Danish troops have found dozens of mortar shells in southern Iraq which could contain chemical weapons according to initial tests.
The 36 120mm mortar rounds appeared to have been buried for at least 10 years, the army said.
All showed traces of blister gases, the army said, a group of chemical compounds which include mustard gas.
US officials confirmed the apparent find and said the weapons were probably left over from the 1980-88 war on Iran.
Results of more extensive tests should be available in about two days, the Danes said on an official website quoted by the Reuters news agency.
The Danish troops, who serve with the US-led coalition in Iraq, will continue searches for any more weapons buried at the same site, north of Basra.
US military spokesman Brigadier-General Mark Kimmitt said of the shells: "Most were wrapped in plastic bags, and some were leaking."
"We're doing some preliminary tests... to be sure that if they do contain any kind of blistering agent they will be disposed of," he said.
The former regime of Saddam Hussein used blister agents against Iranian soldiers during the Iran-Iraq war.
Chemical weapons were also used to kill about 5,000 Kurds in the northern city of Halabja in 1988.
Well 20 year old weapons that everyone in the world knew they had doesn't really mean anything new... If the world can ignore those weapons for 20 years, why should this peice of news be exclusive? Oh wait, maybe that it took us forever to find them. I wonder what else we'll find? I wonder how well-hidden the active weapons are? Not saying there are any... But if there wbere, there could be a loto f them and we wouldn't know.
I think there are a few dozen people in America who pretend those weapons never exsisted, and refuse to acknowledge the evil they represent. Let this be a reminder to them.
Please pardon my pseudo-intellectuaphilisophicalismysiticality.
Coogee Beach said this in post #3 : Any word on whether they were part of the batch the US sold Saddam?
The U.S. didn't sell chemical weapons to Saddam you Pilger pimping moron fruit cake.
How does it feel, my little pinko commie Coogoo, when your sorry a*ss goes to bed at night knowing that you are a stain... not only on the integrity of Australia... but western civilization itself?
The U.S. didn't sell chemical weapons to Saddam you Pilger pimping moron fruit cake.
How does it feel, my little pinko commie Coogoo, when your sorry a*ss goes to bed at night knowing that you are a stain... not only on the integrity of Australia... but western civilization itself?
Privately, however, the administrations of Reagan and the first President Bush sold military goods to Iraq, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological agents, worked to stop the flow of weapons to Iran, and undertook discreet diplomatic initiatives, such as two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, to improve relations with Saddam.
I have seen a lot of this kind of talk about the US selling WMD to Iraq. At best it is a over exaggeration. We can find no documentation that the US sold actual WMD to Iraq. Instead we find that some US COMPANIES, sold precursor material to Iraqi research labs and universities on the word from Iraq that they wanted to use it for good purposes.
If I say sell me a pound of black powder because I want to blow up gophers on my land because they are messing up my fields. Then you would probably sell it to me. So does that mean that if I use that pound of black powder to blow up a school bus, you are to blame.
Or a better scenario would be, sell me some fertilizer so I can put it in my garden. However I use it to blow up a federal building. Does that make you the bad guy for selling me fertilizer?
Ron -- to answer your question, in case some people don't get it:
1. If I sold you a pound a black powder because you wanted to blow up Gophers on your land I would sell it to you. If you blew up a school bus I'd be totally shocked, and would probably never sell you anything explosive again.
2. If you then asked me to sell you fertilizer I'd tell you to blow it out your a$$ ...get it? (lame humor, I tried).
Please pardon my pseudo-intellectuaphilisophicalismysiticality.
Ok lets see what the weapons turne out to be first. If they are chemical weapons then will this show that the US and every other country that backed this war were CORRECT ?
Would you be able to admit that ?!?!?!
The faster you fall behind,
the more time you have to
catch up !!!
Optics said this in post #10 : Ok lets see what the weapons turne out to be first. If they are chemical weapons then will this show that the US and every other country that backed this war were CORRECT ?
If they're not does that show that the US and every other country that backed this war was INCORRECT?
I have seen a lot of this kind of talk about the US selling WMD to Iraq. At best it is a over exaggeration. We can find no documentation that the US sold actual WMD to Iraq. Instead we find that some US COMPANIES, sold precursor material to Iraqi research labs and universities on the word from Iraq that they wanted to use it for good purposes.
If I say sell me a pound of black powder because I want to blow up gophers on my land because they are messing up my fields. Then you would probably sell it to me. So does that mean that if I use that pound of black powder to blow up a school bus, you are to blame.
Or a better scenario would be, sell me some fertilizer so I can put it in my garden. However I use it to blow up a federal building. Does that make you the bad guy for selling me fertilizer?
So, under your logic. The suppliers to Al Quaeda, are they totally innocent? If, lets say, Iraq was to sell Chemical weapons, (or ever the precursors to chemical weapons) to a Mr Bin Laden, would you say the same about them? Would you say, they are "bad guys" for selling this? Bear in mind that this whole "war against terrorism" BS largely centered around getting the suppliers of terrorism. Do you believe that because America is such a "supplier to terrorism", America is exempt? Why?
So, under your logic. The suppliers to Al Quaeda, are they totally innocent? If, lets say, Iraq was to sell Chemical weapons, (or ever the precursors to chemical weapons) to a Mr Bin Laden, would you say the same about them? Would you say, they are "bad guys" for selling this? Bear in mind that this whole "war against terrorism" BS largely centered around getting the suppliers of terrorism. Do you believe that because America is such a "supplier to terrorism", America is exempt? Why?
So you are trying to say that anyone who sells something to a someone else who says they want to do good with it is in the wrong?
Ron Ackerman said this in post #13 : Oh but wait, that is from over 10 years ago. That really doesn't count does it?
Of course not. When the weapons were sold to Mr Hussein, he was the "good guy". Hey, he was killing people, but he was our FRIEND!!There is a BIG difference between BAD evil dictators and GOOD evil dictators.
01-10-2004 10:26 PM
...get it? (lame humor, I tried).
