U.S. tests say chemicals not weapons

[BDawg]

But rockets, barrels found separately remain suspicious

April 8 ? U.S. military forces in Iraq were reported Monday to have uncovered at least two caches of what may be banned chemical weapons ? barrels of chemicals buried outside an agricultural compound near Karbala and medium-range rockets found in a warehouse south of Baghdad. More sophisticated U.S. tests later indicated that the chemicals in the barrels were not chemical weapons agents, but U.S. troops found more barrels of suspicious substances on Tuesday.

Wouldn't it be ironic if there actually weren't any chemical/biological weapons in Iraq?

 

[Martin]

have they actually found something yet...or has everything been speculation up to now?

 

[Sxotty]

Everything is speculation so far, I think, that is enough disclaimers right.

But it is not fair to call it speculation, more like suspision. The military has simply said we are testing, and what preliminary tests have shown, never that oh boy we found it. I am talking about at briefings btw not individuals. Well find out soon enough.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: BDawg
But rockets, barrels found separately remain suspicious

April 8 ? U.S. military forces in Iraq were reported Monday to have uncovered at least two caches of what may be banned chemical weapons ? barrels of chemicals buried outside an agricultural compound near Karbala and medium-range rockets found in a warehouse south of Baghdad. More sophisticated U.S. tests later indicated that the chemicals in the barrels were not chemical weapons agents, but U.S. troops found more barrels of suspicious substances on Tuesday.

Wouldn't it be ironic if there actually weren't any chemical/biological weapons in Iraq?

Why am I not suprised. I don't think it's the military leading us on. They simply report that they're testing some suspicious stuff, and then the media gets excited, and everyone who forgot to take their daily dose of skepticism starts yelling, "We found it!"

 

[iamWolverine]

Wouldn't it be ironic if there actually weren't any chemical/biological weapons in Iraq?

Despite all the criticism received from the U.S. the weapons inspection teams were actually doing their jobs quite well, you just need to listen to past weapons inspector heads, i.e. Dennis Halliday and Scott Ritter and even Blix himself to know that it would have been a smarter move to let them finish the job. The U.S. has already now checked at least 10 of the most "suspect" sites on their list of 200 plus sites, which probably is an old and used list . . . I was looking at a Newsweek magazine from 1991 and that also reported "200 suspect sites". This war had very little to do with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and if that isn't obvious now, it will likely become more clear for those who actually care to follow what happens over the next several years. I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. starts planting weapons just to justify the war.

 

[Piano Man]

If they don't find any, I'll be happy because Bush will look like a fool to the world, well, MORE of a fool to the world. But the truth is that WMD was never the reason of going into Iraq, just a lame excuse.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: Piano Man
If they don't find any, I'll be happy because Bush will look like a fool to the world, well, MORE of a fool to the world. But the truth is that WMD was never the reason of going into Iraq, just a lame excuse.

Blah blah blah.. blah blah blah.. same rhetoric over and over.. Good thing making our President look "stupid" is the most important thing to you.

 

[BAMAVOO]

You are right it is not about WMD. It is about getting a man out of power that is just stupid enough to launch an attack against his own people. A man that has definite ties to terrorism. A man that has no feelings towards human life but his own. The regime is dying and freedom is coming to the Iraqi people. The only ones that will look stupid are the left wing tree huggers that will claim they were behind GW and claim that they are so proud of the US troops after the new government takes over and everything is fine in Iraq. Well then they will cry because some spotted owl doesn't have a home in the palaces anymore..GOOD GRIEF people.

 

[Corn]

But the truth is that WMD was never the reason of going into Iraq, just a lame excuse.

Oh yeah, that's right. Bush is looking to take Iraq's oil for himself!

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: iamWolverine

Wouldn't it be ironic if there actually weren't any chemical/biological weapons in Iraq?

Despite all the criticism received from the U.S. the weapons inspection teams were actually doing their jobs quite well, you just need to listen to past weapons inspector heads, i.e. Dennis Halliday and Scott Ritter and even Blix himself to know that it would have been a smarter move to let them finish the job. The U.S. has already now checked at least 10 of the most "suspect" sites on their list of 200 plus sites, which probably is an old and used list . . . I was looking at a Newsweek magazine from 1991 and that also reported "200 suspect sites". This war had very little to do with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and if that isn't obvious now, it will likely become more clear for those who actually care to follow what happens over the next several years. I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. starts planting weapons just to justify the war.

really?

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

 

[Paveslave]

Originally posted by: iamWolverine

Wouldn't it be ironic if there actually weren't any chemical/biological weapons in Iraq?

Edited "I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. starts planting weapons just to justify the war.

Yeah, and who the hell do you think is going to do that? I'm sure the ground units with imbedded reporters have loads of bio, and chemical weapons with them for the sole purpose of planting them. Yep, just to deceive the american public and justify this war, as if it wasn't justified the day Saddam took over. Don't forget that the U.S. that you're talking about is made up of a military with strong valued people that I believe whole heartedly would never do what you just said. I know this because I work among these and am one myself. Talk it up as "blinded by patriotism" or what ever gets you through, but I 'd rather be blinded by patriotism than just flat out blind to reality. Moron!

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: BAMAVOO
You are right it is not about WMD. It is about getting a man out of power that is just stupid enough to launch an attack against his own people.

Do you just swallow anything that the White House trowels out?

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: BAMAVOO
You are right it is not about WMD. It is about getting a man out of power that is just stupid enough to launch an attack against his own people.

Do you just swallow anything that the White House trowels out?

please read my above post

 

[iamWolverine]

Originally posted by: Paveslave

Originally posted by: iamWolverine

Wouldn't it be ironic if there actually weren't any chemical/biological weapons in Iraq?

Edited "I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. starts planting weapons just to justify the war.

Yeah, and who the hell do you think is going to do that? I'm sure the ground units with imbedded reporters have loads of bio, and chemical weapons with them for the sole purpose of planting them. Yep, just to deceive the american public and justify this war, as if it wasn't justified the day Saddam took over. Don't forget that the U.S. that you're talking about is made up of a military with strong valued people that I believe whole heartedly would never do what you just said. I know this because I work among these and am one myself. Talk it up as "blinded by patriotism" or what ever gets you through, but I 'd rather be blinded by patriotism than just flat out blind to reality. Moron!

You think I am disconnected from reality? Perhaps you didn't hear the reports that came out that American "special forces" were responsible for much of the oil spills in the first Gulf War. Again I would not be surprised if it was special forces that set the oil fires in this war. I am not saying that because some of the "forces" are willing to follow unjust orders from their superiors that all of our military forces are dishonest or not strong valued. And you talk about this war being justified the day that Saddam "took over", but neglect the fact that the U.S. is a large part of the reason for Saddam being able to take over and rule for so long. That the U.S. is going in now to remove him from power is just another step in misguided foreign policy which only makes people more distrustful of the U.S., unfortunately many governments are willing to be complacent to U.S. actions in order to not damage the economic relationship they've developed with the U.S. and also because the U.S. is the world's largest wielder of Wepons of Mass Destruction, dealing them out as they please, like in the 80's when they gave Iraq and Iran weapons in the hopes that the two would destroy one another . . . so excuse me if I am a skeptical of this administration's intentions in invading Iraq. You are not blinded by patriotism, you are blinded by ignorance and mistake it for patriotism, if you cared for this country you wouldn't support war.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: iamWolverine

You think I am disconnected from reality? Perhaps you didn't hear the reports that came out that American "special forces" were responsible for much of the oil spills in the first Gulf War. Again I would not be surprised if it was special forces that set the oil fires in this war.

You can't come up here and make exaggerated statements like that without backing it up.

Let's see the links.

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: Wheezer


please read my above post

Your above post seems to consist of nothing but quotes and the word "really".

 

[sean2002]

Originally posted by: iamWolverine

Originally posted by: Paveslave

Originally posted by: iamWolverine

Wouldn't it be ironic if there actually weren't any chemical/biological weapons in Iraq?

Edited "I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. starts planting weapons just to justify the war.

Yeah, and who the hell do you think is going to do that? I'm sure the ground units with imbedded reporters have loads of bio, and chemical weapons with them for the sole purpose of planting them. Yep, just to deceive the american public and justify this war, as if it wasn't justified the day Saddam took over. Don't forget that the U.S. that you're talking about is made up of a military with strong valued people that I believe whole heartedly would never do what you just said. I know this because I work among these and am one myself. Talk it up as "blinded by patriotism" or what ever gets you through, but I 'd rather be blinded by patriotism than just flat out blind to reality. Moron!

You think I am disconnected from reality? Perhaps you didn't hear the reports that came out that American "special forces" were responsible for much of the oil spills in the first Gulf War. Again I would not be surprised if it was special forces that set the oil fires in this war. I am not saying that because some of the "forces" are willing to follow unjust orders from their superiors that all of our military forces are dishonest or not strong valued. And you talk about this war being justified the day that Saddam "took over", but neglect the fact that the U.S. is a large part of the reason for Saddam being able to take over and rule for so long. That the U.S. is going in now to remove him from power is just another step in misguided foreign policy which only makes people more distrustful of the U.S., unfortunately many governments are willing to be complacent to U.S. actions in order to not damage the economic relationship they've developed with the U.S. and also because the U.S. is the world's largest wielder of Wepons of Mass Destruction, dealing them out as they please, like in the 80's when they gave Iraq and Iran weapons in the hopes that the two would destroy one another . . . so excuse me if I am a skeptical of this administration's intentions in invading Iraq. You are not blinded by patriotism, you are blinded by ignorance and mistake it for patriotism, if you cared for this country you wouldn't support war.

\


You are a fvcking idiot, do you really think our troops set the oil wells on fire? Due us all a favor and more to Iraq so we can shove a JDAM up your ass.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: BAMAVOO
You are right it is not about WMD. It is about getting a man out of power that is just stupid enough to launch an attack against his own people.

Is that what the blame spinner says this week? I thought it was about the war on terror...arming terrorists and such. Then it was peace in the mid east. Then it was freeing the people of Iraq. Maybe you should shake up the magic 8 ball and give it another whirl.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: Wheezer


please read my above post

Your above post seems to consist of nothing but quotes and the word "really".

yes but did you READ it?

and if you did from where did those quotes come from?

 

[iamWolverine]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: iamWolverine

You think I am disconnected from reality? Perhaps you didn't hear the reports that came out that American "special forces" were responsible for much of the oil spills in the first Gulf War. Again I would not be surprised if it was special forces that set the oil fires in this war.

You can't come up here and make exaggerated statements like that without backing it up.

Let's see the links.

You are all so willing to believe the crap that comes out of mainstream media, but once I say something you begin to doubt me . . . that's a good thing that you doubt me, but you should also strongly doubt the mainstream media, like the initial reports of Iraqi soldiers destroying incubators in Kuwait which was a complete fabrication (those you should easily be able to find links for yourself, just do the searching).
As for the oil fields, look here

 

[drewshin]

You think I am disconnected from reality? Perhaps you didn't hear the reports that came out that American "special forces" were responsible for much of the oil spills in the first Gulf War. Again I would not be surprised if it was special forces that set the oil fires in this war. I am not saying that because some of the "forces" are willing to follow unjust orders from their superiors that all of our military forces are dishonest or not strong valued. And you talk about this war being justified the day that Saddam "took over", but neglect the fact that the U.S. is a large part of the reason for Saddam being able to take over and rule for so long. That the U.S. is going in now to remove him from power is just another step in misguided foreign policy which only makes people more distrustful of the U.S., unfortunately many governments are willing to be complacent to U.S. actions in order to not damage the economic relationship they've developed with the U.S. and also because the U.S. is the world's largest wielder of Wepons of Mass Destruction, dealing them out as they please, like in the 80's when they gave Iraq and Iran weapons in the hopes that the two would destroy one another . . . so excuse me if I am a skeptical of this administration's intentions in invading Iraq. You are not blinded by patriotism, you are blinded by ignorance and mistake it for patriotism, if you cared for this country you wouldn't support war.

\

You are a fvcking idiot, do you really think our troops set the oil wells on fire? Due us all a favor and more to Iraq so we can shove a JDAM up your ass.

yes, we're due for a favor. and more to iraq, but more of what?

i thnk the pesticides they've found might be the chemical weapons! they weren't able to produce or upkeep their other chemical weapons anymore, so they started experimenting with most likely "legal" imports like pesticides, and trying to concentrate those into something that would probably not do much damage, but sure would be a great scare tactic.

i still hear bush's speech in my head about iraq having "weapons of destruction of which the world has never seen" and still bust up laughing. most likely they'll find a few drums of stuff (i agree, a violation), but that has got to be the greatest overstatement in the world.


the iraqi information minister and bush should have their own exaggeration comedy standup show.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: iamWolverine

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: iamWolverine

You think I am disconnected from reality? Perhaps you didn't hear the reports that came out that American "special forces" were responsible for much of the oil spills in the first Gulf War. Again I would not be surprised if it was special forces that set the oil fires in this war.

You can't come up here and make exaggerated statements like that without backing it up.

Let's see the links.

You are all so willing to believe the crap that comes out of mainstream media, but once I say something you begin to doubt me . . . that's a good thing that you doubt me, but you should also strongly doubt the mainstream media, like the initial reports of Iraqi soldiers destroying incubators in Kuwait which was a complete fabrication (those you should easily be able to find links for yourself, just do the searching).
As for the oil fields, look here

Bush, Baker and their cronies in the oil business to make even bigger profits.

hmm..a completely and totaly unbiased source I see.

 

[iamWolverine]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Bush, Baker and their cronies in the oil business to make even bigger profits.

hmm..a completely and totaly unbiased source I see.

Everyone has a bias . . . and some are more truthful than others . . .

 

[Thraxen]

OMG, that link on the oil fields is total garbage. Even the slightest bit of logical thought would tell you that. I especially love this quote:

The report includes a list of US corporations who are to be assigned the profitable task of rebuilding Kuwait and extinguishing the oil well fires, as well as the Arab names they will be operating under.?

Haha....so we spent billions of dollars on a war so a couple of companies could make a few bucks on re-building destroyed oil wells? OMFG, you would have to be totally clueless to buy that. If we were after profit we would have simply claimed the oil fields for ourselves after we cleaned the Iraqis out...or seized some of Iraq's oil fields.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: iamWolverine

Wouldn't it be ironic if there actually weren't any chemical/biological weapons in Iraq?

Despite all the criticism received from the U.S. the weapons inspection teams were actually doing their jobs quite well, you just need to listen to past weapons inspector heads, i.e. Dennis Halliday and Scott Ritter and even Blix himself to know that it would have been a smarter move to let them finish the job. The U.S. has already now checked at least 10 of the most "suspect" sites on their list of 200 plus sites, which probably is an old and used list . . . I was looking at a Newsweek magazine from 1991 and that also reported "200 suspect sites". This war had very little to do with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and if that isn't obvious now, it will likely become more clear for those who actually care to follow what happens over the next several years. I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. starts planting weapons just to justify the war.

I really hope you read and respond to this because while "my side" of this argument is continually labeled as the ignorant side, I think that your side frequently doesn't know all the facts either.

Scott Ritter agreed that Iraq was hindering weapons inspectors back when he was there. He resigned from being an inspector when he said the U.S. wasn't doing enough to disarm Iraq.

Before mentioning his criticisms, why don't you read these articles:
Slate.com
Foxnews.com
britainusa.com

Agreeably, Slate isn't the most unbiased news source on the planet, but unless you think they're outright lying, then there is some definite problems with his statement. His "ordeals" with the law don't help his credibility either. If you want to read any more, just type "Ritter an ugly threat" in Google. There are plenty more there.

As for Halliday, I understand his criticisms. He makes good points. However, his main beef is that the sanctions on Iraq were too harsh. I agree with that.

Blix has always been against the war. If you're going to accuse the US of being willing to plant weapons to justify the war, then you had better be willing to accuse him of doing everything he could with his post to assure that no matter what inspectors found, it would not be enough to justify war.