|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 24, 2011 4:38:01 GMT -6
Part II OK, back to the UNMOVIC report linked above: “8. The screening of samples of chemical agents taken by the Special Commission from various types of munitions and storage containers during the period 1991 – 1994 showed that the nerve agents had degraded to various levels and that the agent content was generally below 10 per cent and sometimes below 1 per cent. In a few cases, the purity of nerve agents remained around 20 to 30 per cent, and in one case inspectors identified tabun with a purity of 44 per cent.” Please note that UNMOVIC DID NOT separate out the Binary Sarin Shells. That can only mean they INCLUDED THEM in the quality percentages in the above report. (Remember they did talk about the degradation of Binary Sarin in paragraph 12.?) Why is that? Well, it wasn’t JUST that the pre-mixed Unitary Sarin was so bad, it was because of the impurities all along the way as well as Iraq not adding stabilizers. Of course what that means is that even when the chemicals were not mixed, they were so impure and would not last as long. Further, binary shells also demand that very specialized canisters be made to properly contain and store the methylphosphoryldifluoride so it would remain viable over long periods of time. OK, so WHERE is the evidence Iraq did that? NOPE, no evidence of that either as they never got into full large scale production of the Binary Shells even after the Iran/Iraq War. So a Binary Sarin shell from that time period could NOT still have a 40 percent concentration of agents in 2004 IF it came from prior to 1994. That can only mean that sometime AFTER 1994; the Binary Sarin Shell mentioned by the CIA was refilled with a NEW Sarin DF agent canister. And that means Iraq had an ongoing, clandestine, illegal Sarin WMD component storage and refill program. Because Iraq’s Binary Sarin Artillery shells were not marked or identified in any way, there was NO WAY to find out exactly how many of these shells Iraq still had without testing ALL Artillery shells after the U.S. invasion. There was no way the U.S. Armed Forces were going to individually test all those munitions as it would needlessly have risked our troops lives. The U.S. destroyed huge quantities of Iraq’s ammunition including their Artillery Ammunition, BUT they did so by using WMD Protocols in that destruction, so none of our troops would be harmed by any remaining WMD materials. As to transporting and using artillery shells and whether or not the heat of a desert will harm even standard artillery projectiles, (let alone Sarin Binary shells), the proof HonkeyB gives us is only SPECULATIVE about STORAGE of shells, not TRANSPORT or USE of the shells. But perhaps HonkeyB used his vast knowledge of artillery shells and their use in a desert environment? Well, no, he was never in the Armed Forces, let alone in or with the Artillery. On the other hand, I was the Ordnance Officer for an Artillery Battalion and we used and fired standard (not Sarin Binary) shells in the High Desert of 29 Palms, CA.. That IS hot and desert, but not quite as hot as Iraq. Still, whenever the shells were not actively being fired, they had to place a cover over them so they would not get too hot. So are high temperatures a factor that degrades Artillery Shells? Of course they are, no matter what HonkeyB thinks. “Protect ammunition from anything that could cause it to deteriorate. That means guarding against high temperatures, dampness, dirt, sand, rust, grease, rough handling, and anything else that could keep ammunition from doing what it's supposed to,” From “Ammo Operations in the Desert Guide.” www.dsjf.org/Historical%20Gulf%20War%20Documents/Ammo%20Desert%20Guide.pdfNow this is really down-in-the-dirt, common sense stuff. Even if high temperatures did not affect Artillery shells, leaving the shells to bake in the sun and/or on the hot sand of the desert makes them too hot to handle. That means the troops will drop them and one thing you DON’T want to do is drop a Binary Sarin Shell and risk contamination of your own people. I am tired of HonkeyB’s ignorant and arrogant claims that I don’t know what I’m talking about or “making things up” on Artillery Ammunition. Add to that his earlier and continuing deception on what the CIA documents ACTUALLY state rather than what he says they state. (No HonkeyB, the CIA does not definitely state the shell we are discussing came from before 1991 only that it APPEARED to have come from before 1991. That is not a definitive statement even on how old the shell is, let alone how long the Sarin agents had been in it. The facts of this don't change no matter how many times you deceptively state otherwise.) It has become quite obvious all he wishes to do is spin in a desperate attempt to support his position. Oh, no doubt he will likely try more spin, deflection, and deception to try to make his case. I’m sure he will think of more non existent straws to grasp at, but it won’t change these facts. The bottom line is that Saddam is toast and Iraq no longer has any WMD program, nor will it for at least some time to come. Modified to add: Oh, and one more basic 6th grade science note on Binary Shells used in the desert. Alternate extremely high and alternately low temperatures, as are always found in deserts, causes metal objects like DF canisters to EXPAND and CONTRACT. That means the canisters will leak the more they are exposed to those conditions. Another reason you can't leave DF canisters in Binary shells for any length of time when in actual use or in uncontrolled environments. You have excelled yourself Fisher. From quotes that don't illustrate the point you are making, to links that don't say what you say they say, to wild speculation about my personal background, to your principal source being one that makes my argument - that the chemical binary weapon found in Iraq was pre-1991, your post is the most convoluted, hilarious mess I have ever seen on a web forum. But fair play to you for catching the methylphosphonyl dichloride/difluoride mistake. As you admitted, both are used as the alternate component in the production of sarin, but the Iraqis used difluoride. Still, both are stable, which was my point. The CIA says the weapon 'appeared' to be pre-1991, and you have offered not a shred of evidence (though some wonderfully byzantine reasoning) to the contrary. Your cockamamie 'refill' theory hasn't a shred of proof behind it. You are right that, parsing the CIA's text precisely, they only said it 'appeared' pre-1991. But the UNMOVIC article you used as your primary evidence source said definitively that the Iraqi chemical arsenal was 'produced before 1991'. Your way of dealing with that? You accuse of them of GUESSING. LOL@ shooting down your own source when you don't like what it says. The bottom line is that Bush has already conceded that there was no ongoing chemical weapons production in the run up to the Iraqi war. You're alone on a hill Fish, fighting a war that your side already gave up.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 24, 2011 5:03:21 GMT -6
I of course condemn any act of agression against foreign countries, be them carried out by Bush, Obama or the Pope, I don't care. As far as I know, he didn't declare war on Iraq, regardless of any approval he got. What I would have favoured would have been the elimination of certain targets in Iraq (like Saddam or Chemical Ali), as well as giving recognition and support to any local revolutionary anti-Baath party movement. Chemical weapons doesn't justify the thousands of civilian deaths. If an American citizen plants a bomb on a Miami supermarket and kills 100, you favour executing him, right? If an American citizen orders bombing an Iraqi city and kills 1.000, you don't favour his execution? Why that? And, how funny is using weapons of mass destruction as an excuse for mass slaughter, when the USA keeps them itself (nuclear bomb anyone?). As illogical as giving support to a war while trying to save a convicted triple murderer from the needle or the chair, as I commented above Spanish politicians did... Saddam Hussein not only had chemical weapons prior to the invasion, but he also had biological weapons before he had most of the evidence destroyed and only some weaponized samples farmed out to the home refrigerators of scientists to hide the samples and to attempt to restart the program after the invasion, ^^^Entirely misleading. He 'had' a few leftover weapons from pre-1991. He hoped for a reconstitution of the program at some point. But he had no active program, and certainly was not an imminent threat. Yes, but they also made it quite clear that he had no active program prior to the war, and was not an imminent threat. While I have some sympathy with these motivations for war, and indeed, I might have supported a war based on such a case, that was not the case made. Moreover, it needs to be borne in mind that, according to the Lancet, the number of deaths caused in the Iraq war over and above those that would have happened had Saddam stayed in power went into the many hundreds of thousands. It is highly questionable to suppose that the answer to a murderous terrorist is to undergo an operation that would kill even more people.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 24, 2011 10:22:04 GMT -6
Well, I was entirely correct. You did resort to deflection, disinformation and grasping at non existent straws in a last ditch attempt to make your point.
Unlike you; I have shown evidence from UNMOVIC and ISG detailing why the Sarin in the Binary Shell could not have been from the period you keep claiming. I have shown evidence of how Sarin shells are stored in the U.S. to keep them in long term storage and that demonstrates you theory is fantasy. I have documented these things with the information from the sources and links.
You have shown no evidence to the contrary, so you attack me, instead. That is indeed the mark of a person who is so closed minded and ideologically wedded to a theory, you just won't see the facts when they stare you in the face.
I am not going to engage in your version of what is the definition of the word "is" is, anymore. I have shown the facts and you haven't. I honestly don't care what you think, but the forum now has the information and facts you refuse to see. That's more than good enough.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jul 24, 2011 10:44:29 GMT -6
Yes, but they also made it quite clear that he had no active program prior to the war, and was not an imminent threat. Democrat US Senator Edwards was the only elected US official who stated that Saddam was an imminent threat.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 24, 2011 12:37:18 GMT -6
Well, I was entirely correct. You did resort to deflection, disinformation and grasping at non existent straws in a last ditch attempt to make your point. Unlike you; I have shown evidence from UNMOVIC and ISG detailing why the Sarin in the Binary Shell could not have been from the period you keep claiming. I have shown evidence of how Sarin shells are stored in the U.S. to keep them in long term storage and that demonstrates you theory is fantasy. I have documented these things with the information from the sources and links. You have shown no evidence to the contrary, so you attack me, instead. That is indeed the mark of a person who is so closed minded and ideologically wedded to a theory, you just won't see the facts when they stare you in the face. Your delusion is remarkable. Your description of me and you are almost entirely backwards. I am the one that provided sources from the CIA while you provided sources from bookrags.com and the moonies. When you finally started providing serious sources, they agreed with me, not you. Heh. Lol. I don't think I have ever met anyone who is less shame faced about projecting their own attributes onto their opponent. I like you Fisher. Yes it is. Here is the thread in summary, for those who have no time to traipse through your endless rants: The CIA said that the weapons were pre-1991. Your own sources said that the weapons were pre-1991. Even Bush admits that the weapons were pre-1991. You had a counter-argument. It wasn't much, but it went like this: 1. Sarin degrades rapidly. 2. The sarin found in the binary weapon by US coallition forces was still viable, in 03 or 04 or whenever it was. 3. Therefore Saddam must have made it recently. Premise number 1 was proven false when I pointed out that the US had kept sarin stable for decades, you retreated to: 1. Iraqi sarin degrades rapidly. 2. The sarin found in the binary weapon by US coallition forces was still viable, in 03 or 04 or whenever it was. 3. Therefore Saddam must have made it recently. But 1 was now proven irrelevant when I finally got you to realize that binary weapons contain no sarin. So you changed it to: 1. The precursors of Iraqi sarin degrade rapidly. 2. The sarin found in the binary weapon by US coallition forces was still viable, in 03 or 04 or whenever it was. 3. Therefore Saddam must have made it recently. But 1 is false. In desperation, you bring evidence that one of the precursors is corrosive, thus your final argument was: 1. The precursors of Iraqi sarin are corrosive, and therefore have to be replaced regularly to remain viable. 2. The sarin found in the binary weapon by US coallition forces was still viable, in 03 or 04 or whenever it was. 3. Therefore Saddam must have made it recently. That sounds ok on a first read, but on second thoughts it is just hilarious. You have confused the shell with its contents. If the speed at which the precursors corroded the shell was a relevant factor at all over that time period, then the shell, not the contents, would have to be replaced every few years, since it would be too corroded. Yet you admit that the shell was pre-1991. The idea, meanwhile, that they would take a shell and, because it had become so corroded as to be dangerous, refill the same shell with fresh corrosive is a dream that could only take wing in the fevered and desperate imagination of RFisher.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 24, 2011 12:39:46 GMT -6
Yes, but they also made it quite clear that he had no active program prior to the war, and was not an imminent threat. Democrat US Senator Edwards was the only elected US official who stated that Saddam was an imminent threat. As opposed to the members of Bush's administration, who were not elected. Way to mislead Donnie. You go get em fella.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 24, 2011 13:03:59 GMT -6
Well, I was entirely correct. You did resort to deflection, disinformation and grasping at non existent straws in a last ditch attempt to make your point. Unlike you; I have shown evidence from UNMOVIC and ISG detailing why the Sarin in the Binary Shell could not have been from the period you keep claiming. I have shown evidence of how Sarin shells are stored in the U.S. to keep them in long term storage and that demonstrates you theory is fantasy. I have documented these things with the information from the sources and links. You have shown no evidence to the contrary, so you attack me, instead. That is indeed the mark of a person who is so closed minded and ideologically wedded to a theory, you just won't see the facts when they stare you in the face. Your delusion is remarkable. Your description of me and you are almost entirely backwards. I am the one that provided sources from the CIA while you provided sources from bookrags.com and the moonies. When you finally started providing serious sources, they agreed with me, not you. Heh. Lol. I don't think I have ever met anyone who is less shame faced about projecting their own attributes onto their opponent. I like you Fisher. Yes it is. Here is the thread in summary, for those who have no time to traipse through your endless rants: The CIA said that the weapons were pre-1991. Your own sources said that the weapons were pre-1991. Even Bush admits that the weapons were pre-1991. You had a counter-argument. It wasn't much, but it went like this: 1. Sarin degrades rapidly. 2. The sarin found in the binary weapon by US coallition forces was still viable, in 03 or 04 or whenever it was. 3. Therefore Saddam must have made it recently. Premise number 1 was proven false when I pointed out that the US had kept sarin stable for decades, you retreated to: 1. Iraqi sarin degrades rapidly. 2. The sarin found in the binary weapon by US coallition forces was still viable, in 03 or 04 or whenever it was. 3. Therefore Saddam must have made it recently. But 1 was now proven irrelevant when I finally got you to realize that binary weapons contain no sarin. So you changed it to: 1. The precursors of Iraqi sarin degrade rapidly. 2. The sarin found in the binary weapon by US coallition forces was still viable, in 03 or 04 or whenever it was. 3. Therefore Saddam must have made it recently. But 1 is false. In desperation, you bring evidence that one of the precursors is corrosive, thus your final argument was: 1. The precursors of Iraqi sarin are corrosive, and therefore have to be replaced regularly to remain viable. 2. The sarin found in the binary weapon by US coallition forces was still viable, in 03 or 04 or whenever it was. 3. Therefore Saddam must have made it recently. That sounds ok on a first read, but on second thoughts it is just hilarious. You have confused the shell with its contents. If the speed at which the precursors corroded the shell was a relevant factor at all over that time period, then the shell, not the contents, would have to be replaced every few years, since it would be too corroded. Yet you admit that the shell was pre-1991. The idea, meanwhile, that they would take a shell and, because it had become so corroded as to be dangerous, refill the same shell with fresh corrosive is a dream that could only take wing in the fevered and desperate imagination of RFisher. More diversion and deflection. You continue to use deceptive language about what the CIA said as to the date of the shell. In previsous posts I already stated the shell CASING could have been from that time period. But neither the CIA or I was making a definitive statement and yet you twist both our words to say otherwise. You have not proven the US kept viable sarin for decades. You have not even proven that the important DF cannisters were kept for decades EVEN THOUGH they were in a controlled environment storage center in the U.S., that YOU said was not required. You are arguing against UNMOVIC and ISG stated facts when you talk about how long the Sarin Binary agents could have lasted from before 1991 due to the degradation they found and reported as of 1994. Like I said, more diversion, deflection and deception.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 24, 2011 14:42:43 GMT -6
Your delusion is remarkable. Your description of me and you are almost entirely backwards. I am the one that provided sources from the CIA while you provided sources from bookrags.com and the moonies. When you finally started providing serious sources, they agreed with me, not you. Heh. Lol. I don't think I have ever met anyone who is less shame faced about projecting their own attributes onto their opponent. I like you Fisher. Yes it is. Here is the thread in summary, for those who have no time to traipse through your endless rants: The CIA said that the weapons were pre-1991. Your own sources said that the weapons were pre-1991. Even Bush admits that the weapons were pre-1991. You had a counter-argument. It wasn't much, but it went like this: 1. Sarin degrades rapidly. 2. The sarin found in the binary weapon by US coallition forces was still viable, in 03 or 04 or whenever it was. 3. Therefore Saddam must have made it recently. Premise number 1 was proven false when I pointed out that the US had kept sarin stable for decades, you retreated to: 1. Iraqi sarin degrades rapidly. 2. The sarin found in the binary weapon by US coallition forces was still viable, in 03 or 04 or whenever it was. 3. Therefore Saddam must have made it recently. But 1 was now proven irrelevant when I finally got you to realize that binary weapons contain no sarin. So you changed it to: 1. The precursors of Iraqi sarin degrade rapidly. 2. The sarin found in the binary weapon by US coallition forces was still viable, in 03 or 04 or whenever it was. 3. Therefore Saddam must have made it recently. But 1 is false. In desperation, you bring evidence that one of the precursors is corrosive, thus your final argument was: 1. The precursors of Iraqi sarin are corrosive, and therefore have to be replaced regularly to remain viable. 2. The sarin found in the binary weapon by US coallition forces was still viable, in 03 or 04 or whenever it was. 3. Therefore Saddam must have made it recently. That sounds ok on a first read, but on second thoughts it is just hilarious. You have confused the shell with its contents. If the speed at which the precursors corroded the shell was a relevant factor at all over that time period, then the shell, not the contents, would have to be replaced every few years, since it would be too corroded. Yet you admit that the shell was pre-1991. The idea, meanwhile, that they would take a shell and, because it had become so corroded as to be dangerous, refill the same shell with fresh corrosive is a dream that could only take wing in the fevered and desperate imagination of RFisher. More diversion and deflection. You continue to use deceptive language about what the CIA said as to the date of the shell. They said: "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." They did not go on to say "But appearances can be deceptive. The physical condition and residual components in the weapons were probably faked to look older than they were by Saddam, much as God put fossils in the ground to make us think that there had been evolution." And yet the UNMOVIC article you quoted definitively said that they were pre-1991. Maybe you're right. It was you who accidentally "proved" it when you quoted it from the Moonies Encyclopedia: Thus, whereas the distilled sarin produced by the United States in the early 1960s has retained a purity of more than 90 percent for three decades... Posted by you here: prodp.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=32844&page=3But that was the Moonies, I must admit, and I certainly don't take that source seriously. It appears that you too have now turned sour on your own source. Again. They reported merely that there was degradation in chemical weapons generally,. The extent of the degradation of sarin precursors in particular was not specified. You need to provide evidence that it was extensive for your argument to work. As it is, the fact that binary weapons are designed to last, and the fact that they were referred to as 'long lasting' by the CIA report, and the fact that in another CIA report they explicitly stated that storage was no longer an issue once Iraq had binaries, puts the onus on you. On the face of it, the degradation wasn't much to speak of.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 24, 2011 17:46:57 GMT -6
More diversion and deflection. You continue to use deceptive language about what the CIA said as to the date of the shell. They said: "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." They did not go on to say "But appearances can be deceptive. The physical condition and residual components in the weapons were probably faked to look older than they were by Saddam, much as God put fossils in the ground to make us think that there had been evolution." I highlighted and underlined the important part of the phrase you quoted. Notice the word APPEAR and not definitive confirmation. Once again you are twisting the stated facts to try to desperately support your argument. But thank you for making it so easy to point out. The physical appearance of artillery shell casings has everything to do with where they were at, how long they had been there, the environmental conditions, etc. Two identical shells in identical original condition would appear very much different if one shell was stored in a bunker and another out in the open, even a few years. But it is not now, nor has it ever been important how old the shell casing was. The condition of the DF canister and it's purity is what is important. Once again I quote from the UNMOVIC article: “12. According to the report of the Iraq Survey Group, in addition to the munitions identified by UNMOVIC, during the period from March 2003 to September 2004, a further 53 chemical munitions (11 155-mm, 41 122-mm and one 152-mm binary) had been found by the Group. They were identified as part of the Iraqi pre-1991 stock, and analysis of the liquid residue in the munitions indicated the presence of degraded chemical agents (mustard, sarin/cyclosarin and binary sarin), their degradation products and impurities. The key parts of a National Ground Intelligence Center report, declassified by the Director of National Intelligence for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, mentioned the recovery of approximately 500 chemical munitions in Iraq since 2003, which contained degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. However, the declassified parts gave no details regarding the purity of the agents.”This is an excellent example of your attempt to deceive others. You left out the parts of the quotes that do not support what you claim. Clearly, as I explained, UNMOVIC did not have the information the CIA provided about the Binary shell they reported as being 40 percent viable. Purity of the CIA mentioned DF canister in the shell has everything to do with how long it was in the shell. The DF canister could not have been in the shell prior to 1994 because the purity was too high and that is confirmed by the other quoted parts of the article. By DELIBERATELY leaving out the important parts of the quoted article, you have proven all you want to do is be deceptive in a last ditch attempt to grasp at non existent straws. I am not going to waste my time anymore pointing out your deceptions, as clever as they are. You have no interest in the truth, you just want to play word games. OK, play on if you wish, but I'm not playing anymore until you come up with proof and links for what you contend. Members of the forum can see right through you.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 24, 2011 18:09:14 GMT -6
More diversion and deflection. You continue to use deceptive language about what the CIA said as to the date of the shell. Maybe you're right. It was you who accidentally "proved" it when you quoted it from the Moonies Encyclopedia: Thus, whereas the distilled sarin produced by the United States in the early 1960s has retained a purity of more than 90 percent for three decades... Posted by you here: prodp.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=32844&page=3But that was the Moonies, I must admit, and I certainly don't take that source seriously. It appears that you too have now turned sour on your own source. Again. The distilled Sarin IN THE UNITED STATES is not the same sarin Iraq used. It used a DIFFERENT DF compound, was almost chemically pure, had stabilizers added into it, was inspected regularly and replaced as required and stored in controlled envirionments. Tha fact you try to compare that with the Iraqi stuff for long term storage is laughable. UNMOVIC confirmed it. Oh and as to that source, you TRIED to use it to declare that Iraq used refrigerated igloo's to store unitary Sarin in Artillery shells and there was no such munition. UNMOVIC confirmed it. They reported merely that there was degradation in chemical weapons generally,. The extent of the degradation of sarin precursors in particular was not specified. You need to provide evidence that it was extensive for your argument to work. As it is, the fact that binary weapons are designed to last, and the fact that they were referred to as 'long lasting' by the CIA report, and the fact that in another CIA report they explicitly stated that storage was no longer an issue once Iraq had binaries, puts the onus on you. On the face of it, the degradation wasn't much to speak of. This is another example of your deliberate deception. Rather than your deceptively conceived paraphrasing, I'll use the ACTUAL paragraph from UNMOVIC. 8. The screening of samples of chemical agents taken by the Special Commission from various types of munitions and storage containers during the period 1991 - 1994 showed that the nerve agents had degraded to various levels and that the agent content was generally below 10 per cent and sometimes below 1 per cent. In a few cases, the purity of nerve agents remained around 20 to 30 per cent, and in one case inspectors identified tabun with a purity of 44 per cent. UNMOVIC did not give a single example of ANY nerve agent being above 10 percent in 1994, NO MATTER how you try to twist it. UNMOVIC certainly did not mention any that was as high as 40 percent when they inspected the nerve agents. They did say the agents were higher when manufactured, BUT NOT when they found them and the chemicals had degraded. Another of your deceptive arguments. The onus is on you to prove what you claim.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 24, 2011 18:30:15 GMT -6
They said: "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." They did not go on to say "But appearances can be deceptive. The physical condition and residual components in the weapons were probably faked to look older than they were by Saddam, much as God put fossils in the ground to make us think that there had been evolution." I highlighted and underlined the important part of the phrase you quoted. And as I remarked above... (a) The CIA did not go on to say "But appearances can be deceptive." If a source doesn't qualify the word 'appears' then they meant it. (b) The language of the UNMOVIC report - your source - unequivocally said that the weapons were pre-1991. I could add that (c) Even George Bush accepts that no evidence of an ongoing weapons program was found in Iraq. So I don't know who you think you are defending. And I could even add the agreement of the Iraq Survey Group: (d) "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered." www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol3_cw_key-findings.htmThere is lots in that report that you would be happy to quote. For instance, they think that Saddam had the intention of resuming chemical weapons production after the lifting of sanctions. They admit to not having checked every inch of Iraq, as if that were even possible. No doubt you will make hay out of these things, or something else that you will accuse me of deliberately leaving out, and I will enjoy reading you do so. Because I enjoy your posts generally, and I think you are a very nice man. Geez fella. I though quoting the whole dang thing would exonerate me from any accusation that I was 'twisting' words. but you even use that against me! There sure is no way of winning with you Mister. 'Physical appearance' does not necessarily mean wear and tear. You can recognize a WWII era weapon from its 'physical appearance' even if it is in pristine condition. I can recognize a car as being from the 80s even if it is shiny and perfect. Clues that a weapon was pre-1991 include whether or not the casing is of the sort that were known to be produced at that time, whether it contains the markings that characterized weapons of that era, whether or not it was ostensibly produced using methods which Iraq had outmoded in the interim, whether or not it lacked modern components that Iraq would have had access to, and whether or not it was designed for deployment using systems that Iraq has since abandoned or lost. In addition, the weapons were also classified as pre-1991 based upon analysis of 'residual components', not just physical appearance. Additional data that could be acquired this way includes whether the weapon contains components that were not made after 1991, particularly components that came from other countries, whether the components were marked with serial numbers, or in any other way marked so as to indicate the time they were created, whether the components show signs of aging of the sort that could not be prevented by better storage, for example evidence of long term pressure, and whether the components have absorbed materials in the vicinity, including but not limited to carbon, to an extent that would indicate the length of time they were in the weapon. I have no idea why you think the bit you bolded contradicts anything I ever said. I never said anything about the purity of the agents. However, the part I enlarged, even though it is from your quote, could not possibly be more supportive of my position. I see nowhere where the article supports your contention that a binary weapon could not produce 40% pure sarin after many years of inactivity. Show me where it says that. I accept your gracious concession. It is about time. Thanks for the debate.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 24, 2011 18:41:28 GMT -6
I highlighted and underlined the important part of the phrase you quoted. And as I remarked above... (a) The CIA did not go on to say "But appearances can be deceptive." If a source doesn't qualify the word 'appears' then they meant it. (b) The language of the UNMOVIC report - your source - unequivocally said that the weapons were pre-1991. I'm beginning to think you are such a zealot you can't even see it in yourself. The report stated the shells APPEARED to be from before 1991 and NOW you state "your source - unequivocally said that the weapons were pre-1991." ap·pear (-pîr) intr.v. ap·peared, ap·pear·ing, ap·pears 1. To become visible: a plane appearing in the sky. 2. To come into existence: New strains of viruses appear periodically. 3. To seem or look to be: appeared unhappy. See Synonyms at seem.4. To seem likely: They will be late, as it appears.VS un·e·quiv·o·cal (n-kwv-kl) adj. Admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding; clear and unambiguous: an unequivocal success. Yes, there is no point going on with an intellectually honest discussion when you are so ignorant or so deceptive as this.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 24, 2011 19:23:25 GMT -6
And as I remarked above... (a) The CIA did not go on to say "But appearances can be deceptive." If a source doesn't qualify the word 'appears' then they meant it. (b) The language of the UNMOVIC report - your source - unequivocally said that the weapons were pre-1991. I'm beginning to think you are such a zealot you can't even see it in yourself. The report stated the shells APPEARED to be from before 1991 and NOW you state "your source - unequivocally said that the weapons were pre-1991." Yes, I said that YOUR source said that. MY source, the CIA document, said that they APPEARED to be pre-1991. OK. I think that that means that they were pre-1991, but whatever. YOUR source said, UNEQUIVOCALLY, "They were identified as part of the Iraqi pre-1991 stock" The End.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 25, 2011 9:46:30 GMT -6
I thought about answering some of your latest twists, deflections, etc., but it is just not worth the effort.
I am happy to stand on the documentation I provided in Posts numbers 135 and 136 rather than "what could have happened" and has not been proven. The End
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 25, 2011 12:18:50 GMT -6
I thought about answering some of your latest twists, deflections, etc., but it is just not worth the effort. I am happy to stand on the documentation I provided in Posts numbers 135 and 136 rather than "what could have happened" and has not been proven. The End It amazes me that you can regard this list of plain facts as 'deflections': 1. The CIA said that the weapons found, upon analysis, appeared to be pre-1991. 2. The UNMOVIC report you cited said that they were pre-1991. 3. The Iraq Survey Group, a 1,400-member international team organized by the Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency to hunt for the alleged stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, said that there was no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions after 1991. 4. Bush himself admits that he was wrong about the ongoing chemical weapons program that Iraq supposedly had in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Your only straw against all of this is that the weapons must have been refilled between 1991 and 2004 with some fresh nasty on the grounds that they were still viable, But your argument relies upon deliberately misunderstanding the fact that binary weapons are built to be long lasting and are not identical to the unstable unary weapons Saddam used in the Iran/Iraq war.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 25, 2011 12:47:24 GMT -6
1. The CIA said that the weapons found, upon analysis, appeared to be pre-1991.
We have gone over this many times and it means nothing. What counts is the viability of the Sarin agents found in 2004 and that by UNMOVIC inspections and verifications, such a high viability could not have come from the pre 1991 time period and remained that viable EVEN IN 1994. There was NO EVIDENCE even then that any Binary Sarin filled shell STILL HAD 40 percent viability in 1994.
2. The UNMOVIC report you cited said that they were pre-1991.
I took the time to get the 2006 report with the most updated information. That report says the weapons APPEAR to have been from prior to 1991, BUT they did not have the information on the content of Sarin in the CIA shell. THUS, they were working off incomplete information. That is a fact you keep ignoring.
3. The Iraq Survey Group, a 1,400-member international team organized by the Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency to hunt for the alleged stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, said that there was no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions after 1991.
They said a whole lot of other things as well INCLUDING they did not have all the facts. Even the CIA quote mentions:
"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.
Further, we will never be able to prove how many Binary Sarin or other WMD munitions were in all the ammo dumps all over Iraq because the shells were not marked or identified AND we didn't check all the shells.
4. Bush himself admits that he was wrong about the ongoing chemical weapons program that Iraq supposedly had in the run-up to the war in Iraq.
Bush can say anything he wishes. I don't know why he said that when the evidence PROVES otherwise. Probably it was not worth the effort anymore as the threat of Saddam Hussein to the Middle East was gone. However, that is only my speculation.
Your only straw against all of this is that the weapons must have been refilled between 1991 and 2004 with some fresh nasty on the grounds that they were still viable, But your argument relies upon deliberately misunderstanding the fact that binary weapons are built to be long lasting and are not identical to the unstable unary weapons Saddam used in the Iran/Iraq war. [/quote]
That's garbage.. We have already been over what HAS to be done for Binary Shells to be long lasting and those things were not done in Iraq. The 2006 UNMOVIC report and other information provided in posts 152 and 153 quite clearly demonstrates that.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 25, 2011 13:14:03 GMT -6
2. The UNMOVIC report you cited said that they were pre-1991. I took the time to get the 2006 report with the most updated information. That report says the weapons APPEAR to have been from prior to 1991, Wrong. The 2006 UNMOVIC report does not contain the word 'appear'. Not even once.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 25, 2011 13:22:09 GMT -6
1. The CIA said that the weapons found, upon analysis, appeared to be pre-1991. We have gone over this many times and it means nothing. What counts is the viability of the Sarin agents found in 2004 and that by UNMOVIC inspections and verifications, such a high viability could not have come from the pre 1991 time period and remained that viable EVEN IN 1994. There is nothing in the 2006 UNMOVIC report that suggests any such thing. They talk about the rapid deterioration of Iraqi chemical weapons, but with respect to the longer lasting binary weapons that Iraq developed between 87 and 91, they admit to having too little data: While the purity of nerve agents produced were effective enough for immediate use on the battlefield during the Iran-Iraq war, they were not suitable for long-term storage. Following the war with the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq focused on the improvement of the purity of agents (which in itself would improve their shelf life) as well as on the development of more powerful agents that were also suitable for longer-term storage, including binary sarin and the chemical nerve agent VX... The progress achieved by Iraq with its nerve agent programme after the Iran-Iraq war, including the extent of VX-related activities, cannot be fully evaluated due to the absence of evidence, such as the original production records for the period 1989-1990. See that Fish? In the period AFTER the war with Iran but BEFORE 1991, Iraq was developing binary weapons, which can be stored for a long time. But the UNMOVIC report declines to say anything further because of a lack of evidence. It does NOT say anything about the viability of binary weapons made in that period, except that it says that binary weapons, as everybody knows, are suitable for longer term storage.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 25, 2011 13:29:33 GMT -6
And in their report every weapon they tested as of 1994, including Binary Sarin Shells did not have more than a 20-30 per cent viability rate except for ONE Tabun shell.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 25, 2011 13:34:58 GMT -6
3. The Iraq Survey Group, a 1,400-member international team organized by the Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency to hunt for the alleged stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, said that there was no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions after 1991. They said a whole lot of other things as well INCLUDING they did not have all the facts. I said you'd try to make hay out of that. Of course they don't have all the facts. No-one will ever have all the facts. But when a 1400 man team, led by the world's most prominent intelligence and defense agencies - nay, the most powerful, well funded defense and intelligence agencies IN THE HISTORY OF TIME - have COMPLETE ACCESS to a nation for SEVERAL YEARS, not only including the COMPLETE SATELLITE AND AERIAL DOMINATION OF THE SKIES but also including the opportunity to interrogate anyone they find and, given recent developments, the apparent willingness to torture them, not to mention the ability to wiretap people who would know about any chemical weapons production, are operating under HIGH POLITICAL PRESSURE from THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF to produce the goods, and they STILL can't find something as big as a CHEMICAL WEAPONS FACTORY, or its remains, then the best explanation is that there wasn't one.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 25, 2011 13:37:47 GMT -6
And in their report every weapon they tested as of 1994, including Binary Sarin Shells did not have more than a 20-30 per cent viability rate except for ONE Tabun shell. It seems you are reading from point 8 of the report. But it does not mention binary weapons there at all. Indeed, it speaks specifically about the degradation of nerve agents, not the degradation of their precursors in a binary weapon.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 25, 2011 13:39:46 GMT -6
3. The Iraq Survey Group, a 1,400-member international team organized by the Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency to hunt for the alleged stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, said that there was no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions after 1991. They said a whole lot of other things as well INCLUDING they did not have all the facts. I said you'd try to make hay out of that. Of course they don't have all the facts. No-one will ever have all the facts. But when a 1400 man team, led by the world's most prominent intelligence and defense agencies - nay, the most powerful, well funded defense and intelligence agencies IN THE HISTORY OF TIME - have COMPLETE ACCESS to a nation for SEVERAL YEARS, not only including the COMPLETE SATELLITE AND AERIAL DOMINATION OF THE SKIES but also including the opportunity to interrogate anyone they find and, given recent developments, the apparent willingness to torture them, not to mention the ability to wiretap people who would know about any chemical weapons production, are operating under HIGH POLITICAL PRESSURE from THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF to produce the goods, and they STILL can't find something as big as a CHEMICAL WEAPONS FACTORY, or its remains, then the best explanation is that there wasn't one. YAWN. The Kay and Duelfler reports both mention many times when they went to sites to investigate, the found computers gone or wrecked, no files or burnt papers and in one case the papers were still smouldering when they showed up. Further and I really hope I don't have to mention this anymore, the weapons in the ammo dumps all over Iraq were not thoroughly inspected.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 25, 2011 13:40:29 GMT -6
Even the CIA quote mentions: "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....from prior to 1991. Indeed, since the CIA figured that the weapon in question 'appeared' to be from pre-1991, from its physical appearance and analysis of its residual components, their worry here is that some weapons from pre-1991, thanks to being binary and therefore long lasting, could still be around, and still be viable. This quote proves my point, not yours. Like all the quotes, come to think of it.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 25, 2011 13:44:43 GMT -6
I said you'd try to make hay out of that. Of course they don't have all the facts. No-one will ever have all the facts. But when a 1400 man team, led by the world's most prominent intelligence and defense agencies - nay, the most powerful, well funded defense and intelligence agencies IN THE HISTORY OF TIME - have COMPLETE ACCESS to a nation for SEVERAL YEARS, not only including the COMPLETE SATELLITE AND AERIAL DOMINATION OF THE SKIES but also including the opportunity to interrogate anyone they find and, given recent developments, the apparent willingness to torture them, not to mention the ability to wiretap people who would know about any chemical weapons production, are operating under HIGH POLITICAL PRESSURE from THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF to produce the goods, and they STILL can't find something as big as a CHEMICAL WEAPONS FACTORY, or its remains, then the best explanation is that there wasn't one. YAWN. The Kay and Duelfler reports both mention many times when they went to sites to investigate, the found computers gone or wrecked, no files or burnt papers and in one case the papers were still smouldering when they showed up. Further and I really hope I don't have to mention this anymore, the weapons in the ammo dumps all over Iraq were not thoroughly inspected. Yeah but you can't 'shred' a f*cking FACTORY.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 25, 2011 13:46:05 GMT -6
•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. [/b] [/quote] Another quote that works better for me than for you.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 25, 2011 13:47:51 GMT -6
4. Bush himself admits that he was wrong about the ongoing chemical weapons program that Iraq supposedly had in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Bush can say anything he wishes. I don't know why he said that when the evidence PROVES otherwise. Probably it was not worth the effort anymore as the threat of Saddam Hussein to the Middle East was gone. Interesting. You see Bush as a man who defaults to lying when it isn't worth the effort to tell the truth. At last we agree on something.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 25, 2011 13:55:32 GMT -6
That's garbage.. We have already been over what HAS to be done for Binary Shells to be long lasting and those things were not done in Iraq. Binary weapons are designed to be long lasting. They have the two stable precursors of sarin, not the sarin itself, in the shell. All that they require, in order to be long lasting, is storage. You have a pet theory that they need to periodically refilled. You have provided no evidence of that. What you HAVE provided is: (a) An argument that because one of the precursors is corrosive, the old shell that contains it would periodically have to have the precursor replaced. But that is nonsense. If the precursor were that corrosive, it would be the shell that had to be replaced not the precursor. Putting fresh corrosive in a corroded shell is no way to maintain the longevity of the device. (b) Evidence that other NON-BINARY weapons could not have retained their viability from pre-1991. But that is irrelevant to whether BINARY weapons could. No it doesn't. You have provided no quote that says that Iraqi BINARY weapons, which were designed and created after 91 FOR THE PURPOSES OF BEING LONG LASTING SO THAT THEY COULD BE STORED FOR FUTURE WARS, would not retain their viability over the long haul. In fact, the UNMOVIC report denies that it has the evidence to talk authoritatively about Iraq's BINARY weapons program 87-91.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 25, 2011 18:34:57 GMT -6
Even the CIA quote mentions: "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....from prior to 1991. Indeed, since the CIA figured that the weapon in question 'appeared' to be from pre-1991, from its physical appearance and analysis of its residual components, their worry here is that some weapons from pre-1991, thanks to being binary and therefore long lasting, could still be around, and still be viable. This quote proves my point, not yours. Like all the quotes, come to think of it. Silly and deceptive. I have not been arguing how old the shell casing is, just the Binary Sarin Agents in it. But you surely have realized that by now, so you are just using more spin.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 25, 2011 18:38:05 GMT -6
YAWN. The Kay and Duelfler reports both mention many times when they went to sites to investigate, the found computers gone or wrecked, no files or burnt papers and in one case the papers were still smouldering when they showed up. Further and I really hope I don't have to mention this anymore, the weapons in the ammo dumps all over Iraq were not thoroughly inspected. Yeah but you can't 'shred' a f*cking FACTORY. No but the contents of a factory can be emptied or destroyed. We have never found out what all those large trucks were carrying out of Iraq into Syria shortly before the war. You know, that satellite imaging you spoke about? Now, unlike you, I won't make grandiose and deceptive statements about what was or could have been in those trucks. But it is most interesting that happened right before Saddam't time ran out. But the fact that Saddam felt the absolute need to send a convoy of trucks out of the country right before invasion is something that hopefully, we will someday get a real answer on.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 25, 2011 18:43:17 GMT -6
•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. [/b] [/quote] Another quote that works better for me than for you. [/quote] Ah, but I am HONEST enough to include such a quote in it's entirety and not cut off something that may not look good for my argument, as you do.
|
|