Chemical weapons found in Iraq

Loxleyhood

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
2,228
I'm sure chemical weapons have been found in Iraq. What side they belong to though is a different matter.

Edit: Danish troops found them. I don't mean anything by this, but when I read that it lost just a tad more credibility. :)
 

Munkey

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
1,326
Knowing arab administration out here, I'm rather inclined to think that they'd forgot it had existed and its been forgotten. If there was more info about where they were, what state of condition they are in and how exactly they'd come about finding them....then I'd be more inclined to believe Saddam had been hiding them.

Because, 36 mortar rounds.......not exactly a 15 minute- WMD threat are they?
 

echo

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
108
Munkey said:
If there was more info about where they were, what state of condition they are in ...
Buried for about 10 years, apparently.. I'm guessing they'd be fairly shitty?
 

tRoG

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
1,440
36 shells? 36 bloody shells?

Pah. It isn't exactly something to boast about. Now, instead of having to say they started a war over weapons of mass destruction which don't exist, they can say that they started a war over 36 120mm shells which had been buried for 10 years.

:rolleyes:
 

Munkey

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
1,326
The american's will blow it up out of proportion. They need it in order to help their claim for the war.

"THis is only the start! we believe saddam has weapon cache's like these hidden all over iraq. it is only a matter of time before we find more."

That'll be something i bet they'll come out with. But agree with scooba, probably part of the munitions the west plied into Iraq when it became obvious they were going to lose. Look where it got them now...
 

mr.Blacky

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
596
The Dutch have found similar things, only diverance is that they were radioactive, 2 soldiers were radiated.
 

Chameleon

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
224
Loxleyhood said:
I'm sure chemical weapons have been found in Iraq. What side they belong to though is a different matter.

Edit: Danish troops found them. I don't mean anything by this, but when I read that it lost just a tad more credibility. :)
You obviously mean something by it. I'm no expert but there's every reason to think the danes did as good a job as any.
This find surely isn't the one bush and blair were looking for though .... it's not surprising there's some old chemical weps buried about the place!
 

fatbusinessman

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
810
Chameleon said:
This find surely isn't the one bush and blair were looking for though .... it's not surprising there's some old radioactive shit buried about the place is there!
Not even radioactive - it's a World War 2-era chemical weapon. Certainly not the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" the US and UK have been claiming, as it's generally not even fatal.
 

Chameleon

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
224
Aye ur right. I had editted ....... I blame the wine tbh :)
Still, that shit sounds nasty tho!
 

xane

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
1,695
Scooba da Bass said:
It's 'only' shells that could contain Mustard Gas. The same stuff that most of the west sold to Iraq during the war with Iran and that the US helped to integrate into existing battle plans.
The old "we sold him WMD" diatribe again.

The era in which chemical weapon technology was sold to Iraq, and lots of other countries, it was "acceptable" for major powers to have them. Back then, the US and USSR had vast stockpiles of biological and chemical weaponry which formed a key part of their own defence strategy, although there was a generic ban on their use, no-one had to slightest concerns on giving them up.

In fact it was Iraq's frequent use of chemical weapons during the war with Iran that prompted the US and USSR to wake up to the reality of their use finally agree to a total worldwide ban and the confirmed elimination of their entire stocks, plus establishment of a UN protocol that biological and chemical weapons would never be used, stored or manufactured.

Iraq signed that agreement and never stuck to it.

Its all very well dragging this argument up time and time again but the facts are sadly misleading because it happened a long time ago when the Berlin Wall still stood, the US has had four presidents since. Also remember that prior to 1980 it was the USSR, not "the West", that armed Iraq, so it's anyone's guess where these weapons came from.

In any case, I doubt Mustard Gas was "sold" to Iraq, it's been in use since WW1 and hardly secret knowledge on its manufacture or development into simple weapons like mortar shells.
 

Munkey

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
1,326
Oh of course, its the fact that Iraq used them that woke the world up? please. Nobody batted an eye when they attacked Halabja because they were "fighting totalitariansim".

Only once Iran was effectivley out of the way did the 'outrage' begin to start. Both the west and the USSR supplied Iraq. The west, i.e. france and USA, were supplying both Iraq and Iran until it became clear Iran was winning. Thus USA switched to playing their trade solely to Iraq, pushing Britain and, eventually, france. If you're going to give it to them, dont be suprised if they use them.
 

Loxleyhood

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
2,228
I'm about to sound ignorant now, but where the tap-dancing Christ is Halabja?
 

Munkey

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
1,326
Halabja is a small town to the north/east of Iraq near the Iranian border. Iraqi planes bombed the town with chemical weapons, killing at least 5,000 people. Led by Ali Hassan Majid, who got his nickname Chemical Ali from this.

IIRC, it was picked not only due to its Kurdish population, but also to the ease with which it had surrended to Iranian control as they pushed into Iraq. After withdrawing, Saddam saw it as a personal affronation and it got bombed. Not a sperate incident, but it is the largest chemical attack ever against a civilian population.
 

Munkey

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
1,326
I rmeember it's name because it sounds like a mixture between Habbebeh (or however you spell it, meaning baby) and Djlibilel (the town from that Discworld 2 game).

Sometimes i just hate how subjectivley blind the world can become
 

Scooba da Bass

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
500
xane said:
Its all very well dragging this argument up time and time again but the facts are sadly misleading because it happened a long time ago when the Berlin Wall still stood, the US has had four presidents since. Also remember that prior to 1980 it was the USSR, not "the West", that armed Iraq, so it's anyone's guess where these weapons came from.
Seeing as it was buried a minimum of 10 years ago and probably more how exactly is it misleading?

Regardless of who supplied it waving an ancient cache of 36 shells as some kind of jingoistic proof that USA was correct is just plain wrong.
 

Jonaldo

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
1,173
b..b..but the shells were like... THIS big!
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|*

:(

*May not be to scale
 

Doomy

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
1,121
Loxleyhood said:
I'm sure chemical weapons have been found in Iraq. What side they belong to though is a different matter.

Edit: Danish troops found them. I don't mean anything by this, but when I read that it lost just a tad more credibility. :)
Trust the amazing people that are the Danes to find the impossible*













*An unbiased danish view point
 

L_Plates

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
628
in my eyes the media runs us. we believe what ever we are told.
 

xane

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
1,695
Scooba da Bass said:
Seeing as it was buried a minimum of 10 years ago and probably more how exactly is it misleading?

Regardless of who supplied it waving an ancient cache of 36 shells as some kind of jingoistic proof that USA was correct is just plain wrong.
Look back on your previous quote and then talk to me about "jingoism", it works both ways.
 

Astfgl

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
48
Munkey said:
I rmeember it's name because it sounds like a mixture between Habbebeh (or however you spell it, meaning baby) and Djlibilel (the town from that Discworld 2 game).

Sometimes i just hate how subjectivley blind the world can become

It's actually spelt "Djelibeybi" (Jelly-baby), and is mentioned in a few of his books, too. ;)
 

exxxie

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
16
xane said:
In fact it was Iraq's frequent use of chemical weapons during the war with Iran that prompted the US and USSR to wake up to the reality of their use finally agree to a total worldwide ban and the confirmed elimination of their entire stocks, plus establishment of a UN protocol that biological and chemical weapons would never be used, stored or manufactured.
Both Iran and Iraq used chemical weapons during the conflict. Infact, some pundits* still maintain that Iran was responsible for the Halabjah gassing as the victims looked to have been killed by a blood agent (blue extremeties and lips). The other 'well documented' case was from the Kurdish town of Amadiyyah, and the only reports were eye witness accounts from Kurdish refugees that fled into Turkey. Just because the US State Department says so, don't make it true.


*source is Iraqi Power and U. S. Security in the Middle East
 

Munkey

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
1,326
But the Iranian's found chemical weapons inneffective, often finding their own troops would be affected by it. Doesnt excuse they used it, but they diddnt perform the same atrocities as the Iraqi's did with theirs.
 

exxxie

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
16
The Iraqis use of chemical weapons was much better than the Iranians because Iraq had CIA training and satellite imagery of Iranian troop movements during that conflict.

The gassing of Kurds in the north of Iraq much later is reliant on eye witness accounts only for detail. Various complex nerve agents appear to have been used, no pyshical evidence remains as Iraqi troops were reportedly burning corpses very quickly after such attacks (source: Gwynne Roberts collection of eye witness reports)

Complex nerve agents are just that.. complex. Too complex for a country such as Iraq (in the 1980's) to manufacture without significant help from other countries? I think so.
 

Loxleyhood

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
2,228
Although we certainly don't get the full picture from our governments and scepticism over what they say should always be maintained, the world is still a better place without Saddam and the Taliban in power, and their people are also far better off. I do not disagree with the wars, though I do with the reasons behind them.
 

Munkey

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
1,326
and i think the world would be a better place without Bush. Clinton was nearly impeached for lying about an affair....how much has Bush been distorting the facts and been proven wrong? yet still no loud cry for impeachment.....tells you something about the americans methinks
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top Bottom