Sarin Gas Found in Iraq

[DocFrance]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

"It was a weapon we believed was stocked from the ex-regime time," Kimmitt said. "It had been thought to be an ordinary artillery shell, set up like an IED. When it exploded, it indicated that it had some sarin in it."

The general said the Iraqi Survey Group, headed by Charles Duelfer, would determine if the shell's discovery indicated Saddam possessed chemical weapons before the U.S. invasion last year. Officials in Washington said another shell -- this one containing mustard gas -- was found 10 days ago in Iraq.

[Shadow Nexus]

Uh... I don't get it. If it was a terrorist attack, why that supposition that weapon belonged to Saddam's regime before it was used by the terrorist? As far as I know, it could come from anywhere, the terrorists come from various countries (Do you remember when, before the war, several men from other countries came?).

I don't believe a bomb used by a terrorist is enough evidence, they should at least find the place where all that gas is supposedly being stored. I bet they will, just a week before the elections

EDIT: By the way, when is the exact date of the elections?

[aeris2001x2]

lol george w bush is so screwed he is gonna jump at any chance to try and say "WE FOUND WMD, I WAS RIGHT".

to be honest though i,m very surprised he has not planted some of the usas own WMD in iraq and then claim it was Saddams. hes had enough time, maybe he is too thick. then again that woulnt really help him prove he "liberated" Iraq.

[Dr Unne]

Short of finding a box of anthrax with Saddam's portrait and signature on it, I don't think most people are ever going to be convinced now. The search for the truth is all but abandoned, at this point.

By the way, when is the exact date of the elections? --Shadow Nexus

First Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

to be honest though i,m very surprised he has not planted some of the usas own WMD in iraq and then claim it was Saddams. hes had enough time, maybe he is too thick. then again that woulnt really help him prove he "liberated" Iraq. --aeris2001x2

I really have trouble telling when people are being serious and when they're exaggerating to attempt to make some kind of a point. That's about the most polite comment I can make.

[aeris2001x2]

lol i was doing a bit of both actually.

[Rei]

Eh, I don't think proving Saddam had weapons would have any effect anymore, even though it would make for a good "I told you so!" It's grown beyond that.

[Shadow Nexus]

Eh, I don't think proving Saddam had weapons would have any effect anymore, even though it would make for a good "I told you so!" It's grown beyond that.

Oh, I think it would give him quite a bunch of votes. In fact and as said, I would not be surprised if there was some crappy "we found the WMDs" or a "we say we found the WMDs" just before the elections.

As an example, did you know the party governing in Spain before the elections two months ago knew where all the big bosses of the terrorist group ETA where? They planned on arresting them the day before the elections. Then the Al Quaeda bomb exploded, and they tried to put the blame on ETA, because if it was Al Quaeda they would not get elected again. Just a little example of how absolutely pathetic can some people be to get a few votes. It's funny how they tell use we actually take descisions in a democracy. We don't, we're just a piece of they need to conserve their power every four years.


And I went off topic.

No need to swear. --Unne

[TasteyPies]

to be honest though i,m very surprised he has not planted some of the usas own WMD in iraq and then claim it was Saddams. hes had enough time, maybe he is too thick. then again that woulnt really help him prove he "liberated" Iraq. -aeris

I would not be surprised if there was some crappy "we found the WMDs" or a "we say we found the WMDs" just before the elections. -Nexus

we're just a piece of they need to conserve their power every four years. -Nexus


Then again maybe our national leaders have morals.

..OMG NO! THATS NOT WHAT MTV/COMEDY CENTRAL/ OUR RATING HOGGING MEDIA TELLS US! THEY SAY BUSH IS A DUMB REDNECK!

It's funny how the majority of our nation vote on someone to lead us, then talk about how much of an idiot they are.

Sorry guys i dont mean to offend, im a mild mannered, shy, "oh its ok" person irl. It just gets me steamed, i mean they are our leaders.......respect? If USA was dictator ruled (heaven forbid) you would have some people knocking at your door with rifles.

[CloudSquallandZidane]

I think they have to find more than a keg of sarin, that they COULD have fabricated easily enough, to justify the war in Iraq.

No we did not go in to help the Iraqi people.

..OMG NO! THATS NOT WHAT MTV/COMEDY CENTRAL/ OUR RATING HOGGING MEDIA TELLS US! THEY SAY BUSH IS A DUMB REDNECK!

-TasteyPies

Really well they tell me much different they tell me that th world is a better place now and im safer, and a bunch of other crap like jobs r being created, well thats great until u add in the 4 million lost... sorry got off topic...

[The Captain]

"Sorry guys i dont mean to offend, im a mild mannered, shy, "oh its ok" person irl. It just gets me steamed, i mean they are our leaders.......respect? If USA was dictator ruled (heaven forbid) you would have some people knocking at your door with rifles."

Not saying Bush is a dictator, though he wasn't elected by the People, but by the Courts, but I have a hard time respecting ANY leader who doesn't take responsibility for his or her actions, be you Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Fascist, what have you.

To get back to the topic of this thread:

Two shells don't equal WoMD for me. Yes, Chemical weapons are in Iraq but, I wouldn't be surprised if there are Chemical weapons in Greenland in this day and age.

To me, the more important piece of info is the first half of what DocFrance's article said. How stable can this country be? Who's to say that the entire council won't be killed by terrorists if power is transferred? How will free elections even occur if the leaders aren't protected? I really have my doubts as to whether this transfer of power is going to lead anywhere but a Civil War, which will only mean more death, US occupation and an endless cycle with no real progress.

Take care all.

[aeris2001x2]

i dont vote for any leaders cause my vote wont make a difference but also because there all the same in my eyes. i know thats a cliche but all they want is power.

plus i hate the fact that are we told we live in a democracy. we dont, i,m sick of that illusion being perpetuated.

anyway, i,m actually more annoyed at my "leader", tony blair, because at least george bush can be forgiven for his actions cause of his stuipdity.

and yes while of course i,m not going to escape influence from all the propaganda everywhere, i make up my own mind on the situation.

[Shadow Nexus]

Then again maybe our national leaders have morals.

:laugh:

..OMG NO! THATS NOT WHAT MTV/COMEDY CENTRAL/ OUR RATING HOGGING MEDIA TELLS US! THEY SAY BUSH IS A DUMB REDNECK!

I don't watch TV, I read the newspapers, and books. Newspapers mean El Pais and La Vanguardia, and books mean Habermas, Rousseau and Kant, not conspiracy theories about how Kennedy was killed. So no, I don't know what MTV or Comedy Central say.

It's funny how the majority of our nation vote on someone to lead us, then talk about how much of an idiot they are.

See...I don't vote them. In fact, I am not even democratic. And I don't like Bush, nor Rumsfeld, nor Condolezza nor any of the other maniacheist chauvinists in the White House, and I say it. Do you expect me to shut up and never denounce what they do? So you are advocating for blind submission to power, firm obedience? Never doubting their actions? As said, I am surprised there has still not been a fraud regarding WMD. Why? Well, they lied to start the war, and back in 1991 Papa Bush also organized some lies, such as archive images of ecologic disaster and a girl lying about how iraqi soldiers killed babies. And you expect me to believe them in everything they tell me? Thanks, but no.

It just gets me steamed, i mean they are our leaders.......respect? If USA was dictator ruled (heaven forbid) you would have some people knocking at your door with rifles.

Respect? For God's sake, I consider them criminals. I have no respect for criminals. Democratically elected or not.

And USA is not a dictatorship, at least not literally. It is a wonderful democracy where the power has been so accepted there is no need for rifles at the door. Say whatever you want about them, they will not need to repress you because you will simply be ignored. I believe that in modern democracies, power is absolute, as Weber (Or was it Durkheim?) said, the modern ruler of the state has more control over the state, applying modifications to the education if he wishes. But well, the problem today even tracends that, as Becks says, there is a new dimension known as subpolitics today, where companies take power from the state and act in it, since globalist ideology says that economy is in fact the arkhe of everything social and juridical in modern capitalism.

By the way, when something really may hurt power, then power acts against it. Freedom of expression? Did you know Luis Eduardo Aute was banned from singing in Puerto Rico? And thats just an example of many others. Yes, power allows criticism...to an extent, because it can hurt. Why do you believe Reagan decided to take the goverment economical help to Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451"?

[Burtsplurt]

I don't really understand the article, like some of the others here. It'd be nice to know where it's from (and when - I don't think anyone doubts that Saddam had chemical weapons in the early nineties and before).

i mean they are our leaders.......respect? -- TasteyPies

If they were good leaders, then maybe they would have our respect. I think that both Blair and Bush have, at least, exaggerated the truth. I'd probably say they have lied to us.

That kind of behaviour doesn't lead me to respect them. I'm wary of everything they say.

[LH]

It's funny how the majority of our nation vote on someone to lead us, then talk about how much of an idiot they are.

Bush was nowhere near receiving a majority of American votes. Compared to the total population of the United States during the 2000 elections, Bush received a positive vote from about 18% of Americans, which is far, far from being a majority. In fact, Bush received even less votes (49.82 million) than his competition Al Gore (50.16 million), which makes him the loser as far as the popular vote goes.

Another point to be made is that in 2000, when Bush won stole the election, he was a few years before tanking the economy, losing 3,000,000 jobs, making dozens upon dozens of empty promises and outright lies about Saddam and bin Laden, and basing wars off of this misconceptions which haved killed hundreds and hundreds of American soldiers and countless other foreign soldiers and civilians. He's definitely done enough in the past four years to deserve criticism from even those who voted for him. You see, many people see him as the idiot he is after voting for him and seeing the havoc he can cause while in office.

[Rei]

LH, you can't count the people who didn't vote. If you did that, virtually NO president has won a majority of American votes. You're bein' unfair.

And hey, so Bush didn't receive the popular vote. He was still elected president. I don't think he STOLE the election, because I think someone would've said something by now if Jeb managed to steal or change votes. So, he is our president, whether you like it or not, and it's a damn good bet he got it fair and square. If you don't like it, tough. That's the breaks. Stop bitchin' already.

I'll admit that Bush hasn't done a good job as President. He's made a bunch of mistakes, he's lied, or at least told half-truths, and has most of the world, if not against us, then doubting our credibility and whatnot. It's crossing the line, though, to call him an idiot. He's doin' what he feels is right. Most of us may not feel his actions are correct, but just because his beliefs and ours may conflict doesn't mean that he's an idiot. Personal attacks have no room in politics. Just vote for someone else next time. And you don't have to respect him personally, but holding the highest office in the entire Free World demands a certain amount of it. If you don't respect the man, respect the position.

And I'd have to disagree with Shadow Nexus. If the President had absolute control, or even, uh, half-absolute control, there wouldn't be people running around protestin' and whatnot, and no President would face danger from re-elections. And companies like Microsoft wouldn't be facing whatever charges they are. They may not, though; I don't really pay attention to business thingamajigs. The point is, there's too much turmoil and upheaval for anyone to have absolute control or even near it, unless there's some MASSIVE Metal Gear Solid type conspiracy that secretly controls everything. The world isn't nearly as great or as horrible as anyone thinks it is. For all the extremists out there, there are hundreds of moderates.

On a side note, my father, who was a member of the military until sometime in 2001, said that the overseas military votes weren't counted, because of a time limit, or somethin'. I don't know if he's right, but I'm inclined to believe him, because he doesn't like Bush and the military votes, with the vast majority of the military being Republican, would've helped Bush a bunch.