Frost And Flame Forums

Nuclear Raunch · Post by **Nuclear Raunch** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:27 pm

Even FOX News got in on the debunking, quoting a DoD official saying they were "not in useable condition."

Another link debunking that one. "the military, White House and CIA didn't consider the shells evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons"

<a href='http://url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060622/wl_afp/uscongressiraqweaponschemical_060622103838' target='_blank'>Here's a link of a Pentagon official saying they were "in such a degraded state they couldn't be used."</a>

If you'd like I can dig up an article from when this was first reported 2 years ago. In case you forgot it was reported then but it was dismissed by everyone as being insignificant. Now we have a couple politicians getting slaughtered in polls trying to create a story to move their base.

BTW the reason it wasn't talked about much when first reported in 2004 was because it was all the useless leftover junk from the stuff we gave Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. It wouldn't do much for our PR campaign if we invade a country for possessing the weapons that we gave them, and we couldn't point at it and say it was a threat since it's all been degraded to the point of worthlessness.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:38 pm

pah, unuseable junk my arse, bury anything in the desert: it becomes useless in time. the point that your trying to bury here is moot Nuke, they were found and now tears of foul will be cried by the "bush lied" peeps such as yourself.

and dear god..........citing MTV !:>?!??!?
and your yahoo link isnt working.....

3rd edit: and this wasnt "dug up" this is current news

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/0...5.07o4imol.html and http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

read em and date em man

Post by **Gen. Volkov** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:39 pm

"This says weapons have been discovered, more weapons exist and they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq," added Hoekstra. Though the report was declassified in April, Hoekstra was at a loss to explain why the Bush administration didn't seize on the information as proof that its rationale for war was in fact justified. According to Fox News, Hoekstra conjectured that the president has instead been looking forward and concentrating on the development of a secure government in Iraq."

I don't see how that is "debunking" anything. Some where in a degraded state yes, but it seems that there are still usable ones. And we did NOT give Iraq chemical weapons. In fact we gave IRaq very little in the way of real weapons in the Iran-Iraq war. What we DID give Iraq was money. He then used it to buy stuff, mostly from the French and the Russians, and also to jumpstart his nuclear weapons program.

Nuclear Raunch · Post by **Nuclear Raunch** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:48 pm

Here's Wiki's opinion that we did supply Iraq with their chemical weapons

And the story is being re-reported after those politicians made a press conference, the story was originally reported in May 2004.

Post by **Freenhult** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:50 pm

Right...It would have been foolish for us to really send anything of such destructive capabilites over there.

EDIT: By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm of Singapore supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard-gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq.

A US company sent some over there...but they got blasted for it.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:52 pm

i could contribute to Wiki and type that 1,000,000,000,000 bananas were sent to Iraq as well

Post by **Gen. Volkov** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:56 pm

"The role the United States played in the war against Iran however, although present to some degree, is not as well known."

Yes, that is Wiki's opinion. Inconclusive at best. If we did send anything, it was not actual weapons in any case. If anything was sent, it would have been some of the technology that could be used to make chemical weapons.

Edit: According to Freen, a US company sent a small amount and then got lambasted for doing so. So basically, no, we did not supply Iraq with chemical weapons.

And it's a report made in April of this year. Read the whole article why don't you? It's just been recently declassified. It's new, not a re-reporting episode.

Nuclear Raunch · Post by **Nuclear Raunch** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:12 pm

OK, here's a link or 2 from May 2004 when it was first reported.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/05/17/usarin.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/05/17/ixportaltop.html
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=ael9KePGLUg0&refer=top_world_news
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1528348,00.html
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1084805365150_6/?hub=World
http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=1872516
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3722255.stm
http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=104503532&p=yx45x4z38
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-051704sarin_wr,1,6361877.story?coll=la-home-headlines
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/a/2004/05/17/international1027EDT0555.DTL
http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0517/iraq1.html
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1084805365150_6/?hub=TopStories
http://cbc.ca/stories/2004/05/17/iraq_gas040517
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33082-2004May17.html
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq-Sarin.html?ex=1085457600&en=7446ec08f6ca4777&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Hopefully now you'll believe me when I say this is just regurgitated news.

About the Wiki link, perhaps I should remind people that we didn't go to war with Iraq alone. When I say we gave it to them I meant the "Coalition of the Willing". If you want to know what the US contributed by itself the most damning bit would be "Western countries (among them United Kingdom, France, Spain (Explosivos Alaveses), Italy and the United States) provided Iraq with biological and chemical weapons technology and the precursors to nuclear capabilities".

EDIT: Quick logic question for you, any credible reason why we wouldn't disclose valid WMD info when we have been taking a beating PR-wise for years about not having any evidence of our prewar claims? Especially when Bush was lagging in the polls leading up to the election. Don't you think it would have made sense for that to have been disclosed? Not like revealing the info would hurt us in any way.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:17 pm

the NY times one, which i will not give credit to, wont let you read it unless you have a membership.
the washington times one is what Gen. Popov already stated and yes, i knew about it as well.
newsday doesnt work
freep doesnt work
guardian doesnt work
.........

dude, the story i posted CAME OUT TODAY
this stuff is just rehash of little things, what i was talking about is a OVERALL picture.
geeze! read the freakin article!

First Edit: okay, they are mostly about the gas attack on the soldiers. THIS WAS ALREADY KNOWN

Post by **Gen. Volkov** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:18 pm

You are correct that the first report of the FIRST WMD found was in 2004. This, however is new. It says over 5 HUNDRED weapons have been found and destroyed. Whole CRATES of the stuff.

Nuclear Raunch · Post by **Nuclear Raunch** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:19 pm

Ahh my apologies. I copied this from a forum thread at the time and didn't check more than a couple. I'll run through and edit them out. Anyway even one is credible evidence that the story was around on May 17, 2004.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:21 pm

true but <span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>IF YOU READ WHAT MY LINKS SAID</span>

you will find that its spanning from 2003 to now.

Post by **Gen. Volkov** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:23 pm

Quick logic question for you, any credible reason why we wouldn't disclose valid WMD info when we have been taking a beating PR-wise for years about not having any evidence of our prewar claims? Especially when Bush was lagging in the polls leading up to the election. Don't you think it would have made sense for that to have been disclosed? Not like revealing the info would hurt us in any way.

Well, I can see at least one reason, the first time it was reported that we had found WMD's, it was later revealed to have been not them at all. Waiting until we had all the facts right is a good reason. Another is that the report was classified, meaning it wasn't until it was recently DECLASSIFIED that anyone could talk about it.

Nuclear Raunch · Post by **Nuclear Raunch** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:36 pm

Kraken: I know, I was simply showing that it was old news regurgitated.

Volkov: Bush can declassify anything he wants any time he wants. And being wrong about our claim the first time did not stop us from making a 2nd claim, or a 3rd, or a 4th... and it doesn't take 2 years to assess whether or not a shell has sarin in it.

I would also like to point out that th effective range of these things in their prime was a matter of a few miles. If it was fired from downtown Baghdad it MIGHT make the edge of town, that's it. Not exactly the dire threat it was made out to be.

Post by **Freenhult** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:37 pm

They are still a threat regardless. That is the point.

WMD

Members connected in real time