Breaking News: WMDs found in Iraq

Other video games, TV shows, movies, general chit-chat...this is an all-purpose off-topic board where you can talk about anything that doesn't have its own dedicated section.

Breaking News: WMDs found in Iraq

Postby Riot on Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:53 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq
Wednesday, June 21, 2006

WASHINGTON — The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.

Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."

• Click here to read the declassified portion of the NGIC report.

He added that the report warns about the hazards that the chemical weapons could still pose to coalition troops in Iraq.

"The purity of the agents inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal," Santorum read from the document.

"This says weapons have been discovered, more weapons exist and they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it shows that years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections did not uncover these munitions.

Hoekstra said the report, completed in April but only declassified now, shows that "there is still a lot about Iraq that we don't fully understand."

Asked why the Bush administration, if it had known about the information since April or earlier, didn't advertise it, Hoekstra conjectured that the president has been forward-looking and concentrating on the development of a secure government in Iraq.

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

The official said the findings did raise questions about the years of weapons inspections that had not resulted in locating the fairly sizeable stash of chemical weapons. And he noted that it may say something about Hussein's intent and desire. The report does suggest that some of the weapons were likely put on the black market and may have been used outside Iraq.

He also said that the Defense Department statement shortly after the March 2003 invasion saying that "we had all known weapons facilities secured," has proven itself to be untrue.

"It turned out the whole country was an ammo dump," he said, adding that on more than one occasion, a conventional weapons site has been uncovered and chemical weapons have been discovered mixed within them.

Hoekstra and Santorum lamented that Americans were given the impression after a 16-month search conducted by the Iraq Survey Group that the evidence of continuing research and development of weapons of mass destruction was insignificant. But the National Ground Intelligence Center took up where the ISG left off when it completed its report in November 2004, and in the process of collecting intelligence for the purpose of force protection for soldiers and sailors still on the ground in Iraq, has shown that the weapons inspections were incomplete, they and others have said.

"We know it was there, in place, it just wasn't operative when inspectors got there after the war, but we know what the inspectors found from talking with the scientists in Iraq that it could have been cranked up immediately, and that's what Saddam had planned to do if the sanctions against Iraq had halted and they were certainly headed in that direction," said Fred Barnes, editor of The Weekly Standard and a FOX News contributor.

"It is significant. Perhaps, the administration just, they think they weathered the debate over WMD being found there immediately and don't want to return to it again because things are otherwise going better for them, and then, I think, there's mindless resistance to releasing any classified documents from Iraq," Barnes said.

The release of the declassified materials comes as the Senate debates Democratic proposals to create a timetable for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq. The debate has had the effect of creating disunity among Democrats, a majority of whom shrunk Wednesday from an amendment proposed by Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts to have troops to be completely withdrawn from Iraq by the middle of next year.

At the same time, congressional Republicans have stayed highly united, rallying around a White House that has seen successes in the last couple weeks, first with the death of terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, then the completion of the formation of Iraq's Cabinet and then the announcement Tuesday that another key Al Qaeda in Iraq leader, "religious emir" Mansour Suleiman Mansour Khalifi al-Mashhadani, or Sheik Mansour, was also killed in a U.S. airstrike.

Santorum pointed out that during Wednesday's debate, several Senate Democrats said that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, a claim, he said, that the declassified document proves is untrue.

"This is an incredibly — in my mind — significant finding. The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction, is in fact false," he said.

As a result of this new information, under the aegis of his chairmanship, Hoekstra said he is going to ask for more reporting by the various intelligence agencies about weapons of mass destruction.

"We are working on the declassification of the report. We are going to do a thorough search of what additional reports exist in the intelligence community. And we are going to put additional pressure on the Department of Defense and the folks in Iraq to more fully pursue a complete investigation of what existed in Iraq before the war," Hoekstra said.

FOX News' Jim Angle and Sharon Kehnemui Liss contributed to this report.


Don't you think the war is justified now with this new report and the Zarqawi document found? It appears that we are winning, no?
User avatar
Riot
WHAT DA F?!?! CHEEZITS!?
 
Posts: 6870
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 10:23 am

Postby Buckley on Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:15 pm

We've been winning the whole time it seems. Our US army pwns the Iraqi army. Also coniditions are better here.
XBOX LIVE GAMERTAG: StlrsRoc

Avatar courtesy of ShowBiz
User avatar
Buckley
 
Posts: 1686
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 12:10 pm

Postby Fenix on Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:28 pm

Lol, FoxNews? Fairly sizable stash? Not is usable condition? Breaking news?
"Sometimes a player's greatest challenge is coming to grips with his role on the team." (Scottie Pippen, #33)
User avatar
Fenix
There's no I in threesome
 
Posts: 3015
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 11:32 pm
Location: Slovenia

Postby hipn on Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:48 pm

USA planted those WMD..................






































JOKING!!!!!!! NO FLAMING!!!!!!!
Image
User avatar
hipn
 
Posts: 2283
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Postby benji on Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:54 pm

It's not breaking news. It's just an extension of what we've known since the summer of 2003.

Not that finding stockpiles of WMDs would justify ending the war either way.
User avatar
benji
 
Posts: 14545
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 9:09 am

Postby Fenix on Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:12 pm

Gee, I wonder why is the FoxNews the only one reporting this?
"Sometimes a player's greatest challenge is coming to grips with his role on the team." (Scottie Pippen, #33)
User avatar
Fenix
There's no I in threesome
 
Posts: 3015
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 11:32 pm
Location: Slovenia

Postby Silas on Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:21 pm

I still dont believe it was justified, but I guess this makes me feel a little better, but not much better.
User avatar
Silas
 
Posts: 2259
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 6:14 am
Location: Seattle Area

Postby BIG GREEN on Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:28 pm

Ahh..trust Riot to uncover this breaking news...you raging conservative republican.
Image
A big fan of the emerald hue and much higher state of being/
Yohance "thug" Bailey on the scene...now known as Big Green/
User avatar
BIG GREEN
 
Posts: 4413
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2002 1:18 pm
Location: Bronx, New york

Postby GloveGuy on Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:40 pm

Great. I'm going to bed.
User avatar
GloveGuy
 
Posts: 1588
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:55 am
Location: Boston, MA

Postby Dro on Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:12 pm

"are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

..yawn
http://thesportspread.blogspot.com/

^^^Visit my blog! Nothing too interesting, but I try to make a post every day, and I try to go in depth. Please leave lots of negative feedback! I want to become a sports journalist on the side some day, and I know I have a looooooong way to go.

***Note: I had make a new URL because for some reason I couldn't log into the old one...bummer.
Dro
 
Posts: 607
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 12:55 pm
Location: The Valley of the Sun

Postby [Q] on Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:23 pm

LOL chemical weapons? the SAME ones WE GAVE Saddam to fight Iran in the 80s? fucking geniuses.

too bad the American public is too stupid to realize this, so they'll eat it up.

I love it how "weapons of mass destruction" initially meant "nuclear weapons" but has turned into something completely different.
Image
User avatar
[Q]
NBA Live 18 Advocate
NLSC Team Member
 
Posts: 14396
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 8:20 am
Location: Westside, the best side

Postby Riot on Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:38 pm

Qballer wrote:LOL chemical weapons? the SAME ones WE GAVE Saddam to fight Iran in the 80s? fucking geniuses.

too bad the American public is too stupid to realize this, so they'll eat it up.

I love it how "weapons of mass destruction" initially meant "nuclear weapons" but has turned into something completely different.


First off even if we did give him weapons he was suppose to destroy them in the late 90's and he apparently never did. And secondly "weapons of mass destruction" can mean anything. In fact, we were concerned about chemical weapons because we armed our troops with the gear to fight off a chemical weapon attack in Iraq. We pretty much said the entire time that Saddam has chemical weapons (he has used them before) and that he might use them again. Those are "weapons of mass destruction".
User avatar
Riot
WHAT DA F?!?! CHEEZITS!?
 
Posts: 6870
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 10:23 am

Postby Ryan on Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:24 am

The world can rest easy, Fox News is on the case.
Image
User avatar
Ryan
 
Posts: 1445
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2005 7:29 am
Location: Michigan

Postby Cloudy on Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:49 am

I don't really get this entire war on Iraq, didn't it all start from Bin Laden? He's in Afghanistan isn't he... I mean supposed to? How come all of a sudden they're booming Iraq and taking Saddam down for whatever reason I don't even know?? How come they're not doing this war thing to North Korea??? Someone please explain...
cloudy
Cloudy
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 10:39 pm

Postby Fenix on Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:58 am

Riot wrote:First off even if we did give him weapons he was suppose to destroy them in the late 90's and he apparently never did. And secondly "weapons of mass destruction" can mean anything. In fact, we were concerned about chemical weapons because we armed our troops with the gear to fight off a chemical weapon attack in Iraq. We pretty much said the entire time that Saddam has chemical weapons (he has used them before) and that he might use them again. Those are "weapons of mass destruction".

Who said that they didn't destroy them? The ones they found don't work anyway, so they weren't a threat to anyone and tehnically, they aren't exactly weapons of mass dectruction if they're unable to destroy anything.
"Sometimes a player's greatest challenge is coming to grips with his role on the team." (Scottie Pippen, #33)
User avatar
Fenix
There's no I in threesome
 
Posts: 3015
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 11:32 pm
Location: Slovenia

Postby Ryan on Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:13 am

Riot wrote:

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.,...


I'll never believe a word out of this guys mouth.

http://santorumexposed.com/index.php

Outfoxed - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... q=outfoxed
Last edited by Ryan on Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ryan
 
Posts: 1445
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2005 7:29 am
Location: Michigan

Postby Dro on Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:21 am

Cloudy wrote:I don't really get this entire war on Iraq, didn't it all start from Bin Laden? He's in Afghanistan isn't he... I mean supposed to? How come all of a sudden they're booming Iraq and taking Saddam down for whatever reason I don't even know??


The war in Iraq was started on the assumption that Iraq had WMDs (Riot, mustard gas isn't a WMD). The war on Afghanistan was because there is strong Taliban and Al Qaeda influence there.

How come they're not doing this war thing to North Korea??? Someone please explain...


Because North Korea actually HAS nuclear weapons!!
http://thesportspread.blogspot.com/

^^^Visit my blog! Nothing too interesting, but I try to make a post every day, and I try to go in depth. Please leave lots of negative feedback! I want to become a sports journalist on the side some day, and I know I have a looooooong way to go.

***Note: I had make a new URL because for some reason I couldn't log into the old one...bummer.
Dro
 
Posts: 607
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 12:55 pm
Location: The Valley of the Sun

Postby Riot on Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:02 am

We didn't invade Iraq soley because we thought they had WMD's, which they did because they ADMITTED TO IT in the late 1990's, but also because of Saddam's connections with terrorist cells in the Middle East and the genocide he has committed over the years. The War on Terror (not the War on Afghanistan) is a war on the violent terror groups across the world. Afghanistan was the location of the Taliban, an evil group that protected and supported Al-Qaeda and other terror cells.
User avatar
Riot
WHAT DA F?!?! CHEEZITS!?
 
Posts: 6870
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 10:23 am

Postby Dro on Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:11 am

Riot wrote:an evil group


:lol:
http://thesportspread.blogspot.com/

^^^Visit my blog! Nothing too interesting, but I try to make a post every day, and I try to go in depth. Please leave lots of negative feedback! I want to become a sports journalist on the side some day, and I know I have a looooooong way to go.

***Note: I had make a new URL because for some reason I couldn't log into the old one...bummer.
Dro
 
Posts: 607
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 12:55 pm
Location: The Valley of the Sun

Postby Riot on Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:19 am

:lol: What you don't think they are an evil group? I couldn't think of a word to use so I put group. So freaking what...you know what I mean.
User avatar
Riot
WHAT DA F?!?! CHEEZITS!?
 
Posts: 6870
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 10:23 am

Postby Kriegz on Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:50 am

In your face bitches (Y)
Image
User avatar
Kriegz
 
Posts: 322
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:32 pm
Location: Ohio

Postby kevC on Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:45 am

This isn't breaking news at all... We've been finding WMDs in small amounts. Just not the lot full of thousands of weapons that everyone (idiots) expect to find, which is retarded. Yeah, Saddam would have piles and piles of weapon for the US to find :roll: .
I slip away
I slipped on a little white lie
We've got heads on sticks, You've got ventriloquists
Standing in the shadows at the end of my bed
User avatar
kevC
 
Posts: 1541
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: from S.Korea to Houston, Tx

Postby Donatello on Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:04 am

"We" have more weapons of mass destruction than anyone else.
||[b]b]||
User avatar
Donatello
Dongatello
 
Posts: 4294
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 1:46 pm
Location: Camas, WA

Postby benji on Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:34 am

I love when people talk about topics they are not well versed on.
Gee, I wonder why is the FoxNews the only one reporting this?

Because you obviously can't do a Google News search?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01837.html
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13480264/
http://washingtontimes.com/national/200 ... -3312r.htm

It's also been on CNN and that other cable news channel nobody watches that features idiots fired from ESPN and Fox and Chris Matthews. (Even if CNN.com doesn't find it important enough to put on the internet.)

Whoops. Your bad.
I still dont believe it was justified

Why is ending a war not justified? Especially one with the background as this one...
LOL chemical weapons? the SAME ones WE GAVE Saddam to fight Iran in the 80s? fucking geniuses.

too bad the American public is too stupid to realize this, so they'll eat it up.

I love it how "weapons of mass destruction" initially meant "nuclear weapons" but has turned into something completely different.

Speaking of stupid.

Yes, it's true the commerce department authorized the sale of various weapons to Iraq AND Iran, but the Soviet Union (and France!) was Iraq's biggest supplier of the last quarter of a century. And Saddam probably used up those small vials we mailed him (hate to be that delivery man) in the IIWar. The problem was not "stockpiles" of WMDs but programs to produce them. (Of course, I like when people scream "WE GAVE HIM WEAPONS!" as if because of that, we shouldn't go in later and fix the problem. Don't correct your mistakes.)

It used to mean nuclear weapons? Somebody should've told Colin Powell during his Feb 2003 presentation to the UN:
someone transcribing Colin Powell wrote:Let's look at one. This one is about a weapons munition facility, a facility that holds ammunition at a place called Taji (ph). This is one of about 65 such facilities in Iraq. We know that this one has housed chemical munitions. In fact, this is where the Iraqis recently came up with the additional four chemical weapon shells.

Here, you see 15 munitions bunkers in yellow and red outlines. The four that are in red squares represent active chemical munitions bunkers.

How do I know that? How can I say that? Let me give you a closer look. Look at the image on the left. On the left is a close-up of one of the four chemical bunkers. The two arrows indicate the presence of sure signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions. The arrow at the top that says security points to a facility that is the signature item for this kind of bunker. Inside that facility are special guards and special equipment to monitor any leakage that might come out of the bunker.

Considering he spent almost 2/3rds of his presentation on chemical and biological weapons...and when he finally got to nuclear weapons:
someone transcribing Colin Powell also wrote:Let me turn now to nuclear weapons. We have no indication that Saddam Hussein has ever abandoned his nuclear weapons program.

On the contrary, we have more than a decade of proof that he remains determined to acquire nuclear weapons.

Doesn't say he had nuclear weapons, but that he desired to acquire them. Which is truthful. That's why he was mucking around in Niger.
Saddam Hussein already possesses two out of the three key components needed to build a nuclear bomb. He has a cadre of nuclear scientists with the expertise, and he has a bomb design.

Again, this was true, he just didn't have the material.
Right-Wing Riot wrote:First off even if we did give him weapons he was suppose to destroy them in the late 90's and he apparently never did.

Well, that's not entirely true. Considering no massive stockpiles have been found, one must assume, they're gone. Either to another country, buried, destroyed or used up. But he did have a large program, that would've been fired up once sanctions were lifted.

Saddam was required to prove that the weapons were destroyed, he didn't, that's why he violated 17 resolutions. The burden of proof was on him to show compliance, not on the rest of the world to show violations.
Who said that they didn't destroy them? The ones they found don't work anyway, so they weren't a threat to anyone and tehnically, they aren't exactly weapons of mass dectruction if they're unable to destroy anything.

Let's rework that point of view into another scenario. If I boast that I have three guns on me, I drop one you find that doesn't work, I claim I destroyed the other two but you have no proof I did. Also, I've attacked you and others before, taken potshots at you for twelve years, and been hanging out with others who want to harm you. Are you going to take me at my word, consider me not a threat and turn your back on me?
I'll never believe a word out of [Santorum's] mouth.

Outfoxed - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... q=outfoxed

That's all well and good, but meaningless. And a specifically (and deceptively) edited film to show Fox News has a "right-wing" bias? And so what if it does? CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, BBC, al-Reuters aren't objective news media either.

Presenting something from a point of view isn't a crime.

Of course, it's interesting how whenever Fox News reports anything stupid people instantly say it's not true or something simply because of where it appeared. Yet, nobody has any problem with the above listed networks/organizations when they're just as, and perhaps even more subjective in their coverage. A perspective is not a lie. Just because people don't like Fox News not giving them an echochamber, doesn't mean it's evil. If you don't like it, watch a different channel. Or get "facts" from something like truthout.
I don't really get this entire war on Iraq, didn't it all start from Bin Laden? He's in Afghanistan isn't he... I mean supposed to? How come all of a sudden they're booming Iraq and taking Saddam down for whatever reason I don't even know?? How come they're not doing this war thing to North Korea??? Someone please explain...
The war in Iraq was started on the assumption that Iraq had WMDs (Riot, mustard gas isn't a WMD). The war on Afghanistan was because there is strong Taliban and Al Qaeda influence there.

Invading Afghanistan and toppling the gay and women hating, terrorist supporting Taliban was a direct response to the 9/11 attacks.

Ending the war in Iraq, was an extension of the policy to drain the swamps where terrorists spawn.

Iraq was a seperate operation in a larger scale mission. And necessary.

You see, a state of war existed between Iraq and the United States (hell, the entire Coalition) since 1991. The "first" Gulf War "ended" with a cease-fire that had very specific terms. Saddam violated it within months, reinstating a state of war. It never ended until Saddam's regime was removed.

There were humanitarian and security reasons for changing the regime. It's hard to rationally argue against ending the war against Iraq.

-Saddam supported and harbored terrorist groups and individual terrorists. His fingerprints were all over the first WTC bombing and Project Bojinka.
-Saddam had in the past had WMD programs, and evidence shows he continued to keep those programs, ready to restart them once sanctions (that he violated anyway) were lifted.
-Saddam invaded two of his neighbors.
-Saddam massacred, tortured, raped and was a jerk to his own citizens. Don't forget his draining of the heart of mesopotamia.
-Saddam violated 17 UN resolutions instead of simply comply with the requirement that he show proof that he ended and destroyed his WMD programs. If he had shown that he did it, he would've stayed in power, as the rest of the world didn't give a shit about anything he did except WMD programs.
-Saddam facilitated the worst scandal in world history with his dealings in the Oil-For-Food program.
-Saddam wore fedoras with an ugly mustache, a terrible fashion faux pas.

You can continue to think ending the war wasn't justified, and terrible and all these other things. But that just displays an inability to properly reason and you shouldn't do it in public.

Makes you look bad.
User avatar
benji
 
Posts: 14545
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 9:09 am

Postby Riot on Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:08 am

Donatello wrote:"We" have more weapons of mass destruction than anyone else.


But we're allowed to have them...Saddam is not.
User avatar
Riot
WHAT DA F?!?! CHEEZITS!?
 
Posts: 6870
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 10:23 am

Next

Return to Off-Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests