WMD 'smoking gun' turns out to be pesticide

[Crimson and Clover]

http://english.aljazeera.net/topics/article.asp?cu_no=1&item_no=2094&version=1&template_id=277&parent_id=258

WMD 'smoking gun' turns out to be pesticide

In the latest false alarm for evidence that would help justify the US-led invasion of Iraq, a military officer announced that pesticide, not deadly sarin gas, was found at a chemical facility south of Baghdad

Earlier, a spokesman for the US army's 3rd Infantry Division, Major Ross Coffman, told journalists at Baghdad's airport that the site "could be a smoking gun".

"We are talking about finding a site of possible weapons of mass destruction," he said.

But Captain Adam Mastrianni, told AFP that initial tests disproved the preliminary results and established that pesticide was in fact the substance involved.

Mastrianni said: "They thought it was a nerve agent. That's what it tested. But it is pesticide."

It was not the first time chemical weapons were thought to have been discovered.

On March 23, Fox News and the Jerusalem Post reported a “huge” chemical weapons factory near the Iraqi city of Najaf.

Yet US commanders, ordering troops to shed protective suits, now seem unconcerned about a much-anticipated chemical, biological, or nuclear attack from Iraqi forces.

"It's great to have them off," Lieutenant Colonel Fred Padilla, commander of the 1st Marines Battalion, said after receiving an order from his superiors.

"They made an assessment and they determined there was not a
serious threat right now," he said.

There was little talk of the “smoking gun” at the US command headquarters in Qatar. "We don't have any extraordinary finds at this point while we're still looking," said spokesman US Brigadier General Vincent Brooks at a news conference.

The Bush administration has repeatedly claimed it was justified in bypassing the UN Security Council and launching an invasion of Iraq, because of the threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

But it is ironic, said Al Jazeera analyst Mohammed Ja’afar that both UN inspectors, and US-led troops, despite their deep thrust into the country, have not found any nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has also vehemently denied he possessed such weapons.--- Al Jazeera with agency inputs

[laceyinthesky]

:lol: That's too funny

[Jem]

That is too funny. :lol: Weren't some people on these boards saying WHAT IF there were no weapons of mass destruction found? What if these "weapons" that the U.S.A. is looking for don't even exist? They would look so foolish. Attacking the country of Iraq and for what? For nothing.

[Fleet]

It's those who claim "there's no evidence that Iraq has WMD" who will look foolish.
There have been found 30 missiles with chemical weapons in their tips. Ready to fire. That is Weapons of Mass Destruction!
As I said, it is very, very unlikely that there are no WMD in Iraq. Even Saddam admitted to having (and using) biological weapons.
I think most of these are stored underground. Have patience; they will be found.
"Atacking Iraq for nothing?" When Iraqi citizens ask the troops, "What took you so long," I would hardly call that for nothing. When a dictator is likely to have ties with al Qaeda, I would not call that "for nothing." When this same dictator has killed thousands of Iraqis, that is not "for nothing." When a terroist training facility was found, that is not "for nothing" (see link below)
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/4/6/144706

[Kitt]

Originally posted by Fleet
It's those who claim "there's no evidence that Iraq has WMD" who will look foolish.
If at some time WMD's turn up then that's wnen they turn up. In the mean time Bush and company and the military have made false or dishonest claims or jumped the gun over and over. Each time the claims are made you do your version of the Mexican hat dance. A day or two later the claims turn out to be false so you calm down for about one minute. I've been follwing the evidence or lack of it. I've not said that they don't have them, I've said that the eviidence has not shown that they have them. We invaded Iraq resulting in all of the usual horrors of war on what were and still are false claims. Even if WMD's eventually show up it doesn't mean we had to ravage the country and its population to find them.

[Fleet]

20 missiles with chemical warheads found...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47645-2003Apr7.html

How else can we find these WMD without invading (and removing Saddam)? Go through the U.N.? Yeah, that woked out great when we tried that a few months ago. :lol:

[theshark8777]

Yeah if there's one news agency I'd believe it's definitely Al-Jazeera...

After all, they did say they thought it could be pesticides when they found it...

[Kitt]

Originally posted by Fleet
How else can we find these WMD without invading (and removing Saddam)? Go through the U.N.? Yeah, that woked out great when we tried that a few months ago. :lol: As a matter of fact it was working just fine. And they didn't have to kill or cripple anyone to find them.

[theshark8777]

Originally posted by Kitt
As a matter of fact it was working just fine. And they didn't have to kill or cripple anyone to find them.

Yeah right...

[Kitt]

Originally posted by theshark8777


Yeah right... "Is that your final answer?" If so I think you will not win the million dollars. Questions actually require an answer rather than a schoolyard sneer.

[theshark8777]

Yeah thats my final answer. Inspections were not working. They had missles that violated the resolution and a drone that was illeagal. Hans Blix didn't even report the drone even though he found it, so obviously inspections didn't work.

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Kitt
As a matter of fact it was working just fine. And they didn't have to kill or cripple anyone to find them.
When two Iraqi officials (whose phone call was intercepted) were laughing as to how easy it was to fool the inspectors, I don't think it was working "just fine." Again, all the Iraqi military had to do was move the weapons around, or store them in underground bunkers which the inspectors would have no idea they were there. And, if we didn't go in there, Saddam would still be killing and crippling (and torturing) Iraqis.

[Kitt]

Every other accusation and rumor has fallen through. This last one may also fall through.

The inspectors were assigned to a job. They had their legs cut out from them. Bush and company never wanted inspections to begin with, they wanted war. The inspections were working but it didn't matter to Powell and Bush. They told lie after lie in a campaign to undermine the process.

Powell sat in front of the security council and told them and the world about a document regarding biological weapons in Iraq. That turned out to be a fraud. Powell knew the document was a fraud as he was speaking.

Bush told the American people in his State of the Union Adress about nuclear ingredients sold to Iraq from Nigeria. That Was a lie and Bush knew that as he was saying it.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by Fleet

When two Iraqi officials (whose phone call was intercepted) were laughing as to how easy it was to fool the inspectors, I don't think it was working "just fine." Again, all the Iraqi military had to do was move the weapons around, or store them in underground bunkers which the inspectors would have no idea they were there. And, if we didn't go in there, Saddam would still be killing and crippling (and torturing) Iraqis. BS. Powell told that rediculous story complete with cartoon pictures of trucks supposedly moving stuff around. The Inspections team gave us the real story which proved that Powell was, once again, making **** up. His story was bunk, fabricated, nonsense, untrue, lies and garbage.

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Kitt
BS. Powell told that rediculous story complete with cartoon pictures of trucks supposedly moving stuff around. The Inspections team gave us the real story which proved that Powell was, once again, making **** up. His story was bunk, fabricated, nonsense, untrue, lies and garbage.
Then why would those two (on the phone) say it was easy to fool the inspectors? As I said, there are also underground storage areas. Why you continue to defend the Iraqi gov't is beyond me. (Former gov't, that is.)

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Kitt
The inspectors were assigned to a job. They had their legs cut out from them. Bush and company never wanted inspections to begin with, they wanted war. The inspections were working but it didn't matter to Powell and Bush. They told lie after lie in a campaign to undermine the process.

The inspections could never have worked. It turns out there was only one way to find WMD, now and in the coming days and weeks... by force. The Iraqi gov't was not cooperating with the inspectors (no surprise). Here is a question.... if the inspections continued, how many more innocent Iraqi citizens (including children) would have been murdered, tortured and raped while the "inspections" were going on? Or, what if no WMD were not found (even though all sensible people know they are there) and Saddam's regime was allowed to continue? How many more Iraqis would have been killed? How many innocent people would never have the chance for freedom. And, one more, do you think Iraqis should have the chance to experience the freedom you and I enjoy?

[Kitt]

Originally posted by Fleet

Then why would those two (on the phone) say it was easy to fool the inspectors? As I said, there are also underground storage areas. Why you continue to defend the Iraqi gov't is beyond me. (Former gov't, that is.) It's beyond you because your contorted lies about me are, as usual, incorrect and reactionary. I'm not defending the Iraqi government. I'm applauding the work of the Inspections crews. I'm condemning the propaganda and the lies that the the U.S. government put out to undermine the inspectors.

[Max Whittaker]

Originally posted by Kitt
It's beyond you because your contorted lies about me are, as usual, incorrect and reactionary. I'm not defending the Iraqi government. I'm applauding the work of the Inspections crews. I'm condemning the propaganda and the lies that the the U.S. government put out to undermine the inspectors.

:clap:

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Kitt
It's beyond you because your contorted lies about me are, as usual, incorrect and reactionary. I'm not defending the Iraqi government. I'm applauding the work of the Inspections crews. I'm condemning the propaganda and the lies that the the U.S. government put out to undermine the inspectors.
They (weapons inspectors) didn't do anything! It took the real "weapons inspectors..." the U.S. and Coalition troops to find those missiles with chemical warheads.
BTW, you did not answer my questions. At least answer the last one- Should Iraqi citizens have a chance to enjoy the freedom you and I cherish?

[Max Whittaker]

Why do you guys bother to argue this anymore? It is obvious nobody will budge on this issue.

[Fleet]

Maybe so... but hopefully some Democrats/liberals will realize that by the use of force, millions of Iraqis will now have a chance for freedom, and the murdering/torturing/raping by a brutal dictator and his henchmen have ended.
Besides, what else are we going to talk about on a political board? :)

[Max Whittaker]

Originally posted by Fleet
...Besides, what else are we going to talk about on a political board?
Well, you've got a point there!

[°Bubbly Blonde°]

Originally posted by Fleet

...Besides, what else are we going to talk about on a political board? TRUE DAT!!!!

[°Bubbly Blonde°]

Originally posted by Fleet


BTW, you did not answer my questions. At least answer the last one- Should Iraqi citizens have a chance to enjoy the freedom you and I cherish? yes. DUUUUUUH!!

[Kitt]

Originally posted by Fleet

They (weapons inspectors) didn't do anything! It took the real "weapons inspectors..." the U.S. and Coalition troops to find those missiles with chemical warheads.
BTW, you did not answer my questions. At least answer the last one- Should Iraqi citizens have a chance to enjoy the freedom you and I cherish? BTW, did you not answer my questions? Did Powell and Bush tell tons of lies to get their war plan in motion?

"Coalition troops" didn't find the supposed weapons. The U.S. 101 st Airborne found these supposed weapons. You'd do well to knock off the BS with the word "coalition". This is a US invasion, not a coalition invasion.

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Kitt
BTW, did you not answer my questions? Did Powell and Bush tell tons of lies to get their war plan in motion?

"Coalition troops" didn't find the supposed weapons. The U.S. 101 st Airborne found these supposed weapons. You'd do well to knock off the BS with the word "coalition". This is a US invasion, not a coalition invasion.
1. No, they relied on info available at the time. Bush & Powell have been right about this war... Iraqis have been tortured, raped and murdered under Saddam's regime. We will shortly find out that there are even more WMD. Bush said Saddam will be removed, and that is exactly what is happening (or happened). Bush has saved thousands of Iraqi lives by liberating Iraq and some people will never admit it.
2. Strange, I thought I saw British troops inside Iraq!

You STILL did not answer my question.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by Fleet

1You STILL did not answer my question. They had the info, they knew the info, and they lied about the info. And you know that.

The Brits had nothing to do with the alledged find that you mentioned in your post. So nevernind your two part so called "coalition".

Maybe if you had to sacrifice both your arms and your entire family or your life you would not be blindly and constantly praising Bush. All of these made up deaths you pretend that Bush saved do nothing to change the absolute and real deaths that Bush caused.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Kitt
All of these made up deaths you pretend that Bush saved do nothing to change the absolute and real deaths that Bush caused.

Can you find me a source that gives a confirmed total of the amount of Iraqis that have died as a result this war? I'm not talking about just estimates and assumptions I mean an accurate sum. If you know how many deaths were caused by Bush (or rather the U.S. troops; you're talking as if he killed them himself), then I'd like to see the numbers.

[theshark8777]

Originally posted by Fleet
Maybe so... but hopefully some Democrats/liberals will realize that by the use of force, millions of Iraqis will now have a chance for freedom, and the murdering/torturing/raping by a brutal dictator and his henchmen have ended.
Besides, what else are we going to talk about on a political board? :)

I resent that, I'm a Democrat/Liberal and I'm on your side.

[theshark8777]

Originally posted by Kitt


"Coalition troops" didn't find the supposed weapons. The U.S. 101 st Airborne found these supposed weapons. You'd do well to knock off the BS with the word "coalition". This is a US invasion, not a coalition invasion.

Okay so you say coalition troops didn't find the supposed weapons, it was the 101st, okay I'll buy that. Then you say this is a US invasion not a coalition one? Huh? There are Brits and Austrailians in there, therefore I'd say it's more that just the US.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by theshark8777


Okay so you say coalition troops didn't find the supposed weapons, it was the 101st, okay I'll buy that. Then you say this is a US invasion not a coalition one? Huh? There are Brits and Austrailians in there, therefore I'd say it's more that just the US. Yes we all know that the Brits and a handful of Aussies are there. Gulf one coalition was 34 active nations, Gulf 2 is 2 active Nations plus a few Aussies. That's a stretch of the use of the word 'coalition'.

[theshark8777]

Originally posted by Kitt
Yes we all know that the Brits and a handful of Aussies are there. Gulf one coalition was 34 active nations, Gulf 2 is 2 active Nations plus a few Aussies. That's a stretch of the use of the word 'coalition'.

I agree... But it's still not "just" a US invasion.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by theshark8777


I agree... But it's still not "just" a US invasion. Okay, how about Robert Fisk's title, "Anglo American Invaders?" I'll go along with that description.

Published on Monday, April 7, 2003 by the lndependent/UK
The Twisted Language of War That is Used to Justify the Unjustifiable
by Robert Fisk

Why do we aid and abet the lies and propaganda of this filthy war? How come, for example, it's now BBC "style" to describe the Anglo-American invaders as the "coalition". This is a lie. The "coalition" that we're obviously supposed to remember is the one forged to drive Iraqi occupation troops from Kuwait in 1991, an alliance involving dozens of countries – almost all of whom now condemn President Bush Junior's adventure in Iraq. There are a few Australian special forces swanning about in the desert, courtesy of the country's eccentric Prime Minister, John Howard, but that's it.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by theshark8777
Yeah thats my final answer. Inspections were not working. They had missles that violated the resolution and a drone that was illeagal. Hans Blix didn't even report the drone even though he found it, so obviously inspections didn't work. I don't know if the missles are what they've been rumored to be as yet or not and neither do you. Besides, the inspections weren't completed. Someone asks you to build a house and stops you midway through and tells you your roof is going to let the rain in. Well if you hadn't gotten that far yet then that would be an unfair critisizm. Wouldn't it?

The drone story sounds as though it was another attempt by Bush/Powell and company to build their case by distorting facts to suit thei needs. Either way it wouldn't be grounds for invasion if Blix were to neglect to tell the Security Council something the moment that Powell decided that he should There were pages and pages of information to discuss. But anyway, read about the "dangerous" drone.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/breaking_news/5373846.htm

Posted on Wed, Mar. 12, 2003

Iraq Shows Drone Powell Called Dangerous
NIKO PRICE
Associated Press

AL-TAJI, Iraq - Iraq on Wednesday displayed a drone aircraft that resembled a large model plane, disputing U.S. claims that it represents a grave danger. Arab fighters, meanwhile, trained with Iraqi special forces for a war with America.

The U.N. mission that patrols the border between Iraq and neighboring Kuwait, where U.S. Army and Marines are deploying, said it would move some of its observers on both sides of the frontier to headquarters in Kuwait in response to an increased alert level implemented Saturday.

Part of Washington's rush is based on its fears that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction, and U.S. officials have cited as proof what they called an undeclared drone that Iraq was developing to spread chemical and biological weapons.
But Iraq showed journalists Wednesday what it said was the drone. Made mostly of balsa wood and held together with screws and duct tape, it had two small propellers attached to what looked like the engines of a weed whacker.

In New York, Ewen Buchanan, spokesman for chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, said after inspectors examined photographs of the drone: "Yes, it would appear to be the drone with the 7.45 meter (24.5 foot) wingspan that was discovered by inspectors recently."

Officials of the Ibn Firnas State Company, in the al-Taji area just north of Baghdad, said the drone is a prototype designed for reconnaissance, jamming and aerial photography.

They said it couldn't possibly be used to spread weapons of mass destruction, and accused Secretary of State Colin Powell of misleading the world by saying it could. Powell told the U.N. Security Council that the drone "should be of concern to everybody."

"He's making a big mistake," said Brig. Imad Abdul Latif, the project director for the drone. "He knows very well that this aircraft is not used for what he said."

The aircraft is guided by a controller on the ground, who has to be able to see the plane to direct it, Latif said. He said the controls have a range of five miles - a fraction of a U.N.-imposed limit of 93 miles.

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, complained this weekend that Blix didn't mention the drone in his oral presentation to the Security Council on Friday.

Blix mentioned the drone in a 173-page written list of outstanding questions about Iraq's weapons programs last week. While small, Blix said, drones can be used to spray biological warfare agents such as anthrax. He said the drone hadn't been declared by Iraq to inspectors.

But Iraq insisted it declared the drone in a report in January, and Hiro Ueki, spokesman for the Baghdad inspectors, confirmed that. Ibn Firnas' general director, Gen. Ibrahim Hussein, said the confusion was the result of a typographical error: The declaration said the wingspan was 14.5 feet instead of 24.4 feet.

"When we discovered the mistake we addressed an official letter correcting the wingspan," he said.

Ueki confirmed that, saying Iraq declared a drone called the RPV-30A on Jan. 15 and pointed out what it called a typo on Feb. 18 - a day after inspectors visited the airfield and saw the drone.
But Ueki said he couldn't confirm that the specifications Iraq declared matched what the inspectors saw, and said the drone issue was "under active investigation."
.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by BJL


Can you find me a source that gives a confirmed total of the amount of Iraqis that have died as a result this war? I'm not talking about just estimates and assumptions I mean an accurate sum. If you know how many deaths were caused by Bush (or rather the U.S. troops; you're talking as if he killed them himself), then I'd like to see the numbers.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

According that site the count is now at between 1,100 to 1,400 civilians. Also, I take into account the thousands of Iraqi soldiers who have died. Not to mention the grief their families are suffering. Most of the soldiers are consciripted against their will and would be alive today if not for this invasion.

[Fleet]

Originally posted by theshark8777
I resent that, I'm a Democrat/Liberal and I'm on your side.
I meant the wacko, 100%, pro-high tax, pro-big gov't, pro-socialist gov't, anti-anywar, liberal.
Perhaps you are not as liberal as you think you are?
Anyway, I'm glad you on the right side.

[theshark8777]

Well I am against the war, but I don't sit here and deny anything that Saddam has done in the past, or that he more than likely still has WMD somewhere. I'm actually more in the middle, maybe a tad to the left.

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Kitt
Maybe if you had to sacrifice both your arms and your entire family or your life you would not be blindly and constantly praising Bush. All of these made up deaths you pretend that Bush saved do nothing to change the absolute and real deaths that Bush caused.
You just don't get it, do you? Bush has not "caused" any deaths- Saddam has.
What made up deaths? Hundreds, even thousands of Iraqis would still have been tortured and murdered if we didn't go in and liberate Iraq. Should we have just not bothered and let the murdering continue?

[Fleet]

Originally posted by theshark8777
Well I am against the war, but I don't sit here and deny anything that Saddam has done in the past, or that he more than likely still has WMD somewhere. I'm actually more in the middle, maybe a tad to the left.
Maybe you're against the war, but the Iraqis were not- they wanted the U.S. to come in and liberate them. And that's what happened.
If you really want to know how the Iraqis feel about this, read the excellent thread, "Very Good Article."

[Kitt]

Originally posted by Fleet

You just don't get it, do you? Bush has not "caused" any deaths- Saddam has.
What made up deaths? Hundreds, even thousands of Iraqis would still have been tortured and murdered if we didn't go in and liberate Iraq. Should we have just not bothered and let the murdering continue? Not one of your hundreds or thousands of deaths is real. Every one of 100 or so US and British soldiers deaths because of this invasion are all to real. Every one of the 1,400 Iraqi civilian deaths and thousands of injuries are all too real because of this invasion. Every one of the thousands of Iraqi soldier deaths (most of them just unwitting kids) are all too real because of this unecessary invasion.

When you ask,"Should we have not bothered and let the murdering continue?" you're not talking to me, because I never said that. It would help if you could be just the least bit honest in your conversations with me. You could try to make a miniscule attempt to ask questions that aren't nonsensical and apply to the reality of what I've been saying. Making up questions that have nothing to do with my position are a waste of time.

[Crimson and Clover]

Originally posted by Fleet

I meant the wacko, 100%, pro-high tax, pro-big gov't, pro-socialist gov't, anti-anywar, liberal.
Perhaps you are not as liberal as you think you are?
Anyway, I'm glad you on the right side.

i and many liberals i know are not pro high tax. i know a lot that dont pay taxes because they dont want support the big government. there is no right side and there is no wrong side. someones opinions cant be right or wrong.

[Max Whittaker]

Originally posted by Fleet

I meant the wacko, 100%, pro-high tax, pro-big gov't, pro-socialist gov't, anti-anywar, liberal.
Perhaps you are not as liberal as you think you are?
Anyway, I'm glad you on the right side.

There is no right side!

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Max Whittaker
There is no right side!
There sure is, and you ain't on it. :)

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Crimson_and_Clover
i and many liberals i know are not pro high tax. i know a lot that dont pay taxes because they dont want support the big government. there is no right side and there is no wrong side. someones opinions cant be right or wrong.
A "classic" or "hardcore" liberal is pro-high tax. You are probably not one of those (which is good).