The hospital the coalition captured today had 3,000 chemical/biological suits in it.
Iraqi officers who surrendered have been found with Cipro pills (for Anthrax) and Atropine (for nerve gas).
Somehow, I think there are chemical and biological weapons around.
Something interesting I read today - If the coalition has found WMD, it may be in their interest to NOT tell the world. The reason being that the only thing holding Saddam back from using WMD now is that he hopes to win a war of world opinion, and he’d lose that instantly if he uses those weapons.
But if the U.S. displays those weapons and proves he has them, then a big impediment to his using them will be gone.
Perhaps that’s because, since Iraq received its anthrax and VX from the U.S., they were worried that the U.S. would use those weapons and then blame the Iraqis.
It proves nothing. U.S. soldiers have Atropine (and probably Cipro) as well. Or does the fact that U.S. troops went in with MOP suits prove that the U.S. will use chemical weapons?
Sam’s evidence is very convincing to me. I hadn’t heard about the Cipro and Atropine, and if that’s true there are few other explanations for them. Unless Saddam expects bio/chem attacks from the US or Iran, which seems unlikely. Or, and this is rather far fetched, if they weren’t high ranking officers perhaps they didn’t know Saddam’s plans and acquired the drugs for their personal protection just in case. That’s a stretch though.
Occam definitely favors the existence of wmd in Iraq. I wonder if and when we’ll find them.
Any reasonably modern army, which includes Iraq, stockpiles NBC defensive gear, trains it soldiers to use it, and issues it as standard equipment as it’s able to.
That Iraqis have atropine and cipro and chem/bio suits says absolutely nothing about their possession of such weapons or their intentions to use them.
Perhaps the threat posed to Saddam’s regime by the Iranians has something to do with the Iraqi army having chem suits and atropine? Given the history between the two countries, it’d be negligent of Saddam not to be prepared to defend against chemical warfare.
The coalition is certainly taking the possibility of Iranian friskiness seriously: Marines line up on Iranian border Why wouldn’t Saddam ?
Perhaps the threat posed to Saddam’s regime by the Iranians has something to do with the Iraqi army having chem suits and atropine? Given the history between the two countries, it’d be negligent of Saddam not to be prepared to defend against chemical warfare.
The coalition is certainly taking the possibility of Iranian friskiness seriously: Marines line up on Iranian border Why wouldn’t Saddam ?
It’s not got much press recently, but apparently, Saddam was still trying to get parts for his Super Gun. Judging by this it’s a pretty powerful piece.
If one of those is found, will people claim that it’s really parts for an oil pipeline?
The Iranians hate Saddam, but according to this think tank they may be choosing a position of passive opposition to avoid a confrontation with the US.
If there is widespread allotment of safety equipment for chemical and biological weapons it can only mean Saddam expects an attack of that nature either against him, or more likely in my opinion, by him. Iran doesn’t look like it has the motivation to risk it. And the US would never survive the public outcry if it used gas or germs.
Maybe Saddam’s craftier than I give him credit for, and he really has hidden, sold, or destroyed everything, but I don’t think so. It doesn’t change the fact that this is by far the biggest piece of crap in the history of war. If by some miracle some good comes of it, I’ll be the first to give credit where its due, but if I we’re a gambling man you’d have to give me a hefty spread to take that bet.
Even the Guardian thinks this is fishy, but cautions…
God only knows (that’s nobody knows for you atheists), what Saddam has planned. I have to wonder if anyone in the US government regrets or even acknowledges America’s role in Saddam’s rise to power and the durability of his regime?
[/quote]
The Iranians hate Saddam, but according to this think tank they may be choosing a position of passive opposition to avoid a confrontation with the US.
[/quote]
It sure looks that way now, but it’s doubtful that Iran-Iraq relations have been peaceful long enough for either side to dispose of their chem suits. The outfits don’t exactly fall off trees when needed.
Agreed. However, atropine kits are small cheap, and easier to put in a soldier’s backpack during peactime than war. On the other hand, despite attempts by some to conflate the two issues and manufacture a “smoking gun”, it appears that the chemical warfare outfits have not been widely distributed.
So where does Saddam store the chemical suits when he’s NOT planning a chemical attack ? Widespread allotment of atropine is a less
It sure looks that way now, but it’s doubtful that Iran-Iraq relations have been peaceful long enough for either side to dispose of their chem suits. The outfits don’t exactly fall off trees when needed.
Agreed. However, atropine kits are small cheap, and easier to put in a soldier’s backpack during peactime than war. On the other hand, despite attempts by some to conflate the two issues and manufacture a “smoking gun”, it appears that the chemical warfare outfits have not been widely distributed.
I don’t think this is true - or if it is, that it ought to be true.
Looking from the “pro” position, who cares whether Saddam happens to have the things right now or not? He obviously had them (and used them) in the past, and if left unimpeded with his oil wealth, he could have them in the future. His distruction (if he did destroy them) could be an entirely cynical PR move, designed specifically to harm the legitimacy of the actions taken against him. In fact, he would be a fool not to get rid of them, once war began to look inevitable. The justification for the war really boils down to this - Saddam is too nasty, wily and ambitious to be allowed to continue (witness the way he has played with the UN) - him getting rid of his WMD’s would be of piece with his usual behaviour, as would him acquiring them again when the heat was off. It would be perfectly consistent to maintain the war as justified in the face of a finding of no WMD’s.
Looking from the “anti” position, finding verifiable and credible proof of WMD should not make any difference. The main argument against the war is that it was not justified by the UN, and that pursuing it without UN approval harms that institution and is “illegal” - in spite of whatever infractions Saddam may have committed of the ceasefire terms and UN SC resolutions. Lots of other countries have WMD’s, often in violation of treaties, without provoking invasions. It will be perfectly consistent to maintain the war as unjustified in the face of a finding of WMD’s.
In sum, other than on the shallow level of sound-bites and news clips, I don’t see why finding the things ought to matter one way or another.
i tried to read all of this…i honestly did…but i gotta turtle head pokin out and can wait no longer to say this, which has probably already been said by someone else…
if you notice…the whole weapons of mass destruction thing was simply a front to get our foot in the iraqi front door. ever since the bullets and bombs began to fly, it became all about liberating the iraqi people…not WMD. it became about removing saddam as a threat…not WMD. the whole war started under false pretenses. already there have been deaths to people fighting under every flag. there are dead reporters, dead civilians. families across the globe are shattered and will never be the same…not because of the weapons of mass deception, but because of the everyday run-of-the-mill weapons.
the only weapons of mass destruction lay in the heads of those in charge.
I was saying that a preemptive strike on the Taliban and Al Qaeda would have gone a long way and would have had a good chance of averting the 9/11 attacks. Maybe I should not have said 9/10/2001. I was only trying to state that we should have taken out OBL back in the mid 90’s. If that meant invading another part of the country , so be it. The world was unstable long before we went into Iraq and ousting out the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan would have definitely been worth it. Are you sayig that toppling a hostile regime prior to 9/11 would have made people like OBL hate us even more??? (last part of my answer in the form of a question…;))
Not only that but these areas have some of the fastest growing populations in the world. Not only would you have to kill all the Islamic radicals, preemptively no less, but a whole generation of orphans would grow up that’d you’d have to kill also. It’s genocide.
Despite what our fearless leader has told us, bombing is not going to solve anything.