US Forces Seize Russian Chemical Weapons Inside Iraq

[Jedi Knight]

In a nasty development, US forces seize Russian chemical weapons (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31735) inside Iraq, along with Iraqi chemical weapons personnel.

I guess Hans Blix was out to lunch when the Iraqis were flying in the tons of chemical weapons from Russian chemical war factories.

JK

It's not confirmed as true yet though is it?

Though to be perfectly honest half expected it anyway.

[Segnosaur]

I won't believe any news story until its been verified by Foxnews ;)

[NoZed Avenger]

I'll want to see it from several sources before I even begin to think about starting the process of turning in the direction of an area near the place where I will want to initiate a process that will eventually culminate in the reaching of a conclusion on this.

NA

(But I may be wrong)

[c0rbin]

From the article:

The reporter noted a report several days ago that Saddam Hussein has pushed the level of authority for using these weapons down to the level of commanders on the front lines.

How can statements like this be made without providing verification? How can someone know this at all?

I am hoping that stuff like this is for real, but come on, I am tired of dashed hopes and shoddy reporting.

[Skeptic]

Considering the fact that worldnetdaily's other headlines include such gems as "Double Trouble: Did Saddam die in '99?", "Supreme Court hears 'Right to Sodomy' case", and "Al Gore suddenly hot for presidential race", I would be--dare I say it?--skeptical before I accept this article as gospel truth.

[DrChinese]

The cited story does not really make sense. Russian chemical weapons in Iraq? JK thought the Iraqis were manufacturing the stuff themselves a few days ago. At their chemical plant.

We have been hearing about the possible use of WMD since the war started, so far nothing! Oh, except the 5000 cruise missiles WE have sent into Baghdad.

But we all know that MIGHT MAKES RIGHT!

[DrBenway]

The warheads – discovered in a confrontation with Saddam Hussein's Medina division about 60 miles south of Baghdad – have been transferred for testing, according to Paul Strand of the Christian Broadcasting Network.
Sorry, but CBN is low on the credibility list. Even lower than Fox.

[corplinx]

Please remember the "48 hour clause". Nothing reported on the news seems to be validated until 48 hours later.

[davefoc]

Failure to meet 48 hour credibility clause, potentially biased source, information strongly beneficial to one side or other. Hmm, would anybody give this story better than 30% chance of being correct?

[Wayne Grabert]

Hey, y'all, I thought you might enjoy looking at these patriotic posters! (http://www.smh.com.au/photogallery/2003/03/26/1048354635614.html)

Sample. (http://www.smh.com.au/ftimages/2003/03/26/1048354635249.html)

[Skeptical Greg]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reporter noted a report several days ago that Saddam Hussein has pushed the level of authority for using these weapons down to the level of commanders on the front lines.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess this is one way of looking at it..:rolleyes:

This always happens when people die.. ( responsibility gets pushed down to their subordinates..)


( :D .. Just speculating that Saddam might be dead )

[Drooper]

hmmm,. Despite the original dodgy source (JK :D ), there might be something to this story. This report just to hand alludes to some sort of new discovery on the part of the coalition.


British forces allegedly have found evidence proving Iraq is ready to use weapons of mass destruction against allied forces, claims Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon.

He says the issue of protective gear to Iraqi troops in the south of the country has already indicated that Saddam Hussein may be considering the use of chemical or biological weapons.

Now Mr Hoon says fresh evidence uncovered over the past few days has proved it beyond doubt.

[my emphasis]

Hoon says Iraq 'ready to use mass destruction weapons' (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_765056.html?menu=)

[Martin]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
In a nasty development, US forces seize Russian chemical weapons (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31735) inside Iraq, along with Iraqi chemical weapons personnel.

I guess Hans Blix was out to lunch when the Iraqis were flying in the tons of chemical weapons from Russian chemical war factories.

JK Tariq Aziz probably told us about it when he defected, along with the location of that chemical plant.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Martinm
Tariq Aziz probably told us about it when he defected, along with the location of that chemical plant.

No, Hans Blix saw it all and was a little bit worried about what might happen if it became public, so he "forgot" to put it in his report.

[a_unique_person]

http://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1048354635266_2003/03/26/poster18.jpg

heres a sample

http://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1048354635272_2003/03/26/poster24.jpg

[Drooper]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
http://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1048354635266_2003/03/26/poster18.jpg

heres a sample

http://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1048354635272_2003/03/26/poster24.jpg

Just because they're entertaining doesn't mean they're correct.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Maybe it's just that I spent too little time in the military, but at what point did MOPP gear and Atropene become "chemical weapons?"

- edited to add, Oh crap, I just ignored my current signline. ;)

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Maybe it's just that I spent too little time in the military, but at what point did MOPP gear and Atropene become "chemical weapons?"



From the USAToday:

Iraqi TV, which was knocked off the air late Tuesday, resumed broadcasting Wednesday, residents said. It showed pictures of beheaded Iraqis and said they had been killed by U.S. troops. It also showed pictures of U.S. POWs.

The state-run television warned residents Wednesday that American troops were prepared to use chemical weapons in Iraq as part of their "colonization of the Muslim world," residents said. It showed U.S. soldiers donning gas masks and said the pictures were proof of the U.S. intentions.

I'm glad the US would never make claims on such silly logic. Oh, wait...

[richardm]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
I'm glad the US would never make claims on such silly logic. Oh, wait...

I have to say that I'm not enormously impressed by the argument that the Iraqi possession of NBC suits indicates their intention to use chemical weapons, on the grounds that "They know that the coalition won't use chemical weapons, therefore it must be their own weapons they're protecting against".

Hmm.

[Skeptic]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
http://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1048354635266_2003/03/26/poster18.jpg

I don't get the whole "no war for oil" business, even if it was true. Fighting a war to ensure your country's oil supply IS often quite justifiable. Oil is (almost) as important to a modern country as water or wheat. Without it, it is impossible to have a technological society running. Surely it is quite a legitimate US interest to ensure its oil supply is not controlled by people like Saddam Hussein.

Oil is (often, although not always) a much more justifiable reason for war than abstract ideals such as freedom and democracy. Besides, they go together: if the real reason for the US wanting a democratic Iraq is cheaper oil, it is much more likely it WILL make sure Iraq remains democratic than if the US did it out of the goodness of its heart and a desire to bring the blessings of freedom to the Iraqis.

Oh, and P.S., the coalition is not suffering "millions" of casulties. It doesn't even have "millions" of soldiers. It has about 200,000-300,000 soldiers (about 100 divisions) in the war, and suffered about 50-100 casualties (less than one company) so far.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Drooper


Just because they're entertaining doesn't mean they're correct.

Nor are they entertaining. Maybe they could be considered parody, but I consider them hijackings.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Skeptic
[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]
I don't get the whole "no war for oil" business, even if it was true. Fighting a war to ensure your country's oil supply IS often quite justifiable. Oil is (almost) as important to a modern country as water or wheat. Without it, it is impossible to have a technological society running. Surely it is quite a legitimate US interest to ensure its oil supply is not controlled by people like Saddam Hussein.


I agree completely. Protecting our oil resources is most certiainly within the interests of the US. In fact, the main justification of Gulf War I, IMO, was to stop Iraq from their attempts to take over the middle east. We didn't care one toot about Kuwait. It was that Iraqis in Kuwait was a threat to Saudi Arabia and their oil supplies. And it was a legitimate concern for American interests.

High gas prices can really cripple our economy. It is in our nation's interest to keep them low.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Drooper


Just because they're entertaining doesn't mean they're correct.
"It's funny because it's true." --Homer Simpson :D

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Skeptic

I don't get the whole "no war for oil" business, even if it was true. Fighting a war to ensure your country's oil supply IS often quite justifiable. Oil is (almost) as important to a modern country as water or wheat.
I supported the (first) Gulf War because I was led to believe that Hussein was trying to monopolize the region and its oil.

Protecting our oil supply is not a justification for the current war because that supply is not at all being threatened. Besides the fact that only a small percentage of US oil comes from Iraq, no one is withholding oil from us. In fact, the OPEC states are quite eager to sell us oil.

I realize that you were arguing hypothetically and not asserting that protecting the oil supply was the justification for war. However, at least most of those arguing the "no blood for oil" line (that I think does not take in the bigger picture) think that the war is prompted by greed that wants to control Iraq's oil fields (where US companies are currently shut out) and are not arguing that oil supplies are unimportant.

[Bearguin]

Originally posted by richardm


I have to say that I'm not enormously impressed by the argument that the Iraqi possession of NBC suits indicates their intention to use chemical weapons, on the grounds that "They know that the coalition won't use chemical weapons, therefore it must be their own weapons they're protecting against".

Hmm.

I'd be curious to know if the Iraqi's have these suits, found in hospitals, as part of a fear campaign that the coallition is going to use the weapons. What better way to get the popluation to fall in line by saying the invaders are going to use chemical weapons and here are suits to protect you.

Don't know if that is what is happening, but its a good reason why they are found in hospitals.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by pgwenthold

I agree completely. Protecting our oil resources is most certiainly within the interests of the US. In fact, the main justification of Gulf War I, IMO, was to stop Iraq from their attempts to take over the middle east. We didn't care one toot about Kuwait. It was that Iraqis in Kuwait was a threat to Saudi Arabia and their oil supplies. And it was a legitimate concern for American interests.

High gas prices can really cripple our economy. It is in our nation's interest to keep them low.
Would you prefer killing a bunch of furreners to protect the oil supply over driving a subcompact car? If oil is so precious, why are we, under the current administration, taking no steps to improve conservation?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Would you prefer killing a bunch of furreners to protect the oil supply over driving a subcompact car? If oil is so precious, why are we, under the current administration, taking no steps to improve conservation?

I'm guessing because they think it is easier to protect the oil supply by force or to find new reserves than to get the country to improve its conservation.

I don't agree, but I'm guessing this is why the current administration is acting this way.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Would you prefer killing a bunch of furreners to protect the oil supply over driving a subcompact car? If oil is so precious, why are we, under the current administration, taking no steps to improve conservation?

This morning I saw a "No Blood For Oil" sticker on a Jeep Cherokee! :confused:

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm sorry but the "spot the traitors" poster is a riot. I want to make that my avatar..