Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nuclear1 on June 21, 2006, 11:46:02 pm
-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
WASHINGTON — The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.
"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.
Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."
So, what about Saddam not having these and Bush lying about them?
-
From the article:
Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.
"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."
-
If you look hard enough for something, you're going to find it, whether or not it really exists. Still, if I recall my history on the Gulf War correctly, the majority of Iraq's chemical weapons stocks that were captured in that conflict had deteriorated badly and were more of a danger to anyone who attempted to use them then the folks they would have tried to use them on. They don't appear to have made new ones since then.
More proof of Saddam's brinksmanship being abombinable, I guess. He could have averted this...
-
an expired 50 year old can of spam is not a Dubya-Emm-Dee :D
-
I've always wondered why it's a terrible thing Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Britain has WMDs, France has 'em, Israel too, and I hear the US has WMDs as well, not to mention a considerable stockpile of CBWs, which are far more sinister. So, if aaaaall those countries have WMDs, why single out Iraq to dump US$2 Trillion of explosive ordinance on?
-
I've always wondered why it's a terrible thing Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Britain has WMDs, France has 'em, Israel too, and I hear the US has WMDs as well, not to mention a considerable stockpile of CBWs, which are far more sinister. So, if aaaaall those countries have WMDs, why single out Iraq to dump US$2 Trillion of explosive ordinance on?
Because they're not our friends any more, and we want our shirts back.
-
Whoa, call the press, they found roughly 500 weapon munitions of old degraded mustard gas.
Give me a break, WMDs this is not.
I've always wondered why it's a terrible thing Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Britain has WMDs, France has 'em, Israel too, and I hear the US has WMDs as well, not to mention a considerable stockpile of CBWs, which are far more sinister. So, if aaaaall those countries have WMDs, why single out Iraq to dump US$2 Trillion of explosive ordinance on?
Could it be because those regimes are ever slightly more so stable then the former Iraqi regime?
-
Hmm President Bush...........Admiral Bosch.................... "EUREKA !!"
I see where that NTF head gets his power hunger from now.
-
Could it be because those regimes are ever slightly more so stable then the former Iraqi regime?
Correct me if i'm wrong, but I was under the impression that Iraq was actually quite stable when Hussein was in power. It wasn't a beacon of freedom and democracy [honestly, what nation is these days?] but it was certainly a lot better than right now, with the nation in shambles, a powerless, puppet government, and the threat of Civil War. :blah:
-
Germany was booming when hitler was in charge, but unfortunatley so were neighbouring countries. A stable economy and quality of life are touchy when it comes to defining a "normal balance" in situations like this :)
-
Could it be because those regimes are ever slightly more so stable then the former Iraqi regime?
Correct me if i'm wrong, but I was under the impression that Iraq was actually quite stable when Hussein was in power. It wasn't a beacon of freedom and democracy [honestly, what nation is these days?] but it was certainly a lot better than right now, with the nation in shambles, a powerless, puppet government, and the threat of Civil War. :blah:
Very true, but also remember that it was stable mostly due to the threat of overwhelming retaliation, with WMDs. The main use of WMDs in Husseins regime was against his own population. However post 91, his stockpiles of WMD were mostly gone and while there have been 'attempts' to gain nuclear technology, it came to nothing.
To sum it up: The fact you can find WMDs in Iraq is not being contested, finding USFUL WMDs that were actully a threat, is contested.
Notice how the goals of the american goverment in Iraq change as the time goes by? First the invasion is for the safety and peace of the world, then we moved to freeing the Iraqi people from Hussein, then it's democracy. Now the message is 'stay the course'.
-
Germany was booming when hitler was in charge, but unfortunatley so were neighbouring countries. A stable economy and quality of life are touchy when it comes to defining a "normal balance" in situations like this :)
Yeah... thanks for that... :wtf:
Notice how the goals of the american goverment in Iraq change as the time goes by? First the invasion is for the safety and peace of the world, then we moved to freeing the Iraqi people from Hussein, then it's democracy. Now the message is 'stay the course'.
It's kinda spooky that nobody really minds about the complete lack of substance behind any of those justifications, just that they were justifications, however flimsy.
-
Could it be because those regimes are ever slightly more so stable then the former Iraqi regime?
Correct me if i'm wrong, but I was under the impression that Iraq was actually quite stable when Hussein was in power. It wasn't a beacon of freedom and democracy [honestly, what nation is these days?] but it was certainly a lot better than right now, with the nation in shambles, a powerless, puppet government, and the threat of Civil War. :blah:
Before sanctions it was regarded as having one of the best healthcare systems in the M.E, and relatively secular and free in terms of religion versus the likes of Saudi Arabia and Iran. Horrible repression aside, of course.
-
"I think — tide turning — see, as I remember — I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of — it's easy to see a tide turn — did I say those words?" —George W. Bush, asked if the tide was turning in Iraq, Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006
Happy Birthday by the way Mufastae. :doubt:
-
Notice how the goals of the american goverment in Iraq change as the time goes by? First the invasion is for the safety and peace of the world, then we moved to freeing the Iraqi people from Hussein, then it's democracy. Now the message is 'stay the course'.
It's kinda spooky that nobody really minds about the complete lack of substance behind any of those justifications, just that they were justifications, however flimsy.
Think about it again and see if these are actully valid reasons.
WMD: The entire evidence is based on one report, discredited even by the goverment agency that published it, repeated as if it was confirmed fact infront of the UN.
Freeing the Iraqi people: I don't notice much happiness over there when people are being blown up. I belive this is where I'm supposed to listen to the 'better to die on your feet then live on your knees', but all I'm seeing is dying at their knees in greater numbers then Husseins regime.
Democracy: Give me a break, have you seen the constitution? It enshrines Islamic law as the basis of law, makes no garuntee about rights(fine print says the goverment can legislate anything).
-
Could it be because those regimes are ever slightly more so stable then the former Iraqi regime?
Correct me if i'm wrong, but I was under the impression that Iraq was actually quite stable when Hussein was in power. It wasn't a beacon of freedom and democracy [honestly, what nation is these days?] but it was certainly a lot better than right now, with the nation in shambles, a powerless, puppet government, and the threat of Civil War. :blah:
Before sanctions it was regarded as having one of the best healthcare systems in the M.E, and relatively secular and free in terms of religion versus the likes of Saudi Arabia and Iran. Horrible repression aside, of course.
Don't forget it actully had rights for women, a complete oppisate then nowdays where women who are not covered by Burka get shot or worse.
-
Could it be because those regimes are ever slightly more so stable then the former Iraqi regime?
Correct me if i'm wrong, but I was under the impression that Iraq was actually quite stable when Hussein was in power. It wasn't a beacon of freedom and democracy [honestly, what nation is these days?] but it was certainly a lot better than right now, with the nation in shambles, a powerless, puppet government, and the threat of Civil War. :blah:
Before sanctions it was regarded as having one of the best healthcare systems in the M.E, and relatively secular and free in terms of religion versus the likes of Saudi Arabia and Iran. Horrible repression aside, of course.
Don't forget it actully had rights for women, a complete oppisate then nowdays where women who are not covered by Burka get shot or worse.
Albeit I think it's worth mentioning that post-sanctions Iraq was reversing itself to a more Shariah-law type situation to try and gain favour from more 'devout' Muslim countries.
-
What would be the estimated Iraqi body-count from sanctions right form when they were set?
-
Albeit I think it's worth mentioning that post-sanctions Iraq was reversing itself to a more Shariah-law type situation to try and gain favour from more 'devout' Muslim countries.
I don't doubt that, but got source?
-
Albeit I think it's worth mentioning that post-sanctions Iraq was reversing itself to a more Shariah-law type situation to try and gain favour from more 'devout' Muslim countries.
I don't doubt that, but got source?
Um, 1 sec. I remember it on Panorama or something, i'll need to check the bbc website for news stories.
EDIT; whoops. Can't find anything offhand, but i'm not looking hard (@ work).
-
Um, 1 sec. I remember it on Panorama or something, i'll need to check the bbc website for news stories.
Holy smokes thats some screwed up quote tags. :wtf:
-
Just found something neat.
Fox News’ Jim Angle contacted the Defense Department who quickly disavowed Santorum and Hoekstra’s claims. A Defense Department official told Angle flatly that the munitions hyped by Santorum and Hoekstra are “not the WMD’s for which this country went to war.”
[snip]
And Jim Angle reported this for Fox News quotes a defense official who says these were pre-1991 weapons that could not have been fired as designed because they already been degraded. And the official went on to say these are not the WMD’s this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had and not the WMD’s for which this country went to war.
-
More proof of Saddam's brinksmanship being abombinable, I guess. He could have averted this...
I doubt that. The US was hell-bent on going to war and was willing to use any possible excuse to do it, fabricated or otherwise.
-
What would be the estimated Iraqi body-count from sanctions right form when they were set?
I would say about a million, half of that children. Those are reliable, generally confirmed numbers as a result of economic sanctions.
-
And who ever said the UN wasn't effective. :blah:
-
I thought it was more.
-
I doubt that. The US was hell-bent on going to war and was willing to use any possible excuse to do it, fabricated or otherwise.
Perhaps. He certainly could have made it more difficult, though, but instead made the task easier, not harder.
-
Now I know why Germany and France along with other major european powers refused to go to war in Irak. Bush was full of...well full of it and they wanted no part in this.
Oh and heres another thing why bomb them into submission when you can starve them to death. Its far cheaper. But not as efective or humane for that matter from mi POW. I bleive starving a population to death or because of lack of medical care due to lack of meny is far more sinister.
-
Seems like this is an attempt to brand things like artillery shells filled with nerve gas as WMDs which could hit western targets. These antiquitated, short-range devices are no threat to anyone but Israel, even if they could be fired without exploding in the firing chamber. If they found weapons that could conceivably be used against the East Coast US cities - as the government told its Senators - then I'd be sympathetic.
-
...even if they could be fired without exploding in the firing chamber.
"Commandant, we have loaded the Nerve-gas shells and we are ready to fire"
"Excellent. Corporal, you may fire at will"
*Chink*
*Hissss*
"Hey, what smells like gas...?"
-
Sarin and Mustard gas weapons that old are no longer dangerous - sarin is completely harmless and mustard gas that old may give you a rash
doesn't stop republicans (santorum) from going on FNC declaring Mission Accomplished: WMD and start screaming that saddam had WMD
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N22434436.htm
-
even if they could be fired without exploding in the firing chamber.
Big if though.
Thing is that Saddam was surrounded by countries that did not like him. They weren't afraid of him because they knew his military was a wreck and that whatever WMDs that were left over from the Iran-Iraq and Gulf Wars were unusable. Despite this they still opposed the war. They opposed it because they were afraid of the consequences of the chaos in Iraq.