Silly, I know. I answer the questions. You just don't choose to read them, or you attack things that I did not actually write. So anyway, I hope you find this clear enough.

>>Yes, you did answer whether you graduated from Westpoint? Or... Yes, you did graduate from Westpoint.

Yes, I did graduate from West Point. And geez, at least spell it right. Two words, not one.

>>Now, why don't you be a good little plebe and post the rules about ethics from Westpoint. Hmmmmmm?

Long time since I was a plebe. I suppose you mean the Cadet Honor Code. "A cadet will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those who do."

Of course that is a cadet honor code, and you aren't bound by it when you are no longer a cadet. However, that forms the core of what should be a stong basis in integrity and ethics. Rest assured, I am not telling a lie.

>>You did claim that something you had only heard about SECOND HAND with NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that violated EVERY regulation ACTUALLY DID HAPPEN.

>>But you keep claiming that this ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

>>Despite the FACT that YOU did not PERSONALLY witness it nor was there ANY supporting evidence beyond the word of one soldier.

Okay, let's break this down. First, no, I didn't personally witness it. Didn't claim to. I was never deployed to OPC and Northern Iraq. As I said, my soldiers were. Now the "one soldier" upon whose word I am basing the story is not some random stranger who walked up to me on the street one day. He was in fact a senior NCO with whom I had worked for over 2 years. He was my teammate on the first suspect package call I ever went on. He is someone who I trust, explicitly, and implicitly.

Now of course I have no physical evidence that it occured - if it had been a conventional warhead I was telling the story about, it wouldn't be laying around, either, and no documentation. It would have just gone boom - nothing left.

So, let's take a look at the story and lets see if we can find the falsehoods in it. Remember, just because an SOP says this is how something is supposed to happen, it doesn't mean it always happens that way. An FM is no proof that something not in the FM happened or didn't happen.

Here are elements of the story:

Existence of chemical weapons in Northern Iraq during Operation Provide Comfort.

The fact that chemical weapons were being used on Kurds in Northern Iraq is the reason why the UNSC passed UNSC 688, which was what authorized OPC.

[link|http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/provide_comfort.htm|http://www.fas.org/m...ovide_comfort.htm]

The massive defeat of the Iraqi military machine tempted the Iraqi Kurds to revolt against the Baghdad regime. Encouraged by American radio broadcasts to rise up against their \ufffddictator\ufffd, the Kurds of northern Iraq rebelled against a nominally defeated and certainly weakened Saddam Hussein in March of 1991. Shortly after the war ended, Kurdish rebels attacked disorganized Iraqi units and seized control of several towns in northern Iraq. From the town of Rania, this sedition spread quickly through the Kurdish north. Fear of being drawn into an Iraqi civil war and possible diplomatic repercussions precluded President Bush from committing US forces to support the Kurds. Within days Iraqi forces recovered and launched a ruthless counteroffensive including napalm and chemical attacks from helicopters. They quickly reclaimed lost territory and crushed the rebellion.

The round is described as a 122mm rocket warhead filled with Sarin. We know that the Iraqis possessed this particular weapon, and used it with G Nerve Agent.

[link|http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/papers/1992/92111600.html|http://bushlibrary.t...992/92111600.html]

In late September, the Chemical Destruction Group in residence at the Muthanna State Establishment destroyed the following items: 120 122mm rocket warheads; 350 122mm propellant grain; 153 122mm rocket motor tube assembly; 1335 liters of nerve agent (GB/GF); 13 al Hussein warheads; 228 liters of isopropyl alcohol; 4 500 gauge oil-filled bombs; 2 155mm oil-filled projectiles; 4 250 gauge oil-filled bombs; and 14 R400 aerial bombs. Destruction activity will continue for the next twelve months.

But I said this round had been on the surface for a while. It probably had not had its surface markings worn off in the month or so between the attacks that led to OPC, so there must have been chemical attacks on the Kurds of Northern Iraq years prior. We know that this is true:

[link|http://www.guardian.co.uk/The_Kurds/Story/0,2763,440396,00.html|http://www.guardian....63,440396,00.html]

1988 Iraq conducts "Anfal" campaign against rebel Kurdish areas, culminating in a chemical weapon attack on town of Halabjah, killing at least 5,000

We also know that it is not improbable that such a weapon could dud and be laying on the surface.

[link|http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950719/950719_68980092_92r.html|http://www.gulflink....68980092_92r.html]

DOI: (U) 911114

REQS: [ (b)(2) ]

SOURCE: A. (U) HURRIYET NEWSPAPER, 911114 (U), MASS
APPEAL/INDEPENDENT. CIRCULATION APPROXIMATELY
517,928. IN TURKISH.
B. [ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ]

SUMMARY: (U) PRESS REPORTS OF AN UNSPECIFIED TYPE OF
CHEMICAL MUNITION WHICH WAS TRANSPORTED TO TURKEY FROM
IRAQ WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR CAUSING ILLNESS TO 25 PEOPLE
WHEN IT WAS CUT OPEN IN A SCRAP DEALERS SHOP IS
CONFIRMED.

TEXT: 1. (U) ON 911114, SOURCE A REPORTED AN
INCIDENT WHERE 35 PEOPLE IN GAZIANTEP //GEOCOORD:
3705N/03721E// WERE REPORTEDLY POISONED WHEN AN
APPARENT CHEMICAL MUNITION BROUGHT FROM IRAQ WAS CUT
OPEN IN A SCRAP DEALERS SHOP. ACCORDING TO THE
[ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ]THE CHEMICAL MUNITION
WAS BROUGHT INTO TURKEY BY TRUCK FROM IRAQ. THE [ (b)(1) sec
1.3(a)(4) ] SOURCE STATED THE MUNITION (NFI) ARRIVED IN TURKEY IN
A LOAD OF SCRAP METAL BOUGHT AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN
IRAQ. THE GAZIANTEP SCRAP DEALER SAID THAT HE BOUGHT
THIS PARTICULAR ITEM OUT OF CURIOSITY.

2. [ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ] REPLIED THAT THE SUBSTANCE OF
THE ARTICLE WAS TRUE. ACCORDING TO ( (b)(1) sec 1.3 (a)(3) )
CONCERNING THE INCIDENT, 25 PEOPLE WERE TREATED AT A LOCAL
HOSPITAL FROM WHAT WAS APPARENTLY A CHEMICAL AGENT, WHICH WAS
RELEASED WHEN AN APPARENT IRAQI PRODUCED CHEMICAL ARTILLERY ROUND
WAS CUT OPEN. ( (b)(1) sec 1.3 (a)(3) ) SAID THAT THE ITEM
APPEARED TO BE VERY OLD, HAD NO NUMBERS OR OTHER MARKINGS AND WAS
IN A HIGHLY DETERIORATED CONDITION. ACCORDING TO ( (b)(1) sec
1.3 (a) (3) ) A SCRAP DEALER EITHER PICKED UP OR PURCHASED THE
ITEM FROM AN IRAQI SCRAP DEALER NEAR OR IN THE MOSUL AREA.
THE TURKISH PURCHASER COULD NOT REMEMBER EXACTLY WHERE
HE ACQUIRED THE ITEM. AT THIS POINT ( (b)(1) sec 1.3 (a)(3)
) SAID THAT THE TURKISH PURCHASER WAS APPARENTLY EVASIVE AS TO
WHERE AND HOW HE ACQUIRED A CHEMICAL MUNITION.
[ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(3) ] SAID THAT ALL 25 PEOPLE EFFECTED BY
THE AGENT WERE TREATED AT A LOCAL HOSPITAL AND RELEASED AFTER A
SHORT PERIOD OF OBSERVATION AND SUFFERED NO LONG TERM
ILL EFFECTS. ASKED IF [ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ] HAD MADE ANY
DETERMINATION OF THE TYPE OF AGENT OR HAD ANY INFORMATION WHICH
WOULD FURTHER IDENTIFY THE TYPE OF MUNITION. [ (b)(7)(D) ]
STATED THAT DUE TO THE SHORT TERM EFFECT OF THE AGENT, [
(b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ] THEN STATED THAT DUE TO THE AGE AND
HIGHLY DETERIORATED STATE OF THE OBJECT, WHATEVER AGENT WAS
PRESENT WAS PROBABLY APPROACHING AN INERT STATE. [ (b)(1) sec
1.3(a)(4) ].

Hmmmmm. That sounds kind of familiar. Note also that this is a declassified report.

Now, as to how the munition in the story was handled. EOD folks do, as a matter of SOP, X-ray munitions in the field. You can read about an EOD operation in Nigeria right here:

[link|http://www.army.mil/soldiers/aug2002/pdfs/ammunition.pdf|http://www.army.mil/...fs/ammunition.pdf]

If you read through the article, you will find this paragraph:

The heat and humidity also affect the equipment. Explosive ordnance disposal soldiers use portable X-ray machines to assess the stability of munitions. Binoculars and digital cameras, for documenting various types of rounds, are all affected by condensation, 1SG Lee added.

So, finding an old munition and using a portable X-ray on it in the field looks a lot like it must be EOD SOP - I mean here is this 1SG being published in Soldiers magazine - he probably isn't going to tell some reporter he is not following SOP, right? (BTW, the unit profiled in that article is the 720th EOD out of Mannheim - more about them later).

So, now onto OPC. It was different, absolutely, from ODS. First, it was in Northern Iraq, not Southern, and it was under the umbrella of a different UNSC resolution. It was a completely different type of organization. Let's look at the units deployed there. You can find a list here:

[link|http://call.army.mil/products/newsltrs/92-6/appxb.htm|http://call.army.mil...rs/92-6/appxb.htm]

First, you will see on that list 3/325 ABCT and E/502d Aviation, two units that I said had deployed to OPC. You will also see in JTF Alpha the 10 SFG. They comprised the security portion of the CTF that was OPC. Here is how that came about:

[link|http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/provide_comfort.htm|http://www.globalsec...ovide_comfort.htm]

Two subordinate joint task forces (JTFs) were also established to facilitate the mission. JTF \ufffdAlpha\ufffd spread throughout the mountains of southeast Turkey, headquartered in Silopi, was responsible for alleviating the dying and suffering while stabilizing the situation. Commanded by BG Richard Potter, USA, JTF Alpha was composed primarily of the 10th Special Forces (SF) Group. The second component, JTF \ufffdBravo\ufffd, centered on the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) commanded by MG Jay Garner, USA. Its mission was to prepare the town of Zakho, in northern Iraq, for the incoming Kurds and facilitate their eventual transfer back to their homes. An important part of this mission was the \ufffdseamless\ufffd transfer of responsibility over to NGOs.

So again, we have another element of the story that we know to be true - that SF was all over Northern Iraq during OPC. You can also see in the JTF Alpha list of units the 72D EOD. This unit was stationed in Mannheim, Germany, and has since been redesignated the 720th EOD CO that is featured in the Soldiers article. Just an interesting aside, the commander of the 22d was a 1LT who I went to EOD school with - she had previously been the "second officer" at the 19th, in Vicenza, and transferred to the 72d to take command - that left the slot at the 19th for me to take as Operations Officer (the MTOE change occurred in the same timeframe.) The 16th EOD is NOT on the list, but there is a 16th CHEM DET. I suspect that this is a misidentification, as near as I can tell, there were no Chem units in 21st TAACOM - but 16th EOD was a 21st TAACOM unit. (But it is difficult to tell because there have been significant realignments since then, and the old unit stuff wasn't on the Net, it being 1991 and all.) Even if there really was a 16th CHEM, and it isn't a typo, it still isn't proof that the 16th EOD wasn't there, because this list is not comprehensive. There are Navy and Air Force EOD units that were part of OPC that are not listed, either. You can google them up just fine - put in EOD Operation Provide Comfort. You might get this link:

[link|http://www.uxocoe.brtrc.com/TechnicalReps/misc8.htm|http://www.uxocoe.br...calReps/misc8.htm]

Scroll down a bit, and you'll find this paragraph:

When the multi-national coalition that defeated Saddam Hussein turned its attention to Operation Provide Comfort to help Kurdish refugees in northern Iraq, extensive munitions caches, land mines, and other unexploded ordnance hindered humanitarian efforts. In May 1991 two Navy EOD techs from the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) and two Marine Corps EOD techs destroyed some 20,000 ordnance items with a net explosive weight of more than 66,000 pounds.

Those units are not on the list, either.

Now you also posit that this cannot be true because it would require the whole of the command of OPC to be "in on the conspiracy." Because, according to SOP, they would all be informed because of the NBC reporting system. Now come on Sarge, what is an NBC 1 report for? You know. In case of an NBC attack. Given the age and condition of the munition, this was not an NBC attack. An EOD team that has located something like this would not call it in under the NBC reporting system, though it would obviously be reported to the Area Commander, who has a lot of latitude over what to do. In this case, the Area Commander would have been someone from 10th SFG - who will have even more latitude over what to do than someone from non-Special Forces, because the SF teams are highly autonomous.

This would not be a "chemical incident" so much as a technical intelligence mission. At that point, different procedures obtain. For example, in a conventional munition, the preferred render safe procedure may involve smashing the fuse to insure it can't set off the round. For tech intel, the requirement to keep the fuse intact for intel purposes may override the preferred RSP method, so a different procedure (yes, a different procedure for a "special" case) is used.

It is not unusual for EOD folks to work in "special" circumstances on tech intel missions. I know several techs who have been given orders like "show up at the airfield, wear civilian clothes, do not bring your ID" and they board an aircraft, fly several hours, get off, ID an item, make sure it is in a safe condition, and get back on, returning back home not knowing where they had travelled. I know you don't believe that either, but it happens with the Ft. Bragg EOD unit a lot. They are right there with SOCOM, and right by the airfield.

So, finally, we are left with the mysterious "Man in Black." Again, we have an element of the story that we know absolutely occurs - SF teams working with people from the intelligence community who are in non-standard uniforms. We have seen the video of Johnny "Mike" Spann in Mazar i Sharif in blue jeans in the middle of a firefight. I am quite sure that the SF teams working with Spann did not know his full (real) name, or where he really came from, or any of that. They knew what they were meant to know - that he was a US intelligence operator and they were to assist him.

Your argument, aside from the ridiculous notion that I am a pair of people, a teenager working in tandem with his uncle - who actually does have military experience, trying to pull some hoax over on you, is that none of the things that I related in my story could have happened, and yet, I have provided you with your documentation and substantiation for individual elements of the story that you claim to be against EOD SOP, even though you were never actually EOD.

Seeing how dismissive you are of the evidence I provided that I was in the Army, held the positions I said I did, and served when I said I did, I doubt you'll find any of this convincing. But there it is.