Thoughts On Wmd
RyoOhki
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12789Members
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12789Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">So, where are they?</div> It strikes me as odd, and others may very well agree. The claims from the US and Britain from the outset of the Iraqi conflict have been that iraq has weapons of mass destruction. To be fair, Iraq didn't provide absolutly concrete evidence that these claims were wrong. On the other hand, evidence presented by the US was far from damning.
That aside however, with the war 2 weeks old and US troops actually inside Baghdad itself the question must be asked: why hasn't Iraq used this supposed arsonal? US troops have long since crossed the so-called "red-zone" around Bahgdad which, according to US claims, was the trigger to allow Republican Guard units to use WMD. Yet still nothing. Even if Saddam is dead, or wounded, there's still someone in control of the Iraqi military, and Iraqi forces are definetly still fighting. Why arn't the weapons being used?
Saddam, and the Iraqi military leadership, have nothing to lose from using their arsonal, if it exists. The US has already made it clear that these men will be charged with war crimes, and with US troops actually in the capital itself there's surely no need for restraint. Yet still, we see nothing. Even stranger, US forces control almost the entire country, yet there have been no reports of any WMD sites or stockpiles found.
This leads me to think that maybe there arn't any chemical or biological weapons in Iraq. True, the war isn;t over, and the country hasn't been completly searched. But Saddam and his regime have certainly had no problems with using WMD in the past, so why not now?
Possibly, they're holding back because of possible American relatiation with nuclear weapons. But when this is considered, it makes no sence. The US can't get away with nuking Baghdad; they'd become a worldwide pariah, not to mention the Middle East tearing itself apart.
So what does everyone think? Why hasn't Saddam shot off the anthrax and VX gas?
That aside however, with the war 2 weeks old and US troops actually inside Baghdad itself the question must be asked: why hasn't Iraq used this supposed arsonal? US troops have long since crossed the so-called "red-zone" around Bahgdad which, according to US claims, was the trigger to allow Republican Guard units to use WMD. Yet still nothing. Even if Saddam is dead, or wounded, there's still someone in control of the Iraqi military, and Iraqi forces are definetly still fighting. Why arn't the weapons being used?
Saddam, and the Iraqi military leadership, have nothing to lose from using their arsonal, if it exists. The US has already made it clear that these men will be charged with war crimes, and with US troops actually in the capital itself there's surely no need for restraint. Yet still, we see nothing. Even stranger, US forces control almost the entire country, yet there have been no reports of any WMD sites or stockpiles found.
This leads me to think that maybe there arn't any chemical or biological weapons in Iraq. True, the war isn;t over, and the country hasn't been completly searched. But Saddam and his regime have certainly had no problems with using WMD in the past, so why not now?
Possibly, they're holding back because of possible American relatiation with nuclear weapons. But when this is considered, it makes no sence. The US can't get away with nuking Baghdad; they'd become a worldwide pariah, not to mention the Middle East tearing itself apart.
So what does everyone think? Why hasn't Saddam shot off the anthrax and VX gas?
Comments
As for the current situation, I don't know. Maybe Saddam did plan to use wmd, but his officers/soldiers didn't do it. Maybe he will use them soon. Maybe he went out in the middle of the desert, dug a hole, put em in there, and covered it up to make the coalition look like warmongers. Or maybe he gave them to Syria, or another country, or terrorists. Or maybe them actually didn't have any wmd. Only time will tell, just it might take years.
Besides, if the USA was convinced that Hussein had WMD then they wouldn't have gathered hundreds of thousands of US soldiers in Kuwait as the danger of being attacked with WMDs would be too great...
Also, I realize that there has been a shift in the aims of the US administration. First, the claim was that Saddam Hussein wasn't cooperating with the UN. Then, the claim was that Hussein posessed weapons of mass destruction and now, with the beginning of the war, emphasis is put on Saddam Hussein's atrocities. Seems to be not very credible for me...
Probably one of the worst things he could do to us would be destroy whatever he had at the last minute, to make it look like he never had any. Who knows? He's enough of a **** to do that. Just like Bush is hopefully smart enough to go ahead and plant some there if he can't find any. It's for damn sure none of us have any chance of finding out by squinting at our television screens.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Besides, if the USA was convinced that Hussein had WMD then they wouldn't have gathered hundreds of thousands of US soldiers in Kuwait as the danger of being attacked with WMDs would be too great...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nah, they don't care. They ordered tens of thousands of body bags. They're not grouped close enough together to be taken out en masse, just little pockets here and there. And if he had, Bush in his infinite wisdom would have probably ordered a small nuclear strike, because U.S. policy is to respond "in kind" to certain hostile acts, of which large-scale chemical and biological attacks are included.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, I realize that there has been a shift in the aims of the US administration. First, the claim was that Saddam Hussein wasn't cooperating with the UN. Then, the claim was that Hussein posessed weapons of mass destruction and now, with the beginning of the war, emphasis is put on Saddam Hussein's atrocities. Seems to be not very credible for me... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We're just trying to bring freedom to the Iraqi people, har har har... Maybe in 20 years we'll know what the real reasons were for the behavior of all involved. All I know at this point is, neither the U.S., nor the French, nor the Germans, nor the Russians, give a damn about dead Iraqis, or dead Arabs for that matter. Those guys in suits aren't real touchy-feely.
It's for damn sure none of us have any chance of finding out by squinting at our television screens.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
True.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Nah, they don't care. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that goes too far, I can't imagine that even such a person as Bush would expose his troops to such a threat... If they had WMDs Bush would have never attacked. (Look at the Soviet Union, China, North Corea etc.).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
All I know at this point is, neither the U.S., nor the French, nor the Germans, nor the Russians, give a damn about dead Iraqis, or dead Arabs for that matter. Those guys in suits aren't real touchy-feely.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I absolutely agrre on that.
Lemme get this straight - you <i>hope</i> that this government will <i>fake</i> the evidences it uses as explanation for going into a war which has already cost more people than anyone of us is ever going to meet their lives?
Lemme get this straight - you <i>hope</i> that this government will <i>fake</i> the evidences it uses as explanation for going into a war which has already cost more people than anyone of us is ever going to meet their lives? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
He meant "hopefully for him"
Obviously I hope they don't do this and they get caught out...but that's another story <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
As for the war itself and the like, that's for the other threads. (Post 800!)
That is the scenario in Iraq. Try and keep a sense of perspective. I rather doubt any of you could find VX nerve powder if I hid it well enough in your house, much less had a whole huge country to explore. It's an unrealistic expectation.
As for the argument that 'if Sadam has chemical weapons, why not use them?', do remember the first gulf war? He certainly had tens of thousands of tons of chemical weapons at that point. And yet they were not used. Amazing... a historical precedent.
ps: the best part about the california analogy is that it's full of people with white powder shooting at the government everyday, and they find only the smallest fractions of the stuff, before most of it is sniffed or injected. And yet no one here says that we should defeat the drug trade in 2 weeks.
Think of it, the number of democracies in that region is... what, Turkey and Israel? If every despot and king around should start worry about Coalition forces knocking on their front gates next year because THEY didnt run a democracy either. Basically we're saying that the region will be much better off if Iraq is a democracy. There's not far from thinking that it would be better if ALL countries were democracies. And I am sure the kings and princes and dictators of the middle east aren't so stupid they cannot see the problem here.
So the WMD could very well be the bellum justum for the coalition forces, and the soothing comfort to the neighbours of Iraq that they aren't up for a ***** slapping next. Even if Human Rights and freedom of speech etc. aren't up to the finest standards.
As for the argument that 'if Sadam has chemical weapons, why not use them?', do remember the first gulf war?....
ps: the best part about the california analogy is that it's full of people with white powder shooting at the government everyday, and they find only the smallest fractions of the stuff, before most of it is sniffed or injected. And yet no one here says that we should defeat the drug trade in 2 weeks..... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True words. Peoples expectations to the american soldiers are far out of scope. I mean, how the hell are they supposed to take a country without civilian casualties, find a few hidden bombs in the process and then be back out again after 2 weeks while all of Iraqs citizens love them. Nah, I dont think so <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
The US administration claimed that Hussein had WMD in quantities big enough to effectively pose a threat against the United States. (Note that they didn't talk about the Iraqs neighbours, their primary claim was that Hussein was a direct threat to America - only this would qualify the current conflict as pre-emptitive war, as opposed to an assault.)
Searching for such quantities is a little easier - how many truckloads of white powder can slip through in the most heavily observed Florida-sized area on Earth?
But even if Hussein possesses WMD in threatening quantities, and I feel that this is at least possible, the fact remains that they weren't your govt.s motivation - as the fast shift from explanation to explanation to explanation, not to mention the whole North Korea deal, shows.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Peoples expectations to the american soldiers are far out of scope. I mean, how the hell are they supposed to take a country without civilian casualties, find a few hidden bombs in the process and then be back out again after 2 weeks while all of Iraqs citizens love them. Nah, I dont think so <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, that's exactely what Mr.Rumsfeld promised time after time - a fast, clean and efficient "liberation" of Iraq. I can also point at some pre-war posts in here which claimed just this possible - while it was as realistic as the "See you in Paris" signs on German military trains in 1914.
Funny, I just thought of exactly the same...
A bit off-topic: Don't you think that the general opinion in the USA can be summarized as the so-called "august-mood" (the general enthusiasm for war in August 1914 in Germany)?
Anyway, probably Hussein has hidden WMDs deep under the ground. Then the US forces will have to dig it out, first they will have to remove all the pesky oil of course. Would be very humane ;-)
<a href='http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761569545' target='_blank'>Encarta's description of Propaganda, with examples.</a>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Brilliant arguement Monse. Never mind that US forces weren't invading Iraq. Never mind that Saddam knew very well that if he used his WMD he'd face either nuclear retaliation or full scale invasion. The point I was making is that Saddam has his back to the wall; his forces are routed, his capital surrounded, and the US has made it extreamly clear that they are going to take his regime (and him) out. If he has these weapons he has nothing to lose by using them; the US cannot retaliate with nuclear weapons because all the remaining Iraqi resistance is in cities.
Secondly, Iraq has been under constant sattilite surveilance for the past 12 years. The US has made repeated claims that they know of dozens of sites where WMD are stored/manufactured. Thus it would seem to be a simple case to send a small force of marines to one of these sites out in the desert, secure it and show the world Saddam was hiding the weapons. Because let's face it, the only way the invasion is going to be seen as legitimate is if the US proves that Saddam had WMD and that he had them in sufficient quantities to pose a threat to the US.
The point was (apparently too subtle) that Saddam is a 1) a nutty wackjob impredictable dictator that has used chemical weapons plenty of times when his back was not up against a wall, but just because he felt like it and 2) may not actually be in charge of the show at this point, or able to communicate with troops that had access to the weapons or 3) that those troops, after getting 30 million leaflets on what would happen to them if they used those weapons heeded the warnings. Or a likely, a combination of several of those points in some degree.
As far as us knowing where they were, we probably have known where things were on and off plenty of times. It's not hard to transport these sorts of weapons. And they are probably pretty carefully under iraqi control in baghdad as soon as the crap hit the fan 2 weeks ago, as to iraqi's, these are the jewel in the crown weapons. They likely wouldn't just be abandoned like a couple AK's.
Hopefully you have read enough about it at this point that I do not need to again talk about VX and mustard gas usage in the Persian Gulf War, but then not in other conflicts. There has been no pattern to it.
As for other people's comments here, I have never heard any timetable from the people in charge about the operation. I have heard an awful lot of talking heads and old-fogey generals conjecturing about it, but never any from the guys at the top. And no matter what, if you are even the most casual study of military history, you would recognize that taking over a country the size and composition iraq in 2 weeks with 3 infantry divisions and a helicopter division (not yet really utilized) is unprecedented in human history. The germans took 40 days to take over 1/2 of france in 1940, with a 135 divisions. That's the closest thing to a historical parallel, and it's still not very close. It's astonishing.
<a href='http://www.photius.com/rogue_nations/020818_nyt.html' target='_blank'>http://www.photius.com/rogue_nations/020818_nyt.html</a>
<i>From New York Times article</i>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->WASHINGTON, Aug. 17 — A covert American program during the Reagan administration provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war, according to senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The US didn't think the deployment of WMD was a big deal when it helped their interests...
The Germans didn't have Tomahawk missiles.
I wouldn't use the word "astonishing" for this. We have the technology, they don't. Air Strikes vs AKs always has the same outcome.
<a href='http://www.photius.com/rogue_nations/020818_nyt.html' target='_blank'>http://www.photius.com/rogue_nations/020818_nyt.html</a>
<i>From New York Times article</i>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->WASHINGTON, Aug. 17 — A covert American program during the Reagan administration provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war, according to senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The US didn't think the deployment of WMD was a big deal when it helped their interests... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eh, don't you just hate when that happens. I don't think that NATO should've supplied wmd, just weapons and equipment. Sometimes you just have to help the bad guy to take out the 'worse' guy. The Allies supplied the Soviet Union in WW2, you can't tell that they shouldn't have.
I find it hard to believe that Saddam is STILL playing the 'hide the white powder' game considering current events in Iraq. It's a scenario along the lines of "The Americans have come along and are breaking down our doors with the intent to kill us - quick, hide the guns!"
On the other hand, Saddam is clearly a nutcase, and probably has a greater imaginative use for such weapons than we could think of, <i>if</i> he still has them.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
According to what I've read there is no conclusive evidence of allied soldiers being exposed to Chemical Weapons in the first Gulf War.
Recent findings have uncovered toxic substances in Gulf War Syndrome sufferers but according to scientists they could be the result of being exposed to a varity of toxic substances that includes low exposure to chemical weapons but <i>is not</i> exclusive to them.
A recent theory on the possible cause of GWS could be the result of soldiers receiving multiple unproven vaccinations against chemical or biological attack.
If you have the time I suggest you read about the GWS. I am <b>appalled</b> by the way the American Government has treated the Gulf War Veterens. There is a complete lack of urgency in diagnosing this illness (It is still unknown) and providing care for their veterens. There is also reports of conflicting intelligence where the CIA had knowledge of Iraqi CW that wasn't relayed to the Army Officers which may have inadvertantly exposed thousands of soldiers to low amounts of CW when an ammo dump containing the weapons was bombed.
There are also reports of the Goverment Panel and Department of Defence investigating GWS <i>overlooked, lost, or dismissed</i> <b>credible evidence</b> that soldiers may have been exposed to Chemical Weapons. To this day little is known about the GWS, a mysterious illness suffered by over 200,000 Gulf War Vets. But this doesn't stop the US from sending troops into Iraq not knowing of these troops will be exposed to the same threats that cause GWS.
The official government position is that the GWS is caused by stress, not CW.
And fantasmo, if you are going to be fair, ask Nemesis about germany's contribution to Iraq's chemical weapons program. Or france where the iraqi's got the Osirak nuclear reactors. There are few blameless parties in the history of this regime - does this mean that the mistakes should not be undone? IBM sold the nazis the first computers, used to catalog remains in the death camps. Sweden was the Nazi's source of iron ore for their war machine throughout WW2, making the weapons responsible for almost every allied death in the war. Big business and governments can do all sorts of awful things, does that mean that no attempt should be made to undo them?
Getting close to off-topic here again... I don't know how far this topic can really go. People will believe what they want about the WMD and only time will tell.