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!

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

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.

___________________
1+1=10

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

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

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.

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.

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

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 .

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

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]