Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Chemical find in Iraq

by Mac McMullen / August 13, 2005 10:55 AM PDT

Saddam's gonna be mad because this stuff wasn't better hidden for future use.

WASHINGTON, Aug. 13, 2005 ? Acting on detainee-provided tips, coalition forces found what's believed to be an insurgent chemical production facility and chemical storage locations during Aug. 9 raids in northern Iraq, officials in Iraq reported today.


Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Chemical find in Iraq
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Chemical find in Iraq
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Gee, the insurgents must have built their own equipment. It
by Kiddpeat / August 13, 2005 11:19 AM PDT
In reply to: Chemical find in Iraq

couldn't possibly have been Saddam's. Everyone knows he didn't have WMDs. Don't they?

Collapse -
Hold the fort (before jumping to conclusions)
by JP Bill / August 13, 2005 12:54 PM PDT
In reply to: Chemical find in Iraq
Military officials are careful to state that ongoing analysis of the chemical evidence collected from the sites is currently insufficient to determine what the insurgents had been producing.
Collapse -
You're right....
by C1ay / August 13, 2005 1:19 PM PDT

It's probably safer to assume they were contracting for Betty Crocker or Sara Lee.....

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) girl scout cookie dough was in drums
by Mark5019 / August 15, 2005 6:12 AM PDT
In reply to: You're right....
Collapse -
No one is jumping to anything...
by Edward ODaniel / August 14, 2005 4:23 AM PDT
Collapse -
"....to help the public lead better lives...."
by Mac McMullen / August 14, 2005 5:04 AM PDT

Assuredly not, when this stuff is found in the hands of the insurgents.

Collapse -
by JP Bill / August 14, 2005 1:32 PM PDT

I've read both links provided and selected some references to the chemicals found at the ''secret site''

Officials state so far that evidence was insufficient on what was being produced at the facility found during a U.S.-led raid Aug. 9.

''We don't want to speculate on any possibilities until our analysis is complete,

Unidentified chemicals in 5-gallon containers stacked against a wall represented the more than 1,500 gallons of various chemicals were found in northern Iraq on Aug. 9.

The military did not say when the tests - which will determine the exact chemicals found, among other things - are expected to be complete

Officials said the seized chemicals do not appear to be linked to Saddam Hussein's former government.

Your post states

although glycerin, sodium hydroxide and ethanol sulfate (among the 11 chemicals found in the lab) are commonly used in producing accellerants for explosives.

All indications are that the lab was not intended to produce insecticides, laundry detergents, or anything else to help the public lead better lives

I found no reference to the ''named'' chemicals in your post, in fact one of the statements in the link you provided, states that they are still testing to determine the exact chemicals that were found.

Inside info or do you have another link?

And some are jumping to conclusions by making a reference to Saddam and the Officials said the seized chemicals do not appear to be linked to Saddam Hussein's former government

Collapse -
Speakeasy is the name........
by Mac McMullen / August 14, 2005 1:56 PM PDT
In reply to: Response

....and opinion, conjecture, humor, BS is the game.

Collapse -
Google is your friend
by Edward ODaniel / August 15, 2005 8:04 AM PDT
In reply to: Response

and will provide you with links on the lab with more information.


Collapse -
It doesn't matter
by dirtyrich / August 13, 2005 11:02 PM PDT
In reply to: Chemical find in Iraq

because chemical weapons can't, like, you know, go and kill a bunch of people like nuclear weapons, right? The news tells me that we can't find nuclear weapons in Iraq and there's no good reason for us to be there... so these can't matter because the news hasn't said anything about them.

Collapse -
Won't matter to the Liberals
by duckman / August 13, 2005 11:58 PM PDT
In reply to: Chemical find in Iraq

Even if 1,000,00,000,000,000,000,000 tons of chemical weapons and a billion armed nuke-you-lar warheads are found, the Liberals will say it wasn't enough to justify the war.

Collapse -
Is there any evidence
by Dan McC / August 15, 2005 1:26 AM PDT
In reply to: Chemical find in Iraq

that these finds are related to Saddam's government?


Collapse -
Nobody has said there is
by TONI H / August 15, 2005 1:32 AM PDT
In reply to: Is there any evidence

and even the article doesn't make that assumption....what's your point when it's been clear so far in the threads that no one is assuming so. Please make a point in your posts or don't bother. It's annoying........


Collapse -
It was a question, Toni.
by Dan McC / August 15, 2005 4:38 AM PDT

Thanks for your interest.


Collapse -
Nobody was interested
by David Evans / August 15, 2005 7:38 AM PDT

...nor has anybody been interested. If you intend to intentionally and constantly annoy with snide remarks... well you know the drill.


Collapse -
Mods, I have to admit you've lost me on this one.
by drpruner / August 15, 2005 8:20 AM PDT

I took Dan's post exactly as he said he meant it - a question. Don't know that a question has to make a point, although a good one can start/continue a discussion that will confirm/demolish a point. And a ''snide'' question? I'm the expert there. I catch those every Saturday at the doors - or from certain bible-thumpers on SE. Dan's wasn't.

In fact, my own first thought on reading the initial thread was, 'Old [processing] equipment, or new?' Makes a big difference.

I'm surprised to find myself horning in on Dan's side, anyway. Check the SE history: He's no colleague of mine, the atheistic #(&%$*. Happy

Collapse -
Thanks, DR.
by Dan McC / August 15, 2005 11:15 PM PDT

I appreciate you viewing my post rationally in spite of your many bible induced delusions. Wink


Collapse -
(NT) (NT) That's "religious fanatic" to you, Bub.
by drpruner / August 16, 2005 1:33 AM PDT
In reply to: Thanks, DR.
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) No offense intended, pal.
by Dan McC / August 16, 2005 2:19 AM PDT
Collapse -
If you are familiar with his posts
by TONI H / August 16, 2005 2:45 AM PDT

then you also know his pattern.....the same one liner questions of Why, Where, When, How, Who......this is a person who continuously wants detailed explanations of somebody else (and edges close to demanding it) but never offers details when asked for them in return. I have asked him privately and publicly to cease and desist with it because it is annoying as hell to certain members, myself included, and he continues on......and acts the innocent crying wolf at every modalert opportunity. If he has anything to contribute to a conversation, it would be welcomed. I'm hardpressed over time to find where he ever has, but he's very quick to be negative to others.


Collapse -
''Please explain.'' :-)
by drpruner / August 16, 2005 6:38 AM PDT

It might be unkind of me to mention that if I, a non-Mod, can put up with it ...

Don't forget: Any reply to Dan - or you - is a thought planted with whomever else might be reading. And many of his questions are good ones, regardless of motive, so it keeps me in shape to answer them; again for him or whomever.

Ex: A certain bible-thumper here has a common but erroneous belief about the fate of the earth [the planet]. I replied to his erroneousness once with a simple NT question that takes one precisely to the bible text he's been taught to misunderstand. Courtesy and God demand a reply on his part? I suppose so, but I didn't expect nor receive one. BUT my leading question remains for any to see who might not have seen the true approach before.

Thank you, Messrs. Ziff and Davis. Happy

Collapse -
Ziff and Davis haven't been
by TONI H / August 16, 2005 7:01 AM PDT

affiliated with ZDNET in years and CNET bought out ZDNET a few years back. Z&D I think are still involved with PCMAG.COM though....


Collapse -
Actually YES if you...
by Edward ODaniel / August 15, 2005 5:51 AM PDT
In reply to: Is there any evidence
Collapse -
by Dan McC / August 15, 2005 11:16 PM PDT
In reply to: Actually YES if you...

I did and I did. What is everyone missing?



Collapse -
If you did and you did...
by Edward ODaniel / August 16, 2005 12:49 AM PDT
In reply to: OK

and still have to ask one wonders whether you actually did.

The containers show government markings and the report shows large quantities "missing" and unaccounted for from when "inspection teams" from the UN had located and marked them.

The military is making no firm statement about the find because as stated they want to conduct tests first to determine exactly what could be produced from the materials at hand. They are well aware that the media doesn't trouble itself with presenting just the facts but relies on speculation which the military is no longer willing to do because circumstances change and anything at variance with what a "spokesman" has said gets jumped on and pushed to the front to the exclusion of the rest of what was stated.

Just look at all the IDIOTS who immediately jumped on the "quagmire" band wagon at the first slowdown in the advance on Iraq--nevermind the logistics need for it (shouting bang band is no substitute for the real thing).

Collapse -
Just that?
by Dan McC / August 16, 2005 1:18 AM PDT

That's pretty slim. I was hoping you were on to something substantial.



Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Welcome back, Dan, you atheistic #(&%$. :-)
by drpruner / August 15, 2005 8:21 AM PDT
In reply to: Is there any evidence
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Thanks, you *&%^$!ing religous &*^@#!! ;-)
by Dan McC / August 15, 2005 11:21 PM PDT
Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?