|
Post by honkybouffant on Jun 18, 2011 1:23:20 GMT -6
What you should do Honkey.... is hold your breath... untill the prosecution of our 43rd twice elected president is being looked at by any one but Anti American nut cases like yourself.... Like renowned prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi you mean. Phew I can breathe again. Hey, as for anti-American... HOORAY!!! HOORAY FOR OUR COMMANDER IN CHIEF!!! AZ, won't you join me in the HOORAYS!!!! ?? I know, Red White and Blue Honkey. HOORAY for OBAMA!!! HOORAY for the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!! Ha. You sure are funny old timer. Not me. I'd be speaking American, and kicking the crap out of you German speaking collaborators. "HOORAY for OBAMA!!" I'd shout, in honor of the brave leader of the resistance.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jun 18, 2011 1:24:47 GMT -6
Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutor in the trial of Charles Manson, has written a book titled 'The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder'. The case is based on the claim that Bush led the nation to war under false pretenses, and thus thousands of people were killed in bombing sorties and other military actions that would otherwise have lived. According to figures from the venerable medical journal 'The Lancet', the excess of deaths caused by the Iraq war - that's to say, the number of deaths over those projected had Saddam stayed in power - was 655,000. To give you an idea of that, suppose that Bugliosi's most famous prosecution, Charles Manson, were to go on a killing rampage murdering 1 person per day. It would take him over 1794 years to catch up with Dubya's total circa 2006. My question is not whether Bugliosi is wrong or right. My question is, if he is right, should Dubya get the death penalty? That's the concept I have been looking for: "Excess Deaths". I wonder how many 'excess deaths' were caused by WWII. If you're suggesting Hitler shouldn't have started WWII, you're on safe ground there.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jun 18, 2011 7:06:45 GMT -6
But to be fair to Bush, if he hadn't invaded Iraq, he would risk leaving America's energy security in the hands of a madman. So though 911 was no excuse for the attack, you could argue that he had good reasons, no? After the first Gulf War many Democrats argued that point in attacking the G. H. W. Bush for not continuing that war until Saddam was dead. But it is a bit silly, and quite falsely partisan, to single out George Bush anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Woody on Jun 23, 2011 21:39:12 GMT -6
My question is, if he is right, should Dubya get the death penalty? His lawyers will claim mental disability.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 7, 2011 13:11:01 GMT -6
Obviously HB is trying to invoke his reading of International law to suggest Bush should be tried. Bush GOT the required approval from the U.S. Congress to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan and that is sufficient LEGALLY for going to war. He even got resolutions passed in the UN to do so.
Now OBAMA did not get Congressional approval for the War in Libya, even though he ALSO got a UN resolution passed just as Bush did.
Since by U.S. law, Obama's war is not legal and innocent people have been killed in Libya, can he be held to task for those deaths?
Maybe, but it ain't gonna happen either.
Gee, I just have to say all those who are STILL making such a hubbub about Bush are running away from the fact Obama is carrying on an ILLEGAL WAR and innocent people are dying from our bombs and rockets.
Oh, I get it, it doesn't count when a Liberal starts and maintains an illegal war...................................
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2011 17:44:39 GMT -6
I think the point Bugliosi is making is that Bush lied so he could go to war, making the war illegal.. Obviously HB is trying to invoke his reading of International law to suggest Bush should be tried. Bush GOT the required approval from the U.S. Congress to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan and that is sufficient LEGALLY for going to war. He even got resolutions passed in the UN to do so. Now OBAMA did not get Congressional approval for the War in Libya, even though he ALSO got a UN resolution passed just as Bush did. Since by U.S. law, Obama's war is not legal and innocent people have been killed in Libya, can he be held to task for those deaths? Maybe, but it ain't gonna happen either. Gee, I just have to say all those who are STILL making such a hubbub about Bush are running away from the fact Obama is carrying on an ILLEGAL WAR and innocent people are dying from our bombs and rockets. Oh, I get it, it doesn't count when a Liberal starts and maintains an illegal war...................................
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jul 7, 2011 18:55:20 GMT -6
I'm not a fan of Mr. Bush but he acted on the intelligence that was given to him by his advisors, so NO, Mr. Bush does NOT deserve the DP!
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Jul 7, 2011 19:25:24 GMT -6
The only pro- iraq war reasoning I thought much of was on here when Lisa (do miss her) said that it was set up to suck extremists into a space where guerilla warfare was difficult because of the open terrain. I still disagreed with it but at least her idea made sense.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jul 7, 2011 19:30:13 GMT -6
The only pro- iraq war reasoning I thought much of was on here when Lisa (do miss her) said that it was set up to suck extremists into a space where guerilla warfare was difficult because of the open terrain. I still disagreed with it but at least her idea made sense. How quickly we forget. Were all these people taken in by the Bush "lies?"
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Jul 7, 2011 19:32:21 GMT -6
The only pro- iraq war reasoning I thought much of was on here when Lisa (do miss her) said that it was set up to suck extremists into a space where guerilla warfare was difficult because of the open terrain. I still disagreed with it but at least her idea made sense. How quickly we forget. Were all these people taken in by the Bush "lies?" I certainly haven't forgotten. It finished our labour party for me, and I have no particular affection for your democrats, either.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 7, 2011 19:32:39 GMT -6
I think the point Bugliosi is making is that Bush lied so he could go to war, making the war illegal.. Obviously HB is trying to invoke his reading of International law to suggest Bush should be tried. Bush GOT the required approval from the U.S. Congress to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan and that is sufficient LEGALLY for going to war. He even got resolutions passed in the UN to do so. Now OBAMA did not get Congressional approval for the War in Libya, even though he ALSO got a UN resolution passed just as Bush did. Since by U.S. law, Obama's war is not legal and innocent people have been killed in Libya, can he be held to task for those deaths? Maybe, but it ain't gonna happen either. Gee, I just have to say all those who are STILL making such a hubbub about Bush are running away from the fact Obama is carrying on an ILLEGAL WAR and innocent people are dying from our bombs and rockets. Oh, I get it, it doesn't count when a Liberal starts and maintains an illegal war................................... For one to totally and completely ignore what the Democrats said before the war when Billy Cladiddlehopper was in office, AND during the debate, INCLUDING Hillary stating she had ABSOLUTELY verified the same intelligence Bush had only from COMPLETELY different intelligence sources; has gone beyond reason, beyond credulity, beyond political maneuvering and lying, beyond emotion, and into sheer hate speech to claim Bush was lying about the intelligence that virtually EVERY Democrat agreed with and voted for save one or two. But the further evidence of that hate speech and hypocrisy is they not ONLY completed stopped the Death Tolls since Obama got elected and gone silent on the innocents killed during HIS watch, they also have shown what foul hypocrites they are about Obama's current illegal war......... Like I said, all the supposed anti war, loving liberals have shown is that illegal wars, dead and crippled innocents, dead and crippled service people don't mean SQUAT when there is a liberal in the White House.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 12, 2011 15:16:40 GMT -6
Obviously HB is trying to invoke his reading of International law to suggest Bush should be tried. Are you talking about Harry Bugliosi, Vincent's brother? Based upon lies. I'm happy to condemn Obama for that, if you are willing to condemn Bush I and Reagan for the same.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 12, 2011 15:40:02 GMT -6
The only pro- iraq war reasoning I thought much of was on here when Lisa (do miss her) said that it was set up to suck extremists into a space where guerilla warfare was difficult because of the open terrain. I still disagreed with it but at least her idea made sense. How quickly we forget. Were all these people taken in by the Bush "lies?" The usual misdirection. The 1998 quotes are from the context of Operation Desert Fox, when the US tried to destroy Saddam's weapons program in bombing raids. The fact that there was real evidence of Saddam's weapons program in 1998 before the US bombed the sh!t out of it does not mean that there was evidence that Saddam rebuilt the program by 2002/3. The evidence that Saddam had rebuilt the program in 2002/3 was non-existent, fabricated and/or cherry picked to create a misleading impression, under the direct pressure and supervision of the office of the Vice President. Democrats who fell for the lie and echoed it as a result might make an amusing Youtube clip, but they were victims of the lie more than perpetrators of it.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 12, 2011 17:18:58 GMT -6
The only pro- iraq war reasoning I thought much of was on here when Lisa (do miss her) said that it was set up to suck extremists into a space where guerilla warfare was difficult because of the open terrain. I still disagreed with it but at least her idea made sense. Was the idea that Baghdad would be open terrain after the US had leveled it?
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 12, 2011 17:21:42 GMT -6
I think the point Bugliosi is making is that Bush lied so he could go to war, making the war illegal.. The war was illegal because there was no threat of any sort. The precedent Bush set is that any country can make war on any other, for any old corrupt financial or geopolitical objective, provided they can blame bad intel after the fact.
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Jul 13, 2011 8:13:31 GMT -6
The only pro- iraq war reasoning I thought much of was on here when Lisa (do miss her) said that it was set up to suck extremists into a space where guerilla warfare was difficult because of the open terrain. I still disagreed with it but at least her idea made sense. Was the idea that Baghdad would be open terrain after the US had leveled it? It was certainly like that with Falujha
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 13, 2011 12:26:42 GMT -6
How quickly we forget. Were all these people taken in by the Bush "lies?" The usual misdirection. The 1998 quotes are from the context of Operation Desert Fox, when the US tried to destroy Saddam's weapons program in bombing raids. The fact that there was real evidence of Saddam's weapons program in 1998 before the US bombed the sh!t out of it does not mean that there was evidence that Saddam rebuilt the program by 2002/3. The evidence that Saddam had rebuilt the program in 2002/3 was non-existent, fabricated and/or cherry picked to create a misleading impression, under the direct pressure and supervision of the office of the Vice President. Democrats who fell for the lie and echoed it as a result might make an amusing Youtube clip, but they were victims of the lie more than perpetrators of it. And that is nothing more than deliberate revisionist history meant to excuse Democrats. Hillary Clinton ABSOLUTELY stated that she had independently verified the information about Saddam's WMD's from sources outside the Bush Administration in the 2002-2003 period AND even left it up on her website for a while when she ran for President in 2008. They took it down after a few months, but I linked it here on this forum a couple times during the time it was still up. I am not going to go over the Kay and Deulfler reports again, but both stated Saddam WOULD have started a Nuclear program as soon as the UN sanctions were lifted. BOTH identified weaponized biological samples found in home refrigerators to hide them. BOTH identified many times they went to inspect sites, that they found papers burnt and computers destroyed. A couple of tmes the papers were still smouldering when the inspectors showed up. And most importantly, those 50 plus WMD Binary artillery munitions that carried VIABLE SARIN nerve agent found in 2004, is the absolute proof he had a WMD Nerve Agent program still going on. Sarin nerve agent only remains viable for as little as two weeks to maybe four months unless it is properly stored and replaced. The UN inspectors left in 1998 and those munitions were found to have VIABLE Sarin in 2004, SIX YEARS LATER. There is absolutely no way it would have remained viable that long without an active CONTROLLED storage and replacement program.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 13, 2011 13:36:38 GMT -6
The usual misdirection. The 1998 quotes are from the context of Operation Desert Fox, when the US tried to destroy Saddam's weapons program in bombing raids. The fact that there was real evidence of Saddam's weapons program in 1998 before the US bombed the sh!t out of it does not mean that there was evidence that Saddam rebuilt the program by 2002/3. The evidence that Saddam had rebuilt the program in 2002/3 was non-existent, fabricated and/or cherry picked to create a misleading impression, under the direct pressure and supervision of the office of the Vice President. Democrats who fell for the lie and echoed it as a result might make an amusing Youtube clip, but they were victims of the lie more than perpetrators of it. And that is nothing more than deliberate revisionist history meant to excuse Democrats. Hillary Clinton ABSOLUTELY stated that she had independently verified the information about Saddam's WMD's from sources outside the Bush Administration in the 2002-2003 period AND even left it up on her website for a while when she ran for President in 2008. They took it down after a few months, but I linked it here on this forum a couple times during the time it was still up. Link. In other words the sanctions were effectively stopping him. Thanks for conceding. Link. Are you talking about these? www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxF.htmlOn the CIA website linked to it classifies these weapons under pre-1991 WMDs, not as evidence of a recent program. 'ISG has no information to indicate that Iraq produced more binary Sarin rounds than it declared'. But that's just the CIA. From the same source: 'Given the age, leakage, decomposition of nerve agent, and small quantity of remaining liquid, these rounds would have limited, if any, impact if used by insurgents against Coalition Forces.'
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 13, 2011 14:21:55 GMT -6
As I already stated, I'm not going to go to the trouble of linking the Kay and Duelfer reports again as we have already done it many times here.
I MIGHT be able to find where I linked ON THIS FORUM where Hillary claimed she had absolutely been given outside evidence of WMD, but I am not going to try because it just is not important to anyone but those trying to revise history. A major reason Hillary lost to Obama was that she fully supported the Iraq war and that is probably why she pulled it off her website.
No, I am not referring to the 1991 or 1998 leaking munitions the UN inspectors were allowed to find. Most of those were mustard gas shells and not Sarin nerve agent anyway.
It does not matter how OLD a binary artillery shell is, what matters is if the Sarin nerve agent in it is still viable. One can take an artillery shell manufactured in 1980 and as long as it is solid with no cracks or leaks, fill it with Sarin binary nerve agent at ANY TIME. However, once you fill it with the binary agents, there is only a very limited time the chemicals remain VIABLE and only if stored in controlled environments. Heat such as is common in Iraq will degrade Sarin binary munitions in a matter of days even if they are stored in warehouses or bunkers that are not temperature controlled.
What has commonly been reported to the public was those 50 plus artillery shells found with Sarin in 2004 were made much earlier. They ASSUME that because there were no dates or markings on ANY WMD shells that Saddam had. So we don't really know how old those shells were. Still, that means NOTHING as shown above. What means something is the Sarin was still viable. For the Sarin in the shells found in 2004 to have been VIABLE six years after the 1998 inspections means there had to have been a controlled and organized WMD storage and replacement program in Iraq.
However, almost no one cares about this anymore, except for those attempting to rewrite history for their own political use.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 13, 2011 14:28:25 GMT -6
As I already stated, I'm not going to go to the trouble of linking the Kay and Duelfer reports again as we have already done it many times here. Convenient. Convenient. That wasn't what I linked to. I linked to the CIA report on the binary artillery munitions carrying sarin nerve agent found in 2004, i.e. what you were making false claims about. Indeed, that's what it says in the CIA report. So on the one hand we have: The CIA. The civilian arm of the United States intelligence services. And on the other we have: RFisher. Right-wing forum contributor on prodeathpenalty.com. Were they viable? I quote: 'Given the age, leakage, decomposition of nerve agent, and small quantity of remaining liquid, these rounds would have limited, if any, impact if used by insurgents against Coalition Forces.'
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 13, 2011 14:31:34 GMT -6
I really thought you more informed, but it seems I am mistaken.
Do you not understand that how quickly Sarin degrades makes it absolutely certain that ANY viable Sarin at all means there was a controlled storage and replacement program for those shells and the Sarin in them?
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 13, 2011 15:10:02 GMT -6
I really thought you more informed, but it seems I am mistaken. Do you not understand that how quickly Sarin degrades makes it absolutely certain that ANY viable Sarin at all means there was a controlled storage and replacement program for those shells and the Sarin in them? You are trying to mislead the people of this good forum RFisher. The weapons to which you refer were in binary form, meaning that the sarin itself isn't made until the weapon is deployed. The two precursors of sarin have a much longer shelf life, of many years in fact. Still, these weapons were so old that, even in binary form, ' age, leakage, [and] decomposition of nerve agent,' meant they 'would have limited, if any, impact if used by insurgents against Coalition Forces.' My claims are backed by the CIA, who classified the weapons as 'pre-1991'. I note that you have made available precisely zero sources.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 13, 2011 17:06:31 GMT -6
I don't know if you are just ignorant or you are trying to mislead the people of this forum. "Shelf life Sarin has a relatively short shelf life, and will degrade after a period of several weeks to several months. The shelf life may be greatly shortened by impurities in precursor materials. According to the CIA[1], in 1989 the Iraqis destroyed 40 or more tons of sarin that had decomposed, and that some Iraqi sarin had a shelf life of only a few weeks owing mostly to impure precursors. Like other nerve agents, Sarin can be chemically deactivated with a strong alkali. Sodium hydroxide can be used in a hydrolysis reaction to destroy sarin converting it to effectively harmless sodium salts.[2]. Efforts to lengthen shelf life Nations stockpiling sarin have tried to overcome the problem of its short shelf life in three ways: •The shelf life of unitary (i.e., pure) sarin may be lengthened by increasing the purity of the precursor and intermediate chemicals and refining the production process. •Incorporating a stabilizer chemical called tributylamine. Later this was replaced by diisopropylcarbodiimide (di-c-di), which allowed for GB nerve agent to be stored in aluminium casings. •Developing binary chemical weapons, where the two precursor chemicals are stored separately in the same shell, and mixed to form the agent immediately before or when the shell is in flight. This approach has the dual benefit of making the issue of shelf life irrelevant and greatly increasing the safety of sarin munitions. However, experts still refuse to put the shelf life of this type of weapon past 5 years.www.bookrags.com/wiki/SarinNow of course the five year limit on binary munitions ONLY APPLIES to those weapons that are 1. Chemically pure which Saddam's weapons were not by the quality of how bad some that only lasted weeks, 2. are stored in climate controlled environments 3. had the most up to date chemical stabilizers incorporated into the compounds. No mention of that in any reports. Hussein's Sarin just would not have been viable had it been from the 1991 through 1998 period. Now, in your very last sentence, you ONCE AGAIN made my point. The shells MAY have been old, but the Sarin was still viable, even if in only in small amounts. There is no way it would have been viable even IN binary munitions if it wasn't stored in a controlled environment and that means there had to have been a WMD storage and replacement program.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 13, 2011 17:14:28 GMT -6
I don't know if you are just ignorant or you are trying to mislead the people of this forum. "Shelf life Sarin has a relatively short shelf life, and will degrade after a period of several weeks to several months. The shelf life may be greatly shortened by impurities in precursor materials. According to the CIA[1], in 1989 the Iraqis destroyed 40 or more tons of sarin that had decomposed, and that some Iraqi sarin had a shelf life of only a few weeks owing mostly to impure precursors. Like other nerve agents, Sarin can be chemically deactivated with a strong alkali. Sodium hydroxide can be used in a hydrolysis reaction to destroy sarin converting it to effectively harmless sodium salts.[2]. Efforts to lengthen shelf life Nations stockpiling sarin have tried to overcome the problem of its short shelf life in three ways: •The shelf life of unitary (i.e., pure) sarin may be lengthened by increasing the purity of the precursor and intermediate chemicals and refining the production process. •Incorporating a stabilizer chemical called tributylamine. Later this was replaced by diisopropylcarbodiimide (di-c-di), which allowed for GB nerve agent to be stored in aluminium casings. •Developing binary chemical weapons, where the two precursor chemicals are stored separately in the same shell, and mixed to form the agent immediately before or when the shell is in flight. This approach has the dual benefit of making the issue of shelf life irrelevant and greatly increasing the safety of sarin munitions. However, experts still refuse to put the shelf life of this type of weapon past 5 years.www.bookrags.com/wiki/SarinMy source: the CIA's website. RF's source: bookrags.com. Heh. I'll deal with this in a moment. First, though, I need to check that you are being honest. Earlier, you said 'Heat such as is common in Iraq will degrade Sarin binary munitions in a matter of days even if they are stored in warehouses or bunkers that are not temperature controlled.' But since we were talking about binary munitions, which you now say take five years to degrade, will you admit that this talk about degrading in matter of days was misleading?
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 13, 2011 17:25:16 GMT -6
I don't know if you are just ignorant or you are trying to mislead the people of this forum. "Shelf life Sarin has a relatively short shelf life, and will degrade after a period of several weeks to several months. The shelf life may be greatly shortened by impurities in precursor materials. According to the CIA[1], in 1989 the Iraqis destroyed 40 or more tons of sarin that had decomposed, and that some Iraqi sarin had a shelf life of only a few weeks owing mostly to impure precursors. Like other nerve agents, Sarin can be chemically deactivated with a strong alkali. Sodium hydroxide can be used in a hydrolysis reaction to destroy sarin converting it to effectively harmless sodium salts.[2]. Efforts to lengthen shelf life Nations stockpiling sarin have tried to overcome the problem of its short shelf life in three ways: •The shelf life of unitary (i.e., pure) sarin may be lengthened by increasing the purity of the precursor and intermediate chemicals and refining the production process. •Incorporating a stabilizer chemical called tributylamine. Later this was replaced by diisopropylcarbodiimide (di-c-di), which allowed for GB nerve agent to be stored in aluminium casings. •Developing binary chemical weapons, where the two precursor chemicals are stored separately in the same shell, and mixed to form the agent immediately before or when the shell is in flight. This approach has the dual benefit of making the issue of shelf life irrelevant and greatly increasing the safety of sarin munitions. However, experts still refuse to put the shelf life of this type of weapon past 5 years.www.bookrags.com/wiki/SarinMy source: the CIA's website. RF's source: bookrags.com. Heh. I'll deal with this in a moment. First, though, I need to check that you are being honest. Earlier, you said 'Heat such as is common in Iraq will degrade Sarin binary munitions in a matter of days even if they are stored in warehouses or bunkers that are not temperature controlled.' But since we were talking about binary munitions, which you now say take five years to degrade, will you admit that this talk about degrading in matter of days was misleading? Do I have to explain basic science facts? Shells that are laying around in the open will heat up and thus destroy the viability of the Sarin within days. IOW, when they take such binary shells out of a climate controlled environment and into the deserts of Iraq and don't use them right away, they begin to degrade right away.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 13, 2011 17:32:56 GMT -6
My source: the CIA's website. RF's source: bookrags.com. Heh. I'll deal with this in a moment. First, though, I need to check that you are being honest. Earlier, you said 'Heat such as is common in Iraq will degrade Sarin binary munitions in a matter of days even if they are stored in warehouses or bunkers that are not temperature controlled.' But since we were talking about binary munitions, which you now say take five years to degrade, will you admit that this talk about degrading in matter of days was misleading? Do I have to explain basic science facts? Shells that are laying around in the open will heat up and thus destroy the viability of the Sarin within days. IOW, when they take such binary shells out of a climate controlled environment and into the deserts of Iraq and don't use them right away, they begin to degrade right away. Yes but we were always talking about binary munitions, which you now concede take '5 years' to degrade. Your talk about a few days was misleading.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 13, 2011 17:36:48 GMT -6
I don't know if you are just ignorant or you are trying to mislead the people of this forum. "Shelf life Sarin has a relatively short shelf life, and will degrade after a period of several weeks to several months. The shelf life may be greatly shortened by impurities in precursor materials. According to the CIA[1], in 1989 the Iraqis destroyed 40 or more tons of sarin that had decomposed, and that some Iraqi sarin had a shelf life of only a few weeks owing mostly to impure precursors. Like other nerve agents, Sarin can be chemically deactivated with a strong alkali. Sodium hydroxide can be used in a hydrolysis reaction to destroy sarin converting it to effectively harmless sodium salts.[2]. Efforts to lengthen shelf life Nations stockpiling sarin have tried to overcome the problem of its short shelf life in three ways: •The shelf life of unitary (i.e., pure) sarin may be lengthened by increasing the purity of the precursor and intermediate chemicals and refining the production process. •Incorporating a stabilizer chemical called tributylamine. Later this was replaced by diisopropylcarbodiimide (di-c-di), which allowed for GB nerve agent to be stored in aluminium casings. •Developing binary chemical weapons, where the two precursor chemicals are stored separately in the same shell, and mixed to form the agent immediately before or when the shell is in flight. This approach has the dual benefit of making the issue of shelf life irrelevant and greatly increasing the safety of sarin munitions. However, experts still refuse to put the shelf life of this type of weapon past 5 years.www.bookrags.com/wiki/SarinNow of course the five year limit on binary munitions ONLY APPLIES to those weapons that are 1. Chemically pure which Saddam's weapons were not by the quality of how bad some that only lasted weeks, 2. are stored in climate controlled environments 3. had the most up to date chemical stabilizers incorporated into the compounds. No mention of that in any reports. Hussein's Sarin just would not have been viable had it been from the 1991 through 1998 period. Now, in your very last sentence, you ONCE AGAIN made my point. The shells MAY have been old, but the Sarin was still viable, even if in only in small amounts. There is no way it would have been viable even IN binary munitions if it wasn't stored in a controlled environment and that means there had to have been a WMD storage and replacement program. You've hit rock bottom here Fish. 1. The CIA said that the munitions found were too degraded to be viable. 2. 'bookrags.com' claims that binary munitions will not be viable after 5 years. 3. They were found in 2004. 4. That makes them pre-1999 at the least. The CIA say pre-1991. So your bookrags source essentially agrees with what the CIA already told us. That the weapons are old. I don't see what your counterargument is supposed to be.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 13, 2011 17:40:23 GMT -6
Let's actually use the CIA website instead of what you claim it says: Chemical Munitions—Other Finds Introduction Beginning in May 2004, ISG recovered a series of chemical weapons from Coalition military units and other sources. A total of 53 munitions have been recovered, all of which appear to have been part of pre-1991 Gulf war stocks based on their physical condition and residual components. The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile—containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin—which insurgents attempted to use as an Improvised Explosive Device ( IED). The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist.•ISG has no information to indicate that Iraq produced more binary Sarin rounds than it declared, however, former Iraqi scientists involved with the program admitted that the program was considered extremely successful and shelved for future use. According to the source, General Amer al-Saadi sought to downplay its findings to the UN to avoid heightened attention toward the program. www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxF.htmlSo, the artillery round was old BUT it had a 40 percent concentration of Sarin still extant. We aren't talking trace elements, here, we are talking about a significant percentage that was still viable. So once again we are back to a shell that had to have been deliberately and carefully stored.........The report goes on to suggest where the shell MAY have come from, but does not make a definitive statement. Actually, the report makes very few definitive statements..........
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 13, 2011 17:53:07 GMT -6
Further, we will never know how many of those unmarked WMD shells Saddam was storing in his vast ammo dumps all around Iraq.
Since you are so knowledgeable, I'm sure you know the reason why and can explain it to us. Please do so.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 13, 2011 18:05:48 GMT -6
Do I have to explain basic science facts? Shells that are laying around in the open will heat up and thus destroy the viability of the Sarin within days. IOW, when they take such binary shells out of a climate controlled environment and into the deserts of Iraq and don't use them right away, they begin to degrade right away. Yes but we were always talking about binary munitions, which you now concede take '5 years' to degrade. Your talk about a few days was misleading. Nonsense, if I were trying to hide something I would not post information. You obviously either didn't understand, again, or are trying to deceive forum members. The five year limit is the BEST limit for the highest quality Sarin WITH the best stabilizing chemicals with the BEST storage facilites. Saddam did not have the highest quality Sarin and there is no evidence he used the best stabilizing chemicals and OOOPS for you.......... supposedly he had no active program to store the WMD munitions so they would last that long.
|
|