US soldiers found a Chemical Factory in Iraq

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&e=1&u=/ap/20030324/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_chemical_plant

Glad to see that the US gov't wasn't just lying to us. Also, the facility is 100 acres long. How the hell did the UN inspectors miss that? I wonder what will be the world's reaction.

i am very curius to see how this all unfolds if it is truly a chemical weapons plant...

-GTi-VR6_A3

It's premature, as the story reported. Remember that Iraq has said the chemicals they have are for industrial, not military, purposes.

How was this missed before??? :confused: 100 acres is QUITE large. I guess we'll figure out what's up when the official "verdict" comes out.

Originally posted by Milliardo
It's premature, as the story reported. Remember that Iraq has said the chemicals they have are for industrial, not military, purposes.

If this story took place in probably any other country besides Iraq (let's say that the US is hypothetically having a war with another country), I would probably cast doubt on this accusation of chemical weapons. But, given that this is Saddam Hussein, who we all know is "honest and trustworthy", I kind of biasedly believe these allegations more than I actually should. But, I should wait before I cast my stones. We'll see what happens.

As part of this story, there was an Iraqi general who was there and is answering questions. It does beg the question, why would an Iraqi general be at an industrial chemical facility?

Originally posted by YogsVR4
As part of this story, there was an Iraqi general who was there and is answering questions. It does beg the question, why would an Iraqi general be at an industrial chemical facility?

Remember that Iraq is a military dictatorship, so it would make perfect sense that most installations would be in the hands of the military, especially generals.

Originally posted by Milliardo


Remember that Iraq is a military dictatorship, so it would make perfect sense that most installations would be in the hands of the military, especially generals.

In China, most of the large industries are run by the army. The generals do not live and work at them unless they are military in nature. The fact that a military dictatorship is in charge of the country (at least at the time this was written) does not necessarily lead to there being a army and specifically a high ranking officer present at the installation.

Originally posted by YogsVR4
In China, most of the large industries are run by the army. The generals do not live and work at them unless they are military in nature. The fact that a military dictatorship is in charge of the country (at least at the time this was written) does not necessarily lead to there being a army and specifically a high ranking officer present at the installation.

China has long left that state wherein the military is in full control, to a now more open, market-oriented society. Such is not the case with Iraq, thus ownership, or at least overseeing, facilities, is done by the military. Saddam is only following an old and simple rule: keep your military happy in order to stay in power. If he didn't, he would've been long deposed by a very discontented military.

Originally posted by Milliardo


China has long left that state wherein the military is in full control, to a now more open, market-oriented society. Such is not the case with Iraq, thus ownership, or at least overseeing, facilities, is done by the military. Saddam is only following an old and simple rule: keep your military happy in order to stay in power. If he didn't, he would've been long deposed by a very discontented military.

I going to have to claim ignorance on my part on this issue. I don't really know much about the Iraqi military ownership of factories and facilities. Can you give any factual examples were such is the case in Iraq, especially where a General is in control a such a facility (let alone a chemical factory). To me, it just personally it just feels peculiar to have a general stationed at chemical factory to keep hte military happy?

I can't give examples in Iraq about it; however, where I lived, back in the days of Martial Law then President Marcos gave his generals key positions in both government and businesses taken over by the government. Since his was of Martial Rule, then the military had control in almost all public and private sectors. Saddam did the same thing here: it's one of Machiavelli's rules, that you must keep your military happy, or else they will become discontent and overthrow you. To give another example, Roman emperors who were exceptionally cruel were also, surprisingly, exceptionally negligent of their military. Examples would be Nero and Caligula, whose despotic rules were thankfully short. Those emperors who kept their rules long kept the military happy with lavish pays. So that is one basic rule in government: keep your military content. Having your generals join in your fun would keep them busy, and forget about thinking of a revolt.

Originally posted by Milliardo
I can't give examples in Iraq about it; however, where I lived, back in the days of Martial Law then President Marcos gave his generals key positions in both government and businesses taken over by the government. Since his was of Martial Rule, then the military had control in almost all public and private sectors. Saddam did the same thing here: it's one of Machiavelli's rules, that you must keep your military happy, or else they will become discontent and overthrow you. To give another example, Roman emperors who were exceptionally cruel were also, surprisingly, exceptionally negligent of their military. Examples would be Nero and Caligula, whose despotic rules were thankfully short. Those emperors who kept their rules long kept the military happy with lavish pays. So that is one basic rule in government: keep your military content. Having your generals join in your fun would keep them busy, and forget about thinking of a revolt.

so you still dotn know why the general was at the plant. you knwo who deos knwo the general and the guy that hes is telling all the info to. so for all you knwo what you are speculating is just as viable as wheat we are...

-GTi-VR6_A3

Originally posted by GTi-VR6_A3
so you still dotn know why the general was at the plant. you knwo who deos knwo the general and the guy that hes is telling all the info to. so for all you knwo what you are speculating is just as viable as wheat we are...

-GTi-VR6_A3

No, if you're trying to say that a general is in a chemical plant because it might be a weapons chemical plant, then you're coming to a premature conclusion. You want to already to put the finger on Iraq so bad that you will have that as "proof". It's no proof--like I said, Saddam's Iraq is a military dictatorship, so it is the norm in said regimes to place military personnel in positions in government, especially key installations. That does not mean those said installations have to do with weapons or the military; it's merely to ensure the regime's survival. Think of it as having mutually exclusive relationship: you feed me, and I feed you. Both sides then are happy: Saddam is content with his security, since he keeps his military happy. His military is likewise happy since they have their toys to play with, with profit on the side as a bonus. That's how military dictatorships work. You're trying to fish out something incriminating, but in such a regime having the military in various places is perfectly normal.

Originally posted by Milliardo


No, if you're trying to say that a general is in a chemical plant because it might be a weapons chemical plant, then you're coming to a premature conclusion. You want to already to put the finger on Iraq so bad that you will have that as "proof". It's no proof--like I said, Saddam's Iraq is a military dictatorship, so it is the norm in said regimes to place military personnel in positions in government, especially key installations. That does not mean those said installations have to do with weapons or the military; it's merely to ensure the regime's survival. Think of it as having mutually exclusive relationship: you feed me, and I feed you. Both sides then are happy: Saddam is content with his security, since he keeps his military happy. His military is likewise happy since they have their toys to play with, with profit on the side as a bonus. That's how military dictatorships work. You're trying to fish out something incriminating, but in such a regime having the military in various places is perfectly normal.

first i never said he was there because it was a plant i just said that as a posibilty as it seems rational. i have yet to pint a finger if you read up. you are just trying to make the same statement i am but on the other side of things. i still dont see how runnign achem plant woudl keep a general happy though. to keep military happy according to machiavelli you wage war not engage in commerce. and saying that they have toys to play with leads to the idea that maybe the place woudl be a great place for a general to make toys(weapons). there are many flaws in your most recent arguement

-GTi-VR6_A3

Originally posted by GTi-VR6_A3
first i never said he was there because it was a plant i just said that as a posibilty as it seems rational.

Let's just say I can already see it coming some distance away. Since you can't accept that having a general in such a plant is perfectly normal in such a regime, what else would that imply? You're simply trying to fish out something that is incriminating.

you are just trying to make the same statement i am but on the other side of things.

Nope, we're saying two different things.

i still dont see how runnign achem plant woudl keep a general happy though.

It's all about profits. Since you can sell chemicals, those generals will be happy to have a share of the profits.

to keep military happy according to machiavelli you wage war not engage in commerce.

Machiavelli didn't write The Prince just for war; it's a practical guide on statemanship, actually. One of the premises of the book is that a government doesn't have to be well-loved; it simply has to keep the people content so as not to incite riots and rebellions.

and saying that they have toys to play with leads to the idea that maybe the place woudl be a great place for a general to make toys(weapons).

When we say toys, it doesn't just mean military hardware. For any regime, be it democratic, dictatorship, Communist or whatever else, a toy is something that is profitable for it. Military hardware is just one sort of toy. Power plants, communication facilities, and anything that actually would be profitable for a government is a toy, for as long as the government has direct control over it. So, snce Saddam and his boys have control of most of Iraq, such things are their toys to play with, whether they be militarily related or not.

Originally posted by Milliardo
It's premature, as the story reported. Remember that Iraq has said the chemicals they have are for industrial, not military, purposes.

Then wasn't it kind of premature for the anti-war supporters to say that there was no biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. How did they know????:rolleyes: :rolleyes: We'll never know....:D :D

Originally posted by Milliardo


China has long left that state wherein the military is in full control, to a now more open, market-oriented society. Such is not the case with Iraq, thus ownership, or at least overseeing, facilities, is done by the military. Saddam is only following an old and simple rule: keep your military happy in order to stay in power. If he didn't, he would've been long deposed by a very discontented military.

Incorrect. In China, the military has control over a large portion of their industry. The fact they are going to a more open market is causing strife with the military because the goverment wants to take control away.

Originally posted by Pick
Then wasn't it kind of premature for the anti-war supporters to say that there was no biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. How did they know????:rolleyes: :rolleyes: We'll never know....:D :D

No anti-war protester has concluded that Saddam doesn't have bio weapons. The issue was to let U.N. inspectors have more time in looking for them. Though for the record, it has been almost a week, and U.S. forces there have yet to find such things that are used for war.

And thanks, Yugs, you just confirmed that the military does still have control of a large portion of China. There you go, GTi. I guess that's another example of a country which as the military in control of almost all aspects of industry, and a country on its way, if not already, to a market-oriented economy.

Originally posted by Milliardo


No anti-war protester has concluded that Saddam doesn't have bio weapons. The issue was to let U.N. inspectors have more time in looking for them. Though for the record, it has been almost a week, and U.S. forces there have yet to find such things that are used for war.


No, we didn't find any weapons of mass destruction yet, but don't you find a lot of the things we are finding odd?? In that hospital in Nasiriyah, US troops found 3000+ chemical suits a long with 172 Iraqi troops. What praytell would the Iraqi soldiers need the chemical suits for. Hmm, I wonder. What about the intel. reports that the Iraqi leadership has authorized the use of chemical weapons on coalition forces once they cross the line between Karbola and Baghdad (I not sure if these are the correct cities mentioned in the intel report). Then there is that chemical factory and those SCUDs... In short, nothing has been confirmed about the presence of WMD in Iraq but all this looks so suspicious. And, I wouldn't expect the US soldiers to find chem weapons during the first five days of war anyway, unless the Iraqi gov't stupidly left hem out in the open or something were the US soldiers could easily spot them. But, I doubt that since the UN inspectors weren't even able to find these types of weapons out in the open. I think Iraq would do a much better job hiding these weapons than that. Once the US has taken control of Iraq, then the search process for WMD will begin and that's when I think WMD will be found. Centcom believes that much of the WMD are stored in Baghdad anyway, so we will see which country is telling the truth when that time comes.

Originally posted by rsxer45
No, we didn't find any weapons of mass destruction yet, but don't you find a lot of the things we are finding odd?? In that hospital in Nasiriyah, US troops found 3000+ chemical suits a long with 172 Iraqi troops.

It's a hospital, they're supposed to be prepared, and having Iraqi troops there at this time isn't odd...unless you think Iraqis will just give up any vital installation they have.

What praytell would the Iraqi soldiers need the chemical suits for.

They're prepared for war. U.S. troops have chemical weapons suits with them; does that mean the U.S. have those weapons (that's just rhetorical, though anyone with any sense knows they're still stocked somewhere).

What about the intel. reports that the Iraqi leadership has authorized the use of chemical weapons on coalition forces once they cross the line between Karbola and Baghdad (I not sure if these are the correct cities mentioned in the intel report).

Intelligence reports are still subject for verification. Such reports are only gathered from field agents, but most of these reports have yet to be verified.

Then there is that chemical factory and those SCUDs... In short, nothing has been confirmed about the presence of WMD in Iraq but all this looks so suspicious.

Nothing is confirmed, so that should be that. Until there is solid evidence, then all we have are speculations. We've discussed about the factory here, as well as the Scuds in another thread.

And, I wouldn't expect the US soldiers to find chem weapons during the first five days of war anyway, unless the Iraqi gov't stupidly left hem out in the open or something were the US soldiers could easily spot them.

Wasn't the U.S. government charging that the U.N. should've found those weapons when "intelligence" has it that there are such weapons? How come they suddenly can't be found? Shouldn't it be that, since U.S. "intelligence" have supposedly found them, the first thing the U.S. military should've done was to secure those facilities? Why is it that the U.S. is searching for it now? Ooppss--Bush's advisers seem to have made a mistake, and let that loophole slip. So far no American seems to have thought of that...

Wasn't the U.S. government charging that the U.N. should've found those weapons when "intelligence" has it that there are such weapons? How come they suddenly can't be found? Shouldn't it be that, since U.S. "intelligence" have supposedly found them, the first thing the U.S. military should've done was to secure those facilities? Why is it that the U.S. is searching for it now? Ooppss--Bush's advisers seem to have made a mistake, and let that loophole slip. So far no American seems to have thought of that...

Milliardo you are so obviously Antiamerican its getting funny. You always seem to turn whats obvious to the majority of others around to where it fits your way of thinking. I'm beginning to wonder if you actually Saddam's buttbuddy. Do you know how many of Iraqi's he's killed? Do you know how many times the UN has issued sanctions against him? Do you know that his own people have attemped to kill him and his sons? Do you have a clue about anything other then the lunitic ravings going on in your own mind?

Originally posted by Milliardo


It's a hospital, they're supposed to be prepared, and having Iraqi troops there at this time isn't odd...unless you think Iraqis will just give up any vital installation they have.

Prepared for what....a US chemical attack??? I think not. Why would US troops use chemical weapons during a war, whose purpose according to the US is to remove these weapons of mass destruction. Be logical here. If there is a chemical attack it is going to be from the Iraqi's and not the Americans. The hospital didn't even have any patients there so who will they protect with the chemical suits??? In my opinion, the Iraqi soldiers brought these suits there with the intent on using chemical weapons in the near future.

ps-Let's say you are right and the hospital has these suits here to be prepared. Then, obviously the Iraqi people themselves don't have much trust in there own gov't. Something fishy is going on that is looking more and more like the Iraqis are lying about the these chemical weapons.

In response to your other comments, I would like to reaffirm that it has only been FIVE DAYS since this war has started. I think the main objective of the US military is to overthrow the regime first before searching for these weapons. You can't start searching for WMD when you still have large pockets of heavy resistance out to fight you. I don't mean to sound insulting in any of my comments, but you have to see some of the logic here.

Finally, I agree with you that nothing is confirmed yet, and all my comments are speculation. But, on the same note I don't want to hold all of these non-confirmed events in an apathetic light just because they aren't "smoking guns" for a fear of deluding myself. Let's be realistic here.

Originally posted by rsxer45
Prepared for what....a US chemical attack??? I think not.

In any eventuality, it helps to be prepared. Even Israel have chemical suits.

Why would US troops use chemical weapons during a war, whose purpose according to the US is to remove these weapons of mass destruction.

Nope, didn't say the U.S. brought their chemical weapons with them. But maybe you must be confirming it for us, which we'll gladly accept as an admission that the U.S. does stock chemical weapons.

The hospital didn't even have any patients there so who will they protect with the chemical suits??? In my opinion, the Iraqi soldiers brought these suits there will possible intent on using chemical weapons in the near future.

They're being prepared for anything. It's not only the U.S. that is after Iraq; there's next door neighbor Iran. Plus, like I said, just like Israel they're most likely preparing for any eventuality.

Let's say you are right and the hospital has these suits here to be prepared. Then, obviously the Iraqi people themselves don't have much trust in there own gov't.

Wow, we already jumped to the conclusion that Saddam is going to use chemical weapons. What made you suddenly better than the U.N.?

In response to your other comments, I would like to reaffirm that it has only been FIVE DAYS since this war has started.

If it's just been five days, then why did you already jump to the conclusion above that Iraq has chemical weapons?

I think the main objective of the US military is to overthrow the regime first before searching for these weapons.

The justice system holds that you first find a defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt before passing the sentence, not to first sentence the person and later on look for the evidence. It seems the U.S. is bent on simply taking Saddam out, then, whether he has WMDs or not.

I give up. To me, Millardo it seems like you have abandoned logic for hate. Everything you said defies common sense and the only conclusion I can come up with is that you have some sort of seed of hatred towards the US. I myself am proud to be an American, but I don't let my emotions get in the way of logic. But, I guess these are your opinions, and you are entitled to them...and I shall respect that.

This still doesn't address why there was a General at a chemical plant. Now a general is a very high ranking official right? During a war, why wouldn't he be at some command center commanding troops? Also, why would a chemical plant need to be run during a war if there is no need for chemical weapons. I'm sure the iraqi people aren't worried about their lawns being fertilized right now, if they even have grass over there.. And even if their lawn does need fertilized, they can just use all the civilians we are supposedly killing on purpose.

Originally posted by rsxer45
I give up. To me, Millardo it seems like you have abandoned logic for hate. Everything you said defies common sense and the only conclusion I can come up with is that you have some sort of seed of hatred towards the US. I myself am proud to be an American, but I don't let my emotions get in the way of logic. But, I guess these are your opinions, and you are entitled to them...and I shall respect that.

I believe with your contradiction, first saying that there must be some sort of evidence of chemical weapons, then in the same paragraph say that there is yet no solid proof of it, that you have lost logic. I have given you all logic presented thus: what is wrong with chemical suits in a hospital? A hospital is where you must be prepared at all time, and to assist in the wounded, doctors and nurses must first take care of themselves. That means all necessary means of protection must be present there, much more than on a battlefield.

Now a general is a very high ranking official right? During a war, why wouldn't he be at some command center commanding troops?

Not all generals are in front of troops. As it fits their commander-in-chief's wishes, generals are to stay in their posts until called for.

Also, why would a chemical plant need to be run during a war if there is no need for chemical weapons.

As I read the news, the chemical plant seems to be there even before the war, so it is logical that it should still be up and running even if there is war.

I'm sure the iraqi people aren't worried about their lawns being fertilized right now, if they even have grass over there..

Perhaps you have not considered that these chemicals can be exported, and used for other industrial purposes? If I am not mistaken, we have not even been told what sort of chemicals are made there, and there are so many more chemicals made for industrial purposes only.

Before pointing the finger at a SUSPECTED chemical weapons plant, what about the hundreds of tons of depleted uranium that the allies scattered across Iraq during Desert Storm...and Afghanistan for that matter.

That stuff is radioactive, causes cancer and poisons the land sea and air.

In case you are wondering, depleted uranium is used as a cheaper alternative to tungsten for the tips of cruise missiles, tank shells and gatling gun rounds for the A10 and Apache.

Does anyone know if the allies are still using it this time around? Otherwise the pretense of minimising civilian casualties is a joke, the casualties will continue long after the war is over as people get sick from being poisoned by this stuff.

Originally posted by Milliardo


In any eventuality, it helps to be prepared. Even Israel have chemical suits.


Im surprised you didn't put a smiley face after this statement Milliardo. You know you are so blinded by your hate for the United States. From a political standpoint, for the US to use chemical weapons in this war would be suicide and any logical person would realize that. And this hospital is a military hospital that was being used as refeuling point for Iraqi troops, where weapons and these suits were stockpiled. The Iraqi leadership knows that the US would not use chemical weapons in this war (because the whole world would take action against such a travesty), so for WHAT OTHER PURPOSE DO YOU THINK THE 3000+ CHEMICAL SUITS ARE FOR. How many hospitals in other countries are stockpiled with 3000+ suits to be prepared? Nothing you have said has been convincing at all.

Oh, and T4 where did you get your info? Not all uranium is radioactive you know. Other isotopes like U235, which is very rare and expensive, are the radioactive ones. U238, which is the most abundant isotope barely decays, and therefore doesn't give off that much radiation. I think U238 makes up about 98% of the natural uranium on earth, which would make it the cheaper alternative. Did you also know that the M1 Abrams tanks are plated with U238? If U238 were that radioactive, I don't think the US soldiers would last that long? I highly doubt that the US would use U235 to tip their missiles, becuase that would make every missile a dirty bomb.

Originally posted by T4 Primera
Before pointing the finger at a SUSPECTED chemical weapons plant, what about the hundreds of tons of depleted uranium that the allies scattered across Iraq during Desert Storm...and Afghanistan for that matter.

That stuff is radioactive, causes cancer and poisons the land sea and air.

In case you are wondering, depleted uranium is used as a cheaper alternative to tungsten for the tips of cruise missiles, tank shells and gatling gun rounds for the A10 and Apache.

Does anyone know if the allies are still using it this time around? Otherwise the pretense of minimising civilian casualties is a joke, the casualties will continue long after the war is over as people get sick from being poisoned by this stuff.

T4, this is off topic. Start a new thread about this one. It sounds like you are trying to shift the attention from the chem plant to what the US is doing wrong. I'm not suprised though..

Milliardo, your hairball excuses for defending Iraq frustrate me. In war you have to assume the worst, and hope for the best.

As for the hospital suits, I would think not having them would be more of a sign that Saddam has chemical weapons because having suits shows he cares a little bit about his people, and that is just out of the norm... kind of like a military general at a chem plant.

Originally posted by Milliardo


No anti-war protester has concluded that Saddam doesn't have bio weapons. The issue was to let U.N. inspectors have more time in looking for them. Though for the record, it has been almost a week, and U.S. forces there have yet to find such things that are used for war.

And thanks, Yugs, you just confirmed that the military does still have control of a large portion of China. There you go, GTi. I guess that's another example of a country which as the military in control of almost all aspects of industry, and a country on its way, if not already, to a market-oriented economy.

They haven't? They said that we had no evidence of anything nor did Saddam have any weapons of mass destruction. They WERE premature in saying that. ANd the U.N. inspectors weren't going to find shit. They were there for 3(?) or 4 months and found nothing except false documents. We found a 100 acre chemical plant. How did they miss it? Here's how: They weren't looking.

Originally posted by rsxer45
Im surprised you didn't put a smiley face after this statement Milliardo. You know you are so blinded by your hate for the United States.

There's one problem: I never said I hate America. I never posted "Down with America!" I am disturbed by how America is turning out to be--and clearly, it is proving those who really hate it right. America should stop and ask itself if it wants to lose the support of even people like me, who used to cheer it on, but now see it nothing more than just another power-hungry country out to grap its 15 seconds of fame.

From a political standpoint, for the US to use chemical weapons in this war would be suicide and any logical person would realize that.

I am not even sure why you are being defensive about this, unless you admit the U.S. have chemical weapons.

And this hospital is a military hospital that was being used as refeuling point for Iraqi troops, where weapons and these suits were stockpiled. The Iraqi leadership knows that the US would not use chemical weapons in this war (because the whole world would take action against such a travesty), so for WHAT OTHER PURPOSE DO YOU THINK THE 3000+ CHEMICAL SUITS ARE FOR.

Like I said, they're prepared for anything. Yes, the U.S. might not use it on them, but what about other nations around it, like Iran? Like I asked, can the U.S. guarantee that Iraq will not be attacked once it dismantles its weapons? I think the Iraqis believe the U.S. won't protect them, so they're preparing for the worst.

Oh, and T4 where did you get your info? Not all uranium is radioactive you know.

Give me one type that's not radioactive.

Did you also know that the M1 Abrams tanks are plated with U238?

I am not sure where you got this info from, but I don't think the U.S. military would be stupid enough to use something based on a radioactive substance as armor plates, which would endanger both its occupants and people around it.

He is blind.. rsxer jus stated the facts milliardo.. did you read his post before replying to it?

I am not even sure why you are being defensive about this, unless you admit the U.S. have chemical weapons.

So childish...


There's one problem: I never said I hate America. I never posted "Down with America!" I am disturbed by how America is turning out to be--and clearly, it is proving those who really hate it right. America should stop and ask itself if it wants to lose the support of even people like me, who used to cheer it on, but now see it nothing more than just another power-hungry country out to grap its 15 seconds of fame.

I am not even sure why you are being defensive about this, unless you admit you HATE THE U.S.

That sounds familiar...

Originally posted by Milliardo


There's one problem: I never said I hate America.

You don't have to say it for us to know that you hate America. Your posts are flooded with anti-American sentiment. And that's fine...your entitled to your opinion.

Originally posted by Milliardo


I am not even sure why you are being defensive about this, unless you admit the U.S. have chemical weapons.

There is no question that the US has chemical weapons. But, I highly doubt the US will use them in this war.

Originally posted by Milliardo


Like I said, they're prepared for anything. Yes, the U.S. might not use it on them, but what about other nations around it, like Iran? Like I asked, can the U.S. guarantee that Iraq will not be attacked once it dismantles its weapons? I think the Iraqis believe the U.S. won't protect them, so they're preparing for the worst.

Attack from Iran??? I don't think so...not while the US is occupying Iraq. A chemical attack on Iraq from Iran would be grounds for multilateral attack on Iran that Im sure the UN will see as warranted. Once again, and Iranian chemical attack would be suicide on their part. The whole world would retaliate in that case.

Originally posted by Milliardo


Give me one type that's not radioactive.

U238!!!!! Open a science book. U238 decays very,very slowly---(Its half-life is like 4.5 billion years). The amount of radioactive decay from U238 is probably 40 to 50 times less than that from U235, the stuff thats used in nuclear power plants and weapons. No its not 100% non-radioactive but neither is any element. Even a banana is slightly radioactive (0.011%) due to the presence of a radioactive isotopic potassium atoms. Depleted Uranium on the other hand is slightly more radioactive than U238 (though its major component is U238), but levels are still safe for human contact. Ingestion of the depleted uranium though is not recommended. I think (Im not a 100% sure though) that a long term study on the effects of depleted uranium on the environment and humans showed very low risks for damage.

Originally posted by Milliardo

I am not sure where you got this info from, but I don't think the U.S. military would be stupid enough to use something based on a radioactive substance as armor plates, which would endanger both its occupants and people around it.

I don't remember exactly where I got my info from but I found a website that verifies what I said...


http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/index.html

Originally posted by rsxer45

Attack from Iran??? I don't think so...not while the US is occupying Iraq. A chemical attack on Iraq from Iran would be grounds for multilateral attack on Iran that Im sure the UN will see as warranted. Once again, and Iranian chemical attack would be suicide on their part. The whole world would retaliate in that case.

...

I don't remember exactly where I got my info from but I found a website that verifies what I said...


http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/index.html

For one, I doubt the whole world would retaliate for the USA, and for two, I bet it would take the UN longer than 12 years to see that as warranted. I agree with most everything you said, I just don't have much faith in the rest of the world anymore.

...

10 bucks what he says next is:

"army-technology.com, they are American, therefore what they post can't be true.. it will be slanted to make them look good."

pfftt.

Originally posted by Prelewd


For one, I doubt the whole world would retaliate for the USA, and for two, I bet it would take the UN longer than 12 years to see that as warranted. I agree with most everything you said, I just don't have much faith in the rest of the world anymore.

...

10 bucks what he says next is:

"army-technology.com, they are American, therefore what they post can't be true.. it will be slanted to make them look good."

pfftt.

Oops, I didn't mean to say the whole world would retaliate. I meant that we would see similar worldwide support as seen during the first Gulf War and to a lesser extent the "war" with Afghanistan.

Oh, there some new info about that military hospital. Apparently, along with the 3000+ chemical suits, coalition forces found a large quantity of nerve gas antidote.... Strange huh----what would they need that for?? Oh wait, they only have those viles of antidote to be prepared for a joint US/Iran Vx gas attack............right Milliardo :rolleyes:?

How about those US military uniforms they found? What would they need those for...? Milliardo?

Milliardo did not say that Iran would attack Iraq while the US was there, he said that Iraq must be prepared for a chemical attack (from Iran or otherwise) at any time. You are arguing about something that wasn't even said.

Now this america hating bullshit, it seems that columns written by the likes of Tony Parsons have had their desired effect. If you continue to label every criticism of the actions of your government and their foreign policy - as coming from the mouth of a devout america hater - then there is little hope that you will ever understand why your country is the target for acts of terrorism committed by both foreigners and american citizens. For example - do you know what Osama Bin Laden's beef with america is? or have you just categorized him as an "america hater" without considering why he hates america in the first place?

I find it particularly annoying when I or anyone else is misquoted. Please do not put words in peoples mouths and then attack them for something they never even said.

If they have found US military uniforms in Iraqi installations then it is quite obvious what they are for. It's called spying, espionage etc. It is a part of war just like civilian casualties. Abandon the ideal that there are rules in a war as if it were a sport between nations - there are none. The more desperate the situation is, the more sneaky and underhanded the tactics will become. Sun Tzu, wrote that you should always allow your enemy a path of retreat lest he have nothing left to lose and resort to such desperate measures. But then, he also understood that the objective was to defeat the enemy - not to destroy them.

Iran has every reason to believe that they are next on the hit list. Bush named them as part of the axis of evil and the history between the US and Iran is obvious. I believe that if they did decide to enter this conflict that the allies would find themselves even lonelier than they are now. To quote the North Koreans: "Pre-emptive strikes are not the sole prerogative of the US"

With regards to the depleted uranium tipped artillery. There is always the risk of class action against the military being persued by those who have been affected by this stuff - of course it is going to affect what people say about it's ill affects - on both sides. Here's some links on the subject:
http://www.cursor.org/stories/uranium.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~sarant_2/ks18radio.html
http://www.gulfwarvets.com/du.htm

Anyway, back ON TOPIC to the chem plant - does anyone have a link to information concerning what has and has not been found there? I'd like to find some sort of verification on the subject rather than just relying on hearsay. - Thanks

Spying.. Don't make me laugh..

T4. Explain what a General is doing in a supposed chem plant if it has nothing to do with this war. And if it does in fact, have something to do with this war, I would like to hear the roll it plays.

Why do you find that so funny? - seriously.

What other reason would there be for having US uniforms other than to impersonate US personnel and infiltrate behind enemy lines ? - that is called spying. (BTW - spying is a shooting offence - even in the Geneva Conventions.)

Oh wait .... are you going to say that they dress up in them and make movies of defeated American forces or American Soldiers doing this or that for their propaganda machine? Highly possible as well.

Otherwise, what do you think the uniforms are for? - seriously.

I have no idea why a general is at a chemical plant - although the suggestions put forward by both sides seem equally plausible to me. Time will tell.........

Ummm....as far as I know, a US military uniform is not a weapon of mass destruction......or is it?.........

I'd still like to know the source of the reports of the things found at the plant, hospitals etc. - really.

Originally posted by T4 Primera
Why do you find that so funny? - seriously.

What other reason would there be for having US uniforms other than to impersonate US personnel and infiltrate behind enemy lines ? - that is called spying. (BTW - spying is a shooting offence - even in the Geneva Conventions.)

Oh wait .... are you going to say that they dress up in them and make movies of defeated American forces or American Soldiers doing this or that for their propaganda machine? Highly possible as well.

Otherwise, what do you think they are for? - seriously.

I have no idea why a general is at a chemical plant - although the suggestions put forward by both sides seem equally plausible to me. Time will tell.........

Ummm....as far as I know, a US military unform is not a weapon of mass destruction......or is it.........

Actually, the second of the two is what I was going to say. I also find that more likely than an Iraqi soldier spying, as the troops grow to know the people they spend their time with day in and day out. Plus, if I were a troop over there, I would think something is rather suspicious if a soldier showed up, didn't know what his duties were, wasn't fully equiped, and wasn't shooting the enemy. Unless of course you mean getting into the allied encampments/bases. I think there is some sort of security clearance needed to do that. The idea of spying to me, doesn't seem likely.

T4, just to let you know, I value your input from the other end of the spectrum, and do take it into consideration (except for the last comment you made). I do not have anything against you personally, but I think emotions run high for everyone in times of war and the defense of one's beliefs.. I know I am guilty of it. To sum it up T4, nothing personal.

Originally posted by T4 Primera
Why do you find that so funny? - seriously.

What other reason would there be for having US uniforms other than to impersonate US personnel and infiltrate behind enemy lines ? - that is called spying. (BTW - spying is a shooting offence - even in the Geneva Conventions.)

Oh wait .... are you going to say that they dress up in them and make movies of defeated American forces or American Soldiers doing this or that for their propaganda machine? Highly possible as well.

Otherwise, what do you think the uniforms are for? - seriously.

I have no idea why a general is at a chemical plant - although the suggestions put forward by both sides seem equally plausible to me. Time will tell.........

Ummm....as far as I know, a US military uniform is not a weapon of mass destruction......or is it?.........

I'd still like to know the source of the reports of the things found at the plant, hospitals etc. - really.

Maybe instead of using these uniforms for spying, they could be used by the Iraqi's to misdirect the US forces long enough for an ambush or perhaps the detonation of a chemical weapon (though I will stress once again that we do not know conclusively if Iraq has WMD). The suits could be used kind of like a trojan horse: it gives the Iraqi soldiers enough time to get close enough to US forces without retaliation and then allows then to attack the US while their backs are turned. Desperate measures are necessary for the Iraqis I guess, since the US can outmatch the Iraqi in most aspects of military combat. I don't blame the Iraqi military for this if this is there true intention. War is never supposed to be fair.....But, if their intention is sneak up close enough for a chemical attack then thats a different story.

I have been searching a lot and I haven't found anything definitive about the contents of that chemical factory. I would think it would only take a few hours to ascertain whether it contained banned chemical weapons. I don't know what's going on....maybe there are still sending safety teams in to determine if its safe for the chem experts to come in. I don't really know whats the hold up though. But, the stuff with the military hospital is confirmed by the Pentagon. But, they do not say that they have found WMD at that hospital, only that there were 3000+ chem suits found, nerve gas antidotes, and one tank I think.

What would a hospital be doing with a tank? hmm..

Originally posted by Pick


They haven't? They said that we had no evidence of anything nor did Saddam have any weapons of mass destruction. They WERE premature in saying that. ANd the U.N. inspectors weren't going to find shit. They were there for 3(?) or 4 months and found nothing except false documents. We found a 100 acre chemical plant. How did they miss it? Here's how: They weren't looking.

This is typical of the desperate attempts by some to justify the invasion of Iraq.It is a quantum leap to infer that because the factory exists,it proves that the weapons exist.Next you'll be telling us that they've found a steel mill,and that can only mean that they are using it to make nuclear weapons....:rolleyes: .

Chemicals commonly used in weaponry are also found in hundreds of perfectly legitimate applications.Chlorine gas,for example,is essential in the purification of drinking water.America has thousands of industrial plants producing every deadly compound known to man,but nobody is running around implying that because there are chemicals,there must be weapons.

So far we've heard a lot from Bush about these weapons,but where are they?

American isn't running around gassing it's own people for protesting either.

Originally posted by Prelewd
American isn't running around gassing it's own people for protesting either.

I take it that you have no points with which to argue my post then?

O.K....I'll argue yours.At the time of the gas attacks on the Kurds,Saddam Hussein was fighting a war with Iran,using funds,weapons and technical assistance from the United States.I very much doubt that the U.S. military was unaware of these weapons,but they failed to prevent them from being used.That was 15 years ago.in 1990,he indicated to the U.S. ambassador that he intended to annex part of Kuwait.Her response was so non-commital that he decided to attempt to take over the whole country.It wasn't until after he had invaded Kuwait that the U.S. labelled him as 'the bad guy'.Until then he was just another faceless dictator that the U.S. was quite happy to use as an influence in the Middle East,and by 'turning a blind eye' to the crimes of its ally,the U.S. effectively endorsed his behaviour.

Just in on the news here in NZ:
"Uncomfirmed destruction of an allied command & control centre by freindly fire".
Unfortunately there hasn't been anything more than that yet on our local news.

This is just the sort of thing that could be pulled off by Iraqi soldiers wearing US uniforms in the midst of a sandstorm. Not saying that it happened, just that it's possible.

Prelewd, I appreciate your comments and input as well. I appreciate your acknowledgement of the same. That was very generous of you. I find value in your views and others because they make me test the validity of my own views. :)

I take no offence personally and try my best (with limited success) not to offend others personally - because I understand and agree that to challenge a persons beliefs, is to challenge their very system for getting through this life. My comment about being annoyed is confined to misquoting eachother because these confuse the discussion and waste time and energy - nothing more. :cool:

Originally posted by taranaki


I take it that you have no points with which to argue my post then?

O.K....I'll argue yours.At the time of the gas attacks on the Kurds,Saddam Hussein was fighting a war with Iran,using funds,weapons and technical assistance from the United States.I very much doubt that the U.S. military was unaware of these weapons,but they failed to prevent them from being used.That was 15 years ago.in 1990,he indicated to the U.S. ambassador that he intended to annex part of Kuwait.Her response was so non-commital that he decided to attempt to take over the whole country.It wasn't until after he had invaded Kuwait that the U.S. labelled him as 'the bad guy'.Until then he was just another faceless dictator that the U.S. was quite happy to use as an influence in the Middle East,and by 'turning a blind eye' to the crimes of its ally,the U.S. effectively endorsed his behaviour.

The statement I made was rhetorical. The point I was making is that Saddam is a madman and the US, despite popular belief, isn't.

Explain the rape camps?

Originally posted by T4 Primera
Just in on the news here in NZ:
"Uncomfirmed destruction of an allied command & control centre by freindly fire".
Unfortunately there hasn't been anything more than that yet on our local news.

This is just the sort of thing that could be pulled off by Iraqi soldiers wearing US uniforms in the midst of a sandstorm. Not saying that it happened, just that it's possible.

Prelewd, I appreciate your comments and input as well. I appreciate your acknowledgement of the same. That was very generous of you. I find value in your views and others because they make me test the validity of my own views. :)

I take no offence personally and try my best (with limited success) not to offend others personally - because I understand and agree that to challenge a persons beliefs, is to challenge their very system for getting through this life. My comment about being annoyed is confined to misquoting eachother because these confuse the discussion and waste time and energy - nothing more. :cool:

I really wouldn't doubt if it was friendly fire, but I don't think we would hit an actual command and control center. Except if some traitor dropped a few grenades in a few tents... bastard. Anyway, this is very possible that the uniforms were used to make a mockery of coalition forces. You do have to think about the fact that Iraqi soldiers get their rocks off by having a good attack on coalition forces, and usually like to brag about it. I wouldn't rule out friendly fire though, since many of our casualties have been that way.

Thanks for the kind words T4, well put in the testing the validity statement, I feel the same way.

Originally posted by Prelewd


The statement I made was rhetorical. The point I was making is that Saddam is a madman and the US, despite popular belief, isn't.

Explain the rape camps?

Prove to me that they are not a figment of some wanker in the propaganda departments imagination,and I might take it seriously.There's a saying that 'the truth is the first casualty in war'.I would argue that unless you've actually seenn something for yourself,you shouldn't just accept it because it fits your prejudices.

Originally posted by taranaki


Prove to me that they are not a figment of some wanker in the propaganda departments imagination,and I might take it seriously.There's a saying that 'the truth is the first casualty in war'.I would argue that unless you've actually seenn something for yourself,you shouldn't just accept it because it fits your prejudices.

I heard that quote last night on Fox News, and like everything else, it goes both ways. I'm not going to dig up the interviews that I've heard of coming from Iraqi citizens. You can call whatever I bring to the table political propoganda, but it's not going to change my opinion of Saddam. I did hear of an Iraqi citizen, stating before the war started, that he would rather commit suicide than not have the bombings start, and Saddam removed. There must be something wrong. I don't have the means to talk to an Iraqi citizen myself, so I'm pretty much forced to watch whatever news to get my information, and I'm not just going to cast it aside for the possibility that it 'might' not be true.

Originally posted by T4 Primera
Now this america hating bullshit, it seems that columns written by the likes of Tony Parsons have had their desired effect. If you continue to label every criticism of the actions of your government and their foreign policy - as coming from the mouth of a devout america hater - then there is little hope that you will ever understand why your country is the target for acts of terrorism committed by both foreigners and american citizens.

True, true. You who say I hate America--I never said I hate America. If I hate it so much, I would not endorse any product from your country. I would not enjoy your burgers, and anything else even remotely American. I would not watch your games. I do not like this policy of war by America. I do not think it is wise. It seems that the observation made by people outside America is true: Americans see those who do not agree with this war as somehow anti-American. This is what it means by the closing of the American mind: Americans have been in this self-pity/grief mode since 9/11, and can't seem to move on. Now each criticism about them is somehow anti-American. The American mind has become closed to objectivity, and has become ground for the same mentality as Bush has: an "us vs. them" mentality, which is very dangerous. That thinking is the same thinking that Hitler and Islamic Fundamentalists, as well as Christian Fundamentalists, have.

For example - do you know what Osama Bin Laden's beef with america is? or have you just categorized him as an "america hater" without considering why he hates america in the first place?

What makes people dislike America? It's this superiority complex that Americans have. People see it and just shake their heads. Those who are apt to act on it, and have graver issues against the U.S., protest. It is inherent in societies which is superior to have its people act like that as well. They feel they can do no wrong, that they are on top of the food chain, so to speak, and have every right to act as they see fit. This leads to bruising and hurting those around them, and infuriating them in the process.

Originally posted by Milliardo


What makes people dislike America? It's this superiority complex that Americans have. People see it and just shake their heads. Those who are apt to act on it, and have graver issues against the U.S., protest. It is inherent in societies which is superior to have its people act like that as well. They feel they can do no wrong, that they are on top of the food chain, so to speak, and have every right to act as they see fit. This leads to bruising and hurting those around them, and infuriating them in the process.

This is exactly why I posted that you seem to hate America..because of comments like these. You seem to stereotypically accuse all Americans (maybe not intentionally but that's the way it comes off to me) as closed-minded egomaniacs. You say you like the physical aspects of America (ie--burgers, games), but then later you go on negatively generalize the American spirit. It seems TO ME that you like what America has done and accomplished (ie, burgers...movies etc..) but when it comes to the america people, you seem to degrade and stereotype them. And to me as an American that is hurtful and insensitive. In another on of your posts you described The United States as the biblical nation that would bring about the dreaded apocalypse as written in the book of Revelation. Do you know how it feels to have someone speak about your country in such terms??? With that Bible reference, it would be analagous to you calling all of us Americans THE DEVIL and I got pissed off at that. You could have replaced the word United States with the word BUSH in that previous statement, then I would be okay...but no, you didn't. And with this last comment about Americans being all arrogant and superior....that just hurts. I can assure you that me and many of my friends don't have this superiority complex that you speak of and Im sure many Americans can back me up about their similar personalities as well. We are not all power-hungry,arrogant, egomaniacal A-holes. And then, the fact that you wouldn't even admit to some of the logic of some of my arguments in previous posts, just reinforced in my mind that you were blinded somehow by hatred. It seemed like instead of giving some thought about what I have said, you rattle off another opinion that in my opinion defied logic. I try to extend you the same courtesy by trying to read your posts in the most unbiased manner that I have, but the posts just didn't seem to follow reason and seemed to be closed-minded. I respect opposing viewpoints, but some (NOT ALL) of your comments just didn't seem reasonably valid. Its like you were just out o prove me wrong rather than give a logical assesment of the current situation.....I don't know if I explain this properly. I can't put it into words. And I assure Tony Parsons had no influence on my comments in this matter. Even if you do hate America, I still will respect that. There is no rule that you have to like America. And I appreciate you giving us your views on why America is hated so much. And if you don't hate America (and I have just misinterpreted these posts unintentionally) then I apologize. I just wanted to tell you where I was coming from in calling you Anti-american, and it wasn't just some ignorant attempt to rally support or call you names to win an argument. I hope you never meant the things I talked about above Milliardo. And once again, I will apologize if I judged you wrong Milliardo. I shall stop right now with the America hate comments and I am sorry if I offended you or anyone else who read my posts.

Originally posted by Milliardo


What makes people dislike America? It's this superiority complex that Americans have. People see it and just shake their heads. Those who are apt to act on it, and have graver issues against the U.S., protest. It is inherent in societies which is superior to have its people act like that as well. They feel they can do no wrong, that they are on top of the food chain, so to speak, and have every right to act as they see fit. This leads to bruising and hurting those around them, and infuriating them in the process.


Your blatent stereotype is very amusing. You cant very well say that all Americans have a superiority complex because you obviously dont live here, and you dont know how the US people think. You think you know, but you dont. "Oh yeah, America is where everyone thinks they are the best and they are all rich and can buy what they want. They look down on others for not having anything at all" True, there are people like that, but you cant deem a society this way. Are you saying that by me being an American, I have a superiority complex, that I feel I can do no wrong? and can do whatever the hell I want? No, I follow the laws just like the people around me(for the most part) I myself dont feel I am better than anyone. What if I were to say this about the Philippines, and call them all worthless sacks of crap and insult them without even knowing about them, would you like that very much? I give respect when I receive it, and also give it before I am even given the same. If anyone has a superiority complex at the moment, it is you my friend, because you think that you know all the American people without living with them.

Originally posted by Milliardo


...Americans have been in this self-pity/grief mode since 9/11, and can't seem to move on...

You post that ^, and then you post this in another thread?

http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=857547#post857547

Three thousand of our people died Milliardo, more pointlessly than the people that have died and are going to die in this war. Who is the callous one?

Originally posted by Milliardo


What makes people dislike America? It's this superiority complex that Americans have. People see it and just shake their heads. Those who are apt to act on it, and have graver issues against the U.S., protest. It is inherent in societies which is superior to have its people act like that as well. They feel they can do no wrong, that they are on top of the food chain, so to speak, and have every right to act as they see fit. This leads to bruising and hurting those around them, and infuriating them in the process.

This is an example of your hatred for America. You are jealous, therefore you feel you must bash America. I guess we are superior because I don't know that many ignorant @$$holes like you nad I'm glad. At least Jimster, Cbass, and Taranaki don't hate America and its values. You basically have said in the last few pages of these posts that America is an ignorant, bloodthirsty, treat other countries like shit society that couldn't care if we killed everybody in the world. If we are so bloodthirsty, then why are we risking our own soldiers lives just for the sake of being careful to not have civilian casualties?

Milliardo,

I consider many of the points you have made in various threads very insightful. But I feel that many of your insights are needlessly lost , because they are obscured by some comments and generalisations you might've made carelessly in the heat of discussion.

Please choose your words carefully, and make clear distinctions who is being referred to whether it be Bush, his administration, Blair, the American people or whatever. Hopefully that will help people distinguish who your assertions are directed at and help clarify the message you intend to communicate.

Some of the statements you make use sweeping generalisations so that it appears you are including every American in what you say. If that is intentional, then so be it, but if not - again please be more specific. For example, as you know, I agree that SOME American minds are closed but I would never go so far as to say they are ALL closed. After all, America contains people who oppose this war as well, and I can't assume that all those who do support it are closed minded.

I guess it's kind of like the difference between speaking to people and yelling at them. You can use the same words, but if you shout they will only hear the shouting and the message is more than likely lost forever. And if you take shots at people, you can only expect them to shoot back.

I always find it amusing watching people discuss differences face to face. The vast majority of them often take turns to speak - as they should. However, when it is the other person's turn to speak, they give the appearance of listening, while in reality their minds are busy reloading for the next verbal volley.

And just to give some semblence of being on topic - has anyone heard anything new on the investigation into the chemical factory?

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE........:alien:

Originally posted by T4 Primera

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE........:alien:

too bad not a single one of us have it...:(

-GTi-VR6_A3