Da Suh-Mokin Gun

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47645-2003Apr7.html

James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 7 April 2003 14:53 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/apr03/131713.asp

James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 7 April 2003 15:01 (twenty-two years ago)

I'll wait for independent verification then make judgement. Sarin is very worrying because it doesn't keep that long and if it is sarin then someone was planning to use it, probably and there's no guarantee that there isn't more.

This could of course be one of those breaking news stories that just vapourises. They are talking WMD on BBC R4 at the moment and they are not even mentioning this report.

However I'll quote from Arundati Roy's piece from last week

"In the fog of war - one thing's for sure - if Saddam 's regime indeed has weapons of mass destruction, it is showing an astonishing degree of responsibility and restraint in the teeth of extreme provocation. Under similar circumstances, (say if Iraqi troops were bombing New York and laying siege to Washington DC) could we expect the same of the Bush regime? Would it keep its thousands of nuclear warheads in their wrapping paper? What about its chemical and biological weapons? Its stocks of anthrax, smallpox and nerve gas? Would it?

Excuse me while I laugh.

In the fog of war we're forced to speculate: Either Saddam is an extremely responsible tyrant. Or - he simply does not possess weapons of mass destruction. Either way, regardless of what happens next, Iraq comes out of the argument smelling sweeter than the US government."

Ed (dali), Monday, 7 April 2003 15:09 (twenty-two years ago)

can you get UHT sarin?

RJG (RJG), Monday, 7 April 2003 15:17 (twenty-two years ago)

Or the Iraqi commanders and grunts who have to actually launch chem weapon attacks have disregarded orders to do so, as we've been suggesting with millions of leaflets for months now.

Stuart (Stuart), Monday, 7 April 2003 15:19 (twenty-two years ago)

Or they can't receive those orders in the first place... We know how much spunk and initiative Saddam likes to see in his commanders (read: none).

Stuart (Stuart), Monday, 7 April 2003 15:20 (twenty-two years ago)

In addition to the soldiers sent for decontamination, a Knight Ridder reporter, a CNN cameraman and two Iraqi prisoners of war also were hosed down with water and bleach.

Some people pay good money for that at home, of course.

Anyway, cue everyone who is going to insist this is all a plant by the Secret Shadowy Forces and 12 Ft. Lizards in order to justify the US, etc. etc. Roy's got a good point on the first front but I think her conclusion turned back vis-a-vis Iraq is a jump-the-gun approach as well, but it will be the approach almost certainly used by most still protesting the war in future. Problem is that if (if) the states of current affairs holds, the coalition is going to turn around and implicitly say, regardless of what has or hasn't been found, "Look, no quagmire getting to Baghdad. Problems getting aid in, yes, we're fixing them. A horrible regime has been ousted. Sit and spin." But even more, Roy saying that Iraq comes out smelling sweeter than the US on the point of chemical weapons ignores a third possibility (and there might be more) -- Hussein had the potential intent to use such weapons in this kind of crunch situation but lacked the opportunity or ability to deliver a command to act. Roy's grasp of military possibilities is too binary.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 7 April 2003 15:21 (twenty-two years ago)

(Alternately, what Stuart already suggested. In essence, Roy is dumbing down.)

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 7 April 2003 15:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Aw, it's good to see you guys making up.

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 7 April 2003 15:28 (twenty-two years ago)

</condescension>

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 7 April 2003 15:32 (twenty-two years ago)

A horrible regime may be in the process of being ousted but I am still anti this war because I am anti war in general, no amount of justification is going to justify it for me. I'll agree with stuart and ned's analysis of the situation re use of chemical and biological weapons.

My eventual judgement on the war will depend of the way the peace. The peace will have to be just and driven by iraqis, not the INC or any of the other external opposition, but by the iraqi people. Americas number one choice for a future PM is Amhad Chalabi, a man convicted in absentia of fraud in Jordan, such a figure would not inspire confidence in me.

Ed (dali), Monday, 7 April 2003 15:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Americas number one choice - Rummy's choice rather, more 'are you GETTING it yet?' tactics from America's greatest asshole, I'm waiting for his "I'm in charge here" moment though "calibrate me Dick" will have to do for now. Interesting to read Bush the Elder didn't like him either - http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/07/national/07LETT.html?ex=1050292800&en=fe4747037001a8b1&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
(strange to say, but I'd much rather he were president right now).

James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 7 April 2003 15:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Ed, what do you mean by your "eventual judgement of the war"? Didn't you just say in your first paragraph that no war can be justified?

Stuart (Stuart), Monday, 7 April 2003 15:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Like what will you think of the war if the peace is to your liking?

Stuart (Stuart), Monday, 7 April 2003 15:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Does anyone like Rumsfeld?

Amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 7 April 2003 15:45 (twenty-two years ago)

And as amazed/heartened I am the war has gone as incredibly quickly and smoothly as it has - it appears this will be over in less than half the time it took to win the Kosovo 'conflict', I'm not going to pull a hindsight 20/20 move and say it was worth it after all (although others will - guarantee support for the war gets a bounce after it's won - everyone likes to think they've been proven right). That said, my general anti-war stance was always based around my belief that this war was not necessary, and that you don't go to war unless it is necessary, because no matter what advantages war is a very fluid situation in which the unexpected can and does happen and that the U.S. should only fight wars that are still worth fighting even if things go very, very wrong (which even Rummy had to have glimpsed could have happened in this conflict, and invading Iraq is a much easier task than invading Iran for reasons Gregg Easterbrook illustrates fairly well here. I supported the Afghanistan war, and would still if we were waging it still (and anyone who says we are waging it still is saying we're still waging the Bosnia war and the Spanish-American war basically as well). War's aren't justified by how easily they're won.


The press loooooove Rummy (he treats em like dirt - 'whatta tuffguy!')

James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 7 April 2003 15:56 (twenty-two years ago)

meanwhile Syria's looking like they wanna dance, and Rummy's egging them on, so this episode may be far from over

James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 7 April 2003 16:05 (twenty-two years ago)

>>Would it keep its thousands of nuclear warheads in their wrapping paper? What about its chemical and biological weapons? Its stocks of anthrax, smallpox and nerve gas? Would it?<<

Considering what vehicles Iraq currently has for the use of chemical weapons (wildly inaccurate missles and shells), they might also not be getting the opportunity to use them. You can't just fire a shell full of VK and expect to take out a thousand troops. That's completely unrealistic. For shelling to be effective, they'd have to fire hundreds or thousands of shells, and simply put, we take out their artillery before they'd get a chance to do so. Plus, there's the whole "the officers may be refusing" thing.

Alan Conceicao, Monday, 7 April 2003 16:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Not chemical weapons, pesticide.

Kerry (dymaxia), Monday, 7 April 2003 17:10 (twenty-two years ago)

Wow, I'm totally shocked!*

I'm a liar.

oops (Oops), Monday, 7 April 2003 17:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Are you Estela's puppy?

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 7 April 2003 17:40 (twenty-two years ago)

Possibly...

oops (Oops), Monday, 7 April 2003 17:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Damn it Kerry, I had that same link all ready to post!

(I think I'm starting to lurv you. :D)

nickalicious (nickalicious), Monday, 7 April 2003 17:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Freakley (my fav character obviously) has flatly just said on CNN that the soldiers complaining about exposure symptoms were overheated and their symptoms disappeared after they cooled off. No one was "decontaminated"—the soldiers got showers because it's a good way to reduce body heat.

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 7 April 2003 18:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Stuart. Even though I am against alll war I can still rejoice in the results of it if it comes out good and can even see some redeeming features of the war is the situation for the people of iraq is better after the war than before. Even standing against war I can try to evaluate how it has affected the situation in the world, in the middle east and for the iraqi people. Just because I am against war doesn't mean I'm not interested in the peace.

Ed (dali), Monday, 7 April 2003 18:21 (twenty-two years ago)

the soldiers got showers because it's a good way to reduce body heat

Never can hurt. :-)

James Blount's position is essentially mine down the line. Great that this is wrapping more quickly than expected, sucks that it happened at all. A major risk was run and is being run, flat out.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 7 April 2003 18:53 (twenty-two years ago)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030407/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_war_wmd

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Monday, 7 April 2003 19:03 (twenty-two years ago)

that;s hardly going to be top of the hour on fox though is it.

Ed (dali), Monday, 7 April 2003 19:07 (twenty-two years ago)

everybody does realize the site mentioned here - http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030407/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_war_wmd is the same as the sight mentioned here - http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/apr03/131713.asp, but not the same as the sight mentioned here - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47645-2003Apr7.html, right?

James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 7 April 2003 19:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Shh, James. You're giving it away!

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 7 April 2003 19:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Rosebud's the name of a sled!

James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 7 April 2003 19:43 (twenty-two years ago)

It wasn't clear to me from the introduction to this thread that they were different stories. I didn't click on the first, because I thought I would have to pay, not because I'm a moron, or, you know, human or something. :(

Kerry (dymaxia), Monday, 7 April 2003 20:05 (twenty-two years ago)

It's far too early yet to call this a smoking gun or to rule it out as pesticides. As was stated by one of CNN's experts, farmers don't often go about burying pesticides in protected bunkers. At the same time they don't have an exact idea of what these chemicals may or may not be - and what they have discovered so far and can be certain about have been pesticides, or quantities so small that they can't really be classified as anything but training materials/samples.

I think that once UNMOVIC and the IAEA are allowed back in and are given a chance to really explore Iraq without the regime running interference, we'll get the real story, and from a source the int'l community is more likely to trust.

Millar (Millar), Monday, 7 April 2003 22:58 (twenty-two years ago)

But if something is found people will say that the Americans planted there specifically FOR UNMOVIC to find, etc. Nobody is ever going to be fully happy.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 7 April 2003 23:31 (twenty-two years ago)

And if nothing is found, then it was all probably taken away to Syria in the chaos of war.

N. (nickdastoor), Monday, 7 April 2003 23:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Meaning we'll have to invade there...D'OH!

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 7 April 2003 23:40 (twenty-two years ago)

From the Free Republic boards : "If we don't find WMD, Bush is finished. We went to war with Iraq because Saddam's WMD were a threat to our national security and he refused to disarm. Without WMD, Saddam is just another brutal dictator, and support for this invasion, and for Bush, will plummet."

"Is it WMD yet? Is it WMD yet? Waaaaaa!"

Kerry (dymaxia), Tuesday, 8 April 2003 20:57 (twenty-two years ago)

How does killing Saddam Hussein help find and destroy the WMDs that "we know" are there? In the "fog of war" and with what is, according to the U.S. military's own boasting, a "crumbling regime" in charge, are we more likely to pin down these suitcase-sized threats to our nation or LESS likely? (I see N. makes the same point.) The US looks simultaneously paranoid and dishonest.

It's like getting Al Capone on tax evasion. Actually, it's as if Elliot Ness just machine-gunned every Capone hideout ever, yelling "I just KNOW you didn't file that 1040, Al!" Even gangland cops had more to go on! It wouldn't surprise me though if the Prez, via CIA, took a page from the LAPD cheat-book and just planted a bunch of white-hot missiles somewhere for Gen. Freakley to find. Our word against theirs. Who could believe them? It's for the greater good, right?

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 8 April 2003 21:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Some recent poll had it at over 50% of Americans saying the war was justified even w/ no WMD being found, so I don't think its much of priority now for BushCo to find/plant WMD.

If you want to start a fun conspiracy theory: the PFC Jessica Lynch episode was all a set-up.

fletrejet, Tuesday, 8 April 2003 21:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Everything is a set-up! The Iraqi information minister works for the US! Up in the north of the country the Kurds and Baath party forces are having tea with the Turks! Bush is secretly the leader of Greenpeace!

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 8 April 2003 23:20 (twenty-two years ago)

According to the thradio this morning 50% of americans beleive that war against syria and Iran would be justified if they were found to be helping iraq or storing iraq's weapons.

Ed (dali), Wednesday, 9 April 2003 07:45 (twenty-two years ago)

ahh, the weapons must be changing countries--they probably won't find any in iraq now.......I say blow them all up until they find a weapon.

RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 9 April 2003 07:47 (twenty-two years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.