Discussion in 'GD Archive' started by 2blue4u, 24 Mar 2003.
and sealed off.
Just reported on Sky News.
Chemical Weapon Plant Captured
Pentagon Confirm Chemical Weapon facility captured. General in charge captured by US forces
Jerusalem Post Article
not a suprise really - always said that there are things out there that our government knows about but wont tell us.
at long last . . .
It might be a bit premature to get to excited about it though. Initial reports have a habit of getting 'clarifed' later on. I wonder if the troops that found this are qualified to tell the difference between a chemical plant and a chemical weapons plant.
I hope it IS a weapons plant - it will, as has been said, rather make Blair's and Bush's case for them - but I guess we'll have to wait and see.
if this gets 100% confirmed then
a/ Where are the chemical weapons?
b/ Will this get the sheep at the UN onboard?
c/ Will this stop the pathetic anti war demonstrations?
No to B an C i reckon.
The captured general would know the difference.
I doubt if they would screw up over something like this. It seems that they have also captured the General who was in charge of the factory. And, unlike most chemical plants that can be easily used/converted for weapons production, it seems that this establishment was solely for weapons manufacture.
tbh m8 any chemical plant is generally capable of creating chemicals for use in weapons. All the equiptment used is the same - it just depends on what it is used for.
i hope everything that has transpired so far will shut those anti war protestors up.
can they not see?!
are they blind?
here's hoping for a confirmed report soon.
Interviewing US journalist at the pentagon who is refuting Sky News line that the pentagon has confirmed the Jerusalem Post story. Which has originated from its embedded journalist with 3ID
True but why would you need to "camouflarge" a general chemical plant.
But i still wouldnt take it to serous, we only have a US version of the story, confirmed or not comfirmed id still be dubious
As soon as I saw the thread title, I knew there would be lots of people saying 'that'll shut the anti war people up'
Some antis, me included, never said he didn't have banned chem/bio weapons. Don't wanna reopen the whole debate again in this thread 'well what would you do about it then? he had 12 years' etc as it's been flogged to death then flogged some more But just for the record.
I still don't believe the war is just though. Having weapons and having an intent to use them are two different things altogether.
Let's just hope he DOESN'T have lots of weapons like that, in a usable form, as if we back him into a corner where he has nothing to lose, he might just use them. And bearing in mind the US said they would use nukes? (I think they said?) if Saddam used WMDs against troops, it could turn very nasty indeed. Nuke Iraq, make enemies of the entire middle east.. Saddam dies a martyr.. let's hope that isn't Saddam's master plan.
The army may not have screwed up though. If they reported it as a 'suspected' weapons factory and the press got a bit over-enthusiastic at the notion of such a hot story, and mitted the suspected, then .......
After all, the quoted report in this thread does say it is perhaps the first illegal chemical plant found. That could be taken to mean it is perhaps the first, or it is perhaps illegal.
Maybe. He may just be aware there is a chemical plant there, but not the details of what goes on there.
Anyway, like I said, I hope it pans out the way it is being reported. But only a bit of time will tell. And ofr confirmation, the US really needs to gwet a couple of UN inspectors in there post haste - or there will be claims it is a put-up job.
It is, however, my belief that this sort of find was inevitable sooner or later.
But he already has a track record of having used them. A fact so often conveniently skirted around by some.
There is not much point having a weapon if you have no intent to use it. The only question is what circumstances you would use it under. As en example, the UK's possession of a nuclear deterrrent. To be effective, people have to believe you will use it - if the right need arises (like as a response to a nuclear attack).
Saddam, however, has proved on many occasions that he is fully prepared to use chemical weapons - and on civilian populations at that.
He didn't use them against us in the last gulf war.. why? Probably because of the deterrent effect.. he knew he would face massive retaliation.
That is why I believe he would never have used them against us.
This time may be different, if he feels he has nothing to lose and is going to die anyway.
Also I'll post this story again for those who didn't catch it before.. Halabja
Unattributted Senior Pentagon Official confirmed story to Fox news and hence to Sky News
It could be a plant producing rocket fuel - or something else that is likely to be a legitimate military target, but not a chemical weapons plant.
The Iraqi's know that the US are capable of bombing such plants - it has happened before. The best way to avoid that is to hide them.
Separate names with a comma.