Was Saddam Hussein a great man?

Jul 2016
9,562
USA
So in other words, you made up what I said, can't prove I said it, refused to admit it, and instead of apologizing you tried to hide it behind ad hominin attacks, vagueness, and bringing in threads that have NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. You also unjustly dismiss the source presented to you in a way that disregards what the source actually said. The source, written by an US veteran of the Iraq war, specializing in chemical warfare, said very specifically that the weapons mentioned by Chivers were a smattering of rusted chemical munitions had been unearthed or even used — ineffectively, probably mistakenly — in IEDs [IMPROVISED explosive device].
So yes, these WERE chemical weapons, built prior to the 1991 and now very much degraded. I never denied this, so you shouldn't shove that into my mouth. They were too degraded to be used as intended, so they were used as IMPROVISED explosive devices. Airplanes and cars could also be used as improvised explosive devices too, was Iraq not allowed to have airplanes and cars?

Nor did I ever claim that I was a chemical weapons expert (and don't thinkI haven't caught how your attack is used to distract attention away from your strawman), but I don't need to be. I'm quoting from Chris Miller, so he's the one who needs to be a chemical weapons expert:
He [Chris Miller] is a nine year veteran of the U.S. Army where he served in chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear defense (CBRN). He is a two-tour veteran of the Iraq War where he helped to screen Iraqi police candidates, served as a Military Transition Team (MiTT) advisor to an Iraqi infantry battalion, and planned and led patrols and logistical operations. He received the Purple Heart, Combat Action Badge, 4 Army Commendation Medals, and 3 Army Achievement Medals, among other awards. After leaving the military, he served two years as a contractor for the U.S. Army at Camp Buehring, Kuwait.

Let's make it simple and start with the first strawman you made in post 104. You claimed I said that Iraq had no chemical weapons. Which post did I say that? Quote it, don't brush it off like what you are doing.

Your debating tactic is sliding more and more into the line of inflammatory, and less and less for the purpose of informing. If you're trying to get a rise out of me it's not going to work.
An artillery round used as an IED does not mean it cannot be used as intended. This is your problem, you're discussing a subject you don't remotely understand.

A 152mm Soviet chemical artillery round has the steel shell, chemical filler, either aerosol dispersants or explosives. That's it. That's how its stored.

To use as artillery, a separate fuse, numerous different tyoes for different roles is screwed into the tip. The round is loaded. Bags of propellant are placed behind. The breach is closed and its fired.

You tracking so far?

To use as an IED, you connect an electric blasting cap to some copper wire, you stick that inside the tip where the fuze is normally screwed on. Then you connect an intiating device to wire, for instance a garage door opener, a cell phone, etc, that on a signal will trasmit an electric pulse through the wire to blasting cap, which causes the artillery round to either belch smoke or explode, whatever it was designed to do.

Take the wires out of the IED, put a fuze on it, load it with propellant bag, it gets fired as arty.

All those arty rounds loaded with nerve, blood, or blistering agents were live, and could have been fired.
 
Feb 2011
6,455
An artillery round used as an IED does not mean it cannot be used as intended. This is your problem, you're discussing a subject you don't remotely understand.

A 152mm Soviet chemical artillery round has the steel shell, chemical filler, either aerosol dispersants or explosives. That's it. That's how its stored.

To use as artillery, a separate fuse, numerous different tyoes for different roles is screwed into the tip. The round is loaded. Bags of propellant are placed behind. The breach is closed and its fired.

You tracking so far?

To use as an IED, you connect an electric blasting cap to some copper wire, you stick that inside the tip where the fuze is normally screwed on. Then you connect an intiating device to wire, for instance a garage door opener, a cell phone, etc, that on a signal will trasmit an electric pulse through the wire to blasting cap, which causes the artillery round to either belch smoke or explode, whatever it was designed to do.

Take the wires out of the IED, put a fuze on it, load it with propellant bag, it gets fired as arty.

All those arty rounds loaded with nerve, blood, or blistering agents were live, and could have been fired.
So artillery rounds are "used as intended" if you need to use "garage doors openers", "cell phones", "take the wires out of the shell", etc..... that's your definition of "use as intended"? So when these artillery shells were built, you saying that they were built with the intention of being used by "garage door openers", "cell phones", "take the wire out of the shell"? That's a bold claim, you better have a valid source for that, otherwise all you did was prove that these rotting artillery shells were NOT being used as intended. We did not go into Iraq to get rid of these type of "WMDs" which are just a smattering of rusted chemical munitions had been unearthed or even used — ineffectively, probably mistakenly — in IEDs [IMPROVISED explosive devices]. -Chris Miller, Iraq War chemical weapon specialist.

So far all you've stated was that Saddam had leftover rotting artillery that could be IMPROVISED into makeshift weapons. Yeah, so could his car.

"Use as intended" means this:

Because an artillery shell is intended to be used by artillery.
You are describing using abandoned, rotting artillery shells repurposed as makeshift bombs, ergo IMPROVISED explosive devices [IED]:


By your logic we should be invading Iraq over and over and over because unless if we permanently reduce them to extreme technological backwardness, they'll always be producing things like chlorine which could be made into IEDs.

From the same Iraq War chemical weapons specialist:
This was not news to me. I served in Iraq in 2003 and again in 2005 as a specialist in chemical warfare, among other things. We were briefed more than once that a smattering of rusted chemical munitions had been unearthed or even used — ineffectively, probably mistakenly — in IEDs.
None of us took it as the "smoking gun" of Saddam's "WMD". Neither did the Bush administration.....
America did not invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein still had a few rusty chemical rounds from the 1990s laying around. It was because — it was claimed — Saddam's "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and related programs posed a current, imminent threat to the United States. This is quite a different assertion from a couple rotting artillery shells.


This is how the United Nations defined WMDs in its website on WMDs:
Weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) constitute a class of weaponry with the potential to, in a single moment, kill millions of civilians, jeopardize the natural environment, and fundamentally alter the world and the lives of future generations through their catastrophic effects.
Weapons of Mass Destruction - UNRCPD

This was the picture you gave to show "What happens when an artillery round full of mustard gas is detonated":

Not quite the same as "a class of weaponry with the potential to, in a single moment, kill millions of civilians, jeopardize the natural environment, and fundamentally alter the world and the lives of future generations through their catastrophic effects.

You still haven't answered just were I denied that Iraq had chemical weapons, even though all I said was that these weapons were from around the Iran-Iraq War. When I asked you the first time you tried to hide your accusation with a string of personal attacks, now you are avoiding it altogether.
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions