| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| BREAKING: Polish troops find more chemical rounds in Iraq |
| 2004-07-01 |
| The source is in Polish. Apparently it is a significant find and Donald Rumsfeld was made aware of this at the last NATO summit by the Polish defense minister. Testing is underway. The information about a bunker containing the chemical came from Iraqis. It is not known yet if these rounds are pre-1991. |
| Posted by:Rafael |
| #15 But, but, but ... we have already been informed countless occasions by Kerry & the Dems there are no WMD anywhere concerning Iraq(??) Wonder how these items just keep popping up? Sometimes sand blows away, uncovering hidden stashes of large objects, such as MIG fighter Jets and even smaller ones like Saddam's various WMD. Eventually, even in Syria & Lebanon the wind has an effect on sand. ;) |
| Posted by: Mark Espinola 2004-07-02 3:10:35 AM |
| #14 The whole "pre-91" spin is, frankly, baloney. |
| Posted by: someone 2004-07-02 2:29:35 AM |
| #13 I went through a two-month Damage Control Asistant School in 1989 prior to becoming a DCA on a destroyer. This included a week of lectures by a major in the Army's chemical corps. Having had a glimpse into the CBRD world during that same time period, I am incredulous about Iraq having cyclosarin stocks that would lead them to leave shells rusting away in different bunkers throughout the country. I guess it is conceivable, though, as they must have had one of the sloppiest ammunition accountability regimes on the face of the earth. The whole idea of having unmarked CBR shells pre-1991 is inconceivable to me. Were they planning on getting their ass kicked and having their military slapped under a UN inspection regime? At least I can understand why they had had a grab bag of sloppily kept PPE in every bunker - there was no telling when there guys were going to have an work accident that proved terminal to all snuffies in the general area. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-07-02 1:04:11 AM |
| #12 and WTF difference does it make if they're pre-1991, Al-Rooters? Still illegal, and we'd be happy to let your reporters take a sniff if you think they're harmless... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-07-01 11:25:25 PM |
| #11 Having read both the Reuters and the Polish version they appear to differ in some details. The Reuters version refers to shells. The Polish version refers to rockets. The Reuters version appears certain that the rockets are pre-1991. The Polish version does not appear so certain. Has anyone noticed a slightly shrill quality in the Reuters article? |
| Posted by: Dave Schuler 2004-07-01 11:11:10 PM |
| #10 Proud Polack checking in. Way to go, boys! |
| Posted by: Chris W. 2004-07-01 8:32:44 PM |
| #9 CF - I recall, during run-up to the war, when the UN Inspectors had been let back in - because of Bush's troop build-up, of course - a conveniently forgotten fact, and they showed these "Inspectors" checking out a site with some unknown cylinders which were capped on both ends. If you recall, they allowed no American Inpectors in... Anyway, the film footage showed these "Inspectors" on-site and one of them unscrews the cap from one end of a cylinder and stuck his nose in it - !!! - one must presume he was sniffing for WMD's, heh. Luckily, for him, this cylinder was unused. They didn't identify the man or what country he was from, but methinks he was about as well-informed as the stud reporters riding herd at the Baghdad Hilton Bar. Of course, that is a possible use for the media in Iraq... WMD canaries... |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-01 6:43:41 PM |
| #8 Cap. America, Concerning recognization of these Chemical Weapon rockets.... So.... where do the media reporters spend most of their time again? The Bagdad bar? Perhaps they need a up-close-and-personal interview with a WMD.... Unfortunately I think that would be the only way for the media to acknowledge that there really are WMD in Iraq. And no, I do not feel that we should actually use them on anyone. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-07-01 6:33:28 PM |
| #7 You know what has always botherd me was when the "aluminum tubes" were said to be for rocket motors. Then there was found a rocket warhead for chemicals by the UN inspectors. The question I always had was the diameter of empty warhead happened to be near or the same as all this "high strength" aluminum? |
| Posted by: bruce 2004-07-01 6:27:07 PM |
#6 At what point do we have a stockpile?LH - as far as the lamestream media, the LLL, and (with a few exceptions) the Dems are concerned, NEVER. Why do you ask? |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2004-07-01 5:56:40 PM |
| #5 Reuters says they were pre-91. Even if so, Saddam was obliged to report them. Now we've got 12 that Duelfer found, the one that exploded, plus these - at least 16. Total almost 30. At what point do we have a stockpile? (and this excludes any that left the country, of course) |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-07-01 5:38:22 PM |
| #4 Question: When does WMD get recognized as such? Answer: When several people are killed as a result. |
| Posted by: Capt America 2004-07-01 5:37:55 PM |
| #3 Picture of a Grad rocket launcher. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-07-01 5:36:58 PM |
| #2 Oops. These were not shells but rockets ("Grad"), and 82mm mortar rounds, containing cyclosarin gas (as confirmed by the Polish defense minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski). |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-07-01 5:29:44 PM |
| #1 That should read: the information about the bunker containing the chemical rounds (shells) came from Iraqis. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-07-01 5:24:59 PM |
