# Huge Chemical Weapons Factory found by coalition forces. What a surprise. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 24, 2003, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huge-chemical-weapons-factory-found-by-coalition-forces-what-a-surprise/163661 "2003-03-24T01:13:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2003, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huge-chemical-weapons-factory-found-by-coalition-forces-what-a-surprise/163661/161 "2003-03-25T15:49:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Nightime \* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Mtgman \* > > And FTR: I would have supported action against Hussein, probably not full-scale war, but some action, on humanitarian grounds. > > \*\*What action would that be? > > Actually, I think this really goes to the heart of the matter. It seems a lot of people agree that we should do something about the brutal treatment of Iraqis by their dictator, but don’t agree with war. But what other action could accomplish that goal? \*\* A non-exhaustive list. [ul] [li]UN Peacekeepers and Humantarian aid to the camps/areas where the Kurds are[/li][li]Continue the “no-fly zone” over the Shia populations to prevent Saddam from sneaking troops/bombers into those areas and killing them[/li][li]Airlift or otherwise import food and medicine for victims of the regime[/li][li]Offer asylum to refugees[/li][li]Financial aid to reputable infrastructure contractors and watch the books to be sure Saddam doesn’t divert the funds.[/li][li]Push for a UN resolution barring sale of even conventional weapons to Saddam at least until human rights abuses cease.[/li][li]Continue inspections and pass a resolution saying that if Saddam ever USES WoMD on ANYONE that he will be tried as a mass murderer in the world courts with a UN force to enforce the sentence if necessary.[/li][/ul] This is just off the top of my head, and it can be argued as to what is “effective” and what is not. Still I’d guess these, and whatever else people could come up with, would have some impact. Some of them would aid the Iraqi people without helping Hussein much, most would limit his ability to hurt his people. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2003, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huge-chemical-weapons-factory-found-by-coalition-forces-what-a-surprise/163661/162 "2003-03-25T15:52:29Z")
[From Reuters](http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=030324&cat=news&st=newsiraqchemicalweaponsdc) > [@](#): > > U.S.-Led Forces Cautious on Chemical Arms Reports > > Updated 7:34 AM ET March 24, 2003 > > By John Chalmers > > AS SAYLIYA CAMP, Qatar (Reuters) - The main spokesman for British forces in the Gulf on Monday played down reports of a chemical weapons plant near the Iraqi city of Najaf, saying independent checks would have to be made. > > The Fox News network and the Jerusalem Post on Sunday cited unidentified Pentagon officials as saying the facility was seized by the First Brigade of the U.S. Army’s 3rd Infantry Division as soldiers advanced north toward Baghdad. > > But Group Capt. Al Lockwood at Central Command in Qatar said he had heard about the factory “only from open source reporting” – probably meaning media reports. > […] > However, Washington and London say their forces have so far not found any evidence of chemical or biological weapons and none of the missiles fired by Iraq have been Scuds, despite initial reports to the contrary. So, if accurate, this would explain why such a compound was guarded by generals and 30 soldiers, and booby trapped when captured by American forces. Because it wasn’t; rather, it appears that it was captured by “open source reports.” ---
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2003, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huge-chemical-weapons-factory-found-by-coalition-forces-what-a-surprise/163661/163 "2003-03-25T16:13:47Z")
**Debaser** , you are clearly struggling to understand the use and meaning of the word, “if”. Don’t worry, I remember a President that struggled with “is”, so you are in good company. The **DtC** quote you use to try and refute **Mandelstam’s** (and my previous) assertion uses a hypothetical. You do see the word, “if”, don’t you? Do I need to explain hypothetical? **DtC’s** point, I believe, is that you can’t prove a negative. His OP, and posts in that thread, are consistent with that point. I did not find anywhere in that thread that **DtC** claimed that Iraq had no WoMD. Don’t hold your breath waiting for an apology, I’d hate for you to turn blue. > [@](#): > > _ **Debaser** wrote:_ > Well, this war has 75% of the American people in favor of it. The last gulf war had 80% in favor of it. How do you explain this if your reasons provided in bold above are why people are against this war? This just makes me giggle. I would ask for a cite, but I believe it is close enough that the distinction doesn’t matter. As I suspect you are aware, the support from the public for US intervention without UN authorization only went above 50% after Bush’s gauntlet tossing. Until that point, opinion polls were on the other side of this particular argument. How do I know that? I used to quote the polls to show exactly the opposite point which you now make. What does that mean? It means the public is a bit fickle. It means that public opinion can change on a dime, depending which way the wind is blowing. Are polls useful or important? I think so. But it also reasonable to speculate that the approval for the war will have peaked in its first couple of days. I predict that US support will begin to drop. It may cross back under 50%. What will your position be if/when they do? **Mandelstam’s** position statement reflects my position as well. Yet, starting after the gauntlet toss, I too began to support military action. We had passed the point of no return, and at that point, I think turning back was worse than going forward. But that doesn’t excuse the decision to cross the point of no return. > [@](#): > > _ **Debaser** wrote:_ > My guess is that about 5% of people are believers in the reasons you stated. The other 20%, of which Diogenes is a member, would be against any war regardless of the circumstances. Just like they are against the first gulf war, they are against the second. Cite? The opinion polls clearly show much lower support of the administration’s position by Democrats than what GW1 had. I think you have your percentages, at least, mixed up. And then how do you explain my position - someone who agrees with the position **Mandelstam** staked out, yet who (now) supports military action? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2003, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huge-chemical-weapons-factory-found-by-coalition-forces-what-a-surprise/163661/164 "2003-03-25T16:53:29Z")
Thanks, **AZ Cowboy** , I haven’t opened this thread for a while and didn’t realize that **Debaser** was using one of my threads to bolster an argument. Here’s something else I said in that thread that Debaser didn’t see or chose to ignore: > [@](#): > > _originally posted by me_: > I’m saying _hypothetically_ if no WMD’s exist. (and we have NO PROOF that they do) How can they possibly _prove_ that none exist? This was the crux of my OP and my argument in that thread. I never asserted as a fact that Iraq had no WMDs, I just said repeatedly that we had yet to prove it (and, to date, we still do). Even if we _had_ found WMDs, that still would not have given the US any legal authiority for an invasion. I’m wondering what the US will do if they really don’t find any WMDs. It is absolutely crucial, politically, for Bush to to do so. I have no doubt that, in a pinch, the US will seize a mouthwash factory somewhere and claim it was a covert lab for anthrax. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2003, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huge-chemical-weapons-factory-found-by-coalition-forces-what-a-surprise/163661/165 "2003-03-25T18:20:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by AZCowboy \* > **Debaser** , you are clearly struggling to understand the use and meaning of the word, “if”. Don’t worry, I remember a President that struggled with “is”, so you are in good company. If Mr. Clinton or Mr. Cynic just clearly stated exactly what it is that they believe such analysis of thier statements wouldn’t be needed. > [@](#): > > The **DtC** quote you use to try and refute **Mandelstam’s** (and my previous) assertion uses a hypothetical. You do see the word, “if”, don’t you? Do I need to explain hypothetical? Ah, he went back to the thread in question and made a follow up post with the comments that it was “hypothetical”. Well, he was still making the argument that we shouldn’t invade iraq because “The US currently has no compelling evidence whatever that Iraq has either WMD or the missile technology to threaten the the US.” Even if this was stated hypothetically, what’s the point of stating it? We find out later that compelling evidence did exist and he responds that it doesn’t matter and it’s still not justification for an attack. Because he did make that follow up post stating it was hypothetical, he isn’t being dishonest about it. However, it does make the entire issue moot. Why debate the existence of WMD’s at all if their existance doesn’t matter on your aguments about not going to war? > [@](#): > > Until that point, opinion polls were on the other side of this particular argument. How do I know that? I used to quote the polls to show exactly the opposite point which you now make. Well, you admit to using the polls when they were on your side. Do you expect me to not use them now that they are on mine? > [@](#): > > It may cross back under 50%. What will your position be if/when they do? The same as it is now. It’s bad enough to have presidents making decisions based on them. It would be worse if we, the public, started making decisions based on them. 🙂 > [@](#): > > Cite? This is the [poll](http://www.gallup.com/subscription/?m=f&c_id=13277) that I was referring to. > [@](#): > > Gallup’s first read on American public opinion after the official beginning of military action comes from our Thursday night poll, which shows that 76% of Americans support the war. That’s within three points of the 79% who approved of the nascent war on Iraq (“Operation Desert Storm”) on the night of Jan. 16, 1991. So, to be more precise, it’s only a 3% difference. ---
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2003, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huge-chemical-weapons-factory-found-by-coalition-forces-what-a-surprise/163661/166 "2003-03-25T23:07:14Z")
**Debaser** , sorry I have been slow to respond, but your post didnt’ register, the list still showed **DtC** as the last poster (now why I came back, I don’t know). My comment about the hypothetical was not related to his later post, it was strictly based on his use of “if”. I will agree that the point is moot. In fact, I agree with **DtC** that even if WoMD were found, it would not authorize the US to use force (I am willing to elaborate, should you desire). However, I do have an interest in making sure that positions aren’t misrepresented. **Mandelstam** apparently shares that interest. When you say that **DtC** was still making the argument that we shouldn’t invade Iraq because “The US currently has no compelling evidence whatever that Iraq has either WMD or the missile technology to threaten the the US,” if that is his position, I would say it is arguable and supportable (but that reasonable people could disagree on what constitutes “compelling evidence”). If he had said that no compelling _proof_ exists of Iraq’s WoMD, I would agree. I would also argue that timing _is_ important, from a legal justification perspective. I would further agree that if compelling and irrefutable proof of WoMD in Iraq is found, it won’t matter, and that Dubya will be vindicated in the eyes of world opinion (and the legal matter would simply be irrelevent, as no claim would ever be brought - spoils to the victor, and all). With regards to the polls, yes, I used them, and yes, I have no problem with you using them. Just be careful in basing arguments on them. They can turn and bite your ass. I know from personal experience. Oh, and my cite request wasn’t to support the 75% number (I saw that poll), it was to support your assertion that 20% wouldn’t support war under any conditions, and 5% were of the mindset described by **Mandelstam**. I’m not hung up on it, but I sincerely doubt that characterization. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huge-chemical-weapons-factory-found-by-coalition-forces-what-a-surprise/163661/167 "2003-03-26T13:54:34Z")
Oh, I don’t have a cite for that. It was a WAG on my part. (And was labelled as such 🙂 ) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huge-chemical-weapons-factory-found-by-coalition-forces-what-a-surprise/163661.md?page=8)