Danish army: Iraqi shells WMD-free
 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...als/index.html

Danish army: Iraqi shells WMD-free

COPENHAGEN, Denmark --Mortar shells found in Iraq and believed to be suspicious in fact contained no chemical agents, the Danish army said after a week of tests.

The 36 shells, found 20 kilometers (12 miles) north of the city of Qurnah in southern Iraq on January 9, had initially been thought by Danish and British troops to contain a blister agent.

But further tests carried out in southern Iraq and the United States were negative, the Danish army said in a statement on Sunday, The Associated Press reported.

It was unclear why the initial field tests were wrong, the Danish army said from its headquarters in Karup, 265 km northwest of Copenhagen.

"The Danish Army Operational Command will now investigate what could be the cause to this," the statement said. It added that the testing kits would be sent to Denmark for examination.

U.S. Army officials had said the 120 mm shells, which are at least 10 years old, was surplus from the Iran-Iraq war in the mid-1980s. Blister agents are used in chemical weapons.

Several hundred Danish soldiers are working with a British-led multinational force responsible for security in southern Iraq.

Both the U.S. and British governments cited the threat of illicit weapons of mass destruction as a main reason for launching the Iraq war. However, no such weapons have been found so far.

The U.S. pulled 400 weapons-disposal experts from Iraq this month in what The New York Times called "a sign that [the] administration might have lowered its sights." The move raised suspicions that weapons are unlikely to be found.

The White House played down the move, saying the group focused on hunting weapons was remaining in Iraq.

Would it really have been a find anyway? I mean we did admit that we sold them chem weapons back in the 80's and then they find some shells from the 80's and think they might have chem weapons in them, I'm not sure how that would have been a surprise or would have strengthened our kings position.

So, once and for all, where are those famous , numerous and easy-lauchable " Weapons of Mass Deception" ????

http://www.ibillsucks.info/files/signature.gif

Maybe they should look at Powell presentation to the UN. He clearly showed us where they were....

They found stock piles of WMD's.... in Washington and in Texas and....

Powell's press conference on February 24, 2001 :

Karup government officials made the initial announcement?


It's almost like the people in charge are making fun of how blind and powerless we all are. :)

Yep, straight from karupspc.com

I swear, must be first time Danish army is mentioned in the news.
Oh no, some dudes blew up after fucking around with a missile in Afghanistan last year... Professional army my ass...

100% BS.

You mean internationally. G' knows how often they're mentioned in the news here.. pretty boring, filler stuff, only out to praise our pitifull engagement in Iraq. But hey, makes the government look good... Remember that submarine we sent down there? It was so old and tiny that it couldn't even sail all the way home by itself.

Tro, how's it going!? Long time no speak :)

Well...according to the UN inspectors that pulled out of Iraq in '98...they had destroyed 95% of them between '91-'98. Saddam would never offer proof of what was done with the other 5%. The man just was not the sharpest knife in the drawer...was he?

How is it BS? We did sell them chem and bio weapons including anthrax. I don't know what planet you've been living on, but we sold them a lot of shit, even financed all of their military equiptment for the war against Iran.

:glugglug

Yeah and it's BS that the US trained Osama Bin Laden and half of the terrorists out there and funded them with their weapons and dollars as a cheap and readily available weapon against the USSR, right? Get your head out of the sand.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/155236.stm
http://www.informationheadquarters.c...in_Laden.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/2001/fyi/news/10/23/afghanistan/

BS...we never sold any weapons to Iraq...ever...other than Iraq was indirectly sold some cluster bombs during the Iraq/Iran war. That constitutes the total sum of weapons ever sold to Iraq by the US. American companies sold Iraq dual use materials that Iraq sometimes converted into the production of weapons. When this practice was learned by the US government...companies were proscribed from selling said dual use materials. Iraq was armed by Russia...and to a lesser extent France and Germany.

I'll do you one better than that. As recently as the 90's we aided Bin Laden and his boys in Bosnia. Everyone do their research on that one, when we fought in Bosnia we supplied and aided muslim fundamentalists and many of them were Afghanistan trained.

:glugglug

Pay close attention to what I typed, we financed the weapons that Iraq got, that does not mean they bought them directly through the US because that would have been too obvious but we didi finance them and did supply some things such as Anthrax and a few other agents. There's no doubt about that.

No...you are wrong...it is not BS. The US has many times...armed and trained surrogates to fight an enemy...and will no doubt continue the same practice...when it is deemed to be a viable option.

Way to state the obvious.

You would however think that the US would realise that all the training it gave to Osama and Co. allowed them to run a terrorist organisation so professionally.

So perhaps such policies of the US are just a little short sighted.

Hmm?

Pay close attention to what I typed and am typing. The US did not finance any weapons purchased by Iraq. The Russians...France and Germany supplied/financed Iraq with its military machine. I repeat...the only weapons sold to Iraq by the US was an indirect sale of cluster bombs. US companies sold dual use materials...which was later proscribed by the US government. FYI Anthrax is not a weapon. Anthrax has to be "weaponized".,

noone can do anything about it anyways so lets not fight

Ah yes let me sell you all these parts for weapons, that only can be used as weapons but because they are parts they aren't weapons.

:1orglaugh

And yes we did finance military equipment purchases like it or not.

EB I think I love you.

:winkwink:

This is playing. as usual, with words... A bit like saying the US never supplied weapons to Iran.... ( just a hint: Iran-contra affair)....

The bottom line is clear:

You stated..."I mean we did admit that we sold them chem weapons..." and that is BS. We did not sell Iraq weapons. US companies sold some materials to Iraq that were dual use materials and Iraq did use some of the materials sold to them to produce weapons...when learned...sales of said materials were curtailed.


Educate me if you will...or can. What military equipment was financed by the US?

This is how it was.

Saudi Arabia's policy towards terrorists = Here's some money, just please leave us alone and don't bother us.

US policy towards terrorists = Here's some money my friends, now please leave us alone and go fight our enemies.

And now that there policy got them where they are, it's "Terrorists are pure evil, kill'em, kill'em all and everyone who might happen to be in the way. Let's shoot our way out of this one."

Not exact:

Oooops, dinner is ready ... Sirloin, Bordeaux, garlic mushroom, italian salad, Coulommier cheese....

FUCK THE DIET!!!!

Exactly.

The bottom line is clear:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Relevance of Yesterday's US Hypocrisy Today
by ELSON E. BOLES

You may feel disgusted by the hypocrisy of US plans to make war on Iraq and sickened at the inevitable slaughter of thousands of people. But if you could only vaguely recall the details of how deep the hypocrisy goes, then read on.

The US not only helped arm Iraq with military equipment right up to the time of the Kuwait invasion in 1989, as did Germany, Britain, France, Russia and others, but also sold and helped Iraq to integrate chemical weapons into their US-provided battle plans while fighting Iran between 1985-1988.

According to a New York Times article in August, 2002, Col. Walter P. Lang, a senior defense intelligence officer at the time, explained that D.I.A. and C.I.A. officials "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose" to Iran. "The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern," he said. One veteran said, that the Pentagon "wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas." "It was just another way of killing people _ whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference."

.....

http://www.counterpunch.org/boles1010.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Damn...I am impressed with the ramblings of the Professor...not. Many people write many articles...and in the scheme of things are of little import.

Col. Water P. Lang's statement is probably true...as the US did not want either country to suffer a decisive defeat...and assisted both Iraq and Iran...to some extent. Bottom line...being disembowled by the shrapnel from a mortar round or being stiched by bullets...or meeting your death by gas are all horrific... and FYI gas is not easily deployed as an effective killing tool.

Did you eat too many tacos today? Cos you smell like a fartbag.. you are deploying gas right on this board :helpme

Hmm...classic display of a very low IQ...abortion does have its merits.

Sure does ... words fail me sometimes King!! :thumbsup