PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: GigaShadow on May 17, 2004, 06:50:24 AM
-
BAGHDAD, Iraq — A roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent (search) exploded near a U.S. military convoy, but there were no casualties, the U.S. military said Monday.
"The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," said Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (search), the chief military spokesman in Iraq. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) 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," he said.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
-
Hope it wasn\'t "windy". :D
-
Small amounts of sarin nerve agent are not what the US meant by WMDs, and you know it. It was well known that Iraq, along with pretty much every other \'poor\' nation in the world had chemical weapons. The WMDs they were talking about were ones that could affect the US on US soil:
The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime\'s own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq\'s eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.
From Bush\'s speech (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html) outlining the threat.
Iraq was allowed to have a limited biological agent arsenal. It was merely supposed to be limited in size, and range capabilities; and it was not allowed to grow, only shrink as it was slowly destroyed. We all know that he had bio agents... but was he expanding his program to be able to strike at America? Developing a (very expensive) nuclear program? I don\'t think so.
-
Originally posted by FatalXception
Iraq was allowed to have a limited biological agent arsenal. It was merely supposed to be limited in size, and range capabilities; and it was not allowed to grow, only shrink as it was slowly destroyed. We all know that he had bio agents... but was he expanding his program to be able to strike at America? Developing a (very expensive) nuclear program? I don\'t think so.
Sarin can harm the US on US soil. Since when is Sarin not a WMD? The thing was in an artillery shell meaning it\'s original intent was to be used as a WMD. He was allowed to have a biochemical weapons!?!?! What do you think biochemical weapons are? Conventional weapons?
From your own LINK:
"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th. "
Now you are about to be OWNED
"Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991."
The delivery method is a moot point.
-
He produced thousands of tonnes and so far they\'ve found ONE mortar head? Bush just made up half of his speech.
He was allowed to have them in that he had tonnes BEFORE, and was supposed to be destroying them... a long and slow process.. which, apparantly he was complying with, since they\'ve found emptied shells and delivery systems... and this is the first real find (of a miniscule amount).
I might not like Saddam, but Bush just made up a reason to go in there.
-
Originally posted by FatalXception
He produced thousands of tonnes and so far they\'ve found ONE mortar head? Bush just made up half of his speech.
He was allowed to have them in that he had tonnes BEFORE, and was supposed to be destroying them... a long and slow process.. which, apparantly he was complying with, since they\'ve found emptied shells and delivery systems... and this is the first real find (of a miniscule amount).
I might not like Saddam, but Bush just made up a reason to go in there.
:rolleyes: Say what you want... the fact is you said he was allowed to have a "limited" amount of chemical weapons aka WMD\'s... I proved you wrong - live with it... secondly where there is one there are more. The shells and delivery systems they have found were destroyed when he was actually cooperating immediately after the first Gulf War.
Bush made up half his speech? Please point out the half he made up. The misinformation he was given by CIA regarding the purchasing of Uranium hardly qualifies as half.
And to set the record straight NO ONE with any intelligence would ever think Iraq would be capable of having a weapon that could hit the US from its own soil. Do some research on ICBM\'s. Why do you think the Soviets developed suitcase nuclear bombs?
-
You didn\'t prove anything... He was allowed to have the WMDs while he was destroying them. Destroying nerve agents isn\'t as easy as dumping down the sewer, or just leaving them somewhere... it takes a lot of knowledge and time. He obviously can\'t destroy the large stockpiles he had instantly.
Especially once Bush\'s agenda became obvious near the end for Saddam, he was cooperating with the weapons inspections, who were unable to find the weapons (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html) of mass destruction, and unwilling to say there were (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm). (The first link is just cute).
Do you know what the difference between a teaspoon and tonnes is? Frankly, since we know that his soldiers had access, it\'s easy for me to imagine a soldier taking something like that before its destruction - even in the US there have been cases of soldiers taking home rocket launchers and stuff.
-
What exactly is a tonne?
-
a Canadian ton (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/metric%20weight%20unit)
-
Originally posted by FatalXception
You didn\'t prove anything... He was allowed to have the WMDs while he was destroying them. Destroying nerve agents isn\'t as easy as dumping down the sewer, or just leaving them somewhere... it takes a lot of knowledge and time. He obviously can\'t destroy the large stockpiles he had instantly.
Especially once Bush\'s agenda became obvious near the end for Saddam, he was cooperating with the weapons inspections, who were unable to find the weapons (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html) of mass destruction, and unwilling to say there were (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm). (The first link is just cute).
Do you know what the difference between a teaspoon and tonnes is? Frankly, since we know that his soldiers had access, it\'s easy for me to imagine a soldier taking something like that before its destruction - even in the US there have been cases of soldiers taking home rocket launchers and stuff.
You are wrong on so many levels... he was not allowed to have ANY WMD\'s. He was not destroying them, he was not cooperating, what is so hard for you to understand about this? Why did he kick the inspectors out if he had nothing to hide?
The inspections were a joke and even the inspectors have agreed it was a farce. As for US soldiers taking WMD\'s home, let alone rocket lauchers and "stuff" shows your lack of intellect. Sure a gun gets taken home, but a rocket laucher!?!? :laughing: I guess I should expect that from a Canadian - do you even know what a rocket launcher looks like?
Your credibility = 0
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Your credibility = 0
Maybe if you keep saying stuff like that people who don\'t actually read things will believe you!
Read that second article. I\'ll summarize it for you:
they now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994
Bush went into Iraq on contrived evidence because he had decided to do that early on. He had an agenda, and I wish people would realize that. He couldn\'t go in \'for the right reasons\', and say it was for the human rights violations, etc, because then he would be putting the US right into the role of world-police... something he didn\'t want. Rather he uses an excuse, that if it works out, he could use on other regimes later, and if not (as it doesn\'t seem to be), he can later abandon, as a one time-reason for invasion. His later assertions (after invading) about the horrible regime were because they were begining to realize that ... hey! we\'re not going to find what we said we would!
-
Gigashadow, there is alot of things that weren\'t there before but are there now.
Terrorists, suicide bombers, Al Quada, etc
Finding one shell that has sarin in it could mean anything. It could mean they just now decided to tap into Saddam\'s weapons, or it could mean it was brought there by foreign entities.
-
Originally posted by FatalXception
Maybe if you keep saying stuff like that people who don\'t actually read things will believe you!
Read that second article. I\'ll summarize it for you:
Bush went into Iraq on contrived evidence because he had decided to do that early on. He had an agenda, and I wish people would realize that. He couldn\'t go in \'for the right reasons\', and say it was for the human rights violations, etc, because then he would be putting the US right into the role of world-police... something he didn\'t want. Rather he uses an excuse, that if it works out, he could use on other regimes later, and if not (as it doesn\'t seem to be), he can later abandon, as a one time-reason for invasion. His later assertions (after invading) about the horrible regime were because they were begining to realize that ... hey! we\'re not going to find what we said we would!
God help you if you are on trial... do you only read half of the paragraphs?
"It also goes further than prewar U.N. reports, which said no weapons had been found but noted that Iraq had not fully accounted for weapons it was known to have had at the end of the Gulf War in 1991."
-
Originally posted by alliswell
Gigashadow, there is alot of things that weren\'t there before but are there now.
Terrorists, suicide bombers, Al Quada, etc
Finding one shell that has sarin in it could mean anything. It could mean they just now decided to tap into Saddam\'s weapons, or it could mean it was brought there by foreign entities.
There were no terrorists in Iraq prior to our invasion? Don\'t kid yourself clowd.
-
OK, so let\'s say Saddam had WMDs in the form of Sarin gas artillery rounds.
1. He didn\'t use them during our invasion.
2. Iraqi rebels have not used them for an entire year while we\'ve been working on pacifying that country.
3. ONE round gets wired as an IED in May 2004.
To me this suggests that the Iraqi Army didn\'t even know they had the stuff last year. some Iraqi probably stumbled upon a crate of rounds that was overlooked in the disarmament procedures 10 years ago.
This doesn\'t exactly indicate that "tons of chemical agents" are still sitting somewhere. It does look bad at the moment because probably a few more rounds are going to show up as bombs, but I don\'t see this as a huge smoking gun. It\'s a little premature for anyone to be crowing "AH HAH." :)
-
Oh yeah.. forgot to put this in above:
hundreds of military items stolen, and in more than half the cases inside jobs... (http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/caab/articles/wanderingweapons.htm)
Some quotes from that one:
Since the 1991 Persian Gulf War, thousands of pounds of explosives, hundreds of mines, mortars, grenades and firearms and dozens of rockets and artillery rounds have been lost or stolen from U.S. stockpiles, government documents show.
(242 reported cases)
"There is no accountability of issue and turn-in," testified a soldier caught swiping a grenade during a training exercise at Fort Benning, Ga. His sergeant, the soldier said, turned a blind eye to thefts and told him, "Deny everything if questioned.
More than half of the roughly 150 thefts were inside jobs involving military personnel, National Guardsmen or civilian employees of the military, the documents show.
...
If it\'s an inside job, they just cook the books," said Stephen Scheid, an intelligence research specialist for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
Fort Lewis, in Washington, reported 10 thefts involving some 100 pounds of explosives. In one case, soldiers made off with six mines from a bunker and replaced them with 51 pounds of M-16 rifle ammunition. Paperwork was changed to cover up shortages, a corporal and a specialist told Army investigators.
read the reccomendations made about security of munitions (specifically class 1 missiles), because they\'re too easy to steal (http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/ns97175.pdf)
The article talks about how theft is a problem.. but if it isn\'t terrorists stealing it.. who does?
We did not find any documentation that terrorists or other extremists had stolen category I handheld missiles or rockets or category II grenades, mines, and explosives from DOD arsenals. Intelligence and DOD officials said that it is more likely that terrorists would seek handheld surface-to-air missiles or other munitions from sources other than DOD arsenals. International terrorist groups receive financial aid and other forms of assistance from several nations.6 The Secretary of State has determined that these countries have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism by supplying, training, supporting, or providing safehaven to known terrorists. Intelligence officials told us that there are a variety of places around the world for terrorists to obtain weapons. For example, several countries besides the United States, including Bulgaria, China, Egypt, France, Japan, Czech Republic, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Sweden, and the United Kingdom produce handheld surface-to-air missiles.7 Terrorists tend to favor small conventional weapons—handguns, rifles, grenades, machine guns, or explosives—because they can be easily transported and hidden from view. C-4 plastic explosives can be purchased from several countries. In addition, law enforcement officials told us that extremist groups have made their own C-4. Terrorists have used plastic explosives. For example, less than one pound of Semtex.
There are literally dozens of articles out there about how impossible it is for the military to be keeping track of it\'s trillions of dollars of inventory. In this one they point out that a 1.3 million dollar battle tank was accidentaly donated to a private individual! (http://www.insightmag.com/news/2001/03/26/Nation/Military.Spending.The.Big.Mess.In.Rumsfelds.Attic-213433.shtml) - and it wasn\'t even demilitarized!
-
Originally posted by FatalXception
Oh yeah.. forgot to put this in above:
hundreds of military items stolen, and in more than half the cases inside jobs... (http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/caab/articles/wanderingweapons.htm)
Some quotes from that one:
read the reccomendations made about security of munitions (specifically class 1 missiles), because they\'re too easy to steal (http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/ns97175.pdf)
The article talks about how theft is a problem.. but if it isn\'t terrorists stealing it.. who does?
There are literally dozens of articles out there about how impossible it is for the military to be keeping track of it\'s trillions of dollars of inventory. In this one they point out that a 1.3 million dollar battle tank was accidentaly donated to a private individual! (http://www.insightmag.com/news/2001/03/26/Nation/Military.Spending.The.Big.Mess.In.Rumsfelds.Attic-213433.shtml) - and it wasn\'t even demilitarized!
I disputed your claim that the average GI takes weapons home ie. rocket launchers :rolleyes: and I stand by it.
On another note it seems they have found mustard gas as well. Something Saddam claimed he didn\'t have any more of.
As for the "mortar round" of Sarin as you called it...
"Artillery shells of the 155-mm size are about as big as it gets when it comes to the ordnance lobbed by infantry-based artillery units. The 155 howitzer can launch high capacity shells over several miles; current models used by the United States can fire shells as far as 14 miles. One official told Fox News that a conventional 155-mm shell could hold as much as "two to five" liters of sarin, which is capable of killing thousands of people under the right conditions in highly populated areas."
-
As others have said, it was a very small quantity and terrorists have had 1 year to go get the supplies for these things, this proves absolutley nothing.
-
Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
As others have said, it was a very small quantity and terrorists have had 1 year to go get the supplies for these things, this proves absolutley nothing.
That small quantity had the ability to kill thousands.
And where did they get them? :rolleyes:
In Iraq of course. Who knows how many more they will find...
Iraqi Scientist: You Will Find More
Gazi George, a former Iraqi nuclear scientist under Saddam\'s regime, told Fox News that he believes many similar weapons stockpiled by the former regime were either buried underground or transported to Syria. He noted that the airport where the device was detonated is on the way to Baghdad from the Syrian border.
George said the finding likely will just be the first in a series of discoveries of such weapons.
"Saddam is the type who will not store those materials in a military warehouse. He\'s gonna store them either underground, or, as I said, lots of them have gone west to Syria and are being brought back with the insurgencies," George told Fox News. "It is difficult to look in areas that are not obvious to the military\'s eyes.
"I\'m sure they\'re going to find more once time passes," he continued, saying one year is not enough for the survey group or the military to find the weapons.
Saddam, when he was in power, had declared that he did in fact possess mustard-gas filled artilleries but none that included sarin.
"I think what we found today, the sarin in some ways, although it\'s a nerve gas, it\'s a lucky situation sarin detonated in the way it did ... it\'s not as dangerous as the cocktails Saddam used to make, mixing blister" agents with other gases and substances," George said.
-
Can you quote a definate source stating where it came from?
I don\'t see why it couldn\'t come from a neighboring country, a lot of terrorists and fanatics have been going to Iraq ever since the war started.
And also, the Serin was not set up to kill thousands, it was not set to launch anywhere. It didn\'t even kill anyone at all.
Edit: He may be right, he may be wrong, but untill we find large ammounts of these chemical weapons you cannot claim that they are definantly there.
-
What did I just post? The scientist said a lot of them went to Syria and are coming back with the insurgents. R E A D.
Thats right DH and everyone else who believes Saddam didn\'t have any WMD\'s - they just disappeared. :rolleyes:
-
Umm, you edited it while i was posting.
And how can you say that one scientest saying something makes it true?
-
Oh and, I didn\'t say he didn\'t have any, he probley did. I just said we have no proof, so Im not going to say that he DID have them without enough factual information to support that.
-
Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
Umm, you edited it while i was posting.
And how can you say that one scientest saying something makes it true?
Well despite what anyone thinks on this board or here in the US or in Europe... the guy did work for Saddam. So he has some credibility. What would he have to gain by lying now? Saddam is gone.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Well despite what anyone thinks on this board or here in the US or in Europe... the guy did work for Saddam. So he has some credibility. What would he have to gain by lying now? Saddam is gone.
Gazi George is an expert on nuclear research in Iraq, not necessarily chemical or biological weapons. Furthermore, he\'s been living in Michigan for 20 years, so how the hell does he know that stuff was transported to Syria? He always says things like "Saddam is the type who...." It\'s always speculation, yet you\'re treating it as fact when you write "The scientist said a lot of them went to Syria and are coming back with the insurgents"
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
Gazi George is an expert on nuclear research in Iraq, not necessarily chemical or biological weapons. Furthermore, he\'s been living in Michigan for 20 years, so how the hell does he know that stuff was transported to Syria? He always says things like "Saddam is the type who...." It\'s always speculation, yet you\'re treating it as fact when you write "The scientist said a lot of them went to Syria and are coming back with the insurgents"
He has more credibity than those on this board that claim that Iraq has or had no WMD\'s leading up to the war. All I am doing is discussing what has happened. The fact is WMD\'s were found.
-
You are so laughable gigashadow. Everything you say about others and hw they post in here in basically summed up in this thread.
Stop grasping.
Do you have any idea how much ordinance gets stolen and smuggled under the noses of those watching it?
Who says other countries/terroist groups dont have this to distribute to whom they deem will use it how they want it used or for the right price?
It was ONLY one. Who cares how many it can kill, it was no where near the stockpile our hillbilly president said was there.
That could have been anyones with or without a tie to Saddam.
Post more in this thread so I can laugh again.
Oh..I forgot to add in one of your favorites. :rolleyes:
double edit.....Fact is only ONE weapon of mass destruction was found with no telling of whom to point that dirty little finger at.
-
Originally posted by TSina
You are so laughable gigashadow. Everything you say about others and hw they post in here in basically summed up in this thread.
Stop grasping.
Do you have any idea how much ordinance gets stolen and smuggled under the noses of those watching it?
Who says other countries/terroist groups dont have this to distribute to whom they deem will use it how they want it used or for the right price?
It was ONLY one. Who cares how many it can kill, it was no where near the stockpile our hillbilly president said was there.
That could have been anyones with or without a tie to Saddam.
Post more in this thread so I can laugh again.
Oh..I forgot to add in one of your favorites. :rolleyes:
double edit.....Fact is only ONE weapon of mass destruction was found with no telling of whom to point that dirty little finger at.
You are the joke of this forum Tsina. Can you not read? Mustard gas was also found... or did those two words fall into your blind spot? Your posts lack substance and you constantly whine to make your point. Your topics are even more trivial ie. the gang members being charged under terrorism law thread.
First of all Fatalexception dug himself a hole by quoting certain selections from a link without reading the entire thing. You don\'t even quote - which gives you zero validity.
The real fact is I could care less if there are a million warheads over there. They found some. Once again I have to remind you that I never said this war was over WMD.
One consolation though... you remind me of my ex wife... she also thought she knew everything, but was about as smart as a fluffer on a porn set. Luckily, I was wise enough at the time to leave. :rolleyes:
-
Naughty naughty mod boy. Can\'t say anything without insulting me, AGAIN?
I actually did catch the mention of mustard gas, but once again, no telling who the finger can be pointed at.
Did I accuse you of saying it was over WMD? Ok then..STFU
Just b/c you think I think I know everything doesnt mean so. Never have I stated so.
-
"...fluffer on a porn set"
Funny analogy...
:p
-
Originally posted by TSina
Naughty naughty mod boy. Can\'t say anything without insulting me, AGAIN?
I actually did catch the mention of mustard gas, but once again, no telling who the finger can be pointed at.
Did I accuse you of saying it was over WMD? Ok then..STFU
Just b/c you think I think I know everything doesnt mean so. Never have I stated so.
You haven\'t earned enough respect to join this "gentlemen\'s club" ;)
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
You haven\'t earned enough respect to join this "gentlemen\'s club" ;)
Forget that. As far as I\'m concerned, she can post here as long as she wants. "Gentlemen\'s clubs" are boring IMHO. ;)
BTW
I wish everyone would stop trying to discredit the POSTER and focus on the points of the argument instead. I\'m getting tired of reading things like "I guess I should expect that from a Canadian" or "You are so laughable..." You\'re ALL guilty of it, so just cut it out. You can\'t make an argument less valid by saying the person who wrote it is not good enough to post it. Just attack the points of the argument if you can.
My .02
-
Just food for thought.
We find a small amount of something how many months later and we assume it\'s been there all along and not brought to Iraq after the "war" was over? If you want to be naive, I guess you can just assume that it\'s WMD from Saddam\'s regime, but there is no proof of that. The chances are just as high, if not higher, than one of the many terrorist groups brought it in after the war.
However, as I expect, Giga belives its from Saddam\'s regime and he won\'t believe anything else.. Just like I\'m sure some people believe that the American goverment arranged the be-heading of the Amerncain civilian, just so that it makes the prisoner torture pictures look less harsh....Conspiracy theory\'s always make people blind to the most likely.
:D
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
Forget that. As far as I\'m concerned, she can post here as long as she wants. "Gentlemen\'s clubs" are boring IMHO. ;)
BTW
I wish everyone would stop trying to discredit the POSTER and focus on the points of the argument instead. I\'m getting tired of reading things like "I guess I should expect that from a Canadian" or "You are so laughable..." You\'re ALL guilty of it, so just cut it out. You can\'t make an argument less valid by saying the person who wrote it is not good enough to post it. Just attack the points of the argument if you can.
My .02
This is a debate forum... mild insults are just that... I wasn\'t offended by her posts and it does make the place a little more lively. I don\'t mind it - this forum is more harsh than the others - it comes with the territory.
My change for your .02 ;)
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
This is a debate forum... mild insults are just that... I wasn\'t offended by her posts and it does make the place a little more lively. I don\'t mind it - this forum is more harsh than the others - it comes with the territory.
My change for your .02 ;)
That\'s fine if it stays like that, but these tit-for-tat exchanges can spin out of control. They always seem to escalate. I would hate to see anyone stop posting because they were prodded into an unnecessarily emotional response.
-
If saddam had, or his forces had access to weapons like this, they would have used them in defence of baghdad, by trained military people who would have delivered them properly to try and do the most damage. Everyone was expecting that.
They wouldn\'t hold onto this stuff for a year and then try and use it inneffectively later. If it went out to syria, which is plausible (and means that there wasn\'t a development program for producing the stuff when they invaded - if they\'re getting rid of it), then it\'s just as likely that they\'re simply buying such things on the black market in countries around iraq. Nobody likes to talk about it, but the US, Russia, China, and European countries make a lot of money selling military ordenance to small nations, and even if some of that ordinace gets used back against them, they\'re not going to cut of such a lucrative business.
First of all Fatalexception dug himself a hole by quoting certain selections from a link without reading the entire thing.
I read the whole things, which is why it took a while for me to come back to that. YOU need to look through them again, and do a google with some of the kewords of stolen military hardware weapons, etc. You will be shocked at how many ORDINARY reservists and such are caught with "souvenir" rockets, grenades, mines, C4, etc etc. It\'s actually kind of unreal.
You say I dug myself a hole, but there is no way to refute the truth, because it\'s an acknowledged problem in the US military, one they\'re trying to fix... but are having a heckuva time trying to keep track of their ordinance!
Look at the first quote/article again. 242 reported cases, over 150 were inside jobs by military personel - and they know there are many unreported cases out there. Look at what\'s stolen: rockets, mines, grenades...
If you meant I dug a hole with the earlier article about WMD, hey, I read that too, then there are plenty of reasons they couldn\'t account for all the ordinance.. theft, mis-management of the books, shelf-life, improper disposal. Lots of reasons that seem to me to be far more likely than some far reaching conspiracy to hide stockpiles of the stuff (which haven\'t been found). At the end of the day, though there is that unnacounted for inventory - they still come out and say that there\'s no evidence of any active WMD programs in iraq, and they only mention his violation of trying to increase his delivery distance...
-
Did you or did you not say Saddam was allowed to have biological arsenal?
-
One chemical round rigged as an IED = ? (Question Mark)
Hidden underground stockpile of Chemical Weapons = Smoking Gun
It\'s as simple as that. Not time for crowing yet. As soon as they find the latter, I\'ll be as pleased as you are.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Did you or did you not say Saddam was allowed to have biological arsenal?
Did and I was wrong, I had my timeline too slow, he was supposed to be done with disposal after the first war, and apparantly, he was. Got a way to refute anything but that one point? They way I see it it\'s either time for you to keep ignoring it, or step up and admit your wrong about certain things.
-
Didn\'t read all the replies. I\'m replying on the news article. Good that they are finding WMDs. They have been finding things like this all over Iraq, especially empty chemical/biological warheads. They also find some stockpiles of older chemical weapons. We blow those things to hell though, which is why many cases go unreported (that and they are classified).
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
One chemical round rigged as an IED = ? (Question Mark)
Hidden underground stockpile of Chemical Weapons = Smoking Gun
It\'s as simple as that. Not time for crowing yet. As soon as they find the latter, I\'ll be as pleased as you are.
Exactly. This could be summed up in the following situation.
A bunch of cops go to the worst GHETTO in hopes to find a mass amount of drugs. They don\'t find a mass amount, instead they find a couple joints and come out screaming.. "WE WAS RIGHT - HERE\'S THE DRUGS AND PROOF..." even though it\'s not the "smoking gun".
Of course the Bush Adminstration and Bush supporters, who are grasping at straws already on the WMD topic, will jump at this and tout this as the tip of an iceberg, when, in all reality, it\'s just a small amount of chemicals , most likely brought in by one of the many rebel groups.. Why do I say that? Because common sense dictates that if Saddam would of had these WMD, he would of used them when we invaded his country and toppled his regime. Then again, the Bush Adminstration and Bush supporters have never been known for their common sense or logical thinking.
:)
-
Originally posted by Titan
Didn\'t read all the replies. I\'m replying on the news article. Good that they are finding WMDs. They have been finding things like this all over Iraq, especially empty chemical/biological warheads. They also find some stockpiles of older chemical weapons. We blow those things to hell though, which is why many cases go unreported (that and they are classified).
mmm... so you know about the unreported classified distruction of stockpiles of WMDs? That\'s big news! Do you have a link for that? That would really settle this whole thread.
-
Originally posted by FatalXception
mmm... so you know about the unreported classified distruction of stockpiles of WMDs? That\'s big news! Do you have a link for that? That would really settle this whole thread.
I\'m just saying that there are things that go unreported. Our military doesn\'t need to tell the public what they do.
-
With the amount of press the entire WMD issue got before/during the war, you had better believe that if they found a stockpile of biological weapons, they would have camera crews there before they destroyed it, while they destroyed it, and every information source in the US would talk about it for days.... Bush would get a big approval rating boost from such a find.
-
Originally posted by Titan
I\'m just saying that there are things that go unreported. Our military doesn\'t need to tell the public what they do.
Can we put a big "DUH" on your forehead? Why you ask? Because the Bush Adminstration banked this whole war on the WMD . Do you think if they find the slighest thing they won\'t report it? That\'s stupid. It would be the first thing they report, for one simple reason, it\'s election time.
-
They\'ve reported everything they find, basically as soon as they find it, this is one of the first times it\'s actually been anything important.
-
*OFF-TOPIC* Just felt some need to say it though
I still would prefer Bush over Kerry any day, the Iraq situation is bad, but Kerry just has something about him that will take us farther in to the hole IMO.
-
Originally posted by Titan
I\'m just saying that there are things that go unreported. Our military doesn\'t need to tell the public what they do.
Are you really serious? Dont you think if they found anything worthwhile...even just a little bit, it wouldn\'t be all over the damn news? Seeing how that was the reasoning they used in suckering americans and others for support in this bullshit war.
They would certainly want the info out as fast as possible to as many news agencies as possible. Then they wouldn\'t be deceptive little liars.
-
I find it amusing that there is so much hype over one shell of chemical weapon that hurt nobody,
but there is no talk about where the terrorists are gettng thousands of lbs of I don\'t know what type of explosives to kill people by the tens daily.
incredible
I would start searching for the REAL WMDs that are a REAL threat
-
Garden variety explosives are WMD\'s? - Iraq bought its arsenal (which I am sure the terrorists are using) from Russia, China and even the US in the early 80\'s when it fighting Iran.
I thought it was pretty much common knowledge of what the terrorists were using and where they were getting their supply from. ;) To be honest who knows what is buried under the sand or was shipped off to Syria. Syria after all is ruled by the same Baath party that ruled Iraq...
We may never know.
I wonder if the same thing would be said if they found one atomic device that "didn\'t hurt nobody"?
-
one atomic device and one mortar shell with sarin is totally and completely different and you know this.
-
For one it wasn\'t a mortar shell... secondly it is a WMD - and was capable of killing thousands in an urban area. The only difference is between the two is the yield is greater. What are thousands compared to tens of thousands?
-
Doesnt matter what it is and yes, we know it is a WMD.
The part that matters is who did it belong to and where did it come from?
Dont you think Saddam would have used these if he had them last year? Considering he is the animal that he is.
On that note, this has been like the only or one of the very few "active" devices found.
-
No I don\'t think Saddam would have used them. Even if he had wanted to, his commanders in the field may have refused to.
The reason I don\'t think he would have used them is due to one of two reasons:
1. He knew he was going to lose and he instructed his insurgents to use them after he was gone.
or - which I think is more plausible
2. He knew he was going to lose and to gain the moral high ground he sent them to Syria or buried them in the desert where they will never be found. Now he can claim he never had them and the US was wrong for invading his country.
The reason I believe in the 2nd view is that he provided documentation and evidence that he destroyed his Scuds, but when the inspectors wanted evidence of the WMD\'s destruction he flat out refused and said that they were "gone". Why would he be so willing to show them his destruction of the Scuds and not the WMD\'s?
-
Actually if I remember correctly he did allow them to inspect and tag "certain" sites with chem/bio weapons.
His reasoning for refusal of the rest was something along the lines of "when is enough enough" "ive complied" etc..etc..
Which would further support your moral high road comment, yet still retaining his precious chemicals.
It\'s all really a guessing game.
Although it isn\'t unlikely at all that some terrorist came upon his own ways of making a sarin bomb. And that is the point im making. Just b/c it is in Iraq doesnt mean it belongs to the former regime.
Now if we didnt have to fight all of the insurgents and terrorists comming into Iraq, then it would be a different story.
-
Originally posted by luckee
Although it isn\'t unlikely at all that some terrorist came upon his own ways of making a sarin bomb. And that is the point im making. Just b/c it is in Iraq doesnt mean it belongs to the former regime.
I strongly disagree... the Sarin IDE bomb was actually a 155mm artillery shell. How many terrorists run around with howitzers that can fire 14 miles? That is why I am almost positive it came from the former regime\'s stockpile.
-
Thats not to say they didnt get it elsewhere.
How many terrorists have millions of dollars to fund their cause?
How many are involved in the selling of weapons to obtain cash for more cheaper weapons and bomb materials.
This could go on forever untill they find many more singular units or a large cache of them.
-
Originally posted by alliswell
I find it amusing that there is so much hype over one shell of chemical weapon that hurt nobody,
Who is hyping it? THe government or the media? From what I\'ve heard the gov\'t is actually downplaying it at the time being.
The media on the other hand, well they have time to fill.
-
Hmmm okay even if it was made by the old Iraqi government, it is the ONLY thing to be found so far. I wouldn\'t base an invasion on one shell of WMD.
-
Originally posted by videoholic
Who is hyping it? THe government or the media? From what I\'ve heard the gov\'t is actually downplaying it at the time being.
The media on the other hand, well they have time to fill.
you are absolutley right
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
BAGHDAD, Iraq — A roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent (search) exploded near a U.S. military convoy, but there were no casualties, the U.S. military said Monday.
"The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," said Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (search), the chief military spokesman in Iraq. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) 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," he said.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
So we went to War and invaded for one Shell...
Woooooppppppeeeeddddooooo :rolleyes:
-
We also went to war for all the years that the resolutions were being ignored by everybody\'s pal saddam.
It\'s really useless trying to change minds over this so the end result has to be an victory and if we cut and run like so many want to do we are doomed!
-
How do you define Victory? This is the part I think most of us (myself included) don\'t understand and have never considered adequately. I have no vision of what Iraq can be/should be after we\'re finished with it. I have no idea of where we\'re going. I suspect others don\'t either. If we don\'t know our destination, how can we move toward it.
One might say that Iraq should become a peaceful democracy of America-loving consumers in a nation where corporations can obtain cheap labor, and market American entertainment products. I would say that is IMPOSSIBLE. So if not that, then what? I just want to understand what the Bush team is aiming for.
-
Victory? You\'re on crack. We have established nothing. We found one shell of WMD. We have lost plenty of our soliders. Yes, on one hand we took Saddam out, but Iraq is in WORSE shape than it ever was and the Iraqi people are in no position to control their country.
You may say Saddam was a monster, but he was better for that country than the US will ever dream of being. All we done was killed people and made it a chaotic mess.
-
Crack, eh? You can fester in your own hatred for the the USA. When you can ask a question or make a comment without an insult I\'ll listen to you.
Core,
That\'s a good question. Victory to me would be a stable Iraq and one that can foster a democracy. I also think that the war on terror Will never end. 9/11 changed how we will live our lives forever.
I have to get back to work and I\'ll discuss more later.
-
You have to be really foolish to think that there is only one shell of Sarin floating around that country. They are like German cockroaches... when you see one you know there are a thousand more hiding somewhere close by ;) Just look under that old stack of newspapers.
-
That\'s a good question. Victory to me would be a stable Iraq and one that can foster a democracy. I also think that the war on terror Will never end. 9/11 changed how we will live our lives forever.
What makes so called democracy so good and why do we have the rights to tell them how to live and run their goverment? No right what so ever. Fact is, democracy is failing for the USA and it isn\'t going to help the Iraqi\'s, espically when it\'s being forced upon them.
As for my crack comment - get your panties out of a bunch. It was a sarcastic comment. Or was you just using it to dodge a perfectly good question / comment?
;)
You have to be really foolish to think that there is only one shell of Sarin floating around that country. They are like German cockroaches... when you see one you know there are a thousand more hiding somewhere close by Just look under that old stack of newspapers.
One can assume that, but you cannot go to war on the assumption of hidden WMD . Also, one can assume Saddam had them before we invaded. On the other hand, people can assume they have been brought into the country after the invasion... My point? We need more WMD, we need evidence they was Saddam\'s, before this can be called a so-called victory and justifed war for the Bush Adminstration.
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
One can assume that, but you cannot go to war on the assumption of hidden WMD . Also, one can assume Saddam had them before we invaded. On the other hand, people can assume they have been brought into the country after the invasion... My point? We need more WMD, we need evidence they was Saddam\'s, before this can be called a so-called victory and justifed war for the Bush Adminstration.
Next time we should wait till they\'re used on us.
-
They had them and didnt use them on us after we destroyed them the first time.
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
What makes so called democracy so good and why do we have the rights to tell them how to live and run their goverment? No right what so ever. Fact is, democracy is failing for the USA and it isn\'t going to help the Iraqi\'s, espically when it\'s being forced upon them.
What would be a safer bet to secure the peace, a democracy in the Middle East or the current situation?
And if this democracy that we have, which is not perfect, is failing, what would make it better?
As for my crack comment - get your panties out of a bunch. It was a sarcastic comment. Or was you just using it to dodge a perfectly good question / comment?
;)
I\'ll have you know, sir, that I do not where panties . . . not even on my head.
Oh, I tend to dismiss a comment or question when there is an insult attached to it. I guess I\'m just funny that way.
-
read through everything so far..evrything i wanted to say somebody else said it already so i\'ll just say that this is np smoking gun by any means and it seems these as mentioned on the news that these shells were from before the gulf war....
-
Originally posted by clips
read through everything so far..evrything i wanted to say somebody else said it already so i\'ll just say that this is np smoking gun by any means and it seems these as mentioned on the news that these shells were from before the gulf war....
He shouldn\'t have had them should he?
-
There are certain administrative difficulties in tracking and properly disposing of every last shell in a country as disorganized and backward as Iraq.
-
If that was the case why didn\'t he just say so? He had the UN at his disposal in regards to getting rid of those things.
-
Maybe he didn\'t say so because it would make his country look backwards and disorganized. Arab pride is not to be ignored.
-
There are many ways he could have gone about it other than the way he did and still save face. Arab "pride" may not be ignored, but Arab "lying" can not be ignored as well.
-
Problem is now, unless a hugh stash is found, it can be said in his trial that said chemicals/weapons arent his and were brought into the country by the insurgents.
-
Originally posted by luckee
Problem is now, unless a hugh stash is found, it can be said in his trial that said chemicals/weapons arent his and were brought into the country by the insurgents.
WMD\'s are the least of his worries if he is being tried by his own people.
Also, before anyone gets the idea that I made a stereotypical comment on Arabs... I would like to validate it by referring to this quote:
Excerpted from the book:
ARAB-ISLAMIC POLITICAL CULTURE:
A Key Source to Understanding Arab Politics
And the Arab-Israeli Conflict
ACPR Publishers, 2003
.....
"This is a culture where rumors are an integral part of social activity, and they quickly become absolute truth that cannot be challenged. It has to do with exaggerations, flights of fancy, and especially, in a society that believes in conspiracies, a society wherein every date is important, that remembers everything and forgives nothing. This is a society wherein the lie is an essential component of behavior patterns, and lying is endorsed by religious sages. The famous Muslim theologian, al-Ghazzali, claimed that the lie is not wrong in itself. If the lie is the way to achieve good results, then it is permissible. It is necessary to lie when the truth might lead to unpleasant or undesired results. This is a society in which looking someone straight in the eye is forbidden, since it constitutes a challenge; there is also, for example, the prohibition to use the left hand, the dirty hand. Body language, like the manner of walking and the way of sitting, is very prominent. Indeed, the Arab personality is very diffuse from the structural and stratification standpoint."
-
^^^that sounds like the u.s. gov\'t :laughing:....and to point out to my last post..the said newscaster stated that the stockpiles could have been from the 80\'s...i don\'t know how true that is..i haven\'t been really keepin up with it lately..all i\'ve been seein is this 911 commission crap..what another waste of time:rolleyes:
-
I agree that 9/11 commission has to be the biggest waste of our tax dollars. It is a dog and pony show.
That quote isn\'t about a government it is about a society. It is different for a government to lie - its expected.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
BAGHDAD, Iraq — A roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent (search) exploded near a U.S. military convoy, but there were no casualties
call me a nitpicker but arent weapons of mass destiction supposed to cause destuction on a massive scale?
these arent wmds. this is the US grasing at straws in a vain, desperate and quite frankly embarrasing attempt to redeem themselves internationally and before the national elections and to justify the original illegal invasion.
i for one will sleep better in my bed at night knowing that the west is safe and these two shells are safely disarmed.
damn, i forgot the sarcams tags.
-
Originally posted by Road Kill Recipies
call me a nitpicker but arent weapons of mass destiction supposed to cause destuction on a massive scale?
these arent wmds. this is the US grasing at straws in a vain, desperate and quite frankly embarrasing attempt to redeem themselves internationally and before the national elections and to justify the original illegal invasion.
i for one will sleep better in my bed at night knowing that the west is safe and these two shells are safely disarmed.
damn, i forgot the sarcams tags.
So you are saying Sarin isn\'t a WMD? Why don\'t you take a drop of it and put it on your arm and see what happens. :rolleyes:
Illegal invasion? Just like the invasion of Kuwait over a decade ago? As has been said in this thread before - the US government has been downplaying this event - it has been the media that has been playing it up. How can you think for one moment that those are the only two WMD\'s in the country? If insurgents have no problem finding them - then there are more.
What is embarassing is the weakness and lack of resolve citizens... ahem... so called citizens of this country have shown every year since 9/11.
Damn, I wonder if this is Toxical spouting the same nonsense?
EDIT: My mistake - it is not Toxical.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
So you are saying Sarin isn\'t a WMD?
i am saying a few hundred gallons would certainly constitute potential wmds...but you have to look at the facts of the situation, these were two small 15 year old shells from the Iran war that, when opened, caused little or no ill effects after treatement to thier hapless victims...the Iraqi Authorities didnt know they were even there..
these two shells werent wmds.
Originally posted by GigaShadow
How can you think for one moment that those are the only two WMD\'s in the country?
youre confusing my post with someone elses...i didnt say that nor did i imply that...
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Damn, I wonder if this is Toxical spouting the same nonsense?
this is just plain confusing...what?
-
Originally posted by Road Kill Recipies
i am saying a few hundred gallons would certainly constitute potential wmds...but you have to look at the facts of the situation, these were two small 15 year old shells from the Iran war that, when opened, caused little or no ill effects after treatement to thier hapless victims...the Iraqi Authorities didnt know they were even there..
these two shells werent wmds.
Interesting... I suppose one artillery shell able to to kill thousands isn\'t grand enough for you. The intent of the IDE was only to blow up. The insurgents who planted it probably had no idea what it was because they weren\'t the ones who created it. One of the reasons it didn\'t cause more problems was because it was an artillery shell that is designed to mix chemical when it hits the ground - not when it is detonated from a stationary postion.
youre confusing my post with someone elses...i didnt say that nor did i imply that...
"these arent wmds. this is the US grasing at straws in a vain, desperate and quite frankly embarrasing attempt to redeem themselves internationally and before the national elections and to justify the original illegal invasion."
Am I confusing your post? You hint at the fact that only 2 exist by saying how embarassing it is that they were found and reported. The fact is they were found and more will be found.
this is just plain confusing...what?
We can play games if you like. :rolleyes:
To sum it up for you since you have hard time grasping the issue. You clearly stated in your first post that the two items they found (Sarin artillery shell and the Mustard Gas shell were NOT WMD\'s. You stated that you would need more of the chemical to qualify it as a WMD... :rolleyes: That shell alone could have killed thousands... not a WMD :laughing:
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
That shell alone could have killed thousands... not a WMD :laughing:
thats highly unlikely considering its condidtion and as you say that its an artillery device...if the \'insurgents\' intended to cause mass destruction with it do you not think that they would have used the proper gun and fire it into an American position?
why did they not do that?
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
We can play games if you like. :rolleyes:
To sum it up for you since you have hard time grasping the issue. You clearly stated in your first post that the two items they found (Sarin artillery shell and the Mustard Gas shell were NOT WMD\'s. You stated that you would need more of the chemical to qualify it as a WMD... :rolleyes: That shell alone could have killed thousands... not a WMD :laughing:
So the ODD Sarin artillery shell which was prob\' left over from the first GULF war, was enough to go to war and invade a whole country ?
God... Giga... you need to realise that there is a BIG Difference between WMD production & the Infrastructure to support it.
With this case... a 12 year old shell which was prusumed lost during the first gulf war and only recently found by the Insurgents.
Also i find it strange that your making a big deal about it.
might be because Bush\'s Approval rating is at a all time low :p...ah yes soon the religous IDIOT will be out of power :D[/b]
over here all the experts agree that it was just a old shell they where lucky to find, and even the PRO blair experts agree when they say that.. the insurgents mistook it for a standard high explosive shell due to the way it was configured.
So like i have been saying since the "end" of the war...
NO WMD found yet ?
-
Originally posted by ooseven
So the ODD Sarin artillery shell which was prob\' left over from the first GULF war, was enough to go to war and invade a whole country ?
God... Giga... you need to realise that there is a BIG Difference between WMD production & the Infrastructure to support it.
With this case... a 12 year old shell which was prusumed lost during the first gulf war and only recently found by the Insurgents.
Also i find it strange that your making a big deal about it.
might be because Bush\'s Approval rating is at a all time low :p...ah yes soon the religous IDIOT will be out of power :D
over here all the experts agree that it was just a old shell they where lucky to find, and even the PRO blair experts agree when they say that.. the insurgents mistook it for a standard high explosive shell due to the way it was configured.
So like i have been saying since the "end" of the war...
NO WMD found yet ? [/B]
Did I ever say that was the reason we invaded the country? I couldn\'t care less if they find 2 or 2,000. I reported the news when it happened. Also, the fact is - he shouldn\'t have had any WMD\'s and you know it. Regardless of when it was made or what it was left over from - he was violating the truce agreement he signed at the end of the Gulf War by posessing it.
Did I also say the insurgents knew it was a WMD. Hell, let the insurgents keep finding them - it saves us the work.
If you go on about me making a big deal about it - then the same can be said about your Skull and Bones post :rolleyes:
I don\'t see any overwhelming support for Kerry - who will do the exact same thing Bush is doing now in Iraq if he gets elected. You forget, the Republicans will most likely still control the House and the Senate even if they lose the White House.
Sometimes I wish the US would withdraw into isolationism and let all of the Euros fend for themselves. Italy will soon breed itself out of existance with its .9 annual birthrate and the rest of you will soon by minorities in your own countries. :D
The old world dies and with it the old ways... ;)
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Sometimes I wish the US would withdraw into isolationism and let all of the Euros fend for themselves. Italy will soon breed itself out of existance with its .9 annual birthrate and the rest of you will soon by minorities in your own countries. :D
The old world dies and with it the old ways... ;)
its ok Giag
we all know that if that where to happen ..the US would never be involved in any LARGE scale military action by herself without the aid of her Allies.
Strange you only took that policy after Vietnam...
-
I disagree... we are pretty much alone in Iraq - despite the UK presence which is very limited. The US military has the ability to act independently in any situation.
The "coalition" in my eyes is farce.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
The "coalition" in my eyes is farce.
ahh..looks like we agree on something..
by its very definition the word \'coalition\' requires a group force...something that was very much missing in the initial pre-emptive miss, i mean strike on the opening move..