Whitebacon
Banger
Level: 105
   
Posts: 344/2570
EXP: 12035207
For next: 227093
Since: 12.1.02
From: Fresno, CA
Since last post: 73 days
Last activity: 4 days
| | ICQ: |  |
| |
|  #1 Posted on 23.3.03 1918.26
Reposted on: 23.3.10 1919.08 | If Fox News Channel is correct, Coalition forces have discovered a chemical weapons facility approx. 100 miles south of Baghdad. The Pentagon has apparantly confirmed that the General in charge of this plant has been detained.
EDIT: Also, on the Web, got the link from Drudge:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/PrinterFull&cid=1048389497622
(edited by Whitebacon on 23.3.03 1723) | Promote this thread! |             | redsoxnation
Scrapple
Level: 166
Posts: 2130/7534
EXP: 59721700
For next: 466112
Since: 24.7.02
Since last post: 4345 days
Last activity: 4345 days
| #2 Posted on 23.3.03 1957.29
Reposted on: 23.3.10 1958.06 | I'm waiting for the French and friends to claim the U.S. built this facility overnight.
If its true, the argument against Bush's decision is greatly damaged, and the peace movement takes a drubbing. | DJ FrostyFreeze
Scrapple
Level: 119
Posts: 890/3467
EXP: 18868840
For next: 60506
Since: 2.1.02
From: Hawthorne, CA
Since last post: 560 days
Last activity: 560 days
| #3 Posted on 23.3.03 2041.41
Reposted on: 23.3.10 2043.29 |
Originally posted by redsoxnation
If its true, the argument against Bush's decision is greatly damaged, and the peace movement takes a drubbing.
True. But then again, up until now, the world didnt have any of the hard evidence Bush & Co. seems to have had all along. | Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 89
Posts: 1105/1762
EXP: 6751273
For next: 164655
Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA
Since last post: 290 days
Last activity: 17 days
| #4 Posted on 23.3.03 2142.11
Reposted on: 23.3.10 2142.12 | I think the reason they kept this secret is so that when we got in there- we could find it. Instead of having the Iraqis convert it to a milk factory.
Our leadership presented SOME evidence that there were violations, and said that they can't announce more for security reasons. This was all appropriate. The problem with the "anti-Bush" argument was this- there ARE chemical weapons. The administration announced what they could without giving away too much (hindering our ability to secure these weapons). They did their job exactly as they should, and the nay-sayers demanded that the President disclose everything, no matter how much that hindered us, purely for partisan politics. Our troops have backed up Bush's accustions, and we will continue to do so.
I just hope all of the "We have not gotten enough proof!" crowd remembers that, and changes their tune.
(edited by Pool-Boy on 23.3.03 1943) | drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 127
Posts: 1134/4035
EXP: 23537543
For next: 189088
Since: 22.4.02
From: New Hampshire
Since last post: 1188 days
Last activity: 773 days
| | ICQ: |  |
| | Y!: |  |
|
| #5 Posted on 23.3.03 2153.34
Reposted on: 23.3.10 2154.41 | | Well, you do realize that the only way to satiate most of the rational anti-war protesters, as far as that goes, is to produce documents dating back to before they found this, showing that they knew this facility existed. | spf
Scrapple
Level: 145
Posts: 1744/5410
EXP: 36779023
For next: 825149
Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada
Since last post: 3492 days
Last activity: 827 days
| #6 Posted on 23.3.03 2207.11
Reposted on: 23.3.10 2210.02 | If indeed they found a working chemical munitions factory then I have a couple of questions, assuming they knew about this before the invasion:
- Did we give this information to the UN Weapons inspectors to act on it? If we did and they failed to act upon it, I would be greatly interested to know this fact, and I would think that the White House would want people to know this.
- If we did not give the information to the inspectors, then I would ask why not. Was it out of some desire to see if the Iraqis would divulge it themselves? Was it that they felt a need to keep this information private for some security reason? Or was it, as a cynic might think, that they wanted to make sure there were such things undiscovered by the Inspectors as a way to retroactively justify their actions? Is this something they kept an eye on this whole time, so that once they went in they could say "see, we told you the UN was too incompetent to be trusted"?
(edited by spf2119 on 23.3.03 2207) | DJ FrostyFreeze
Scrapple
Level: 119
Posts: 893/3467
EXP: 18868840
For next: 60506
Since: 2.1.02
From: Hawthorne, CA
Since last post: 560 days
Last activity: 560 days
| #7 Posted on 23.3.03 2211.59
Reposted on: 23.3.10 2212.14 | | Good questions, but I cant imagine the correct answer is "B". I mean, I have to assume it would be WAAAAAAY easier for Bush to justify going to war BEFORE the fact. | Michrome
Head cheese
Level: 43
Posts: 62/330
EXP: 542114
For next: 22937
Since: 2.1.03
Since last post: 7699 days
Last activity: 6765 days
| #8 Posted on 23.3.03 2235.32
Reposted on: 23.3.10 2235.43 | | I don't think answer "b" makes sense. I heard Bill Tyrny (sp?) say during the buildup to war that we keep info from inspectors because in the past, information has been betrayed. | Nate The Snake
Liverwurst
Level: 74
Posts: 336/1136
EXP: 3537498
For next: 116063
Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks
Since last post: 7615 days
Last activity: 7084 days
| #9 Posted on 24.3.03 0422.34
Reposted on: 24.3.10 0423.02 |
Originally posted by Pool-Boy
I think the reason they kept this secret is so that when we got in there- we could find it. Instead of having the Iraqis convert it to a milk factory.
Our leadership presented SOME evidence that there were violations, and said that they can't announce more for security reasons. This was all appropriate. The problem with the "anti-Bush" argument was this- there ARE chemical weapons. The administration announced what they could without giving away too much (hindering our ability to secure these weapons). They did their job exactly as they should, and the nay-sayers demanded that the President disclose everything, no matter how much that hindered us, purely for partisan politics. Our troops have backed up Bush's accustions, and we will continue to do so.
I just hope all of the "We have not gotten enough proof!" crowd remembers that, and changes their tune.
(edited by Pool-Boy on 23.3.03 1943)
What I'd like to know is, how much of that is the stuff that we gave them in the first place. It's really easy to say "they've got chem/bio weapons" when you've still got your copy of the receipt. | rabidzebra
Linguica
Level: 23
Posts: 63/76
EXP: 60621
For next: 7103
Since: 23.6.02
From: Charleston SC
Since last post: 6690 days
Last activity: 5521 days
| #10 Posted on 24.3.03 0826.58
Reposted on: 24.3.10 0828.54 | These conclusions are a little hasty don't you think. That report was just a war reporter on site with no expertise in what a bio-chemical site is or isn't so he just did a hasty knee jerk which is the worse thing to do for something this important.. Truth is we don't know what is at the site.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030324/wl_afp/iraq_war_us_chemical_1 | vsp
Andouille
Level: 95
Posts: 925/2042
EXP: 8528475
For next: 140163
Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly
Since last post: 6900 days
Last activity: 3155 days
| #11 Posted on 24.3.03 0904.23
Reposted on: 24.3.10 0904.24 |
Originally posted by Whitebacon
If Fox News Channel is correct,
That's a rather huge assumption to make. 
| Sultan_of_Submission
Longanisa
Level: 16
Posts: 28/35
EXP: 18646
For next: 1611
Since: 12.3.03
From: Ft. Meade, MD
Since last post: 8087 days
Last activity: 8082 days
| | ICQ: |  |
| |
| #12 Posted on 24.3.03 1141.22
Reposted on: 24.3.10 1143.43 | | That was NOT a munitions plant they found. They found a chemical plant yes. It was under camo netting, but it was NOT a munitions plant, I could be any number of things. Oil is a chemical. Could be an oil plant. I'm not saying that it isn't used to manufacture chemicals for war, but it isn't confirmed, yet. | spf
Scrapple
Level: 145
Posts: 1748/5410
EXP: 36779023
For next: 825149
Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada
Since last post: 3492 days
Last activity: 827 days
| #13 Posted on 24.3.03 1246.27
Reposted on: 24.3.10 1246.29 | No Chemical Weapons Found (datekdj.newsalert.com)
NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--U.S. officials said Monday that no chemical weapons were found at a suspected site at Najaf in central Iraq, U.S. television networks reported.
NBC News reported from the Pentagon that no chemicals at all were found at the site. CNN, also reporting from the Pentagon, said officials now believe the plant there was abandoned long ago by the Iraqis.
Well I guess that was a lot of fuss over nothing. | Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 89
Posts: 1108/1762
EXP: 6751273
For next: 164655
Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA
Since last post: 290 days
Last activity: 17 days
| #14 Posted on 24.3.03 1312.10
Reposted on: 24.3.10 1312.40 |
Originally posted by spf2119
No Chemical Weapons Found (datekdj.newsalert.com)
NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--U.S. officials said Monday that no chemical weapons were found at a suspected site at Najaf in central Iraq, U.S. television networks reported.
NBC News reported from the Pentagon that no chemicals at all were found at the site. CNN, also reporting from the Pentagon, said officials now believe the plant there was abandoned long ago by the Iraqis.
Well I guess that was a lot of fuss over nothing.
Expected. In all honestly- I thought it was a little soon in the War to have found anything like this. But you know the press- everytime they find a bleach production plant, or anything like that, the speculation will start to fly.
I suspect that it will be a couple of months before something substantial is presented. Before that- a few dozen false alarms... such is the nature of the press in a live situation... | spf
Scrapple
Level: 145
Posts: 1754/5410
EXP: 36779023
For next: 825149
Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada
Since last post: 3492 days
Last activity: 827 days
| #15 Posted on 25.3.03 0357.10
Reposted on: 25.3.10 0358.28 | Another Interesting Article re: WOMD (story.news.yahoo.com)
A relevant quote from the article: The U.S. and British accusations that Baghdad was hiding chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs were the reason most commonly cited by Washington for attacking Iraq. The credibility of those claims was undercut, however, by disclosures of forgery and misrepresentation underlying some of them, and by the failure of U.S. intelligence reports to lead U.N. inspectors to any important finds. | | ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
