Chemical weapons?

Oliver Clozoff

SirRealism
Joined
Jun 1, 2000
Posts
7,468
NBC News’ Jim Miklaszewski reported from the Pentagon that intercepted Iraqi communications indicated that the Republican Guards were under orders to attack with chemical weapons once U.S. ground troops crossed a line around Baghdad drawn roughly between Karbala and Al Kut.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/870749.asp?0cv=CA01

Question: what is a regime which claims to be without chemical weapons doing ordering chemical weapons attacks?

Is this evil American propaganda?

Or the truth?
 
The pentagon told us they seized a chemical weapons factory that turned out to be nothing but a few buildings with some Kurds inside.

I wouldn't believe everything they're saying.
 
I don't think so. If Saddam does have weapons, then UN members against war look stupid, and Saddam really loses. I don't think he'll use 'em, if possesed, until some dire hour :D
 
Oliver Clozoff said:
I wouldn't either.

But I'm asking if you believe this thing.

At this point I don't belive anything anymore till something happens and evena after something happens I am skeptical.

The first causality of war is the truth and all.
 
Oliver Clozoff said:
I wouldn't either.

But I'm asking if you believe this thing.

I don't think so. Chemical weapons are messy things, odds are when using them, he'd lose a few members of the Republican Guard to that, at this time, that's a risk he can't afford to take.
 
I tend to agree.

I believe he's got the chemicals (from what's known about his long and sordid history), but you're right that skepticism is the right attitude for any particular story like this.
 
I would risk to speculate that this is all speculation.

I'm not sure if Saddam has N/B/C weapons or not, but I do think they would be his last card played.

But I tend to believe the members of his government and scientists that have defected when they say that Saddam does have them.
 
Azwed said:
At this point I don't belive anything anymore till something happens and evena after something happens I am skeptical.

The first causality of war is the truth and all.

That's been my attitude.

For all I know, they really did telephone that message, but it was as an Iraqi Psy-op, because they know we're listening, & they wanted to slow or intimidate the advance.


Actually in this case, I do believe it, but only because I expect them to use chemical artillery rounds in the defense of the capital city, once there are enough troops in range to make it dramatic.

P.S.- the weather has to cooperate for best results.
 
Last edited:
patient1 said:
That's been my attitude.

For all I know, they really did telephone that message, but it was as an Iraqi Psy-op, because they know we're listening, & they wanted to slow or intimidate the advance.


Actually in this case, I do believe it, but only because I expect them to use chemical artillery rounds in the defense of the capital city, once there are enough troops in range to make it dramatic.

Chemical weapons are not dramatic. They are boring. Militarily, they are not used so much to cause casualties as they are "area denial" weapons.

He's got them. He's going to use them. It doesn't matter if his own troops or people are casualties.

They won't slow us down much, but the fighting will get very nasty.
 
I was thinking more in terms of a televised panic & pain like you see when the riot police use gas, etc. The embeded reporter might be the one that doesn't have his gear on correctly & suffers for it.

But I agree, doesn't matter to them if it's their own people, it never stopped Saddam from killing Kurds.
 
Oliver Clozoff said:
Is this evil American propaganda?

Or the truth?


Spinaroonie said:
The pentagon told us they seized a chemical weapons factory that turned out to be nothing but a few buildings with some Kurds inside.

I wouldn't believe everything they're saying.


Azwed said:
At this point I don't belive anything anymore till something happens and evena after something happens I am skeptical.

The first causality of war is the truth and all.


Such is one of the consequences of having a media saturated war. The first reporting of the huge chemical weapons manufacturing plant was in the Israel Post. Quickly picked up by Fox and the other networks. All along the "official" Pentagon response was to play it down, noting that special teams were all over Iraq testing "possible" WMD sites, and that there had not been any conclusive evidence of chemical weapons yet.

Then there are viewers/readers who are so poisoned by their anti-government viewpoints that they cannot separate what is media reporting/speculation from official governmental response to questions. Statements get twisted, words get put in someone else's mouth, and VOILA!, "evil American propaganda" becomes the war cry.

From my own perspective, it seems very likely that at one time that site was used to maufacture illegal weapons. It was camouflaged with exterior sand cast walls and roofs to avoid detection from aerial photos ... I doubt that's a desert decorating trend. The fact that there were no stockpiles found is less comforting from the prospect that they could now be in place to use against our troops.

I'm confident that, in time, the irrefutable truth will convince even the most skeptical. Hopefully, not at the expense of lives.
 
I don't think it matters one way or another.....The US military is going to use chemical weapons themselves if pushed too. Who cares? The USA has WMD, Israel has WMD, China has WMD, Russia has WMD, France has WMD, Britain has WMD, India has WMD, Pakistan has WMD, and probably forty other nations besides whether they signed the treaties against these things or not.

Cynical and horrible as it may be, that's the way the world is....it's just delusional to make a big fuss about "such-and-such" using WMD iespecially a load of BS when the US military has a love of carpet-bombing, shooting cruise missiles into cities where things are bound to go wrong, and every military force on the planet likes to drop cluster-bombs and bigger bombs onto the enemy.
 
Last edited:
patient1 said:
I was thinking more in terms of a televised panic & pain like you see when the riot police use gas, etc. The embeded reporter might be the one that doesn't have his gear on correctly & suffers for it.

But I agree, doesn't matter to them if it's their own people, it never stopped Saddam from killing Kurds.

The Kurds are no more Sadams people than the Croats were the Serbian People
 
Back
Top