media. This growth media is what Bush was referring to when he said Saddam had "biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax."

That's right, according to Bush, Jelly is now a biological weapon. (No word if the substance was in it's easily transportable powder form, or if it had been mixed with water to form a "weaponized" colloid).

Granted, you can't get tons of casein, thioglycollate broth, yeast extract and peptone at your local grocery store, but they are still only raw materials for growing antrax, not vast quantities of anthrax itself.

As Hans Blix reported to the Security Council on January 27, 2003,

"Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of [anthrax], which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction."

There is no hard evidence that they actually produced any. Even assuming any anthrax exists today in Iraq, there is no proof Saddam had the ability to weaponize it in a fine powder like that used in the anthrax attacks that followed 9/11.

Why would they say they had produced it and then destroyed it, when they cant show Documentation for either, unless they were Co-operating fully? Why only take part of the evidence and say "There cant prove they destroyed it"?...they didnt even have to admit they'd made it... but they did.

So...The threat from Saddam was no greater when Bush gave his speech than it was twelve years ago.


BTW: The Anthrax in the Fridge you have refered to? You guessed it


BUSH: The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.


Analysis:

What is botulinum toxin? Botox!

The toxin injected to clear up wrinkles by relaxing muscles, albeit in a less concentrated form.

According to an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association widely distributed by the CDC, "After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Iraq admitted to the United Nations inspection team to having produced 19000 L of concentrated botulinum toxin, of which approximately 10000 L were loaded into military weapons."

The article references a UN report that was not available online.

According to the State Department, "Iraq declared 19,000 liters. The UN believes it could have produced more than double that amount."

When Bush said the UN concluded that Saddam had "materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin" he simply neglected to mention that this was in 1991.

You will also notice that "materials sufficient to produce" are not the same as the real thing.

In other words, there is no proof of any actual biological weapons. All we have to go on is what Saddam claimed he had after the Gulf War.

So...The threat from Saddam was no greater when Bush gave his speech than it was twelve years ago.



BUSH: Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.


Analysis:

Do I even need to go into the "materials sufficient to produce" argument again?

This time we are talking about chemical weapons, so no growth media required. But what is required are the chemical compounds that can be used to produce these deadly agents. As Timothy McVeigh taught you all in the Oklahoma City bombing, chemistry is a funny thing and you can get the compounds for some pretty lethal stuff at your local hardware center or feed store.

Also notice that Bush said Saddam "had" these materials. He did not claim that he "has" them any longer.

Any bets on which year the intelligence estimates Bush references were from?

Impossible to say. Bush does not tell us. But my bet is that it all goes back to what Saddam claimed to have in 1991. Given that no weapons or precursors have been found, many are wondering if Saddam exaggerated his stockpiles in 1991, as a desparate attempt to look stronger than he was.

So..either way, the threat from Saddam was no greater when Bush gave his speech than it was twelve years ago


BUSH: U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.


Analysis:

Notice the use of the word "had" not "has" here, too. If your intelligence indicated that Saddam still "has" these weapons, why didn't Bush say so?

The 30,000 number matches that in the House Armed Services Committee report, and the Armed Services Committee report uses a 1997 UN report as its source.

Specifically, the committee reaches a total of 31,658 by starting with the 15,620 munitions for which unilateral destruction "is not verifiable" owing to the destruction methods used by Iraq (melting and demolition).

Then they add 16,038 discarded chemical muniitons for which "Iraq has not provided supporting documentation [of their destruction]."

The rest of Iraq's 152,119 filled and 95,144 empty chemical munitions, dating back to 1981, have been used or destroyed and fully documented as such. Or at least to the satisfaction of the House Armed Services Committee.

To believe that Iraq still has "upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents" today, you would have to believe there were almost no weapons that Iraq destroyed by melting or demolition. You would also have to believe that there is complete documentation for all of the weapons destroyed by American bombs in operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox.

You would then have to believe that all the remaining weapons are still in serviceable condition twelve years later.

I wouldn't bet on it. I might believe a much smaller number than 30,000 - if it was based on hard intellegence, not a gray area in a 1997 UN report.

So, the truth is, the threat from Saddam was no greater when Bush gave his speech than it was twelve years ago....



BUSH: From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.


Analysis:

Defectors also told you that the Iraqi people would rally to your cause.

They wanted us to go to war and were willing to spice things up to get us there.

Two trailers suspected of being mobile weapons labs were actually found. Yet, no traces of any biological agents or weapons production materials were found in either of these mobile units. In fact, "US State Department experts disputed CIA conclusions that tractor-trailers found in Iraq were mobile biological weapons labs...."

Not only that, but the now deceased scientist David Kelly, "told the press that he had examined the alleged labs in person and agreed with the Iraqi's explanation; the two vehicles were intended for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons."

So, the threat from Saddam was no greater when Bush gave his speech than it was twelve years ago....




Last but definitely not least, is the paragraph that everyone is talking about. It was the climax of this portion of Bush's speech and the ultimate reason why Saddam was an "imminent threat" to the United States.



BUSH: The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.


Analysis:

No, he clearly CLAIMED TO HAVE weapons of mass destruction, TWELVE YEARS AGO. This is not the same as proof that he is hiding such weapons today.

The uranium fraud has been clearly exposed.

The aluminum tubes claim has been "dismissed by the International Atomic Energy Agency and by an outside panel made up of two American nuclear physicists, two British experts and a German expert."

And that IAEA report Bush references? It was from 1991.

By calling it a report from the "1990s," Bush implies a more imminent threat. If Bush was more specific, maybe there is another report I'm missing. However, Bush seems purposefully vague. The facts can't speak for themselves if you can't find them.

From what I can tell, the threat from Saddam was no greater when Bush gave his speech than it was twelve years ago.


As you can see, many of the lines included in Bush's State of the Union address were "technically" correct, with the obvious exception of referring to Jelly as a biological weapon.

Nonetheless, every single line was misleading at best, dishonest at worst. He was lying by omission, if not lying to the American people outright.

Is that what passes for Presidential integrity and leadership?

The day that you start allowing your leaders to treat foreign policy and war like any other partisan squabble - and distort the facts to make their case - is a day we are all are in deep, deep trouble.

Is that day already here?

Source.... I virtually Copy/Pasted that whole thing, however changed grammer and paragraphs to make it more readable i hope. I havent changed the context.


BTW:

Please keep up here...

Iran is conducting a Nuclear program, which is worrying.

North Korea already has the crap

Syria has dabbled in the past and may have some left over from when it did

Libya is a good guy now, dont you read the papers?... they have Unilaterally stopped research into WMD and are presently destroying them off their own backs. No huge pressure or threat of invasion from anyone.

Its more...wanting to be involved in the world again, and not teated like lepers any more. (And has a lot to do with their failing economy, more likely)







Now to take cover before Hank and J2K4 come back....

[Illuminati]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@4 July 2004 - 01:26
BUSH: The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Analysis:

What is botulinum toxin? Botox!

The toxin injected to clear up wrinkles by relaxing muscles, albeit in a less concentrated form.

So that explains it - Saddam wasn't a tyrant who tortured his own people, he was a wannabe Hollywood agent wanting to make his people's skin younger!

[Rat Faced]

Nah...

You seen the guy?

He'd need all 38,000 Ltrs just for his own mush....



Seriously, I pasted that from an Anti-Bush site, as J2K4 will no doubt point out.

I could have written something less elequent and missed stuff myself, or copied from less obviously biased sites...

I chose that one, however, as the essay links to all the official documents in its analysis... so that people can check for themselves

[hobbes]

Rat,

Botulism toxin causes muscles to be paralyzed. It is incredibly lethal and Botox is a very watered down and locally acting version of this horrible poison. Basically muscles are not allowed to contract and thus people simply suffocate.

Let us not make light of a deadly poison. Let the truth speak for itself, why distort the truth if the evidence is clear enough? Botulism toxin is not a fun drug for the vain.


Also, in the article I read, the Polish stated that they found 17 Rockets with cyclosarin. The US reported that 16 of the 17 rockets were completely empty and clean and the 17th had such diluted and degraded cyclosarin as to not be a threat.

This fits in with our pattern of stating that all those nerve agents, which tested positively in the field, were shown to be pesticides upon complete analysis.

It shows me that there are people on the American side who are not going to let preliminary test and reprts stand to decieve people, and consistently come back and tell people that nothing has been found of any consequence.

At least we can feel that there is somebody out there which is not going to let false information stand unchallenged.

Had the US and media been completely controlled by the government, we would all have been given overwhelming evidence of WMD.


PS: anti-spam sucks balls

[Rat Faced]

We're obviously seeing different stories then

I havent read that version at all...

...as i said, the one I saw read as the Americans had found Traces of Sarin in 2 of the Rockets the other 16 being clean, and the total number of Rockets was disputed (Polish saying 17, Americans 18)




I hope they at least describing the same incident

Sixteen rocket warheads found last week in south-central Iraq by Polish troops did not contain deadly chemicals, a coalition spokesman said yesterday, but U.S. and Polish officials agreed that insurgents loyal to former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and foreign terrorist fighters are trying to buy such old weapons or purchase the services of Iraqi scientists who know how to make them

..........


Yesterday's coalition release also said that two other 122-milimeter rounds, found by the Poles on June 16 with help from an Iraqi informer, tested positive for small quantities of sarin but were "so deteriorated" that they would have had "limited to no impact if used by insurgents against coalition forces."

Source

Cant find the article i read originally (was just a Google News thing)....but was similar to this.

Edit: To include a source

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@3 July 2004 - 23:10
We're obviously seeing different stories then

I havent read that version at all...

...as i said, the one I saw read as the Americans had found Traces of Sarin in 2 of the Rockets the other 16 being clean, and the total number of Rockets was disputed (Polish saying 17, Americans 18)




I hope they at least describing the same incident

Well, the point was that the Polish claimed that 17or 18 rockets had been found with cyclosarin.

When given to the US, who has the most to gain or lose, we said that all were clean but 1, and that had only trace elements that were no threat.

That encourages me that we have someone out for the truth involved in this.

That is the point. Whether it is 17/18, 1 or 2, who cares. The US (who is under the micrscope) basically defused the claims made by the Polish.

BTW Rat, agar is all you need for antibiotics as well. Maybe Saddam could have made some of those. Allocation of resources and all that.

[Rat Faced]

I dont think anyone will disagree with that Hobbes

Re: agar.

True.

The amounts, I believe, are based on 1991 figures...how long will that amount of Agar last producing anti-biotics?

I think Iraqs hospitals ran out totally in about 1995...

I do not know when importation of anti-biotics was stopped, however i think it was well before 1995.

I also dont know the rate Hospitals would go through them, if they're in short supply.

Conclusion:

I dont know...but im willing to guess that it was used for the production of anti-biotics in the most part....even if thats not what it was initially used for (and there is nothing saying that all the Agar was in any weapons program to start with)

[hobbes]

I'm just saying that if agar were the entity used to determine production cabability of chemical agents, I would be surpised.

It is a form of complex sugar produced by red algae and its availabilty is essentially unlimted. The agar itself is nothing but a structure for growth. The nutrients imbedded in it determine what can be grown.

People had tried gelatin, but bacteria tend to use the protein structure for fuel and turn it into a liquid mess. Agar is typically not digested by bacteria and provides a nice architecture for bacteria to thrive if the proper nutrients are provided.

[j2k4]

Agar is also frequently used to make low- and medium-yield crossword puzzles.