Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 230
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I don't doubt that the official statement is such at the this time as I have stated over and over and over again, non of the currently released documents are conclusive....but that they are still coming out. When viewed collectively they are at the moment only a point of interest.
    They have many uses. They also make really excellent right wing blog posts, and great fodder for AM radio talk shows.
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Yeah, d@mnit those pre 1991 weapons that were to be destroyed under the UN sanctions really don't count as a violation of the UN. They really should not be considered WMD since they were hidden, uhh I mean misplaced, by the Iraqi regime instead of being moved out, uhhh I mean destroyed as required by the UN.
    Your satirical response gave me a laugh cardio, thanks man. Anyway the thing that is funny to me is what you are trying to defend here. The "WMDs" Santorum and Hoekstra got everyone all hyped up about were actually less toxic than stuff you have under your kitchen sink - according to David Kay, chief weapon inspector in Iraq in 2003-4. Maybe we should also count Sadaam's comet cleanser and draino in this "cache"? LOL

    Quote Originally Posted by Associated Press June 22, 2006
    Two lawmakers _ Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., and House Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich. _ on Wednesday circulated a one-page summary of a military intelligence report that says coalition forces have recovered about 500 munitions with mustard or sarin agents, and more could be discovered around Iraq. "We now have found stockpiles," Santorum asserted.

    But intelligence officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitive nature, said the weapons were produced before the 1991 Gulf War and there is no evidence to date of chemical munitions manufactured since then. They said an assessment of the weapons concluded they are so degraded that they couldn't now be used as designed.

    They probably would have been intended for chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq War, said David Kay, who headed the U.S. weapons-hunting team in Iraq from 2003 until early 2004.

    He said experts on Iraq's chemical weapons are in "almost 100 percent agreement" that sarin nerve agent produced from the 1980s would no longer be dangerous.

    "It is less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink at this point," Kay said.

    And any of Iraq's 1980s-era mustard would produce burns, but it is unlikely to be lethal, Kay said."
    http://www.theconservativevoice.com/...l?mi=D8IDIE300
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 07/10/2006 at 04:51 PM.
  3.    #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Right. The mustard gas hidden near the Iraq / Iran border so long it may not have been operational, that the Iraqi regime knew of, but decided not to use to defend the very existance of the regime itself. Makes sense.
    If you still doubt the danger of older WMDs that Saddam refused to account for then this might prove interesting as one of these older rounds exploded before it could be rendered safe exposing two US soldiers to the deadly nerve agent, who then displayed the classic symptoms of sarin exposure: dilated pupils and nausea. Later tests confirmed that the shell contained three to four liters of sarin:

    Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell
    NEW YORK — Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm that it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve agent sarin (search), Defense Department officials told Fox News Tuesday.

    The artillery shell was being used as an improvised roadside bomb, the U.S. military said Monday. The 155-mm shell exploded before it could be rendered inoperable, and two U.S. soldiers were treated for minor exposure to the nerve agent.

    Three liters is about three-quarters of a gallon; four liters is a little more than a gallon.

    "A little drop on your skin will kill you" in the binary form, said Ret. Air Force Col. Randall Larsen, founder of Homeland Security Associates. "So for those in immediate proximity, three liters is a lot," but he added that from a military standpoint, a barrage of shells with that much sarin in them would more likely be used as a weapon than one single shell.

    The soldiers displayed "classic" symptoms of sarin exposure, most notably dilated pupils and nausea, officials said. The symptoms ran their course fairly quickly, however, and as of Tuesday the two had returned to duty.

    Full STORY: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    They have many uses. They also make really excellent right wing blog posts, and great fodder for AM radio talk shows.
    Yes....just like anything, it can be twisted into any political agenda. These docs can be used by the right to show that the Left have been wrong and playing a political game with Iraq all these years.

    It could be used by the Left to say that the Bush Admin's case is so weak that he had to save them all up until now and play them as a political card as a we run up to an election year.

    So, yes, I agree with you 100% that these docs can be played for total disregard for their contents with the sole motivation for political gain on all sides.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 07/10/2006 at 05:04 PM.
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    If you still doubt the danger of older WMDs that Saddam refused to account for then this might prove interesting as one of these older rounds exploded before it could be rendered safe exposing two US soldiers to the deadly nerve agent, who then displayed the classic symptoms of sarin exposure: dilated pupils and nausea. Later tests confirmed that the shell contained three to four liters of sarin:
    By "refused to account for", you imply in much the same way that cardio did that Saddam knew the weapons was there but was hiding them.

    My post points out that this seems unlikely given the fact that he never used them, even as his entire regime fell.
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    If you still doubt the danger of older WMDs that Saddam refused to account for then this might prove interesting as one of these older rounds exploded before it could be rendered safe exposing two US soldiers to the deadly nerve agent, who then displayed the classic symptoms of sarin exposure: dilated pupils and nausea. Later tests confirmed that the shell contained three to four liters of sarin:

    Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell
    Did you know that sarin produced in the 80s is no longer hazardous by anyone's standards?

    The fact that a 3 liters sarin bomb sprayed onto the soldiers and all that happens is that they get a little stomach ache and are back on duty in 2 days proves that point dont you think?

    So where are the WMDs in this story? I sure don't see them. All I see is hype. But it is well written hype.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html
  6.    #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    By "refused to account for", you imply in much the same way that cardio did that Saddam knew the weapons was there but was hiding them.

    My post points out that this seems unlikely given the fact that he never used them, even as his entire regime fell.
    Saddam knew about these weapons as they were specifically noted to him to account for:

    Some experts suggested that the two shells, which were unmarked, date back to the first Persian Gulf War. The mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles that Saddam failed to account for in his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began. Iraq also failed to account for 450 aerial bombs containing mustard gas.
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html
    Given the fact of the audio tapes translated and released by ABC News in post #2 and MSNBC in Post #3 , and docs translated by ABC News in Post #13 I would tend to disagree with you with some backing to support my opinion. To help you if you don't have to read too much, here is a summary of the above links:

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    The tapes also reveal Iraq's persistent efforts to hide information about weapons of mass destruction programs from U.N. inspectors well into the 1990s. In one pivotal tape-recorded meeting, which occurred in late April or May of 1995, Saddam and his senior aides discuss the fact that U.N. inspectors had uncovered evidence of Iraq's biological weapons program — a program whose existence Iraq had previously denied.

    At one point Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law and the man who was in charge of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction efforts can be heard on the tapes, speaking openly about hiding information from the U.N.

    "We did not reveal all that we have," Kamel says in the meeting. "Not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct."
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 07/10/2006 at 06:30 PM.
  7.    #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Did you know that sarin produced in the 80s is no longer hazardous by anyone's standards?

    The fact that a 3 liters sarin bomb sprayed onto the soldiers and all that happens is that they get a little stomach ache and are back on duty in 2 days proves that point dont you think?

    So where are the WMDs in this story? I sure don't see them. All I see is hype. But it is well written hype.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html
    Apparently you did not read the whole article. The age may very well have play in this situation, but this is why it was reported to not be very effective:

    The munition found was a binary chemical shell, meaning it featured two chambers, each containing separate chemical compounds. Upon impact with the ground after the shell is fired, the barrier between the chambers is broken, the chemicals mix and sarin is created and dispersed.

    Intelligence officials stressed that the compounds did not mix effectively on Saturday. Due to the detonation, burn-off and resulting spillage, it was not clear exactly how much harmful material was inside the shell.

    A 155-mm shell can hold two to five liters of sarin; three to four liters is likely the right number, intelligence officials said.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 07/10/2006 at 05:31 PM.
  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Apparently you did not read the whole article. This is why it was very effective:
    From what I gather, the explanation was that it could have been lethal had it not malfunctioned. But it is impossible to know for sure because it was destroyed.

    While a stray shell leftover from a time when we were actually helping Sadaam with chemical weapons is nothing to sneeze at, and could potentially be dangerous, it is still a long way from making a case that this is part of an ongoing post 1991 weapons program or part of a stockpile. I am trying to keep an open mind about it though, and I do appreciate your pointing that out to me.
  9.    #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    While a stray shell leftover from a time when we were actually helping Sadaam with chemical weapons is nothing to sneeze at, and could potentially be dangerous, it is still a long way from making a case that this is part of an ongoing post 1991 weapons program or part of a stockpile. I am trying to keep an open mind about it though, and I do appreciate your pointing that out to me.
    I agree this has NOTHING to do with the possibility of ongoing programs. But I think it does goes a ways for the case concerning the unaccounted stock piles.

    The points that I get out of this in light of the recent release of several hundred other bio & chem warheads:

    1) We knew Saddam had these weapons.
    2) Saddam knew he had these weapons.
    3) Saddam's regime is caught on tape and in docs admitting and giving instructions on how to actively hide such items from inspectors.
    4) Chem & Bio weapons degrade with time.
    5) Storage of the weapons is key to their long term potency. If stored incorrectly, as most of these were, they do become very ineffective when compared to their original potential when they were first made. But if stored correctly, they can last several decades.
    6) We had no idea how Saddam was storing these pre-Gulf war weapons that everyone knew he had.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 07/10/2006 at 07:55 PM.
  10. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Your satirical response gave me a laugh cardio, thanks man. Anyway the thing that is funny to me is what you are trying to defend here. The "WMDs" Santorum and Hoekstra got everyone all hyped up about were actually less toxic than stuff you have under your kitchen sink - according to David Kay, chief weapon inspector in Iraq in 2003-4. Maybe we should also count Sadaam's comet cleanser and draino in this "cache"? LOL



    http://www.theconservativevoice.com/...l?mi=D8IDIE300
    I guess I missed the part of the UN resolution that said he could keep chemical weapons as long as they would eventually deteriorate before he had the chance to use them. I am sure there are many nations that would gladly let you store their old chemical weapons in your kid's bedroom since they are old and not very toxic anymore. Hey, if you were in charge of locating missing WMDs bur failed to locate them I bet you would also attempt to downplay them when someone else located them. Makes it look like you did an ok job of what you were paid to do.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  11. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    By "refused to account for", you imply in much the same way that cardio did that Saddam knew the weapons was there but was hiding them.

    My post points out that this seems unlikely given the fact that he never used them, even as his entire regime fell.
    You should read the book by Gen Georges Sada, he was a high ranking Iraqi general who was recalled to active duty. His mission was to lead a group of aircraft loaded with chemical weapons to Israel if the US attacked. The US took out the airfields before they could take off. The documents that are being uncovered point to the fact that he knew he had WMDs and would use them on the US troops. How much of this he could accomplish is still being debated, but even his top aides and generals admit that they thought he still had them.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  12. #72  
    You know, after watching that FrontLine on Cheney, "The Dark Side", I'm somewhat convinced that Cheney truly believed there was a wmd program, likely nuclear, in Iraq.

    However, this led me down a truly paranoid starchamber path to a conclusion that Cheney/Rummy were put into these positions of power (and not by George W) due to their fixation on Iraq and their excellent organizational manipulation skills.

    Which leaves me with a question of who is initiated this plan and to what ends? The more corporate members of the neocons? Corporate leaders? Energy Companies?
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I guess I missed the part of the UN resolution that said he could keep chemical weapons as long as they would eventually deteriorate before he had the chance to use them. I am sure there are many nations that would gladly let you store their old chemical weapons in your kid's bedroom since they are old and not very toxic anymore. Hey, if you were in charge of locating missing WMDs bur failed to locate them I bet you would also attempt to downplay them when someone else located them. Makes it look like you did an ok job of what you were paid to do.
    Sorry if I was too counter-sarcastic before but the point I was trying to make was that because these were not dangerous, they really did not represent a threat to anyone and they certainly should not be considered destructive, let alone mass-destructive. So branding these as WMDs is a little disingenuous or at least stretching it dont you think?
  14. #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Sorry if I was too counter-sarcastic before but the point I was trying to make was that because these were not dangerous, they really did not represent a threat to anyone and they certainly should not be considered destructive, let alone mass-destructive. So branding these as WMDs is a little disingenuous or at least stretching it dont you think?
    If you want an answer to that question, and to the question of the origin of these "bombshell revelations", (from legit intelligence channels, or from the Vice President's office). Just look at the timing. The day before the purely symbolic congressional vote on bringing our troops home.
  15.    #75  
    Santorum on Iraq & Saddam documents
    March 30, 2006 6:14 AM

    Here is Senator Rick Santorum on the floor of the Senate yesterday:

    Quote Originally Posted by Senator Rick Santorum

    AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS
    Another effort I have been working on in Iraq is the intelligence information we have been able to gather from the former regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. This has been a project that Congressman Peter Hoekstra, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has been working on—and I have worked with him—to make sure these 48,000 boxes, containing roughly 2 million documents, are released to the American public and the world to determine what was the intelligence assessment and the activity level and, in particular, in Iraq with Saddam, and with his interaction with elements of al-Qaida or other terrorist organizations.
    What we are finding is that some of the statements that have been made on the floor and statements that were made just as recently as March 19, 2006 by my colleague from Pennsylvania, Congressman Jack Murtha who said:
    There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went there. None. There was no connection with al-Qaida. There was no connection with terrorism in Iraq itself.
    Yet if we look at some of the documents that are being released by Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte—and, again, only a few hundred of the millions of documents have been released.

    ---------------------

    During the time the Director of National Intelligence Negroponte has had these documents—this is 3 years ago—less than 2 percent of the documents have been translated. At this pace, my grandchildren may know what is in these documents.

    We need to get these documents out. Mr. President, 600 over a little over a 2-week period is almost the same pace as translating with the people they had over in DNI Negroponte’s shop. We need to get these documents out quicker.

    ---------------

    TERRORIST TRAINING IN IRAQ BEFORE 2003 GULF WAR
    If we look at a report that was issued by the Pentagon Joint Forces Command translating and analyzing some of these documents, called the “Iraqi Perspectives,” on page 54, they write: Beginning in 1994, the Fedayeen Saddam opened its own paramilitary training camps for volunteers—this is 9 years, by the way, before the Iraq war—graduating more than 7,200 “good men racing full with courage and enthusiasm” in the first year.

    Mr. President, 7,200 in the first year, 1994.

    Beginning in 1998, these camps began hosting “Arab volunteers from Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, `the Gulf,’ and Syria.” Volunteers. I wonder why they would be volunteering to help Saddam. It is not clear, it says, from the available evidence where are all these non-Iraqi volunteers who were “sacrificing for the cause” went to ply their newfound skills. Before the summer of 2002, most volunteers went home upon the completion of training. They didn’t stay in Iraq. They came for training from countries in the gulf regions, and they went home. Odd that they would be fighting for the cause which would, in that case, be Saddam, if they went home.

    Before the summer of 2002, as I said, most volunteers went home upon completion of the training, but these camps were humming with frenzied activity in the months immediately prior to the war.

    As late as January 2003, the volunteers participated in a special training event called the Heroes Attack.

    He reminds us of the special significance of that training in 1998:

    That is the same year that the U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq for good; the same year a known al Qaeda operative visited Baghdad for 16 days in March; the same year the U.S. embassies were bombed in East Africa; the same year the U.S. bombed Baghdad in Operation Desert Fox; and, the same year Saddam wired $150,000 to Jabir Salim, the former Iraqi Ambassador to the Czech Republic, and ordered him to recruit Islamic radicals to blow up the headquarters of Radio Free Europe.

    Speech Source
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Santorum on Iraq & Saddam documents
    March 30, 2006 6:14 AM

    Here is Senator Rick Santorum on the floor of the Senate yesterday:
    Holy mackeral! What a complete load of santorum (caution, mature content link)!
  17.    #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Holy mackeral! What a complete load of santorum (caution, mature content link)!
    I noticed you did not address the content but attacked the source. Maybe the Wall Street Journal would be a better source for you since they said nearly the exact same thing with many additional points to ponder:

    Saddam's Documents
    What they tell us could save American lives today.

    Wall Street Journal
    Friday, January 13, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

    It is almost an article of religious faith among opponents of the Iraq War that Iraq became a terrorist destination only after the U.S. toppled Saddam Hussein. But what if that's false, and documents from Saddam's own regime show that his government trained thousands of Islamic terrorists at camps inside Iraq before the war?

    Sounds like news to us, and that's exactly what is reported this week by Stephen Hayes in The Weekly Standard magazine. Yet the rest of the press has ignored the story, and for that matter the Bush Administration has also been dumb.

    -------------------

    Mr. Hayes reports that, from 1999 through 2002, "elite Iraqi military units" trained roughly 8,000 terrorists at three different camps--in Samarra and Ramadi in the Sunni Triangle, as well as at Salman Pak, where American forces in 2003 found the fuselage of an aircraft that might have been used for training. Many of the trainees were drawn from North African terror groups with close ties to al Qaeda, including Algeria's GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army. Mr. Hayes writes that he had no fewer than 11 corroborating sources, and yesterday he told us he'd added several more since publication.

    All of this is of more than historical interest, since Americans are still dying in Iraq at the hands of an enemy it behooves us to understand. If Saddam did train terrorists in Iraq before the war, then many of them must still be fighting there and the current "insurgency" can hardly be called a popular uprising rooted in Sunni nationalism. Instead, it is a revanchist operation led by Saddam's apparat and those they trained to use terror to achieve their political goals.

    This means in turn that much of the Sunni population might be willing to participate in Free Iraq's politics but is intimidated from doing so by these Saddamists. The recent spurt of suicide bombings, aimed at Iraqi civilians and police trainees, looks like an attempt to revive such intimidation after the successful election.

    ---------------------

    In any case, it is passing strange that the Bush Administration has been so uninterested in translating, and assessing, the information in the two million documents, audio and videotapes and computer hard drives it has collected in Iraq.

    --------------------

    In his new memoir about his year in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer reports that in July of 2003 he was told about a captured document from Saddam's intelligence service (dated January 2003) outlining a "strategy of organized resistance" if the regime fell. About the same time, pamphlets began circulating in Baghdad describing the "Party of Return," with vows to kill Iraqis who worked with the Coalition. We also know that documents discovered with Saddam in his rabbit hole in late 2003 included a claim that the insurgents would know they had won when a U.S. Presidential candidate called for withdrawing American troops from Iraq. These are signs of a disciplined political party, not some broad Algerian-like nationalism.

    ---------------

    A less benign explanation for the Bush Administration's lethargy is that its officials don't want to challenge the prewar CIA orthodoxy that the "secular" Saddam would never cavort with "religious" al Qaeda. They've seen what happened to others--"Scooter" Libby, Douglas Feith, John Bolton--who dared to question CIA analyses. Mr. Hayes reports that the Pentagon intelligence chief, Stephen Cambone, has been a particular obstacle to energetic document inspection.

    But if we've learned nothing else about U.S. intelligence in the last four years, it is that its "consensus" views are often wrong. The 9/11 Commission has confirmed extensive communication between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda over the years, including sanctuary for the current insurgent leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. We have also learned that in the years leading up to his ouster Saddam had implemented a "faith campaign" to use fundamentalist Islam as a tool of internal control. Especially if U.S. troops are going to remain to help the new Iraq government defeat the terrorists, we should want to know everything we can about them.

    FULL STORY
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 07/11/2006 at 11:59 AM.
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I noticed you did not address the content but attacked the source. Maybe the Wall Street Journal would be a better source for you since they said nearly the exact same thing with many additional points to ponder:

    Saddam's Documents
    What they tell us could save American lives today.

    Wall Street Journal
    Friday, January 13, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
    The fact that you reference a "private effort" to translate the "saddam documents" and FOXNews is the source truly frightens me.
  19. #79  
    Sigh. Hobbes, you just posted an article that summarized what Stephen Hayes wrote in "The Weekly Standard"! Half of what you bolded begins with Mr. Hayes reports, that should be a big hint.

    With all due respect, it seems you spend most of your day surfing less than mainstream websites trying to justify this war.
  20. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Sigh. Hobbes, you just posted an article that summarized what Stephen Hayes wrote in "The Weekly Standard"! Half of what you bolded begins with Mr. Hayes reports, that should be a big hint.

    With all due respect, it seems you spend most of your day surfing less than mainstream websites trying to justify this war.
    by "mainstream" he means the Times
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions