Saddam's WMD in 2003 - Degrated Chemical Artillery Shells!

They had a range of 10 miles to hit the U.S. from Iraq!

Published on June 23, 2006 By COL Gene In Politics

Sen. Rick Santorum claims a just released intelligence report proves Saddam Hussein had WMD. This claim is predicated on the recovery of about 500 old gas filled Artillery Shells from about 1980 and this Santorum claims proves that Saddam was the danger Bush claimed when he invaded Iraq in March 2003.

Santorum shows just how desperate Bush supporters are to try and justify a war that the majority believes was a mistake. The problem with the old chemical artillery shells is that first they have a range of about 10 miles. HOW were they a threat to the United States? Two they were so old that the gas in the shells was no longer dangerous!

This declassified intelligence report does NOTHING to show that in 2003 Saddam was a threat and does not in any way change the conclusion of the U. S. Former Weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer in 2004 that Saddam had discontinued his WMD program just after the 1991 war and that he had NO ACTIVE Chemical, Biological or Nuclear weapons programs in 2003!

Comments (Page 1)

Island Dog

on Jun 23, 2006

From a U.N. report on Saddams WMD.

First the UN clearly state in March 2003 that the Mustard gas shells they found are of HIGH QUALITY even it had been STORED FOR OVER 12 YEARS. Second the UN admit that there may still VIABLE i.e. EFFECTIVE Mustrad filled artillery shell hidden in Iraq, and yesterday we learned for a fact that there were indeed 500 Mustard gas artillery shells that were found in Iraq since the removal of Saddam. Also it is safe to conclude that the Mustard Gas shells found after the war are still in high quality and highly effective Chemical weapons.

I see you ignored all the other threads and had to come back and make another pointless post blaming Bush.

DJBandit

on Jun 23, 2006

Funny, first you claim there were no WMD in Iraq and you had no doubt about it. We went in for nothing according to you. Now we have proof of WMD and you change your tune to they are old and can't reach the main land? What an ignorant fool you are Col. All your articles on the war in Iraq just got squashed by this information and the best you can do is claim that they are old and of short range. No wonder we lost the vietnam war, with people like you in the military we don't need enemies.

bakerstreet

on Jun 23, 2006

I have a distinct feeling if these had been shipped to the US in a shipping container, we'd have been greeted with

BUSH'S POLICIES ALLOWED WMDs TO BE SHIPPED INTO THE US, MILLIONS THREATENED!!!!!

They make IEDs out of reverse-engineered shells now, so I suppose it would have been imposible to fix up something with these, huh? Worse, they'd have attacked Iraqis and claimed the US used chemical weapons on them; an accusation you would have also carried here to exploit, no doubt.

Germany, France, and even Saddam's own people assumed he still had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons right up until the invasion. The fact that you have to make this about "ongoing" programs just shows how facetious your argument is. He broke the terms of his ceasefire. You need to make this about WMDs, no one else really does.

COL Gene

on Jun 23, 2006

IslandDod

The shells discussed in OUR Intel report that was just released said the 500 shells were from 1980 and were of doubtful value. How did you say Saddam was to use those shells with a max range of 10 miles against the United States? How were these shells to produce the mushroom clouds which Bush and Cheney said was the reason we could not wait to invade Iraq in March 2003?

Charles C.

If you go back I said the ONLY WMD that was found were OLD gas filler Artillery Shells. That did not constitute ANY threat against this country which was the reason we went to war. How many other countries have the same shells--China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Syria to name a few. Shall we attack them as well? The more information that is released (declassified by Bush) the more clear it becomes; the United States was in NO DANGER from Iraq in 2003!!!!!!!

Island Dog

on Jun 23, 2006

How did you say Saddam was to use those shells with a max range of 10 miles against the United States?

Maybe the same way 19 people brought down two 100+ story buildings. There are other ways of delivering destruction without the use of missiles.

How were these shells to produce the mushroom clouds which Bush and Cheney said was the reason we could not wait to invade Iraq in March 2003?

Maybe the same way they would cause the destruction the democrats said Saddam would do? Oh I forgot, they are democrats, you give them a pass when they said Saddam was a serious threat.

Hypocrit.

DJBandit

on Jun 23, 2006

If you go back I said the ONLY WMD that was found were OLD gas filler Artillery Shells. That did not constitute ANY threat against this country which was the reason we went to war. How many other countries have the same shells--China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Syria to name a few. Shall we attack them as well? The more information that is released (declassified by Bush) the more clear it becomes; the United States was in NO DANGER from Iraq in 2003!!!!!!!

Are you like the dumbest person on this planet? Do you only consider a mushroom cloud over the US to be a terrorist act and everything else is just a crime? Is this guy stupid or what? I personally don't give 2 rats a$$e$ what you think is a good enough reason to fight terror, WMD were found and nothing you say or do can change that. People can make bombs out of fertirlizer these days and you think some old gas filled shells are no big deal? Thank God you're retired and not working in any military branch, otherwise we'd be screwed.

said the 500 shells were from 1980 and were of doubtful value.

Definitions

Doubtful: open to doubt or suspicion
Sure: certain(p): having or feeling no doubt or uncertainty

You see the difference here Col? "Of doubtful value" does not mean 100% sure. Example: I am 100% sure that you hate Bush and I am doubtful that your constant Bush Bashing has anything to do with the well being of the American people. Now, have we learned something today?

BTW, I noticed you ignored my article, you're pretty good at doing that when an argument that smashes your argument is posted. To scared to reply? I found a good paying job, I thought you said there were no good paying jobs. BTW I have no college degree or anything, just in case. Oh yea and how come you have not written an article about the deficit actually shrinking? It's all over the news.

bakerstreet

on Jun 23, 2006

CLINTON'S MISGUIDED POLICIES ALLOWED SADDAAM HUSSIEN TO STOCKPILE WMDs FOR YEARS WHILE INSPECTIONS WERE THRWARTED!!!

...and that was back before the "use before" date expired.

COL Gene

on Jun 23, 2006

Bakerstreet

Where all the weapons stockpiled in Iraq during the Clinton Administration? The 500 old artillery shells were from the Reagan administration period.

Charles C.

I know a lot more about WMD then you apparently do. First, gas as a weapon is only effective if it can be contained and reach a lethal concentration. Bio weapons are much more potentially lethal and Nuclear are by far the worst. If the threat to this country was from Gas filled Artillery shells, Bush sold Congress and the American people a BILL OF GOODS about any danger to our country from Saddam and his WMD!!!!!

There was no terrorism in Iraq before we deposed Saddam and then both internal and external groups began to operate as terrorists. I agree there is terrorism today in Iraq but that is because of our actions. The situation in Afghanistan is becoming serious again with terrorism expanding every day. Bush NEVER finished the job in Afghanistan because he HAD TO INVADE IRAQ!

bakerstreet

on Jun 23, 2006

We had no beef with Hussein during the Reagan period, and he wasn't under the obligation to declare these shells and destroy them then. It was under Clinton's administration that enforcement of the ceasefire wasn't held to, and that these shells were stored away and hidden from inspectors. SO, again...

CLINTON'S MISGUIDED POLICIES ALLOWED SADDAAM HUSSIEN TO STOCKPILE WMDs FOR YEARS WHILE INSPECTIONS WERE THRWARTED!!!

DJBandit

on Jun 23, 2006

I know a lot more about WMD then you apparently do. First, gas as a weapon is only effective if it can be contained and reach a lethal concentration. Bio weapons are much more potentially lethal and Nuclear are by far the worst. If the threat to this country was from Gas filled Artillery shells, Bush sold Congress and the American people a BILL OF GOODS about any danger to our country from Saddam and his WMD!!!!!

There was no terrorism in Iraq before we deposed Saddam and then both internal and external groups began to operate as terrorists. I agree there is terrorism today in Iraq but that is because of our actions. The situation in Afghanistan is becoming serious again with terrorism expanding every day. Bush NEVER finished the job in Afghanistan because he HAD TO INVADE IRAQ!

You really are that stupid aren't you? I guess if it's not a nuke or a chemical made 3 days ago it's not a threat according to you. Oh BTW, a gas can be lethal even if degraded and in small amounts. But what do you care, you have to have the deaths of thousands of Americans citizens in order for you to believe anything. You would probably wait for Kim from N Korea to shoot his missile and hit the US before you would want accion against him. Sorry buddy but that don't work for me. Your explanations are worthless, WMD were found and nothing you say or do can change that. Period.

There was no terrorism in Iraq before we deposed Saddam and then both internal and external groups began to operate as terrorists. I agree there is terrorism today in Iraq but that is because of our actions. The situation in Afghanistan is becoming serious again with terrorism expanding every day. Bush NEVER finished the job in Afghanistan because he HAD TO INVADE IRAQ!

You know nothing cause you did not live in Iraq, were not currently active in the military and you have no legit sources of your own to back any of this up. This is what you call information of doubtful value. Terrorist were there, it's been proven time and time again. Not that you care about this either. You nut case.

COL Gene

on Jun 23, 2006

CharlesC

Please explain even if the gas in the old Artillery shells was lethal how that endangered the United States? They could be fired over about 10 miles. How far do you think it is from Iraq to the U.S. I guess we would have allowed Saddam to ship an Artillery piece into the U.S. and then ship in the shells and then allow him to set up a position where he could open fire on us. You are just about as stupid as you can be. Many countries have such weapons. Does that mean we are to invade every country with such weapons?

The issue was that Bush and Cheney told us we were in danger from Saddam. I want you to explain HOW?

bakerstreet

on Jun 23, 2006

I already explained that armament is being reverse engineered in order to create improvised munitions in #3. Chemical weapons are no different. Your ignorance is feigned, you know as well as anyone that they wouldn't have to "fire" shells to kill people with them. You, yourself said that we were in dire danger of such weapons being smuggled in through our ports when the whole UAE farce was big.

"The issue was that Bush and Cheney told us we were in danger from Saddam. I want you to explain HOW? "

No, you want it explained, and then you want to ignore the answer, and then you will ask again, and repeat the process weekly. Why should anyone bother at this point. I remember you asking that quetion and being answered literally years ago now.

bakerstreet

on Jun 23, 2006

So... again...

*Clinton didn't get the job done and ignored the fact that the ceasefire required Hussein to give up weapons we now find that he had. Pre-1991 weapons are being poo-pooed now, but in 1993 they would have been minty fresh, and Clinton made little effort to see to it they were secured or destroyed.

*Also, we know that these shells DON'T have to be fired, and that they can be made into IEDs or reverse engineered for their components, as all the shells made into IEDs are already.

*"Dirty" bombs are a very, very ineffective misuse of armament, and yet they seem to be a bugbear for Dems when they want to scare us about the borders. Given that a stink was made about the UAE port deal being just bad enough for this kind of material to be smuggled in, such material MUST be of consequence.

*There's no question that if these shells had been found in a shipping container on a train in Kansas, the Col would consider them HIGHLY dangerous and a golden example of Bush's ineffective border security. They would no doubt be suitable to bring about the apocolypse if it were in the Col's interest.

I don't see where you have a leg to stand on here, Col. You are spinning the existence of something you claimed didn't exist. When we said that the stockpiles weren't destroyed, these are part of them. Gosh, if you were wrong about this, think what you might be wrong about next week...

COL Gene

on Jun 23, 2006

We spent a trillion dollars, suffered 2,500 dead and 35,000 injured because Saddam had 500 old gas filled artillery shells. If after 9/11 Bush had secured our borders and ports, neither Saddam nor anyone else would have been able to smuggle in WMD of any type. The arguments to justify this war do not hold water. What about all the other dictators that have similar weapons and chemical agents? You need to read the article that I have quoted in this Blog site and in my book from Professor Record of the Army War College. He points out the otter nonsense of your logic and indicated we do not have the resources to invade every country that might have or even do have WMD that wish us harm. THE TERRORISTS WIN NO MATTER WHAT THE OUTCOME IN IRAQ because they are prompting us to spend our resources in ineffective ways to protect our country.

Every cent we are spending on this war is being borrowed and we not only will be required to pay the interest on that money but some day repay the money Bush is spending ineffectively in Iraq.

bakerstreet

on Jun 23, 2006

"We spent a trillion dollars, suffered 2,500 dead and 35,000 injured because Saddam had 500 old gas filled artillery shells."

Straw man argument. You set up a false situation and then point to it as proof. We forcefully removed Hussein because he ignored the terms of the cease fire and showed no hope of ever ceasing to be the maniac he was. Whether he had 500 old wmd's today or a nuclear bomb ten years from now, he needed to go. Either you do it yourself, or trust self-absorbed Dems to do it later.

Re: 500 old gas filled artillery shells. He didn't even have that much two weeks ago, according to you. I wonder what he might have a month from now? The problem wasn't what he had, rather it was the fact that it was impossible to know what he had, and he had no intention of cooperating with inspections. That, as you clumsily dodge, was what was proven here. The anti-war governments that opposed the invasion thought he had WMDs, as did Hussein's own generals.

There's nothing to stand on in this argument, so you'll shift it to 'terrorists' in Iraq, when we know Ansar al Islam was functioning in Iraq long before the invasion and that Zarqawi went there before we even invaded as well. Here's an idea, find something to shift to that hasn't already been refuted. That might work out better as a dodge. Ideally, you wouldn't need to dodge at all.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!