Chemical weapons found in Iraq

[vampireuk]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&u=/nm/20040517/ts_nm/iraq_sarin_dc_3&printer=1

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3722255.stm

Now the war is legit to all the nay sayers

[Davemc]

Don't we have them?

[vampireuk]

Whats your point? We have weapons to defend and deter threats, Saddam used them to conquer, you silly tit.

[Davemc]

Why the fuck would we need to use them?

[vampireuk]

We wouldn't unless required, unlike Saddam who unleashed them against civilians. Wow you guys sure are reaching for excuses now :D

[blizz]

we already knew about them we had the receipts!

[vampireuk]

And now we can claim them on our tax returns, everything works out in the end.

[bennykurns]

Crazy shit Jive Turkey. 20 times deadlier than cyanide.... gotta love chemical weapons.... :blink:

[sheik124]

However, a senior coalition source has told the BBC the round does not signal the discovery of weapons of mass destruction or the escalation of insurgent activity.

He said the round dated back to the Iran-Iraq war and coalition officials were not sure whether the fighters even knew what it contained.
not trying to throw out evidence here, but still

[Allnatural]

I agree. It's big news for sure, but it's hardly a smoking gun.

[revl8er]

About damn time they found something, I was beginning to think the war was a complete waste of the tax payers money.

[Macca]

ah it was all worth it then.




*cough*

[AlphaWolf]

More still needs to be determined. WMD aside, the reality is, Iraq is a vital front in the war on terror, and whoever controls that ground can heavily influence the outcome of the war. That zaraqwi or whatever the hell his name is even knows this (notice how hardly anybody who is fighting against the coalition is even from Iraq, yet they don't give a damn about afghanistan) Besides that even, the clinton administration even said that saddam had to go, bush was the only one with the balls to go out and actually do it.

To me WMDs don't really matter at this point, other than maybe to tell the liberals later on down the line: "we told you so."

[2fast4u]

so ... this is the big, immenent threat the son of a bush was talking about before the war? leftovers of chemical weapons have been found often times, they are simply remains from the gulf wars I/II (see above). this news is about as big as the bunch of warheads they dug up a few months ago and all the war hogs went crazy about how they felt they were right all of the sudden. poor delusional fools.

i say big whoop. if this is your proof that iraq under saddam was a horrible threat to western civilization all i can say is nice try, come back some other time.

[rcgamer]

vampireuk , there is really no sense in arguing, we could pull a nuclear missile out of saddams ass and people would still argue against the war. I dont think its the war they dont like , its the united states in general. though i'm sure these same people would be crying to the U.S. for help if they were attacked.

[2fast4u]

this post is just typical. i find it funny how much most of the war hogs just base their opinion on sentiment rather than facts.

[rcgamer]

no, its your original post that is just typical. I mean before you edited it.:blink:

And your two posts have just been enlightening , fact based , and thought provoking :o :blink:

[2fast4u]

heh, i thought my first comment was a bit in danger to cause flame on second thought, so edited.

i completely understand you dont want to argue anything i said though :D ill prolly have to wait for certain other people to show up who actually have the guts to debate their views.

[rcgamer]

Did you say anything intelligently that should be responded to?
How much guts does it take to argue over the internet?

Personally , i could care less if they ever find weapons of mass destruction. There has been more than enough proof over the last fifteen years to show that saddam was at best a dictator who abused and killed his own people, threaten surrounding countries , and had ties to terrorism. Not to mention the namy times that he has ignored or tried to provoke the U.N. when they were searching for the weapons in the first place many years ago. my only problem is that we didnt finish the job when george senior was the president.

[2fast4u]

dictator ... no doubt. now following that logic, does that mean we should walk around invading all countries with oppressive regimes there is?

ties to terrorism ... you would like to believe that, but where is your proof?

ignored and provoked the un ... so has israel. i dont see them being invaded, more the opposite.

[rcgamer]

Thats funny , i thought you wanted to know why we attacked iraq. Not why we didnt attack everyone else.

[2fast4u]

it raises the question why you attacked iraq, out of all dictatorships in the world. it could be immediate self-interest rather than just goodwill and the need to liberate the people, dont you think so?

[rcgamer]

or it could be a combination of all three . dont you think? I mean we also attacked afghanistan. were we looking for a good deal on rocks? How come no one was up inarms over that.

[2fast4u]

no one was in arms over that because after 9/11 the world was in shock and willing to accept virtually anything. fortunately things have changed.

[Hacktarux]

or it could be a combination of all three . dont you think? I mean we also attacked afghanistan. were we looking for a good deal on rocks? How come no one was up inarms over that.

It's well known that afghanistan is a strategic place for the USA to build a pipeline to retrieve turkmenistan's oil. USA were also supporting talibans at the begining of their regime because they were hoping taliban would be in favor of this pipeline... but it didn't work.

Whether it was the war motivation or not is another debate, but afghanistan was interesting many countries during the last 15 years (main ones were USA, russia and china) and you can't say it's only a rock heap....

[AlphaWolf]

no one was in arms over that because after 9/11 the world was in shock and willing to accept virtually anything. fortunately things have changed.

Like I said, Iraq is a vital front, namely due to its vast resources (doesn't matter whether we control them or not, just so long as the enemy doesn't.) I would compare leaving Iraq to itself much like leaving pre-WWII Germany to itself. You suspect up and down that they are up to no good, yet they insist that you have nothing to worry about, so then you bide your time until they finaly build up something that you have to worry about. Everybody knew that saddam had full intentions to do this.

[2fast4u]

Like I said, Iraq is a vital front, namely due to its vast resources (doesn't matter whether we control them or not, just so long as the enemy doesn't.)

thats what i said -- the prime reason is self-interest, not noble causes.


I would compare leaving Iraq to itself much like leaving pre-WWII Germany to itself.

its a popular comparison but situation actually isnt very alike. iraq is a country with absolutely no democratic traditions whatsover and a fundmentally underdeveloped civil society - germany wasnt. im not in favor of leaving iraq now because we are already knee deep in shit there but i still say the us had no damn business there in the first place.


Everybody knew that saddam had full intentions to do this.

there is a lot of folks who have that intention. however the attempt to prove that saddam was still _capable_ of carrying out that intention has never been brought and that recent "discovery" doenst change jack to that. its no coincidence that the us and british administrations had such a hard time digging up a reason to go to war - there simply wasnt a lot of evidence that saddam was an immediate threat and there still isnt.

simply speaking saddam in his final phase was reduced to being a small local despot with a big mouth and an underdeveloped army that operated a destroyed weapon arsenal. ties to terrorism? no evidence. threat to the free world my ass.

[rcgamer]

I think you misunderstood him. I believe he was saying that not attacking would have let saddam build up his army and weapons to a point where he may have been very strong militarily.

and you act as though we are taking over the country and making it a part of the u.s. or that we are going to control it forever. when in fact we are handing control back over to the people of iraq. june 30th i believe was the date for beginning this .

[2fast4u]

I think you misunderstood him. I believe he was saying that not attacking would have let saddam build up his army and weapons to a point where he may have been very strong militarily.

thats exactly what i responded to actually. i thought we all saw how weak iraqs army was when the yanks came in, not to mention the economy was down the gutter due to the sanctions. not exactly a bright perspective for saddams little dreams. also, in terms of nations actually endangering the us on their own there are still a _more_ imminent threats .. north korea comes to mind. thats just a very weak reasoning for attacking.


and you act as though we are taking over the country and making it a part of the u.s. or that we are going to control it forever. when in fact we are handing control back over to the people of iraq. june 30th i believe was the date for beginning this .

the june 30th overhanding of control is more of a symbolic gesture i mind you, the iraqi government practically wont have any authority whatsoever.

and yes, i do believe you _are_ going to control this country forever. not in terms of administration but in terms of economy and foreign policy. your idea of control is appearantly more the one of an old-school empire where you seize control by occuping territories. obviously modern imperialism doesnt work that way, the best example is the us's dominance over the uk's foreign policy which is a sovereign state but still blindly listens to the usa when it comes to foreign affairs. i believe iraq will suffer the same fate.

[AlphaWolf]

its a popular comparison but situation actually isnt very alike. iraq is a country with absolutely no democratic traditions whatsover and a fundmentally underdeveloped civil society - germany wasnt.

Are you kidding me? Prior to the first world war, germany never had democracy, and they were sporting a failing democratic government after that point because their economy went to hell. For that period, they were probably worse off than any other country in the world. Hitler brought a halt to all of that, and the rest is history.


simply speaking saddam in his final phase was reduced to being a small local despot with a big mouth and an underdeveloped army that operated a destroyed weapon arsenal. ties to terrorism? no evidence. threat to the free world my ass.

Actually he recovered most of his military that was destroyed in his little kuwait incident.


thats exactly what i responded to actually. i thought we all saw how weak iraqs army was when the yanks came in

Exactly the purpose of the strike. Why wait until they are strong enough to resist? What good will that do?

[smegforbrain]

Now the war is legit to all the nay sayers

Well...

A) This is far from the first time the gov't has cried wolf.

B) I'm not convinced that they didn't come from an outside source.

[Alchy]

He said the round dated back to the Iran-Iraq war

caused a small release of the substance and two people had been treated for exposure to the agent.
WMD attacks within 45 minutes, huh? Thank God we caught that one in time.

Of all the vicious and dangerous dicators in the world, the one America decided to overthrow was the one with the most oil who wouldn't co-operate. What a fucking coincidence.

[2fast4u]

Are you kidding me? Prior to the first world war, germany never had democracy, and they were sporting a failing democratic government after that point because their economy went to hell. For that period, they were probably worse off than any other country in the world. Hitler brought a halt to all of that, and the rest is history.

germany never had a democratic government, but was at the same time one of the leading roots for the workers movement in europe and a history of republican uprisings in 17xx (dont exactly remember), 1848 and 1916 and local revolutions (example is the "soviet republic" of munich in 1920 as well as the revolution in baden-württemberg 1846). the sad part is that all of them failed (germans are appearantly uncapable of revolution) but nevertheless germany at this point _was_ a country with history in democratic comprehension and a conscious public.

that the republic of weimar went to hell has a few reasons ... for one thing keeping the establishment in administration, justice and military was a huge mistake since they were never ready to support a republic. you can hand the blame for that to the social democrats.

second, the treaty of versailles was extremely oppressive and marked by imperialistic interests of the surrounding european states and was targeted to weakening the country so much that it would never become a danger to their own imperial interests again.

third reason is that no one really wanted that republic. the social democrats wanted a constitutional monarchy for the most part, the old elites wanted a military dictatorship or a monarchy, the socialists wanted a soviet based republic. those are not good grounds to surive for a democracy ... but im getting a bit off topic, history just drags me away. i think you ned to read up quite a bit on that before you attempt make a judgment over this issue.

anyway, iraq - as stated - has no democratic culture at all, contrary to what germany had. you are comparing a wealthy industrial central european nation with a long modern history and high culture with an underdeveloped, artificially created state made of fucks knows how many ethnic groups - thats just a little off.


Actually he recovered most of his military that was destroyed in his little kuwait incident.

i didnt see a lot of that in action in the war. he had a huge army but poorly equipped obviously .. whats gives? this also applies in terms of the weapons that he obviously had back in 1991. seems like that is all poof.


Exactly the purpose of the strike. Why wait until they are strong enough to resist? What good will that do?

correct from a military strategical point of view...

[AlphaWolf]

anyway, iraq - as stated - has no democratic culture at all, contrary to what germany had. you are comparing a wealthy industrial central european nation with a long modern history and high culture with an underdeveloped, artificially created state made of fucks knows how many ethnic groups - thats just a little off.

Actually, as I recall, Baghdad was supposedly a big center of science and commerce. But anyways, thats irrelavent. Saddam wasn't building his army just to admire it.



i didnt see a lot of that in action in the war. he had a huge army but poorly equipped obviously .. whats gives? this also applies in terms of the weapons that he obviously had back in 1991. seems like that is all poof.

Iraq had a lot of weapons from what I saw, they just got trashed in short order. The same thing happened in Kuwait. (funnily enough, saddam claimed that he won against us in Kuwait)

[sheik124]

dictator ... no doubt. now following that logic, does that mean we should walk around invading all countries with oppressive regimes there is?

ties to terrorism ... you would like to believe that, but where is your proof?

ignored and provoked the un ... so has israel. i dont see them being invaded, more the opposite.


actually, israel has violated every UN resolution passed against it, the US has vetoed any security council resolutions against it, and Bush even condones the fact that Sharon is holding his settlements against international law. And if it wasn't for the crap load of cash the US is giving surrounding arab nations, then egypt probably would have kicked the shit out of them back in the 1970s, if you think i am anti-israel or something i'm not, but seeing my people (yes i'm palestinian, sue me) being tortured and abused and a much higher level than Saddam has in the past 5 years (when was the last time you heard about Saddam doing anything, the US kicked his ass in the Gulf War and ran him out of weapons, which i think was justified due to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, but this current war on Iraq had no authorization from the UN and the US had no reason to go in there) and the entire world says what their doing is wrong, but the only "threat to world peace" or "terrorists" the US can see are those idiots that run onto buses and blow themselves up. Well if Israel keeps going at its current rate, the entire Palestinian race is going to be wiped out. Seriously, these people walk onto a bus, kill 2 people, the rest toss rocks, then Israel fires back at the "terrorists" with tanks and M-16s, killing hundreds by the day.

[vampireuk]

Seriously, these people walk onto a bus, kill 2 people, the rest toss rocks, then Israel fires back at the "terrorists" with tanks and M-16s, killing hundreds by the day.

Your numbers are rather biased and waaaaaaay off

[sheik124]

i'm not trying to be biased (sorry if i was) just trying to show that what both sides are doing can be considered terrorism, but what israel does is more, um, effective, due to the better equipped soldiers and the fact that they are bred to kill

[DuDe]

And if it wasn't for the crap load of cash the US is giving surrounding arab nations, then egypt probably would have kicked the shit out of them back in the 1970s

What a pathetic twist of history, the casualty rate in the 1973 war was about 1:10 to our side. Face it, the entire arab world has failed to wipe my country from the face of the planet in military actions, so now they try to do it with this kind of bullshit propaganda :


Well if Israel keeps going at its current rate, the entire Palestinian race is going to be wiped out.

You can cry genocide as much as you freaking want, but your own neo-fascistic brother arabs have killed fuck loads more Palestinians than Israel ever has.

[AlphaWolf]

due to the better equipped soldiers and the fact that they are bred to kill

They breed soldiers these days? Hmm...I wonder if I was bred to be a soldier? :term: :devil:

EDIT: also, for what its worth sheik, I think these people who you simpathise for are worse than nazis. That nick berg guy...I'll tell you what, you can ask anybody if I ever express any emotion whatsoever, and they'll say no, but what happened to that guy made me feel emotions I never knew I even had. If you ask me, I believe that they did that for the sole reason that they knew he was jewish. Sure, being an american is one thing, but nothing like this has happened to even the american soldiers that they have captured. But if you think about it, these guys hate americans because we defend the jews. Now when they capture an american thats ALSO a jew? Damn...thats just begging for a world of shit from them, revenge for the iraqi prison scandal had nothing to do with it (they don't give a shit about iraqis; the reality is that their goal is to throw the country into a civil war.) These guys were fucking singing and celebrating while they did that crap too. How can you do that crap? How can you even simpathise with it? It's just way beyond me. I'll tell you what though, I wont be satisfied until every last one of those terrorist fucks are dead.

[Slougi]

Sigh. I hate this shit.

[Allnatural]

If you ask me, I believe that they did that for the sole reason that they knew he was jewish.
Given that Daniel Pearl (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/05/16/pearl.body/) died in almost the same fashion, I'd say you're right.

[Xade]

I find it somewhat humorous, 2fast, that some of your anti-corporate, anti-'eeeevil Bush' little bands are infact corporate whores themselves - notably The Offspring (signed to Columbia, a division of Sony, one of the largest electronics multinationals in the world etc etc). But feel free, 2fast, indulge in yet more of your rants against the oppression America's elite subject to all and sundry, go for it...

Yay!

*Sigh*

I don't really see any mutual agreement coming out of any of this, but for what it's worth, as a (relatively) objective Englishman, not overly patriotic or Eurocratic, I feel the war was (is) justified.

Saddam Hussein was a global terrorist. He was defeated. And...?

[2fast4u]

heh, my rants? i take it you read my old posts in the political threads then.

[AlphaWolf]

Given that Daniel Pearl (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/05/16/pearl.body/) died in almost the same fashion, I'd say you're right.

Thats the other one I was looking for, but I couldn't remember his name. Things like this serve as a reminder as to why we are out there, why we overthrew saddam, etc. These terrorist organizations do these things as a means to attempt to lower our morale and reduce our overall drive to eliminate them. All it does is piss us off more. Most of us anyways, the only exceptions are those who believe its necessary to deliver hugs and kisses, and start all of this senseless anti-war hippie assanine "puke-out" crap which only furthers the terrorists' cause. I would like to ask those types; would they have not done that to nick or daniel if only they had given them a hug? :huh:

[Xade]

Agreed; the stance of those, such as France and most of Europe, that the war was unjustified, is quite shocking itself in the face of the aforementioned casulties at the hands of such low forms of human waste as many of the terrorists residing in Iraq

[AlphaWolf]

On the subject of iraq prisoner abuse, somebody did an interesting experiment 30 years ago:

http://www.mtv.com/chooseorlose/headlines/news.jhtml?id=1487984

[vampireuk]

Sounds like someone ripped off the stanford prison experiment :rolleyes:

[Lizard Blade]

I know that there were some alterior motives to invading Iraq. At the same time, I wish we would just move on down the line and wipe out all those dictators so all the little peasants can dance in the streets and fire their AK-47s in the air. Also, I'm getting so frustrated with the idiocy of average people, from suicide bombers to junkies, that I think we need a good solid worldwide genocide.