Danish Troops Find Small Chemical Weapons Cache in Iraq

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,146
Tokens
Possible Iraqi Blister Gas Weapons Found
19 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Danish troops have found dozens of mortar rounds buried in Iraq (news - web sites) which initial chemical weapons tests show could contain blister gas, the Danish army said on Saturday.

The tests were taken after Danish troops found 36 120mm mortar rounds on Friday in southern Iraq.

"All the instruments showed indications of the same type of chemical compound, namely blister gas," the Danish Army Operational Command said on its Web site.

"However, this will not be confirmed until the final tests are available," it said in a statement. Results of the final tests are likely to be ready in about two days.

Blister gas, an illegal weapon which ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) said he had destroyed, was extensively used against the Iranians during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war.


Although it can kill if it enters the lungs, it is used mainly to weaken infantry by making the skin break out in excruciatingly painful blisters.

Four different types of instrument were used on three of the mortar rounds, the army said in its statement, adding that 100 more rounds could be buried at the site.

After Danish troops found the suspicious mortar shells they asked British specialists to analyze them, a Danish official had said earlier. "The first inspections have shown that the mortars contain some liquid," he said.

In Baghdad, the U.S. military said the mortar rounds had been found buried 45 miles south of Al-Amara, north of Basra.

"Most were wrapped in plastic bags, and some were leaking," Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt told a news conference, adding that it was likely the weapons were left over from the Iran-Iraq war.

ILLICIT WEAPONS

The Danish army statement said local Iraqis had confirmed that the 36 mortar shells had been buried for at least 10 years at the site 12 miles north of Qurnah.

There are several hundred Danish soldiers working with a British-led multinational force responsible for security in southern Iraq.

The U.S. administration had cited the threat of illicit weapons of mass destruction as a principle reason for launching war on Iraq in March last year. But no such weapons were found.

The United States earlier this month pulled out from Iraq a 400-member military team specializing in the disposal of weapons of mass destruction, in what the New York Times said was "a sign that administration might have lowered its sights" and viewed it as less likely that such weapons would be found.

But the White House played down the move, saying that the group focused on hunting weapons was remaining in Iraq.

(Additional reporting by Per Bech Thomsen in Copenhagen)

"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
818
Tokens
I call bullshit.

Okay, willing to bet now that these things couldn't be used in any way to threaten neighbors or the States as they are over 20 year old munitions from Iran-Iraq war.

Everyone knows Saddam once had wdm, but history has shown he was de-fanged after first Gulf War. Y'all will try and spin this as a great reason to go to war.

Let's all watch 60 Minutes tomorrow nite and see how former Bush admin US Treasury Secretary Paul O' Neil basically states that this admin was looking to agitate for invasion of Iraq from day one.

On top of that, interesting to see how Administration has downplayed the fact that 400 weapons disposal experts have been removed from Iraq. Why do you think that is?

I'll take the liberty of answering for you - cause Bush administration knows there is no WMD that are a credible threat to be found.

Saddam did not have WDM at time of war that could have been delivered to USA nor as Colin Powell will back up, was there a tie between Al-Queda and Saddam.

Like I said, total bullshit from probably the most dishonest administration outside of Nixon that has ever controlled the govt.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
735
Tokens
Mudbone,

Whether you think Iraq is a threat or not, you have to admit that the lack of paperwork recording their so-called destruction of the weapons was a nail in Iraq's coffin from the start. If Iraq was to be invaded regardless, then obviously it wouldn't have mattered. However, It would've put the onus on the United States not to over pursue the issue.
 

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Tokens
Just a moot point here - but your title is predictably inaccurate and equally misleading ...

The article clearly states -
".. which initial chemical weapons tests show could contain blister gas ...

yet, you've inaccurately opted to cite the article as " Danish Troops Find Small Chemical Weapons Cache in Iraq".

This is not entirely surprising considering the poster in question.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,146
Tokens
Lander, why don't you fly over to Iraq and check those shells out for yourself. Get a close look and make sure to take a DEEEEP breath when you do.

"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
 

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Tokens
I suppose that's one solution, but I think the solution of having you actually read the nonsense you post before you mis-title it would be the more sensible approach.

Best of luck with your efforts in comprehension.
1036316054.gif
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,146
Tokens
Hey, that title was cut and pasted right from the BBC web site. They have replaced it with a new article since then but that is what it said.

Am I wrong or would you be extremely disappointed if these shells actually contain mustard gas?

"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
 

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Tokens
Odd that BBC would post such inaccuracies, but ok.

Floyd,
It's irrelevant what my feelings are regarding the discovery of "mustard gas" because proof of or proof of lack of WMD will not bring back the innocent lives and billions of dollars that Bush has decided to destory. We are were we are - I simply hope America will contain the damage by making the right choice this November in ousting the appointed genocidal monarchist Bush.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,146
Tokens
"appointed" - WRONG, Bush won the greater number of electoral college votes (that is how you become President by the way).

"genocidal" - WRONG Do you know what that word means?? It means "the murder of an entire ethnic group". What race or ethnic group has Bush sought to completely murder??? Terrorists??

"monarchist" - WRONG If Bush is a monarchist, why is he running for re-election?? Wouldn't he just murder his rivals in a purge a la Stalin or Saddam???

Your hyperbole is farcical.

"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
 

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Tokens
"Originally posted by Floyd Gondolli:
"appointed" - WRONG, Bush won the greater number of electoral college votes (that is how you become President by the way).

Appointed by the Supreme Court.

"genocidal" - WRONG Do you know what that word means?? It means "the murder of an entire ethnic group". What race or ethnic group has Bush sought to completely murder??? Terrorists??
4 entries found for ethnic.
eth·nic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thnk)
adj.

Of or relating to a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage.

Key word - NATIONAL.

Did you know what the word meant?
icon_rolleyes.gif


"monarchist" - WRONG If Bush is a monarchist, why is he running for re-election?? Wouldn't he just murder his rivals in a purge a la Stalin or Saddam???
Huh? Queen Elizabeth hasn't "murdered her rivals" in England to retain the throne. I'm not sure you understand the word.

Your hyperbole is farcical.

My statements are not a hyperbole, there is nothing exaggerated about the simple truth.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,917
Tokens
Question for Lander,

If you could wave a magic wand now, would you reinstall Sadaam to power and set things back the way they were before the war?
 

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Tokens
Do you have any sensible questions or are "if pigs could fly" questions your manner of concession?

If I could waive a magic wand - I would change sheep like you into free thinkers, I would instill a government that cared about its people and I would focus our foreign policy on helping people instead of occupying them in the false name of democary for billions of dollars worth of canals, oils and so forth.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,917
Tokens
All I asked was a simple question that required a yes or a no and you go into name calling and answer a different question. What's the matter with you lefties anyway? And by the way it's wave not waive genius.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
14,280
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SENDITIN:
Question for Lander,

If you could wave a magic wand now, would you reinstall Sadaam to power and set things back the way they were before the war?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll answer your hypothetical right now, YES. I'm assuming this means we can go back to March 1 or whatever the date was just before the war was launched and proceed how I choose from there. Come to think of it I'm not sure it will help if Bush was still in power. As long as we're dreaming here, can I pick a different President?

That whole line about "Saddam in prison, not in power" is so idiotic it makes my skin crawl. There are a handful of dictators around the world that you could say the same thing about so does that mean war would be justified against those countries in retrospect if we capture their leader. Nonsense. It's the age-old "the end doesnt't (necessarily) justify the means".

It's kinda like a criminal in a car chase...you wanna catch him but if it means slamming into 50 cars and 10 pedestrians to put him in jail, then no, it's not better that he's in prison instead of on the streets.
 

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>All I asked was a simple question that required a yes or a no and you go into name calling and answer a different question. What's the matter with you lefties anyway? And by the way it's wave not waive genius.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly which name did I call you, genius?
icon_rolleyes.gif


All questions are not as simple as 'yes/no' because that would imply that there are only 2 choices for a given situation and that simply isn't true.

Let me pose this -
Senditin, are you still a pedophile?

Yes or no will suffice.

Get the point?
icon_rolleyes.gif
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,729
Tokens
"All I asked was a simple question that required a yes or a no and you go into name calling and answer a different question. What's the matter with you lefties anyway? And by the way it's wave not waive genius."

Don't waste your time Senditin. I've already been through this with him, whether Iraqis deserve basic freedoms, and he refused to answer. When your opinion is as morally repugnant as Lander's is, I guess I would also be too embarrassed to reply to that question.

Oh yeah, I forgot, it was a loaded question so it can't be answered.
 

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Tokens
PMS,
What purpose does it serve answering "if you could WAVE (for Mr. Spell Check) a magic wand"? It's 100% clear that since I am against the war, it's murder of thousands and it's $180,000,000,000 price tag (yes, that's billions) that if I could "WAVE a magic wand" I would not have unjustly invaded, bombed and occupied Iraq. I would not have done such because history dictates that it will NOT work (you need to look no further that Afghanistan). I would not have done such because we could feed and educate millions with that pricetag the destruction of a non-threatening country has burdened us with. There are a plether of reasons NOT to attack Iraq.


You defy logic, my misled friend , and frankly talking down to your level to no avail every single day is growing tiresome ...

but I suppose since we've covered this debate a hundred times I may as well entertain your delusiouns once more.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,917
Tokens
No I'm not a pedophile and never was...see that was easy!! As far as name calling reread your post...can you say bahhhhhhhhh. Even Phaedrus has gotten better at that and we all know how bad he was
icon_wink.gif


I asked would you set things back before the war started which meant Sadaam was in power...and D2 answered yes...
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,729
Tokens
"Let me pose this -
Senditin, are you still a pedophile?

Yes or no will suffice.

Get the point?"

I get the point. You're a retard.

What you are asking is whether a fact is true or false, given that the underlying assumption is true.
Therefore, more details are required to properly answer the question.

On the other hand, an OPINION, can always be answered with a simple yes or no, if the person chooses to answer honestly. Such examples include but are not limited to: Do you think Iraqis deserve basic human rights? Do you think Saddam should still be in power

In your example, you could ask, Do you think Senditin is a pedophile? There is a clear yes or no answer, as with Senditin's question to you.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,857
Messages
13,574,059
Members
100,876
Latest member
kiemt5385
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com