Americans in Iraq Attacked W Bomb Containing Nerve Gas (WMD)

I'm sorry Bi-Polar Bear, I'm just not buying that. I've talked to my friends who are soldiers... who just got back from there, and I've also talked to a few people who are from there and have relatives there... they paint a completely different picture.

They say that things are not perfect yet, but they believe that they will be much better soon. They feel the good greatly outweighs the bad.

What are these new horrible things you're talking about?

0 Replies

Yes, war accomplishes a lot...we learn many lessons.......that's why there's always one going on....and for the same reasons.....and each side has a mandate from a deity.....man if we keep accomplishing and learning at this rate.... :wink:

0 Replies

It amazes me how fast the left has mobilised around this issue. So quick to reinforce the idea that this single bomb does not constitute evidence of WMD's and how it may not even have been sarin, etc...

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

It amazes me how fast the left has mobilised around this issue. So quick to reinforce the idea that this single bomb does not constitute evidence of WMD's and how it may not even have been sarin, etc...

You'd think it was something really earthshaking like a blowjob.......

0 Replies

1) No one ever denied that saddam had chemical agents. What was said was that he accounted for them during the inspection regime upto 1996.
2) The whole WMD case of the administration is about the suspicion that saddam was developing a WMD program. Which has not been proven in any way. And yes brandon even the shell that has you so excited is not proof of his WMD development program.
3) Also the bigotry of the americans make me sick. It was the US that sold him chemical agents and the technology to make them in the 80's so he could kill iranians with it. So it is OK if it is used to kill iranians, but the simple possiblity of it being used against american troops is so deplorable.
4) Before the origin of the shell can be established no conclusions can be reached as to whether or not it is proof of US justification in going to war.

And Hood, I can't believe your naivette in thinking that the US is there to accomplish good. There are attrocities and repression going on in many places but I don't see the US trying to make a difference. Here is a proposition how about all the conscious americans form a political pressure group and as soon as the US has finished liberating the iraqis and giving them a better life, they pressure the US government into intervening in Africas problem, you know like hunger and poverty. Make sub saharan africa a better place to live. Or heck even go and free the burmase from their oppresive dictators.

0 Replies

Every substance begins as inert and requires combining with other sunstances to get the desireed result. So what?

I have bleach for my white clothes. Combined with the right (wrong?) substance, it can blow up. Of course, under the USA Patriot Act, having bleach or ammonia in your home means who're in possession of a WMD, so go figure?

Let the Bushites have their WMD fantasy. It makes them feel better and gets them off the streets.

0 Replies

Quote:

3) Also the bigotry of the americans make me sick. It was the US that sold him chemical agents and the technology to make them in the 80's so he could kill iranians with it. So it is OK if it is used to kill iranians, but the simple possiblity of it being used against american troops is so deplorable.

yilmaz

That's not lost on many Americans, but at the same time, it is lost on far too many others.

This area of blindness is precisely what, I think, scares folks from outside the US. Does that ring true to you?

0 Replies

I am trying to find exactly where but on some newshow someone said that the sarin shell predated 1980, at least that is what someone off line told me when we was talking about this. However I am tired of searching and wil I just wait for news about this to come out after all test and anylasis from everyone both pro and against the war have been made.

I don't think it matters in any event as to the justification of war. Everyone agrees that Saddam was not credible so when he said he destroyed all his weapons, it was taken with a grain of salt.

Tthe UN could have continued their inspections and destroyed any remains of his old WMD. We have no proof that he was giving weapons to terrorist and anything suggesting that is just conjecture and was not an excuse to go to war at the time that we went to war.

So many of their previous statements have already been proven to be false as even Powell said yesterday in an interview on CNN. The whole bloody mess could have been avoided and other means could have been used to deal with Saddam Hussien rather than the one taken. The war is not going well and the following is a link where someone from Iraq who actually has a stake in the future of a new democratic Iraq.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5000505

I agree with yalimaz concerning the whole issue of the WMD and the war of Iraq and I agree with deecup about those who using this sarin shell as proof that we were justified in the war. At this point I don't really care how that makes me seem to others, it is just how I see it.

0 Replies

yilmaz wrote:

3) Also the bigotry of the americans make me sick. It was the US that sold him chemical agents and the technology to make them in the 80's so he could kill iranians with it. So it is OK if it is used to kill iranians, but the simple possiblity of it being used against american troops is so deplorable.

Americans don't want any part of this, yilmaz. I have gotten into many fist-to-cuffs with my American friends over this matter, and they are, for the most part, in complete denial on this issue.

Frankly, it smells of nationalism. Having grown up in Europe, I am all too aware of the dangers inherent to blinding nationalism.

0 Replies

I saw an article that said basically the Bush administration is very worried about Saddam's upcoming trial because his defense attorney intends to subpoena all the living players from the Regean era.

This includes Rummy the Dummy, Cheney, and Poppy Bush to explain how his defendant came to possess the very weapons he's now been deposed for owning.

0 Replies

Yilmaz, I'm not referring to the US' intentions on the war, since I don't know what they truly were... I'm trying to just focus on the good that's come out of it. If I had been in Bush's shoes, there would not have been any war.

0 Replies

Boortz says:

Quote:

YEAH ... BUT IT WAS ONLY ONE LITTLE BITTY WEAPON!

If you were listening to talk radio yesterday, or if you happened to be watching the Fox News Channel, you learned that Iraqi insurgents tried to use an artillery shell containing Sarin gas in a roadside explosive devise. A small amount of the deadly gas was released and a few American troops were treated for exposure.

There are two interesting aspects to this story. As of late yesterday afternoon, the media was virtually ignoring the find. Second, the appeasement crowd was quick to try to downplay the significance of the find.

I don't watch ABC, CBS or NBC news with any regularity. Every night it's Special Report with Brit Hume, and in the mornings it's CNN Daybreak with Carol Costello. I can tell you that as of last night my listeners were reporting that they never did see the Sarin gas story show up on CNN or on the CNN website, though it was featured on Fox all afternoon long.

I don't think that the media is going to be able to completely ignore this story, but they sure will try to downplay it. Remember the template: If the story benefits Bush, downplay. If the story hurts Bush ... run it hard. That's why the Nick Berg beheading had such a short lifetime, while the prison abuse story is still on the front pages today.

As for the appeasement crowd? Well, it didn't take long. Up until now the cry was that we had found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Now that some of those weapons have been discovered (mustard gas last week -- didn't hear about that one either, did you), the appeasement crowd is saying that these are just isolated old weapons being found ... and it doesn't mean there's a stockpile somewhere. No matter what we find...Hans Blix and his terrorist-appeasing, dictator-loving, Saddam apologist friends at the U.N. will never admit we were right. After all, to them, Saddam could do no wrong. It's all our fault, you know.
Just great. Last week the charge was that no WMDs were found. This week Blix is saying that no "stockpile" has been found. Find some more weapons and we can argue with the weenies over just what the definition of "stockpile" is. Pathetic.

Oh yeah ... and you're also going to hear that this was an old shell. Not a new one. The theory here, I guess, is that only new WMDs count, not the old ones. Once they start finding new WMDs in Iraq the left will come up with another excuse.

One thing is for certain. The leftist argument that Saddam didn't have any WMDs is now dead. What's next?

0 Replies

Greenumbrella writes: "Frankly, it smells of nationalism. Having grown up in Europe, I am all too aware of the dangers inherent to blinding nationalism."

Nationalism seems to be what the neocons had hoped would sweep the USA, helping to propel Bush to a second term.

However, reality bites as the Americans are weary of the piling on underway at the hands of Bush and Cheney. From the war in Iraq, to the economy, and the prisoner torture photos, Bush has worn out his welcome.

0 Replies

Some may find this of interest.
-------------------------------------------------

Is the Sarin Claim Bogus?

From an alert reader: ( Disclaimer: I know nothing about chemistry. ed. )

(Be sure to read the last 'graph, if only to hear about the Lousiest Job in the World.)

Shorter version: this device, an Iraqi binary weapon, probably didn't have sarin in it at all, and the alerts were to cyclohexanol. Why?

1. bc the insurgent deployed the weapon as an HE round, thereby showing he didn't know what it was.

2. bc Iraqi binary weapons require the use to POUR IN THE SECOND INGREDIENT BY HAND AT THE LAST MINUTE.

Therefore, if there had been sarin, that would have required a level of care belied by the device's use, according to Gen. Kimmett. And if the shell was deployed as if it were an HE round, no sarin could have been present. Another false positive. Stratfor's coverage not only missed this, it also missed simple facts in the Kimmett account!

excerpt attached:
*******
via a reader at agonist.org news boards:
http://www.cbwinfo.com/Chemical/Nerve/GB.shtml

During its war with Iran, Iraq initiated the use of chemical weapons, beginning with sulfur mustard in 1983, progressing to tabun in 1984, and then to sarin (and eventually VX) beginning in 1987. Sarin was also used in attacks on Iraqi civilians, most notably in the March, 1988 destruction of the Halabja, where civilian deaths caused by a cocktail of different agents have been estimated at 5000.

Iraq mass produced sarin during the Iran-Iraq war with the expectation that it would be used quickly, and they therefore skipped several purification steps. Fresh agent was about 60% pure and heavily contaminated with hydrogen fluoride (which, of course, also causes health problems in exposed individuals). When production caught up with demand, the Iraqis started storing their sarin in refrigerated "igloos" to prolong its storage life. However, even when stored in the igloos, the material rapidly degraded, becoming less than 10% pure within 2 years.

This was one of the factors that lead the Iraqis to investigate binary weapons, for which sarin is particularly well suited. While they had not mastered the art of manufacturing binary munitions in which the mixing of the precursors occured on firing at the time of the invasion of Kuwait, they had developed a simple process for generating the agent immediately before use: a warhead or shell would be given a partial fill of isopropanal (and often cyclohexanol, a precursor for the related nerve agent GF, sometimes known as cyclosarin) and stored along with plastic containers of methylphosphonic difluoride (DF). Shortly before the munition was to be used an Iraqi soldier would be provided with a gas mask and would pour an appropriate amount of the DF into the munition. This eliminated storage issues.

http://www.agonist.org/archives/015755.html#015755

0 Replies

The Sarin gas bomb story was on CNN all day long the same day that the rest of the media was reporting it. I guess Bortz listerners are in the habit of lying to him.

0 Replies

Quote:

Hans Blix and his terrorist-appeasing, dictator-loving, Saddam apologist friends at the U.N. will never admit we were right. After all, to them, Saddam could do no wrong. It's all our fault, you know.

McG

This is a stupid and uncareful statement. But it is typical of Boortz. It demonstates why folks like me view his writing not to glean information, but to study how the cover of 'journalism' can be misappropriated for partisan screed.

0 Replies

You don't think he is merely being over-dramatic to reinforce his point?

0 Replies

Think of happy some of these right wingnuts would be if a nuclear bomb went off in Iraq.

0 Replies

That could be a convenient excuse for all the pundits, left and right.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Think of happy some of these right wingnuts would be if a nuclear bomb went off in Iraq.

That wouldn't make me happy.

0 Replies

Americans in Iraq Attacked W Bomb Containing Nerve Gas (WMD)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know