sinker 0 #26 April 7, 2003 LMAO -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #27 April 7, 2003 HI, Lummy.... Sources are NPR, MSNBC, Skynews and Fox (last night I watched them capture the castle....rather interesting, and very little fighting.). Embedded reporting is really informative. I haven't had much of a chance to source it per linkable sites, and won't for a while. I'll try to do that later, should I remember to... The rush to judgment is a good thing to avoid, but sometimes, even if you rush, you get the right answer. MSNBC just indicated that it will be several days before the Pentagon confirms/denies the presence of chemical weapons. Bear in mind, though, that the Pentagon also denied the US troops were close to taking the palace, as I was watching them interview Col. Pickens (sp? ID?) as they were walking around the grounds outside it, having already cleared it. As I was writing this, a report came over MSNBC. I tried to type it as he spoke, but may have missed something along the way. It's fundamentally what's being said, though.... "According to Dana Lewis, MSNBC, the 101st Airborne discovered 11 25 gallon barrels and 3 55 gal barrelss about 20-25 miles outside of Karbala. Chem analysis teams (FOXes) have found evidence of sarin/tabin, mustard type. postiive field tests. The barrels chemicals were found mixed and buried, along with weapons such as rpgs, AK47's, and others. The teams will be examining over next 24-48 hours....Iraq has a history of using chems mixed together, and have used this particular delivery system against the Iranians..." Dunno, but it sounds pretty clear to me. But I'll wait for the confirmation from the military. There will be some, however, who will never believe the reports even if they came from the Pentagon.... And lastly, the other times wherein there where chems "located" were not tested twice, weren't buried, weren't mixed, and weren't located next to other weapons.... Just my observations, though. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #28 April 7, 2003 Quote "Smoking gun" WMD site in Iraq turns out to contain pesticide Yet another case of media (and public) jumping to conclusions too soon... Really, the whole thing is becoming laughable. Well, shit. You're right - they jumped the gun, and so did I. "The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #29 April 7, 2003 I'm not so sure the gun has been jumped... let's just wait a whip and see... -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #30 April 7, 2003 Quote I'm not so sure the gun has been jumped Nor am I....especially as it was buried, and cached with other weapons such as rpgs. Does anyone know which pesticide uses sarin, tabin(?), and mustard gas at the same time? Or even separately? And how are they stored? That would be interesting to learn. I have to get to the office, or I'd research it... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerry81 10 #31 April 7, 2003 Allowing for the possibility that French news agencies might be prone to publishing some propaganda of their own to counter the American reports- I'd say that no conclusions just yet is the best thing to do... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andie787 0 #32 April 7, 2003 So, the chemicals were "buried" and at the same time "ready to go" huh? Many do believe that if the US doesn't find something soon they'll make sure something gets found. I think that this is a tough spot for the US to be in. Also: QuoteIn the Arab world that'll be true, but the "vintage" of such chemicals can also be determined through testing. It'll be proven readily enough that they couldn't have come from us. Unfortunately this might not be true since private US companies shipped chemical precursors to Iraq throughout the 1980's. Even after they knew that he used chem weapons on Iranians, Kurds, etc. "It was later learned, that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program." Source: "U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Persian Gulf War," Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with Respect to Export Administration, reports of May 25, 1994 and October 7, 1994. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #33 April 7, 2003 QuoteYou're right - they jumped the gun, and so did I. I don't think so. Whitnesses reported blistering when the barrels were taken out.. Don't think pesticide will do that.. No matter.. We will find much, much more... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wildblue 7 #34 April 7, 2003 Quote Many do believe that if the US doesn't find something soon they'll make sure something gets found. I think that this is a tough spot for the US to be in. This is true - I'm one of those people. I'll never be 100% convinced that we found stuff there. Even if we don't actually find anything, we have to and we will. Wasn't that the original intent of all this? To relieve SH of his WMDs? That kind of morphed into "We need to oust the evil doers" We do have short attention spans though... anyone remember Afganistan? it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #35 April 7, 2003 > don't think so. Whitnesses reported blistering when the barrels were >taken out.. Don't think pesticide will do that.. There are pesticides that, in their concentrated form, will do a lot worse than that. Methyl bromide, a common fumigant, can cause blisters, and can even penetrate thin rubber. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
natiberger 0 #36 April 7, 2003 Who cares if they found it or not? you still think that this war is about those weapons... how can people be that naive? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #37 April 7, 2003 Do you also believe that the govt. has been lying to us about NOT having UFO's and little green men at the now defunct Area 51? Is Elvis really dead? And JFK too as the govt. would have us believe? Edited to ad: I'm not saying our govt. is always honest, but there comes a time when cynicism and paranoia borders on the need for medication. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #38 April 7, 2003 QuoteDo you also believe that the govt. has been lying to us about NOT having UFO's and little green men at the now defunct Area 51? Is Elvis really dead? And JFK too as the govt. would have us believe? They did lie to us about testing drugs on soldiers in the 60s, the Iran-Contra scandal, Watergate, Japanese internees in WWII, body counts in Vietnam, the spread of communism during the McCarthy era and other things. We have reason to doubt their veracity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wildblue 7 #39 April 7, 2003 Uh, yeah, that's a bit of a reach. There's little doubt our government has and does lie to the general public on a routine basis. Normally for good reason. This is one of those times, I hope they either actually find something or just tell us they find something, so we don't look quite so stupid in the eyes of the world population. edited to ad: Sometimes people's blind patriotism and silicon inhalation border on the need for a trip to the optometrist or a snorkle.it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #40 April 7, 2003 yeah, I agree... they have lied in the past, and to cover up some incredibly hideous things too. But what I'm saying is, just b/c they did so in the past doesn't mean they will here. And I'd caution against not believing our govt. in this case simply based on it's history. In this case, it's likely SH has WMDs. If we find them, it really shouldn't be that big of a stretch for us to believe it to be true. My original point was that it seems strange to me for someone to first suspect that we planted the WMDs instead of that SH actually had them. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wildblue 7 #41 April 7, 2003 QuoteMy original point was that it seems strange to me for someone to first suspect that we planted the WMDs instead of that SH actually had them. I didn't make that assumption. You might have assumed I did. Yes, in all probability, he actually has WMDs - I'm saying even if he didn't/doesn't, we'd never actually know that.it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #42 April 7, 2003 Many do believe that if the US doesn't find something soon they'll make sure something gets found. Call me cynical if you will but I'm one of those believers. Gotta love the CIA I believe the nerve agents mentioned were initially developed as pesticides as pesticides work in the same way. Just chemical warfare at the creepy crawlie scale. There are lots of irritants out there that can cause similar effects but there's no reason to hide them if they're being used for industrial purposes. It should be possible to get detailed information by sending samples to certified labs as used to happen with UNSCOM. I'm not sure what the gear on the NBC vehicles is capable of doing. As I've said before a disgruntled Grad student could make most of the stuff. Alternatively hold a gun to someone's head. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #43 April 7, 2003 I did make that assumption, sorry It just sounded close to some who do say such things. Again, sorry. But I don't know... although our military is strong, it is also at times pretty dumb. In times past coverups and lies and whatnot have come to the surface due to govt. stupidity. Who knows if that wouldn't happen here. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #44 April 7, 2003 >But what I'm saying is, just b/c they did so in the past doesn't mean >they will here. I have come to believe that the best way to predict what _anyone_ will do (a country, a person, a company etc) is to look at what they've done in the past. The US government has lied and will do it again. At the same time, they've told the truth a lot more often than they've lied; I think the term "trust - but verify" applies here. >My original point was that it seems strange to me for someone to > first suspect that we planted the WMDs instead of that SH actually > had them. I don't think that's too likely either, but it's not impossible. If the US said they had found chemical weapons that SH had manufactured, I'd believe them - but I'd also want to see the proof. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #45 April 7, 2003 Billvon, as usual, you are a voice of reason. An interesting thought occurred to me in all of this... I wonder if the following premise is true here, that is, People who are for the war in Iraq will be much more likely to believe that any findings of WMDs were "genuine", i.e. not planted by the US... Whereas people who are not for the war in Iraq will be much more likely to be suspicious that WMD finds were "genuine", i.e. that they were likely planted. Edited to add: I am NOT saying these hypotheses above are true, just wondering if they are... (although I'd venture to say they aren't too far off...) -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tf15 0 #46 April 7, 2003 Quote>But what I'm saying is, just b/c they did so in the past doesn't mean >they will here. I have come to believe that the best way to predict what _anyone_ will do (a country, a person, a company etc) is to look at what they've done in the past. The US government has lied and will do it again. At the same time, they've told the truth a lot more often than they've lied; I think the term "trust - but verify" applies here. >My original point was that it seems strange to me for someone to > first suspect that we planted the WMDs instead of that SH actually > had them. I don't think that's too likely either, but it's not impossible. If the US said they had found chemical weapons that SH had manufactured, I'd believe them - but I'd also want to see the proof. "Trust, but verify", one of Ronald Reagan's moments of inspiration. I still wonder why Bush & Co wanted the UN inspectors out of Iraq in such a hurry. To paraphrase the bard, there's something rotten in the District of Columbia. Three times is enemy action Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #47 April 7, 2003 no, it couldn't POSSIBLY be due to concerns for their safety... no, that couldn't be it. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #48 April 7, 2003 >I still wonder why Bush & Co wanted the UN inspectors out of Iraq in such a hurry. Same reason Butler pulled them out the first time. It looked like coalition attacks were imminent, and Saddam has this habit of using human shields. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tf15 0 #49 April 7, 2003 Quote>I still wonder why Bush & Co wanted the UN inspectors out of Iraq in such a hurry. Same reason Butler pulled them out the first time. It looked like coalition attacks were imminent, and Saddam has this habit of using human shields. Ummm - I meant before they'd finished their work and reported a conclusion, or reported an impasse that prevented them from finishing. Three times is enemy action Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rdutch 0 #50 April 8, 2003 QuoteQuoteTHE US WASN'T UNDER EIGHTEEN UN RESOLUTIONS TO GET RID OF SUCH WEAPONS. they migth should be.US is det most agressive nation i know. I dont mind if if were DK that had thouse arms,i think they all should be destroyed.I just cant see why any want thouse weapon.You can migth tell me,while evrybody agree that its a nasty weapon. its ironic..like telling my kid that she cant have candy but eat it my self.. I dont like SH,i do apriciate that US moves in the front to get rid of him,but i think it could have been done in a better way. This is not a personal attack, your English is really hard to understand, and whatever point you are making, is hard to figure out. There is a Spellcheck available, it will help all of us understand you better. Its right next to Post reply. Ray Small and fast what every girl dreams of! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
