If these shells really are as old as to have been "live" at the time of the Iran-Iraq war 24 years ago then they do not constitute evidence of the kind of WMDs that were used by the USA and (particularly) by Britain to justify invasion.

For one thing, while "blister agents" are certainly chemical weapons, they are not especially "mass destruction" weapons. Mustard gases are not as lethal as, say, nerve agents - the main effect is incapacitation of "enemy" personnel. If they are "WMD" so are the landmines, fragmentation grenades, cluster bombs, and so on of which Western militaries are so fond (and of which the USA and UK has actively resisted the idea of banning).

For another, most chemical weapons are not especially stable, so it isn't likely that 24 year-old weapons would be at the peak of their effectiveness.

I'm not saying that these shells wouldn't be very dangerous if accidentally or deliberately deployed (by, say, terrorists). What I am saying is that their status as WMD is open to question.

Addditionally, I am a little concerned that, for all the bluster on the pro-war side that the anti-war people will remain anti-war no matter what is found in Iraq. IT seems to me that, if anything, the pro-war position is even more open to blind faith in the face of contrary evidence, because to utterly refute their position anti-war people have to prove a negative.

If no WMDs are ever found, pro-war people only have to think "the weapons were there but have been hidden/destroyed/smuggled out" and they can continue to believe that the war was just, whether it was or not, in the same way that they think "leftist" war opponents will claim that any really dangerous weapons of the necessary provenance, threat level, and timeliness to constitute "WMD" were planted by the coalition to justify the war.

If they were forgotten for so long, why did they guy that had them point them out to us? They weren't forgotten about. They were purposely hidden there under orders from the regime. That's one of the best places to hide documents pertaing to a weapons program. Imagine if we had begun digging up Iraqi's backyards looking for more evidence. There'd be a huge uproar. Saddam knew we were smarter than that so...

And I'm sorry, but you dont forget about hundreds of mortars filed with blistering agent. You dont forget about documents pertaining to weapons programs. That's to convenient an excuse. So in the event that we do find WMDs that arent as old like eight year VX warheads, are you gonna say thatt they forgot about them too and therefore should not be punished?



I take your using this quote to sum up your post. It's a very interesting one. But you know what? Its a cop out. Im sorry but thats what it sounds like to me.

Obviously the fine folks in the intel circles of our government did not maliciously intend for 9-11 to happen. But, by ignoring fax after fax and memo after memo about possible threats on our country by terrorists, their incompetence played a part. So even if some in the regime or those who worked in the regime forgot about WMD's or documents pertaining to them (which I highly doubt) the fact is WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THEM. I dont care if they're expired or not. A lot of half decent chemists can take a sample of those old mortars, find out their composition, and inform ANYONE on how to make them. And one last thing. Do you think that UN weapons inspectors woulda found those documents?

Long story short. We need to know where everything is. No matter how old.

If they were intentionally buried or lost following the Iraq-Iran war for purposes other than avoiding the inspections process it would be rather easy to forget about them. Some were leaking and there has been no indication as to why they were buried there (intentionally or otherwise). Discarded ordinance doesn't seem a high priority for a regime that was as unorganized as Saddam's. And for the amount of artillery Iraq possessed at the time of the Iraq-Iran war, a few dozen mortar shells was paltry. I've posted a link elsewhere detailing how filing errors led the United States to lose massive amounts of plutonium in the past, so a few dozen mortars a decade or more old isn't out of the question. It isn't simply an excuse of convenience.

Im not saying that they might not of been stupid. But what I am saying, is stupid or otherwise, they had them. I haven't read that link on the US losing plutonium, but I'll believe you. Its feasable. But the fact is that we lost plutonium and someone eventually caught hell for it. Someone had to be held accountable for losing it. In Iraq's case, someone has to be held accountable for having WMDs. That is what I believe this war is about and why it is justified. Accountability. Saddam and his regime have to be held accountable for what they've done to the Iraqi people.

The problem here is that if these mortars we're discussing were discarded and forgotten -- thus no longer known to those issuing Iraq's declaration of weapons -- they weren't hiding WMD as alleged by the administration. In order for these mortars to have posed a threat Iraq would have had to still known about them in an active attempt to conceal weapons. If they didn't, these mortars do little to justify the administrations claims of "such weapons."

As to Iraq being held accountable for what they've done to the Iraqi people, that is a separate issue from the mortars and is probably better suited for our other discussion in the Foreign Policy forum.

As well as made the US the dictator of the world to tell other countries what they can and cant have or do. Not withstanding the UN resolutions they are UN resolutions not just the US but the UN. If we are to be part of the UN and use the UN resolutions then we need to stand by them.

When it comes to finding something that has been in the desert for more than a decade being justifiable evidence is parsing words, just like how the adminstration altered evidence to justify was with Iraq. And right now there is not hundred mortars like you have said TItus 36 mortars were found corroding and leaking. As others have said if this is the WMD that was reasons for war (phew) glad we got them but I still don't see that justifying this war.

As well evidence is coming out that Iraq weaponeers the people in charge of making the weapons were actually fabricating information to Saddam on alot of different WMD projects they were working on to sustain being alive, sustain their way of living and such. Yes during sanctions Saddam was trying to get new WMD but the evidence shows that the sanctions were working disallowing them to get the materials to create new WMD. So they bolstered to Saddam what they were working on to keep him off their back even though they knew they had no conceivable way to make the WMD that Saddam was requesting for.

1. I don't think this means much, to be honest. What we need to find is the intent to deceive the UN and to hide the WMD programs from them. I believe the Kaye report is much more relevant (albeit circumstantially).

2. I am certain that more will be found buried in the desert. Recall the numbers that Wertz so kindly provided:

25,000 liters is 6600 gallons. Less than one tanker truck.
38,000 liters is 10,000 gallons. Less than 1 1/4 tanker trucks (let's say 2)
500 tons is the estimated amount of chemical weapons that COULD have been produced with the precursor chemicals available to Iraq. Some of these precursors (most?) were used for legitimate purposes.
So how much is 500 tons? It's one million pounds. Assuming the density of water (~8 lbs per gallon) that makes 125,000 gallons. About 10-12 tanker trucks.

So now we have that all of these WMDs could fit into 15 tanker trucks.

Well, we found 30 jets buried in the sand: Some 30 Iraqi planes found buried in sands
Do you think they could bury 15 tanker trucks?

This particular discovery has no direct answer to that question. The burial of the planes does, though.

It's about discovering a pattern, a modus operendi. Burying stuff seems to be Saddam's MO. Hiding things was his forte.

Lol, yeah, exaggeration can be a pain. Whether it be 100, 36, or 1, it doesnt take that many to inflict horrible suffering on people.

Need we forget that UN Security Council Resolution 687 states that Iraq must be rid of ALL nuclear, biological, and CHEMICAL weapons and the facilitis to produce them.

Im sorry, but 'forgetting' about them does not cut it.

Just to clarify after the initial 36, another 160 or so were found bringing the total to about 200. Also someone suggested that these were just forgotten about, but why then were they wrapped in plastic in an effort to protect them. Its obvious to me anyway that they were buried on purpose. No this isn't a smoking gun but people need to acknowlege that the likelyhood of a lot more evidence being buried around the country is more than possible. I wonder what excuses some of you will have if VX, Sarin, and/or anthrax is found. Get your stories and conspiracy theories ready in the event. We wouldn't wanna catch you off guard.

See, I knew I wasn't crazy. Just not enough sleep. I agree, this isn't the smoking gun, but it's a shell casing alright. No one ever 'forgets' about blistering agents.

I never said I would not accept the existence of WMD if they were found. I find it amusing though that if none more are found, I am sure you will continue to use your conspiracy theories to explain it away.

That knife cuts both ways...

Please provide a link to this Venom cause after reading your assertions I did a new search and have found nothing about 200 or even anything more than the initial 36 mortars found, I am not saying it not true but I did an exact search using the words ( blister agent mortars found in Iraq) and the latest thing I found which according to Google search engine was 3 hours ago just talks about the original stuff found.

Here's the links

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cf...23388/story.htm

http://news.google.com/news?q=blister+agen...F-8&sa=N&tab=nn

http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?...fr=fp-tab-web-t

Well I can't find an article on it now. I read it Saturday or Sunday on CNN or Fox News. It may have been a false report, but I know I read it. It may have come from this statement from an Iraqi that lives in the area.



This is from an Associated Press article dated today. I got it from a Nexis search so if you have access to nexis you'll find the entire article there.

Claims by an Iraqi to have buried the shells three years ago seem to conflict with original reports in which Danish authorities claimed the mortars had been buried for a decade or more. I would certainly be curious in seeing a claim of their being buried three years ago substantiated.

But do you think that these are the WMDs? I strongly doubt they are.

Don't you think Saddam would have used them if he had possession of the WMDs?

Three years still isn't enough time. We are trying to find WMDs that were buried recently.

1. I do not believe this is a one time find, however I also do not believe it is a significant find given the age and relative readiness of the weapons. To suggest that this is a significant find and will prove that Iraq has in fact hidden all of its WMD in the sand would be the same as suggesting that a beach comber with a metal detector finding an old coin proves there is pirate treasure buried nearby.

2. I would not put it past Iraq to have buried a lot more weapons. However, I do not believe they could have possibly buried the amount that intelligence (from the US, Britain and other countries) supposedly confirms.

Both Bush and Blair suggested that Iraq was an imminent threat and could launch a massive attack of WMD in as little as 45 minutes if it chose to. This isn't some James Bond movie where the water drains out of the lake to reveal a secret base; anything that was buried is for all intents and purposes lost and unusable, especially in a land where the landscape changes daily and sands shift.

The pretext for going to war is still flawed, and I do not believe that this find changes that in the least. If they made a significant find then maybe that would change things depending on the circumstances.

Why would you say that? History has shown us Saddam Hussein's Iraq had the ability to hide large amounts of weapons right under the nose of UN inspectors for years. We have found a number of enormous fighter jets buried under the sands. Surely hiding the smaller WMD wouldn't be that unfeasible...

Jet's don't leak and corrode the same way that highly delicate chemical and biological agents do. I for one am disappointed and surprised that people keep on drawing such a bizarre parallel.

He has buried stuff before!

Lets think about this for a second. If past behaviour can successfully indicate future behaviour for Saddam that implies a reasoned, continuous thought process from Saddam. Kind of discredits the idea that he is crazy and could blow at any minute.

More than that though the argument is ridiculous because it assumes that Saddam is the one making these strategic decisions. He may make the decision to hide weapons, but I sincerely doubt that was single-handedly running the entire Iraqi military. Assuming that he delegated some of the decision making process (which we would be foolish not to) what are the odds that the people running the WMD programs he allegedly had are the same people that were running his airforce? Can anyone say with a straight face that is was probably the same guy? The only connection between the planes and the shells is that they were both under the surface, and they were both Iraqi; nothing can be projected forward from that until a link can be provided to either establish a solid pattern of behaviour, or evidence that they are not isolated emerges.

Cube Jockey had stated that he doubted it was possible for Iraq to hide large amounts of WMD. I simply replied that experience with former inspectors and the issue of the jets shows that it is certainly possible.

UNSCOM found Iraqi mustard gas (possibly the agent in question) that stayed in near perfect condition for seven years. Whether or not the WMD were hidden, it is certainly possible.


Disarmament Report

Maybe I was misunderstood a little there, of course it is possible they could have buried the WMD. Almost anything is possible... it is possible they sent them to the moon, it is possible they have a network of hidden underground bunkers, it is possible that I'll cure cancer one day.

However, the question we must ask ourselves is, is it likely? Furthermore, is it a responsible and moral practice to start a war based on something that is unlikely (otherwise some proof could be shown, satellite photos, special ops reconnisance photos, etc)? Not only that, but to suggest that these weapons could be ready for attack in 45 minutes is really jumping to extraordinary conclusions of the James Bond variety.

Could you please expand on why you don't believe these weapons could have been used within 45 minutes? Mortar rounds take about 5 seconds to drop into a tube and be shot out, add a generous 20 minutes time to dig them up and that is under 45 by my calculations.

The condition in the reports described the mortars as "leaking". Leaking stuff usually corrodes metal, in general. And, if the agent were still active, touching it would cause a serious problem.

So, let's say you're the average underpaid Iraqi Army grunt tasked with digging this stuff up and hurling at the USA Army. There comes a moment where you ask yourself "am I that stupid as to either touch these things or possibly have them misfire in my face?"

Not to mention that somehow you would have to have first had them travel to the good ol' USA in order for them to have been a serious threat to us BEFORE we attacked them without provocation. But you forgot to include that in your own thoughts on this. A bunch of buried mortar rounds do not translate into a threat to the USA... except after we've occupied Iraq.

Let's just brainstorm some of the tasks possibly associated with preparing an attack using a WMD and problems associated with launching one if it were buried.

1. Location - So let's say these things are buried, location is going to be a problem. There aren't many landmarks in the desert and the sands shift daily. Even assuming that the Iraqi military has a sophisticated GPS network that shows the locations of all of their weapons, this is still a challenge.

2. Proximity - The proximity to said arms is also a problem. In order to launch one of these weapons you would have to bring several men (5 to 10) to dig the weapon up and position it appropriately. Therefore it would have to be close to an outpost of some kind, let's say it is 5 to 10 minutes away.

3. Set up Time - I would agree that mortars could be dug up fairly quickly, they are small and weigh relatively little. However, we are talking about large rockets here assuming you want to hit Israel or Saudi Arabia. Therefore you'll have to bury them deeper and the weight alone would be an issue. What was once a 2 foot covering of sand could now be six feet with a sandstorm. These weapons would have to somehow be dug out of the sand (probably hard to dig in sand) and then hoisted to an upright position using some kind of machinery. I would hardly think this could be accomplished in 20 minutes, even with 5 to 10 men. I would say this would take hours, just for one weapon.

Consider what it would take to unearth your car if it were buried in death valley under 2 feet of sand. Now take that and multiply the size and weight by at least 10.

4. Prep Time - So you managed to get this thing dug out and hoisted onto some kind of firing platform. Now you are going to have to make sure it will work (and nopt blow up in your face) and target it. Assuming you have someone technical there to power it up, run any diagnostics, target the weapon and fire it... that will take time as well. I would say 5 to 10 minutes at the very least.

5. Organization / Motivation - Something of this magnitude would require a decent amount of motivation on the part of the soldiers and an incredible amount of organization. Both of those qualities have been proven to be lacking in the Iraqi army.

This 45 minute theory could be possible if the weapons were hidden under camaflauge or in caves and simply had to be wheeled out and fired (as in the first gulf war).

However, using my military background and knowledge of tactics I would say that a statement that the Iraqis could take buried WMD and have them ready to launch in under 45 minutes is ridiculous. I may not be any more right than you, but I know that if I were president I would certainly require a lot more proof and possibly simulations to accept this as fact.

Well seeing as the 45 minute evidence came from an Iraqi officer that had defected, and he was talking about how they could fire on US troops on the battlefield IN Iraq in 45 mins that about kills everything you were arguing. Small mortar rounds easily dug up within 20 minutes would be able to be used within 45 minutes of an order. He wasn't talking about huge SCUD launchers here. Also how do you know these were found "in the middle of the desert" and not right near an outpost?

Weapons that could fire on US troops in battle shouldn't have been a concern if we never went to war with Iraq. I thought we were talking about WMD here. I would hope that soldiers could launch an attack on US soldiers with 45 minutes...

I doubt that mortar rounds are a concern to US troops when they have helicopters, tanks and artillery at their disposal.

That's all very well - if one is talking about oil or water. One tends not to fill tanker trucks with VX nerve agent.

Take anthrax, for example. The standard procedure for transporting something like this involves a container about the size of a coffee can for 50 ml. That's 20 coffee cans per liter. At 25,000 liters, we're talking about half a million coffee cans. This would require 125,000 square feet of storage space - roughly three football fields. A bit more substantial than "less than one tanker truck".

I'd be very interested in finding out what the volume of a 120mm shell is in terms of payload. Something tells me it would take a hell of a lot of shells to make up 500 tons worth of content.

I have no doubt, of course, that Saddam Hussein was quite capable of having buried the Astrodome in someone's back garden (and, perhaps, did so), but let's not get too simplistic either.

When they are filled with chemicals they are a concern. Whether you wanna admit it or not these are considered WMD, but again I don't think this is a smoking gun. I'm just telling you that they are a concern and they are chemical weapons and should have been declared in their report to the UN.

I for one always found the 45-minute claim rather silly and grimaced when I heard it. (I knew it would go down as a token mistake.) However, as we know the danger the administration claimed was present was not launch against US troops but proliferation. Sales to terrorists and the like.

Mustard Gas (probably the most common serious WMD) was used extensively in World War's one and two. No doubt the visibility of effects (blisters) would make it an effective terror agent.

Sorry about this, a quick aside from a Historian:

Blister agents were used extensively by the Germans in WWI, and only in the dying days by the allies (not because they didnt want to, they just didnt develop the technology until 1918).

They were not used at all in WWII.

Well perhaps extensively might be pushing it...

But they were used.


Who Used Mustard Gas in WWII?
So Italy and Japan are the guilty parties from WWII...

Mustard Gas was also used in the Iran-Iraq war. It may be an old weapon but a terrorist attacks with it would not be pretty.

Yet another false alarm to get the war apologists all excited, but then let them slip back into further denial.....

Tests Show No Agent in Iraq Mortar Shells

So... how did they decide it had blister agent in the first place?

Quoted:

"Since the war ended last year, the U.S.-led coalition has found several caches that tested positive for mustard gas but later turned out to contain missile fuel or other chemicals.

Other discoveries early in the U.S.-led occupation turned out to be old caches that already had been tagged by U.N. inspectors and were scheduled for destruction."


But of course, those who believe there are WMD in Iraq will not be deterred by such a small fact as there not actually being any...

When this cache was discovered, severl people wrote in this very thread such things as:

"For those of you that have said that we wouldn't find any such weapons will you now admit that they could have buried a lot more and that we may find those as well?"

and
"I wonder what excuses some of you will have if VX, Sarin, and/or anthrax is found. Get your stories and conspiracy theories ready in the event. We wouldn't wanna catch you off guard. "

So the question now should be a direct parallel to what was originally asked, "With another 'find' turning out to be a hoax, will those who keep claiming that Iraq had significant WMD stockpiles and programs admit the possibility that none of any significance exist?

Neither the "war apologists" or those against the war should jump to conclusions just yet. While testing is turning up negative for blister agents, the report also says there is further testing to be done by other more sophisticated laboratories. For those quick to jump on every potential find in Iraq, I would encourage them to remember at least one bit of information contained within this most recent article:
Something to remember before we open up yet another topic in the future about what "this discovery" means for administration claims of WMD.

To the original questions posed:
1. Do you think this is a one time find or do you believe this may lead to more such buried caches?
Considering the liklihood they were discarded and forgotten about at the end of the Iraq-Iran war and the poor accounting of the Iraqi army, I don't doubt we may find other sites of weapons which were in the past discarded or forgotten.

2. For those of you that have said that we wouldn't find any such weapons will you now admit that they could have buried a lot more and that we may find those as well?
As "such weapons" seems to be in relation to WMD, if such a conclusion should be reached that they are indeed not blister agent this question is essentially moot unless or until they actually find WMD.

Speaking for myself of course it's possible. Looking at the history of inspections in Iraq, I simply don't believe it's very likely.

I add a little request that everyone keep the blanket statements about either side to a minimum.

I agree. It would of been more beneficial for Saddam to (if he didn't have anything illegal) come clean, not inhibit inspectors, and if it had turned out that he did have nothing, then he would of stayed in power. But the games he's played with the weapons inspectors would lead most to believe that he IS hiding something. Where and what it is, is yet to be determined.

Up until last month, the claim could just as easily have been made that Saddam Hussein did not exist in Iraq, using the same logic that now says WMD do not exist in Iraq, did not exist in Iraq, or were never going to exist in Iraq. The best we can say on this subject is, 'unfinished search in progress, Kay final report due.' But, even Kay's interim report detailed the current finds of evidence of programs in place; Saddam&Co clearly had a wish list. During his coming trial and the very public 'this is your life' spectacle, we will all have to decide if these were the kinds of folks that should have continued to have unfettered access to the resource of a nation of 25 million people, allowed to continue to run The Republic of Fear unmolested.

Are we saying that the threat may not have been imminent? Exactly, and exactly the argument publicly made in the 2003 SOTU:



Not a very well hidden argument, appearing in the 2003 SOTU as it did. Was anybody listening at that point? That direct speech to the American people does not sound at all like a claim that 'the threat is imminent'--just the opposite, though, in this election year, that is how the explicit statement above had been turned on its ear.

Still, our own intelligence community is a funny thing when it comes to pre connecting the dots before anything actually happens. In that endeavor, it is regarded as both a floor wax and a dessert topping.

FOr example, sifting through it's various pre 9/11 evidence and cherry picking from it post 9/11, some claim that we should have acted on that intelligence, before 9/11, to keep something from happening.

But, at the same time, many also claim that, in regards to the Iraq/WMD, we should not have acted on intelligence from the precise same body.

And yet, fresh from coming down after our recent maligned even after 9/11 brush with an Orange Alert in which nothing happened, can you imagine the pre 9/11 grief that would have fallen on the Administration if they had, before the context of 9/11, issued an Orange Alert, turned back flights, and flew CAP over civilian flights?

But, after all, the Bush administration had been precisely warned: '...likely in the next quarter of a century...' Yet, the stated policy of the US Government before Bush took office was also 'regime change in Iraq.' It is hard to blame the 22nd Amendment for any of the above, because clearly, what was not even started in 8 years of merely knowing what to do could not be finished in 8 months of actually doing.

The question of Saddam's future plans for WMD in Iraq is safely moot, mere fodder for internet debate. As an added bonus, it is hard to shed a tear for the architect of the 1979 purge, caught on film. It's not necessary to ignore the odd Iraqi no longer being fed feet first into the plastic shredder because the screams last longer.

Perhaps we should have let the wind emanating from East 44th street continue, unabated. "Can you keep the screaming down over there? We're trying to have a nuanced debate over here."

Perhaps we should have looked forward to the 30th anniversary symposium at some future Renaissance Weekend(I hear the crab spread is spectacular), "What Should We Do About The Middle East?" Safely caring from afar has been a real growth industry.

Perhaps we should have once again sent mad Albright to the UN to campaign for 'genocide-like' instead of 'genocide' as our kindler, gentler solution to the Paradox of Violence. After all, that was back when the world loved us.

regards,
Frediano

I would like to hereby announce that this whole "Danish weapons" story is now proven to be bunk!! It turns out that tests show NO chemcials were found!! Read gloriously on at: http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.a...w=wn_wire_story



Any new "findings" must withstand the test of time. Like all of this administration's blanket assertions-this one fails to pass.

I wholeheartedly concur nebraska. I would truly like to see what Venom has to say, now that the one-time find is now officially a 500-time no find, and that he started a thread giving the link "Possible Iraqi Blister Gas Agents Found" and then try to get us to admit that they buried a lot more? A lot more possible chemical weapons? I concede. There are probably millions of false chemical weapons in Iraq. We've already located several

Yes, once again, where are the war mongers on this one? Once again, yet another false claim, no matter how hard we wish it, the whole WMD issue turned out to be one big "wag the dog" scenario.

I'm not afraid to admit I was wrong, and I was. We know he had WMD, and there is no record of them being destroyed, if he had nothing to hide why did he resist, and David Kay has already come out and said that there were programs Iraq did not declare and elaborate schemes to hide and decieve the inspectors. If they had nothing to hide as you obviously believe why did they resist for so many years? Why did they resist 1441? These questions lead me to believe that there is something there. It makes no sense and erring on the side of caution as President Bush did was the right thing to do. Saddam had numerous opportunities to save himself and his people from our intervention and he chose not too.

The situation will be the same if we find the WMD's, or discover where they were sent. The appeasers will remain, for the most part, silent.
I agree with Venom, though I didn't tout the find as the smoking gun, it was indeed not WMD. But the undisputable cold hard fact still remains, Iraq had WMD's, they were given the parameters in which to destroy them and end sanctions, and they did not, or did not prove that they did. Something the appeasers appear to forget....conveniently.

Now y'all are flip-flopping.

First, the argument for going to war without UN approval was that the UN didn't matter. Now the argument is that we attacked Iraq because of UN resolutions??

Try this on for size: we knew they didn't have WMD. Saddam's own son-in-law -- when he defected -- told his debriefers that they dumped the stuff right after Gulf War I, because they didn't want to get caught with it. We chose not to believe them, even though Saddam had them killed right after they decided to go back to Iraq. Turned out they were telling the truth.

And not wanting to go into Iraq doesn't make you an "appeaser". It means you had the desire to find a different answer to the problem. Brute force doesn't solve all your problems, and in this case, we've made OUR problems worse, because our military cannot reload for another conflict until we can get out of Iraq.

Who exactly is y'all?
I supported using force against Iraq because they violated the terms of the 1991 cease fire for 12 years.(maybe I take it more personally because I was in Iraq when it was signed) I subscribe to a code of honor where you honor your obligations or you expect consequences.


OK, maybe you're right. Just like not being afraid to do the right thing regardless of French opinion doesn't make you a war monger.

Is there really anywhere else this thread can go now that the tests on the mortar shells have come back negative?

amf,

The reasons behind the war have been discussed before. There was no single reason to take out Saddam, the reasons were multiple and compelling. Some involved the UN, others did not.

What GWB said was that if the UN was unable to enforce its own resolutions (ie the "will" of the international community), then the US would do it. It is undeniable that Iraq has violated the cease fire it signed in 1991/92.

As for the shells, as I said earlier, this was no smoking gun. It is yet another example of a pattern, though, even if there weren't chemical weapons involved.