Lilly
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
JOFO said:
ok, i thought you were saying like...don't mention it because you felt it was irrelevant, that's what puturbed me.
otherwise i see where you're coming from
MERGED--> there ya go: + there ya go part II:
- Thread starter JOFO
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
ok, i thought you were saying like...don't mention it because you felt it was irrelevant, that's what puturbed me.
otherwise i see where you're coming from
Scarletwine
New Yorker
IMO this is the only incident. The buried ones were found today.
Believe me if they had found suspected chemicals on weapons Rumsfeld would be pissing himself to tell the world at the Pentagon briefing. All the other stations picked up the story from NPR.
Believe me if they had found suspected chemicals on weapons Rumsfeld would be pissing himself to tell the world at the Pentagon briefing. All the other stations picked up the story from NPR.
Scarletwine said:
You might not be aware, but there were 20 missiles found as well. They are short range 12 mile range. These are different from the chemicals in the barrels. Rumsfeld, stated in a press conference it would take days to have any kind of conclusive results on the warheads. It seems they are considered too dangerous to open where they are.
US finds missiles with chemical weapons-NPR radio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON, April 7 (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.
Scarletwine
New Yorker
NPR has since pulled the story or I can't find it on their sight. I listened to that report also. But other news orgs descended there and the military backpedalled on the report. CNN interviewed a person handling the testing and they only talked about the barrels.
Not trying to argue. Maybe the military wants it hushed up.
Not trying to argue. Maybe the military wants it hushed up.
Scarletwine
New Yorker
LOL i was talking about the chemicals being on the missles.
"It seems they are considered too dangerous to open where they are. "
"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."
Contradictory to say the least.
"It seems they are considered too dangerous to open where they are. "
"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."
Contradictory to say the least.
Before I misquote him, here is the exact quote. The other part, was from ABC News about further testing needed on the missiles.
Here are Rumsfelds own words.
Rumsfeld: Once we decided to put reporters in with units that were out, it was obvious that they would be there when things were discovered and that they would report on them, which is fine. And they've reported what sounded -- I haven't seen the report, but it sounded -- you used the word "apparently" and you used the word "preliminary," so it sounds like a very responsible report. We don't do that. We have to recognize that almost all first reports that we get turn out to be wrong. There tend to be changes in them. And as a result, we have to take our time and look at it. I don't know, Dick, how many of these things we've seen in the last couple of years, but literally dozens and dozens and dozens of instances where the first report comes in -- and perfectly good reporting -- but it's wrong. And therefore, we don't do that.
We don't do first reports and we don't speculate. And I can tell you it takes days to get samples of things from wherever they are in the battlefield into a first place where they take a look, and then to a second place where things get checked. And I think that the prudent thing in a case like this would be to kind of let the thing play itself out and we'll see what's -- we'll eventually know.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2003/t04072003_t0407sd.html http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2003/t04072003_t0407sd.html
Here are Rumsfelds own words.
Rumsfeld: Once we decided to put reporters in with units that were out, it was obvious that they would be there when things were discovered and that they would report on them, which is fine. And they've reported what sounded -- I haven't seen the report, but it sounded -- you used the word "apparently" and you used the word "preliminary," so it sounds like a very responsible report. We don't do that. We have to recognize that almost all first reports that we get turn out to be wrong. There tend to be changes in them. And as a result, we have to take our time and look at it. I don't know, Dick, how many of these things we've seen in the last couple of years, but literally dozens and dozens and dozens of instances where the first report comes in -- and perfectly good reporting -- but it's wrong. And therefore, we don't do that.
We don't do first reports and we don't speculate. And I can tell you it takes days to get samples of things from wherever they are in the battlefield into a first place where they take a look, and then to a second place where things get checked. And I think that the prudent thing in a case like this would be to kind of let the thing play itself out and we'll see what's -- we'll eventually know.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2003/t04072003_t0407sd.html http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2003/t04072003_t0407sd.html
Scarletwine
New Yorker
Because first they say that can't open them (yes that's smart) but they report what they do have and "not trace elements" .
Anyway, I honestly, hope the reports are true. It certainly would help to legitimize this war and improve our image to the rest of the world.
Anyway, I honestly, hope the reports are true. It certainly would help to legitimize this war and improve our image to the rest of the world.
Last edited:
Scarletwine
New Yorker
Yes, I listened to Rumsfeld today. He was hesitant to say much. After other false reports I don't blame him.
Scarletwine
New Yorker
Have you heard any updates on Humanitarian aid getting to Basra? I saw all the looting, but they didn't mention HA.
sorry to go of topic.
sorry to go of topic.
Basra, is not good from what I read. Nothing new on the aid. General Brooks said this morning that they were more concerned with getting water and electricity restored to stem any immediate crisis. No luck with any deliveries from what I have been reading.
Scarletwine
New Yorker
It looked like chaos on the news. Water would be the most important thing.
I think there's going to be a lot of small skirmishes with guerilla type forces for some time to came even after Bagdad falls. It will make getting the Red Cross and other Aid difficult. I don't think we even have total control of any of the larger cities. Nasiryha(?) is supposed to be a disaster also.
I think there's going to be a lot of small skirmishes with guerilla type forces for some time to came even after Bagdad falls. It will make getting the Red Cross and other Aid difficult. I don't think we even have total control of any of the larger cities. Nasiryha(?) is supposed to be a disaster also.
Mustard gas, cyanide found in Euphrates River
The Ottawa Citizen
Sunday, April 06, 2003
Mustard gas and cyanide have been found in river water in the Iraqi city of Nasiriya, coalition forces said yesterday. The poisonous substances are believed to have been dumped in the Euphrates either by Iraqi soldiers fleeing from U.S. troops or by local factories that produced weapons of mass destruction.
A spokesman for the U.S. marines, based outside the city, described the quantities of chemical agents found as "significant" and claimed that it was further evidence that Saddam Hussein has produced weapons of mass destruction. The poisons were discovered by the marines' scientists who were testing the quality of water taken from the Euphrates before purifying it and distributing it to the residents of Nasiriya, a city of 250,000 people.
The Ottawa Citizen
Sunday, April 06, 2003
Mustard gas and cyanide have been found in river water in the Iraqi city of Nasiriya, coalition forces said yesterday. The poisonous substances are believed to have been dumped in the Euphrates either by Iraqi soldiers fleeing from U.S. troops or by local factories that produced weapons of mass destruction.
A spokesman for the U.S. marines, based outside the city, described the quantities of chemical agents found as "significant" and claimed that it was further evidence that Saddam Hussein has produced weapons of mass destruction. The poisons were discovered by the marines' scientists who were testing the quality of water taken from the Euphrates before purifying it and distributing it to the residents of Nasiriya, a city of 250,000 people.
YellowKite
War Child
From Reuters:
March 31: Twelve days into the invasion of Iraq, there is no sign of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's suspected weapons of mass destruction, the primary rationale for the U.S.-led war now pummeling the country.
At a time when opposition to the U.S. attack on Iraq has drawn thousands of people into the streets of major world cities, "it basically casts American credibility in the worst possible light if we don't find these WMD," Wolfsthal said.
The Washington Post reported on Sunday that U.S. special forces had already pursued their 10 best intelligence leads in Iraq but came up dry at each location.
Speaking on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said U.S. and British forces controlled areas in the south, west and north of Iraq but that the weapons of mass destruction had been dispersed elsewhere -- around Baghdad and Tikrit, Saddam's hometown.
Unfazed that none of those arms had yet been found, he expressed frustration anyone would think military forces could attack a site "and find out what's there in 15 minutes."
This is contradictory to what the news reports say is a traveling lab - see below
From National Post:
April 7: Eighteen days after the start of a war that hinged on U.S. assertions that Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction posed a grave and imminent danger to world peace, there is no indication U.S. or British troops have discovered a single depot or production facility for unconventional weapons. So far, coalition troops invading Iraq have found only indirect evidence that such weapons exist.
Little else in the line of weapons of mass destruction has been uncovered so far, and administration officials in Washington have shifted their attention to playing up the need to "liberate" the Iraqi people from a repulsive dictatorship, while playing down any urgent need to search for weapons of mass destruction.
Even if WMD are found in Iraq, Bush could have a problem -- convincing a skeptical, often hostile world the United States did not "plant" the arms to justify its case against Saddam. For that reason, key European leaders have urged Washington to involve UN inspectors in the hunt, something U.S. officials oppose.
In the meantime, a special "Intelligence Exploitation Unit," composed of U.S. troops, CIA specialists and private contractors hired by the U.S. government is sweeping through areas seized by advancing forces looking for clues to hidden weapons caches.
Armed with portable laboratory equipment that allows them to conduct an almost instant analysis of suspected substances, they scour the sites for evidence of chemical or biological weapons and examine documents, computers, maps and other data taken from suspected sites.
So basically, the US administration is backing away from their defiant stance that WMD were there and now making a case for liberating Iraq. So there - right back at you. It was always my opinion that the Bush administration was using nay excuse to fight a war.
I still feel that Bush invading Iraq is part revenge for the assasination attempt on his father, part cleaning up the mess his papa left behind and mostly to divert attention from the fact that he has no valid domestic policy or any real clue on how to govern.
March 31: Twelve days into the invasion of Iraq, there is no sign of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's suspected weapons of mass destruction, the primary rationale for the U.S.-led war now pummeling the country.
At a time when opposition to the U.S. attack on Iraq has drawn thousands of people into the streets of major world cities, "it basically casts American credibility in the worst possible light if we don't find these WMD," Wolfsthal said.
The Washington Post reported on Sunday that U.S. special forces had already pursued their 10 best intelligence leads in Iraq but came up dry at each location.
Speaking on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said U.S. and British forces controlled areas in the south, west and north of Iraq but that the weapons of mass destruction had been dispersed elsewhere -- around Baghdad and Tikrit, Saddam's hometown.
Unfazed that none of those arms had yet been found, he expressed frustration anyone would think military forces could attack a site "and find out what's there in 15 minutes."
This is contradictory to what the news reports say is a traveling lab - see below
From National Post:
April 7: Eighteen days after the start of a war that hinged on U.S. assertions that Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction posed a grave and imminent danger to world peace, there is no indication U.S. or British troops have discovered a single depot or production facility for unconventional weapons. So far, coalition troops invading Iraq have found only indirect evidence that such weapons exist.
Little else in the line of weapons of mass destruction has been uncovered so far, and administration officials in Washington have shifted their attention to playing up the need to "liberate" the Iraqi people from a repulsive dictatorship, while playing down any urgent need to search for weapons of mass destruction.
Even if WMD are found in Iraq, Bush could have a problem -- convincing a skeptical, often hostile world the United States did not "plant" the arms to justify its case against Saddam. For that reason, key European leaders have urged Washington to involve UN inspectors in the hunt, something U.S. officials oppose.
In the meantime, a special "Intelligence Exploitation Unit," composed of U.S. troops, CIA specialists and private contractors hired by the U.S. government is sweeping through areas seized by advancing forces looking for clues to hidden weapons caches.
Armed with portable laboratory equipment that allows them to conduct an almost instant analysis of suspected substances, they scour the sites for evidence of chemical or biological weapons and examine documents, computers, maps and other data taken from suspected sites.
So basically, the US administration is backing away from their defiant stance that WMD were there and now making a case for liberating Iraq. So there - right back at you. It was always my opinion that the Bush administration was using nay excuse to fight a war.
I still feel that Bush invading Iraq is part revenge for the assasination attempt on his father, part cleaning up the mess his papa left behind and mostly to divert attention from the fact that he has no valid domestic policy or any real clue on how to govern.
Last edited:
Electric Blue
Babyface
Actually, British forces used gas shells - "with excellent moral effect" - to crush a revolt against the British rule in Iraq in the summer of 1920. 9,000 Arabs died. The rebellion began in Mosul, Kurdistan. Oh dear irony.JOFO said:
(read Air Power and Colonial Control: The Royal Air Force 1919-1939 by David Omissi for more information)
Indeed. Saw a report from an independent journalist in Basra - major looting's going on. Total anarchy.
Scarletwine
New Yorker
The Pentagon at the briefing today also discards the idea of missiles or bombs at the agricutural site, as "we have no knowledge of any missiles".
Similar threads
