[Salpalinja]

Large quantities has been found from Iraq, says Saddams advisor Amer al-Saadi.

How can this be :rolleyes:

[Blackhawk]

Maybe they're not the "see no evil" UN inspectors...? :rolleyes:

[telewinz]

More details please. Is this guy a defector or is he still (soon to be late) Saddam's advisor?

[Salpalinja]

Original story here (http://www.helsinginsanomat.fi/tuoreet/juttu.asp?id=20030302OL22) , in finnish.

It says iraq notified that large quantities of anthrax and VX gas was found. It does not say who found it. The information was released by Saddams advisor Amer al-Saadi.

[Blackhawk]

Well, that certainly clears things up! :D

[hammer4nc]

Link (in English): http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6067227%255E1702,00.html

Anthrax, VX uncovered in Iraq
From correspondents in Baghdad
March 03, 2003

SIGNIFICANT quantities of anthrax and VX nerve agent have been accounted for during ongoing excavations in Iraq, Iraqi presidential adviser Amer al-Saadi has said.

He said excavations at the al-Aziziya air base, 104km south-west of Baghdad, had also uncovered bomb fragments.

Iraq insists it destroyed tonnes of toxic agents unilaterally in 1991.

The discovery was announced as UN biological experts arrived for talks with Iraqi authorities.

"So far we have reached a figure not quite 157 (tonnes of anthrax), but we are nearing it, there is work in progress," Saadi told a news conference.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So the question is, will this be viewed as a material breach, or "significant progress" toward disarmarment?

[dinosaur]

By the time CNN broadcasts it, it`ll be "Two Cans Of Raid Found". :banghead:

[Malone LaVeigh]

Sheesh... talk about misleading headlines. If you read the story carefully, you'll see the Iraqis are claiming evidence of destroyed weapons. Whether it turns out to be true or not, that's as far from "Anthrax, VX uncovered in Iraq" as you can get.

Whatever happened to critical thinking?

[Thumper]

Critical thinking? Depends on your predeliction, I suppose.

I guess you're not at all critical of the idea that they just happened to "find" 157 tons of anthrax?

Another question, Malone...What do you think would have been done with that 157 TONS of discovered Anthrax were the U.S. not pushing the issue? Not a chance in Hades you'll answer that.

I don't think the title was missleading at all...I think it was very perceptive. The author demonstrated "critical thinking."

[Baba Louie]

Oh, you mean THAT Anthrax and VX????

I... uh... forgot. Yeah, that's the ticket, I forgot.

Oops.

So whattya gonna do about it?

Invade?

HAH!

The UN and Susan Sarandon say you can't, so there.

That stuff hardly worked anyway.

Adios

[Selfdfenz]

OMG. It's happened.
I agree with Malone.

Uh.... now what are those chest pains.....where are those dang nitoglycerin tabs.....ug the pain!!!...


S:p

[Marshall]

Just another link in the chain of deception, lies, and manipulation. Iraqi's are smart enough to know that half the worlds enablers will believe them or use it as feather in their hat regardless if it's true or not.

[natedog]

What a surprise...

[hso]

Ok, let me get this straight. The UN required the Iraqis to destroy biological and chemical weapons previously. The current inspection teams discover physical and records evidence that the materials were destroyed. The Iraqis claim that this validates their position that they destroyed 157 tonnes of the stuff. From my perspective this looks like they're claiming credit for having destroyed the materials. In no way does it indicate that any new materials have been found. It also doesn't prove conclusivly that 157 tonnes were actually destroyed or that 157 tonnes was all the material that was available at the time to be destroyed. In other words, it doesn't tell us much more than the Iraqis destroyed VX and Anthrax when required to by the UN.

[Malone LaVeigh]

I guess you're not at all critical of the idea that they just happened to "find" 157 tons of anthrax?

Another question, Malone...What do you think would have been done with that 157 TONS of discovered Anthrax were the U.S. not pushing the issue? Not a chance in Hades you'll answer that. Read again VERY SLOOOWLY and CAREFULLY and explain to me about the "discovered" anthrax.

For the record, I am not at all uncritical of the Iraqis for having ever had those weapons, whether they have them now or not (and no one knows the answer to that). But my moral indignation of Iraq loses some of it's punch when I reflect that my country has more WMDs than the rest of the world combined. Chem and bio weapons are known as the "poor man's nuke" for a reason.

[CZ-75]

But my moral indignation of Iraq loses some of it's punch when I reflect that my country has more WMDs than the rest of the world combined.

But who's more likely to use them. We used WMDs twice; Saddam used them on his own people, as well as in his war with Iran

[twoblink]

Do you think Saddem will use the "Twinkie" defense??

He ate too much sugar that day and so couldn't remember how much VX and anthrax he had destroyed??

[Gary H]

Does anyone know what the life cycle of these weapons might be? I have read that Anthrax exposed to the sun rapidly dies. Would a country with these weapons need to regularly dispose of old stock, or can these weapons stay potent for many years?

[Drjones]

But my moral indignation of Iraq loses some of it's punch when I reflect that my country has more WMDs than the rest of the world combined.

Malone, I respect you for being one of very few to voice an opinion very contrary to most here, but COME ON!

Did you really just say that???



:banghead:

[0007]

FWIW - I remember reading several accounts of islands off the coast of Great Britain that were used for anthrax/germ warfare testing during WWII and were still contaminated with live cultures in the soil. This was 30-40 years after the fact.

[redneck2]

honey....

HONEEEEYYYYY!!!!

I'm going off to war now,

Do you know what I did with that darn 157 tons of anthrax????

Heck, anybody could lose a little anthrax. I have to look for my keys most mornings.

157 tons would only be the size of a few houses. You could lose that anywhere.

[fallingblock]

Malone may be having a bad day...:uhoh:

[Baba Louie]

Yes, and our country has been ruled by a Dictator or the past 20 something years as well. One who has been known to assasinate opposition as well as several thousands of tribal members living in our north as well as attacking the two neighboring countries for their oil fields.

Bomb Canada, Invade Mexico.

Malone, you convinced me totally, 100%. You're right, I'm wrong and probably always have been.

I promise to start thinking like a victim and will always assume that we/I am to blame for every ill the world faces.

Thank you sir for enlightening moi.

Adios

[Jack19]

Big surprise. :rolleyes:

The Kurds and ther Iranians knew he had Bio and Chem weapons....what's the shock?

[Salpalinja]

Iraq says that it destroyed 157 shells of botuline, anthrax and aflotoxin in 1991. And now they have found 7 shells fully intact from the area where they destroyed them. (According to Helsingin sanomat)

This is a little episode in a big game where Saddam is the current champion. And how hard can it be to destroy the missiles?? Of course there is no point to destroy them when they are preparing for war. :(

[Drjones]

Baba Louie:

Thanks for saying that.

I wanted to, but it was late last night, and I didn't want to botch my facts, which would just make me look dumb.

But that still doesn't change the fact that the REAL terrorist in the world is the USA. :rolleyes:

Because its only a matter of time before GWB uses all our weapons on US, like Saddam did to his people, and like other US presidents have done before, right?

Right?

Right???

:rolleyes:

[Cactus]

Originally posted by Malone LaVeigh:
But my moral indignation of Iraq loses some of it's punch when I reflect that my country has more WMDs than the rest of the world combined.
And you own more firearms than the 19 terrorists who attacked and killed 3000 Americans. Does that make YOU their moral equivilant?

[Malone LaVeigh]

C'mon guys, I know there are some really smart people here. I've been coming here and TFL for over a year. How can so many of you not get the simple facts from this story? Iraq was ordered to destroy chem and bio weapons back in '91. They're offering some evidence that they did so at one time. It doesn't say whether they still have any or whether they might have produced more. But it is a piece of evidence that might help us know how much they might be able to have.

Now this whacko newspaper twisted it up to look like the weapons themselves were discovered by inspectors. Unfortunately, it seems to have worked all too well.

And as far as my aside about US WMD, my disapproval of that in no way means I equate the US with Iraq or anyone else. I'm really getting tired of these paper tiger attacks.

Power is like money. Everybody wants some and thinks they deserve their share. That includes every two-bit piece of real estate that can sew up a flag and come up with a national anthem and worry about the barbarians on the other side of the frontier. And every tin-plated dictator that wants to carve out a little more room for their fatherland. If they exist in a world where one small set of nations holds all of the big weapons, they're going to get whatever high-tech mass killers they can get their hands on. That's why chem and bio weapons are the poor man's nuke.

If we want to keep these things from spreading, we've got to start supporting some international agreements to make meaningful reductions in WMD, including our own. Unless we're willing to try to play the world empire game. And you know what? What I've been seeing for the last few months tells me we just don't have the stomach for that. We are, after all, basically good people that just want to live and let live. And that's a good thing.

And that's my one post for today.

[Sir Galahad]

I support a reduction in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. We can begin by detonating some in North Korea and some in Iraq. That'll reduce our arsenal.

There! Happy now Malone?:D

[Gary H]

Supposedly, the United States is out of the biological and chemical weapons game, so when speaking of U.S. WMD's, we are talking nuclear. Nuclear downsizing has been underway for many years. We are about to defang four of our Trident submarines. I don't believe that Saddam would be without chemical and biological weapons if it were not for U.S. WMD's. What did his previous use of these weapons have to do with the United States? (Other than some of the technology probably could be traced to U.S. labs.) No, I don't believe that bad guys are bad because we have more goodies. I do believe that they produce chemical and biologics for cost saving and other practical reasons. It is more difficult to put one's hands on enriched Uranium and Plutonium than precursors to chems and bios. No, bad guys will be bad guys... until someone calls their bluff.

I wish that the United States was power independent and could give the middle finger to the rest of the world rather than police the world, but that isn't the way the world works. Three cheers for the enviro-Nazis that removed our ability to build new nuclear power plants and stuck us with dirty coal and the like. Three cheers.. I wish that religion brought people together rather than made them kill each other. I wish that greed and envy didn't exist. None of my wishing changes the world one bit.

[Drjones]

Malone:

I think its best summed up by a question that I think was posed by someone here.

If the US is so imperialistic and bent on terrorizing/conquering/enslaving the world, why haven't we done it already?

What is standing in our way?

[Gary H]

We could have at least enslaved the Canadians and made them tell us how to make socialized medicine work.

[fallingblock]

Malone.

I've come around to the perspective that order and stability (read peace and freedom as well) require power to maintain. If the U.S. disarms down to a level comparable to, say, Europe, what power will then replace the U.S. as a global guarantor of stability? And please, don't lay the Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile trip on me...those each can be argued as having been efforts at stabilization as well as adventurous militarism. The essence of being allowed to live in peace is to be able to resist those who would attack you....individual or nation.

You state it correctly...the U.S. is composed of good people who want to live and let live. This is why it is imperative that the U.S. holds the irresistible force rather than some aggregation of nations controlled by religious or ideological zealots.

From perhaps too much time spent studying history, it is evident that those nations without the means of projecting sufficient force have always been at the mercy of those with the means. That will never change, Malone, not until 'Man' evolves into something vastly different than what he is today.

I fervently hope the U.S. has what it takes to do the 'world cop' thing. or I believe we all will be in some serious trouble.:uhoh:

At the risk of being redundant, may I respectfully repeat my suggestion of a few weeks back and remind you that there are many nations around the world which are helpless (or nearly so) militarily and quite pleasant to reside in (as long as there is a good guy with a big stick out there). New Zealand, for example, recently scrapped its combat air force....living in one of these nations really does relieve the bitterness and anger at feeling forced to participate in the U.S.-led stabilization of the world. I took this route myself back when I thought Reagan (the masterful old codger) was nuts. The perspective gained has certainly been well worth the excercise.:)