CHEMICAL WARHEADS found in Iraq

sdw2001 · January 16, 2003 12:19PM

Two words:

Material Breach

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/16/sproject.irq.wrap/index.html"; target="_blank">web page</a>

[ 01-16-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]

jimmac · January 16, 2003 1:25PM

That's empty warheads. One's still being looked at but probably will be the same.

If I may quote that report " Dimitri Perricos, the leader of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) team in Baghdad, said the find is "not a smoking gun" that might indicate Iraq had violated U.N. resolutions. "

Two words : Half Cocked.

[ 01-16-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]

shawnpatrickjoyce · January 16, 2003 1:40PM

ghost_user_name · January 16, 2003 1:51PM

122 mm? What excatly differentiates them from empty soup cans?

murbot · January 16, 2003 2:39PM

No annoying labels to try and remove before recycling.

randycat99 · January 16, 2003 3:08PM

pscates · January 16, 2003 3:28PM

"Let's wait until something horrible happens until we make a move...in the interest of "peace" and not appearing TOO bullyish, of course. Then, when something horrible DOES indeed happen, we'll also be the first to condemn the administration for not acting quickly and strongly enough. Sounds like a plan!".

MARK MY WORDS.

ghost_user_name · January 16, 2003 3:39PM

No frankly pscates: What do differentiate them from other containers made of some sort of metal? I don´t´say they weren´t intendented to be filled with a chemical weapon but "Empty Chemical weapon warheads" sounds like "Critical material for making nuclear warheads" when talking about pencils.

If this is type 44-2343PZ from the russian army weapons catalogue then I will be convinced but if its a block of metal with two holes in it made by someone on a low tech turning lathe I won´t be. Its a call for more information on whatever they found.

alcimedes · January 16, 2003 3:58PM

i would guess that being a warhead, they have some fairly specific mechanisims on them to attach to the missle that will be launching them.

they weren't open soup cans or anything like that, seeing as they had to x-ray them to tell if they were empty or not.

i wonder if this means our president is still lying to us?

bunge · January 16, 2003 4:04PM

[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:



Material Breach<hr></blockquote>

Care to recant that yet?

sdw2001 · January 16, 2003 4:24PM

Not at all. Iraq was supposed to declare this kind of equipment. It did not. Give me a break. It's a clear cut thing. Show me how it ISN'T a violation.

noahj · January 16, 2003 4:25PM

<a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/860335.asp?0na=x2312292v"; target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.com/news/860335.asp?0na=x2312292v</a>;

This could still be in material breach.

[quote] THE U.N. SPOKESMAN who announced the discoveries, Hiro Ueki, would not speculate on the significance of the find. However, he did say that the bunkers that contained the rocket warheads ? the Ukhaider Ammunition Storage Area ? were constructed in the late 1990s, long after Iraq claimed to have destroyed all weapons of mass destruction. The spokesman described them as warheads not included in any previous Iraq weapons declaration, a point Iraq immediately disputed.<hr></blockquote>

Iraq is still trying to hide something...

brussell · January 16, 2003 4:38PM

I don't know if this is the smoking gun, but I have a feeling they'll find one soon enough, and we'll take Sodom out.

My prediction: The inspectors will get too close to something important, a small battle will break out and some inspectors will be killed. Then even France and Germany will be on board, and it'll be over in about 6 weeks.

luca · January 16, 2003 4:40PM

Looks like Bush is going to take the first opportunity to lash out at Hussein. This isn't really enough but it pushes him further towards the proverbial big red button.

The fact is, we know that Saddam has the weapons we're looking for. He knows we know. But what he also knows is that we have no idea where they actually are. And until we have proof, the United States can't expect to get much support if they just decide to attack Iraq. Even if we did have proof that Iraq has "weapons of mass destruction," what would we do? Attack them for owning them? I suppose we would... even though there also isn't any real proof that they would use them to attack us. I mean, I certainly wouldn't be surprised if Iraq used their weapons against the United States, aggressively, without provocation, but they haven't actually done anything. Meanwhile, Bush keeps issuing warnings telling Saddam Hussein to disarm... again, even though we don't know where his weapons are and we have no way of either proving that he has them or proving that he's getting rid of them.

So I suppose our president feels that it's a crime for other countries to possess powerful weapons. I sure don't feel too secure with Iraq having all these weapons, but I don't know if it's worth starting a war over. Maybe if we were less pushy and less involved in international affairs, we wouldn't have to worry about other countries attacking us.

sdw2001 · January 16, 2003 5:11PM

Good God. Do some people really not understand why he can't have these weapons? It's called NON-PROLIFERATION.

[quote]Maybe if we were less pushy and less involved in international affairs, we wouldn't have to worry about other countries attacking us. <hr></blockquote>

That's a common misconception. We do not cause anti-Americanism. The Left wants you to think that. We are hated for what we have. We are hated for our power. There has never been a more benevolent power in the history of this earth. Yet all the Left talks about how we abuse power and bully everyone. It's just more of the criminal liberal media's BS.

Less involved in international affairs? Jesus.

shawnpatrickjoyce · January 16, 2003 5:34PM

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:



Care to recant that yet?<hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

crustibooga · January 16, 2003 6:05PM

War and fighting are easy when you sit in the comfort of your own homes, when it does eventually kick off I'd like to see all you 'gung ho' lot fight! But of course you wouldn't, you're all talk. You treat it as if it's a game and easy because of technology, PEOPLE DIE..... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

Remember this, whilst your freaking mad president is after the folly of Iraq, Al Qaida are re-grouping and anti-west feelings have started to boil (anti-west.... i.e. europe as well as usa) Bush and Blair are about to set off a duff firework that's sure to backfire and burn all our butts!

I just thought...... my butt is huge, so I guess it's a bloody big butt burning target!!! EEK!!

alcimedes · January 16, 2003 7:08PM

just in case you weren't aware of it, as of this week the CIA has started sharing information with the U.N. inspectors.

if you'll notice the inspectors will likely run into much more resistance from Iraq, as they're getting closer and closer to dangerous material with the help of the new information they're getting.

samantha joanne ollendale · January 16, 2003 7:20PM

Empty 'chemical' warheads. The inspectors found them laying around in a bunker, which implies they weren't concealed. If they were not being concealed, they were either not important (or they were overlooked). But since Iraq has said it had reported the rockets, hows about letting the inspectors verify this before crying wolf.

[quote]just in case you weren't aware of it, as of this week the CIA has started sharing information with the U.N. inspectors.<hr></blockquote>

That is impossible to verify, unless you are in the know at the CIA itelf. Do you have a link for this story? Do you honestly believe that the CIA has been silent until now, and the inspectors have been fumbling around in the dark for months without complaining about the lack of intelligence? Or perhaps they are waiting to uncover the juicy stuff to coincide with the culmination of troop build up in the region?

[ 01-16-2003: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]

burningwheel · January 16, 2003 7:25PM

[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:

Not at all. Iraq was supposed to declare this kind of equipment. It did not. Give me a break. It's a clear cut thing. Show me how it ISN'T a violation.<hr></blockquote>

they claim they did declare it. i haven't seen their declaration, so how do i know if they are lying?

alcimedes · January 16, 2003 7:34PM

[quote] "It is neither chemical, neither biological," Amin said. "It is empty warheads. It is small artillery rockets. It is expired rockets. They were forgotten without any intention to use them, because they were expired since 10 years ago."

He added that "this type of rockets were declared in 1996 and again in the new declaration."

<hr></blockquote>

if you notice, it says this type of rocket, not these rockets. i would guess they claimed some like this, but didn't claim these. from what i've been reading it also sounds like you never leave these things with chemicals in them unless you're about to use them. they were also in "excellent" condition.

we'll probably know for sure in a few days though. sounds like everyone is playing it cool, which is a good thing.

CHEMICAL WARHEADS found in Iraq

Comments