The W
Views: 97575413
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
22.7.14 1434
The W - Current Events & Politics - Chemical Weapons
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1(2198 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (15 total)
Whitebacon
Boudin blanc








Since: 12.1.02
From: Fresno, CA

Since last post: 67 days
Last activity: 7 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#1 Posted on
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)


The WWE (Caution: May Contain Wrestling-Like Substance)
Go Redroom (goredroom.com)
]


The Beast is dead...Long Live the Beast.
Promote this thread!
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 386 days
Last activity: 386 days
#2 Posted on
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.



If it wasn't for war, you wouldn't know what peace was.
DJ FrostyFreeze
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: Hawthorne, CA

Since last post: 84 days
Last activity: 14 hours
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.95

    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.



Try not to get dunked on.
I wish I could work the random images thingy.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1223 days
Last activity: 22 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#4 Posted on
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








Since: 22.4.02
From: Long Island

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 13 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#5 Posted on
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.



Today's Out-Of-Context Quote, Courtesy of Bullitt:

"NOTHING'S funnier than midget porn."
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 6 days
AIM:  
#6 Posted on
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)


"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it." - Robert E. Lee
DJ FrostyFreeze
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: Hawthorne, CA

Since last post: 84 days
Last activity: 14 hours
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.95
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.



Try not to get dunked on.
I wish I could work the random images thingy.
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3740 days
Last activity: 2806 days
#8 Posted on
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








Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3656 days
Last activity: 3125 days
AIM:  
#9 Posted on

    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.



Kansas-born and deeply ashamed
The last living La Parka Marka: HE raised the briefcase!
rabidzebra
Linguica








Since: 23.6.02
From: Charleston SC

Since last post: 2730 days
Last activity: 1561 days
#10 Posted on
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



The way of Hercule is the philosophy of daily training, constantly pushing your limits, and never giving up to build a powerful body and mind... and having a wild time all the time.
I am a H-Fer.
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2941 days
Last activity: 154 days
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00

    Originally posted by Whitebacon
    If Fox News Channel is correct,


That's a rather huge assumption to make.




"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
Sultan_of_Submission
Longanisa








Since: 12.3.03
From: Ft. Meade, MD

Since last post: 4127 days
Last activity: 4123 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#12 Posted on
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.





"I stand in awe of the marketing machine that is the WWE." Scott Keith
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 6 days
AIM:  
#13 Posted on
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.



"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it." - Robert E. Lee
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1223 days
Last activity: 22 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#14 Posted on

    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








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 6 days
AIM:  
#15 Posted on
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.



"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it." - Robert E. Lee
Pages: 1Thread ahead: Casualties Of War
Next thread: Why Is This Clown Still Around?
Previous thread: Other Things Iraq has Done...
(2198 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Hooray!
The W - Current Events & Politics - Chemical WeaponsRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.13 seconds.