On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You ARE denying it, and "leftover" warheads, right. Over FIVE HUNDRED leftover warheads, right.
Oh, I'm sorry, I missed the memo that said we get to count degraded old non-working warheads as a "stockpile." Must be in this pile of old and degraded documents on my desk somewhere. "Since 2003, Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent," said an overview of the report unveiled by Senator Rick Santorum and Peter Hoekstra, head of the intelligence committee of the House of Representatives. ... "A Pentagon official who confirmed the findings said that all the weapons were pre-1991 vintage munitions 'in such a degraded state they couldn't be used for what they are designed for.'" Let's see... the invasion took place in 2003. Those weapons were build before 1991. Close enough! Obviously they had an active chemical weapons program and stockpiles of chemical weapons. What's a decade or so difference when we're at war against terror? And who cares if they DON'T WORK, the point is... what's the point? Oh, wait a second. Which invasion were YOU talking about? I meant the most recent one. No. You don't GET "duds" with binary Sarin rounds. The two used for
roadside bombs in 2004 were still un-mixed, and very dangerous. Other rounds from the same era, in 2004, would of been the same. Yes, more recently they've found hundreds of similar rounds, mixed and since degraded. Given Iraq's sarin would have a life of no more than three weeks after mixing and the fact the seals between the portions had degraded...that degredation looks relatively (post-invasion) recent.
Cite, please. Those rounds were not built in 2004, they were from the '80s. Mixed? As far as I can see, all the rounds we have found are binary -- the precursors don't get mixed until the weapon is detonated. And since, as the Pentagon said, these warheads were non-functional, how would they have gotten mixed? Where are you getting these allegations? Or did you zip off to Iraq and have a look yourself?
From the Christian Science Monitor, after one of the shells was used in an
IED two years ago (which was the most recent time anything like this showed up as any sort of weapon): "What makes this relevant now is the ongoing speculation about the source of the sarin chemical artillery shell that the US military found rigged as an improvised explosive device (IED) last week in Baghdad. If the 155-mm shell was a "dud" fired long ago - which is highly likely - then it would not be evidence of the secret stockpile of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that the Bush administration used as justification to invade Iraq. ... "The key to whether the sarin artillery round came from an arms cache or was a derelict dud rests in the physical characteristics of the shell. The artillery shells in question were fitted with two aluminum cannisters separated by a rupture disk. The two precursor chemicals for the kind of sarin associated with this shell were stored separately in these containers. The thrust of the shell being fired was designed to cause the liquid in the forward cannister to press back and break the rupture disk, whereupon the rotation of the shell as it headed downrange would mix the two precursors together, creating sarin. Upon impact with the ground - or in the air, if a timed fuse was used - a burster charge would break the shell, releasing the sarin gas. Many things go wrong when firing an artillery round: the propellent charge can be faulty, resulting in a round that doesn't reach its target; the fuse can malfunction, preventing the burster charge from going off, leaving the round intact; the rupture disk can fail to burst, keeping precursor chemicals from combining. The fuse could break off on impact, leaving the fuse cavity empty. To the untrained eye, the artillery shell, if found in this state, would look weathered, but unfired." Your blatent lies and historical revisionism.. well, when do we get
to the holocaust denial? Because THAT is another logical progression, from the little popular historical re-writings to the major ones, as paranoia progresses. Seen it all before, in formerly rational people.
Oh, look, we just DID get there. Please close that door yourself, since you opened it. I'll take it as the traditional Internet signal of rhetorical desperation. "You, you, you -- Nazi! I win!!!" Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
