On Tue, 18 May 2004 23:48:07 -0400, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> At 08:21 PM 5/18/2004 -0700 Gautam Mukunda wrote
> >I don't know, it's just possible that the fact that
> >the Iraqis _actually had chemical weapons_ is little
> >more significant.  Or is that not important?
> 
> I have no way of judging this blogger's credibility, but here is certainly
> an interesting take on it.....
> 
> http://www.overpressure.com/archives/week_2004_05_16.html#23000816
> <http://www.overpressure.com/archives/week_2004_05_16.html#23000816>
> 
> It's Huge News
> The discovery of a chemical round in Iraq is getting some small amount of
> coverage. It is just a single round. Did we invade Iraq for one artillery
> shell?
> No, of course not. However, this is still a tremendous revelation, because
> of conclusions not yet drawn from what has been reported. This is what BG
> Kimmit had to say about the round that was found:
>        The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter
> artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found. The round had
> been rigged as an IED, which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy. A
> detonation occurred before the IED could be rendered inoperable. This
> produced a very small dispersal of agent. The round was an old binary type
> requiring the mixing of two chemical components in separate sections of the
> cell before the deadly agent is produced. The cell is designed to work after
> being fired from an artillery piece. Mixing and dispersal of the agent from
> such a projectile as an IED is very limited. The former regime had declared
> all such rounds destroyed before the 1991 Gulf War. Two explosive ordnance
> team members were minor exposure to nerve agent as a result of the partial
> detonation of the round.
> What BG Kimmit is describing is a "mix in flight" binary round. While he
> says that the Iraqs had declared all such rounds destroyed prior to the 1991
> Gulf War, that isn't entirely true. The truth is the Iraqis said they
> [i]never[/i] had such rounds. The Iraqis never claimed to have them. The
> United States never thought they had the capability
> <http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15854> :
>        The U.S. Defense Department's "Militarily Critical Technologies
> List" (MCTL) is "a detailed compendium of technologies" that the department
> advocates as "critical to maintaining superior US military
>        capabilities. It applies to all mission areas, especially
> counter-proliferation." Written in 1998, it was recently re-published with
> updates for 2002.
>        ....
>        There was some talk shortly before the first Gulf War that the
> Iraqis had been creating binary chemical weapons, in which the relatively
> non-toxic ingredients of the agent remain unmixed until just before the
> weapon is used; this allows the user to bypass any worry about shelf life or
> toxicity. But according to the MCTL , "The Iraqis had a small number of
> bastardized binary munitions in which some unfortunate individual was to
> pour one ingredient into the other from a Jerry can prior to use" - an
> action few soldiers were willing to perform.
> Note that the referenced article is from Alternet, and it is saying that the
> US, Ritter, and the UN "knew" that there was no binary weapons capability in
> Iraq. We know that they didn't have these prior to the Gulf War, and the UN
> says that they never developed or weaponized any WMD after the Gulf War,
> under the inspection regime.
> So where did this round come from? If it is Iraqi, it is certainly a new
> development - right under the noses of the UN inspectors.   It is not an old
> round from the Iran-Iraq war, or from shelling of Kurds or Shi'ites after
> the Gulf War. And this is not the sort of thing that someone put a single
> one together in the lab - it came off of a production line somewhere.
> Even more troubling, if it isn't Iraqi, where did it come from? If it came
> from another country, then certainly the people who planted the IED knew
> what was in it.
> This is huge, HUGE news.
> 
> 
> 

I will look into it but doubt it is huge news.  Wolf has been cried
too many times before.

Gary

#1 on Google for liberal news
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Reply via email to