It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


YES US TROOPS were hit by SARIN in GF1

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 12:27 PM

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
I happen to be one of them

NOT that the VA will EVER admit it.

everybody should go to the website, and read the "comments" section....geez....our guys trying to do the right thing, and again (agent orange in Vietnam) getting screwed over by the very commanders they trusted.....
my father, who was in the Korean war, made a vow to me that if I got drafted for Vietnam, he would personally see that he got me into Canada. he told me about some of the things he was hearing about from some of his buddies that stayed in the corp. and went to Nam.....

posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 01:53 PM
a reply to: Cricketine

We were ordered to take Pyrodostigmine Bromide I took 24 pills,the idea was to sheath our nerve endings to ease the shock to our system.

posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 02:06 PM
a reply to: bbracken677

We gave the Irqis Chemical weapons ourselves I 'm not clear if we are speaking of them here or if THEY created the Sarin but we have had contact with chemical warheads throughout all the conflicts there but they have TRIED to keep it secret because A; it would require they fully PAY for what was done to ME and so many (It's cheaper to wait and just let us die off)
B: The GOP may be a cruel and nasty group and part of it is their ability to control secrecy FAR better than the left .
They DO have the most fingers in the banking world.
REAL Americans are somewhere in the middle hoping for sanity.
I was a warrior inside so THAT is what I did,weird,deluded or how EVER you define such nature.
I don't LIKE harming anyone whom I would percieve as innocent yet have done so for a global ,chess game,it appears, when some learn that they kill themselves because of the SHAME some here would so gladly place on ALL combatants and not the ones who LED them there.
A sad commentary on the loss of critical thinking because if WE didn't join someone would be forced to in conscription.

posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 02:14 PM
a reply to: jimmyx

I am highly intelligent IKNEW ALL that .
I was just that way inside and chose that path,hoping I would be actually SERVING AMERICA.
Only WE are America now.
The banks and control systems own the rest we just aren't fully aware of it but we are still too many to completely control...for now.
edit on 7-4-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 02:16 PM

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Why were WMD's not reported thereby supporting the reason for invading Iraq in the first place?

WMD was found in Iraq during the 2003 invasion but they were old legacy weapons. A viable working cache was not found. UN inspectors were still finding and destroying old legacy weapons a few months prior to the invasion in 2003.

Iraq Survey Group Final Report

Iraq’s Chemical Warfare Program
Annex B

Al Muthanna Chemical Weapons Complex

A lot of those old legacy WMD were sealed in bunkers in the mid 1990s and Iraq had to declare them when they joined the Chemical Weapons Convention during 2009.

Destroying the Chemical Weapons at Muthanna

On February 12, 2009, Iraq acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), a multilateral treaty banning the development, production, stockpiling, transfer, and use of chemical weapons.[8] (To date, 188 countries have signed and ratified the CWC.) After joining the Convention, Iraq was obligated to declare within 30 days any legacy stocks of chemical weapons it had inherited from the Saddam Hussein regime. On March 12, 2009, Iraq declared Bunkers 13 and 41 at Muthanna containing filled and unfilled chemical munitions and precursors, as well as five former chemical weapons production facilities, to the international body overseeing CWC implementation—the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague, the Netherlands.[9]

Because of the hazardous conditions in Bunker 13, UNSCOM inspectors were unable to make an accurate inventory of its contents before sealing the entrances in 1994. As a result, no record exists of the exact number or status of the sarin-filled rockets remaining in the bunker. According to the UNMOVIC final report in 2007, the rockets "may be both filled and unfilled, armed or unarmed, in good condition or deteriorated."[10] In the worst-case scenario, the munitions could contain as much as 15,000 liters of sarin. Although it is likely that the nerve agent has degraded substantially after nearly two decades of storage under suboptimal conditions, UNMOVIC cautioned that "the levels of degradation of the sarin fill in the rockets cannot be determined without exploring the bunker and taking samples from intact warheads."[11] If the sarin remains highly toxic and many of the rockets are still intact, they could pose a proliferation risk.

Even if the sarin inside the rockets in Bunker 13 has degraded to the point that it has no military value and is little more than hazardous waste, the CWC still requires that all such materials be destroyed. Following Iraq's submission of its initial CW declaration in March 2009, the OPCW Technical Secretariat processed and analyzed the data. In April, Iraq submitted a general plan for destroying the CW materials stored in the two declared bunkers at Muthanna, as well as dismantling its former chemical weapons production facilities.[12]

The insurgents used some of those looted shells as improvised explosive devices. The question is did they know what the shell contained as many of the old legacy WMD was poorly marked and some without markings.

The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile—containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin—which insurgents attempted to use as an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist.

May 04: 2004 155mm Chemical Munitions Used as an Improvised Explosive Device

16 May 2004: 152mm Binary Chemical Improvised Explosive Device

A military team interrupted a group of Iraqi individuals attempting to bury multiple projectiles at a location near Canal Road in Baghdad (see figure 4). The individuals fled the site when fired upon, and the military team captured multiple artillery rounds and other weapons at the site. ISG’s field labs tested the recovered 155mm rounds and found some trace amounts of sulfur mustard and sulfur mustard degradation products in a few of the rounds. Technical experts found that each round contained a ruptured burster tube—inconsistent with UN destruction practices—suggesting that either Iraq unilaterally destroyed the rounds or looters attempted to drain residual agent from them (see figure 5).

Historical context: Iraq declared in its 1996 Full, Final, and Complete Declaration (FFCD) that it produced 68,000 155mm sulfur mustard-filled rounds between 1981 and 1990. Of those produced, Iraq has not been able to account for the location or destruction of 550 155 mm shells. The bulk of 155mm destruction occurred between 1993 and 1994 and many of the log entries show that the mustard was partly polymerized, which is consistent with our findings in the recent sulfur mustard rounds.

UNMOVIC up until they were sent packing by Saddam were still finding and destroying old legacy stocks of WMD during 2003.

25 February 2003 -- The destruction of mustard and 155mm artillery shells used for mustard gas at the Al Muthana site will resume tomorrow. The destruction process was temporarily halted due to technical problems. When the work was halted, about one-third of 50 liters of mustard had been destroyed. If everything goes well, the destruction work will be completed in four to five days.

posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 03:19 PM
a reply to: cavtrooper7

I get it...

But blaming the GOP and letting the left off scott free is disingenuous at best.

You are aware that 8 of the top 10 richest congressmen (people?) in 2014 were dems, right?

If you seriously think that Repubs are rich and Dems are poor and are for the little guy...OMG!

I wonder....who is it, again, who is funding Hilary's campaign? Who were the major contributors to Obama's campaigns?

lol dude....

Both sides are dirty and both sides pay homage to the same groups. Both sides are funded by the same groups. To suggest otherwise is just sheer ignorance. The information is freely available..... educate yourself.

edit on 7-4-2015 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 03:20 PM
a reply to: tommyjo


I knew that some "legacy" weapons had been found, but not to the degree described above.

posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 03:42 PM
a reply to: bbracken677

I think you mistake me for another 2 way simple thinker.
I like my conspiracies, The dems are sideshow self serving clowns mostly hippies who grew up ,right now, and Black panther wannabes ,with higher education.
The GOP are hooked into the Major players who own most everything behind the scenes who want ALL the money.
DAMN America and her people for all MOST care. the ones who do care are attacked as KOOKS who make waves in the system,BY both sides by pidgeon holing them INTO the 2 party name game.

Which is how they will get rid of Rand like his dad.
edit on 7-4-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-4-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-4-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 04:31 PM

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: cavtrooper7

I am confused, and perhaps this is just another illustration of how weird and illogical our govt has become.

No (or virtually no) WMD's were reported as being found, even though that produced a political hit for the admin and party in charge.

So..if there were WMD's it would seem likely the Admin would have waved that flag long, often and repeatedly and yet they did not.

Given the problems vets experienced even shortly after returning from GF1 I have felt that there was something that was used or discovered that troops had been exposed to. This article, more or less, confirms that... and yet it leaves the question:

Why were WMD's not reported thereby supporting the reason for invading Iraq in the first place?

Because rather than being nuclear weapons Saddam built, it would have been Chemical Weapons we gave him

Now how well do you think that would go over in the media?

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in