• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003

gtbuzzarp

New Member
I can't seem to find this story at any other major news outlets. If this proves nothing, why is the MSM afraid to report on it? Seems to me this should be a big story for the media.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Revmitchell said:
Probably one of the ones who do not use them.

Are you sure about that? I know that Iraq used chemical weapons during their war with Iran and against the Kurds in their own country. Of course, we sold them these weapons, right? Did the United States ever use such weapons during past wars?
 

KenH

Well-Known Member
At least the Bush supporters now have something to help them feel a little better about their stance. :smilewinkgrin:
Personally, I still don't think that it measures up to all of the pre-war hype of the Bush administration back in late 2002 - early 2003.

But, to each his own.
 

KenH

Well-Known Member
From the Iraq Survey Group final report:

"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."


- http://tinyurl.com/zmdm6
 

NiteShift

New Member
According to Rolf Ekeus, who led the UN inspections from 1991 - 1997, the Iraqis were offering bribes to UN inspectors, and said he personally was told by Tariq Aziz that "a couple of million was there if we report right."

The inspections process was a farce.
 

Daisy

New Member
gtbuzzarp said:
I can't seem to find this story at any other major news outlets. If this proves nothing, why is the MSM afraid to report on it? Seems to me this should be a big story for the media.
Yeah, well, you have to look under "Santorum" - the only news is that he is reading some declassified stuff and retelling old lies.

NiteShift said:
According to Rolf Ekeus, who led the UN inspections from 1991 - 1997, the Iraqis were offering bribes to UN inspectors, and said he personally was told by Tariq Aziz that "a couple of million was there if we report right."

The inspections process was a farce.
If by 'farce' you mean that they kept Iraq from developing new weapons and from rekindling weapons programmes, then you are so right!
 

Scott J

Active Member
Site Supporter
Very good answer to the WMD questions.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/783pliue.asp

Notably, a strong case could be made that we are in Iraq because of intelligence gathered and passed on by the Clinton-Gore administration. They botched al Qaeda/bin Laden by underestimating the threat and apparently botched Saddam by overestimating the threat.

Liberals complain that Bush went after Saddam rather than bin Laden... but who was Clinton bombing? Who was he letting go when offered for capture?

Bush has gone after both pretty effectively, btw. Saddam is gone. Bin Laden is diminished.
 

NiteShift

New Member
Daisy said:
If by 'farce' you mean that they kept Iraq from developing new weapons and from rekindling weapons programmes, then you are so right!

Nope. Absurdity. Nonsense.

The Iraqis didn't cooperate, they certainly gave the appearance of hiding stuff (why else bribe the inspectors), and intelligence agencies the world over understandably assumed the worst.
 

Daisy

New Member
Scott J said:
Very good answer to the WMD questions.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/783pliue.asp

Notably, a strong case could be made that we are in Iraq because of intelligence gathered and passed on by the Clinton-Gore administration. They botched al Qaeda/bin Laden by underestimating the threat and apparently botched Saddam by overestimating the threat.
That's not a strong case. According to Richard Clark, the out-going administration stressed the danger of bin Laden, which the in-coming adminstration pooh-poohed. The Clinton administration isn't the one who overestimated the case against Saddam.

SJ said:
Liberals complain that Bush went after Saddam rather than bin Laden... but who was Clinton bombing? Who was he letting go when offered for capture?
He bombed Saddam in retaliation for specific acts. That, the inspections and the sanctions apparently kept Saddam from developing any new weapons or weapons programmes. It seems to have been effective in keeping him in line at minimal cost to us.

SJ said:
Bush has gone after both pretty effectively, btw. Saddam is gone. Bin Laden is diminished.
Saddam is arrested and standing trial. This week, yet another of his defense attorneys was murdered. Bin Laden is diminished but alive and maybe be plotting even now....
 

Daisy

New Member
NiteShift said:
Nope. Absurdity. Nonsense.

The Iraqis didn't cooperate, they certainly gave the appearance of hiding stuff (why else bribe the inspectors), and intelligence agencies the world over understandably assumed the worst.
The inspectors didn't accept the bribes. Iraq wanted to rearm being surrounded by hostile countries as well as having the Kurds within its borders, but was unable to do it. It was co-operating with the inspectors when Bush called off the inspections.

That is not exactly farcical.
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Daisy said:
The inspectors didn't accept the bribes. Iraq wanted to rearm being surrounded by hostile countries as well as having the Kurds within its borders, but was unable to do it. It was co-operating with the inspectors when Bush called off the inspections.

That is not exactly farcical.

This is just nonsense. Talk about revisionism. I suppose you missed the first Gulf War because Saddam invaded another soveriegn nation. He has gased his own people, tortured, killed and buried hundreds of thousands of them, and let his people starve while he built more palaces.

He did not need arms to protect himself from hostile nations. The surrounding nations needed protection from him. Saddam was not cooperating with the inspectors at any point. It was a constant game of cat and mouse with him. One minute the inspectors can go, oh! hold you cant. Well go ahead. Never ending.

And to think other wise is not true, honest, and simply ludicrous. It is amazing what people are willing to believe to justify their positions. Simply Amazing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=10101

WMDs Found in Iraq
Posted Nov 09, 2005http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?email=yes&id=10101
space.gif
space.gif
Contrary to ongoing reports by mainstream media outlets, WMDs have been found in Iraq, so reports New York Times best-selling author Richard Miniter in his new book, Disinformation.
disinfo_book2.gif
Consider these shocking facts:
Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons
Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas
Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs
Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin
This is only a partial list of the deadly weapons Miniter reveals in his new book, Disinformation. Miniter systematically dissects the "No-WMD Myth" (how it started, and why it continues), as well as 21 other War-on-Terror myths perpetuated by the media.
The intelligence revealed in Disinformation is vital.
 
Top