If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Danish troops in Iraq finds mortars testing positive for blister gases   (news.bbc.co.uk) divider line 594
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

9805 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jan 2004 at 4:47 PM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



594 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-01-10 06:17:37 PM  
Burn98

How about running a google for Buried Weapons Trailers Iraq, you big genius?

And again, run a google for Weapons Caches One-third Iraq.

And please try a little harder before I have to waste my time and run down a simple google search for an article.
 
2004-01-10 06:18:36 PM  
SuburbanCowboy: That's just what I was thinking. With the fair amount of coverage that the White House's BS about WMD is getting you'd think that at any hint of possible chemical weapons the White House would start jumping up and down and yelling "I told you so!". But all of a sudden they're like "Oh, probably nothing *kicks them under the rug*"
Bastardos!!!
 
2004-01-10 06:19:12 PM  
the 504

don't forget the Congo. didn't the US sanction the coup and assassination of lumumba, put in mobuto, only to later find out that he was a dictator? whoops. but hey, as long as we can get coltan for our cell phones, it's cool.
 
2004-01-10 06:19:30 PM  
So, the whack load of our tax money and the blood of our boys and girls was spilled for WHAT? some lousy bombs which are leaking and are not worth shiat.
Come on, seriously, we could use more jobs here in US then useless bombs in a country who I never cared about or didn't even hear about till Bush wanted to eat it out.
 
2004-01-10 06:19:35 PM  
Let's have one called the Reagan/Bush Inaction Chart

I don't know, swapping Reagan/Bush for Clinton/UN might make more sense.
 
2004-01-10 06:19:40 PM  
The504

Not to invoke Godwin, but I think that even more death in WWII could have been prevented if we had checkmated Hitler (Iraq-style) early on rather than wait until he was strong and powerful. You know...don't let him reoccupy the Ruhr, keep soldiers on his borders, force him to accept inspectors to make sure he isn't building ships and aircraft. If we kept him weak, he couldn't have started killing Jews.
 
2004-01-10 06:21:30 PM  
Possible evidence of Iraqi deception has been uncovered with the discovery of 11 mobile laboratories capable of biological and chemical uses buried south of Baghdad, a U.S. general said, according to CNN.
 
2004-01-10 06:21:37 PM  
hmmm... blister agent sounds like a CHEMICAL WEAPON ... oh yeah, cuz it is.

Chemical Weapons = Weapons of Mass Destruction
 
2004-01-10 06:21:39 PM  
Chelsea Clinton is Carrot Tops' blah blah

Of course you should know the significance of dropping the A-Bomb instead of invasion of Japan. That's an argument not worth this thread. Lets not forget the Japanese "rape of Nanking" The A-bomb saved lives and probably has stopped us from getting in a few wars since then.

P.S. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were less densly populated cities with mass amounts of military port structures. If we had to kill civilians, far better there than Tokyo or Osaka.
 
2004-01-10 06:21:42 PM  
So this is a WMD?

"Breaking News: One million Americans woke up with itchy skin today..."

THE HORROR! THE HORROR!
 
2004-01-10 06:22:37 PM  
pkjun,

Whats ifs aside WWII could have been prevented if the League of Nations listened to President Wilson.
 
2004-01-10 06:22:46 PM  
death in WWII could have been prevented if we had checkmated Hitler (Iraq-style) early on
We couldn't attack the liberal media's "Time Magazine Man of the Year"
 
2004-01-10 06:23:32 PM  
How about running a google for Buried Weapons Trailers Iraq, you big genius?

I thought you meant this one, MorticianBaby...

'The CIA yesterday concluded that two truck trailers seized by coalition forces in northern Iraq were designed by Saddam Hussein's regime to produce biological weapons agents.'

A couple of days later, it was retracted, just like the one you posted. Smoking gun my ass.
 
2004-01-10 06:23:36 PM  
Come on, seriously, we could use more jobs here in US then useless bombs in a country who I never cared about or didn't even hear about till Bush wanted to eat it out.

You didn't care when Clinton bombed Iraq more than any other country? You didn't notice that Iraq was Clinton's greatst foe for the eight years of his presidency?
 
2004-01-10 06:23:48 PM  
ten_of_spades

Yeah, it really would, except all of the chemical attacks on civilians and massacres took place while Bush and Reagan were in office.

MorticianBaby

I did.

But after combing through the mobile trailers for more than a month, U.S. officials still could not say they had found a trace of biological agent on the trailers.

The bioweapons labs had proven to be nothing more than unopened crates of standard laboratory equipment, such as test tubes.


I'm sure that the US intelligence services weren't trying hard enough.

The question sounds awfully loaded to me. Here. You tell me why you think Saddam buried it, and I'll tell you why I think he did.
 
2004-01-10 06:24:18 PM  
So this is a WMD?

"Breaking News: One million Americans woke up with itchy skin today..."

THE HORROR! THE HORROR!


Try "One million Americans woke this morning to find themselves drowning in their own blood."
 
2004-01-10 06:24:25 PM  
NavyBlues

What really galls me is that liberals and progressives TEND to give the benefit of the doubt to Saddam Hussein as to his intentions and what kind of a threat he was, but froth at the mouth giving no quarter when it comes to George W. Bush.


I don't think that is fair. I gave the benefit of the doubt to GWB. When he wanted to invade, I urged him to get UN approval first (because we were using the UN treaty violations as a pretext). When GWB said there were WMD in Iraq I also gave him the benefit of the doubt even though I found the evidence Powell gave to the UN less then impressive.

But then afer the war we heard:
We found them! Oops, never mind.
We found them! Oops, never mind.
We found them! Oops, never mind.
And then, nothing.

Now I am willing to consider that maybe Saddam really did get rid of all of the WMD (all he knew about anyway).
Is this "giving the benefit of the doubt to Saddam?

I am also willing to demand an explaination from my president. When my president says "there is no doubt" than I expect him to be sure of his facts. When he screws up this badly he owes us an explaination. Is this frothing at the mouth?
 
2004-01-10 06:24:26 PM  
If France and Britain had checkmated Hitler (Iraq-Style), His generals would have killed him. Even before that, Hitler was violating the treaty signed after WWI by rearming and no one did anything.
 
2004-01-10 06:24:58 PM  
i'm glad saddam is toast (what comes next, tho, who knows)

but please fellow yanks, accept the very plausable possibility that, plan and simple, saddam had no WMD, and if he did, the claim of him handing them over to terrorists is highly dubious one, at best

iraq was "liberated" becasue it was "do-able", because
a small group of men who control the presidents attention
convinced him to for reasons unrelated to, but justified by, the stated WMD threat which essentially amounted to
"saddam = bad + saddam has/wants weapons = saddam will kill you" , a theory that, since i'm not 12 or "patriotic"
really didnt stand up becasue it equated this paronoid survivalist as a suicidal plotter, which is exaclty what saddam NEVER was ... it was said he lived like a criminal,
seemingly evading an army of invisible police whom he also was thought were one step behind ... oh well, at least we finally stumbled his deadly arsenal of weapons that out leaders asured us they knew exsisted all along...
 
2004-01-10 06:25:27 PM  
Thinking about it Iraq could have been prevented if the French and English didn't get greedy dividing up the Ottoman empire.
 
2004-01-10 06:25:45 PM  
A couple of days later, it was retracted, just like the one you posted. Smoking gun my ass.

It turned out there was no hard evidence to say they were weapons labs, but the fact remains:

THEY WERE BURIED!!!

IS ANYONE GONNA EVER ANSWER MY QUESTION?

WHY WERE THEY BURIED AND HIDDEN???????????????????????
 
2004-01-10 06:25:58 PM  
Pkjun...

Let's not invoke Godwin here... I got dangerously close to it though, my apologies. Going after Hitler earlier, yes, that would have been the best plan. Definitely would have saved lives. I think going into Iraq now was the best thing we could have done. We should have gone in before, but would have lost the coalition help that we were more dependent on at that time. Since we didn't do it then, doing it now has kept Saddam from attempting another attack on a neighboring country.

Farfisa Fark

Did the US sanction the coup and assassination of lumumba, put in mobuto? Where is the evidence for this?
 
2004-01-10 06:26:30 PM  
tylerdurden217: hmmm... blister agent sounds like a CHEMICAL WEAPON ... oh yeah, cuz it is. Chemical Weapons = Weapons of Mass Destruction

These were mortars. Field weapons. With what you say, anti-bear spray=WMD. Car battery = WMD. Car (with gas tank) = WMD.

Operative word here: MASS, as in Massive.

 
2004-01-10 06:26:37 PM  
For all you people who want this war no matter what: someone above mentioned that Saddam razed 3000 cities in Southern Iraq and, therefore, I should be pissed at him. Okay. Abraham Lincoln razed everything between the Tennessee state line and Savannah, Georgia during the Civil War and he is our national hero. No other country decided to get involved in our little war because Lincoln was a madman.

Jeez...
 
2004-01-10 06:26:41 PM  
Tuvix

Right. If we had forced inspectors and bombed noncomplying factories from the beginning--the same thing we've been doing to Iraq for 10 years--Hitler couldn't have done anything.
 
2004-01-10 06:26:51 PM  
frank2 ,/b>


Look, if that dick saddam didn't have wmd he should have given the inspectors full access. Too bad he was too stupid to do so but it aint' bush's fault.

Which is the wierdest part of all of this. Saddam did have WMD's during the time we are talking about from this find, we know he used them then and intelligence told us he still had at least some of them. If he had cleaned them all up and moved them to Syria this effectively why not let the UN in properly to inspect and make it impossible for the US to justify invasion? Instead he continued to act shifty and increased suspicion of himself.

I think he just didn't want to admit he no longer had the scary club that WMD's represented.

To me here's the parallel. A cop arrives on the scene in a dark area and sees a guy he knows is an ex-con putting a gun shaped object in his pocket. The cop tells him to put his hands up. and keeps repeating that instruction. The guy keeps refusing and the cop opens fire. Turns out its a capgun. Sure it's sad the guy gets shot for nothing but you can't blame the cop for reacting to what looked like a threatening situation.
 
2004-01-10 06:27:23 PM  
how 'bout this guy?

 
2004-01-10 06:27:30 PM  
WHY WERE THEY BURIED AND HIDDEN???????????????????????

Sandstorm?
 
2004-01-10 06:27:34 PM  
How pathetic.

Don't you think Saddam, if he had WMDs capable of actual damage, would have sold them to the highest bidder once he found out his days were numbered?

To be honest, I would rather Bush's intelligence be correct, and we found some actual WMDs in Iraq. That would mean that they wouldn't be in the hands of worse madmen than Saddam, i.e. people with a hell of a lot less to lose.
 
2004-01-10 06:28:22 PM  
I'm sure that the US intelligence services weren't trying hard enough.

Do you understand logic? I NEVER said they were weapons labs. I said they were hidden and wondered why?

I don't have the answer, and I have no idea why they were buried. But the fact they were buried and not disclosed to us is the PROOF that Saddam was a liar and was violating the ceasfire by concealing activities from the inspectors and the international community.
 
2004-01-10 06:28:52 PM  
Perhaps the anthrax was acquired under the guise of "medical purposes", but my point is still the same. The US government supported Iraq and the Hussein regime for many years. We were initially claiming to be neutral in the Iran/Iraq war. We removed Iraq from the list of terrorist nations, and then started openly supporting Iraq. However, we had already been secretly funding them under orders from Reagan for a few years. We did provide them with dangerous weapons (now classified as WMDs). We had no problem with them gassing Iranian troops. Hussein was an ally to the US because he did the bidding of the US for many years.
The same can be said for several dictators. The US gives them money, and trains them, and all is well until they do something that pisses off the US. Then all of the sudden they are a bad guy (or should I say an evil-doer). On this list we can include Hussein, Noriega and Osama Bin Laden (both trained by the CIA or CIA funded ops).
 
2004-01-10 06:28:58 PM  
MorticianBaby

They were buried because Saddam didn't want us to bomb them, so we could find them and prove him innocent. There. There's AN answer. It's not very good, but it's an answer. Now why do YOU think he did it?

The504

The proposed Hitler-checkmating strategy is pretty much what we've done to Saddam.
 
2004-01-10 06:29:18 PM  
The504

So this was all to prevent him from attacking neighboring countries? That's odd. I thought it was because Saddam supposedly posed an "immenent threat" towards the United States.
 
2004-01-10 06:29:37 PM  
ten_of_spades, I am ignorant as to what blister gas really does, but chances are it's not as bad as Ebola for fark's sake.
 
2004-01-10 06:29:43 PM  
Sandstorm?

LOL!
 
2004-01-10 06:29:45 PM  
the 504

The more remote roots of this conflict can probably be traced back to the arrival of Europeans in the region, and the resulting slave trade that not only sent millions of black bodies to the New World, but also caused mayhem, displaced peoples and destroyed cultures. Or maybe we can begin with the DRC's time as a colony, when the Belgian leader Leopold II's brutality caused the death of millions and exacerbated ethnic hatreds. Or perhaps the DR Congo's seeds can be seen in the US sanctioned, Belgian-planned, and Western-led overthrow/assassination of the country's democratic leader Patrice Lumumba in 1961, one of many Cold War casualties for Africa. Yet the more modern trail properly begins with the downfall of the US backed and Western-propped up dictator Mobutu Sese Seko in 1997.

--from "millions Gone: Who Hears Cries for the Congo?"
 
2004-01-10 06:30:28 PM  
pkjun

They were buried because Saddam didn't want us to bomb them, so we could find them and prove him innocent.

WOW. That's really taking the whole "giving Saddam the benefit of the doubt" thing to a whole new level. Ever thought of running for office?
 
2004-01-10 06:31:01 PM  
MorticianBaby

Why would he have to disclose weather-balloon production labs? They aren't WMD.

And for Christ's sake, we knew he was sneaky. But that isn't reason to go to war. Clear and present danger from a hostile dictator with weapons and intent to use them may be. General snidely-whiplash style sneakiness isn't.
 
2004-01-10 06:31:37 PM  
incendi: Correct, he could have easily attacked US interests over in that region, but an attack on US soil would have been suicide. Doesn't really matter now though, I guess.
 
2004-01-10 06:32:10 PM  
Blister gas is one of the most inhumane things we've come up with ("humanity" we, not "US" we). Inhaled, it causes the lungs to start dissolving, causes blistering of all soft tissues, eyes, etc. Very, very painful deaths. Ebola might be a bit more kind.
 
2004-01-10 06:32:27 PM  
Seriously, if I was a crazy asshat hell-bent on my own survival and I lost a war against the USA yet still retained some semblance of power, I would do everything in my power to ensure that the rest of the world thought that I had bucket-loads of WMDs whether I had them or not.

It's called 'deterrent'. You don't have to have them - it's just sufficient for the other guy to think that you have and you MIGHT use them.

I'd love to play poker agaoinst some of you guys.
 
2004-01-10 06:32:27 PM  
NavyBlues

What explanation do you or morticianbaby have? I said it was a stupid explination. Why, then, if both the US and Britain proved they were helium labs and not WMD facilities, did he hide them?
 
2004-01-10 06:32:38 PM  
Now why do YOU think he did it?

I don't know and I don't care. I don't need to. All that is enough is to know that he was STILL being a 'sneaky-snake," I stop caring once I determine this.

Just like our war in Iraq which was triggered not by the existence of WMDS but by the absence of proof and cooperation on the part of Saddam.
 
2004-01-10 06:33:10 PM  
Farfisa Fark

Umm... OK so where are the facts stating that the US installed Patrice Lumumba? At least we know we installed Diem in South Vietnam. Did we "install" Patrice? Just because we are in favor of a foreign leader taking power does not mean that we "installed" their government.
 
2004-01-10 06:33:11 PM  
MorticianBaby

How about running a google for Buried Weapons Trailers Iraq, you big genius?


I am such a genius that I can not only do a boogle search but actually read the articles found by the search. Still no evidence of buried trailers.

The other search you suggested was much more informative. Thanks for the information.
 
2004-01-10 06:33:42 PM  
North Korea is still sneaky. Shall we invade them next?
Israel is in violation of more resolutions than Iraq ever was. Shall we invade them next?
 
2004-01-10 06:34:25 PM  
the 504

no, you misunderstand me. the US didn't install Lumamba, they were in on/ knew about his assassination.
 
2004-01-10 06:34:43 PM  
pkjun
no, we can't invade Korea or Israel, cuz they DO have weapons to fight back with...
 
2004-01-10 06:34:52 PM  
incendi

So this was all to prevent him from attacking neighboring countries? That's odd. I thought it was because Saddam supposedly posed an "immenent threat" towards the United States.

Much as you try it is impossible to simplify this down to one reason to go to war with Iraq. There's several.

1) He consistently broke the terms of the cease-fire in 1991

2) Human rights. (Yes, it does matter)

3) Iraq has most potential to become a democracy out of the entire middle east where there is none. i.e. not overly religious, has a natural middle class, naturally wealthy, and a democracy in the cradle of civilization in the middle east IS in our national interest.

4) Tried to assasinate a former President

5) US deterrance, military credibilty GONE, had to get reestablished.

6) We and the rest of the world and his own people have admitted that he was trying to develop WMD.

/and on and on and on
 
2004-01-10 06:35:13 PM  
the US helped the Dutch install mobuto. that's what I meant.
 
Displayed 50 of 594 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report