Chemical weapon bomb in Iraq

On May 17 2004 19:21 Klogon wrote:
[Insert 20 page thread here]

[Insert flames anywhere inbetween the 20 pages]

On May 17 2004 19:37 Sadist wrote:
he had nerve gas for a long time, people already knew this. He used it on the People from Iran and the kurds. I woudlnt be surprised with the recent events if this was planted. Its really sick to think about things like this, but it just seems like FAR too many coincidences occuring.

On May 17 2004 19:54 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
Damn that Sarin gas sounds pretty fuckin nasty. Kill you in like 5 seconds flat.

On May 17 2004 19:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:
one bomb really isn't that significant.. ;( and while I'm not claiming it was planted but that definitely wouldnt surprise me either :o

The shell was believed to be from one of Saddam's old stockpiles and was not regarded as evidence of recent weapons of mass destruction production in Iraq.

On May 17 2004 21:54 BroOd wrote:
Is there some sort of statute of limitations on biochemical warfare that I'm not aware of?

On May 17 2004 21:40 TeCh)PsylO wrote:
Reading past the headlines tends to help.

On May 17 2004 21:48 Pob wrote:
was made before 1991 , probably just forgotten about or planted

This is brand new stuff.

On May 17 2004 23:30 Servolisk wrote:
Why didn't Saddam use it if he had it (I'm sure HE wouldn't have a problem using it and taking out some of his people as collateral damage to hit Americans)?

You hardly disproved planting, btw.

On May 17 2004 23:31 TeCh)PsylO wrote:


You're right. There are WMD factories in Iraq right now producing WMD. They were also there before we entered Iraq, when the UN inspectors were there. Iraq must have just hidden everything in trucks and trains and moved it all around minutes before we arrived!, as proven by Collin Powells breathtaking UN presentation. Iraq was proabably also making them when the UN inspectors were there in the 90's, and also when we were bombing the crap out of them during Operation Desert Fox(or badger as Bush likes to call it... )

For godsakes, get a clue.

it seems like every time there's even the slightest possibility that some positive news could turn up for the Bush administration and America, you guys jump all over it and claim it's fabricated.

On May 17 2004 23:39 TeCh)PsylO wrote:


What would it take for you to lose respect for this administration?

On May 17 2004 23:43 Servolisk wrote:
Maybe they couldn't do it then (EDIT: and get away with it).. Or maybe if they did it now, people would say "if the planted it, why didn't they just do it right away", which gives them the same credibility (if succesful) after temporary doubt..

soldiers found a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent in Baghdad, the military said Monday. The device, which partially detonated, was apparently a leftover from Saddam Hussein's arsenals

Rumsfeld cautioned that the sarin results were from a field test, which can be imperfect and more analysis needed to be done.

U.S. troops have announced the discovery of other chemical weapons before, only to see them disproved by later tests

The former top U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay, said it was possible the shell was an old relic overlooked when Saddam said he had destroyed such weapons in the mid-1990s

Former U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, speaking to the AP in Sweden, agreed the shell was likely a stray weapon scavenged from a dump and did not signify that Iraq had large stockpiles.

Numerous arsenals and weapons depots were looted in the turmoil following the collapse of the regime last April. Some depots are still only lightly guarded. Many of the materials used for roadside bombs were believed to have been looted.

More like what would it take for you to gain it?

On May 17 2004 23:46 TeCh)PsylO wrote:
Excalibur, you have the most selective eyes of anyone I have ever seen. Where does it say that the sarin gas was new. It specifically says:



Leftover... IF you continue...

..

..

..


How do you interpret this as good news for the Bush administration? Where does it say the sarin gas was new? Maybe I am wrong... after all it is late.. but the 8 ball says other wise.

Kay, in a telephone interview with The Associated Press, said he doubted the shell or the nerve agent came from a hidden stockpile, although he didn't rule out that possibility.

GL.

On May 18 2004 00:03 TeCh)PsylO wrote:
Even if this was somehow a "new" "WMD" that happened to be made in some truck while UN inspectors were in Iraq, that does not change the fact that Bush lied. This issue is gettin fairly old for me. If every media outlet on the planet FedExed pictures of WMD's to my house, at this point, I don't think I would beleive it..

On May 18 2004 00:04 Servolisk wrote:
I thought Kerry was ahead in the polls (heard that here, not checked it reliably). I think it'll be close, from what I see now.

btw Psylo since your from MI too, you think Kerry has a chance here?

On May 18 2004 00:04 Servolisk wrote:
I thought Kerry was ahead in the polls (heard that here, not checked it reliably). I think it'll be close, from what I see now.

btw Psylo since your from MI too, you think Kerry has a chance here?

Exactly. You hate Bush so much that you twist the truth that is not convenient for you to hear

On May 18 2004 00:08 TeCh)PsylO wrote:


I think Kerry has a chance, definetly in Michigan. MI hasn't elected a republican in 20 years(Reagon) and I highlty doubt they will start with Bush. The media frenzy leading up to the election will decide it. You can expect many "hard hitting" stories coming out against both parties, and which ever the media decides to push the most will pick our winner. The loser of course, will be the american people, regardless of who wins...

On May 18 2004 00:10 mensrea wrote:
And for the people who don't understand why something would be announced TODAY as opposed to LAST YEAR:

1. This is an election year.

2. The vast majority of voters in the US have short-term memory only.

It's a simple principle. I knew governments timed the announcement of certain events and findings during an election year when I was 9-10 yrs old. If you still don't understand, then you should not be posting in political threads.

On May 18 2004 00:09 TeCh)PsylO wrote:


Respect is earned, not given. Same goes for the lack there of, its a lesson I think you need to learn.

On May 18 2004 00:22 Excalibur_Z wrote:


I don't believe in some Bush positions. I think in many cases he's too much Compassionate and not enough Conservative. He kind of delays too long before he takes action, and as we all know he is not the most earthshaking speaker in the world. What he needs to do is take lessons from Reagan - instead of giving his opponents a chance to doubt him, he's got to become the Great Communicator - THIS is why we're doing this, THIS is what will happen as a result, and THIS is the time where we need to put aside differences. Things like that would make him a much more impressive President in my book.

His economic policies (known as supply-side economics, or as then-rival George Bush described them, "voodoo economics") were based on the idea that increasing military expenditures and cutting nondefense spending while simultaneously lowering taxes would stimulate the economy and thus increase government revenue. Unfortunately, this didn't happen. Whereas in 1980 the United States was a creditor nation, by the late 1980s it was the world's largest debtor nation.

He often told anecdotes, presented as true events, that later turned out to be scenes from movies. Even after he was made aware of this he would tell the same stories later, again presenting them as truth, again seemingly unaware that they weren't.

He also told stories to support his policies that were complete fabrications - the Cadillac-driving "Welfare Queen" he often referred to in his attacks on Aid to Families with Dependent Children did not exist, and the particulars of her lifestyle that he described were not even possible under the existing welfare system.

Was played up as a warrior against terrorism yet supported the government of El Salvador (which engaged in acts of terror against its own people), illegally supported a terrorist war against the Nicaraguan government (which often involved attacks on innocent Nicaraguan citizens), illegally sold arms to the terrorist state of Iran, and himself ordered a terrorist action against another country in his bombing of Libya. (I'm sorry, but bombing people in order to "send a message" is the very definition of a terrorist act.)

Was indicted by the World Court for his mining of Nicaraguan harbors, yet refused to stop.

The only ass he truly kicked was that of the tiny island nation of Grenada, whom we invaded in order to get some American medical students out after they (Grenada, not the students) allied with Cuba. Encouraged the idea, widespread in the 1980s, that it was America's right and responsibility to kick ass overseas.

Though not a churchgoer, courted and won the support of the Religious Right, some of his strongest allies.

Believed himself to be an instrument of God's wrath against the Soviet Union and often wondered aloud if it were his duty to unleash America's nuclear stockpile against them in the war of Armageddon.

Hired people like James Watt, Edwin Meese, and former CIA director George Bush.

Joked on the air, at a time when U.S.-Soviet relations were extremely tense, that he had outlawed Russia forever and would begin bombing them in five minutes.

Cut government funding of mental hospitals so they were forced to release thousands of mentally ill people onto the streets - almost single-handedly creating the homeless problem as we know it today.

Justified increased defense spending by portraying the Soviet Union as an unstoppable juggernaut that was ready to invade at any moment, a picture we now know to be completely false.

The oldest-ever President. Even my grandmother thought he was too old.

Cut the American people out of participation in their own government by classifying more government documents Top Secret than any administration in history.

Though constantly speechifying about family values, Reagan divorced his first wife. Ron and Nancy's own children didn't even seem to like them, and when he was shot none of them visited him in the hospital.

When bombing Libya, cited "Rambo" as an inspiration.

On May 18 2004 00:27 mensrea wrote:
I believe Excal is certifiable. The guy reminds me of Timothy McVeigh.

On May 18 2004 00:24 TeCh)PsylO wrote:
To compassionate? Hows your love life?

On May 17 2004 20:30 dronebabo wrote:
they're sending in more troops from south korea.

On May 18 2004 00:27 mensrea wrote:
I believe Excal is certifiable. The guy reminds me of Timothy McVeigh.

On May 18 2004 00:37 Amnesty wrote:
If only Jebb didnt rig Florida for his bro. =\\

On May 18 2004 00:52 Servolisk wrote:
Could you address this before continuing to call him the great communicator? I'll quote what I quoted earlier in case it was too much reading:

"He often told anecdotes, presented as true events, that later turned out to be scenes from movies. Even after he was made aware of this he would tell the same stories later, again presenting them as truth, again seemingly unaware that they weren't.

He also told stories to support his policies that were complete fabrications - the Cadillac-driving "Welfare Queen" he often referred to in his attacks on Aid to Families with Dependent Children did not exist, and the particulars of her lifestyle that he described were not even possible under the existing welfare system."

"Joked on the air, at a time when U.S.-Soviet relations were extremely tense, that he had outlawed Russia forever and would begin bombing them in five minutes."

"When bombing Libya, cited "Rambo" as an inspiration."

On May 17 2004 21:24 Klogon wrote:
He's still got a point.

On May 17 2004 20:43 Tai-Shu wrote:


agreed

On May 18 2004 00:08 TeCh)PsylO wrote:


I think Kerry has a chance, definetly in Michigan. MI hasn't elected a republican in 20 years(Reagon) and I highlty doubt they will start with Bush. The media frenzy leading up to the election will decide it. You can expect many "hard hitting" stories coming out against both parties, and which ever the media decides to push the most will pick our winner. The loser of course, will be the american people, regardless of who wins...

On May 18 2004 11:25 Vicious)Soul wrote:
Kerry doesn't stand a chance, America is fucked, we're all gunna get drafted, the end

On May 18 2004 12:09 TeCh)PsylO wrote:
During the 2000 elections, Bush advertised himself as being much more to the center than he actually is. He now does not have that option. He can only appeal to the far right and his evangelical christian base. Also, Gore was not exactly a charismatic opponent. The 2000 presedential debates were a rather low class event. Kerry is going to be a much harsher and more dominant opponent in these debates than Gore ever came close to. I don't think this election is about how Kerry can win, but rather how can Bush not lose.

edit: I should also point out that Bush did not get the majority vote in 2000, and I doubt he has picked up a hole lot of supporters. Redistricting from the 2000 census could also play a role in the electorate.

On May 18 2004 12:37 uiCk wrote:
how is it that no one heard about a chemical weapon story except this news site u stated, that i have never heard about?