Aa
The truth comes out
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/15/us-troops-wounded-by-decades-old-chemical-weapons-during-iraq-war-report-claims/
American troops were exposed to chemical weapons multiple times in the years following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, while the Pentagon kept their discoveries of the expired or degraded weapons secret from investigators, fellow soldiers, and military doctors, according to a published report.
The New York Times reported late Tuesday that American troops reported finding approximately 5,000 chemical warheads, shells, or aviation bombs in the years following the 2003 invasion of Iraq. On at least six occasions, soldiers were wounded by those weapons, which had been manufactured before 1991. In all, the paper reported that 17 U.S. soldiers and seven Iraqi police officers were exposed to chemical agents during the war. The U.S. government said its number was slightly higher, but did not release a specific figure.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0
American troops were exposed to chemical weapons multiple times in the years following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, while the Pentagon kept their discoveries of the expired or degraded weapons secret from investigators, fellow soldiers, and military doctors, according to a published report.
The New York Times reported late Tuesday that American troops reported finding approximately 5,000 chemical warheads, shells, or aviation bombs in the years following the 2003 invasion of Iraq. On at least six occasions, soldiers were wounded by those weapons, which had been manufactured before 1991. In all, the paper reported that 17 U.S. soldiers and seven Iraqi police officers were exposed to chemical agents during the war. The U.S. government said its number was slightly higher, but did not release a specific figure.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0
I'm not as old as you are (we're close though), but I too thought that Carter was, by far, the worst President to come along.
B.O. has trumped him, by a long-shot.
But you make an valid point, in that his current supporters will NEVER be swayed for supporting & agreeing with, anything & everything he does and says.
Even a semi-rational person disagrees with SOME things their President does. Case & point... GW. I thought he was an OK President, but I disagreed with him about 50% of the time. Just because I supported him, it doesn't mean that I couldn't rationally see when he was making a bad call, and I'd call him out on it.
B.O. supporters seem to think the guy walks on water and can do & say no wrong, when he's very plainly doing a horrible job.
B.O. has done some good things while in office (although I can't think of any, I'm sure he's done SOME good), but the bad FAR outweighs the good.
Our economy... in shambles.
Our foreign-policy... we're the laughing stock of the world.
Our immigration policy... citizen'ize everyone (seriously?)
Our healthcare system... the ACA (nuff' said)
B.O.'s golf game... has dropped his handicap from a 14 to a 10
He can do no wrong, in their eyes, no matter WHAT the state of the union is. It's much easier to blame the previous guy, and the next guy, for all of the stuff he's dropped the ball on.
But you already knew that...
B.O. has trumped him, by a long-shot.
But you make an valid point, in that his current supporters will NEVER be swayed for supporting & agreeing with, anything & everything he does and says.
Even a semi-rational person disagrees with SOME things their President does. Case & point... GW. I thought he was an OK President, but I disagreed with him about 50% of the time. Just because I supported him, it doesn't mean that I couldn't rationally see when he was making a bad call, and I'd call him out on it.
B.O. supporters seem to think the guy walks on water and can do & say no wrong, when he's very plainly doing a horrible job.
B.O. has done some good things while in office (although I can't think of any, I'm sure he's done SOME good), but the bad FAR outweighs the good.
Our economy... in shambles.
Our foreign-policy... we're the laughing stock of the world.
Our immigration policy... citizen'ize everyone (seriously?)
Our healthcare system... the ACA (nuff' said)
B.O.'s golf game... has dropped his handicap from a 14 to a 10
He can do no wrong, in their eyes, no matter WHAT the state of the union is. It's much easier to blame the previous guy, and the next guy, for all of the stuff he's dropped the ball on.
But you already knew that...
Good point as usual from you.
Incase you guys haven’t noticed. I very seldom comment about Obama anymore.
I can’t say he is the worst President we have had but Eisenhower was President when I was Born. I don’t remember much about Eisenhower but I can say Obama is the worst I can remember.
I never thought anyone could bump Carter up out of last place position but he managed.
For the people that still support him, there is nothing I can say that could possibly convince them otherwise. It doesn’t matter how much he screws up, they are going to support him. So why bother?
This is a prime example “It's time to admit that WMD's were found in Iraq”.
It will never happen, regardless of how much evidence is presented.
I can’t say he is the worst President we have had but Eisenhower was President when I was Born. I don’t remember much about Eisenhower but I can say Obama is the worst I can remember.
I never thought anyone could bump Carter up out of last place position but he managed.
For the people that still support him, there is nothing I can say that could possibly convince them otherwise. It doesn’t matter how much he screws up, they are going to support him. So why bother?
This is a prime example “It's time to admit that WMD's were found in Iraq”.
It will never happen, regardless of how much evidence is presented.
I have accepted those 2 things and have accepted that Obama IS the greatest President to ever take office and we have been wrong for not giving him complete control to do whatever he wanted and we are fools for not changing the constitution so that he can serve as much as we want him to.
You're not going to win this argument, Vance.
It matters not that the WMD's were found. That there's pictures of them. That people got sick from them.
What matters, is that the Democrats remain 'right'. That's ALL that matters. oh yeah, and it also matters that Bush remains WRONG.
As long as you're okay with those 2 things, then you're golden!
It matters not that the WMD's were found. That there's pictures of them. That people got sick from them.
What matters, is that the Democrats remain 'right'. That's ALL that matters. oh yeah, and it also matters that Bush remains WRONG.
As long as you're okay with those 2 things, then you're golden!
Yes sir. I think that is the rules.
Oh so they were not considered WMD's since they were just sitting there for anyone to use including Saddam on his people again? Or on Israel? Or on our troops?
Yeah, but it wasn't an active program. The weapons they found Vance, were just sitting there.
So even thought WMD's have been found you say there was none? Interesting. Now is this just willful ignorance on your part?
"The specialist swabbed the shell with chemical detection paper. It turned red — indicating sulfur mustard, the chemical warfare agent designed to burn a victim’s airway, skin and eyes."
"In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act."
From the article
"The specialist swabbed the shell with chemical detection paper. It turned red — indicating sulfur mustard, the chemical warfare agent designed to burn a victim’s airway, skin and eyes."
"In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act."
From the article
NO. Read the article
And the answer to my question is????
Tee hee hee
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/no-wmds-in-iraq/
And this too acknowledges the old weapons, as opposed to anything current as well.
And this too acknowledges the old weapons, as opposed to anything current as well.
Everyone knew - or at least back then they thought they knew - that Iraq gassed the Kurds. That was 1988. So finding chemicals shouldn't be surprising. I remember Condie mentioning a mushroom cloud.
"On CNN on Sept. 8, 2002, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice infamously warned — incorrectly — that Saddam Hussein may be close to producing a nuclear weapon. When asked how “close” Saddam was to “developing a nuclear capacity,” Rice replied:
RICE: The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
"On CNN on Sept. 8, 2002, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice infamously warned — incorrectly — that Saddam Hussein may be close to producing a nuclear weapon. When asked how “close” Saddam was to “developing a nuclear capacity,” Rice replied:
RICE: The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
I did read the full article before I posted it, you still have not answered my question and I doubt you will be honest and answer it.
Aaahh, and they were having so much fun too.
They were really giddy - gettin giddy with it................so to speak.
They were really giddy - gettin giddy with it................so to speak.
LOL, go read the article. Since when does fox assume your not smart enuff to read the article yourself to the point that they have to lead you to what it says, to their way of thinking. And then YOU defend them for insulting you.......
LOL, my work here is done......Are you smarter than a fifth grader? Yes? Read the original article !
LOL, my work here is done......Are you smarter than a fifth grader? Yes? Read the original article !
So the answer to the question is?
The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an ACTIVE weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.
Did you not see the word active? And did you not notice, abandoned programs built in close collaboration with the West? Would that be us?
Did you not see the word active? And did you not notice, abandoned programs built in close collaboration with the West? Would that be us?
One question to answer, Did Iraq have WMD's at the time of the invasion?
All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin.
Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.
In case after case, participants said, analysis of these warheads and shells reaffirmed intelligence failures.
First, the American government did not find what it had been looking for at the war’s outset, then it failed to prepare its troops and medical corps for the aged weapons it did find.
Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.
In case after case, participants said, analysis of these warheads and shells reaffirmed intelligence failures.
First, the American government did not find what it had been looking for at the war’s outset, then it failed to prepare its troops and medical corps for the aged weapons it did find.
"The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale.
After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush insisted that Mr. Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program, in defiance of international will and at the world’s risk. United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims.
Then, during the long occupation, American troops began encountering old chemical munitions in hidden caches and roadside bombs. Typically 155-millimeter artillery shells or 122-millimeter rockets, they were remnants of an arms program Iraq had rushed into production in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war."
Just keep repeating the truth. Eventually it will sink in.
After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush insisted that Mr. Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program, in defiance of international will and at the world’s risk. United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims.
Then, during the long occupation, American troops began encountering old chemical munitions in hidden caches and roadside bombs. Typically 155-millimeter artillery shells or 122-millimeter rockets, they were remnants of an arms program Iraq had rushed into production in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war."
Just keep repeating the truth. Eventually it will sink in.
The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.
The New York Times found 17 American service members and seven Iraqi police officers who were exposed to nerve or mustard agents after 2003. American officials said that the actual tally of exposed troops was slightly higher, but that the government’s official count was classified.
The secrecy fit a pattern. Since the outset of the war, the scale of the United States’ encounters with chemical weapons in Iraq was neither publicly shared nor widely circulated within the military. These encounters carry worrisome implications now that the Islamic State, a Qaeda splinter group, controls much of the territory where the weapons were found.
The American government withheld word about its discoveries even from troops it sent into harm’s way and from military doctors. The government’s secrecy, victims and participants said, prevented troops in some of the war’s most dangerous jobs from receiving proper medical care and official recognition of their wounds.
The New York Times found 17 American service members and seven Iraqi police officers who were exposed to nerve or mustard agents after 2003. American officials said that the actual tally of exposed troops was slightly higher, but that the government’s official count was classified.
The secrecy fit a pattern. Since the outset of the war, the scale of the United States’ encounters with chemical weapons in Iraq was neither publicly shared nor widely circulated within the military. These encounters carry worrisome implications now that the Islamic State, a Qaeda splinter group, controls much of the territory where the weapons were found.
The American government withheld word about its discoveries even from troops it sent into harm’s way and from military doctors. The government’s secrecy, victims and participants said, prevented troops in some of the war’s most dangerous jobs from receiving proper medical care and official recognition of their wounds.
I bet you didnt find the part of the article I posted, in the fox one......Thats what I mean about fox, they take a grain of truth and spin it in what they want you to think it says. Like I said....Just read the entire article....
Even the article disputes that claim!
Even the article disputes that claim!
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
