RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


philosophy -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/5/2008 2:17:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeeksOnlyOne

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

You seek to compare Christian and Islamic cultures, and you seem to want to excuse all the violence done in the name of Christ while focussing on all the violence done in the name of Allah.
Both cultures are violent.....both cultures have been violent inside the last 1000 years. Both cultures have persecuted women inside the last 1000 years. The problem with your position is that it is built on straw...you need to educate yourself a bit more about the darker side of christianity.


not christian vs islamic.......american vs middle east.....we would have to still be having witchhunts and lynchings to this day and for many more for there to be any comparison.

i am saying they will never desire to govern and live the way we do.....if they did, they would have done it them selves, as we did. the people of this country demanded things change for the better in regard to human rights.  and we cant make them change their ways just because we believe we have the best idea on how to live.

i dont see that as built on straw at all.  but then i dont live in your head, and have no idea how you are comprehending my words. 


.....seeksonlyone, you can't have been talking about the US vs the ME because the time span you introduced was thousands of years. As the US hasn't existed for anything like that sort of time span, the only sane explanation was that you meant Christianity vs Islam. If you truly only meant the US, then you suggesting that the US has been culturally violence free for thousands of years is clearly absurd on so many levels.

It is clear that you have no idea how i, among others, are comprehending your words. i can only suggest that you try being more precise in your use of them.




samboct -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/5/2008 2:20:30 PM)

Oh good grief- Merc and I are agreeing again.  See my post 37- but Merc was certainly more eloquent.

At the risk of further derailment-taking a step back there's clearly a difference between how people have approached the issue of WMD in Iraq.  I suspect that this may also play into a definition of victory.

The two approaches-
1) lawyer- defending ones client involves cherry picking facts that support your viewpoint while obscuring others.  If the jury buys it- you've done well.
2)  Scientist- present all the data for a fair and balanced viewpoint.  (Boy is this missing in Washington.)  Cherry picking facts in science is called data falsification and gets you in trouble.

I think it was Aristotle who pointed out that a government made up of lawyers was in trouble, because a lawyers job was to make the weaker argument appear the stronger.  He was right, judging by the performance of the clowns in Washington.

From my perspective- as a scientist who occasionally gets called on to evaluate the value of a technology- there has been a breakdown in the evaluative process that has left many with soiled hands.  I don't tend to believe in conspiracy theories- they take too many people keeping secrets which just doesn't happen.  That most of the government wound up believing the claims of WMD in Iraq (along with the NY Times) just goes to show how persuasively the Bush administration made its argument.  But what's glaringly absent is any mechanism to prevent this type of breakdown in intelligence leading to a costly (in both $$ and lives) invasion that has accomplished little.  That we're still baffled is shown by how many different responses to what victory is in this thread.

From my perspective- here are the facts that lead us into the Iraq war-
A high placed Iraqi canary sang to the intelligence community that Saddam had WMD.  This was the major evidence that lead to the invasion.  Based on a personal communication from a congressman who voted for the war.  Also note that he watched Hillary's vote before casting his own- thinking that Clinton was smart enough to figure out what was going on.  This testimony is what Bush built his case on and what many members of Congress, the CIA, and Colin Powell found believable.

Facts which didn't jibe with this testimony-
1)  No one could find the production facilities for WMD.
2)  No evidence of a testing program for a weaponized bio or chemical gas or virus.
3)  No evidence that sufficient laboratory facilities existed to develop these types of weapons- no characterization tools.
4)  Industry analysis that said that Iraq didn't have the technical capability to manufacture WMD in quantity.  (personal communication from representatives of large chemical firms doing business in Iraq.)

If you think that an individual's testimony is more believable than physical evidence- and clearly, that's most of Washington- then Bush's administration made a great legal play in convincing people that Saddam had WMD.  But lawyers aren't accustomed to being blamed when subsequent evidence either exonerates or convicts their clients- and I suspect that there is some genuine bafflement as to why people that opposed the Bush war from the beginning are so angry with Bush.  Since the administration acted according to good legal principles- i..e make the strongest case possible by cherry picking facts, why be angry?  According to legal ethics-they've done nothing wrong.

On the other hand- as a scientist-cherry picking data isn't allowed and for the simple reason is that it leads to faulty conclusions that don't hold up- as the evidence in Iraq clearly shows.  (You can't move or hide large scale production facilities readily-that's just fantasy.)

A friend of mine at MIT took one of the management courses there.  One of the mantras in the course was- "You can be right, or you can be effective."  As a scientist, this rankles- we're taught that being right IS being effective.  But people that follow that mantra have a lot more money in the bank than I do.  However,  I have to tip my hat to Bush- he was certainly effective about getting us to invade Iraq, and he's had a hell of a track record about getting his legislation passed.

What all this speaks to is that there's something rotten in Denmark (Washington.)  Blaming Bush for all our woes and thinking that once this administration leaves, all the problems will be solved, doesn't address the larger issue that we have a government that's acting like a bunch of lawyers- not leaders.  And until being right can translate to being effective, we've got a problem.  It's disheartening that the guy who called the shots about the Bush administration with a nice degree of prescience- Al Gore- won't run for President again.  If we get the kind of government we deserve- what does that say about us?  I hope Obama gets in- but I also hope that he manages to shake up and toss out the Washington insiders who've proven to be so incompetent at anything other than lining their own pockets.

To the thread topic- we're not going to have a "victory" in Iraq until the people lining their pockets at taxpayers expense and our soldiers (and Iraqi civilian) blood are out of power- and preferably (yeah, I'm dreaming) in jail.

Sam




SeeksOnlyOne -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/5/2008 2:29:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeeksOnlyOne

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

You seek to compare Christian and Islamic cultures, and you seem to want to excuse all the violence done in the name of Christ while focussing on all the violence done in the name of Allah.
Both cultures are violent.....both cultures have been violent inside the last 1000 years. Both cultures have persecuted women inside the last 1000 years. The problem with your position is that it is built on straw...you need to educate yourself a bit more about the darker side of christianity.


not christian vs islamic.......american vs middle east.....we would have to still be having witchhunts and lynchings to this day and for many more for there to be any comparison.

i am saying they will never desire to govern and live the way we do.....if they did, they would have done it them selves, as we did. the people of this country demanded things change for the better in regard to human rights.  and we cant make them change their ways just because we believe we have the best idea on how to live.

i dont see that as built on straw at all.  but then i dont live in your head, and have no idea how you are comprehending my words. 


.....seeksonlyone, you can't have been talking about the US vs the ME because the time span you introduced was thousands of years. As the US hasn't existed for anything like that sort of time span, the only sane explanation was that you meant Christianity vs Islam. If you truly only meant the US, then you suggesting that the US has been culturally violence free for thousands of years is clearly absurd on so many levels.

It is clear that you have no idea how i, among others, are comprehending your words. i can only suggest that you try being more precise in your use of them.


i never indicated the us had been that way for thousands of years.  i said they, indicating the middle east.  if i worded it where you or others could not understand, my apologies.  i am not the wordsmith some of you are.

in the text you quoted here, i worded it in a more precise manner, but you still wish to debate me on what i think and what i did or did not type.

i really do not think its worth further discussion.  you see what you wish to see.





seeksfemslave -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/5/2008 3:34:45 PM)

quote:

  Samboct
1)  No one could find the production facilities for WMD.
2)  No evidence of a testing program for a weaponized bio or chemical gas or virus.
3)  No evidence that sufficient laboratory facilities existed to develop these types of weapons- no characterization tools.
4)  Industry analysis that said that Iraq didn't have the technical capability to manufacture WMD in quantity.


Extract from an eloquent post Samboct .....but 
Point (1)
Saddam claimed he had given up his attempts to produce WMDs and from memory at first refused to allow independant outsiders to confirm this. It follows that at some point in the past his regime had tried to obtain WMDs When he realised the US was serious he changed tack.
Point (2)
Not true . Evidence for the manufacture of gas was found by Hans Blick's team,but the plant had been destroyed as Saddam claimed.
Point (3) (4)
Not required.  He can buy the finished product. eg his missile capability.




dcnovice -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/5/2008 3:36:45 PM)

quote:

To the thread topic- we're not going to have a "victory" in Iraq until the people lining their pockets at taxpayers expense and our soldiers (and Iraqi civilian) blood are out of power- and preferably (yeah, I'm dreaming) in jail.


Someone remembered the thread topic! Warms an OP's heart, that does. [:)]




seeksfemslave -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/5/2008 3:47:30 PM)

 
quote:

Juliaoceania
Now people write books all the time using history and social theory to answer pressing questions. In my opinion it was fairly objective of an analysis (mine being an educated opinion), and Appleby had no sacred cows, nor a dog in the fight.

Answer = offer opinions on.

Juliaoceania: accusing me of "getting off" or bullying you is silly.
You post your strongly held opinions. I think you are carried away by your own estimate of your academic abilities. When reasonably challenged you almost always eventually respond with
"I dont care what you think" or " I wont respond anymore to what you have to say"
In other words you want your own way and throw a tantrum  when you cant get it.

By the way I never claimed to have read that dirge I mean  pamphlet.sorry book.




seeksfemslave -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/5/2008 3:51:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
quote:

To the thread topic- etc

Someone remembered the thread topic! Warms an OP's heart, that does. [:)]
  yes but its generated a good all round debate. NO ?




dcnovice -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/5/2008 3:55:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
quote:

To the thread topic- etc

Someone remembered the thread topic! Warms an OP's heart, that does. [:)]
  yes but its generated a good all round debate. NO ?


True. [:)]




juliaoceania -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/5/2008 4:12:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave


quote:

Juliaoceania
Now people write books all the time using history and social theory to answer pressing questions. In my opinion it was fairly objective of an analysis (mine being an educated opinion), and Appleby had no sacred cows, nor a dog in the fight.

Answer = offer opinions on.

Juliaoceania: accusing me of "getting off" or bullying you is silly.
You post your strongly held opinions. I think you are carried away by your own estimate of your academic abilities. When reasonably challenged you almost always eventually respond with
"I dont care what you think" or " I wont respond anymore to what you have to say"
In other words you want your own way and throw a tantrum  when you cant get it.

By the way I never claimed to have read that dirge I mean  pamphlet.sorry book.



Actually, I do not like it when men talk about my "orgasms", my hair pulling comment was in reference to how young boys tease the object of their affections...better to be reviled than ignored, right?

And as far as your opinion about my intellectual capabilities... I just consider the source...

Seriously, debating you is like taking candy from a baby, you never support your opinions, you blather on endlessly without any sort of historical context about anything, and you  think that insulting me will goad me into an intellectual debate with you... not going to go there...




seeksfemslave -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/5/2008 4:26:13 PM)

quote:

Juliaoceania
Actually, I do not like it when men talk about my "orgasms", my hair pulling comment was in reference to how young boys tease the object of their affections...better to be reviled than ignored, right?


Fair point but coming from one who posted how she was fucked every which way... well really.. why suddenly so sensitive ?
I'm speaking from memory so I hope I can find the source.

I do not revile you in the least. I said so when you returned after your absence. I frequently find what you have to say interesting. Doesn't mean I necessarily agree.
Just stop flogging your academic expertise and join we lowly types in the mud of discourse. Thassal.
 




samboct -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/5/2008 6:17:23 PM)

SFM

"Extract from an eloquent post Samboct .....but 
Point (1)
Saddam claimed he had given up his attempts to produce WMDs and from memory at first refused to allow independant outsiders to confirm this. It follows that at some point in the past his regime had tried to obtain WMDs When he realised the US was serious he changed tack.
Point (2)
Not true . Evidence for the manufacture of gas was found by Hans Blick's team,but the plant had been destroyed as Saddam claimed.
Point (3) (4)
Not required.  He can buy the finished product. eg his missile capability."

Let me clean up some misunderstandings-

1)  Can we agree to put Saddam's BS along with the canary singing?  I'm lumping all this together as verbal BS, not backed up by physical evidence.  I don't really care what Saddam said- it's pretty clear that he lied to his military- some of them thought he actually had WMD.
2)  I draw a distinction between WMD and chemical weapons.  WMD by definition means that deaths per kg are greater than 1- typically rated at 100-1000 per kg for nuclear weapons- which to date, have been the only successful WMD ever deployed.  In terms of wargases- things like mustard gas and chlorine from WWI have been hard to improve upon to date- I think both Sarin and VX were developed during WWII but never used.  It's possible that a V2 warhead with either of these gases would have killed more people than a conventional explosive if conditions were correct, but dispersion remains problematic. 

WMD in a test tube is a curiousity, not a weapon.  All of these compounds are going to disperse at different rates, and with too fine a dispersion, you don't get a lethal concentration- but too concentrated a dispersion and you waste a lot.  This takes open air research- can't be done in a lab.   Plus, there have to be means of monitoring these effects.  Nobody ever came close to coming up with any evidence that Saddam had done this type of necessary development work.

Point 3- you misunderstood- are the characterization tools necessary to evaluate if some type of biological weapon or wargas has actually been developed.  You need to know it's chemical structure- and you don't find that out looking in a microscope.  You need to either do X-ray crystallography (I'm not up on solution stuff, although I know it can be done) or NMR.  Both of these techniques require large instruments, vibration isolation (the idea that you could put something in a truck is laughable- and yes, I saw the French BS about a rolling lab with pressure airlocks- wanna buy a bridge in Brooklyn?) time to actually run the experiment- in some cases, NMR experiments take 2 days or longer, and if interrupted, have to go back to square one- not to mention technicians capable of maintaining and operating the equipment.  Feel free to check with any of the companies like Varian, JEOL, or Bruker if they sold a 500 mHZ NMR to Iraq.  They don't sell many of these machines- probably 10 a year if they're lucky- hence, everybody knows where they are.  But without this capability, you're doing chemistry blindfolded.  In an analogy- if the canary had claimed that Saddam had amassed a force of 100 F-14s, but couldn't produce the missiles or ammo, it's really not much of a threat- nor very believable. 

Point 4- you utterly missed it.  There are no WMD's available for sale (with the possible exception of nuke warheads out of the FSU.)  He might be able to buy a missile- but he can't put anything other than high explosive on it.  Furthermore, there is an enormous amount of chemical engineering needed to produce wargases- and that's what I was discussing with these folks (who sell the supplies to pharma mfg- it's not all that different and I asked them directly- they thought that Iraq having WMD was laughable- they'd been there, and seen what their chemical production capabilities were.)  Simply put- if Iraq couldn't make a pharmaceutical- then they certainly couldn't make a sophisticated wargas or WMD as was being claimed.  It's like saying that cavemen could build an aircraft.  That was my point with the above post- that there never was any physical evidence to back up the claim that Saddam had the capability of making WMD- all they had was a canary- a canary who it turns out, was either lying or mistaken.  It doesn't really matter which any more, now does it?

The only physical evidence that was ever found was that of artillery shells and wargases developed by US/UK chemical firms which were sold to Iraq years previously.  (And yes, I know about the research facility at Osirak that the Israeli's wiped out in the 80s.- Doesn't change anything.) There has not been one shred of evidence that Iraq ever had the domestic capability of replicating this stuff- that's been my point all along.

Sam




philosophy -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/5/2008 7:53:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeeksOnlyOne
i really do not think its worth further discussion.  you see what you wish to see.


......ok, i find it interesting that our small sub-debate has ended up on this note. Even more intriguing when seen against Samboct's point about the lawyer/scientist dichotomy when approaching data.

Is it not possible that the line i have taken from your last post is basically the answer to the OP? Victory in Iraq may well be 'in the eye of the beholder'. Debate about it merely polarises positions, if those positions are fixed. For myself, there is an element of fixedness in my position on this subject. i believe strongly that the US involvement in Iraq is reprehensible. The evidence used to take us there was shaky at best. Civilised countries wouldn't imprison a person on such a standard of evidence yet the West has, by its actions there, killed many people.
You, on the other hand, seem to see the ME as lesser beings than us. Beings who do not measure up to the standard of behaviour you wish to see. Whose culture is less worthy than ours. Such a view has, historically and psychologically, often led to an ability to commit atrocity. After all, human rights only apply to humans.

This is why i have debated you, and why i think you are not only wrong in your views on the ME, but dangerously so. If what you say is true, we should hold ourselves to a higher standard. Even if what you say is not true, we should aspire to hold ourselves to that higher standard. To do otherwise is to admit defeat on a cultural scale.




Muttling -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/5/2008 8:19:47 PM)

umm.....All of you are off the mark on the details of his WMD programs.  As one who was involved for the hunt for Saddam's weapons I know a great deal about the subject.  Here's a few of the details from memory (it might be a little off, but should be pretty danged accurate)....


PLEASE NOTE:  This is a major history lesson and the story took a dramatic change in the late 1990's.  Try to keep the time line in context as you read.



Missile: He had one missile (the Al Abbas I think, but don't quote me on that) which had a minor potential to be a violation of U.N. sanctions.    IF you turned the missile into a rocket by replacing the guidance package with additional fuel, it could achieve a range that was about 10 miles longer than allowed by U.N. sanctions.   We never found any of them with the guidance packeges removed (much less replaced), but the Iraqi's ultimately admitted that it was theoretically possible to violate sanctions with them and destroyed all of these missiles long before the invasion.  This destruction was verified by the U.N.  The majority of his missile technology was Russian, Chinesse, or North Korean.   HOWEVER, he did have a fair amount of French technology and it was French made Exocets that he used to attack the U.S.S. Stark in the min-1980's.   He continued to purchase French missiles throughout the 1990's.  (Bastards)

Nuclear:  He abandonned centrifuge enrichment following the Israeli bomb strike in 1986(?) and pursued magnetic enrichment.   He tried to hide it after GW1, but we found a few Calutrons in 1994.   The UN's team pretty soundly verified the dismantlement of the program through the late 1990's.  The ONLY evidence of anything nuclear was parts of a centrifuge we found buried in a scientists' back yard in 2004.   The dreaded aluminum tubes he purchased in 2001 actually did go for the construction of convention rockets and not centrifuges as we claimed extensively (including to the U.N.)   ALL of his nuclear technology came from the French!!!!!!   (Bastards)

Biological:  He did extensive research on a number of biological agents and toxins.  The research started in the late stages of the Iran-Iraq war.   His know how came from training of PhD biochemists at western schools including Brittain and America.   He obtained his equipment as well as seed stocks under the auspices of disease control research (at the time, such stocks were virtually uncontrolled and widely shared among Universities).   Anthrax was from America, Camel Pox was from France, Botullinum was from three countries (Brittish, America, and France), Afla Toxin was French (I think, but am not sure), ricin (no specific source), and I can't remember what else he actually weaponized.   Those were the biggies.  I know he did research into gang green, but I don't recall him having success at weaponization.  Almost ALL of his biological research and production equipment came from the Germans.   The shells to put them in are EASY to obtain since all you need are unfilled, thin walled rounds such as smoke canisters.

Pre-Gulf War 1, he produced massive quantities of botulinum toxin (a particularly nasty and rather stable biological toxin.)   A biological toxin is basically a poison like a chemical warfare agent, but it is produced by a bacteria instead of an petro-chemical process.   His second favorite item was liquid anthrax (a particularly nasty and very stable biological agent.)  He produced an minor quantity of Camel Pox and experimented with Afla Toxin.  That last one is the bizarre one.   Iraq is the ONLY country even know to have attempted to weaponize Afla Toxin.   I just doesn't make sense as the toxin has NO immediate effects.   It only does one thing....It cause liver cancer and is rather effective (especially effective on children.)  

Post-Gulf War 1, we knew he had a biological weapons program going but were unable to track it down until........1995.    Two of the heads of Saddam's special weapons programs defected and gave a tell all report to the U.N.  They were Saddam's son-in-laws, but he's got a bodacious butt load of them so that really isn't significant unless you are talking about wife number 1.  They later returned to Iraq and were immediately executed.   They spilled the beans on his programs and the U.N. went about destroying it.  Almost all of what was found was liquid botullinum toxin (mostly) and liquid anthrax.   We found 7 or 8 SCUD warheads loaded with Afla Toxin which makes no sense as a tactical weapon. 

1998, we found some video of a 1996 test spraying a liquid anthrax simulant from a fighter jet modified to operate like a crop duster.  We also found a couple of helicopters with similar modifications.  ALL were destroyed by the U.N.

Mid-1990's, Iraq conducts research on production of a dusty anthrax agent.  The research was a massive technical failure and was discovered by the U.N. around 1998.  The only reason I specifically remember this one is the fact that the grinding mills were never accounted for and dusty agents scare me.

Early 2000's, the U.N. claims there is no evidence of a continuing biological program and all stocks have been destroyed.  Some equipment is in the process of destruction while a tracking system is being developed to track dual use equipment.  2003, Collin Powell claims we have evidence of mobile Iraqi biological weapons labs.  We found some mobile lab equipment, but nothing even close to the equipment required to produce chemical or biological warfare agents.  The Iraqi's claimed they were part of their weather baloon program.  The Iraqi claims are a LOT more valid than any weaponization claim I have ever heard given the details of the truck contents and the results of extensive swipe testing performed out of desperation to prove otherwise.

chemical:  This is where it gets REALLY involved and this was the bread n butter of his WMD programs.   It started in early 1980s, during the Iran-Iraq war.   Iraq was getting slaughtered by Iran's mass wave attacks (simular to what the Chineese did to us in the Korean War) and NO they are not suicide attacks.   The only way to break such an attack is with highly effective, mass casualty weapons like cluster bombs.  Iraq didn't have cluster weapons, but they did have a very advanced petro-chemical industry.   It didn't take long for their chemical engineers to say, "You know.  We've got advanced phosgene production capabilities.  It's only a couple of steps further to start making Mustard gas."   In less than one year, they were cranking out a pretty danged pure version of mustard and breaking the attacks.

The technology was all home grown.  His engineers were trained out of country, but chemical agent production isn't very hard for a well established petro-chemical country.  His equipment came from America, Germany, and Brittain.   His materials came from a variety of sources, mostly South African.  However, nothing in of itself looked odd.  You had to put all the pieces together to know what was up and this was the hieght of the Cold War.  Who wants to ask questions of a country is fighting a Communist backed Iran????

A year later, they had gone to the next logical step and were cranking out two gaseous nerve agiants (sarin and cyclo-sarin.)  These agents became the staple of Saddam's non-conventional weapons program.   In 1985 (?), Donald Rumsfield visited Saddam under the direction of president Reagan.  He formally asked Saddam to stop the use of chemical weapons in return for American provided cluster bombs.   He agreed.  We gave him custom built cluster weapons (custom built to function with his Russian and French aircraft) through an Argentinian weapons manufacturer.   Instead of halting the use of chemical agents, he took apart the cluster bombs and figured out how to construct ones of his own.  He made some attempts to produce chemical cluster weapons, but they met with dismal failure.

The Iran-Iraq war ended and following a bunch of American foreign policy screw ups (thank you GW41 and your dumb ass ambassador), Saddam fealt empowered to invade Kuwait.  (Not that he needed much encouragement, but we sure didn't give him any discouragement.)   Following the surrendor of Iraq, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers went on a detonation frenzy.  They were in Southern Iraq blowing up EVERYTHING as fast as we could.   We knew that the signing of the resolution would require our pull out and we were taking a scortched earth approach.  Two of the detonated bunkers were loaded with sarin and cyclosarin shells.  This exposed well over 100,000 U.S. troops to less than lethal doses of nerve agents.  (If you want more details, google Khamisiyah + sarin).  This one REALLY pisses me off as the State Department kept it classified until 1996 (I think).   A large number of the symptoms of Gulf War Illness are identical to the symptoms of less than lethal exposure to nerve agents.

We played a cat n mouse game with Saddam over chemical weapons through 1996 (or 1998).  He was trying to develop VX but we never found evidence of him succeeding.   The attack on Halabja had some persistance issues that suggest VX, but cyclo-sarin also has a great deal of persistance and has identical symptoms.  Before we invaded Iraq, Halabja convinced me that he had been able to produce VX but our inability to find any elsewhere leads me to believe it was his favorite cocktail (sarin and cyclosarin).

Following the late 1990's, the U.N. didn't find much of anything.  There biggest question was Iraq's need for such a high phosgene production capability and negotiations were underway to reduce that capability.  Phosgene is a very common chemical in the petro-chemical industry and the precursor to most chemical warfare agents.  (It is also a military choking agent, but it's battlefield efficy is so pitiful that you're better off using straight chlorine gas.)

Upon our invasion, we didn't find squat for chemical agents.   We found a few stashes that the U.N. was aware of and had been planning to destroy when they were clear to return to Iraq,   We found two pallets of mustard gas mortar shells sunk in the swamps east of Bahgdad.   Seriel numbers dated back to the Iran-Iraq war and they were so rusted out that they would have ruptured on firing if filled with propellant and dropped into a mortar tube.   The insurgents found "a very small number" of sarin-cyclosarin shells and used them in an IED without knowing what they had.   They put so much conventional explosive around the shells that the chemical agent was massively incinerated and dissapated upon detonation.   There were no nerve agent exposure injuries reported and (to my knowledge) no other chemical agent shells have been reported in IEDs or in bomb factories.

Bush Administration's Claims:  The current claim is that he HAD ended his program but we were justified because he maintained the technology to restart it.....


WTF?????

How do we remove his ability to restart?   Require him to kill his scientists and destroy his entire petrochemical industry?   Nothing short of that will remove the ability to restart.


I believed we were right when we went in and I still believe Saddam was a bad dude.   That said, we only had ONE reasonable justification for going in.......and ACTIVE weapons program.   It didn't exist and I am man enough to admit that I was wrong in my position.    How is it HONORABLE or RESPECTIBLE to change your justification because you didn't find what you claimed to exist????




farglebargle -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/5/2008 8:53:44 PM)

quote:


Bush Administration's Claims:


Let me flesh this out for you...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/nationalsecurity/disarm.html

quote:


* Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein agreed to disarm all weapons of mass destruction. For 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement.
* Three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam his final chance to disarm. He has shown his utter contempt for the U.N.
* The U.N. and U.S. intelligence sources have known for some time that Saddam Hussein has materials to produce chemical and biological weapons, but he has not accounted for them:
o 26,000 liters of anthrax—enough to kill several million people
o 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin
o 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents
* Almost 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents
* From three Iraqi defectors, we know that Iraq in the late 1990s had several mobile biological weapons labs. But he has not disclosed them.
* The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, a design for a nuclear weapon, and was working on methods of enriching uranium for a nuclear bomb. He recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, according to the British Government. He has attempted to purchase high strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons, according to our intelligence sources. Yet he has not credibly explained these activities.






SeeksOnlyOne -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/5/2008 8:57:52 PM)

i dont see them as lesser and i dont think i have ever implied that at all.....i see them as a totally different culture, just as vietnam was.

i do not understand how you see my thoughts as us not taking the high road.  leaving them alone to live as they have for all of their history, and demanding they do the same for us.

i do not understand what you think the choices are about fixing the inhumane treatment of citizens over there.  you say you feel that we were wrong to go.  many iraqis would agree with you, but many would disagree. 

i cant think of any way to make changes over there via diplomatic efforts.  if that were possible, i think we would be there by now. 

so that leaves 2 choices, and yes i know this is very simplistic.  we either go in full force and kick ass and take names, or we say live with your dictators and do as you wish but do not harm any american or theres gonna be hell to pay.

i called a friend of mine, who is a full bird colonel on his 3rd tour in iraq.  he is home on leave and i had a long talk with him, even reading him my posts from on here.  he understood what i was saying.  he has days he feels we were right for going and days he feels like wtf are we doing here.  but he does his job completely and to the best of his ability every day he is there.

there are no easy answers to any of this, and i respect your right to feel as you do.

i just dont know any other way to try to get you to see where i am coming from.   i have learned i suck at debating things in the written forum and i will probably refrain from it in the future, because it is just too frustrating to me to feel so misinterpreted.




Muttling -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/5/2008 9:05:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeeksOnlyOne

i called a friend of mine, who is a full bird colonel on his 3rd tour in iraq.  he is home on leave and i had a long talk with him, even reading him my posts from on here.  he understood what i was saying.  he has days he feels we were right for going and days he feels like wtf are we doing here.  but he does his job completely and to the best of his ability every day he is there.



My asnwer to the Full Bird is simple, for whatever reason.....we broke it.    We need someone to fix it or it will be REALLY fucked up.


It has take us 3 years to get to giving you the resources you need, but we have finally started doing it.  Work hard and don't worry about the arguments back home.   The more you do right with the right resources, the more likely you are to keep those resources.  Screw this up and the drums for pull out will beat LOUDLY.

Your friend is at a blessed and a cursed point in this war.  I wish him well and I thrust him onto success.   Failure has horrific implications.




samboct -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/5/2008 9:16:05 PM)

In response to Muttling

Thanks for the history lesson.  I did my research from this country, talking to local domestic sources, so overall, I'm not too displeased with my results.

A couple of points of clarification-

1)  Chemical weapons are not WMD.  Chemical weapons have similar lethality as high explosive on a per pound basis against unprepared troops.  Chemical weapons were widely used in WWI, used somewhat in WWII (Mussolini gassing the Abysinnians) and as noted prior- by Saddam against the Kurds.  I'll bow to your characterization of chemical weapons being within the development of the petro chemical industry- you're perfectly correct, and I should have been more precise here.  Sarin isn't a hard synthesis, and mustard gas was within the capabilities of companies in WWI.  Not exactly sophisticated technology.

2)  I'm going to disagree with your description of botulism toxin as "weaponized".  Having a large vat of the stuff doesn't cut it.  As both the US and the Russians discovered back in the 60s, accidental releases might kill hundreds of sheep and the occasional human, but it wasn't robust enough to be deployed as a weapon.  (As an aside- botulism and anthrax are toxic compounds produced by specific strains of bacteria.  The toxin is how the bacterial infection kills you.  If you don't have a living (or at least spores) bacterial culture, all the toxin is is a nasty compound- but it doesn't replicate.  Thus, a drop of toxin in the resevoir doesn't kill many people.  The scary concept out of the 60s was growing a strain of bacteria that would readily reproduce and produce lots of toxin.)  As noted, putting the stuff in a warhead tended to destroy it, not disperse it.  Hence, it wasn't a practical weapon.  Theoretically if properly dispersed, botulism toxin could kill more people per kg than other chemical weapons, thus it might fit the definition of WMD.  However, this would take some very sophisticated research and characterization tools that the Iraqis didn't possess.  (OK, might be at some of the petrochemical companies.  But do you think the lab manager is going to be real happy when someone comes in with a sample of a botulism toxin- which if it breaks will disable a multi million dollar facility?)  I will stick with my other points-the Iraqis didn't have the capability of deploying the stuff as a weapon.

Sam




Muttling -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/5/2008 9:33:54 PM)

I will agree to disagree with you on BOTH points.

The U.N. defines nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as "weapons of mass destruction".  Here's the first link that popped up on Google for me, but I'm sure I can find more if you insist....

http://disarmament.un.org/wmd/


On the subject of botulinum toxin, you are WAYYYYY off the mark.  The Soviet's first biological weapon was tulerimia.   Their second was botulinum toxin.   The Iraqi's first was botulinum toxin.   BOTH countries have weapons detonation testing establishing the weaponization capability of this toxin.  (I suspect your information is in regard to smaller shells which are prone to incinerations problems.  The Iraqi weapon of choice was the R-500 aerial bomb which did have incineration issues but nothing like what you see in an artillery or mortar shell.)  Furthermore, the Iraqi's are well known to have developed sprayed aerosal systems as I mentioned above, so the subject of incineration upon explosive dispersal is irrelevant when deploying spray systems.


On a final note, incineration upon detonation was a chronic problem for the Iraqis.  They couldn't even detonate a mortar shell without burning up most of a chemical agent.   They never perfected the technology for low temperature rupture of the shell casing.




Muttling -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/5/2008 9:55:18 PM)

Alright....You forced me to do some digging.....

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/bw-unscom.htm




The above report doesn't mention range, but I am now thinking that the missile I was referring to was the Al Hussien and not the Al Abbas.   (Both are SCUD varients.)

The spray system for jet aircraft was a drop tank system.   I'm a bit pissed that I can't come up with the video for you.    Not because I think you won't believe me.............Just because it was a French made Mirage that was spraying the shit.   (Bastards)

The helicopter aerosol system I noted above does not appear to have been verified, but I do recall seeing an aerosol equipped helicopter in a briefing.  (This is the search that lead me to this site.)   That said, I can not state whether the photo they gave us in briefing was an typical example or the real deal.   The only difference between an agricultural helicopter spray system and a weaponized spray system is the dispersion nozzles so the picture could have easily been an agricultural bird.


Last and least of all, I mis-spoke when I said R-500 bomb.  It was the R-400 that was special use.




caitlyn -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/6/2008 7:29:10 AM)

Somewhere between blaming the United States for everything ... and refusing to accept that the United States is ever to blame for anything, you get ...
 
... victory will come, when we are out of money to spent on the military industrial complex, and can no longer borrow from anyone else.




Page: <<   < prev  6 7 8 [9] 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.445313E-02