Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

9806 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jan 2004 at 4:47 PM (11 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 07:02:12 PM  
MorticianBaby writes: How are "international constraints" against Iraq considered succesful when Saddam was able to amass one of the largest arsenals on earth of conventional weapons?

First, he didn't have one of the largest arsenals of conventional weapons. According to that article, he had one of the largest arsenals of conventional ammunition. Huge difference.

Second, because he had no army of great consequence or offensive mobility, the ammunition was only dangerous to those who would invade Iraq. The United Nations restrictions were never intended to rob Iraq of the ability to defend itself.
 
2004-01-10 07:02:22 PM  
GWB never stated we need to invade Iraq because of their "Small Weapons of Destruction".

I didn't say he did. But their existence PROVES that sanctions, emargoes, and containment were doing little to deter Saddam from military aspirations.
 
2004-01-10 07:02:45 PM  
Fark It: There's always that fringe that most normal people want to try and forget about. I should have said most though, you're right.. not everyone has that much in common when it comes to politics. But, close enough.
 
2004-01-10 07:03:12 PM  
Rayonic,

Maybe the French were right?

I don't recall overwhelming support among the rest, either.
 
2004-01-10 07:04:11 PM  
Second, because he had no army of great consequence or offensive mobility, the ammunition was only dangerous to those who would invade Iraq. The United Nations restrictions were never intended to rob Iraq of the ability to defend itself.

In all of the middle east, was there a country with a bigger army or more ammo?

No, I don't think so. Saddam was the military regional superpower of the middle east.
 
2004-01-10 07:05:15 PM  
it seems more that Saddam said I'm DA bomb, instead of I have DA bomb. (language barrier cost him his long beard)
lol
I know I'm not funny, but neither was this war.
 
2004-01-10 07:05:25 PM  
AdamK:

I cared when the Kurds were attacked.

I also cared when, after Gulf War I, GHWB suggested that the US would support a Kurdish uprising, and then ordered our military to sit idly by as Saddam killed off those Kurds, who foolishly did try to fight a war of independence, anticipating US air support.

I thought at the time that Bush I was quite right not to march all the way to Baghdad, but that in failing to back the Kurds in their own war for self-determination he showed himself to be less concerned with the grand ethical precepts trotted out by Righties of late than with geopolitics and domestic political perception-management. I think his son is even worse along those dimensions, and lacks what little intelligence his father is lucky enough to have been born with.
 
2004-01-10 07:05:59 PM  
incendi said:
6)"Trying to develop WMD" is a far cry from having vast stockpiles of WMD. I've got a recipe for cheesecake, but I don't have cheesecake, or even the stuff to make cheesecake with. There's no immenent threat of cheesecake, okay?

What if you want cheesecake? That you have some of the ingredients and implements, but are missing a few and the store is sold out? The threat of cheesecake is not imminent, but it is eventually likely that you'll be able to make (or even buy) some.

After all, you love your cheesecake.
 
2004-01-10 07:06:40 PM  
MorticianBaby

In all of the middle east, was there a country with a bigger army or more ammo?

No, I don't think so. Saddam was the military regional superpower of the middle east.


Not quite.

[image from languagesabroad.com too old to be available]
 
2004-01-10 07:08:37 PM  
NavyBlues, you are my new favorite Fark person.
 
2004-01-10 07:08:43 PM  
First, he didn't have one of the largest arsenals of conventional weapons. According to that article, he had one of the largest arsenals of conventional ammunition. Huge difference.

I confess to mistating that, but "huge difference" isn't appropriate either. Not when we are talking about "ammo" that are missiles, rpgs, and mortars. A bullet may not be a weapon, but grenades, hand-tossed or otherwise, are indeed weapons. Iraq had more of them than France.
 
2004-01-10 07:08:48 PM  
If anybody thinks this finding means squat, they are seriously kidding themselves. I don't think the neo-cons really care at this point, the takeover of Iraq being a fait d'accompli.
I'd imagine they will produce bin Laden somewhere down the campaign trail leading up the GOP convention co-inciding with 9/11. Ho hum.
I would suggest anyone still suffering from the illusion that Iraq was a just war should do a little reading on the history of politics and oil in the mideast.
Bring your troops home USA. They deserve not be used as pawns in this game.
 
2004-01-10 07:08:48 PM  
Rayonic,

My neighbor is standing outside my kitchen window with a shotgun saying, "No cheesecake."


Do I love my cheesecake that much?
 
2004-01-10 07:09:51 PM  
incendi

1) Then why didn't we get UN approval, instead of going in ourselves and alienating most of our allies?

When have we EVER needed UN approval to do anything? We skipped the UN not because we didn't have a majority. We had the majority but France threatened a veto due to its commmercial economic interests with Saddam. (i.e. lucrative oil-for-food contracts) BTW - when has the UN ever stopped a war, caused a dictator to step down, or shown any balls at all?

2) Then why are we maintaining friendly relations with dozens of other governments that are also commiting human rights abuses, certainly above and beyond what Saddam and his children were doing at the time of the invasion? And why wait so farking long to invade if this matters so much?

I agree that we shouldn't have waited as long as we did.

3)In our interest certainly, but is it our right to dictate to others how to run their country? I don't beleive that just because we are a hell of a lot bigger and more powerful than they are that that gives us the right to tell them, "Do it this way, or we will murder you."

"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." Good thing we use our powers for good and not for evil.

4) That's nothing our spooks haven't done to many other countries, I'm sure. Certainly no justification for invasion. You could attempt to have him tried before an international court, though.

You mean like the International Court is trying Slobodan Milosovich? Or like the Belgian court that tried to indict Ariel Sharon, Donald Rumsfeld, etc.

5) Invading another country just to prove we have big balls doesn't sound right to me. Attacking an easy target because we can't find the real perp doesn't seem like too much of a deterrent. It'll reduce funding for terrorist organisations from some sources, but at the cost of stirring up righteous anger in the general populus.

We shouldn't do it all the time, but a nice healthy reminder is a good thing. If I'm a bouncer in a bar (as I was) and I get sucker-punched - if I can't find the perp, I will take the first person that looks at me cross-eyed and put him through the window. How is that illustration of deterrence?

6)"Trying to develop WMD" is a far cry from having vast stockpiles of WMD. I've got a recipe for cheesecake, but I don't have cheesecake, or even the stuff to make cheesecake with. There's no immenent threat of cheesecake, okay?

I'll damn sure take your ingredients before you make your cheesecake and I'm forced to ask you for some...stretching.... hell, metaphor was too thin to begin with...

/going to get some cheesecake now.
 
2004-01-10 07:10:01 PM  
Rayonic writes: Because France said they'd veto any United Nations resolution that would concievably allow the use of force in Iraq.

That is false. In that infamous interview that Tony Blair kept citing, Chirac stated quite plainly that France would support military intervention if no other reasonable options were available.

What Chirac opposed under any circumstances was a U.N. resolution that would give automatic recourse to war without a specific, timely approval by the Security Council. He said quite plainly:

France is not pacifist. We are not anti-American either. We are not just going to use our veto to nag and annoy the US. But we just feel that there is another option, another way, another more normal way, a less dramatic way than war, and that we have to go through that path. And we should pursue it until weve come [to] a dead end, but that isnt the case.
 
2004-01-10 07:12:14 PM  
incendi said:
Maybe the French were right?either.

Explain to me, please, how the French were right. One final security resolution, outlining a stringent inspection regime to prove Iraq is disarmed, and threatening punishment for non-compliance, seems perfectly reasonable to me.

How were the French right to prohibit any use of force on Iraq, under any circumstances?
 
2004-01-10 07:12:14 PM  
Iraq also buried the Mig-25s in the sand, and we knew nothing about them, until the tails started sticking up out of the sand. A Mig-25 is huge compared to the WMD trailers and any WMD munitions. How hard do you think it is to hide WMDs? And yes we do want to know where aircraft are before a war happens, we were looking for them too.

And the purpose of enforcing the Northern and Southern No Fly Zones was to protect the Kurds and Shiites (many different spellings) from Saddam. The purpose was not to find WMD in the North or South. It just so happened that while we were doing that Operation Desert Fox occurred to strike some WMD factories. Yes Clinton was in office at the time so it had to be WMD facilities and not the pharmaceuticals plant as claimed by Iraq.
 
2004-01-10 07:12:53 PM  
I'd imagine they will produce bin Laden somewhere down the campaign trail leading up the GOP convention co-inciding with 9/11

location: NYC.

never forget.
 
2004-01-10 07:13:03 PM  
MorticianBaby

In all of the middle east, was there a country with a bigger army or more ammo?

No, I don't think so. Saddam was the military regional superpower of the middle east.


It's amazing how effective constant repetition of erroneous information by presidents can be for convincing people to believe that which is not true.
 
2004-01-10 07:13:32 PM  
That is false. In that infamous interview that Tony Blair kept citing, Chirac stated quite plainly that France would support military intervention if no other reasonable options were available.

And that would have been when he was lying.

This from the same French fark who built Saddam's nuclear power plant and assured Saddam, his buddy, in the lead up to war that it would never happen, because France would stick with him.
 
2004-01-10 07:13:42 PM  
MorticianBaby writes: but "huge difference" isn't appropriate either. Not when we are talking about "ammo" that are missiles, rpgs, and mortars.

It is a huge difference when that ammo has no way of being used by Iraqi military forces in any offensive capacity. Were you expecting Iraq to invade Saudi Arabia or Kuwait on the backs of camels?

France has a navy. France has an air force. France has mobile forces. Iraq had very little in the way of any of that.

The U.N. did not take from Iraq the right to defend itself. But, your argument seems to be that because Iraq still had light arms that could be used in defense of their homeland that the embargo was somehow a failure. That's just ridiculous.
 
2004-01-10 07:15:29 PM  
MorticianBaby writes: And that would have been when he was lying.

That's when Tony Blair was lying, yes. But, I suspect you meant Jacques Chirac.

How do you know he was lying?
 
2004-01-10 07:16:05 PM  
It's amazing how effective constant repetition of erroneous information by presidents can be for convincing people to believe that which is not true.

And that president would have been Bill Clinton. Not very erroneous though.
 
2004-01-10 07:17:22 PM  
MorticianBaby

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/14/sprj.irq.labs/index.html

"were buried"


Just as I suggested, we were talking about completely different events. I was talking about trailers. The "20 foot square" containers in the article you reference were not trailers.

Do you know if they ever detemined what the containers were used for? The article mentions lab equipment and papers but nothing else.
 
2004-01-10 07:17:34 PM  
MorticianBaby writes: No, I don't think so. Saddam was the military regional superpower of the middle east.

You are insane. Israel is the military superpower of the Middle East.
 
2004-01-10 07:17:41 PM  
We could have just FedEx'ed one of these puppies to Saddam:
[image from wunderland.com too old to be available]
No one can resist the little red button that says, "Do Not Press!"
 
2004-01-10 07:18:38 PM  
 
2004-01-10 07:19:18 PM  
That's when Tony Blair was lying, yes. But, I suspect you meant Jacques Chirac.

How do you know he was lying?


Because France fought us every step of the way. Therefore, it could not be true that they would give it a chance, because they didn't.

Again, how do you know Blair was lying? Just more hunches from us armchair quarterbacks.
 
2004-01-10 07:20:30 PM  
Any of you mouth-breathing nerds take the time to look at the news photos of these supposed doomsday weapons?

[image from us.news2.yimg.com too old to be available]

Also, don't forget the original sketch...This link from the Washington Post has an amazing piece of Iraqi weapons blueprinting that looks like something I drew when I was 7.
Link
 
2004-01-10 07:23:46 PM  
MorticianBaby
buried buried bureid buried


trailers trailers trialers trailers ;)

Sorry I couldn't resist. It was just a misunderstanding. I had no intention of provoking you.
 
2004-01-10 07:24:24 PM  
pardroid


this is a mouth breathing nerd:
[image from images.southparkstudios.com too old to be available]
 
2004-01-10 07:24:36 PM  
Bush planned Iraqi invasion pre-Sept. 11 - report

Former Treasury Secy O'Neill says GWB wanted to invade Iraq from the day he entered office.
 
2004-01-10 07:24:47 PM  
MorticianBaby writes: Because France fought us every step of the way.

And, France was right to do it. The United States was taking the most drastic step imaginable when more reasonable options were available. Being one's friend sometimes means saying "no."

The fact is, you have no idea whether France would have supported military force if that were the only reasonable option...because we were never faced with that situation. Reasonable options were discarded in favor of war.

Again, how do you know Blair was lying?

Because I think it's unimaginable that he was unaware of the entire interview. To take Chirac's statement totally out of context was either a lie or incompetence.
 
2004-01-10 07:24:48 PM  
this is what peevs me off about how bushco went about advertising the invasion: they came across as completely
certain of saddam's intent to attack america, it was like
"oh yeah, just a matter of time now, he'll be a'comin', alrighty"

can anyone agrue against this point?

this angers me to no ends because saddam is a farking bastard and half, i mean, a real bad dude having done enough bad things without having to make shiite up about him to be concidered a possible threat, but surprise surprise! we go making up stuff about him, and when these charges fall flat they're promptly brushed aside by the same goons at bushco who propagated them, without much ado ... this is what should really piss the american people off, well, any thoughtfull patroit anyways,
is that we appear to have been had - i was agasint the invasion on the grounds of the US use of DU and cluster bombs, that force wasn't needn't to neuter saddamco, but once the invasion started i prayed for a quick war that would lead to the REAL destruction of any of the WMD saddam[we were promised] had > well, all this time later and the weapons inspectors are turning up nada ... i cant help but feel there's some sort of sinister plan here where massive labs will miraculously appear close to election time, i mean, the whole thing comes off as too involved an operation to not have more immediate, political benefits for the current admin ... i know conspiracy theorys are a dime a dozen, but i really cant make much sense of what bushco is trying to do by having appeared to have shot themselves in the foot they had in their mouth
 
2004-01-10 07:25:31 PM  
You are insane. Israel is the military superpower of the Middle East.

I think the unsaid assumption of my statement was "of the middle eastern ountries who might threaten the US" since we were discussing it within the context of claims by Farkers that Saddam was very weak and no threat.

Iraq, regional superpower of the arab lands, ordered the assasination of the U.S. president, invaded and gassed neighbors, provided logistics and funding to international terror groups, and may have very well been involved certainly with the first WTC bombing, you know the first time middle easterners tried the attempted murder of tens of thousands of Americans, at least that what Clinton's appointee to oversee intelligence on Iraq concluded. I trust his administration when they exposed that link.
 
2004-01-10 07:27:10 PM  
Hehe, now that they have found WMD, it's the quality of the WMD that are is questioned. Dang, what is it going to take to satisfy you liberals? Do they have to use them on us or our allies first?
 
2004-01-10 07:27:15 PM  
Sorry I couldn't resist. It was just a misunderstanding. I had no intention of provoking you.

;) back at ya!
 
2004-01-10 07:27:35 PM  
fab5freddykruger

certain of saddam's intent to attack america, it was like
"oh yeah, just a matter of time now, he'll be a'comin', alrighty"


Not necessarily attack the US, but our interests.
 
2004-01-10 07:27:47 PM  
fab5freddykruger said:

"shot themselves in the foot they had in their mouth"

I like that.
 
2004-01-10 07:27:57 PM  
"The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life."

- Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States
 
2004-01-10 07:28:37 PM  
This is probably the closest thing they've found to WMD since this bullshiat war started -- rusted out, useless pieces of scrap metal with traces of what might be some kind of chemical, all buried several feet underground so long ago that even the guy who dug the hole probably forgot what went into it.

The U.S., and particularly George W., have lost all credibility on this issue, and yet the sheeple continue to blindly support him no matter what he does.

It's a pretty sad state of affairs, really.
 
2004-01-10 07:29:15 PM  
Farfisa:

Ah, yes, Strauss. Pride of U of Chicago. He and Alan Bloom. And Wolfowitz, Friedman, and Ashcroft, and the Atom Bomb. Hhhmm, now that I think about it, I seem to be going to graduate school in the gaping maw from which all evil is vomited...
 
2004-01-10 07:29:21 PM  
panda writes:

Perhaps "Buried for 10 years" is "destroyed" to Iraq.

I could see where people who believed Bill Clinton when he said "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is would buy that line of logic.

This is a smoking gun. Is it the 155mm howitzer smoking canon required of Mr. Bush's and Mr. Blair's political enemies? Of course not.

Honestly though, it doesn't matter any more. If Saddam was only bluffing when he said he'd use WMDs on invading troops (and he said it more than once) and the weapons programs were an elaborate hoax to keep U.S. forces out (out of fear of mass casualties), and all that he *really* had were some leftovers from his war with Iran he kept buried in the desert for the next Shiite uprising, he rates as the worst poker player of all time.

Let's move on, shall we? Or are Bush's and Blair's political enemies so lacking in any real ammunition to use against them, they have to make much more of things than they really are? Perhaps they are trying to pull a page from Saddam's playbook. Given the results he achieved, *that* would be a good move, right?

--h
 
2004-01-10 07:30:04 PM  
Any of you mouth-breathing nerds take the time to look at the news photos of these supposed doomsday weapons?

Oh, we know they're bunk. But this PROVES yet again that Saddam deserved the "serious consequences" promised for failing to disclose his activites and comport to the standards of unanimous UN declarations. Proof of his lying is the only proof we ever needed.
 
2004-01-10 07:30:04 PM  
MorticianBaby

Iraq, regional superpower of the arab lands
1. ordered the assasination of the U.S. president
2. invaded and gassed neighbors
3. provided logistics and funding to international terror groups
4. WAS involved with the first WTC bombing, you know the first time middle easterners tried the attempted murder of tens of thousands of Americans, at least that what Clinton's appointee to oversee intelligence on Iraq concluded. I trust his administration when they exposed that link.

/worth repeating.
 
2004-01-10 07:31:11 PM  
MorticianBaby writes: I think the unsaid assumption of my statement was "of the middle eastern ountries who might threaten the US"

There was no Middle Eastern country at the time of the Iraqi invasion that could threaten the United States. And, Iraq was probably the least dangerous of those with hostile governments.

Iraq, regional superpower of the arab lands

In 1990, maybe. From 1991 on, they were basically impotent.

ordered the assasination of the U.S. president

Did the U.S. order his assassination? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

invaded and gassed neighbors

With American support (Iran).

and may have very well been involved certainly with the first WTC bombing

Extraordinarily unlikely. The woman who's the biggest proponent of that theory is tin-foil-hat material of the highest order.

I trust his administration when they exposed that link.

It was not the position of the Clinton administration that Iraq had a hand in the 1993 WTC bombing. Nor, is that the position of the Bush administration.
 
2004-01-10 07:32:04 PM  
2004-01-10 07:27:35 PM NavyBlues


fab5freddykruger

certain of saddam's intent to attack america, it was like
"oh yeah, just a matter of time now, he'll be a'comin', alrighty"

Not necessarily attack the US, but our interests.


I do wonder, though, if this was made clear, even though it was kind of obvious in the first place. That is, if any useful information can be gained from a speech.

If he had said this out front, that the war was to protect American interests, I can guarantee there would be less anti-war sentiment.
 
2004-01-10 07:32:38 PM  
i agree with eraser8. no disrespect to NavyBlue or MorticianBaby
 
2004-01-10 07:33:30 PM  
Turekeyhead

"The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life."

- Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States


Excellent quote from the founder of America's "Big Stick."
 
2004-01-10 07:34:05 PM  
pkjun,

The only things our planes were bombing in Iraq while enforcing the no-fly-zone were anti-aircraft sites that were locking onto our aircraft. Our planes were there to prevent poison gas from being used on Iraqi civilians. The planes were never inteded to prevent the creation of WMD or illegal weapons. Your comparison with Germany is flawed.
 
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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report