Ironduke

'Chemical weapons' found in Iraq

Danish troops have found dozens of mortar shells in southern Iraq which could contain chemical weapons according to initial tests.
The 36 120mm mortar rounds appeared to have been buried for at least 10 years, the army said.

All showed traces of blister gases, the army said, a group of chemical compounds which include mustard gas.

US officials confirmed the apparent find and said the weapons were probably left over from the 1980-88 war on Iran.

Results of more extensive tests should be available in about two days, the Danes said on an official website quoted by the Reuters news agency.

The Danish troops, who serve with the US-led coalition in Iraq, will continue searches for any more weapons buried at the same site, north of Basra.

US military spokesman Brigadier-General Mark Kimmitt said of the shells: "Most were wrapped in plastic bags, and some were leaking."

"We're doing some preliminary tests... to be sure that if they do contain any kind of blistering agent they will be disposed of," he said.

The former regime of Saddam Hussein used blister agents against Iranian soldiers during the Iran-Iraq war.

Chemical weapons were also used to kill about 5,000 Kurds in the northern city of Halabja in 1988.

War-time use

Before the US-led war to overthrow Saddam Hussein, Iraq said it had destroyed all its chemical weapons, but the alleged continuing threat from weapons of mass destruction were cited by the US and UK leaders as a key reason for the war.

But a nine-month search for stockpiles of chemical, biological or nuclear arms has found no proof of an ongoing weapons programme which could have been used against coalition forces.

On Thursday, a 400-strong team of weapons disposal experts was withdrawn from Iraq but US administration officials insisted their job had been completed.

Blister agents, such as mustard gas, were developed and first used by the Germans in World War I. Italy and Egypt have also used such chemical weapons against enemies.

The agents burn skin, eyes and lungs as they are absorbed, causing large blisters on skin and inside lungs and windpipes.

Effects are delayed for up to 12 hours after exposure, which can allow the agent to cause severe damage before it is detected.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3386357.stm

ChrisF202

s_qwert63

I bet them 36 shells really presented a danger to the world and would have sparked off a full scale global conflict!

Trooth

That explains why the massive stockpiles can't be found, they have all been buried for ten years. Where are the iraqi super diggers that can be used to get all the WMDs in 45 mins?
:roll :LOL

Officer of Engineers

Those 36 shells would indeed be a sign for war, a clear violation of UN Resolutions.

__________________
Chimo

Trooth

They have been dug up and have been buried for 10 years. In addition that report only mentions traces of blister agent. That doesn't mean "stuffed full of". Perhaps other reports have been more clear.

If that is Iraq's sole WMD threat then it still points to exaggeration or just bad intelligence.

Officer of Engineers

Why were they buried? Why do they exist at all? Why aren't they destroyed as per terms of surrender?

This added to the 12 non-filled chemical 105mm howitzer shells found in perfectly maintained order tells me that the programs were active and being hidden.

Saddam was supposed to destroy his programs, not hide them nor suspend them.

Confed999

If the tests come back positive for chemical weapons, then it's proof not only of WMD but of their going to extremes to hide them. I still can't believe so much of the world has based the removal of SH, and his pals, on chemical weapons.

Trooth

My interpretation of these shells is that they have been buried as a means of disposal. A crude one, but nothing more. Perhaps i am wrong and we shall see. However if thehy have been buried for ten years i don't see how that is part of an ongoing programme.

However, if this is the total of Iraq's contravention of the UN resolutions, i fail to see how it squares up with the west's portrayal of his arsenal.

I happen to think the war was right, but i don't like my politicians duping me.

Trooth

Well, that is what we were told by our leaders and their intelligence services.

ChrisF202

I agree, it shows how far he was willing to go to hide his WMD, yes, the 45 min may have been BS, but he does/did have WMD (as he used them on his own people on numerous occasions). And, im sure we will find more in the future.

Officer of Engineers

I can say as a combat engineer that burying does not consitute disposal. And consititutes a far greater danger than any other disposal methodologies, least of all leakage. The only reason you bury is to hide in hopes that you may able to re-use them in the future.

The danger, already apparent, is that someone may forget and left this ticking timebomb for future generations.

And this is not the total contravention and we have blatant proof of others before the war. 12 105mm unarmed and unfilled arty shells specifically designed to deliver chems and in perfect working and maintained order. The modified AS SA-2 missiles that breached the specified range allowed. And these were found before the war.

After the war, we've found an active SCUD program. The rockets were in pieces but could be put back together inside 6 months. We've found an entire nuclear program research buried at scientist's backyard.

These are in direct violation of the terms of surrender that Iraq signed at the end of the Kuwait War. As far as this soldier is concerned, Saddam violated the terms of surrender and therefore, there is no surrender.

Trooth

The missiles you referred to were designed to be within the treaty class. They were just to efficient to the tune of 30km, this doesn't show the intnet that the west portrayed to me. They were discovered in the test data that Saddam himself submitted to the west, not by Hans Blix etc.

Saddam's nuclear programme was said to have reached a stage were with sufficient resources and experitse applied he could have a nuke in 2 years. Well frankly so could most countries, and I myself could probably do it in 2 years with the right resources and expertise!

Currently there is pressue on Bush/Blair to prove the case for the war. So far the massive arsenal, capable of being unleashed on Saddam's foes in the middle east, Europe and the US is :-

* Some shells tha thave been buried for ten years
* a dozen emtpy chemical shells.

It has often been said that it will take years to find the WMD and that the nay sayers are reacting too early to not finding the WMD. I think the counter argument is also true and the proponents of the WMD war should wait until they find the arsenal of death.

Officer of Engineers

Forgive me, sometimes, this old dinosaur see things that are obvious that others could not see.

The modified SA-2s were originally Surface-To-Air Missiles with a 12kg warhead. The purpose was to scattered debris for an airplane to fly through and be ripped to shreds.

Such a small warhead would do didly squat against any land target except for small packages designed for maximun effect - ie bio-chems.

Except neither any of those other countries nor you nor I signed any terms of surrender stating that we must not only abandon those programs but destroy them.

Saddam was obligated to live up to the terms of surrender and we're obligated to enforce them up to and including lethal force.

The terms of surrender allows for NO WMDs, not one, either in production, storage, nor development. We have currently FOUR clear cut violations of those terms of surrender.

Trooth

I am sure there is more insight than merely the obvious in your comments.

Saddam was restricted as to his weapons. But he was always going to have some weapons. The point was that he should not become an offensive threat to his neighbours. The fact that those missiles went a little further than they were designed to do does not, in my mind, show intent to invade his neighbours. After all the range only came to light because of some (not all) test results of some of the missles and that they could fly a little further than the Iraqi's themselves had expected. The warhead limit was imposed by the west, it seems harsh to say therefore it must be for WMD, but i take your point.

Don't get me wrong, i support the war for the liberation of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam. I supported further action in GWI and was very upset by the attitude of GB Senior etc. The oversight of allowing the continued use of Helicopters and the incitement of the Iraqi's to overthrow Saddam with the implication that the Allies would come riding to the rescue was terrible.

However, i do not support the way the current war was put together and remain to be convinced as to the WMD threat that my gonverment sold me to allow it to send my fellow Britons to war.

Present company excepted of course, sir, but i believe a great many people in the west have a somewhat cavelier attitude to war and to battlefield deaths. Thankfully most people's only sight of such things nowadays is of John Wayne types falling in beautifully ironed shirts or flying in one piece away from a grenade. The reality, as we know, is much, much worse.

However if they have such an attitude i would rather my government did not get in the habit of misrepresenting situations before putting some fine young men and women in harms way and not take advantage of the luxury of peacetime misconceptions.