Links not good enough? How about a smoking gun.

[Gonz]

Reuters
Monday, April 7, 2003; 10:25 AM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. forces near Baghdad found a weapons cache of around 20 medium-range missiles equipped with potent chemical weapons, the U.S. news station National Public Radio reported on Monday.

NPR, which attributed the report to a top official with the 1st Marine Division, said the rockets, BM-21 missiles, were equipped with sarin and mustard gas and were "ready to fire." It quoted the source as saying new U.S. intelligence data showed the chemicals were "not just trace elements."

It said the cache was discovered by Marines with the 101st Airborne Division, which was following up behind the Army after it seized Baghdad's international airport.

U.S. Central Command headquarters in Qatar had no immediate comment.

The United States and Britain launched the war against Iraq to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq denies having such weapons.

 

[PT]

[Iraqi Information Minister]They couldn't possibly have found those in Iraq, Coalition forces have been defeated on all fronts, and there are no Coalition forces in Iraq. [/Iraqi Information Minister]

 

[Ardsgaine]

They're dual use facilities. The warheads contain insecticide, and the missiles are used for crop dusting...

 

[chcr]

It said the cache was discovered by Marines with the 101st Airborne Division

Now, I don't understand much about the military, but isn't the 101st Airborne an Army division?

They're dual use facilities. The warheads contain insecticide, and the missiles are used for crop dusting...

You've been listening to the Ministry of Information again, haven't you?

 

[Gonz]

isn't the 101st Airborne an Army division

Yes. Best guess, 101st did recon & guard duty & the marine division that specializes in chem's met up with them.

 

[Ardsgaine]

Now, I don't understand much about the military, but isn't the 101st Airborne an Army division?

Yeah...

It's a symptom of the modern media that so much of what has been reported on this war has been inaccurate. For almost every event that has occurred, the initial reports were wrong in important respects. The motto of the press is: get it fast and get it first, we can always get it right later. From the time something is first reported you have to wait about two days to find out how much of it was really true. The article Gonz posted is a case in point. We all want the WMD's to be found, but how many of us are willing to bet on the basis of this report that they really have been found now? For my part, I'll believe it when I hear it in the CENTCOM briefing.

 

[outside looking in]

But, I will eat crow if this statement doesn't prove to be true: WMD's will be found in Iraq. Did anyone in the entire world really ever doubt that Sadam possessed such weapons? C'mon...

 

[ris]

i'm with ards, one radio report does not evidence make. i figure if this story was all it was cracked up to be it would be all over the major news networks and i've not heard a thing. all the wmd finds i've heard about so far have been unproven so i'm prepared to wait.

 

[Ardsgaine]

i'm with ards, one radio report does not evidence make. i figure if this story was all it was cracked up to be it would be all over the major news networks and i've not heard a thing. all the wmd finds i've heard about so far have been unproven so i'm prepared to wait.

I heard it on Fox too, but they're guilty of the same thing as the rest of them. The number of reports doesn't make any difference either, because all it takes is for one correspondent to file a story with Reuters or UPI, and the rest will all pick up on it. It gets repeated on every news channel, and all the papers print it.

A LOT of the news is actually just reporting on other people's stories. Even when it's first hand, it's based on incomplete information. Sunday my local paper printed a story with a headline that suggested that the army had found some warheads armed with anthrax and others that possibly had nerve agent. If you actually read the story, it said that preliminary field tests indicated anthrax, but it still had to be confirmed. So you've got a journalist out in the field who can't wait for confirmation before he files a story that the army might've found WMD. He rushes to file it, and then the paper prints it as if it's a foregone conclusion that the confirmation will follow.

They're reporting rumours and speculation as if they're news. The only people over there concerned with getting the truth out are the people in CENTCOM. Now if that ain't irony, I don't know what is...

 

[flavio]

I heard reports now that it very well could be pesticide found outside an agricultural compound.

*shrugs*

 

[Gato_Solo]

I heard reports now that it very well could be pesticide found outside an agricultural compound.

*shrugs*

Considering most pesticides are extremely diluted nerve agents, you may have a point, but consider this...why was this stuff recently buried? Why are there weapons at an agricultural plant? If you can come up with a logical or valid reason for the second question in particular, I'd like to know what it is...

 

[flavio]

I have no idea what the real story is. I heard a news story on the radio that said it appears to be pesticides...hardly conclusive though.

What makes me curious lately is if they have some big stockpile of WMDs what exactly are they saving them for? Isn't it about time to bust them out?

 

[Gato_Solo]

I have no idea what the real story is. I heard a news story on the radio that said it appears to be pesticides...hardly conclusive though.

What makes me curious lately is if they have some big stockpile of WMDs what exactly are they saving them for? Isn't it about time to bust them out?

If he was in the process of hiding them, he would've been hard-pressed to re-weaponize them under fire. We moved up through Iraq pretty fast.

 

[flavio]

Yeah, he probably never saw that coming huh?

 

[HeXp£Øi±]

Never had a doubt that we'd find at least some. Amazing that none of these have been used(as far as we know). I mean just amazing. We'll be finding lot's more in the coming months and eventually we'll scoff that anyone ever had doubts.

 

[Aunty Em]

[Iraqi Information Minister]They couldn't possibly have found those in Iraq, Coalition forces have been defeated on all fronts, and there are no Coalition forces in Iraq. [/Iraqi Information Minister]

Someone give that man an Oscar for gods sake!

 

[RD_151]

[/quote]

Considering most pesticides are extremely diluted nerve agents, you may have a point, but consider this...why was this stuff recently buried? Why are there weapons at an agricultural plant? If you can come up with a logical or valid reason for the second question in particular, I'd like to know what it is... [/quote]

Maybe it was to throw them off while they hide the 'real' WMDs

Why not create suspicous clues at places we are likely to look first to keep us busy? That way they have something to shoot at, and time to take care of the 'real' wmds, if there are any. I'm also quite surprised they aren't using them if they have them. I don't think this guy is so delusional he thinks he can win, or that we'll let him live. He really has nothing to loose by using them, assuming of course he has them.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Maybe it was to throw them off while they hide the 'real' WMDs

Why not create suspicous clues at places we are likely to look first to keep us busy? That way they have something to shoot at, and time to take care of the 'real' wmds, if there are any. I'm also quite surprised they aren't using them if they have them. I don't think this guy is so delusional he thinks he can win, or that we'll let him live. He really has nothing to loose by using them, assuming of course he has them.

Not very logical IMO. Hastily buried, and camoflauged barrels...perhaps within the week, speak of the 'Oh shit' syndrome. Perhaps they thought that they could keep us out long enough to actually use them also comes to mind as an option. Loading a chemical warhead is not like dusting crops. If it isn't done right, you've either contaminated your own troops, or rendered the chemicals useless for offense(premature spray, etc). I'm actually surprised they got 20 or so short-range missiles ready in the face of the US advance.

 

[Ardsgaine]

Amazing that none of these have been used(as far as we know). I mean just amazing.

Well, ya know... Chirac said that if the Iraqis used the WMDs that they didn't have, the French would join the Coalition, so Saddam was probably too scared.

 

[RD_151]

Afraid of the French? I think you are giving them a little too much credit. Saddam could probably storm Paris given sufficent motivation to do so But maybe the Russians told them not to use them. That might be the case, but facing a no win situation, and certain death, its truly is amazing they haven't used them nevertheless, assuming they have them. Whether our assumption is correct is the bigger question at this point.