Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Poles Speak Out on Chem Weapons Incident in Iraq

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Poles Speak Out on Chem Weapons Incident in Iraq

    The chief of Polish military information services Marek Dukaczewski claims Iraqi terrorists are trying to purchase chemical munitions offering USD 5,000.00 for each shell.

    Polish military intelligence in Iraq located a black market source and on June 23 an "international team" made an undercover purchase of all chemical munitions available for sale: 17 rocket warheads for the GRAD system (modern Soviet "Katyusha" system) and 2 mortar bombs (filled with "cyklosarin" and "iperyt" in the Polish language) in total. Therefore, this particular batch was neutralised but the total number available in Iraq is unknown.

    The Poles claim that the chemical mortar bombs worry them more than the huge rocket warheads because the terrorists have an abundance of mortar tubes and can shoot mortar with reasonable accuracy.

    http://info.onet.pl/945040,11,item.html

    Last edited by MonsterZero; 02 Jul 04, 11:05.

    "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
    --Frederick II, King of Prussia

  • #2
    Great. We went into Iraq to prevent the proliferation of WMDs, not encourage it.
    "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

    Comment


    • #3
      According to unnamed US Military officals quoted by the BBC, the shells are so old that their gas warheads have deterioated and are essentially harmless. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/3861197.stm
      Owner and operator, Armed Forces of the Asia Pacific
      Forum administrator, www.orbat.com
      Co-administrator, www.historic-battles.com

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Case
        According to unnamed US Military officals quoted by the BBC, the shells are so old that their gas warheads have deterioated and are essentially harmless. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/3861197.stm
        "unnamed sources"? You'd think a news organization as big as the bbc could get some sources with actual names to corroborate their bias. i'm confused. i thought Saddam claimed they had destroyed all their chemical weapons in compliance with the terms of their surrender after the first gulf war. Weren't they supposed to tell the U.N. inspectors where this stuff was so that it could be destroyed?
        "Speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European as well, it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans. They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own Michael Moore, as their representative American, someone who actually embodies all of those qualities." - Christopher Hitchens

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by kid kool
          "unnamed sources"? You'd think a news organization as big as the bbc could get some sources with actual names to corroborate their bias. i'm confused. i thought Saddam claimed they had destroyed all their chemical weapons in compliance with the terms of their surrender after the first gulf war. Weren't they supposed to tell the U.N. inspectors where this stuff was so that it could be destroyed?
          See the relevenat resolutions on the matter, cant remember the numbers. One was dragged out from a resolution aimed at the Israeli's, they never complied either.
          Not lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs...the Australian army is proof that individualism is the best and not the worst foundation upon which to build up collective discipline - General Monash

          Comment


          • #6
            He was required to do so, but military reality is that a million man army cannot keep track of every shell.

            Western Armies getting out of installation in West Germany forget ammunition, too. How's an Arab army of several times the size and made of conscript going to do that?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Redwolf
              He was required to do so, but military reality is that a million man army cannot keep track of every shell.

              Western Armies getting out of installation in West Germany forget ammunition, too. How's an Arab army of several times the size and made of conscript going to do that?

              because we're not talking about plain old "ammunition". we're talking about chemical weapons.
              "Speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European as well, it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans. They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own Michael Moore, as their representative American, someone who actually embodies all of those qualities." - Christopher Hitchens

              Comment


              • #8
                I don't believe these small finds are serious breaches. Iraq kept poor records to begin with. There are many logical explanations for small oversights such as this.

                However, from a technical standpoint, any munitions containing banned material is a breach of the UN Security Council Resolution. The only way it doesn't is if Iraq provided information on lost material, and sought to ammend the Resolution.

                Unfortunately, UNSC RESO 687 was anything, but definitive. While it layed out conditions and even a timeline, the resolution failed to explain consequences. The primary mistake America made was not forcing Saddam Hussein as the military commander of the Iraqi Army to travel from where ever the *uck he was to sign the agreement before UN representatives, which informed him what would happen if he didn't comply fully. And if he didn't come willingly, we should have shot our way into Baghdad no matter who cried foul. It was a golden opportunity missed by a Bush Administration who was more prepared for war than the subsequent peace. We continue to pay for that failure.
                "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Deltapooh
                  I don't believe these small finds are serious breaches. Iraq kept poor records to begin with. There are many logical explanations for small oversights such as this.

                  However, from a technical standpoint, any munitions containing banned material is a breach of the UN Security Council Resolution. The only way it doesn't is if Iraq provided information on lost material, and sought to ammend the Resolution.

                  Unfortunately, UNSC RESO 687 was anything, but definitive. While it layed out conditions and even a timeline, the resolution failed to explain consequences. The primary mistake America made was not forcing Saddam Hussein as the military commander of the Iraqi Army to travel from where ever the *uck he was to sign the agreement before UN representatives, which informed him what would happen if he didn't comply fully. And if he didn't come willingly, we should have shot our way into Baghdad no matter who cried foul. It was a golden opportunity missed by a Bush Administration who was more prepared for war than the subsequent peace. We continue to pay for that failure.
                  who cares about resolution 687? the issue is that he continuously violated the terms of surrender of the first gulf war, the terms which he agreed to which allowed him to remain in power. So we imposed sanctions, instead of attacking, then people whined and said the sanctions were starving babies. So what did they think the other alternative for enforcement would be if the sanctions were lifted? If you fight a war with someone and don't enforce the terms of surrender, it's like sending a green light to your enemies, that basically says the u.s. will not enforce violations of treaties and cease fire agreements. Which means that anyone can sign a piece of paper and cut a phony deal, then violate it freely without fear of being held accountable. It worked for North Vietnam, but it didn't work for Saddam!
                  "Speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European as well, it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans. They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own Michael Moore, as their representative American, someone who actually embodies all of those qualities." - Christopher Hitchens

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by kid kool
                    who cares about resolution 687? the issue is that he continuously violated the terms of surrender of the first gulf war, the terms which he agreed to which allowed him to remain in power. So we imposed sanctions, instead of attacking, then people whined and said the sanctions were starving babies. So what did they think the other alternative for enforcement would be if the sanctions were lifted? If you fight a war with someone and don't enforce the terms of surrender, it's like sending a green light to your enemies, that basically says the u.s. will not enforce violations of treaties and cease fire agreements. Which means that anyone can sign a piece of paper and cut a phony deal, then violate it freely without fear of being held accountable. It worked for North Vietnam, but it didn't work for Saddam!
                    Who made the US god? The US does its own fair share of phony deals dude. Show me where the terms of surrender give the US the right to invade a sovereign country.
                    Not lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs...the Australian army is proof that individualism is the best and not the worst foundation upon which to build up collective discipline - General Monash

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Temujin
                      Who made the US god? The US does its own fair share of phony deals dude. Show me where the terms of surrender give the US the right to invade a sovereign country.
                      UNSC RESO 687 does not suspend, supercede, or diminish the authority provided in UNSC RESO 678. In fact, none of the resolutions dealing with Iraq WMD crisis does. UNSC 678 is recalled time and again as relevant and related to subsequent UNSC resolutions.

                      Technically, anyone who wanted to open fire on Iraq because of any violation of UNSC RESO 660 onward had the approval of the United Nations under UNSC RESO 678. The fact that no one really did for 12 yrs doesn't mean much either

                      This is why I say 687 was so poorly written. At a minimum, UNSC RESO 678 should have been suspended pending review, if not cancelled altogether. Instead time and again, it was left dangling out there. This was a huge mistake. Those who might have thought keeping 678 active would serve as a deterent to Iraq were wrong.

                      Having said all that, I personally did not believe UNSC 678 gave America UN approval for invasion. There was little, if any support for invading Iraq and removing Saddam in 1990. Thus, the situation in 2002-2003, went beyond the understood intent of members who voted in support of UNSC RESO 678. However, from a technical standpoint, it doesn't matter.
                      "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by kid kool
                        because we're not talking about plain old "ammunition". we're talking about chemical weapons.
                        We are talking about chemical weapons, not nukes! A single chemical shell is probably as dangerous as a single conventional HE shell, only with an arsenal of hundrets of thousands of these shells you attain the ability off mass destruction. Also dont forget that the Iraqi technology was really low tech, they werent able to develop aerosols or air bursting shells so their chemical arsenal wasn't really as scary as your friendly neo-con wants to make you belive.
                        Remember the aoum sect in Japan? They used sarin gas in a underground station, there is hardly a better spot for a chemical attack imaginable, very crowded and no way for the gas to disperse, yet only 17 died. Now imagine the same with a 15 megaton nuke and you get the picture of how dangerous gas is compared to other WMDs.
                        Or take the kurdish village Saddam gased back in the eighties, they surely didn't just fire 20 shells into the village.
                        So, let them find 10-20 shells... I dont care. Let them find hundred of liters of some cemical weapon produced back in the eighties... I don't care because the Iraqi weapons had a very shore lifespan because of their low quality so the gas had probably turned into a harmless slug and the only way you could die from this stuff would be if somebody drownes you in it.
                        Find hundrets of thousands of modern shells, filled with aerosols and I would care (and I even know were to find them , latest rumors have it that Saddam is hiding his WMDs in the USA, you should have a look there)
                        Last edited by Kraut; 04 Jul 04, 03:01.
                        "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

                        Henry Alfred Kissinger

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I would have been more concerned about the drones which seemed to have been in development for the purpose of spraying chemical weapons.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            [QUOTE=Kraut]We are talking about chemical weapons, not nukes! A single chemical shell is probably as dangerous as a single conventional HE shell, only with an arsenal of hundrets of thousands of these shells you attain the ability off mass destruction. Also dont forget that the Iraqi technology was really low tech, they werent able to develop aerosols or air bursting shells so their chemical arsenal wasn't really as scary as your friendly neo-con wants to make you belive.
                            Remember the aoum sect in Japan? They used sarin gas in a underground station, there is hardly a better spot for a chemical attack imaginable, very crowded and no way for the gas to disperse, yet only 17 died. Now imagine the same with a 15 megaton nuke and you get the picture of how dangerous gas is compared to other WMDs.
                            Or take the kurdish village Saddam gased back in the eighties, they surely didn't just fire 20 shells into the village.
                            So, let them find 10-20 shells... I dont care. Let them find hundred of liters of some cemical weapon produced back in the eighties... I don't care because the Iraqi weapons had a very shore lifespan because of their low quality so the gas had probably turned into a harmless slug and the only way you could die from this stuff would be if somebody drownes you in it.


                            I think most people would have a problem with even a single round of chemical or biological munition airbursting over their neighborhood. It doesn't matter how many people are killed. The panic a single round can create might produce economic and political ramifications that far exceed effectiveness of the material used in the attack.

                            Having said all that, I do agree the finds are significant not only because of the quanity and quality. We have to consider how they are being discovered. There is no indication of a pattern. I think this would be necessary to for Iraq to recover them. These little finds appear to be unintentional oversights by the Iraqi government, which illustrates a degree of recklessness on the part of the regime, but doesn't equate to a serious violation. However, since no one bothered to spell-out in detail what a breach is, there is room for debate.

                            Originally posted by Prester John
                            I would have been more concerned about the drones which seemed to have been in development for the purpose of spraying chemical weapons.
                            Iraq should not have been allowed to develop anything that might even remotely be related to WMDs without indepth UN supervision. While Iraq had some right to privacy, if Saddam was interested in remaining in power, he would have taken a more proactive role to ensure the US didn't misread his intentions.
                            "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Deltapooh
                              Iraq should not have been allowed to develop anything that might even remotely be related to WMDs without indepth UN supervision. While Iraq had some right to privacy, if Saddam was interested in remaining in power, he would have taken a more proactive role to ensure the US didn't misread his intentions.
                              Its hard when we can at least say they were encouraged if not supplied to use them earlier. Surely Saddam must have been banking on leading an arab nationalist movement, he may have ****ed up in his assessment he would be leading one, but he was spot on in his assessment that it would create a new 'struggle', even if not he put plenty more wood on the fire on the current 'struggle'.
                              Not lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs...the Australian army is proof that individualism is the best and not the worst foundation upon which to build up collective discipline - General Monash

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X