Jump to content

How Interesting


Recommended Posts

Report: Hundreds of WMD's Found in Iraq

Oy vey. I am loathe to even post this because the last thing we need is yet another endless debate on Iraq. But it IS important news.

I'll be the first to admit that the pre-war intelligence was used to show that Saddam was developing new WMD's, which has not been discovered to be true (or at least has not yet been disclosed to the public). It was argued that there was no way Saddam could NOT still have at least what was left over from the atrocities committed upon his own people - and this is certainly turning out to be true. I will also acknowledge that these weapons are old and for the most part could not be used in the manner for which they were originally designed - that is, to be fired as artillery. It is important to note that this does not, however make the chemicals inside them any less dangerous at all. The chemicals in 5 shells killed hundreds of people in Iraq. There is 500 in the stockpile that was found.

The question is, does this change the 'imminent threat" status of pre-invasion Iraq? I am betting that that depends on what your position on the Iraq war is. For me, I say it re-inforces the danger Saddam posed as a supplier and funder of terrorism, as Al Qaeda would have loved to have gotten their hands on some of this stuff.

Mostly, I suspect that this will only serve to re-ignite the largely circular and endless debates about whether Bush is a power hungry big oil baron, a big frickin' moron, the terrorist-killing cowboy, Satan incarnate, or just a guy doing what he was elected to do as best as he knows how. All of which misses the point entirely, but there's politicizing for you.

Ultimately, Bush-haters will downplay the significance, Bush supporters will cry "Vindication!!!", and guys like me will continue being disgusted as they wonder why the gruesome, brutal torture and murder of two young Americans was forgotten in the media in 24 hours so we could spend time focusing on the "atrocities" committed by US troops. Where DO all of those wonderful human rights advocacy groups go when it's Americans who are murdered?

***SIGH***.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea...

I heard those two soldiers, who fought for there country, where mutilated so terribly that the only way they could be identified was through DNA

And your surprised Prez? I mean the Media HATES the United States, they could care less what the TERRORISTS do to our troops

Yet when Bush fly's over to Iraq to COMMEND our troops and raise morale, the Media get's up and arms and says "Thats not right"

Please... someone needs to get rid of EVERY MEDIA OUTLET and replace them with more CREDIBLE and truthful outlets...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you're exactly right Kalshion. In fact, the worst of all of the news outlets with the lying is Fox News themselves. I've seen all sorts of crap come out of their place that isn't even a bit credible. In addition to that, they're disrespectful to 90% of the people they bring on their channel and are constantly trying to make a little thing a humongous "OMG we're gonna die" situation.

Look, Tenet wouldn't have had to resign from his position had they been finding WMDs. Mind you, he resigned in August 2003, so they would have had to find one or two authentic WMD by that point, which would have been their smoking gun. They didn't, and as someone who's been studying a hell of a lot of declassified CIA and NGIC documents for a research brief over the past 10 months, that one that Fox News has acquired barely looks authentic.

Fox News needs to give it a break. CNN needs to give it a break. All American news outlets need to just give it a break.

EDIT: Before you all jump on me for being a Bush hater, I'm not. I don't agree with everything the man does but some of his actions have been pretty good. This is insignificant because it came from an untrustworthy news outlet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are the same WMDs that were reported from before. According to the report released by the Pentagon they weren't even useful as weapons because the chemicals had degraded so much since they were developed prior to 1991.

I remember the first one that was found was used in an IED, and they found a few more every so often. They have been steadily inventorying and destroying them in Georgia I believe.

But to answer your point, I don't believe it changes the "Imminent threat" equation at all. Whether or not Saddam had weapons, he was definitely not going to attack or participate in an attack against the U.S.

Saddam didn't have any friendly relations with Islamists until after the Gulf War, and even then they were limited.

All that aside: I would point out that North Korea developing Nuclear Weapons and missiles to reach the entirety of the continental US qualifies more as an "Imminent threat" than an emasculated dictator in some Middle East country.

The real difference between the two of course is that North Korea isn't sitting on 10% of the world's oil.

We wouldn't have intervened in Kuwait if the annexation of that nation didn't give Saddam nearly 20% control of the world's oil supply.

I won't idealize why we are there. It makes strategic sense to have control of those oil reserves in the hands of an ally or ourselves.

At least allowing NK to develop a long-range ballistic missile will give us a chance to test out our missile defenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are alot of crazy people that call America thier home. It's only natural that a small percentage of them will end up serving in uniform. Bad things happen in combat and the sooner the public realizes that fact, the better.

Civilians will always be in the line of fire. Some will die. The media needs to get over thier morbid addiction to death. It's an act of desperation on the part of the terrorists to kidnap our troops and brutalize them. They are attempting to break our resolve.

I have news for them. Not gonna happen!

The terrorists are getting thier asses kicked and they KNOW it.(at least according to some of Zarqawi's documents)

One does not awaken a sleeping giant and expect not to get stomped into a puddle of grease. Just ask Japan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read a memo that was released in terms of what is happening over there penned by the top U.S. administrator... he identifies women who work in the new government showing up to work more and more conservatively dressed due to receiving death threats to hints of death threats if they aren't 'modest'.

There are Shiite goons who are working thier way into the government attempting to bring out the theocracy sure to emerge as soon as we leave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

But to answer your point, I don't believe it changes the "Imminent threat" equation at all. Whether or not Saddam had weapons, he was definitely
not
going to attack or participate in an attack against the U.S.

Saddam didn't have any friendly relations with Islamists until after the Gulf War, and even then they were limited.

All that aside: I would point out that North Korea developing Nuclear Weapons and missiles to reach the entirety of the continental US qualifies more as an "Imminent threat" than an emasculated dictator in some Middle East country.

The real difference between the two of course is that North Korea isn't sitting on 10% of the world's oil.

We wouldn't have intervened in Kuwait if the annexation of that nation didn't give Saddam nearly 20% control of the world's oil supply.

VERY good points there, and I've got to say I agree entirely. Maybe I'm a bit of a warhawk, but I really feel like we need to send the Jimmy Carter and the Ohio over to North Korea's coast and just level the missile launch site with Tomahawks. The refitted Ohio could certainly carry enough missiles to probably destroy the entire war infrastructure that North Korea possesses. I realize this is just wishful thinking, right now we'd loose a lot of support if we did that.

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

I won't idealize why we are there. It makes strategic sense to have control of those oil reserves in the hands of an ally or ourselves.

At least allowing NK to develop a long-range ballistic missile will give us a chance to test out our missile defenses.

Exactly. I would rather not get a chance to test our missile defenses though. A major problem with the theory that scientists found when they were first toying with the idea during the cold war is the risk of plutonium being released in the upper atmosphere. That could cause enough collateral damage to kill millions. It is just theory, but its a theory that I don't think anyone wants to test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

These are the same WMDs that were reported from before. According to the report released by the Pentagon they weren't even useful as weapons because the chemicals had degraded so much since they were developed prior to 1991.

SILK: When were these reported before? I had been hearing from multitudes of Iraq Invasion objectors that Saddam had NO WMD. None. Nada. All of his old stash was reported destroyed by the UN Inspectors following the first Gulf War. I know it's from a long time ago, but do you still by chance have more info on the Pentagon report you mention here? I must have missed it.

To answer another point you made, I found an article here that implies that the deadliness of nerve agents does not lessen over time. See what you make of it.

Article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was the original shell found in 2004:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

(Interesting stuff there)

I've heard about the inventory and destruction of these, but the matter is for all intents and purposes classified according to the Pentagon. We weren't even supposed to know about that story above.

Most of these 500 +/- munitions have been found separately mixed in with conventional weapons in Saddam's warehouses. While Sarin and Mustard Gas doesn't become less dangerous over time, the corrosion and wear on these munitions means that you would probably need to dip a cup in and drink the stuff in order to suffer the ill effects considering that most of the shells probably wouldn't detonate properly.

Much the same reason why we have to constantly replace our nuclear missiles because they become no good after a while.

Let me be clear: I think we had every legal justification for the war based on Saddam's non-compliance with the cease-fire.

I disagree with the investment and necessity of the action. Most of the WMD arguments from the Bush administration revolved around nuclear weapons, etc. by Saddam.

So... the rest of my post (over 2/3) in regards to "imminent threat" still stands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the most part, I have to agree. These "WMD" don't really change much. I can see this issue not having an effect on the majority of America's view on the Iraq war.

The thought of chemical munitions, however old, just lying about for anyone to grab does make me a wee bit nervous, so I'm glad that they are being gathered and destroyed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

For the most part, I have to agree. These "WMD" don't really change much. I can see this issue not having an effect on the majority of America's view on the Iraq war.

The thought of chemical munitions, however old, just lying about for anyone to grab does make me a wee bit nervous, so I'm glad that they are being gathered and destroyed.

Well the only thing that pisses me off is Republicans screaming "Look WMDs!" which to some is old news, and it was done for the sole purpose of taking attention away from immigration, and other areas which actually make a difference in the well being of the economy and the lives of Americans.

I mean I can actually expect to see Democrats screaming "Racism" every election cycle in some fashion... but to see Republicans playing the same cards just further convinces me they aren't worth voting for.

The question of course... is the Democrat 'cure' worse than the Republican 'disease'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

The question of course... is the Democrat 'cure' worse than the Republican 'disease'?


I'm thinking not. One Democrat President will refresh your memory accutely on how politics is a game only for the cunning and underhanded.

The Republicans have rather spectacularly blown a golden opportunity so far, but I am still holding out hope. The conservative base will punish you severely if you ignore them too long. Even these spineless morons have got to realize that.

I don't mind Santorum's effort to enlighten some people that there were SOME remnants of WMD in Iraq contrary to what has been said (3 people I work with were very surprised to find out there were any at all, having been told repeatedly there were none), but I have to agree with you that the timing is a little suspect.

Personally, I find the Democrat way of politicizing EVERYTHING to an extreme degree far, far worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

I don't mind Santorum's effort to enlighten some people that there were SOME remnants of WMD in Iraq contrary to what has been said (3 people I work with were very surprised to find out there were any at all, having been told repeatedly there were none), but I have to agree with you that the timing is a little suspect.

The timing is extremely suspect. I'm half tempted to actually file a Freedom of Information Act request myself and consider working on investigating the whole Iraq WMD issues when I finish up with the Argentinean dirty war project I'm working on.

I really have some doubts about the authenticity of this report. None of the other news organizations (as far as I can tell) have picked up on it, so I'm wondering if it was unverifiable. Unfortunately, Fox News has shown us in the past, that they don't actually verify their news before they report it.

With the current state of trust most American's have with their politicians (almost nonexistant at this point in time) its going to take a lot more than, "Yes, we've found WMDs, here, have this sketchy looking report and take it at face value, don't doubt it at all." No, they're going to actually build trust up before people will start to really believe them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is interesting news, of course it was already known but hushed up by the media so more people would blame Bush no doubt- nothing new I suppose though, unfortunately. And it doesnt matter if they were nukes or gas bombs- either is a WMD. It also doesnt matter whether Saddam would or would not have used them against the US or any country for that matter (and who's to say he wouldnt have), but the fact that they exist means that the numerous terrorist cells that operated in Iraq would have had access to them, and that WOULD put the U.S at risk, not to mention whatever other target they might have in mind. And it doesnt matter how lethal the weapons were or were not, remember the Tokyo subway incident- it has to do with how they are used... and thats scary to think about. Who knows what happened the first time UN inspecters went into Iraq, for all we know Saddam gave his terrorist buddy a bunch of WMDs and shipped him out of Iraq?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cmdr Weegee-

Foxnews is no less credible than any news media, and in many cases are more credible. Of course, the fact that they have conservative spin in their editorial spots pisses off liberals who have had a lock on ownership of the media for decades.

Foxnews can be every bit as annoying, juvenile and obssessed with sensationalism as CNN, MSNBC, ABCNews, etc, but they report stuff like this BECAUSE the liberal media won't. This is not some fabrication; it is taken directly out of recently unclassified official documents. You only question the validity because it goes against what you believe. Not a very good way of keeping an open mind, I should think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


I really have some doubts about the authenticity of this report. None of the other news organizations (as far as I can tell) have picked up on it, so I'm wondering if it was unverifiable. Unfortunately, Fox News has shown us in the past, that they don't actually verify their news before they report it.

Umm, when has Fox News shown they don't verify? I recall Dan Blather from CBS not verifying a story...

In any case, I have NO IDEA as to why people think WMDs found is news. These aren't the first we've found.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=10101

In any case, funny how the left has changed it's tune from "no WMDs were in Iraq" to "these WMDs aren't the ones we were looking for."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6062101837.html

I'm sure if we find the weapons we "were looking for" the left will either ignore it, or claim we planted them, or anything except credit Bush for doing the right thing.

Doesn't it make you sleep better at night knowing that the liberals in Washington are more concerned with playing politics and power struggles than the fact that we FOUND NERVE GAS.

Also, want more proof that the media is liberally biased? Carefully read the Washington Post article I've linked. It mentions a "degraded blistering agent" being found, and cites this report. A "blistering agent" refers to mustard gas. However, the intel report also mentions SARIN NERVE GAS. Sarin gas is NOT A BLISTERING AGENT, it is a NERVE AGENT and one of the DEADLIEST CHEMICALS ON THE PLANET. Funny how the Washington Post didn't feel that particular fact was important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

Cmdr Weegee-

Foxnews is no less credible than any news media, and in many cases are more credible. Of course, the fact that they have conservative spin in their editorial spots pisses off liberals who have had a lock on ownership of the media for decades.

Foxnews can be every bit as annoying, juvenile and obssessed with sensationalism as CNN, MSNBC, ABCNews, etc, but they report stuff like this BECAUSE the liberal media won't. This is not some fabrication; it is taken directly out of recently unclassified official documents. You only question the validity because it goes against what you believe. Not a very good way of keeping an open mind, I should think.

I'll have you know that I don't trust CNN, MSNBC, ABC, or any other TV news channel for that matter. However Fox News rarely backs up their stories when challenged. The only news agency I really trust for world news is BBC, because they don't try to sensationalize their international news.

I don't trust this report of because if they had found that many weapons since 2003, there would have had to be weapons found before Tenet was asked to resign in August 2003, and thus he wouldn't have had to resign. In addition, there's too much speculation going on. If I were writing a white paper on these matters, and I used an article that had "Most likely" and "could be" for one of the major key points, then I'd get laughed out of the room by my colleagues.

So please, before you go pointing fingers saying "you don't believe this just because you're not conservative enough to believe it blindly and not have legitimate doubts" realize why I doubt the authenticity because the NGIC report doubts itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude ... this isn't a story from an investigation that Fox News had anything to do with. The story came from a declassified US Intelligence report on the floor of the House.

Besides, how come BBC has yet to report this? Wouldn't you think it's important?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The story is 100% verifiable. Whether or not you think it changes anything is another matter. Believe what you want - I don't really care. Just don't go lecturing me about biased media in one breath and then talk about the BBC as "fair and objective" in another, 'cause I might laugh so hard I'd spit my beer through my nose.

Ask Tony Blair how fair the BBC is. Several BBC journalists were discovered to have been covering up stories about the war going well, all the while accentuating and embellishing the negative if I remember correctly. And I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember US Government telling US people that Iraq had moving chemical laboratories(I think it was stated by Colin Powell), as well as Donald Rumsfeld reporting huge fortified bunkers with all fancy equipment inside those before attacking Afghanistan after 9/11. Those things were never found. Donald Rumsfeld(like so many others of your current administration) have been caught several times of altering the truth.

IMO, mainstream media is not guardhound of power, but instead it is its soundhorn, a megaphone. Then people that have no time nor interest to check out these "stories" buys them without hesitation. It doesent matter much if 20 % of population knows the truth when rest of them are fooled and indimitated by mass media.

Ofcourse WMDs were to be found from Iraq, because it was US that gave them to it.

-v

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep playing that "THE US GAVE IRAQ WMD" tune. It's and oldie but a goodie! America is evil, blah blah blah. And did we really need to "fabricate" anything to attack Afghanistan? They were only harboring and funding Al Qaeda. Of course that's not enough for you Volio, since they didn't attack you. You wear you "President of the Blame America First Association" hat with pride I see. Good to know you still keep repeating the same garbage over and over Volio. If there's one thing I love about a person, it's predictability.

The fact that Colin Powell was wrong about the pre-war intelligence means that ANY story that illustrates that Iraq had WMD has to be fabricated, right? I have no doubt that that makes perfect sense to you from your warped perspective. It's amazing how people will believe what they want no matter what the evidence to the contrary. Ironically, that's exactly what I've been accused of by the very people doing it right now. Simply classic.

I don't give a rodent's rectum about Rumsfeld, Bush, Powell, or any of Bush's cronies. They could all take a permanent leave of absence for all I care. And I wish all of the pathetic cretins that spend their days pontificating about how they are the most evil people in the history of the world would take it with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Remo Williams

quote:

Originally posted by Voli0:

Ofcourse WMDs were to be found from Iraq, because it was US that gave them to it.

-v

If you believe that you have been fooled and intimidated by the influence of the left leaning liberal mass media. Out of all the weapons that were given to Iraq in their fight with Iran this type would have never been given not even to our supposed allies aboard or to the north do we share these weapons. Think about what you say before you say it please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Remo Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by Voli0:

Ofcourse WMDs were to be found from Iraq, because it was US that gave them to it.

-v

If you believe that you have been fooled and intimidated by the influence of the left leaning liberal mass media. Out of all the weapons that were given to Iraq in their fight with Iran this type would have never been given not even to our supposed allies aboard or to the north do we share these weapons. Think about what you say before you say it please.


Unfortunately Remo, it's true... there is a Senate Committee report entitled "U.S. Chemical and Biological Exports to Iraq and Their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Persian Gulf War"

According to a Senate Committee Report of 1994 {1}: From 1985, if not earlier, through 1989, a veritable witch's brew of biological materials were exported to Iraq by private American suppliers pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Amongst these materials, which often produce slow, agonizing deaths, were:

* Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.

* Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.

* Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord and heart.

* Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.

* Clotsridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.

* Clostridium tetani, highly toxigenic.

* Escherichia Coli (E.Coli); genetic materials; human and bacterial DNA.

Dozens of other pathogenic biological agents were shipped to Iraq during the 1980s. The Senate Report pointed out: "These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction." {2}

"It was later learned," the committee revealed, "that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program."{3}

These exports continued to at least November 28, 1989 despite the fact that Iraq had been reported to be engaging in chemical warfare and possibly biological warfare against Iranians, Kurds, and Shiites since the early 80s.

During the Iraq-Iran war of 1980-88, the United States gave military aid and intelligence information to both sides, hoping that each would inflict severe damage on the other, in line perhaps with what Noam Chomsky has postulated:

It's been a leading, driving doctrine of U.S. foreign policy since the 1940s that the vast and unparalleled energy resources of the Gulf region will be effectively dominated by the United States and its clients, and, crucially, that no independent, indigenous force will be permitted to have a substantial influence on the administration of oil production and price.

Indeed, there is evidence that Washington encouraged Iraq to attack Iran and ignite the war in the first place. This policy, as well as financial considerations, were likely the motivating forces behind providing Iraq with the biological materials. (Iran was at that time regarded as the greater threat to the seemingly always threatened U.S. national security.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...