• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ISIS in Iraq seizes control of Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons facility

Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

I'm curious as to how it is that terrorists now posessing chemical weapons somehow vindicates the very people most responsible for unleashing the chaos that made it possible?


If the same people who unleashed this chaos were so certain about these chemical weapons, why were they not destroyed?
 
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

TheDemSocialist said:
You do realize these weapons are obsolete. They no longer work! They are useless.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we can send you there to test them to see if they can harm anyone.
 
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

Ockham said:
Way to step up! So you answer the question:



Yes or no?
Click to expand...

My assumption is that the usable inventory would be less because chemistry.
 
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

Deuce said:
My assumption is that the usable inventory would be less because chemistry.
Click to expand...

Well the report claimed there were not WMD's found, so I can't see how any inventory would have existed at the time of the reports. If it's less that would mean the report is incorrect and there were WMD's found. If that is in fact the case that WMD's were found even just a few, why would they continue to exist? Wouldn't they have been destroyed once they were documented and found by this panel? Why would the US who invaded Iraq in 2003 and left in more or less control of the country leave even useless inventory of chemical weapons behind?

It's not making sense to me.
 
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

cpwill said:
In 2014? Hopefully yes.
Click to expand...
They our government has already admitted that and weapons inspectors in the past stated the exact same thing.

10 years ago - much less so. Which we know now because one of them was used against us as an improvised explosive device with a gas element.
Click to expand...
One POS roadside bomb that caused no damage! Proof Iraq had a large quanity of WMDS and was a dangerous threat! War was worth it!

Now, could they be fired through artillery tubes? Probably not. That doesn't stop them from being usable, however, as we found out. Allow the National Ground Intelligence Center Commander to elucidate:
Click to expand...
No. Not this report again. :doh More old unusable weapons.
"The lawmakers pointed to an unclassified summary from a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center regarding 500 chemical munitions shells that had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988.

"Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101837.html

"But intelligence officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitive nature, said the weapons were produced before the 1991 Gulf War and there is no evidence to date of chemical munitions manufactured since then. They said an assessment of the weapons concluded they are so degraded that they couldn't now be used as designed.

He said experts on Iraq's chemical weapons are in "almost 100 percent agreement" that sarin nerve agent produced from the 1980s would no longer be dangerous.

"It is less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink at this point," Kay said.

They were not maintained or part of any organized program run by Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/weapons-found-in-iraq-old-unusable/


"But defense officials said Thursday that the weapons were not considered likely to be dangerous because of their age, which they determined to be pre-1991.Pentagon officials told NBC News that the munitions are the same kind of ordnance the U.S. military has been gathering in Iraq for the past several years, and "not the WMD we were looking for when we went in this time.""
Officials: We haven




The argument that no WMD were found except for the ones that we found, but that they don't count, is a very poor argument.
Click to expand...
no its the correct argument. Even the Bush administration and the intelligence community admits we found nothing.

You have went from the point of "Iraq wasnt invaded on a lie, it was invaded on faulty intelegence and there was no WMDS". Then I showed that the Bush admin only listened to what they wanted to hear and there was a lot of dissent against the official position of the Bush admin. To know you are saying "oh there were WMD's".
 
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

fmw said:
Perhaps we can send you there to test them to see if they can harm anyone.
Click to expand...
:lamo So do these unusable weapons magically work?
 
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

Middleground said:
Oh yeah? How about this little gem at the end of the OP:



I dunno about you, but that is pretty much telling. Seems that long after the truth has been revealed, there are those still trying hard to find justification.
Click to expand...

It's called revisionism and it is rampant in the case of GW Bush's record. It seems people think we will forget Bush's lies and blunders and magically he will no longer be the worst President in our lifetime. LOL
 
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

Ockham said:
They did that survey report and addendum is from 2005. The CIA report you identified is from 2007. The date today is June 20, 2014. So you're claim then is the exact same chemicals and inventory exists. Is that your assumption given a 9 year old and 7 year old report?
Click to expand...

Not sure what point you are trying to make here. Saddam was deposed in 2003, his 'facilities' were searched VERY extensively looking for all those WMD Rummy claimed he could walk in and place his hand on once we invaded... and a very paltry few found back then.... the 'facilities' were razed- ummm so who would be building a new facility, and stockpile?

I'd not be going out on a limb to say whatever is still in those bunkers are less than useless, and more of a danger to whomever would try to remove them from the bunkers than anyone they attempted to use them on.
 
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

Mr.Nick said:
I'm smart enough to put something back together - especially with directions. However, that is not the point.

Uranium is easy - it's **** - so is enriching it if you're a ****ing Jihad terrorist that doesn't give a ****, a monkey could do that. Other weaponry takes skill but it has already been manufactured and putting together is nothing for the right guy.

****, I'm sure a gear-head could build a nice ride out of a junk yard but can that gear-head actually mold the parts for that car? NO but the analogy here is that the parts have already been molded - they've been produced and they just need to be reassembled NOT created - understand?

It's no different than building an IKEA product - more complicated - yes, but no different.
Click to expand...

Maybe you could do it after all.
 
BmanMcfly said:
You mean the alqueada people posted VIDEO OF THEMSELVES LOADING AND LAUNCHING THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS so they could blame Assad.
Click to expand...

The point was 'someone' knows what they are doing. Hell, I can't tell them apart.
 
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

I don't get it.

1) People say the chemicals in those bunkers are degraded and useless.

2) They also say that it would be too dangerous for ISIS soldiers to even go in those bunkers.

3) How can the chemicals be both "degraded & useless" AND "too dangerous to handle" at the same time?
 
I don't get it.

1) People say the chemicals in those bunkers are degraded and useless.

2) They also say that it would be too dangerous for ISIS soldiers to even go in those bunkers.

3) How can the chemicals be both "degraded & useless" AND "too dangerous to handle" at the same time?
 
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

Zyphlin said:
Which in context of what he was saying, it was as it relates to the claims that there were no WMD's or that they lied that there were WMD's there.

The OP, and anyone after it, did not make any argument as to whether or not this itself justified the invastion.
Click to expand...

There was knowledge of these "weapons" years ago.
 
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

notquiteright said:
Not sure what point you are trying to make here. Saddam was deposed in 2003, his 'facilities' were searched VERY extensively looking for all those WMD Rummy claimed he could walk in and place his hand on once we invaded... and a very paltry few found back then.... the 'facilities' were razed- ummm so who would be building a new facility, and stockpile?

I'd not be going out on a limb to say whatever is still in those bunkers are less than useless, and more of a danger to whomever would try to remove them from the bunkers than anyone they attempted to use them on.
Click to expand...

You can try answering the question.
 
Dayton3 said:
I don't get it.
1) People say the chemicals in those bunkers are degraded and useless.
2) They also say that it would be too dangerous for ISIS soldiers to even go in those bunkers.
3) How can the chemicals be both "degraded & useless" AND "too dangerous to handle" at the same time?
Click to expand...
Idk what exactly other people meant. I can't speak for anyone else. Also, I didn't make the claims you are discussing.
However, I think I can see a way through your conundrum.

The ISG report which WCH linked to up thread gives the impression that significant areas were too unstable to "exploit." Probably due to the combinations of bombing and looting. Iirc, the place was looted not long after the invasion began. I know that at least one suspected wmd-related site a building was looted down to it's concrete foundation. Very efficient looking imho.

It may also possible for chemicals to be very dangerous locally, but not "weaponizable." By weaponizable, I mean the ability to be weaponized--made ready to be deliver a deadly payload to the enemy. Idk a whole lot about chemical weapons. But the folks over at the Federation Of American Scientists aren't too shabby.
 
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

Ockham said:
You can try answering the question.
Click to expand...

You can try not using a weak CON game-

Who would have rebuilt the facility and produced viable chemical weapons? :confused:

The CIA and the ISG both completed their work AFTER Saddam was hung. :doh

I believe the 'captured facility' story is just CON crap trying to fling more poo. The razed facility isn't of value to the Insurgents, just to the right wing nuts... :peace
 
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

notquiteright said:
You can try not using a weak CON game-

Who would have rebuilt the facility and produced viable chemical weapons? :confused:

The CIA and the ISG both completed their work AFTER Saddam was hung. :doh

I believe the 'captured facility' story is just CON crap trying to fling more poo. The razed facility isn't of value to the Insurgents, just to the right wing nuts... :peace
Click to expand...

What's weak is you refuse to answer. Game set match... me. Have a nice day!
 
Posting across several political forums I've come these conclusions:

1) To people that opposed the war against Iraq, they will NEVER admit that ANYTHING justified it.

2) People are moving the goal posts regarding what constitutes "weapons". You don't have to be able to mount something in a warhead or bomb for it to be a weapon. Something like 3,000 Americans were killed in Iraq by IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices). These do not fit that definition of "weapon" either as they can't be mounted on a delivery system.
But I have no doubt those things are considered "weapons".

3) People are ignoring the fact that Saddam Hussein was not supposed to have ANY chemical weapons OR the capability of making them. Not degraded. Not old. Not rusted. None
 
Dayton3 said:
2) People are moving the goal posts regarding what constitutes "weapons". You don't have to be able to mount something in a warhead or bomb for it to be a weapon. Something like 3,000 Americans were killed in Iraq by IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices). These do not fit that definition of "weapon" either as they can't be mounted on a delivery system.
But I have no doubt those things are considered "weapons".
Click to expand...
I have a bottle of Ammonia and a bottle of bleach.
Do I have WMD pre-cursors?

You have to be able to draw a line somewhere between chemicals which are merely dangerous and chemicals which are weapons.
Otherwise we have to say that there're thousands of tons of WMD being moved around our country by rail at this very moment. But that's not really a helpful thing to say is it? Cause those tanker cars are not really weapons. They're just containers of dangerous chemicals.

How do you distinguish between merely dangerous chemicals and chemical weapons if it's not based on the weaponization of those chemicals?
It seems that the obvious difference between deangerous chemicals and chemical weapons would be the weaponization of those chemicals. But, if as you suggest, weaponization is not what distinguishes dangerous chemicals from chemical weapons, what does?
Where do you place the "goalposts"?

Dayton3 said:
3) People are ignoring the fact that Saddam Hussein was not supposed to have ANY chemical weapons OR the capability of making them. Not degraded. Not old. Not rusted. None
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should re-read the resolutions in effect. UNSCOM et al were well aware of Muthanna.

If you read the report of the ISG linked to up thread by WCH, you would note that there was no capacity to produce wmd at that site.
 
Re: ISIL seizes Saddam's chemical weapons plant

Ockham said:
What's weak is you refuse to answer. Game set match... me. Have a nice day!
Click to expand...

Yeah that's how a CON 'wins'... pretends a response isn't 'the answer'.... :doh

(never mind YOU never answered a single question put to you :shock: )

Who would have rebuilt the razed facility AFTER Saddam was hung? Are YOU accusing the Maliki govt of restarting the WMD program under the noses of the CIA and US Military?
 
After Desert Storm

In 2014 ?


Doesn't look like it has seen much love in the intervening years.
Also, you can see why our investigative team only "exploited" 11 of the bunkers

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxB.html
Stockpiles of chemical munitions are still stored there. The most dangerous ones have been declared to the UN and are sealed in bunkers. Although declared, the bunkers contents have yet to be confirmed. These areas of the compound pose a hazard to civilians and potential blackmarketers.
Numerous bunkers, including eleven cruciform shaped bunkers were exploited. Some of the bunkers were empty. Some of the bunkers contained large quantities of unfilled chemical munitions, conventional munitions, one-ton shipping containers, old disabled production equipment (presumed disabled under UNSCOM supervision), and other hazardous industrial chemicals. The bunkers were dual-use in storing both conventional and chemical munitions. Figure 12 is a typical side-view of a cruciform shaped bunker.
The contents of two of the cruciform bunkers bombed during Desert Storm showed severe damage. Due to the hazards associated with this location, the UN decided to seal the bunkers.
UNSCOM viewed the contents of the two bunkers; however an accurate inventory was not possible due to the hazards associated with that environment.
​
 
WCH said:
We don't know what precursors or other chemical exist at that plant or what the UN sealed up in those bunkers.
Click to expand...

Based on the word of an EOD buddy who was on the contract to seal up and make safe Al Muthanna in 2006, no precursors or anything that could be easily used by booger eaters to fashion operable WMDs are available on the site.

In the bunkers, VX, GB, and Potassium Cyanide in various stages of advanced degradation.

Any attempt by ISIS to open the sealed bunkers and extract the agents would result in immediate local (ISIS) casualties and an environmental risk to the surrounding area. Drums of chems are stored in rusting barrels that are sitting in three feet of stagnant water and chemical ooze.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom