Sarin nerve gas shell rigged to boobytrap just exploded ... plus mustard gas shell discovered recently. These are both from Saddam era WMD stockpiles which were supposedly destroyed.
Printable View
Sarin nerve gas shell rigged to boobytrap just exploded ... plus mustard gas shell discovered recently. These are both from Saddam era WMD stockpiles which were supposedly destroyed.
Damn. Thanks Melonie. I knew there had to be something there.
and the Iraqi council president was murdered today too :'(
That's probably a big blow to the July 1st deadline :-\
But how is this possible? I thought this whole war was just one big lie from the Bush administration to go to war against the man who tried to assasinate his father? I'm totally confused? Almost every major media outlet has told me that there were no WMDs, that America is evil, and we deserved the World Trade Center attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie link=board=1;threadid=9268;start=msg110255#msg1102 55 date=1084817453
All sarcasm aside, this doesn't surprise me at all. Most people are not aware of the fact that we have, in fact, found WMDs on several occasions. We have found artillery shells with anthrax in them. We have found centrifuges designed in refining uranium to be used in weapons, etc. etc. etc. I was 100% convinced that Saddam had them and was hiding them the day he admitted he would rather have the world bomb his country into oblivion rather than let the weapons inspectors back in. This is not to mention the 19 U.N. violations he had where he refused to let the inspectors go where they were supposed to as part of his surrender in '91. There is a great article on this you might want to check out:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=38213
One of the unfortunate aspects of most quick tests is a high incidence of false positives. (like the airport residue tests which can identify fertilizer as explosives residue). Since the field testing units are not precise, it is not totally inconceivable that the shell could have been stored with a leaking container a long time ago. I am not suggesting this is true, but I would suggest no one over react before the lab tests confirm this.
Not to speculate wildly, but what sort of weapons do you think were involved in the aborted islamic extremist attempt to kill 80,000 Jordanians last month ? Even though the attempt was aborted, it did have the intended effect of turning Jordan's king into an adversary of George Bush (publicly at least).Quote:
I wouldn't call one old artillery shell which didn't mix the two biological agents properly a major discovery of WMD. More like one lone stray shell in the cache Reagan and Rumsfield sold to Sadaam in the 80s.
Saddam wasn't very good at producing, buying or developing effective nerve gas and atomic weapons. This doesn't mean he wasn't trying to develop or obtain them, and that he would have continued to try to develop and obtain atomic and nerve gas weapons.
He may indeed have had a few operational. Whats left of the Republican Guard probably have them or know where they are. They are fighting us in Fallujah (sp?). The point is there aren't as many as Wall Street Bush tried to make us believe. Was Wall Street Bush totally wrong on WMD? No, Just the amount and scale.
We (together) have won a great military victory. The U.S. Army Third division sweep through the desert will be studied for years in military tactics courses around the world. The idea that you don't need to secure every supply line in a desert area if you have air power will also be studied. (Despite Jessica Lynch and crew taking the wrong turn it certainly speeded up getting to Bagdad.) Conquering an entire country that was once the seat of an ancient empire in three weeks is a new record and stands as a military triumph.
That the plan afterward was not well developed is another example of Wall Street's (Let the market take care of it) inadequate amounts of people and resources, and do it cheap philosophy.
Trying to do it cheap is becoming very expensive as Wall Street Bush
and the rest of us are finding out.
Let's put in more troops, transfer 50% control to the Iraquis on June 30, develop a real army for Iraq, and then get the hell out in two or three years. This will beat the German occupation which took nine years.
I was struck that the U.S. army occupation of Germany did not end until 1954. There was no german govenment until 1949. So in effect the U.S. Army ran Germany (allied occupation authorities) for four years and for another five years part time.
After seven years of war (1938-1945) the Germans had had enough and knew they were beat. The Nazi ideologues were in prison or were dead.
Mr. Sadr and crew don't realize they lost.. so they need to have the same thing happen to them as extremist ideologues in WWII. Should'nt be too long now.
While groups are attempting to undermine the transfer of power, it will occur. (This will be a partial transfer like 1949 Germany) Ordinary Iraqi people will have to decide whether to go forward or backward in history on June 30th. And they will have to take sides in their country. Most are safely sitting on the sidelines right now.
The point is they will have to take sides one way or the other.
The WMD thing is irrelevant now for the future. It has interest only in a prosecution sense to show Wall Street Bush's and crew's motives.
http://www.fedex.com/Quote:
Originally Posted by audioslave2 link=board=1;threadid=9268;start=msg111490#msg1114 90 date=1084988439
Madcap, that is funny as hell, I love it.
Nonetheless I have to side with Audioslave 2 on this one.
I am not at all surprised that they have found something to help justify this fiasco, even if it of course falls well short of the blatantly obvious stockpiles we were led to believe existed by the massive PR blitz engineered by Bush, et al.
Had such lethal resources existed for Saddam to use, we would have discovered a great deal more evidence than a couple of old artillery shells, probably when the admittedly vicious swine used them on our troops.
Since we do seem to be the world's watchdogs for WMDs, it might be time to finish what we've started and invade North Korea, India, and Pakistan. But wait, what about those with much larger stockpiles? China should be invaded as well, and all those splinter nations from the old USSR.
Then let's get Israel, England and France.
But hey, Saddam DID have a very dangerous and highly volatile resource in tremendous abundance, one easily delivered through any number of means, one he could not be trusted to keep under any circumstances...
Oil.
If we went there for oil we've sure failed. In less than a week I went from $1.83/gallon to $2.13/gallon. Sheesh! My Honda Accord suddenly seems like a gas-guzler! lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Djoser link=board=1;threadid=9268;start=msg111544#msg1115 44 date=1084993207
Djoser, what would you say is the reason we went into Somalia?
The total amount of this increase is not and could not be related to the rise in crude oil prices. Increases in gasoline prices are occurring for a lot of "domestic" reasons which have absolutely nothing to do with the middle east. A major cause is new environmental laws banning certain gasoline additives like MBTA suddenly creating shortages and very high prices for still legal substitute additives. Another is a formula switch to "summer" gasoline, where the US refineries underestimated the increased demand for gasoline and diesel fuel now occurring as our economy improves. Yet another is the fact that many US refineries have shut down permanently rather than having to spend billions of dollars to add better pollution control equipment to meet stricter EPA regulations. Still another are new laws forcing electrical generators which burn oil to be run first, instead of electrical generators which burn much less expensive but more polluting coal, as was the case last year and earlier. And my favorite is state and local gasoline taxes which are leveed as a percent of the sales price of gasoline and not in the form of x cents per gallon (meaning that the states are raking in a "tax increase" as the price of gasoline rises).Quote:
If we went there for oil we've sure failed. In less than a week I went from $1.83/gallon to $2.13/gallon. Sheesh!
But probably the most significant reason of all was the success of Al Queda's Spanish train attack, the aborted Jordanian attack, and anti-war sentiment in the US and world press. These developments have struck fear in the hearts of most "non-fanatical" middle east leaders that they may need to accomodate islamic extremists in order to avoid attacks in their own countries. One way to do this is to reduce OPEC crude oil production targets. The reduced targets, combined with fears that the islamic fanatics may indeed wind up controlling mideast oil if the US and UK are pressured to pull troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan the way the Spanish have, is a major reason that crude oil has risen from $30 to $40 per barrel over the last few months.
Wow, thanks Melonie! You're a wealth of great information as always! :)
The attack on Spain would not have happened if Spain hadn't sent a token force to "support" the war. Certainly there would be no anti-war sentiment in the US if we hadn't let Bush, Rumsfeld, and the rest manipulate the nation into this situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie link=board=1;threadid=9268;start=msg111608#msg1116 08 date=1084997856
Thus, the most significant reason of all, as evidenced by the most dramatic price increase taking place since the war has taken such an unfavorable turn, is that we are there.
I have been an avid reader of military history for all my life, so not surprisingly I DO believe in a strong military and having the gonads to use it. I do NOT believe in letting terrorism go unpunished. And I will certainly not dispute Saddam being a despicable scumbag.
But this invasion and occupation has been handled disastrously from the get-go, and it is my belief that we are only beginning to pay the price.
How has it been handled disastrously?Quote:
But this invasion and occupation has been handled disastrously from the get-go, and it is my belief that we are only beginning to pay the price.
The dramatic increase in US casualties a year after we 'won' the war.Quote:
Originally Posted by TarnakMetal link=board=1;threadid=9268;start=msg111670#msg1116 70 date=1085003852
The murder of our candidate to govern the occupied nation.
The rise in support in Islamic factions for terrorist elements, rather than the perception that the US should not be messed with, or we will stomp them like the bugs they are.
That's a good start...
Those all seem like acts of our enemies rather than of the handlers.
-There will always be casualities, mostly because we are targets of foriegn figthers as well as die hard insurgents. This was anticipated, this is a battle in the war on terror. (which is why we are desperate to transfer power)
- The murder of our candidate, also an act of the enemy not of the "handlers".
- We have been battling Al Sadr, hitting him pretty hard, destroying his offices, etc. But ultimately, we gotta let Iraqis handle these problems, because then extremist arguments are unfounded. It'll be extremists vs. Iraqis, and not extremists vs. the US.
I don't mean to seem argumentitive, but honestly, I think you're looking at the iraq war from a bush-hater point of view, because you targeted how the war is being "handled" ( a clear reference to Bush).
My local paper hid the Sarin discovery on page 5. Didnt surprise me a bit.
FBR
You are correct, TarnakMetal, in contrast to some members of my family, whom I love and respect; I am in strong opposition to the way Bush is handling this war. And I am tired of seeing US troops being placed in more danger on a daily basis, typical of a military situation which is deteriorating, rather than successful.
Yes, the problems I brought up are primarily due to "our enemies".
Our enemies are not only undefeated, but apparently growing stronger and gaining support from the Muslim world. I blame what I perceive to be extremely poor planning and execution of operations by this administration for the horrible situation in Iraq, since they decided to invade it.
As I have stated elsewhere, since we are in it up to our necks, I hope I am wrong--but my background in history and my perception tell me otherwise.
DJ Im worried also. Im starting to believe theres no fixing the problem.
FBR
In January 2004 when the East was having it coldest average temp for that month in decades a whopping 4.6% of electricity was generated with oil.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec7_5.pdf
60% of that was with residual fuel-the worse crap venezuela puts out which is one step up from tar--not the light sweet crudes which gasoline is made from. You could make gasoline out of it but you would get half the throughput out of your refinery, so it just isn't worth it
Melonie left out the other fun parts. The other thing that is different this year is lower sulfur allowed in the gasoline. This cuts us off from being able to imprt as much gasoline at the margins because many foreigners were not willing to spend the millions to make this US only gasoline.
The price of gasoline could be drastically (say a quarter a gallon) reduced by suspending for 90 days environemntal restristions on things that stress refineries and isolate regions from being able to use gasoline which is perfectly good in otheer areas. The environmental lobby would scream bloody murder and Kerry would accuse the Pres of killing widows with emphysema (from smoking for 40 years) for Hummers, so it ain't gonna happen. California, NY and Connecticut have forced new oxygenated gasoline rules by regulation and want you to pay so much you do not drive and make their air quality report card look better. They did not care that there was not enough capacity to make the expensive additives--they just ordered it and said it "should" cost a nickle more. Well California drivers will tell you it cost 40cents a gallon more.
Sadly, I just got a new car and had to fill it up today at a whopping $2.25 a gallon. GEEZ.
Not only that, I just heard on the news that Bush is refusing to touch our petroleum reserves. He blames it on Congress and their not passing his "energy bill" 3 years ago.
Whatever the case, my wallet is upset. :'(
I hear ya Lexi.. It's about $2.17 per gallon for regular unleaded here. Ugh. They say they expect it to hit $3.00 or more per gallon very soon.
It's madness, I tell ya.
The primary and core issue for the large increase in gasoline (and other oil based products) is the tremendous upsurge in demand
from China, which as 1.3 billion people.
We are being outbid for a limited resource due to the "global market." (There it is again, globalization. And the U.S.
without a plan on what to do in an increasing globalized world.
Of to put it another way, if there is a plan the ordinary people don't seem to know about it.)
Almost all other commodities are up including soy beans, copper and steel. Scrap steel is going to China and the market is hot.
Getting back to oil, supplies of oil are being diverted to China for the simple reason that they are willing to pay more for it than we are.
All the other issues on fuel additives and non standard formulas are true, but minor issues in the price increase by comparison.
true, true and true ! This is the reason that I own Chinese copper and aluminum stocks!Quote:
Almost all other commodities are up including soy beans, copper and steel. Scrap steel is going to China and the market is hot.
Getting back to oil, supplies of oil are being diverted to China for the simple reason that they are willing to pay more for it than we are.
All the other issues on fuel additives and non standard formulas are true, but minor issues in the price increase by comparison.
But on the subject of gasoline, the point which is still not being made here is that a significant portion of the price we pay at the pump for gasoline in CA, NY, CT and other pollution on the brain states does NOT have anything much to do with the cost of crude oil. As you correctly point out, it has to do with recent legislation which forced the use of exotic fuel additives (which are in short supply and which also do not have a country-wide market to reduce costs through quantity production as was the case with the old additive MBTA). This in turn also reduced the size of the "market" for gasoline with exotic additives from 1/2 the USA to a single state (or even a portion of a single state). This in turn forced refineries to make "short" production runs of gasoline with exotic additives, raising refining costs. At the same time, this reduced stockpiles of gasoline with exotic additives, making supplies even shorter and raising prices even higher when this year's springtime increase in passenger car travel met this year's increase in truck transport due to an improving economy.
Totally unrelated to this is a tremendous disparity in gasoline tax from state to state. You can drive across the NY/NJ border and pay 20 cents less per gallon of gasoline simply because of the difference in tax rates.
If I had to take a wild guess at the price breakdown of gasoline at the pump in NY or CA, I'd bet it goes something like this
crude oil 50%
additives 10%
refining and distribution costs 15%
distributor and gas station profit 5%
state taxes 20%
IMHO anybody calling for president Bush to release crude oil from the strategic petroleum reserve (which is intended to provide fuel for tanks, ships and planes in the event of an oil embargo put in place by Osama and other enemies in the middle east) could save themselves much more money without endangering national security by simply writing their state legislators and proposing that they lower the state tax on gasoline to the same level as in neighboring states.
PS the 4.6% of total electricity being generated by oil figure quoted from the DOE is a bit misleading. First, president Bush's emergency waiver to allow unrestricted operation of coal fired plants after last November's blackout was still in effect at that time. Second, although the 4.6% figure sounds low, the total amount of oil consumption this represents is huge. In terms of electric power plants, a "small" power plant might be rated 500 megawatts. This equals 670,000,000 horsepower, and is roughly equivalent in energy consumption to 167,500 tractor trailers or 400,000 cars PER "small" oil fired POWER PLANT (and there are hundreds of them, plus "large" ones over 1000 megawatts!). Thank god that the majority of electric power is generated using hydro, or "cheap" fuels such as nuclear or coal. Of course, states like California will not allow nuclear or coal fired power plants to be built in their state, so California oil and gas fired power plants serve to significantly increase the statewide demand for oil and gas, and in turn further increase the regional price. And you're also correct that new legislation limiting the permissible amount of sulfur in oil disqualifies quite a few crude oil sources because of their sulfur content, further reducing the supply of "CA, NY, CT acceptable" crude oil and further increasing the price.
So the increase in demand from China and the various restrictions imposed by our own government has caused this very rapid jump which has taken place in the last 3-4 months? It has nothing to do with the war?
I am not doubting these are serious issues, but I don't believe it is primarily from those causes that gasoline is now so much more expensive. I have observed many times before that prices, especially gas prices, are raised simply because the guys who are raising the prices can do so.
It has occured many times in the past, that dramatic events in the Middle East have caused immediate upsurges in the pump prices, far more rapidly than cost of refinement or competition for supplies would explain.
These are very valid reasons for inflated prices, and I am glad that you are bringing our attention to them, but I have my doubts as to whether the psychological factors, such as fuel the dramatic changes in the stock market, are not having an effect here. Not to mention the greed of those Arab nations who are supposed to be the 'nice' ones.
I have never had much respect for the Saudis (isn't that where so many of the terrorists are from?), who ought to be kissing our asses for keeping Saddam off theirs.