The Iraq Thread 2

[m21man 0]

Twas the Soviet Union at that time .

[ran 0]

Twas the Soviet Union at that time .

gah

conventionnal weapons aren't what matters right now ....

and every body has to do some business you know ....

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]and every body has to do some business you know ....

...Selling missiles .

[ran 0]

Quote[/b] ]and every body has to do some business you know ....

...Selling missiles .

heh ? selling missiles is no different that selling computers and fireworks you know ......

[quicksand 0]

Too late.What`s your point?Every country has conventinal weapons.Are you saying Russia and France should stop producing tanks and missles for export?

[KJAM 0]

Quote[/b] ]BTW I watched a BBC documentary about a friendly fire incident during the Iraq war, when an F-14 mistakenly bombed a convoy of Kurdish troops, U.S SF and BBC journalists. It was due to incorrect information from an American in the convoy calling in an airstrike on Iraqi armor in the horizon (he didn't bother giving coordinates). The whole convoy was halted and everyone was basically taking a break, the camera was filming and suddenly the tape skipped, 3 seconds later the convoy was on fire and mutilated corpses were lying all over the place. The cameraman just kept filming and you saw the entire tape continuosly, with ammo cooking off and blackened half-skeletons peeking out of burning cars.

Everyone who sometimes thinks real war is a bit cool should watch the doc.

At least 16 Kurds were killed and over 40 wounded.

Has anyone else seen it?

i didnt see the documentary (i think) but i saw the bloody thing happen! the cameraman who was taping got fraged pretty bad, and so did his attached news reporter, they showed the actual tape....

Quote[/b] ]Saddam is now a POW

i call Parlé

(for those who dont know Parlé is a code of honour set down long ago by pirates on the spanish main and it concerned how pirates prisoners were treated.........you would be safe......if you were a pirate yourself.......that whole walking the plank is a bunch of BS)

[silent_64 0]

Friday afternoon Danish soldiers found 36 120mm mortar grenades dug down into the sand, a liquid was flowing out of the grenades so the Danish soldiers took a sample of the liquid and it confirmed that it was chemical substance they sealed off area was and a British ABC team was called in. Today the Brits confirmed that it was in fact a chemical weapon.

Besides the 36 grenades another 14 was found all wrapped in plastic, they were how ever destroyed by their stay under ground. It is possible that up to 100 more is dug down in the area. It is assumed that the grenades has been dug down for a period of 10 years, both is confirmed by the locals. The grenades have no identification marks on them but x-rays have shown that there are liquid in them.

After the found the area was totally sealed off and Danish and British soldiers are currently awaiting a special US team from Baghdad there are to take further tests from the area there will be used for lab testing. It will properly be a few days before the tests are completed and first then can we confirm that it is truly chemical weapons.

Currently 4 different types of tests has been conducted on site and they have all shown the same chemical substance "Blister gas" but this will not be confirmed before the lab test are completed.

Shell

Shell2

Shell3

Shell4

[denoir 0]

We have a nice Iraq thread for this discussion.

Anyway I'd wait for confirmation before getting all excited. Especially since those shells look like they have been buried for a very long time. Iraq's chemical and biological weapons had a shelf life of 3-5 years, so anything older than that would be completely useless.

If it turns out to be anything it will probably be a confirmation that the Iraqis didn't lie about desposing of the weapons in the early '90s.

[waffendennis 0]

Who wont tell that: Maybe the USA army puted them there?

you never know but...

I am currios....

[ran 0]

well . that's just mortar rounds ..... no WMDs of the apocalypse ....

the liquid could simple be melted/rotten Tollite

[Winters 1]

I dont think the US Army put them there but i also dont think this calls for cries of "See, i told you they had WMD" either.

[bn880 5]

Doesn't sound quite WMDish... we'll see

seriously though, we've gotta be talking prepared chemicals that are no more than 5 years old, or chemicals mounted on long range delivery systems. Otherwise this is just a relic of the past.

[ran 0]

i wouldn't personnaly use a mortar round containing unknown material that's been burried abut 10 years ago ...

tollite (TNT) is relatively stable but under condition it can severly degrade

[quicksand 0]

I think they already said that it looks like Iran-Iraq war leftovers.You know,from the times US was providing chemicals weaponry to Saddam.

9 months of searches showed nothing.It`s really  safe to say that there is no smoking gun.And for those who think that they were moved to other countries.Kind of ironic.Saddam coudn`t manage to hide himself but miraculosly managed to move WMD from american satilites eyes with no problem

Plus the american public doesn`t even care anymore that the No 1 reason for going to war in Iraq was complete bs.The crew for searching this weapons are silently withdrawing in failure from Iraq while the americans rejoice at Saddam capture and Bush`s support is going to the sky

[denoir 0]

Full BBC story on the subject

Quote[/b] ]

'Chemical weapons' found in Iraq

Danish troops have found dozens of mortar shells in southern Iraq which could contain chemical weapons according to initial tests.

The 36 120mm mortar rounds appeared to have been buried for at least 10 years, the army said. All showed traces of blister gases, the army said, a group of chemical compounds which include mustard gas.

US officials confirmed the apparent find and said the weapons were probably left over from the 1980-88 war on Iran.

Results of more extensive tests should be available in about two days, the Danes said on an official website quoted by the Reuters news agency. The Danish troops, who serve with the US-led coalition in Iraq, will continue searches for any more weapons buried at the same site, north of Basra.

US military spokesman Brigadier-General Mark Kimmitt said of the shells: "Most were wrapped in plastic bags, and some were leaking."  "We're doing some preliminary tests... to be sure that if they do contain any kind of blistering agent they will be disposed of," he said.

The former regime of Saddam Hussein used blister agents against Iranian soldiers during the Iran-Iraq war. Chemical weapons were also used to kill about 5,000 Kurds in the northern city of Halabja in 1988.

[Balschoiw 0]

unusable , forgotten, dumped ammo imo.

Still there is a chance to find

on it  

[denoir 0]

Bush's former treasury secretary: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11 [CNN]

Quote[/b] ]

The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill told CBS, according to excerpts released Saturday by the network. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

O'Neill, who served nearly two years in Bush's Cabinet, was asked to resign by the White House in December 2002 over differences he had with the president's tax cuts. O'Neill was the main source for "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill," by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind.

The CBS report is scheduled to be broadcast Sunday night; the book is to be released Tuesday by publisher Simon & Schuster.  Suskind said O'Neill and other White House insiders gave him documents showing that in early 2001 the administration was already considering the use of force to oust Saddam, as well as planning for the aftermath.

"There are memos," Suskind told the network. "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'"

Suskind cited a Pentagon document titled "Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," which, he said, outlines areas of oil exploration. "It talks about contractors around the world from ... 30, 40 countries and which ones have what intentions on oil in Iraq."  In the book, O'Neill is quoted as saying he was surprised that no one in a National Security Council meeting asked why Iraq should be invaded.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" O'Neill said.

Suskind also described a White House meeting in which he said Bush seemed to waver about going forward with a second round of tax cuts.

"Haven't we already given money to rich people... Shouldn't we be giving money to the middle?" Suskind says Bush asked, according to what CBS called a "nearly verbatim" transcript of an economic team meeting Suskind said he obtained from someone at the meeting. O'Neill also said in the book that President Bush "was like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people" during Cabinet meetings.

One-on-one meetings were no different, O'Neill told the network. Describing his first such meeting with Bush, O'Neill said, "I went in with a long list of things to talk about and, I thought, to engage [him] on. ... I was surprised it turned out me talking and the president just listening. It was mostly a monologue."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan brushed off O'Neill's criticism.

"We appreciate his service, but we are not in the business of doing book reviews," he told reporters. "It appears that the world according to Mr. O'Neill is more about trying to justify his own opinion than looking at the reality of the results we are achieving on behalf of the American people. The president will continue to be forward-looking, focusing on building upon the results we are achieving to strengthen the economy and making the world a safer and better place."

A senior administration official, who asked not to be named, expressed bewilderment at O'Neill's comments on the alleged war plans.

"The treasury secretary is not in the position to have access to that kind of information, where he can make observations of that nature," the official said. "This is a head-scratcher."

Even before the interview is broadcast, the topic became grist for election-year politics. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who is the early front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, issued a statement in response.

"I've always said the president had failed to make the case to go to war with Iraq," Dean said. "My Democratic opponents reached a different conclusion, and in the process, they failed to ask the difficult questions. Now, after the fact, we are learning new information about the true circumstances of the Bush administration's push for war, this time, by one of his former Cabinet secretaries.

"The country deserves to know -- and the president needs to answer -- why the American people were presented with misleading or manufactured intelligence as to why going to war with Iraq was necessary."

Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts also issued a statement. In 2002, Kerry voted to support a resolution giving Bush authority to wage war against Iraq if it didn't dismantle its presumed illegal weapons program.

"These are very serious charges. It would mean [bush administration officials] were dead-set on going to war alone since almost the day they took office and deliberately lied to the American people, Congress, and the world," Kerry said. "It would mean that for purely ideological reasons they planned on putting American troops in a shooting gallery, occupying an Arab country almost alone. The White House needs to answer these charges truthfully because they threaten to shatter [its] already damaged credibility as never before."

I don't know why they're acting so surprised. Check the archive section for Mid East of the Project for a the American Century, the primary ideological think tank of the neo-cons. Read the article wirtten by Wolfowitz back in '98. It literally spells out the Iraq invasion which Bush implemented. Right down to the part of ignoring the UN Security council.

[Acecombat 0]

This leads me to my next question , denoir why arent you a journalist already?  

Second q:

Do we have some human beings with eyes and ears living among us?  

[Acecombat 0]

Six Iraqi Protesters Shot Dead

Naseer Al-Nahr, Arab News Staff

The mother and brother of Iraqi Kurdish policeman Ardi Ali, 23, mourn during his funeral in Kirkuk on Saturday. (AFP)

Quote[/b] ]BAGHDAD, 11 January 2004 — British troops and Iraqi police fired into a crowd of armed, stone-throwing protesters in the southern city of Ammara yesterday, killing six people and wounding 11.

A British military spokeswoman said shots were heard coming from among hundreds of protesters who had gathered in front of the office of the US-led coalition to demand jobs, and that Iraqi police, thinking they were under attack, opened fire. At the same time there were “reports of small explosions in the crowd,†said the spokeswoman, speaking on condition of customary anonymity.

British soldiers moved in with armored vehicles to support the police, and assailants in the crowd lobbed three explosive devices at them, believed to be hand grenades, she said. The soldiers saw a man lobbing one of the devices and shot him, apparently killing him. The shooting appeared to sober the crowd, which then dispersed, the spokeswoman said.

But some assailants returned in the afternoon and threw two explosive devices at the armored cars. Soldiers shot the man, and believe they wounded him. “A further three devices were thrown at soldiers before calm returned,†the spokeswoman said.

She said they had reports of five deaths and one person injured. The protesters were demanding that coalition authorities keep a promise to give unemployed people jobs by the beginning of January.

Meanwhile, the International Committee of the Red Cross, which has asked to visit Saddam Hussein as allowed under the Geneva Convention, said yesterday it considered the prisoner of war status legally acceptable. Nada Dumani, Iraq’s ICRC spokeswoman, said it was now essential for Saddam to be granted rights enshrined in the convention and accorded fair treatment.

In the tense northern city of Kirkuk, two Iraqi policemen were killed by mistaken coalition gunfire late Friday, the US military confirmed. US spokeswoman Maj. Josslyn Aberle said yesterday the policemen were shot after failing to identify themselves as they were being pursued by US troops after a shooting incident.

[Badgerboy 0]

Bugger. The Brits in the south have been doing a good job of managing the locals recently. I hope the actual event justified the means...

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]A senior administration official, who asked not to be named, expressed bewilderment at O'Neill's comments on the alleged war plans.

What is this ?

3 apes running the US ?

[Balschoiw 0]

I can´t imagine brits shooting into a crowd. They just don´t do such. Until I know that the shots killing people did come out of brit guns I put it to the Iraqi police.

Brits have so far done a good job down there although we have to keep in mind that they are not surrounded by revolters but Shia´s who opposed Saddam very much.

By now the Brits run the job very well, compared to their gunhappy US colleagues.

[Crazysheep 1]

Here's the PNAC article Denoir mentioned:

Quote[/b] ]Statement before the House National Security Committee

Paul Wolfowitz

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the invitation to testify before this distinguished committee on the important subject of U.S. policy toward Iraq.

It is an honor to appear as part of a hearing in which Scott Ritter testifies. Scott Ritter is a public servant of exceptional integrity and moral courage, one of those individuals who is not afraid to speak the truth. Now he is speaking the truth about the failures of the UN inspection regime in Iraq, even though those truths are embarrassing to senior officials in the Clinton Administration. And the pressures he is being subjected to are far worse. After first trying to smear his character with anonymous leaks, the administration then took to charging that Mr. Ritter doesn’t “have a clue†about U.S. policy toward Iraq and saying that his criticisms were playing into Saddam Hussein’s hands by impugning UNSCOM’s independence.

In fact, it is hard to know what U.S. policy is toward Iraq because it is such a muddle of confusion and pretense. Apparently, the administration makes a distinction between telling Amb. Butler not to conduct an inspection and telling him that the time is inopportune for a confrontation with Iraq and that the U.S. is not in a position to back up UNSCOM. That kind of hair-splitting only further convinces both our friends and adversaries in the Middle East that we are not serious and that our policy is collapsing. It is only reinforced when they see us going through semantic contortions to explain that North Korea is not in violation of the Framework Agreement or when they see us failing to act on the warnings that we have given to North Korea or to Milosevic or to Saddam Hussein.

The problem with U.S. policy toward Iraq is that the administration is engaged in a game of pretending that everything is fine, that Saddam Hussein remains within a “strategic box†and if he tries to break out “our response will be swift and strong.†The fact is that it has now been 42 days since there have been any weapons inspections in Iraq and the swift and strong response that the Administration threatened at the time of the Kofi Annan agreement earlier this year is nowhere to be seen.

Recently a senior official in a friendly Arab government complained to me that the U.S. attaches great store to symbolic votes by the Non-Aligned Movement on the “no fly zone†in Southern Iraq, while doing nothing to deal with the heart of the problem which is Saddam himself.

The United States is unable or unwilling to pursue a serious policy in Iraq, one that would aim at liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam's tyrannical grasp and free Iraq’s neighbors from Saddam’s murderous threats. Such a policy, but only such a policy, would gain real support from our friends in the region. And it might eventually even gain the respect of many of our critics who are able to see that Saddam inflicts horrendous suffering on the Iraqi people, but who see U.S. policy making that suffering worse through sanctions while doing nothing about Saddam.

Administration officials continue to claim that the only alternative to maintaining the unity of the UN Security Council is to send U.S. forces to Baghdad. That is wrong. As has been said repeatedly in letters and testimony to the President and the Congress by myself and other former defense officials, including two former secretaries of defense, and a former director of central intelligence, the key lies not in marching U.S. soldiers to Baghdad, but in helping the Iraqi people to liberate themselves from Saddam.

Saddam’s main strength -- his ability to control his people though extreme terror -- is also his greatest vulnerability. The overwhelming majority of people, including some of his closest associates, would like to be free of his grasp if only they could safely do so.

A strategy for supporting this enormous latent opposition to Saddam requires political and economic as well as military components. It is eminently possible for a country that possesses the overwhelming power that the United States has in the Gulf. The heart of such action would be to create a liberated zone in Southern Iraq comparable to what the United States and its partners did so successfully in the North in 1991. Establishing a safe protected zone in the South, where opposition to Saddam could rally and organize, would make it possible:

• For a provisional government of free Iraq to organize, begin to gain international recognition and begin to publicize a political program for the future of Iraq;

• For that provisional government to control the largest oil field in Iraq and make available to it, under some kind of appropriate international supervision, enormous financial resources for political, humanitarian and eventually military purposes;

• Provide a safe area to which Iraqi army units could rally in opposition to Saddam, leading to the liberation of more and more of the country and the unraveling of the regime.

This would be a formidable undertaking, and certainly not one which will work if we insist on maintaining the unity of the UN Security Council. But once it began it would begin to change the calculations of Saddam’s opponents and supporters -- both inside and outside the country -- in decisive ways. One Arab official in the Gulf told me that the effect inside Iraq of such a strategy would be “devastating†to Saddam. But the effect outside would be powerful as well. Our friends in the Gulf, who fear Saddam but who also fear ineffective American action against him, would see that this is a very different U.S. policy. And Saddam’s supporters in the Security Council -- in particular France and Russia -- would suddenly see a different prospect before them. Instead of lucrative oil production contracts with the Saddam Hussein regime, they would now have to calculate the economic and commercial opportunities that would come from ingratiating themselves with the future government of Iraq.

The Clinton Administration repeatedly makes excuses for its own weakness by arguing that the coalition against Saddam is not what it was seven years ago. But in fact, that coalition didn’t exist at all when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. The United States, under George Bush’s leadership, put that coalition together by demonstrating that we had the strength and the seriousness of purpose to carry through to an effective conclusion. President Bush made good on those commitments despite powerful opposition in the U.S. Congress. The situation today is easier in many respects: Iraq is far weaker; American strength is much more evident to everyone, including ourselves; and the Congress would be far more supportive of decisive action. If this Administration could muster the necessary strength of purpose, it would be possible to liberate ourselves, our friends and allies in the region, and the Iraqi people themselves, from the menace of Saddam Hussein.

This seems to reveal a lot about the mentality of the neocons.......they must have been brought up on a strict diet of Hollywood movies, they seem to have the idea that America is seen as some sort of godlike benevolent being by the rest of the world...the last paragraph in particular demonstrates this.

"The situation today is easier in many respects: Iraq is far weaker; American strength is much more evident to everyone, including ourselves; and the Congress would be far more supportive of decisive action."

"The United States, under George Bush’s leadership, put that coalition together by demonstrating that we had the strength and the seriousness of purpose to carry through to an effective conclusion. "

They're assuming that the rest of the world will not question the USAs motives, so long as they will be successful. Very arrogant attitude, and quite patronising of EVERYONE really.

And this:

Our friends in the Gulf, who fear Saddam but who also fear ineffective American action against him, would see that this is a very different U.S. policy.

I'm looking at Acecombat here, who probably reflects a lot of attitudes of Saudi Arabians....presumably the "friends" of the USA in the region. It is the threat of the USA, not Saddam, that seems to worry most of them judging from the amount of terrorists in Saudi Arabia AND Kuwait. And Iran and Syria, while not friends, are obviously going to be very nervous about Israel and the USA from all the threats slung at them. It seems their plans have in actuality fallen over.....I suspect they did not foresee any insurgency in Iraq either.

Guess this shows why you should not elect zealously patriotic politicians in America especially.....this lot seem to be blind.

[Acecombat 0]

Heck man i am no fan or liker of the US govt and the way its foreign policys shift tide day and night to thir 'own f---- interests' .

Not many people here like the US except probably the govt who are ass lickers to the US when it comes to oil money and military dealings...

[Crazysheep 1]

I can´t imagine brits shooting into a crowd. They just don´t do such. Until I know that the shots killing people did come out of brit guns I put it to the Iraqi police.

Brits have so far done a good job down there although we have to keep in mind that they are not surrounded by revolters but Shia´s who opposed Saddam very much.

By now the Brits run the job very well, compared to their gunhappy US colleagues.

Quote[/b] ]British soldiers moved in with armored vehicles to support the police, and assailants in the crowd lobbed three explosive devices at them, believed to be hand grenades, she said. The soldiers saw a man lobbing one of the devices and shot him, apparently killing him. The shooting appeared to sober the crowd, which then dispersed, the spokeswoman said.