Heads22 Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;j...storyID=2522841 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 This seems to be the latest.... http://www.yahoo.com/s/74782 I guess it turns out that it is pesticide and not sarin gas. Rumsfeld is on right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 I guess it turns out that it is pesticide and not sarin gas. Rumsfeld is on right now. It's only a matter of time before they find the chemical agents they're looking for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 I guess it turns out that it is pesticide and not sarin gas. Rumsfeld is on right now. It's only a matter of time before they find the chemical agents they're looking for. Sure, they are already in Baghdad....where else can they be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 I guess it turns out that it is pesticide and not sarin gas. Rumsfeld is on right now. Just heard at 4:26 Central Time that this has not been confirmed yet..... that the pesticide has tested positive, preliminarily at least, for a blistering agent and Sarin. The chemicals though were found in an agricultural bunker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 Actually, what I read from the BBC - attributed to CNN is that the general said that this is either pesticide or non-weaponized chemical agents. Neither appear to be that smoking gun. However, NPR reported on a find of 20 chemical weapon tipped rockets earlier today. This could be a more substantial find. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 However, NPR reported on a find of 20 chemical weapon tipped rockets earlier today. This could be a more substantial find. CNN just reported and cited this NPR report Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 The CNN.com article states the Army general that it may still be pesticides - and that in any case, these chemicals were nowhere near able to be used in a military sense. Is this a mountain made from a molehill? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 The CNN.com article states the Army general that it may still be pesticides - and that in any case, these chemicals were nowhere near able to be used in a military sense. Is this a mountain made from a molehill? yep. Next batch of chemicals found: FoxNews will do screaming features on new cache of chemical weapons found - and they will turn out to be Saddam's bath salts and pool chemicals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedPinStripes Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 Is it me? or are the anti-war people hoping we dont find chemical weapons so they have more room to rip bush and this whole operation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 Hey. Those bath salts could seriously aggravate inflammed sinuses. That monster must be stopped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 Is it me? or are the anti-war people hoping we dont find chemical weapons so they have more room to rip bush and this whole operation? I just think that if they don't find weapons, Bush has a big s*** sandwich to take a bite out of. They said that Saddam HAD them without a doubt and if they can't find them, he looks like a real ass for calling an end to the inspections. Also, the families of all those that died will be PISSED AS f*** (I know I would be) if their loved ones died for weapons that they didn't even have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjmarte Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 But if they find them it's still an illegal war - so Bush can go eat a s*** sandwich either way as far as you're concerned. Or am I putting words in your mouth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedPinStripes Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 Is it me? or are the anti-war people hoping we dont find chemical weapons so they have more room to rip bush and this whole operation? I just think that if they don't find weapons, Bush has a big s*** sandwich to take a bite out of. They said that Saddam HAD them without a doubt and if they can't find them, he looks like a real ass for calling an end to the inspections. Also, the families of all those that died will be PISSED AS f*** (I know I would be) if their loved ones died for weapons that they didn't even have. Bush might have been looking to take sadaam out, but do you really think he never had anything? There was a real goodr eason why Iraq lock out UN inspectors till he was good and ready. I always thought there was no reason for them to inspect because by the time they got in there, he had the s*** hidden. Just like he hid himself so he didnt get killed like he did in the gulf war. The man is a whack job. I'd hate to ever have this thought, but if Sadam is alive, i wouldnt put it past him to wait for all us troops to get into bahgdad and then use these chemical weapons that dont exist. he's a sick f***. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 Is it me? or are the anti-war people hoping we dont find chemical weapons so they have more room to rip bush and this whole operation? I know I'm hoping that there are no WMD in Iraq. And as callous as it sounds, finding Iraq clean of WMD (which most likely won't happen) will be a vindication of sorts for those who didn't support the policy of Pre-Emptive War. If the Bush administration found itself wrong on its guess about a need for massive disarmament in Iraq, it would make an invasion of other rogue states less likely. My opposition of this fight is that it seemed that the Bush administration gave up too easily on diplomatic or quasi-military solutions to the problem of Iraq. And that he put soldiers in harms way too cavalierly. War is easy. Peace is what's hard sometimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedPinStripes Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 Is it me? or are the anti-war people hoping we dont find chemical weapons so they have more room to rip bush and this whole operation? I know I'm hoping that there are no WMD in Iraq. And as callous as it sounds, finding Iraq clean of WMD (which most likely won't happen) will be a vindication of sorts for those who didn't support the policy of Pre-Emptive War. If the Bush administration found itself wrong on its guess about a need for massive disarmament in Iraq, it would make an invasion of other rogue states less likely. My opposition of this fight is that it seemed that the Bush administration gave up too easily on diplomatic or quasi-military solutions to the problem of Iraq. And that he put soldiers in harms way too cavalierly. War is easy. Peace is what's hard sometimes. Too soon? this has been going on for over 10 years dude. And Sadam used something in the gulf war. Maybe not what we're looking for, but it's funny how the majority of soldiers were sick with all the same symptoms when they got back including my cousin. A few dides, might have been coincidence, but something was kida wrong with that dont ya think? Were they all sick from the sand in the desert? I dont think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan420 Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 Is it me? or are the anti-war people hoping we dont find chemical weapons so they have more room to rip bush and this whole operation? its not just you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 You're correct. This has been going on for more than ten years. Twelve to be exact. However, between 1998 and 2002, there was no action to see the complete disarmament of Iraq. The Security Council failed in that respect, just as they have failed in other missions they charged themselves with - the creation of a Palestinian state for example. Most UN observers, and experts in the field thought that UN resolution 1441 was having quite a degree of success - it was slow going but there was motion. Keeping pressure on Iraq effectively ended any effort to rearm Iraq and by our own Intelligence reports, the state had significantly fewer stocks of harmful weaponry - and did not pose a current credible threat. Dude, I won't cry when Saddam Hussein leaves. He's a terrible person and deserves everything he's getting. However the policies that led us here do not serve the best interest of the US or even the world. If no WMD were found, or if the number was extremely low or even degraded, it would prove Bush's Preemptive War theory as wrong. The US may like it when it suits us, but this same idea could be used for the North Koreans to invade the South, Iran to attack a new Iraq, China to invade Taiwan, India to invade Pakistan. In any of those cases, we won't be dealing with biochem. We'd be dealing with nukes. Something I wouldn't want to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan420 Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 You're correct. This has been going on for more than ten years. Twelve to be exact. However, between 1998 and 2002, there was no action to see the complete disarmament of Iraq. The Security Council failed in that respect, just as they have failed in other missions they charged themselves with - the creation of a Palestinian state for example. Most UN observers, and experts in the field thought that UN resolution 1441 was having quite a degree of success - it was slow going but there was motion. Keeping pressure on Iraq effectively ended any effort to rearm Iraq and by our own Intelligence reports, the state had significantly fewer stocks of harmful weaponry - and did not pose a current credible threat. Dude, I won't cry when Saddam Hussein leaves. He's a terrible person and deserves everything he's getting. However the policies that led us here do not serve the best interest of the US or even the world. If no WMD were found, or if the number was extremely low or even degraded, it would prove Bush's Preemptive War theory as wrong. The US may like it when it suits us, but this same idea could be used for the North Koreans to invade the South, Iran to attack a new Iraq, China to invade Taiwan, India to invade Pakistan. In any of those cases, we won't be dealing with biochem. We'd be dealing with nukes. Something I wouldn't want to see. an old sayin is ww3 will be fought with nukes, and ww4 will be fought with sticks and stones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 Bush might have been looking to take sadaam out, but do you really think he never had anything? There was a real goodr eason why Iraq lock out UN inspectors till he was good and ready. I always thought there was no reason for them to inspect because by the time they got in there, he had the s*** hidden. Just like he hid himself so he didnt get killed like he did in the gulf war. The man is a whack job. I'd hate to ever have this thought, but if Sadam is alive, i wouldnt put it past him to wait for all us troops to get into bahgdad and then use these chemical weapons that dont exist. he's a sick f***. Assume HYPOTHETICALLY that Saddam does have weapons. How does this prevent other countries who have similar weapons from selling them to terrorists, etc? And wouldn't an invasion of their homeland necessitate their use? If they have them, wouldn't this necessitate their use? And they haven't used them... Actually in '98 the UN asked the inspectors to leave, Saddam didn't kick them out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 Too soon? this has been going on for over 10 years dude. And Sadam used something in the gulf war. Maybe not what we're looking for, but it's funny how the majority of soldiers were sick with all the same symptoms when they got back including my cousin. A few dides, might have been coincidence, but something was kida wrong with that dont ya think? Were they all sick from the sand in the desert? I dont think so. That's actually been linked to both possible radiation effects from DU rounds and also the US bombing campaigns of power plants, etc. As of 2000, 9600 US troops have died from "Gulf War Syndrome"...and you know what? The Office of Veterans' Affairs thinks those people are all fine and won't pay them disability! Why are we making more veterans when we can't even take care of the ones we have now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 But if they find them it's still an illegal war - so Bush can go eat a s*** sandwich either way as far as you're concerned. Or am I putting words in your mouth? It's an illegal war, yes. But I was making the statement that he would have to eat a huge PR s*** sandwich if they don't find any weapons and there was this money, all this death and destruction, etc. and Bush has no facts backing him up as to why we needed it. I think public opinion would shift GREATLY if they can't find WoMD there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedPinStripes Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 Too soon? this has been going on for over 10 years dude. And Sadam used something in the gulf war. Maybe not what we're looking for, but it's funny how the majority of soldiers were sick with all the same symptoms when they got back including my cousin. A few dides, might have been coincidence, but something was kida wrong with that dont ya think? Were they all sick from the sand in the desert? I dont think so. That's actually been linked to both possible radiation effects from DU rounds and also the US bombing campaigns of power plants, etc. As of 2000, 9600 US troops have died from "Gulf War Syndrome"...and you know what? The Office of Veterans' Affairs thinks those people are all fine and won't pay them disability! Why are we making more veterans when we can't even take care of the ones we have now? Veterans are not made for the hell of it. I dont agree with us sticking our nose in everyone's business, but it happens so i support it. and i have my own opinions about alot of the verteans of war but that's a whole different story. 98 was a totally different story. what about recently when iraq wouldnt allow inspectors in until they were done hiding their weapons? No, there's no proof, but why the hell would they not allow them to look if there's nothing there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedPinStripes Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 Apu, you need to watch the "O'Riley Factor". Now he's got some good views . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 Apu, you need to watch the "O'Riley Factor". Now he's got some good views . I have read his two books. Nearly wet myself laughing a lot of the time. A professor I know on campus has also even been on the "No Spin Zone" (although everything tilts to the right in the 'Zone) This guy is almost the male version of Ann Coulter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.