In clear breach of the 24 hour rule I am going to post this link:
Sarin test sparks evacuation of compund
Does anybody have anything else on this?
Sarin test sparks evacuation of compund
Does anybody have anything else on this?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I just did a search on google news and got a heap of hits which look like they all originated from the same wire story. I couldn't find the original wire story on yahoo, which is rather odd as the Herald picked up the story over 7 hours ago.
Link to google news hits
Link to google news hits
ssibal
Unregistered
S
Here is a report of missiles with chemical weapons found. I guess we have to wait to see if it is true.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....MGPLQECRBAELCFEY?type=topNews&storyID=2521303
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....MGPLQECRBAELCFEY?type=topNews&storyID=2521303
DrBenway
Unregistered
D
Drooper said:Does anybody have anything else on this?
It seems the soldiers were exposed to "a mild form of tear gas":
Earlier in the day, soldiers near a Euphrates River bridge east of Karbala reported symptoms of toxic poisoning -- including nausea, vomiting and rashes -- and a large drum of chemicals found in a military compound initially tested positive for nerve agents. Troops in the area donned their full chemical suits in the crushing heat, and decontamination stations were set up to wash off soldiers exposed to the substance -- the first shower in weeks for many of them.
[Military officials reported Monday morning that chemical tests showed the substance in the drum to be a mild form of tear gas.]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43375-2003Apr6.html
reprise said:Not weaponised, according to reports on this morning's news.
Iraq is prohibited from possessing chemical weapons in any form, weaponized or not.
As I have stated in another thread, all it takes to weaponize these materials is a delivery mechanism. Typically this would be a bomb or warhead with a small explosive charge designed to spread the chemical over a wide area. Weaponizing these agents is about as difficult as filling a propane tank.
As long as we draw the distinction between something which technically breaches the UN resolutions and something which is actually a threat.EvilYeti said:
Iraq is prohibited from possessing chemical weapons in any form, weaponized or not.
As I have stated in another thread, all it takes to weaponize these materials is a delivery mechanism. Typically this would be a bomb or warhead with a small explosive charge designed to spread the chemical over a wide area. Weaponizing these agents is about as difficult as filling a propane tank.
One of the big justifications for this war was that Iraq posed a threat to the West - the CIA knew that Saddam had weapons which could be used in an attack on the USA or other countries.
We need to draw the distinction between something which technically breaches UN resolutions (e.g. a balsa-wood plane, some scuds which can't even hit targets in Kuwait, some weak tear gas) and these weapons that the US Government was telling us about before the war started.
They may yet turn up, but so far I have seen nothing which could count as a weapon which poses a significant threat.
Oh, so now you are saying its ok for Iraq to have chemical weapons, as longs as its not a "threat" in your mind?
How much then, EXACTLY, would be a threat? Sarin is incredibly nasty stuff, the lethal dose for an adult is only about a drop (and can kill even through skin contact). Should we have waited until he actually used it on us? Or sold it to someone who would?
How much then, EXACTLY, would be a threat? Sarin is incredibly nasty stuff, the lethal dose for an adult is only about a drop (and can kill even through skin contact). Should we have waited until he actually used it on us? Or sold it to someone who would?
iain said:As long as we draw the distinction between something which technically breaches the UN resolutions and something which is actually a threat.
Let's see what they actually find, but I would not class a balsa-wood plane or weak tear gas as a threat.EvilYeti said:Oh, so now you are saying its ok for Iraq to have chemical weapons, as longs as its not a "threat" in your mind?
How much then, EXACTLY, would be a threat? Sarin is incredibly nasty stuff, the lethal dose for an adult is only about a drop (and can kill even through skin contact). Should we have waited until he actually used it on us? Or sold it to someone who would?
As a rule of thumb, I would suggest that if a substance is something which every two-bit dictator in the world can easily get their hands on then it is difficult to justify why it would be a great threat in the hands of Saddam but not of anyone else.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
EvilYeti said:
Iraq is prohibited from possessing chemical weapons in any form, weaponized or not.
How are non-weaponized chemicals considered chemical weapons?
Doesn't "non-weaponized" mean "not weapons"?
PygmyPlaidGiraffe
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2003
- Messages
- 1,253
iain said:As long as we draw the distinction between something which technically breaches the UN resolutions and something which is actually a threat.
One of the big justifications for this war was that Iraq posed a threat to the West - the CIA knew that Saddam had weapons which could be used in an attack on the USA or other countries.
We need to draw the distinction between something which technically breaches UN resolutions (e.g. a balsa-wood plane, some scuds which can't even hit targets in Kuwait, some weak tear gas) and these weapons that the US Government was telling us about before the war started.
They may yet turn up, but so far I have seen nothing which could count as a weapon which poses a significant threat.
You are right Iain, it is prudent to wait for evidence. Reason rather than emotion needs to prevail everytime "suspicious materials" are reported in the media.
I am going to be patient and wait for the US Chemical teamsto test, retest, and confirm what they have found. They will do a thorough job.
As I am still lacking a decoder ring I will not read between the lines.
EvilYeti said:
Iraq is prohibited from possessing chemical weapons in any form, weaponized or not.
As I have stated in another thread, all it takes to weaponize these materials is a delivery mechanism. . . . Weaponizing these agents is about as difficult as filling a propane tank.
They found pesticide, no missile, no rockets, no mortars. To say that Iraq can't have chemical weapons since all it would take is a delivery mechanism would mean that they can't use pesticides, make dyes, clorinate water, no ball point pens, we should completely shut down their petroleum refining capability, no film photography.