U.S. tests say chemicals not weapons

[Ferocious]

Even if they do find barrels of chemicals.......those would not be considered WMD's militarily speaking.

Chemicals, chemical weapons,....and WMD's are all three different things.

 

[jjones]

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

ROFLMAO. You have to be kidding, either that or you've got your little tin foil hat wrapped a bit too tight. That stupid little article references not a single valid source, document, or photograph. Anyone can make wild claims and include supposed quotes from "sources and insiders" but only the ignorant believe them.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: 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.

Here's my favorite quote:

?We did not set the oil fields on fire,? said then-Iraqi Oil Minister Osama al-Hiti, to a SPOTLIGHT reporter in June 1992. ?Why should we? Where was the profit??

New evidence uncovered by the SPOTLIGHT supports al-Hiti's version of events. ?Iraq had no reason to destroy those wells,? says a Washington petroleum analyst, who has spent years in the Gulf. Iraqi troops were already withdrawing from Kuwait when its oil fields were swept by fire. ?The Iraqi leaders had already realized that they would have to submit to an imposed settlement of that conflict,? he explained.

Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein and his top aides knew full well by then that they would be held economically and financially liable for any damages claimed by Kuwait in the aftermath of the Gulf War.

First off, I guarantee you that at no point did Iraq think that it would have to pay to rebuild the oil fields. Saddam Hussein claimed just a week before the war began that they didn't even lose the war! Right, that's why you left Kuwait, because you won. They claim there was no profit in destroying the oil wells and the "biased" source doesn't even bring up the fact that the reason they invaded Kuwait in the first place was because of their claim that Kuwait was flooding the market with oil and driving the prices down while demanding that Iraq paid back the money it owed Kuwait. I would bet that Iraq figured that by the time they fixed the oil fields, Iraq would have been able to gain back the money from oil sales in order to pay back Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. If nothing else, they wanted Kuwait to pay for what they thoguht Kuwait had done.

So, a source that wolverine admits has bias has "uncovered" information to support a claim from the same government that is now claiming that not only has the US not gained control of Baghdad Airport, but the US also isn't in Baghdad at all. The US just brought in a couple of tanks and then left quickly. If you look closely, while he claimed that "Iraq had no reason to destroy the oil wells," the second statement is NOT in quotes, where he "says" that "Iraqi troops were already withdrawing from Kuwait when its oil fields were swept by fire." He could have said the other two statements without even believing that Iraq had actually done it.

Then the Spotlight says that the Iraqi regime knew they'd pay for the oil wells, as though the Spotlight knew exactly what the Iraqi regime was thinking. I'd bet that even if they DID think that, they knew they'd make more from higher oil revenues than the repairs would cost.

Instead of claiming that only the sites that show your opinions are correct, why don't you try questioning them yourself. I'll be submitting my request to the FOIA office tonight for the document they mention. I wouldn't be surprised if it's completely different from what they claim.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: iamWolverine

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

BWA HA HA HA!

You say it's good that I doubt you..that I am not brainwashed by 'mainstream' media yet you are the polar opposite of someone like that! You are brainwashed by the conspiracy theorists of the world. You should seek help for your paranoia.

BTW, ever wonder why none of the major news outlets (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, Reuters, UPI, AP, BBC, etc.) ever picked up on that garbage? I'll tell you why. It's because it's garbage! LOL!!

A random article from "the truthseeker"

Even better...UN makes billions off Oil-for-Food LOL!

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: conjur

A random article from "the truthseeker"

Even better...UN makes billions off Oil-for-Food LOL!

ROFLMAO! That first one was reasonable at first. I was actually wondering why you chose it. Then I read the following line:

These TV shows are designed to SHOCK and DESENSITIZE the audience to believe that "anything goes" so that one day it will accept human sacrifice and sex with children, not just on TV but in real life.

That is what the article said about American television! I can't stop laughing!

Here's another quote from the first page of the sight:

Henry Makow Ph.D.: Bush Crucifies Christ's Message Is George Bush all that he seems? Or is he merely using his professed 'faith' as a cover as he does the bidding of the global elite?

Something tells me that Wolverine just read that headline and thought to himself, "Hey, really? I'm going to have to go read that article. I knew it all along!"

HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH
ROFLMAO

 

[HappyGamer2]

yep, I am behind our troops, and for the most part I am for the war, But I am not for Bush, Bush and his boys were the ones that kept saying WMD WMD WMD how many times?
odds are saddam has or did have something, but what do ya expect, this problem is going to get worse in the world, not better.

 

[Judgement]

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!

Anyone who says the U.S. can or will plant evidence has obviously not fully thought through the implications of that assumption. The media is all over this war, it would be hard to plant anything without it being witnessed, not to mention we can't exactly just make some of our weapons look like theirs would.

 

[HappyGamer2]

I think that planting or maybe even just saying they have such a thing is possible, so what if they get caught later on, re-election is a huge thing, worry about getting caught later. sounds crazy? well somebody sold Iran weapons and in the end they got away with it.

The CIA would never do such a thing?

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: Judgement

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!

Anyone who says the U.S. can or will plant evidence has obviously not fully thought through the implications of that assumption. The media is all over this war, it would be hard to plant anything without it being witnessed, not to mention we can't exactly just make some of our weapons look like theirs would.

But they believe that our media would just not report that stuff.

Edit: By the way, I find it funny that iamwolverine hasn't come back to "tell us where we're wrong" yet. I'm sure he never will. It's so obvious that his source is ridiculous that he's lost credibility.

 

[iamWolverine]

many of you mix up claims that people in this administration will profit from this war with this country will profit from this war . . . those are two separate things and do not equate. Certainly there is nothing illegal about putting money in defense stock and then having your son or other people in office raise up hysteria about "threats" and rather than understanding why there is a threat in the first place continue down a path of belligerence.

And I never said that Scott Ritter or the other UN inspection team heads didn't think that there was resistance from the Iraqi side, but none of them Scott Ritter included have supported war. And do not forget that one of the reasons that UNSCOM stopped their work was because CIA members were part of the team and passing that information along such that sites would then get bombed etc, even Scott Ritter was critical of this fact. UNSCOM was not kicked out of Iraq by the Iraqi government, but rather pulled out because of an impending air assualt.

And finally . . . I am not saying that the U.S. will definitely plant weapons, but rather that I would not be surprised if this happens--not that anyone would readily learn about it, because yes while there are media people around, if you all think that the "in-beded" media sees everything the U.S. forces are doing and are tagging along with "special ops" teams then you're more gullible than you think I am.

 

[HappyGamer2]

"And finally . . . I am not saying that the U.S. will definitely plant weapons, but rather that I would not be surprised if this happens--not that anyone would readily learn about it, because yes while there are media people around, if you all think that the "in-beded" media sees everything the U.S. forces are doing and are tagging along with "special ops" teams then you're more gullible than you think I am. "

I agree

 

[iamWolverine]

As for the credibility of the source . . . I apologize for not being able to provide you with my original source for the information, I heard it originally on a nationally broadcast radio interview on a Los Angeles indie radio station. When asked to provide a link I merely did a google search and provided you with the first link that I found that fitted the story . . . I should have just said that I heard it on the radio program from the beginning, but I am sure you would have all been just as incredulous.

 

[Fallen Kell]

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 have serious doubts that the weapons inspectors could ever hope to have completed the job they were intended to do. Without being able to really go where they want, when they want, and without the ability to surprise, there was no hope for them to find anything. In theory they could do what I just outlined above, but in practice, no they could not. They had no protection and no guard units. Without some kind of enforcement with them, there is no way they would be allowed near an area that actually would contain any possible weapons of mass destruction. There also was no element of surprise. They were being tracked by many of Iraq's intelligence and Irregulars. Warning could be given to any sites that actually contained weapons to bring any needed guards to the locations (not that they most likly did not already have guards). And I am currently only speaking of actual facilities, not going anywhere near the issue that they are in the middle of a desert, where you could easily and quickly burry a large cache of weapons in a single night without anyone being the wiser that it happened. How are they suppose to comb the entire desert? You can't even rely on metal detectors to do such work and there are thousands of tons of metal from the first war strewn about the desert, and many weapons could be stored in none metalic containers. The only things the weapon inspectors could do was make a presence known that we are watching you....hmm....we can do that many other ways as well, many ways which are 1000s of times better at gathering intelligence. Without their ability to surprise the people guarding the stores or production facilities there is no hope in finding said facilities.

The real questions that people should be asking is why would Iraq need to spend money stock piling chemical suits and atropine if they did not have any chemical weapons? There are probably many things that the money is better spent on (i.e. tanks, air craft, radar) if they didn't see a very high risk of such weapons being used in the vicinity of their troops.

 

[iamWolverine]

According to Scott Ritter the inspection teams had worked out some systems of surprise in inspecting sites, and a lot of the work was detective work in tracking down the weapons. I agree, that this shouldn't necessarily have been the inspectors' job in tracking it down, but it doesn't mean that the inspections were ineffective . . . if you listen to what the inspectors say, Iraq was more than 90% disarmed, you're welcome to check on that figure from Scott Ritter and other inspectors.

As for Iraq having chemical suits around, well that shouldn't be surprising considering that if (i.e. in the past) the country had chemical weapons, then it would make sense to also have protective suits. Also, the U.S. was considering using mustard and tear gas I believe, and still may in this war, so it would make sense to have chem suits around in case those were used. Now I am not saying that that was the reason, but that that is a reasonable reason, more reasonable than thinking Saddam would deploy chemical weapons in the middle of Baghdad.

Does anyone have the date for the last time chemical weapons were used by Iraqi forces?

 

[iamWolverine]

Do you think that a country willing to submit forged documents as "evidence" to the U.N. and the rest of the world would not consider planting weapons?

 

[Michael]

The US was never considering using mustard gas. I also have seen nothing that said that the US was even going to use "tear" gas.

Michael

 

[bjc112]

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.

What is the reason?

And dont say oil because it isn't.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: iamWolverine
According to Scott Ritter the inspection teams had worked out some systems of surprise in inspecting sites, and a lot of the work was detective work in tracking down the weapons. I agree, that this shouldn't necessarily have been the inspectors' job in tracking it down, but it doesn't mean that the inspections were ineffective . . . if you listen to what the inspectors say, Iraq was more than 90% disarmed, you're welcome to check on that figure from Scott Ritter and other inspectors.

As for Iraq having chemical suits around, well that shouldn't be surprising considering that if (i.e. in the past) the country had chemical weapons, then it would make sense to also have protective suits. Also, the U.S. was considering using mustard and tear gas I believe, and still may in this war, so it would make sense to have chem suits around in case those were used. Now I am not saying that that was the reason, but that that is a reasonable reason, more reasonable than thinking Saddam would deploy chemical weapons in the middle of Baghdad.

Does anyone have the date for the last time chemical weapons were used by Iraqi forces?

The number Ritter used was 95%. Also if you're going to quote Ritter (the pre-Iraq payroll Ritter anyway) finish the statement. Don't just pick and choose the part that suits you. He also said that the WMD programs could be very quickly reconstituted. Of course then a year or so ago he said that they didn't have any WMD. Ritter is a POS.

So we were considering using mustard gas huh? That's interesting. Do you make this sh!t up or do you get from places like that web site you linked to earlier?

 

[bjc112]

I say this PianoMan because Iraq only accounts for about 3 % of the nations oil...

that arguement is beatin into the ground...

:Q

 

[flavio]

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. 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.

Oh right after the new government takes over every iragi will have a new car in the garge and a Starbucks on every corner. UN sanctions and US bombs have killed a ton of Iraqis, but of course that disregard for life doesn't count right?

 

[iamWolverine]

Sorry I may be mistaken about the mustard gas . . . but here is some more info about the U.S.'s willingness to use "chemical" weapons, hope the sources get your seal of approval (I know these articles don't mention Iraq specifically, but just showing that U.S. is not bashful about using any of these weapons, sort of how U.S. is lowering the standards for using nuclear weapons too)

link

link 2

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: iamWolverine
Sorry I may be mistaken about the mustard gas . . . but here is some more info about the U.S.'s willingness to use "chemical" weapons, hope the sources get your seal of approval (I know these articles don't mention Iraq specifically, but just showing that U.S. is not bashful about using any of these weapons, sort of how U.S. is lowering the standards for using nuclear weapons too)

link

link 2

I see two articles filled with info about non-lethal crowd control devices. What exactly is your point?

 

[bentwookie]

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?

they're probably in syria or turkey already.

 

[bentwookie]

Originally posted by: 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!

Just like Dennis Miller said, "If your only anti-war slogan is "No War For Oil," hire a pit bull lawyer and sue your school district for having allowed you to slip through the cracks and robbing you of the minimum education that any non-troglodyte deserves "

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: bentwookie

Originally posted by: 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!

Just like Dennis Miller said, "If your only anti-war slogan is "No War For Oil," hire a pit bull lawyer and sue your school district for having allowed you to slip through the cracks and robbing you of the minimum education that any non-troglodyte deserves "

Thank YOU!