TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Initial Report: US Troops Find Chemical Weapons!!!
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Initial Report: US Troops Find Chemical Weapons!!!

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....storyID=2521303

quote:

Report: U.S. Finds Missiles with Chemical Weapons Mon April 7, 2003 10:25 AM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. forces near Baghdad found a weapons cache of around 20 medium-range missiles equipped with potent chemical weapons, the U.S. news station National Public Radio reported on Monday. NPR, which attributed the report to a top official with the 1st Marine Division, said the rockets, BM-21 missiles, were equipped with sarin and mustard gas and were "ready to fire." It quoted the source as saying new U.S. intelligence data showed the chemicals were "not just trace elements." It said the cache was discovered by Marines with the 101st Airborne Division, which was following up behind the Army after it seized Baghdad's international airport. U.S. Central Command headquarters in Qatar had no immediate comment. The United States and Britain launched the war against Iraq to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq denies having such weapons.

We'll see if this is confirmed or not

If it is, I can already hear the minds of conspiracy theorists churning at how the US planted the chemical weapons

That's great news!!

It's a shame that 3000 civilians and 50+ of our soldiers had to die to find 20 missiles though.

NpR is far from being right-wing, so I'd say this is probably true!

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz That's great news!! It's a shame that 3000 civilians and 50+ of our soldiers had to die to find 20 missiles though. NpR is far from being right-wing, so I'd say this is probably true!

NPR is funded by the ACLU ... about as far from being right wing as you can get.

And it's a shame that the UN is worthless ... there may be more than 20 missiles though:

U.S. Says It May Have Found Iraqi WMD Storage Site
Mon April 7, 2003 12:03 PM ET
NEAR BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. biological and chemical weapons experts believe they may have found an Iraqi storage site for chemical weapons, a U.S. officer told Reuters on Monday.
A military source who declined to be identified said there were unconfirmed reports there could be sarin -- a highly lethal nerve agent that causes death by suffocation -- at the site.

Iraq is believed to have used sarin against Kurdish Iraqis in the 1980s.

"Our detectors have indicated something," said Major Ross Coffman, a public affairs officer with the U.S. 3rd Infantry.

"We're talking about finding a site of possible WMD storage. This is an initial report, but it could be a smoking gun," he said, adding that the site was south of the central Iraqi town of Hindiyah.

"It is not as if there is a cloud of gas hanging everywhere endangering soldiers lives. We're talking about a facility," Coffman added.

Military sources said experts were looking at three 50-gallon barrels and 11 25-gallon barrels found at the site. As well as sarin, they may also have found phosgene, a choking agent that causes fluid buildup in the lungs, he said.

Brigadier General Vicent Brooks at U.S. Central Command forward headquarters in Qatar said he knew of no discoveries of weapons of mass destruction, but said that didn't mean they weren't waiting to be found.

The U.S. news station National Public Radio, reporting what appeared to be a separate discovery, said U.S. forces found a weapons cache of around 20 medium-range missiles equipped with potent chemical weapons.

NPR said the rockets, BM-21 missiles, were equipped with sarin and mustard gas and were "ready to fire."

It said the cache was discovered by Marines with the 101st Airborne Division, which was following up behind the Army after it seized Baghdad's international airport.

Officers from the 101st Division were unable to confirm the report and U.S. Central Command headquarters in Qatar had no immediate comment.

The United States and Britain launched the war against Iraq to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction Iraqi President Saddam Hussein denies having.

U.N. weapons inspectors returned to Iraq after a four-year absence in November to look for banned chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

Inspectors had not found any such weapons when their search abruptly ended when U.S.-led troops attacked Iraq on March 20.

On Saturday, a U.S. officer said first tests of a suspicious white powder and liquid found on Friday in thousands of boxes south of Baghdad indicated it was not a chemical weapon.

Over the weekend, U.S. Marines in the central Iraqi town of Aziziyah began digging up a suspected chemical weapons hiding place at a girl's school.

"We have always expected that this regime has chemical weapons and also possesses the will and means to use it," Brooks told a news conference at Central Command.

He said the U.S.-led forces' advance inside the country had removed some of the means and its blizzard of leaflets and messages warning Iraqi commanders not to use weapons of mass destruction had removed much of the will.

There had also been strikes early on in the campaign, he added, against Iraqi missile capabilities -- such as al Samouds -- which could have delivered chemical or even biological weapons into neighboring countries.

"That work continues but there's also still capability," he said. "While it hasn't been found we're reminded that because we haven't found it it's still there. That's the approach we take."

Interesting, but I kinda doubt if it's true because this find would display a great amount of carelessness from Saddam's side.

Well I'm keeping my fingers crossed that when the final tests are complete, they will demonstrate that Saddam has indeed harbored chemical weapons.

Re: Initial Report: US Troops Find Chemical Weapons!!!

quote:

Originally posted by occrider [url]I can already hear the minds of conspiracy theorists churning at how the US planted the chemical weapons

*churn churn*

but no, seriously, i wouldn't doubt that Iraq still had these weapons. I agree, that does not in anyway make this invasion justified. And i find it sad that over 1000 iraqi civillians, probably 5000 or more iraqi soldiers, and a lot of american as well, to find these weapons. Not to mention the rendering "irrelevant" of the UN by america. all to find a few barrels of chemical sludge that would never have been used.

I wonder how many barrels the US has? they claim they only retain
"laboratory quantities" but the reality is that this is impossible to prove. i suspect the only way we'd ever know is if a foreign army invaded america, and we all know that is not going to happen.

Re: Re: Initial Report: US Troops Find Chemical Weapons!!!

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith *churn churn* but no, seriously, i wouldn't doubt that Iraq still had these weapons. I agree, that does not in anyway make this invasion justified. And i find it sad that over 1000 iraqi civillians, probably 5000 or more iraqi soldiers, and a lot of american as well, to find these weapons. Not to mention the rendering "irrelevant" of the UN by america. all to find a few barrels of chemical sludge that would never have been used.

How would you know Iraq would have never used them? He's held on to them for over 11 years and apparentely Saddam was willing to go to war over them so he must have wanted them pretty badly.

Also the UN wasn't rendered irrelevant by america. It was rendered irrelevant in its inability to disarm Iraq. The discovery of chemical weapons in under 2 weeks by US forces in what has taken the UN 11 years simply demonstrates that it was incapable of doing its job.

quote:

I wonder how many barrels the US has? they claim they only retain "laboratory quantities" but the reality is that this is impossible to prove. i suspect the only way we'd ever know is if a foreign army invaded america, and we all know that is not going to happen.

Well that would be a fine and dandy argument right there except the US isn't prohibited from having chemical weapons and we don't pose a threat of using them.

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa But is this in some way a justification to the current American invasion? Not any more than when in the late 1930's, Hitler had a good reason to plan an invasion to the Soviet Union. Stalin was preparing to attack Germany, and had a massive army of Spetsnaz Spec-Ops trained to crush Germany's defenses (to realize their capability, see what happened in 1944 when the Soviet army started their offensive). So Hitler had to invade pre-emptively, so that Germany wouldn't need to fight against the offensive capability of the Soviet army. Did this make the German invasion justified? Of course not because the Nazi ideology was rotten.

What makes you say Stalin was preparing to attack Germany? Also Hitler didn't "pre-empt" an attack against Russia in order to avoid a future threat, he wanted to conquer Russia as much as he wanted to conquer Europe. Would Stalin have had justificiation to pre-empt an attack against Germany in seeing their buildup of forces on the Russo-German border?

quote:

The American Neoconservatives are not any better than Nazis. They want to subjugate the world to serve the interests of two countries. The WMD were only a pretext. The whole world knows this. I can't see why Americans now start a celebration, as if finding Saddam's WMD is going to make their invasion justified.

I would like you to be clear in this ... who exactly are you calling a Nazi? Who is the other country you are referring to? And please explain to me how we're subjugating the entire world to serve our interests? No the whole world isn't aware of this because I'm not aware of it. And yes finding WMD's is justification because Saddam didn't disarm, Saddam would have NEVER disarmed, and force would have needed to be used to disarm him. Something the ultra-factionized UN would have never committed to regardless of what inspections said.

quote:

Note that I'm not against a military operation to destroy Saddam's WMD. And I'm not against America. I just think that talking about WMD is missing the point because really bad guys are now in charge of American foreign policy.

Your calling our elected officials nazis and you're saying we're trying to subjugate the entire world to become our slaves and you're NOT against America?? Wow that's news to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa But is this in some way a justification to the current American invasion? Not any more than when in the late 1930's, Hitler had a good reason to plan an invasion to the Soviet Union. Stalin was preparing to attack Germany, and had a massive army of Spetsnaz Spec-Ops trained to crush Germany's defenses (to realize their capability, see what happened in 1944 when the Soviet army started their offensive). So Hitler had to invade pre-emptively, so that Germany wouldn't need to fight against the offensive capability of the Soviet army. Did this make the German invasion justified? Of course not because the Nazi ideology was rotten.

What makes you say Stalin was preparing to attack Germany? Also Hitler didn't "pre-empt" an attack against Russia in order to avoid a future threat, he wanted to conquer Russia as much as he wanted to conquer Europe. Would Stalin have had justificiation to pre-empt an attack against Germany in seeing their buildup of forces on the Russo-German border?

quote:

The American Neoconservatives are not any better than Nazis. They want to subjugate the world to serve the interests of two countries. The WMD were only a pretext. The whole world knows this. I can't see why Americans now start a celebration, as if finding Saddam's WMD is going to make their invasion justified.

I would like you to be clear in this ... who exactly are you calling a Nazi? Who is the other country you are referring to? And please explain to me how we're subjugating the entire world to serve our interests? No the whole world isn't aware of this because I'm not aware of it. And yes finding WMD's is justification because Saddam didn't disarm, Saddam would have NEVER disarmed, and force would have needed to be used to disarm him. Something the ultra-factionized UN would have never committed to regardless of what inspections said.

quote:

Note that I'm not against a military operation to destroy Saddam's WMD. And I'm not against America. I just think that talking about WMD is missing the point because really bad guys are now in charge of American foreign policy.

Your calling our elected officials nazis and you're saying we're trying to subjugate the entire world to become our slaves and you're NOT against America?? Wow that's news to me.

Re: Re: Re: Initial Report: US Troops Find Chemical Weapons!!!

quote:

Originally posted by occrider How would you know Iraq would have never used them? He's held on to them for over 11 years

you just answered your own question. he hasn't so far, why would he now? because to do so would be suicide.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Also the UN wasn't rendered irrelevant by america. It was rendered irrelevant in its inability to disarm Iraq. The discovery of chemical weapons in under 2 weeks by US forces in what has taken the UN 11 years simply demonstrates that it was incapable of doing its job.

I suppose i can see that point of view. However, if the inspectors had been given more time, then they would have been found. If more inspectors had been sent they would have been found. Both are options presented by other countries which were flatly rejected by the bush administration. The UN was rendered ineffective by itself. It was rendered irrelevant when the US decided to ask for permission, get denied, and then go ahead anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well that would be a fine and dandy argument right there except the US isn't prohibited from having chemical weapons and we don't pose a threat of using them.

really? a quick search turned up this, i will do more research when i have time.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showart...=11&ItemID=2777

quote:

The USA ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) on April 17, 1997, with several major reservations. Washington reserved the right to withhold 50% of its contributions to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, charged with implementing the treaty. There are a host of �national security� exemptions, allowing the US government to sanitize intelligence information submitted under the CWC. The US did however commit to destroy its stockpile of 31,496 tons of chemical weapons, and to allow weapons inspections of a more polite sort than those to which Iraq must submit. Under UN Resolution 687, and now resolution 1441, Iraq must allow UN weapons inspectors to conduct snap inspections of its factories and military facilities. Iraq may not sanitize its intelligence information. President Bush maintains that no negotiations with Iraq are possible on these points, insisting on immediate Iraqi compliance. He is openly preparing to take the country to war, ostensibly to �disarm� Iraq of weapons it has now declared to the United Nations, but not to the general public. The chemical weapons of United States are not subject to much scrutiny, let alone threats of war from other nations, despite the massive size of its chemical weapons stockpile, and its record of poisoning its own local communities. The timetable for America�s compliance with the CWC is more leisurely than that offered to Iraq under UN resolutions. The CWC set an April 29 2002 deadline for the US to destroy the raw materials for chemical weapons, and a 2007 deadline to destroy all its weapons. A one-time 5-year delay is allowed, pushing the final compliance date back to 2012.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Initial Report: US Troops Find Chemical Weapons!!!

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith you just answered your own question. he hasn't so far, why would he now? because to do so would be suicide.

And holding onto them out of threat of war isn't suicide? Either which way you cut it, how can you predict what Saddam would and would not do?

quote:

I suppose i can see that point of view. However, if the inspectors had been given more time, then they would have been found. If more inspectors had been sent they would have been found. Both are options presented by other countries which were flatly rejected by the bush administration. The UN was rendered ineffective by itself. It was rendered irrelevant when the US decided to ask for permission, get denied, and then go ahead anyway.

Again, either which way you cut it, it's an ineffective, irrelevant institution as I've stated from the beginning

quote:

really? a quick search turned up this, i will do more research when i have time. http://www.zmag.org/content/showart...=11&ItemID=2777

Well let me ask you something JohnSmith, why do you think that nobody cares about the timetable with which we voluntarily reduce our chemical weapons stock? Let me ask you something else ... why do you think we retain a portion of our chemical weapons stock? I'll give you hint since its a pretty easy question. What country has the most lethal chemical/biological weapons program and stockpile in the world? It's not the US ...

Again either which way you cut it, do you see the US as being a potential threat for using WMDs? Answer honestly ... don't give me a BS answer .

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Initial Report: US Troops Find Chemical Weapons!!!

quote:

Originally posted by occrider why do you think that nobody cares about the timetable with which we voluntarily reduce our chemical weapons stock?

its not that nobody cares, its that nobody has enought B52-grade bombers to bomb the US

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Initial Report: US Troops Find Chemical Weapons!!!

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek its not that nobody cares, its that nobody has enought B52-grade bombers to bomb the US

Doesn't matter ... we would shoot down any b-52 long before they reached our borders What they would need would be some b-2 or b-1 bombers.

At any rate, my point is nobody cares if we take an extra 5 years to reduce our stockpile ... it wouldn't even make the 6 oclock news.

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa I'm a fan of special operations history. http://militera.lib.ru/research/suvorov6/03.html Hitler guessed rightly what Stalin's plans were, as is apparent from his letter to Mussolini of 21 June 1941. ('I cannot take responsibility for the waiting any longer, because I cannot see any way that the danger will disappear.... The concentration of Soviet force is enormous.... All available Soviet armed forces are now on our border.... It is quite possible that Russia will try to destroy the Rumanian oilfields.

I would disagree with your source ... I'm somewhat of a 20th century Europe fanatic myself and everything that I've read shows no IMMEDIATE threat of the Soviets against Germany. Perhaps in Hitler's demented mindset he concluded that the Soviet was preparing an attack against Germany but in no way was this part of Stalin's plans. First of all, the statements made by Stalin to the Soviet Communist Congress party, were made in March 1939. At that time Stalin was pressuring, almost begging the western european states to sign a pact against hitler. So his statements there are not out of the ordinary. Your source is kind of confusing since it doesn't provide direct quotes but seeminly paraphrases ... at any rate, I think Stalin's attitude towards Germany did a complete 180 in August when Ribbentrop signed the secret russo-german non-aggression pact.

This was most evident by the complete and utter lack of Soviet preparation for the German attack in 1941. Many of the Russian forces were nowhere near the frontlines when the Germans invaded and truth be told the Russian army was a pathetic fighting force that was ill-equipped for any kind of invasion into Germany. The letter is a surprise, however, could it simply be a justification for Hitler's actions to Mussolini? It would make sense for Hitler to do so since Germany and Italy were in a signed treaty and Hitler was about to break a treaty with Russia. Perhaps it was to provide assurance to Mussolini that Italy would not be attacked in a like manner.



Read the PNAC declaration of the Neoconservatives:

http://cryptome.org/rad.htm

It can't get any clearer than this.

Congrats, you were the last person in the world not to know this So now the whole world knows it.
[/quote]

This isn't the stance of the US government. It's the stance of a few individuals mostly with the rank of "deputy"

quote:

The Iraqi WMD were a sufficient justification for an invasion, but not for this invasion. When the wrong guys do something justified for their own reasons, it's no longer justified IMO. That was the one and only reason why I took up the Hitler example. Nothing he did was justified because he was thoroughly rotten.

Our reasons are to disarm Iraq, liberate Iraq, and remove Saddam Hussein as a threat.

quote:

If you had given Russia and France a carte blanche to invade on their own, they would hardly have hesitated, and would have had a UN backing. They opposed America in the UN only to stop the American Neoconservatives, not to stop the invasion to rid Iraq of the WMD.

I don't understand ... it's ok for france or russian to invade Iraq but not the US? I wasn't aware that France and Russia, who had significant interests in Iraq, were so angelic.

quote:

Few if any Neoconservatives are elected. They are mainly political analysts and media people, and were appointed or adopted by Bush, not elected. They didn't play an overt role in Bush's campaign. Bush turned more and more to them after the election. So I don't blame the American people too hard for their mistake. They couldn't know that Bush would start implementing the Neocoservative plan, even if everyone must have read about it in the Neoconservative newspaper articles.

I think you and I are simply in disagreement on the degree of impact these neo-conservatives have on the US government.

Back on topic:

Doh some of the initial reports of the Chemical facility may be that they are simply pesticides. The Chemical warheads on the rockets still seems to be true however. Again we'll see how things turn out

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Initial Report: US Troops Find Chemical Weapons!!!

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Doesn't matter ... we would shoot down any b-52 long before they reached our borders What they would need would be some b-2 or b-1 bombers. At any rate, my point is nobody cares if we take an extra 5 years to reduce our stockpile ... it wouldn't even make the 6 oclock news.

not on FOX or CNN that's for sure.

Well to be honest ... the only country that would possibly care about a reduction in our chemical weapons stores would be the Russians. So I guess TASS would report it.

I always said (at least in private) that if WMD were NOT found I'd eat my hat.

Appears my Kangol is safe for at least another day

you serious?
you destroy a whole country for 20 medium-range missiles?

now that makes sense!

quote:

Originally posted by ZinG you serious? you destroy a whole country for 20 medium-range missiles? now that makes sense!

I'm sure some more will turn up. Who keeps 20 chemical weapons and then destroys everything else? You might as well have no chemical weapons.

exactly who keeps 20missiles!

A note about Stalin, afaik he did have a large force that was prepared to invade Germany, and supposedly he planned on doing so only a day after the Germans attacked him. He was sure that Hitler never intended to invade CCCP, so he didn't worry too much about defense. When Hitler attacked, Stalin was very surprised and he thought the information about the attack was false, or at least very exaggerated, so he ordered his troops to stay in position. By the time he realized this attack was for real, many of his troops were already scattered/destroyed.

And about the UN inspections, they weren't unsuccessful, since they destroyed thousands of banned Iraqi missiles prior to 1998, when Clinton ordered the inspectors out.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 A note about Stalin, afaik he did have a large force that was prepared to invade Germany, and supposedly he planned on doing so only a day after the Germans attacked him. He was sure that Hitler never intended to invade CCCP, so he didn't worry too much about defense. When Hitler attacked, Stalin was very surprised and he thought the information about the attack was false, or at least very exaggerated, so he ordered his troops to stay in position. By the time he realized this attack was for real, many of his troops were already scattered/destroyed.

Sources? One of my last classes was Soviet history in the 20th century. Most of the class we actually read primary and secondary documents that well described the political and military situation at the time. NONE of the sources that I read even hinted at a possible soviet invasion the next day or even any military planning to invade any time soon.

quote:

And about the UN inspections, they weren't unsuccessful, since they destroyed thousands of banned Iraqi missiles prior to 1998, when Clinton ordered the inspectors out.

But perhaps they were unsuccessful in destroying everything.

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa Well, I probably misused the source. It says basically that the Soviet Union wanted to start a Communist revolution in Germany (and the rest of Europe), and encourage them with Soviet agents rather than the Soviet military. When the World War II started, the Soviet Union wanted to keep out of it as long as possible, utilizing the buffer zone granted by the Ribbentrop pact. But when the situation would permit, the Soviet forces had huge offensive power (evidenced by a million trained paratroopers) to attack Germany if the German troops had been preoccupied too far away from the potential Eastern Front (I think Hitler was a bit wary of invading Britain for this reason). At that stage, both Germany and the Soviet Union were prepared to attack each other pre-emptively.

I disagree about Soviet offensive power. Although the 5 year plans made a significant impact on the Russian economy they were still relatively inept militarily. They had nowhere near the industrial capabilities or technological weaponry that the Germans possessed. If the Russians had significant military capabilities, why did it take 2 years and over 10 million deaths before the Russians were able to rally enough industry to arm their forces and begin offensive operations against the Germans? Truth be told, the after the ribbentrop-molotov treaty was signed the Russians had no intent to invade Germany anytime soon. Stalin's gross and criminal errors in even recognizing the German invasion as it was happening is testament to the level of trust Stalin placed in the treaty and the Germans.

quote:

As to your claim that the Soviet army was a pathetic fighting force to invade Germany. On paper this was not true: it was a formidable attack force. But in reality it had its bad moments (like when the Soviet troops struggled to invade Finland). Still, in 1944 the Soviet army showed its true attacking potential, as evidenced especially by the fast advance of the Soviet forward units.

In 1940 it was pathetic. Yes it had impressive numbers but Soviet training and equipment was laughable. Like you said, Soviet forces VASTLY outnumbered the Finns and suffered inumerable losses. And like I said, the Soviets only built up their capabilities as an effective fighting force after several years and countless deaths.

quote:

You probably mean that those are the reasons why many ordinary Americans make the mistake of supporting the invasion. Those reasons might indeed have made an invasion a humane act, but unfortunately, the reasons of the Neoconservatives were primarily to get themselves a dominant position in the Middle-East. As a proof, I once again post the following excerpt from the PNAC declaration: http://cryptome.org/rad.htm The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein. The American war plan indicates that the invasion was tailored to suit these Neoconservative goals. If getting rid of Saddam and the Iraqi WMD had been the primary goals, the war plan and its political preparations would have been different.

You're equating this PNAC declaration as American policy. That is not the case. How would the war plan and its political preperations been different then if our goal truly was to get rid of Saddam (and it is) and to rid Iraq of WMDS (it is to a lesser degree)?

quote:

Everyone probably agrees that Saddam and his WMD should have been removed. France and Russia hardly objected to this, and would have carried out the invasion just as happily as the US if it had been in their economical interests. Even if it hadn't been in their economical intererests, they would still have rather done it themselves than given the Neoconservatives an opportunity to increase their power compared to Europe.

France and Russia never would have done so because they have too many interests in Iraq in its current state. And I believe you are blindly placing faith in the altruism of France and Russia in performing actions that are not beneficial to their own self interests. At any rate I still don't believe in this "neoconservative" domination of the American government. Are you saying that not only did these neoconservatives subjucate the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the American people?

quote:

The impact of Neoconservatives on Bush has been variable, counterweighed by Bush's more traditional conservative advisors. Unfortunately, Bush submitted to the Neoconservative plans almost completely after the WTC tragedy. Their huge impact on Bush was proved by the facts that Bush adopted the exact amount of defense budget, the missile defense program and an Iraq invasion suggested by the Neoconservatives (I can find sources for this if necessary). And their impact on Bush's thinking ( ) is still considerable: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/06/i...ial/06POLI.html (registration required) Shortly after Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld issued a stark warning to Iran and Syria last week, declaring that any 'hostile acts' they committed on behalf of Iraq might prompt severe consequences, one of President Bush's closest aides stepped into the Oval Office to warn him that his unpredictable defense secretary had just raised the specter of a broader confrontation. Mr. Bush smiled a moment at the latest example of Mr. Rumsfeld's brazenness, recalled the aide. Then he said one word - 'Good' - and went back to work. ... "Iraq is not just about Iraq," a senior administration official who played a crucial role in putting the strategy together said in an interview last week. It was "a unique case," the official said. But in Mr. Bush's mind, the official added, "It is of a type." Every now and then, there have been signs that Bush is hesitant about the plans of the Neoconservatives, and prefers to listen to his other advisors. But because the Neoconservatives have gotten too much power, there's an urgent need of a regime change in the US. Just for the same reason why the Baath Party can't stay in power in Iraq even after the really bad Baathists have been removed. When some members of the Government are lunatics, and lose their international credibility, the whole government must go.

Could it simply be that many of the suggestions by this secretive "neoconservative" group might be decisions already arrived upon by the President? It would make sense to increase defense spending after 9/11 right? The ABM system has ALWAYS been an agenda by Bush and that too makes sense after 9/11. At any rate I find these neoconservative conspiracy theories to be silly in predicting the future. We're both going to continue to disagree. Can we simply put the issue at rest and then IF the US invades Syria or Iran THEN bring up the issue? Otherwise I sense we're going to continue the banter of yes this is what's going to happen no this won't happen how do you know for sure, etc. etc. etc. I agree its somewhat of a copout on my part to back out of the argument but I just think the entire theory is simply not conclusive enough to arrive at a definitive answer. Yes it COULD mean something, but there really isn't any smoking gun so to speak. Otherwise it would be well picked up and publisized by the media. At any rate I don't know if I can stand anymore mention of the word "neoconservative"

-Well, the samples will be brought to the US in order to prove if they are or not chemical weapons, the so called gas. Bringing the samples to US does not give me that 100% trust that the results will be as they should be.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.