Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 last
To: jveritas

I'm so glad to see you have a blog where you're keeping all this valuable information in one place. We're all indebted to you. Please keep up the GREAT work!

The truth is in there!


81 posted on 04/10/2006 10:00:34 PM PDT by Choose Ye This Day (If low-skill workers were key to economic growth, Mexico would be an economic powerhouse.-Rich Lowry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jveritas
Is it time to start calling the NYTimes, the WaPost, the LATimes, NPR etc a Fifth Column for spiking these stories? We know they monitor FR. Why the silence????
82 posted on 04/10/2006 10:04:09 PM PDT by Drango (A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drango

The defeated liberal are not going to be the first to cover this, they will be only forced to cover it. I would like to see our talk radio show hosts talking about these documents, but unfortunately they are not doing nearly enough, in fact they are ding nothing to cover, and I am really disappointed by this.


83 posted on 04/10/2006 10:06:38 PM PDT by jveritas (Hate can never win elections.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: jveritas
Here are the actual requirements that the UN had placed on Iraq at the appropriate time period. I put the important text in boldface.

-Begin UN document excerpts.

UNITED NATIONS
Distr. GENERAL
S/1998/332
16 April 1998
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
NOTE BY THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

C. Chemical weapons
1. Actions required of Iraq

37. The Security Council required Iraq to unconditionally accept the destruction, removal or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of all chemical weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities (para. 8 (a) of resolution 687 (1991)).

United Nations
S/RES/687 (1991)
8 April 1991
RESOLUTION 687 (1991)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2981st meeting, on 3 April 1991

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

-End UN document excerpts.

So you are 100 % correct Jveritas. Iraq was required by UN resolutions to destroy or provide ALL equipment, ALL chemical WMD agents and ALL related documents. The existence of this document, their own tests which indicate the presences of chemical WMD agents, are ALL clear violations of the UN resolutions. Whether this was for defensive purpose or training purposes is immaterial to the violation.

Not quite a smoking gun, but definitely a smoking document !

84 posted on 04/11/2006 1:23:14 AM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Albertafriend

Thanks!


85 posted on 04/11/2006 4:03:24 AM PDT by gotribe (Just tired of going easy on islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape

Thank you very much for this great information my fellow freeper, it further proves that this document is an important one.


86 posted on 04/11/2006 4:10:28 AM PDT by jveritas (Hate can never win elections.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: jveritas; saganite
raqis were obsessed with Chemical training for their Chemical platoons and their troops. Why that obsession if they did not have the intention to produce Chemical weapons.

Good work, again, jv. I think critics answer that question with this old saw, "Saddam was propping up his regime on fear. Having people think he had WMD was just as good as having them."

This may just as well be another indication why Bush doesn't come out with this stuff. It may turn out that all the Intelligence Agencies had it wrong because Saddam hoodwinked everyone....or because Saddam's generals had him hoodwinked, or.....time (and more translations) will tell....

87 posted on 04/11/2006 7:50:27 AM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach

Anthrax - as in the kind used in 2001 - is a strategic weapon, like nukes. These others (listed above), as far as I know are tactical weapons, like bullets.



But someone please tell me I'm wrong.


88 posted on 04/11/2006 9:59:46 AM PDT by rawsnacks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Peach

Ping


89 posted on 04/12/2006 12:02:28 PM PDT by freema (Proud Marine FRiend, Mom, Aunt, Sister, Friend, Wife, Daughter, Niece)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: jveritas
Playing Devils Advocate here as I support the invasion.

Most professional armies would have chemical units for the purpose of protecting their troops from an attack, and disposing of the hazardous material from such an attack.

My understanding of the Iraq army is that they followed Soviet Doctrine. Chemical units would be present in larger units in that case would it not?. I'm guessing (as I don't have reference present) Regiment and above.

Isn't it reasonable to suppose that this could be the case here?.

90 posted on 04/13/2006 6:31:39 PM PDT by ottersnot ("Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ottersnot
I think it's essential to identify that the purpose of chemical units is to detect chemical attacks, decontaminate those attacks if possible, and to guide friendly forces around or away from the contaminated area.

My understanding of these units is that they do not launch chemical attacks.

This is not to say that Iraq did not have units which were trained to launch chemical attacks through artillery, but, we should be careful to differentiate the missions.

I think proof of the intent to launch such an attack will be found with precursors and artillery shells designed for this purpose. Not necessarily in units trained to DETECT and decontaminate.

My .02

91 posted on 04/13/2006 6:37:13 PM PDT by ottersnot ("Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson