Quote from: taxed on August 28, 2014, 11:25:48 AM
Why would they have a supply of unusable gas?

Why does Russia have fleets of old, useless nuclear powered ships sitting in dry dock?

They didn't have (or didn't want to spend) the money to dispose of them, only to seal them and close off the area.

Even when Iraqis did try to dispose of it, all this resulted in was burying it somewhere. That's not exactly "safer".

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 28, 2014, 08:48:41 PM
Now why didn't Saddam say that?

Indignation, and didn't really believe we'd invade him over it. And even when we did, he didn't think we'd remove him from power, just try to "teach him a lesson" like we did Gaddafi (in the 80s, not recently). Indeed, this is why he didn't burn his oil wells like during the first war, and tried to bury or send away his Air Force. He fully expected to come out of it with his regime intact.

There was a famous message he sent the French and the Germans, where he said the Americans could just "throw a fit in mud" or something like that, as there was nothing to achieve. This, when we were barely 100 miles outside of Baghdad, and closing in.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 28, 2014, 09:10:02 PM
Indignation, and didn't really believe we'd invade him over it. And even when we did, he didn't think we'd remove him from power, just try to "teach him a lesson" like we did Gaddafi (in the 80s, not recently). Indeed, this is why he didn't burn his oil wells like during the first war, and tried to bury or send away his Air Force. He fully expected to come out of it with his regime intact.

There was a famous message he sent the French and the Germans, where he said the Americans could just "throw a fit in mud" or something like that, as there was nothing to achieve. This, when we were barely 100 miles outside of Baghdad, and closing in.

So he is to blame for the "Iraq War"...

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 28, 2014, 09:18:52 PM
So he is to blame for the "Iraq War"...

I'd call it not double checking our own intelligence. It took Sec. Powell less than a year after presenting the intelligence to the U.N. to admit he made a mistake.

I'd also blame the CIA, eviscerated after 9/11, and desperate to look like it was on the ball again.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 28, 2014, 09:23:39 PM
I'd call it not double checking our own intelligence. It took Sec. Powell less than a year after presenting the intelligence to the U.N. to admit he made a mistake.

I'd also blame the CIA, eviscerated after 9/11, and desperate to look like it was on the ball again.

Wrong sir! We didn't have to check anything..

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 28, 2014, 09:58:36 PM
Wrong sir! We didn't have to check anything..

The intelligence was wrong, Saddam did not have an ongoing project, his existing stockpiles were no threat, and by 2002, he was even complying with our orders to destroy the rest of his past program.

That last one we know by hindsight admittedly. Ironically, it was his soldiers communications over getting rid of and hiding the remainder of the 1980s weapons, that the CIA mistook as communications over them having an on-going weapons program that they were trying to hide from our inspectors.

Something the CIA only caught onto, after they told the Bush Administration that the Iraqis *definitely* were building WMDs.

So Bush, as it's been so unfairly accused, didn't lie. Rather, the CIA did. Even after uncovering the truth, they stayed silent until it was too late. I suppose it's understandable, from their POV: "Wha-? We made another mistake? Ah sh*t" And it wasn't even their first one when it came to Iraq.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 28, 2014, 10:11:09 PM
The intelligence was wrong, Saddam did not have an ongoing project, his existing stockpiles were no threat, and by 2002, he was even complying with our orders to destroy the rest of his past program.

That last one we know by hindsight admittedly. Ironically, it was his soldiers communications over getting rid of and hiding the remainder of the 1980s weapons, that the CIA mistook as communications over them having an on-going weapons program that they were trying to hide from our inspectors.

Something the CIA only caught onto, after they told the Bush Administration that the Iraqis *definitely* were building WMDs.

So Bush, as it's been so unfairly accused, didn't lie. Rather, the CIA did. Even after uncovering the truth, they stayed silent until it was too late. I suppose it's understandable, from their POV: "Wha-? We made another mistake? Ah sh*t" And it wasn't even their first one when it came to Iraq.

That is irrelevant. The Gulf war never really ended. There was a cease fire. And there were stipulations to that cease fire. Some of them involved chemical weapons. We know he had chemical weapons as he used them against his own people. In the cease fire Saddam agreed to no longer acquire, manufacture or create in any way WMD's. Saddam agreed to these stipulations so it was up to him to prove he no longer possessed them. He refused to do so for years. Therefore we had a legal and moral right to restart military operations under the gulf war cease fire agreement.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 28, 2014, 11:49:33 PM
That is irrelevant. The Gulf war never really ended. There was a cease fire. And there were stipulations to that cease fire. Some of them involved chemical weapons. We know he had chemical weapons as he used them against his own people.

Yeah... in 1988.

QuoteIn the cease fire Saddam agreed to no longer acquire, manufacture or create in any way WMD's. Saddam agreed to these stipulations so it was up to him to prove he no longer possessed them. He refused to do so for years.

He refused to cooperate with the inspectors, but he in fact did not create any more chemical weapons.
He in fact lost that capacity in '91, and he never rebuilt it. I don't know if that was by choice, or if the sanctions were effective enough to prevent him, but either way...

His "violations" weren't chemicals, rather, it was delivery systems. When we invaded, we found SCUDS he wasn't supposed to have, and even an unmanned drone that was under development.

Additionally, he shot at (though never hit) passing coalition aircraft doing reconnaissance.

Does that constitute war? Legally perhaps, but as a practical mater... it's pretty weak. Even the "shooting at aircraft" is something other nations have done to us (including one particular nation with a ceasefire with us, and another that has been "at war" with us you could say since '79), without war resulting.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 29, 2014, 12:00:52 AM
Yeah... in 1988.

So if he had them in 1988 why shouldn't we think he had them two, three or five years later?

QuoteHe refused to cooperate with the inspectors, but he in fact did not create any more chemical weapons.
He in fact lost that capacity in '91, and he never rebuilt it. I don't know if that was by choice, or if the sanctions were effective enough to prevent him, but either way...

As you said he refused to cooperate. That is all we needed to restart military actions.

QuoteHis "violations" weren't chemicals, rather, it was delivery systems. When we invaded, we found SCUDS he wasn't supposed to have, and even an unmanned drone that was under development.

Not according to Resolution 1441

QuoteAdditionally, he shot at (though never hit) passing coalition aircraft doing reconnaissance.

That wouldn't invite a full scale invasion.

QuoteDoes that constitute war? Legally perhaps, but as a practical mater... it's pretty weak. Even the "shooting at aircraft" is something other nations have done to us (including one particular nation with a ceasefire with us, and another that has been "at war" with us you could say since '79), without war resulting.

You did an excellent though obvious job at muddying the waters for no apparent reason.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 29, 2014, 12:35:52 AM
So if he had them in 1988 why shouldn't we think he had them two, three or five years later?

Because Sarin and VX have a shelf life of 3-5 years (though the Iraqi made material was far short of even that), and 2003 was 12 years after his plant was bombed. Sarin was what they used in Halabja.

QuoteAs you said he refused to cooperate. That is all we needed to restart military actions.

Not under 1441. That required a separate resolution we never got. The best we got in citing the resolutions was consensus that Iraq might have weapons.

1441 itself was built upon the CIA intelligence Colin Powell presented, and which again, he admitted less than a year later was wrong. He and Ambassador Negroponte told countries, including Syria, to earn their support for 1441, that it didn't have the legal basis, or "triggers", for an invasion.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 29, 2014, 01:01:50 AM
Because Sarin and VX have a shelf life of 3-5 years (though the Iraqi made material was far short of even that), and 2003 was 12 years after his plant was bombed. Sarin was what they used in Halabja.

We had no idea what he had or didn't have. Aside from that he would not cooperate. You admitted so yourself.

QuoteNot under 1441. That required a separate resolution we never got. The best we got in citing the resolutions was consensus that Iraq might have weapons.

1441 itself was built upon the CIA intelligence Colin Powell presented, and which again, he admitted less than a year later was wrong. He and Ambassador Negroponte told countries, including Syria, to earn their support for 1441, that it didn't have the legal basis, or "triggers", for an invasion.

1441 was based on the United Nations Security Council ceasefire which called for Iraq to disarm it's WMD program. They failed to prove they did. For nearly a decade.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 29, 2014, 01:39:13 AM
We had no idea what he had or didn't have.

Yes we did, we captured examples of his weapons in '91. We knew production hadn't started up back at his old plant, as that's detectable, even from miles away, and the inspectors got inside the place.

Without that plant, his options were pretty limited even if he had tried.

QuoteAside from that he would not cooperate. You admitted so yourself.

Sure, some years, other years he did cooperate. However, this was never a listed cause for invasion in any of the resolutions.

Quote1441 was based on the United Nations Security Council ceasefire which called for Iraq to disarm it's WMD program. They failed to prove they did. For nearly a decade.

And see, that's the thing here: "prove". It's a given Iraq was indignant and slow to respond, *we* should have done more to cover our bases, to ensure they were doing what we were accusing them of.

The Iraqis were disarming in 2002, and they told as much. We didn't believe them. Eventually the CIA caught onto the fact that the Iraqis were telling the truth. Eventually. If it had simply hedged its bets and not insisted on an "impending threat" without conclusive evidence, they would have caught on earlier, before they scared the rest of us into thinking the regime needed to go now or suffer another 9/11.

The CIA did tell the Bush administration before the invasion, but by that point we were committed in our policy. Stepping back would have portrayed weakness.

"Prudence", that should be posted on the walls of every CIA office.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 28, 2014, 08:41:47 PM
It doesn't matter, even unmixed the materials themselves corrode.

Then I suggest you do some homework, simple research, because this particular type of munition has an indefinite shelf life.

Quote from: Solar on August 29, 2014, 05:40:09 AM
Then I suggest you do some homework, simple research, because this particular type of munition has an indefinite shelf life.

Not indefinite, and you still need a stabilization agent. Iraq was still trying to develop one when its plant was hit.

It's chemical production capability never recovered, the ISG report says that while breakout capability for Mustard Gas remained, nerve agents (like Sarin, binary agent or otherwise) were undoable.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 29, 2014, 06:40:20 AM
Not indefinite, and you still need a stabilization agent. Iraq was still trying to develop one when its plant was hit.

It's chemical production capability never recovered, the ISG report says that while breakout capability for Mustard Gas remained, nerve agents (like Sarin, binary agent or otherwise) were undoable.

Quit doubling down on stupid and look it up for yourself, as well as, learn what Indefinite means.