US troops find 100 acre chemical weapons facility

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by G4scott, Mar 23, 2003.

  1. macrumors 68020

    G4scott

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #1
    Iraq has no chemical weapons what?

    Now, tell me that the US is just making this stuff up. Iraq does have chemical weapons. 11 years of UN inspections couldn't find this, but 3 days in Iraq did... Of course, we knew about it long before, but didn't let the UN know for security purposes, because if we let the UN know, millions of american lives would've been in danger.

    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/PrinterFull&cid=1048389497622

    When I find more info, I'll post it.
     
  2. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    #2
    exactly...11 years of inspections couldnt find what 3 days could? either the inspectors didnt inspect that one place because they had to leave OR its all bull****.

    just like that place colon bowell was talking about in his presentation to the UN...turned out to be bogus, as proven by independant journalists who traveled there shortly after the 'evidence' was presented
     
  3. macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #3
    well good, maybe this show everyone why we are over here, and maybe those dumb protestors will take down their signs.

    iJon
     
  4. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2001
    #4
    Well this hasn't really popped up in mainstream media yet, so right now I'm a bit sceptical about just how much of a smoking gun this is. That article was from the Jerusalem Post, probably not the most unbaised source out there. I'll be interested to see if this is a big find or not.
     
  5. macrumors 65816

    NavyIntel007

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2002
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    #5
    Yeah I love how those inspections were working. How do you miss a 100 acre chemical facility in a small town?

    I guess the inspectors got distracted by all those hot iraqi women in bikinis.
     
  6. macrumors 65816

    NavyIntel007

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2002
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    #6
    Fat chance, you'd more likely have Jesus himself walk through your living room.
     
  7. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #7
    I think the key phrases in this article are: "apparently used to produce chemical weapons" and "perhaps the first illegal chemical plant to be uncovered by US troops" as well as "it wasn't clear exactly what chemicals were being produced here" .

    While I am under the general assumption that Iraq indeed does harbor weapons of mass (chemical) destruction, this is very far from being convincing evidence. For all we know the Iraqi's used this place to manufacture toothpaste.

    I'm holding out for more evidence before I come to the conclusion that my personal assumptions were indeed correct.

    Davis
     
  8. macrumors 65816

    NavyIntel007

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2002
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    #8
    Don't kid yourself man, this is Saddam Hussein we're talking about. He has always had them. Why do people just assume that we don't have spies in every country? Chances are it's much worse than the media is making in sound.
     
  9. macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #9
    its all over the news, go turn on fox news.

    iJon
     
  10. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    #10
    It was just on NBC news, is that mainstream enough for those claiming the biased source must be lying. It is a chemical plant built into sand walls and camoflouged to prevent it from being visible from Satelite photos. I'm sorry but you don't go to the work of building a chem factory into sand walls and camo'ing it unless it is doing some sketchy stuff. There are weapons inspectors now going to take a look and officially identify the chemicals, obviously the Marines and the embedded reporter with them are not capable of making the official statement that it is chem weapons. Can you really doubt what the outcome will be though? Maybe people will finally acknowledge the facts.
     
  11. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2001
    #11
    NavyIntel007:

    No no, don't kid yourself! The media lives to make boring things exciting, and so far even "sympathetic" places like CNN are rather cautious about this find. The source provided at the start of this thread is the freaking Jerusalem Post. They do not meet my standards for unbiased reporting any more than an Iraqi newpaper would. The zeal with which you accept this "find" will make you look very stupid if it turns out that this is in fact not a smoking gun. Calm down and let actual information show up.
     
  12. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2001
    #12
    leprechaunG4:

    Who said anything about lying? We're talking about the possibility of biased reporters chomping at the bit and stating things with more certainty then they should. It is human nature to let bias change to words you use, for example you somehow got "lies" out of "possible bias", and those two are not the same thing. It is very easy to let zeal distort your words.

    Ok good, this is more reliable. I didn't see it, what did they say?
     
  13. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    #13
    They said exactly what I posted, they are only saying the camo nature of the facility, and the fact it is built out of sand walls, which results in it being undetectable from satellite. They also said there are lots of chems there, but they need to have weapons inspectors investigate because the marines have no clue what any of it is. They ofcourse want to be sure that it is in fact chemicals that could be used as weapons before they say too much. I think all the camo work should be a hint of what's going on there.
     
  14. macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #14
    well we can add 30 more troops to the pile, some just surrendered at the plant.

    iJon
     
  15. macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #15
    There seems to be a lot of people with misconceptions about those of us opposing the war.

    For example, most of us are not pro-Saddam. Most of us support the troops even though we oppose the action. Also, many of us do believe that Saddam has bio and chemical weapons.

    Given the fact that we believe that Saddam has bad weapons, a revelation such as this isn't really going to change our minds, now is it? Given my stance on the issues, this is a non-event. I knew we would unearth weapons banned by the 1991 cease fire agreement.

    To make the point absolutely clear: some of us believe that the fact that Saddam has some dangerous weapons isn't, by itself, justification for going to war.

    Hope this clears it up some.

    Taft
     
  16. macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #16
    We know he has some WMD. We sold them to him and encouraged him in the '80's. There are many, many other nations that hold stockpiles of WMD. Iran is developing nuclear weapons. North Korea most likely already has them.

    So if we're not proposing to shut them down, the question is: why Iraq?

    Any of the other nations hostile to us that has WMD can more easily use them against the people of the US, which is the ultimate reason we have for invading Iraq.

    So, why Iraq?
     
  17. macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #17
    Another thing concerning WMD: we're going after Iraq, a nation that is not nuclear, while leaving North Korea and Iran isolated to escalate their young nuclear programmes.

    What sort of message does this send to nations hostile to the USA?

    GET NUCLEAR!
     
  18. macrumors 65816

    alset

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2002
    Location:
    East Bay, CA
    #18
    ... for the sake of our own troops, in most cases. I don't want to hear any more stories about our young people being destroyed by war.

    I protest acts of war for any reason. I don't mean that I protest intervention, I mean I protest waging war in the first place.

    you know what would solve a lot of problems? Let's let our world leaders resolve their issues with a good bare-knuckle boxing match! Also, what if world leaders couldn't wage war without serving a term in said war? There certainly would be less conflict.

    Dan
     
  19. macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #19
    or any country we go to war with we can send protestors like you into the country for a month and see what your opinion is.

    iJon
     
  20. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    #20
    one should note that the US is currently waging war in both afghanistan and iraq, which surround iran. are they trying to make a future invasion of iran easier? maybe. but it will make invasion of any middle eastern country that much more easier, since iraq, afganistan, and iran are in the very heart of the middle east. saudi arabia isnt close enough for them
     
  21. thread starter macrumors 68020

    G4scott

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #21
    OK dude, calm down... Just becasue they had the information before anyone else doesn't mean that they're not creditable...

    if this floats your boat, then fine:
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/23/sprj.irq.iraqi.plant/index.html

    uh, no Kim Jong Il, as far as we know, does not harbor terrorists...

    Would you rather have them die in skyscrapers?

    oh, pseudorbit, as to the 'why Iraq' question, you'll find it answered here (disregard the fact it's from drudge, since I know you can't stand him. Just go there. They're quoting a magazine) : http://www.drudgereport.com/flashrt.htm
     
  22. macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #22
    Oh. I see. So developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons while taking an aggressive stance toward the US is not enough to get tough on North Korea or Iran, but having chemical artillery shells AND harboring terrorists is enough to invade a sovereign nation and overthrow their government?

    In that case, we'd have to go to war with at least Germany, France and England.
     
  23. macrumors 68000

    topicolo

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Location:
    Ottawa, ON
    #23
    Re: US troops find 100 acre chemical weapons facility

    More info? How about this: The Pentagon said late Sunday that reports of allied forces having discovered a "huge" chemical weapons factory in central Iraq were "premature."

    Chemical warfare factory discovery "premature"
     
  24. Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #24
    It won't surprise many people if a chemical weapon facility is found. Giving it time to determine exactly what this place did is a good move on the part of the Army. They have to be absolutely 100% sure it was used for making chemical weapons and not an additive for gasoline, for example before going to the world community and saying "See! We told you!!"

    D
     
  25. macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #25
    agreed, and this is why i'd expect them to keep quiet until they know for sure, so the media doesn't cry foul prematurely

    it could turn out like those metal rods or tubes or whatever they said were used for nuclear weapons when it turned out they had another, legitimate use (to their own admission, if i remember correctly)...

    i kinda hope they find chem weapons stuff, so as to have some support for our case, though i fear that those who doubt us will never really believe it (not sure if i even will). i mean, i am sure they have chem weapons, but i guess it's a matter of that being enough for war. but i digress...

    let's hope they don't use weapons like this though. a scenario was mentioned where they let our troops get close to baghdad, and then just unload bio/chem on em.... would be devastating and sad.
     

Share This Page