U.S. mustard gas: WMD? Or tasty air-borne condiment?

[shereads]

Ahem.

<blushing and stammering on behalf of my government>

According to the Miami Herald, the government of Panama continues to demand that the USA take responsibility for locating and removing its unexploded bombs. Last year, a father of nine was killed when he stumbled over one while searching for wild bananas near his farm. On the island where an episode of "Survivor" was filmed, an eco-resort was closed for months after undetonated bombs were found in the forest.

(I know, I know. That was my first thought, too. But these are not bombs planted by the producers of "Survivor" to add the potential of an explosive plot twist. These are military weapons from the 1940s when the U.S. used the island for testing chemical weapons.)

Since the resort reopened, workers at a road-construction project have found more bombs, including some identified as mustard gas cannisters. One of which, according to the resort's owner, is so corroded it may release its contents at any time.

The U.S. doesn't deny that the gas is still likely to be deadly after all this time, but a gov't spokesperson told the Herald, "We went beyond our responsibility when we paid $1.2 million and offered to train Panamanians to do the clean-up."

Based on a 10% rate of failure-to-detonate, Panama believes there may be 3,300 bombs of which only 50 have been removed. The U.S. insists there are fewer, and maintains that a full search would be harmful to the environment. Prompting one local official to comment, "They didn't mind dropping bombs on the environment."

There's just no pleasing some people.

 

[Guest]

Bon Jour!

 

[Guest]

Ahem.

<blushing and stammering on behalf of my government>

According to the Miami Herald, the government of Panama continues to demand that the USA take responsibility for locating and removing its unexploded bombs. Last year, a father of nine was killed when he stumbled over one while searching for wild bananas near his farm. On the island where an episode of "Survivor" was filmed, an eco-resort was closed for months after undetonated bombs were found in the forest.

(I know, I know. That was my first thought, too. But these are not bombs planted by the producers of "Survivor" to add the potential of an explosive plot twist. . .)

It would certainly be a fitting end to the entire series . . .

 

[Couture]

They should go fuck themselves, eh?

 

[pop_54]

I had to vote sell it on E-bay, I'm sure there's a Mid East organistion who'd be interested.

Alternatively, perhaps they could lift it all one night and plant it in Iraq, then they could claim they found it there.

 

[Pure]

you don't mention who the 'bad guys' were, that the bombs were dropped on. bet they deserved it.

(sarcasm)

 

[Lord Naraku]

I'm not totally sure if many of you know what mustard gas is. It is far more dangerous then most nerve gases out there. Any contact with the human body, be it on the skin or absorbed into the body is quite fatal. Most of these nerve gases out there must be inhaled. Dying of mustard gas is one of the worst ways to die that I have ever heard. I'm not going into detail, but if you are exposed to mustard gas you will kill yourself.

 

[Pure]

British Gas Casualties: 1914-18
***********Deaths**** Non-Fatal
Chlorine..........1,976..........164,457
Mustard Gas...4,086............16,526

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWmustard.htm

*very* nasty stuff, indeed, but not invariably fatal. not a nerve gas, but a blister agent. as Naraku said, though, you may wish you were dead.

good write up of dangers and antidotes at

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/Depts/Chemistry/MOTM/mustard/mustard.htm

includes the use of a chemical relative of m.g. in anticancer therapy.

By the way, is there any truth to the claims that, just before this US invasion, Saddam still had usable mustard gas supplies? that he still made m.g.? I see Fox news is touting this as a substitute for (unfound) WMD

 

[Pure]

interesting article on US policy and mustard gas

Who minded Iraqi mustard gas in 1983?

Joost R. Hiltermann IHT (International Herald Tribune)
Friday, November 29, 2002

http://www.iht.com/articles/78492.html


Rumsfeld should know
WASHINGTON In warning against a possible Iraqi chemical or biological strike against U.S. troops, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld remarked last week that "there's a danger that Saddam Hussein would do things he's done previously - he has in the past used chemical weapons.".

Rumsfeld should know. Declassified State Department documents show that when he had an opportunity to raise the issue of chemical weapons with the Iraqi leadership in 1983, he failed to do so in any meaningful way. Worse, he may well have given a signal to the Iraqis that the United States would close its eyes to Iraq's use of chemical weapons during its war with Iran, providing an early boost to Iraq's plans to develop weapons of mass destruction.

As President Ronald Reagan's special envoy for the Middle East, Rumsfeld in December 1983 made the first visit by a U.S. official of his seniority to Baghdad, where he met President Saddam Hussein and Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz. Iraq had broken off diplomatic relations with the United States in June 1967. Now both sides hoped that the talks in Baghdad would facilitate a resumption of formal ties..

The visit came at a time when Iraq was facing Iranian "human wave" assaults that posed a serious threat to the regime. In response, Iraq had started to use chemical weapons on the battlefield - primarily mustard gas, a blister agent that can kill. This was known in Washington at least as early as October 1983. State Department officials had raised the alarm, suggesting ways of deterring further Iraqi use. But they faced resistance.

Washington, while taking a formal position of neutrality in the Gulf conflict, had started a pronounced tilt toward Iraq, providing it with significant financial and political support. As talking points and minutes of the meetings show, the aim of Rumsfeld's mission was to inform the Iraqi leadership of America's shifting policy in the Middle East.

It was also intended to explore a proposal to run an oil pipeline from Iraq to the Jordanian port of Aqaba (a U.S. business interest involving the Bechtel Corporation), and to caution the Iraqis not to escalate the war in the Gulf through air strikes against Iranian oil facilities and tankers (which Washington feared might draw the United States into the war)..

There is no indication that Rumsfeld raised U.S. concerns about Iraq's use of poison gas with Saddam Hussein. But in a private meeting with Tariq Aziz, he made a single brief reference to "certain things" that made it difficult for the United States to do more to help Iraq. These things included "chemical weapons, possible escalation in the Gulf, and human rights."

There is no record of further discussion of chemical weapons or human rights at these meetings, which covered the length and breadth of the warming relationship. Rumsfeld did, however, place considerable emphasis on the need for Iraq to prevent an escalation in the Gulf conflict via attacks on Iranian oil installations and tankers. Certainly nothing suggests that he told the Iraqi leadership to take care of "certain things" before diplomatic relations could be restored..

The senior U.S. diplomat in Baghdad reported a few days later with evident delight that "Ambassador Rumsfeld's visit has elevated U.S.-Iraqi relations to a new level." But, he noted, "during and following the Rumsfeld visit we have received no commitment from the Iraqis that they will refrain from military moves toward escalation in the Gulf.".

The record of the war suggests that, flush with their new confidence in U.S. backing, the Iraqis may have felt that they were now less restrained. They attacked Iranian oil facilities and ended up drawing the United States into the war, in 1987..
In the first Iranian offensive after Rumsfeld's visit, in February 1984, Iraq used not only large amounts of mustard gas but also the highly lethal nerve agent tabun. It was the first recorded use of the nerve agent in history. In November 1984, shortly after Reagan's re-election, diplomatic relations between the Washington and Baghdad were restored..

Iraq made increasing use of chemical weapons on the battlefield and even against civilians. This culminated in the wholesale gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja in March 1988, causing the deaths of several thousand innocent men, women, and children..

Eventually Iraq was able to force a cease-fire with Iran after eight years of fighting..
The American public should demand a full accounting for the support its leadership provided Iraq in the past, including its green light to chemical weapons use - weapons that Washington is belatedly claiming should be destroyed.
-----------

The writer is preparing a book on U.S. policy toward Iraq, with partial support from the Open Society Institute and the MacArthur Foundation. He contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune. [end quote]

 

[oggbashan]

The UK (and much of Western Europe) is littered with unexploded ordnance from WWI and WWII.

It is a fact of life that we live with.

If we want to build a new factory it is sensible to warn the workers to watch out for unexploded bombs.

The Army's bomb local disposal unit is called out several times a week.

Og

 

[shereads]

I'm not totally sure if many of you know what mustard gas is. It is far more dangerous then most nerve gases out there. Any contact with the human body, be it on the skin or absorbed into the body is quite fatal. Most of these nerve gases out there must be inhaled. Dying of mustard gas is one of the worst ways to die that I have ever heard. I'm not going into detail, but if you are exposed to mustard gas you will kill yourself.

No wonder we don't want it back.

If Panama does sell it on e-bay, they had better specify "blanket-wrap delivery to your door."

 

[shereads]

By the way, is there any truth to the claims that, just before this US invasion, Saddam still had usable mustard gas supplies? that he still made m.g.? I see Fox news is touting this as a substitute for (unfound) WMD

He had a vast, private stash of Grey Poupon at one of the palaces. Most of it disappeared during the looting. Saddam is also said to have had gas. Maybe the two anecdotes have been confused.

 

[shereads]

interesting article on US policy and mustard gas

Who minded Iraqi mustard gas in 1983?

Joost R. Hiltermann IHT (International Herald Tribune)
Friday, November 29, 2002

http://www.iht.com/articles/78492.html


Rumsfeld should know
WASHINGTON In warning against a possible Iraqi chemical or biological strike against U.S. troops, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld remarked last week that "there's a danger that Saddam Hussein would do things he's done previously - he has in the past used chemical weapons.".

Rumsfeld should know. Declassified State Department documents show that when he had an opportunity to raise the issue of chemical weapons with the Iraqi leadership in 1983, he failed to do so in any meaningful way. Worse, he may well have given a signal to the Iraqis that the United States would close its eyes to Iraq's use of chemical weapons during its war with Iran, providing an early boost to Iraq's plans to develop weapons of mass destruction.

J, you inspired me to visit the dank, cobweb-infested sub-basement AH archives to find the companion link to yours: an online library of declassified documents. I found the site when I was googling for a photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

This link goes to a list and summary of Reagan administration documents released in 2003 in response to a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act. It details the relationship with Saddam Hussein, and an agreement among the U.S., Britain and France to quell a U.N. resolution that would have condemned Saddam's use of chemical weapons.

The language itself is chilling. These are internal White House communications that talk about weapons of grisly death, and the need to protect Saddam and the administration from embarrassment, as casually as if Iraq had committed a social faux pas.

Placke {Deputy Assistant Sec'y of State James Placke} asked for the Iraqi government's help "in avoiding . . . embarrassing situation" but also noted that the U.S. did "not want this issue to dominate our bilateral relationship" [Document 54].

When I posted this, GWB had recently shifted to his backup rationale for the Iraq invasion: the War On Evil Despots Who Used Chemical Weapons Against Their Own People.

Ever notice that he rarely mentions Saddam's use of chem. weapons without adding the qualifier, "against his own people"? Daddy and Ronald Reagan would never have given the nod to anything so heinous. The Saddam they befriended was using chemical weapons on our mutual enemy, Iran; it woud be years before he'd reveal his evil nature by using them on the Kurdish people.


Amicus, if you're out there, I couldn't help but feel a little nostalgic about this link. You were the only one who figured out that I invented these documents to smear Reagan's legacy and bring down the Bush administration. My one worthy adversary!

 

[Pure]

nice link.

refuting your insinuations, of course, is the fact that everyone, esp. amicus and some republicans and quasi 'independents', knows Ronnie was one helluva nice guy, who bore no hostility to anyone. indeed he was instrumental in the defeat of godless communism.

 

[shereads]

nice link.

refuting your insinuations, of course, is the fact that everyone, esp. amicus and some republicans and quasi 'independents', knows Ronnie was one helluva nice guy, who bore no hostility to anyone. indeed he was instrumental in the defeat of godless communism.

So were our friends, the Taliban. Remember when the Commies took over Afghanistan? Our little buddies kicked pinko butt! We felt so proud.

Some unfortunate choices had to be made in the War on Communism, of which Iran/Contra seems like jaywalking in comparison to this tidbit from the Reagan document archives: he learned that Pakistan had begun developing a nuclear weapon, and kept it from Congress to avoid initiating sanctions against Pakistan that might have harmed their ability to fund insurgents in Afghanistan.

What an invigorating day it was when we all got the news that Pakistan had nukes aimed at our allies in India! I remember watching one of their military big-wigs telling "Sixty Minutes" that he wasn't much bothered by the fact that India could take out his entire country in retaliation for a first strike.

"It would be worth it to kill only a portion of the Hindus."

Thanks, Ronald Reagan, for making the world safe from the Soviet nuclear threat and introducing us to the Irrational Third-World Nuclear Threat. Nice work.