Skip to comments.
1999 Document Chemical Platoons Applied Training In Chemical Lab to Detect Nerve Agents, VX Agents..
Pentagon/FMSO Iraq Pre-war documents. ^
| April 10 2006
| jveritas
Posted on 04/10/2006 11:17:03 AM PDT by jveritas
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-91 next last
To: jveritas
41
posted on
04/10/2006 12:38:08 PM PDT
by
jazusamo
(-- Married a WAC in '65 and I'm still re-enlisting. :-)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; jveritas; Eagle Eye
One thing not being brought out if I may. IMHO, many of these units could have been training so that when the time came to quickly move wmd components as suggested here, to bury in remote desert areas, dump in creeks and rivers, dump in remote desert wasteland areas, load on trucks, etc., special teams would perhaps have been required (sounds stupid but may Saddam and goons did not want to have their soldiers poisioned as they dumped stuff and may have had accidents), keep abreast as how to handle these chemicals.
We know at a few military sites, in bunkers where munitions where stored, that our guys found gas masks, syringes, and vials of atropine, as well as some detection kits for some of the named items.
But the bottom line is Iraq was supposed to not only destroy it's entire store of bio/chemicals but provide sufficient proof to the inspectors as how they managed these projects.
In that we now know they where not only lacking but deliberatly set out to deceive the inspectures at every opportunity.
42
posted on
04/10/2006 12:42:44 PM PDT
by
Marine_Uncle
(Honor must be earned)
To: XJarhead
I'm not sure that was even a part of the ceasefire or resolutions I guarantee for you that they were not supposed to have even one ounce of VX agent or Nerve agent, or Mustard Gas.
I know that many will say "SO What?" show us the Chemical Weapon stocks and then we believe that Saddam has WMD. This is a weak argument because as I said before whenever they had the opportunity to produce it on mass scale they will do so. We toppled Saddam Regime not because of his stocks of WMD but because of his great danger to the region and in a world after 9/11 you cannot allow such a man to stay in power because even if he did not have large quantify of WMD, he will produce them and use them on a large scale when the opportune time will come.
If you know Arabic and read the many documents and hundred of pages about AL Qadisya Air base, will be shocked with their obsession with the Chemical Platoons, Chemical Classifications, Chemical training etc... Almost everything in these air bases revolve around the Chemical programs.
43
posted on
04/10/2006 12:44:00 PM PDT
by
jveritas
(Hate can never win elections.)
To: Marine_Uncle
44
posted on
04/10/2006 12:45:08 PM PDT
by
jveritas
(Hate can never win elections.)
To: saganite
Good point, but what about France and all of a sudden Europe seems to be changing its stance on immigration, Muslims etc.?
Notice how Syria is very quite and so is Putin. Iran & N. Korea seems to be the only constant vocal irritants recently.
45
posted on
04/10/2006 12:47:02 PM PDT
by
RSmithOpt
(Liberalism: Highway to Hell)
To: jveritas
I agree with everything you said about the threat he posed, and I believe then and believe now that we were right to take his regime down. But I don't think that decision has anything to do with Iraq maintaining small test quantities of chemical weapons. Like I said, whether or not he would produce larger quantities has nothing to do with keeping small test quantities.
Chemical weapons are different from bios in that regard. With bio weapons, you grow new cultures from the old, so maintaining even a small stockpile has to be prohibited. But with chems, you just manufacture them without needing a starter. The tiny amounts used for detection and testing aren't of any use on the battlefield.
46
posted on
04/10/2006 12:50:10 PM PDT
by
XJarhead
To: XJarhead
I can see your persistant call for caution on this one. Better to proceed slowly, try to link with other documents, and as yet untranslated ones.
One does not want to get egg in the face. Plus one does not want to diminish the already solid finds the Harmony Databases is producing. One false or weak arugument coming out of FR, and the L/MSM will decend like vultures on a carcass.
47
posted on
04/10/2006 12:51:35 PM PDT
by
Marine_Uncle
(Honor must be earned)
To: jveritas
Sir, I noticed documents released on 4/07 and 4/08 have been "pulled" from the website. A couple of them looked rather interesting.
Any thoughts ?
48
posted on
04/10/2006 12:59:43 PM PDT
by
genefromjersey
(So much to flame;so little time !)
To: Marine_Uncle
Thanks -- that's exactly my point. Don't give them an excuse to diminish the importance of the overall finds.
49
posted on
04/10/2006 1:00:24 PM PDT
by
XJarhead
To: jveritas
Jveritas,
No doubt the MSM peeks in here each day and no doubt with each of your translations the MSM is getting an increasingly worse migraine headache as critical mass approaches.
They (MSM) know that at some point that they will have to begin reporting on the new information coming from the documents. And they also know that saying the documents are fake won't work.
Jveritas and all the other translators have the MSM in a real quagmire.
Good work!
50
posted on
04/10/2006 1:02:10 PM PDT
by
avacado
To: genefromjersey
I noticed that too but I believe that they are now part of " All the Posted documents" package rather than "Recently Posted" package. I guess we should wait and see for more new documents. May be they are updating their system and hopefully we will get some more very soon.
51
posted on
04/10/2006 1:08:55 PM PDT
by
jveritas
(Hate can never win elections.)
To: RSmithOpt
I think some of those politicians have woken up to the real threat that threatens them including Iran and are happy to have us take the lead now. Just my opinion.
52
posted on
04/10/2006 1:10:11 PM PDT
by
saganite
(The poster formerly known as Arkie 2)
To: avacado
My issue is not only with the liberal media which we expect them not show these documents because it will shine the light of truth over their lies and the lies of liberals. My issue is also with our side of the media, in particular radio talk shows who have a much larger audience to reach than the Internet conservative websites or the Weekly Standard.
53
posted on
04/10/2006 1:12:06 PM PDT
by
jveritas
(Hate can never win elections.)
To: jveritas
54
posted on
04/10/2006 1:13:12 PM PDT
by
rightinthemiddle
(Islamic Terrorists, the Mainstream Media and the Democrat Party Have the Same Goals in Iraq.)
To: saganite
As with the illegal immigration problem here and in the industrialized nations of the world, it's not a problem with the average person wanting to better their lives nor is there a problem with the average person in those countries we are having difficulties with, it's the fanatics and criminals that are in charge and have no respect for those who disagree and abide by the laws.
Would you place a small bet that we have proof that Iran and Syria and others assisted in the dissemination of the WMD components or the weapons themselves?
55
posted on
04/10/2006 1:17:46 PM PDT
by
RSmithOpt
(Liberalism: Highway to Hell)
To: jveritas
I understand what you are saying and they too may be taking a cautious stance for right now. Once this hits critical mass one of the sides will jump on it and then the other side will have no choice but to jump in.
It's all just a matter of time and continued translations. The documents are what they are... and there is no denying them. This is NEWS.
Keep the faith that the system does work. And thank you for your work!
56
posted on
04/10/2006 1:19:27 PM PDT
by
avacado
To: XJarhead
"I'm not saying that I disagree with your overall conclusion, because I don't. I just want to make sure we don't overstate the case in a few instances, because we know the MSM will focus on those few overstatements as a way to discredit what otherwise is a valid conclusion."
Excellent advice.
To: XJarhead
"The legit purpose of the resolutions was to prevent them from using chemical weapons on the battlefield, not preventing them from protecting themselves against someone else's use."
You raise some good points, but I do think it is interesting that the Iraqis hid this info in other documents that were purportedly about non-controversial topics. It does it least suggest the possibility that this training was not for the very narrow defensive purpose that you have described.
To: XJarhead; Marine_Uncle
I got your points on being cautious and I fully agree with you on this, I did not say that this is a smoking gun document. However we simply cannot dismiss it as unimportant because it shows the extreme obsession of Saddam with the Chemical programs even if it is using small quantity of Chemical Agents and for a defensive training.
59
posted on
04/10/2006 1:31:02 PM PDT
by
jveritas
(Hate can never win elections.)
To: jveritas
"Great post Marine_Uncle."
Thanks.
60
posted on
04/10/2006 1:31:31 PM PDT
by
Marine_Uncle
(Honor must be earned)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-91 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson