Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Ronnie Raygun Ronnie Raygun is offline
Senior Member
Ronnie Raygun's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta, Georgia United States of America
Old Mar 18th, 2003, 12:17 PM        Chemical weapons to be used by Saddam
http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81303,00.html


Iraq Arming Troops With Chemical Weapons


Monday, March 17, 2003

WASHINGTON — Iraqi troops south of Baghdad are armed with chemical weapons, Fox News has learned.

Senior Defense and other U.S. officials confirmed that intelligence reports indicate that Saddam Hussein's troops are armed with chemical munitions.

"The information is raw … and hard to confirm ... but we are seeing -- using different methods -- that Saddam Hussein has armed troops south of Baghdad with chemical weapons," one official said.

Officials say it's hard to tell how many of these weapons are being distributed, but the intelligence reports indicate that "some chemical shells" have been provided to troops.

Senior Defense officials say they expected the Iraqis to use these weapons, and they predict more movement by Iraqi troops in the South and the West in the next day or so.

Iraqi troops along the Kuwaiti border far to the south are in shooting distance of U.S. troops stationed there -- but the troops with the chemical shells are further north -- still in the southern no-fly zone, but south of Baghdad.

Saddam said Monday that Iraq once had weapons of mass destruction for defense against Iran and Israel, but it no longer holds them, according to the Iraqi News Agency.

"We are not weapons collectors," Saddam said in remarks during a meeting with a Tunisian envoy.. "But we had these weapons for purposes of self-defense when we were at war with Iran for eight years and when the Zionist entity (Israel) was, and it still is, a threat."

Iraq and Iran fought a ruinous 1980-1988 war in which chemical weapons were used.

"When Saddam Hussein says he has no weapons of mass destruction, he means what he says," Saddam said.

He also said his country had fully cooperated with U.N. inspectors seeking to verify that Iraq had eliminated its banned weapons.

"We have a real desire to rid our region and the whole world of weapons of mass destruction," Saddam said.

He then called on the United States to set an example by destroying its own weapons of mass destruction first.

President Bush has warned Saddam bluntly to disarm or face the consequences. Bush will give Saddam an ultimatum -- either get out of Baghdad or face a military thrashing -- in an address to the nation Monday night .

Fox News' Bret Baier and the Associated Press contributed to this report
__________________
Paint your genitals red and black, weedwack the hair off your grandmothers back" - Sean Conlin from Estragon
Reply With Quote
  #2  
sspadowsky sspadowsky is offline
Will chop you good.
sspadowsky's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Thrill World
Old Mar 18th, 2003, 12:27 PM       
I love a good pissing contest.
________
My green heaven ministry milbre

Last edited by sspadowsky : Apr 18th, 2011 at 06:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
Old Mar 18th, 2003, 12:40 PM       
Okay, there's some good journalism.

Fox news 'has learned', by which they mean, a pentagon spokesperson told me this is what they think is going on.

The proper journalistic format is to simply report the pentagon statement.

This is a PEAK moment for disinformation. We will certainly know one way or the other if the Iraqis have and use chemical weapons very soon.

On Meet the Press over the weekend, Chenney said he believed Iraq already has nuclear weapons! Based on what? He couldn't comment. Why had he saved this info tidbit until now? Brave journalists neglected to ask! Why is this not huge front page news? Becuase it's transparent crap and even Cheney doesn't expect it to be widely accepted or even debated. It's just provocative dissinformation to throw out there and get people ramped up.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Buffalo Tom Buffalo Tom is offline
Member
Buffalo Tom's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Map Ref 41N 93W
Old Mar 18th, 2003, 12:54 PM       
Quote:
Senior Defense and other U.S. officials confirmed that intelligence reports indicate that Saddam Hussein's troops are armed with chemical munitions.
When the hell did mainstream journalists become milquetoasts? Let's get some concrete names behind these 'senior defense officials'. This story and others like it, with their proclamations from super-sexy and super-secret informants met in underground parking lots, have no credibility. This use of unnamed sources is as ubiquitous in mainstream journalism as the use of the term 'player to be named later' in sports journalism. It's time the world, not just the American people, start getting straight answers from people who actually exist.
__________________
You're cooler than me
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Protoclown Protoclown is offline
The Goddamned Batman
Protoclown's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Richmond, VA
Old Mar 18th, 2003, 01:21 PM       
WHY YOU UNAMERICAN CANADIAN


living in north america
__________________
"It's like I'm livin' in a stinkin' poop rainbow." - Cordelia Burbank
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Old Mar 18th, 2003, 02:12 PM       
HOW DARE YOU GET TOTALLY OUTMANNED IN A WAR YOU DIDN'T WANT, AND THEN HAVE THE AUDACITY TO KILL OUR SOLDIERS IN A WAY WE DIDN'T APPROVE! :growl :hiss :snarl
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Old Mar 18th, 2003, 02:28 PM       
Don't worry. UN Inspectors made SURE that there were none.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
Old Mar 18th, 2003, 02:52 PM       
We'll see. On the other hand we have wmd for sure and our secretary of defense refuses to rule out there use in this conflcit. We probably won't need them. After all, we're already going to use the largest conventional bomb ever.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
FS FS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fribbulus Xax
Old Mar 18th, 2003, 03:33 PM       
BE SCARED AMERICA, BE VERY VERY SCARED

(They're not looking Dick, let's get those pesky amendments out the back door pronto.)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Old Mar 18th, 2003, 03:35 PM       
I hope we drop 2 MOABs for each American killed.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
FS FS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fribbulus Xax
Old Mar 18th, 2003, 03:45 PM       
But not for the limeys or the ozzies, right?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Old Mar 18th, 2003, 04:13 PM       
2 for them too
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Cap'n Crunch Cap'n Crunch is offline
Mocker
Cap'n Crunch's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oh no. :(
Old Mar 18th, 2003, 04:53 PM       
Why do we (America) have to be in control of everything. We are just in this war for the oil or gasoline or some other crap for cars.
__________________
opposition to all violence even if committed in self defense
Reply With Quote
  #14  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
Old Mar 18th, 2003, 05:03 PM       
Fuzzy dice?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
glowbelly glowbelly is offline
my baby's mama
glowbelly's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: cleveland
Old Mar 18th, 2003, 05:16 PM       
puppy lice?
__________________
porn is just babies as work-in-progress
Reply With Quote
  #16  
kellychaos kellychaos is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Where I Started But In A Different Place
Old Mar 18th, 2003, 06:20 PM       
Miami Vice?
__________________

Wherever you go, there you are.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
FS FS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fribbulus Xax
Old Mar 18th, 2003, 07:00 PM       
Old Spice?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Protoclown Protoclown is offline
The Goddamned Batman
Protoclown's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Richmond, VA
Old Mar 18th, 2003, 07:02 PM       
Three blind mice?
__________________
"It's like I'm livin' in a stinkin' poop rainbow." - Cordelia Burbank
Reply With Quote
  #19  
kellychaos kellychaos is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Where I Started But In A Different Place
Old Mar 18th, 2003, 07:10 PM       
Black beans and rice?
__________________

Wherever you go, there you are.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
FS FS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fribbulus Xax
Old Mar 18th, 2003, 07:11 PM       
Janet Weiss?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Skulhedface Skulhedface is offline
Asspunch McGruf
Skulhedface's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: !GNODAB
Old Mar 18th, 2003, 07:45 PM       
Heidi Fleiss?
Ginger Spice?
Not once but twice?
Not twice but thrice?
Hey man be nice?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
AChimp AChimp is offline
Resident Chimp
AChimp's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Jungles of Borneo
Old Mar 18th, 2003, 08:44 PM       
Scheiss.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Esuohlim Esuohlim is offline
BOO! A SPOOPY GHOST :x
Esuohlim's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: TO-DO LIST: WATCH TWIN PEAKS. CALL MOM.
Old Mar 18th, 2003, 09:51 PM       
Birth control device?
At a reasonable price?
__________________


YOU MUST SPREAD SOME REPUTATION AROUND BEFORE GIVING IT TO SAM AGAIN
Reply With Quote
  #24  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Old Mar 18th, 2003, 11:19 PM       
I haven't seen this story anywhere else. Anybody other than the arm of the administration covering this? Is Fox News just too good???

Lest we forget.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

washingtonpost.com (I know, not NEWSMAX or FOX, but I try my best)

Bush Clings To Dubious Allegations About Iraq


By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 18, 2003; Page A13


As the Bush administration prepares to attack Iraq this week, it is doing so on the basis of a number of allegations against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that have been challenged -- and in some cases disproved -- by the United Nations, European governments and even U.S. intelligence reports.

For months, President Bush and his top lieutenants have produced a long list of Iraqi offenses, culminating Sunday with Vice President Cheney's assertion that Iraq has "reconstituted nuclear weapons." Previously, administration officials have tied Hussein to al Qaeda, to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and to an aggressive production of biological and chemical weapons. Bush reiterated many of these charges in his address to the nation last night.

But these assertions are hotly disputed. Some of the administration's evidence -- such as Bush's assertion that Iraq sought to purchase uranium -- has been refuted by subsequent discoveries. Other claims have been questioned, though their validity can be known only after U.S. forces occupy Iraq.

In outlining his case for war on Sunday, Cheney focused on how much more damage al Qaeda could have done on Sept. 11 "if they'd had a nuclear weapon and detonated it in the middle of one of our cities, or if they had unleashed . . . biological weapons of some kind, smallpox or anthrax." He then tied that to evidence found in Afghanistan of how al Qaeda leaders "have done everything they could to acquire those capabilities over the years."

But in October CIA Director George J. Tenet told Congress that Hussein would not give such weapons to terrorists unless he decided helping "terrorists in conducting a WMD [weapons of mass destruction] attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."

In his appearance Sunday, on NBC's "Meet the Press," the vice president argued that "we believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." But Cheney contradicted that assertion moments later, saying it was "only a matter of time before he acquires nuclear weapons." Both assertions were contradicted earlier by Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who reported that "there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities."

ElBaradei also contradicted Bush and other officials who argued that Iraq had tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes to use in centrifuges for uranium enrichment. The IAEA determined that Iraq did not plan to use imported aluminum tubes for enriching uranium and generating nuclear weapons. ElBaradei argued that the tubes were for conventional weapons and "it was highly unlikely" that the tubes could have been used to produce nuclear material.

Cheney on Sunday said ElBaradei was "wrong" about Iraq's nuclear program and questioned the IAEA's credibility.

Earlier this month, ElBaradei said information about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium were based on fabricated documents. Further investigation has found that top CIA officials had significant doubts about the veracity of the evidence, linking Iraq to efforts to purchase uranium for nuclear weapons from Niger, but the information ended up as fact in Bush's State of the Union address.

In another embarrassing episode for the administration, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell cited evidence about Iraq's weapons efforts that originally appeared in a British intelligence document. But it later emerged that the British report's evidence was based in part on academic papers and trade publications.

Sometimes information offered by Bush and his top officials is questioned by administration aides. In his March 6 news conference, Bush dismissed Iraq's destruction of its Al Samoud-2 missiles, saying they were being dismantled "even as [Hussein] has ordered the continued production of the very same type of missiles." But the only intelligence was electronic intercepts that had individuals talking about being able to build missiles in the future, according to a senior intelligence analyst.

Last month, Bush spoke about a liberated Iraq showing "the power of freedom to transform that vital region" and said "a new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region." But a classified State Department report put together by the department's intelligence and research staff and delivered to Powell the same day as Bush's speech questioned that theory, arguing that history runs counter to it.

In his first major speech solely on the Iraqi threat, last October, Bush said, "Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work."

Inspectors have found that the Al Samoud-2 missiles can travel less than 200 miles -- not far enough to hit the targets Bush named. Iraq has not accounted for 14 medium-range Scud missiles from the 1991 Persian Gulf War, but the administration has not presented any evidence that they still exist.



© 2003 The Washington Post Company
Reply With Quote
  #25  
The_Rorschach The_Rorschach is offline
Mocker
The_Rorschach's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WestPac
Old Mar 19th, 2003, 06:25 AM       
"Why do we (America) have to be in control of everything. We are just in this war for the oil or gasoline or some other crap for cars"

Prove it. Or is this another, trypical, accusation that you heard from someone else and decided to pass off as your own with absolutely no knowledge of the facts behind it.

"Iraq's only export is OIL! That must be what Bush is after!"

That doesn't even hold enough water to pass as faulty logic. One of the major factors which has kept Bush from invading already, hasn't been lack of UN support, or even the opinions of the Eurotrash opposition, its been the fact that after the war is over, the United States is going to have to take control over Baghdad, remain to build political and constructional infrastructure and also maintain a military presence to preserve a relative peace in the post-Hussein Iraq.

What does that translate into? Another fucking Gaza strip, where instead of Israeli's, US soldiers are going to be bleeding over some dusty, worthless terrain which rather than profiting America, is going to be a drain on its assets. You think a new company, Presidential Oil, is going to magically spring up? Or that the land is going to be given to Shell, and Exxon in return for campaign contributions? Lets here this War Is For Oil theory of yours in plain terms.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:40 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.