Posted on 05/18/2004 8:21:40 AM PDT by JohnGalt
Washington-AP -- Don't jump to any conclusions just yet. That warning comes from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, after the U-S military in Iraq announced that a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve gas had exploded near a U-S military convoy.
Rumsfeld told a Washington, D-C audience that the "field test" showing the presence of sarin may not be accurate. He says more analysis needs to be done -- and that it may take some time to find out just what the chemical was.
In Baghdad, officials said the bomb was apparently left over from the Saddam era. They said two members of a military bomb squad were treated for "minor exposure" -- but that there were no serious injuries.
One official says the shell apparently contained two chemicals that are designed to combine and create sarin -- but that they didn't mix properly.
Did you brown your shorts again?
I never did beleive in the WMD thing. But it still is funny that you think two shells justifies the deaths of US soldiers or even their wounding after this was told on behalf on this nation to the world:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300.htm
Remember that? Of course you don't- but the rest of the world certainly does.
Oh- and PS- please enlighten us as to your your opinion we are in Iraq?
We went into Iraq, among other things, to prevent something like this from happening: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1138022/posts
But thanks to people, so-called Americans, who have constantly undermined, undermined, undermined our war effort, our war effort has been made much more difficult, resulting in more deaths and giving Saddam time to hide the WMD from us. They've likely already fallen into terrorists' hands.
For what? Because these jackasses dislike the president.
Right.
We are not there to "build Democracy" at all and stay for 30 years?
Sadaam- that even his neighbors didn't think was a threat was such a "threat" to us that we just had to invade?
Oh and by the way- If the debate for war against Sadaam only took two weeks what was to prevent Sadaam from giving away any WMD to anybody with a ship, plane, truck, car, donkey, bike, or backpack before we invaded?
So are we safer?
I just wonder if this binary artillery shell, who's manufacture is rather sophisticated, isn't in fact a relic from the era when Sadam had a relatively unrestricted WMD program.
I get tired of the same people taking over the threads and directing the conversation whenever there is news about WMD or Iraq's links to AQ.
They do it EVERYTIME and have been doing so for over 2 years. It gets old.
It also gets old that to support a war strongly, which I do, is somehow traitorous and not conservative for those freepers whose motives I question.
Did it have a made in the USA label on it? LOL!
That's the real reason no WMD's will be found.
Anything they find is US made.
WOuld make for a messy show and tell.
Peach,
People who won't fight to defend their way of life, or who will only do so when it's too late, are not conservatives. Frankly, I don't know why Jim Rob tolerates some of the worst of them in this group. All I can figure is that they must donate an awful lot of money.
I couldn't agree with you more, zook. Take care. Will check in later...
It certainly could be, and that's probably where the odds lie. (So I agree with Blix there; I don't think Blix's public reactions to this find are wrongheaded in that sense, just in other senses. ;) Due to this possibility it need not be evidence that Saddam had ongoing programs to produce such things. At minimum it is, however, an indication that he had not fully declared all of his banned materials to Blix. Which, to be honest, was something we had known anyway. (From Blix himself, in fact.)
An interesting angle coming out now is, as I have heard, that the shell was not marked as containing CW. This would be consistent with an explanation such as: the shells were originally produced (indeed, perhaps long ago) for more conventional use, modified at some point later on to contain the chemicals, but not marked this way so as to fool inspectors. Or something along those lines. What I'm trying to say is that there's a lot of room for gray in between "it's old, left over from pre 91" and "it's new therefore proof positive of ongoing programs". It could be an old shell, yet part of a new program, with new-ish chemicals stuffed inside of it somewhere along the way.... stay tuned, I'm sure we'll find out all the details (LOL). Best,
Who was saying that exactly?
after this was told on behalf on this nation to the world: [Powell's UN address] Remember that? Of course you don't- but the rest of the world certainly does.
Could you state or point to your problem with Powell's UN address in detail?
We are not there to "build Democracy" at all and stay for 30 years?
I'll field that. Yes: I wouldn't be surprised if our military were to exist in Iraq, in some capacity, for 30 years give or take.
It's been 55+ years and our military is still in Germany.
Shocking!
Sadaam- that even his neighbors didn't think was a threat was such a "threat" to us that we just had to invade?
I've already explained this to you: the fact that his neighbors didn't find him a threat to them is irrelevant and doesn't mean jack squat to us. Oh what a relief, Saddam Hussein didn't threaten Syria, so we're safe. What the hell kind of fool logic is that?
Do you understand that "Saddam's neighbors" and "The United States" actually refer to different countries?
Let's turn it the other way around. Surely you agree that we, the United States, are not a threat to Canada (our "neighbor"). Does that mean we weren't a threat to Saddam Hussein? To use your logic, "there's no way the US will attack Iraq, they're not even a threat to their neighbor Canada."
If the debate for war against Sadaam only took two weeks what was to prevent Sadaam from giving away any WMD to anybody with a ship, plane, truck, car, donkey, bike, or backpack before we invaded?
What WMD, I thought he didn't have any.
So are we safer?
What does that even mean? It's such an asinine question.
There is absolutely no way to measure how Safe we are. There are no International Safety Units or Safety Rulers to do the measuring and calibrating for you. So there's no basis for looking around you at some point in time and declaring yourself to be "Safe", or "twice as Safe as three years ago, when I was half as Safe as I am now". It just doesn't make any sense.
The one thing you can do is to look at results. People either get attacked and killed, or they don't. And, attacks and murders occur at some rate, or another. But these are metrics which are only available after the fact, and in the context of long-term trends. Ten years from now perhaps we will be able to plot "terror deaths per year" on a curve and see a sharp upturn or downturn, but to ask someone for an instantaneous measurement "Are we safer????" invites people to draw a conclusion based on their feelings and their feelings only.
A lot of people would probably answer you "no we're not". That's because they "don't feel safer" (and often linked to their psychological feelings towards the President) and it's not based on anything other than feelings. But that's the only kind of answer you can possibly get by asking "are we safer?", which is part of what makes it such an asinine question.
Thanks for your post. You essentially said that we are in Iraq for 30 years at least and that the WMD threat never existed and was a fraud from the get go.
Nice comparison to Canada. Real convincing.
Do you have your Storm Trooper badge for the Empire yet?
I didn't "say" that as I am no expert nor do I have any authoritative say in the matter, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me. (On the other hand, we could be out before 2006.) Again, the big scandal with that would be what, exactly? Why is it ok to have US troops in Germany for 55+ years and not in Iraq for 30?
and that the WMD threat never existed and was a fraud from the get go.
Like hell I said that. I didn't even say anything remotely resembling that. What is wrong with your reading comprehension?
Nice comparison to Canada. Real convincing.
because.....?
You're not really good at backing up things with explanations are you?
I say again: the US was no threat to attack its neighbor Canada, therefore Saddam Hussein had no reason to suspect we'd attack him either. That's the logic YOU are using, not me. If you see how silly that logic is now, then good!
Do you have your Storm Trooper badge for the Empire yet?
WTF are you talking about.
How old are you?
Not ok to have troops anywhere in this world that are not protecting this country directly. Germany, Japan, South Korea, Iraq, Uzbekistan, Georgia, Turkey, Britain, Afghanistan, Diego Garcia- and about a hundred others. Bring em home now!
Ok, you're consistent. At this point we'll have to agree to disagree and just let the reader decide whose position is more tenable, the one who thinks we shouldn't have any troops in Afghanistan, or the other one. Best,
Best to you as well. Agree.
I agree that it has become very difficult to have a productive conversation about this topic anymore. Everyone seems to have an axe to grind.
Sometimes I think that is the point. Make the threads about various freepers and their arguments so that lurkers and those seeking to learn more about the issues, legitimate and interesting and important issues, give up in frustration and leave the thread.
I'm a Gulf War I vet and a verified FReeper known in real-life by many on this board. I'm going on the FReeper cruise this week. I (unlike you) for one had many misgivings and mixed feelings about this war from the beginning, yet I keep my mouth shut. I just don't feel like wasting my time arguing with "the swarm", life is literally too short and nothing good comes of it.
In any case, the level of conversation here has devolved greatly, as has the collective IQ of the posters. Which is why I spend most of my time lately in the religion forum.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.