Was Bush was as deceived as Iran. Saddam’s prewar ‘weapons of mass destruction’ deceptions were a ruse to convince Iran - whom he feared - that he had an arsenal.

If so can Bush be rightly said to have been wrong?

Until 9/11, Saddam thought UN sanctions would go away and he could make a nuclear bomb. His prewar weapons of mass destruction deceptions were a ruse to convince Iran - whom he feared - that he had an arsenal.

Is intent enough?

Was gas a weapon of mass destruction during WW1?


In book, FBI agent says Saddam Hussein cried at last meeting (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/11/13/2007-11-13_in_book_fbi_agent_says_saddam_hussein_cr-2.html)

i absolutely hate your posts.
Thanks for dropping in anyway; but what did you think of the F.B. I. report and Saddam confessing to slaughtering 180,000 Kurds and plotting to build a doomsday nuke?

I am more concerned with your comment re 'was gas a weapon of mass destruction during WWl'. Surely you must have done your homework asking a question like that. I am sure mustard gas did a lot of damage but nothing like 'mass destruction'. Heck, you weren't even born then.

By why ask this after Remberance Day, do you not observe it in the U.S. as we do in Canada?

I am more concerned with your comment re 'was gas a weapon of mass destruction during WWl'. Surely you must have done your homework asking a question like that. I am sure mustard gas did a lot of damage but nothing like 'mass destruction'. Heck, you werent even born then.

By why ask this after Remberance Day, do you not observe it in the U.S. as we do in Canada?
“Mustard Gases are blistering agents causing welts on the skin. If if you inhale the gas, you get welts on the inside. If the gas gets in your eyes, well you can guess what happens. And being as that it damages the body gas masks won't do much to protect you.
Mustard Gases were first unleashed in WW1. According to legend the first successful battlefield use was so successful the Germans didn't have time to capitalize on the victory. The first casualties of this attack didn't die immediately. It took them 4 to 5 weeks of vomiting, bleeding out every hole in the body and going blind before they were freed from the effects. “

“We'll never really know how many innocent people were effected by Mustard Gas in WW1. We'll never have an accurate count of the animal population that was devastated either. From the poo[r] bear looking for honey to the mother bird bringing worms back to her chicks.
Why is all of this important? Because terrorists in Iraq detonated three "Chloride Bombs". The detonation affected an estimated 350 Iraqis (most of them civilians) and 6 US soldiers. Most newspaper accounts cite that there were only a couple of deaths involved in the attack. What they're not saying is that the survivors will live with injuries from the attack for the rest of their lives.
How can the media be unbiased when they won't even call it what it is: Mustard Gas, a weapon of mass destruction or an over reaction. It's sadly not surprising that the media who ran tons of cover stories just six months ago over *rumored* Israeli use of illegal cluster bombs won't dedicate a single minute to *real* use of illegal chemical weapons. As I said these are WMDs. They're being used in terrorist attacks. So the question becomes: where is this stuff coming from? If Saddam had no Mustard Gas then where are these people getting it? And where is it being manufactured? Why is one of the most important stories of current moment being almost totally ignored? If the use of cluster bombs is illegal and should be condemned, then why not illegal mustard gas? “

Mustard Gas by Jeremy Meister (http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/23627.html)

DC,

Technically, mustard gas is a WMD. Any chemical weapon (including tear gas) falls into the category of a WMD. By law, any WMD is equivalent to any other WMD. That is, if someone uses a chemical weapon like mustard gas or Sarin gas or VX gas, or if they use a bio-weapon like anthrax, smallpox, or botchilinium, it is legally the same as if they had used a nuclear weapon. And in fact, an attack using a chemical weapon legally justifies the use of nuclear weapons as a response. The use of WMDs by one combatant legally justifies the use of a WMD in response by the other combatant. That is the way the rules of war are generally understood.

That said, mustard gas is actually pretty nasty stuff. It is a blister agent that is absorbed through the skin or via inhalation, causing massive blisters, burning, severe internal and external bleeding, blindness, lung damage, pulmonary edema, and other effects. It has been recorded to lower white blood cell count in humans, thus adversely affecting the imune system. (Interestingly, a mustard derivative called Mustine has been found to be effective in the treatment of Hodgkins Disease.) Effects can last for weeks, even months, and lingering effects on humans have been recorded for years, even decades after use. It is mostly used as an incapacitant and an areas denial weapon, but is lethal in approximately 1% of cases.

Mustard Gas is a schedule 1 chemical agent, meaning that it has few legitimate uses other than warfare. Production of mustard gas in quantities larger than 100g has to be reported to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

So yes, by my understanding mustard gas falls into the category of chemical weapon WMDs, both from a legal and from a moral standpoint.

And yes, it was a WMD in WWI also.

Elliot

DC,

Technically, mustard gas is a WMD. Any chemical weapon (including tear gas) falls into the category of a WMD. By law, any WMD is equivalent to any other WMD. That is, if someone uses a chemical weapon like mustard gas or Sarin gas or VX gas, or if they use a bio-weapon like anthrax, smallpox, or botchilinium, it is legally the same as if they had used a nuclear weapon. And in fact, an attack using a chemical weapon legally justifies the use of nuclear weapons as a response. The use of WMDs by one combatant legally justifies the use of a WMD in response by the other combatant. That is the way the rules of war are generally understood.

That said, mustard gas is actually pretty nasty stuff. It is a blister agent that is absorbed through the skin or via inhalation, causing massive blisters, burning, severe internal and external bleeding, blindness, lung damage, pulmonary edema, and other effects. It has been recorded to lower white blood cell count in humans, thus adversely affecting the imune system. (Interestingly, a mustard derivative called Mustine has been found to be effective in the treatment of Hodgkins Disease.) Effects can last for weeks, even months, and lingering effects on humans have been recorded for years, even decades after use. It is mostly used as an incapacitant and an areas denial weapon, but is lethal in approximately 1% of cases.

Mustard Gas is a schedule 1 chemical agent, meaning that it has few legitimate uses other than warfare. Production of mustard gas in quantities larger than 100g has to be reported to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

So yes, by my understanding mustard gas falls into the category of chemical weapon WMDs, both from a legal and from a moral standpoint.

And yes, it was a WMD in WWI also.

Elliot
I am amazed that so many Americans don’t take the threat of bio-weapons very serious, and accuse Bush of “Fear Mongering”. Read “It’s Radical Islam, Stupid” posted in Political Mavens:


“This August, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, traveling to Afghanistan, declared, “There is no way for salvation of mankind but rule of Islam over mankind.” …

Last November, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, leader of al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, released an audiotape in which he vowed, “We will not rest from our jihad until we are under the olive trees of the Roman Empire”—which is to say, much of Europe.

If demography is the author of destiny, then the danger of Europe falling within dar al-Islam is real. …
This summer, Gordon Brown’s government concluded that 1 in 11 British Muslims—almost 150,000 people living in the United Kingdom—”proactively” supports terrorism, with still more rated as passive supporters. And this spring, a Pew Center survey found that 13 percent of American Muslims, as well as 26 percent aged 18-29, were bold enough to tell a pollster that suicide bombing was “sometimes” justified. These Muslim infiltrators, of course, have potential access to weapons of mass destruction.”

When the author refers to “weapons of mass destruction” he is talking about bio-weapons.
Political Mavens » It's Radical Islam, Stupid (http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/2007/11/14/in-2008-its-radical-islam-stupid/)
The Religious Right has finally realized the danger as well as France now; when is the Left going to wake up.

By far the most important takeaway is that Saddam would NEVER willingly give up his WMD and especially his nuke aspirations; he would immediately resume research and production at the earliest possible date. One clear finding of the post-war reports was that Saddam’s regime did take care to maintain rapid build capabilities for both chem and bio weapons, so that at any moment after sanctions were ended Saddam would have been back in business within 6 months or less.The fact that he confirmed to this FBI agent that he would have pursued nukes again at the earliest possible date means it was well worth taking him out.

I don't think that Bush was wrong ;or that Saddam was completely truthful about the disposition of his WMD during his interviews to the FBI. But I'm sure that this template will be how the history will be written for the present.

To me there are still way too many questions about the Iraq WMD program for it to be dismissed with Saddam's confession. IT would've been too elaborate a hoax by half . Even defector scientists from his WMD program were reporting that he had an active program ongoing. We have retrieved thousands of documents detailing the program ;this from someone who could not account for the disposition of his stockpile supposedly due to poor record keeping .

Think about it .Is it really plausible that he could have the collective intelligence agencies of the world fooled ? The Brits;the French the Germans ,the Russians,even the Israeli's?? I don't think so. Israeli Intel reported that Saddam had convoyed the WMD with the help of Russian spetznatz to Syria in the months of delay while Iraq was debated at the UN . This was confirmed by satellite images . Former Iraqi Air Force General Sada claimed that there were 56 sortees of converted airliners hauling WMD to Syria.

Amazon.com: Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied & Survived Saddam Hussein: Books: General Georges Sada,Jim Nelson Black (http://www.amazon.com/Saddams-Secrets-General-Survived-Hussein/dp/B000GYI1QU/ref=sr_1_1/002-0518856-6731247?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183425937&sr=8-1)

Jack Kelly: A Syrian sidestep? (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06036/649858.stm)

But for the sake of argument ;let's say I buy Saddam's bs. Still both David Kay and Charles Duelfer ;both of whom investigated Saddam's WMD's post-invasion ,reported to Congress that Saddam was clearly in material violation of UN Resolution 1441 . They both found a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical- and biological-weapons programs.They found a prison laboratory where they tested biological weapons on human subjects.
They found equipment for "uranium-enrichment centrifuges" whose only plausible use was as part of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program. In all these cases Iraqi scientists had been told before the war not to declare their activities to the U.N. inspectors.

Duelfer, revealed the ISG had found evidence of a "crash program" to construct new plants capable of making WMD.

The ISG also found a previously undeclared program to build a "high-speed rail gun," for testing nuclear-weapons materials. That came in addition to 500 tons of natural uranium stockpiled in Iraq.


As a side note .It was also an established fact that Saddam used body doubles .

I am amazed that so many Americans don’t take the threat of bio-weapons very serious, and accuse Bush of “Fear Mongering”.

Well, I was talking about chemical weapons in my post, but bio weapons are an even greater threat in my opinion.

A teaspoonful of botulinium toxin could wipe out a small city, and there have been cases of the toxin lying dormant but still effective for years.

A couple of vials of weaponized smallpox toxin could wipe out whole continents within weeks.

The Bits tested a strain of anthrax as a bio-weapon and rendered the Island of Gruinard in Scottland completely uninhabitable for 48 years.

Bubonic plague wiped out roughly 200 million people worldwide in the 14th century.

These are scary bits of trivia. The use of bio-weapons is a serious threat and needs to be seen as such. A bio-weapons threat is potentially more deadly and more wide-spreading than a nuclear attack would be.

Elliot

The Bits tested a strain of anthrax as a bio-weapon and rendered the Island of Gruinard in Scottland completely uninhabitable for 48 years.


The Bits and Scottland?? What land do you talk of?? ;)

The Bits and Scottland????? What land do you talk of??? ;)

Sorry, typos. It was "Brits" and "Scotland".

According to an article in the New York Times (August 9, 2005) the Brits tested a strain of anthrax on the Scottish island of Gruinard in 1942, forcing the island to be quarantined for 48 years. Saddam's germ war plot is traced back to one Oxford cow - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article553135.ece)

Coincidentally, the strain of anthrax used in Gruinard was the same strain chosen by Saddam for weaponization against Iran in the 1980s.

Scary stuff.

Sorry about the typos.

Elliot