Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spurly · 03-02-2003, 08:46 PM

I am very glad that he has begun the process of destroying the missiles that had too far of a flight pattern. But my question is when will he begin to destroy his chemical and biological weapons? Or when we he at least say what happened to them. The UN resolution demands that he does this.

I don't think he will. But then again, I didn't think he would destroy the missiles either.

Kevin

theyeti · 03-02-2003, 10:43 PM

What chemical weapons?

The problem with arguments such as this -- and it's been coming ad nauseam from the Bush administration for months now -- is that it has not been established the Saddam has any chemical or biological weapons. We were told that there was proof that he had these weapons and that the inspectors would find them soon enough. They didn't. Then Powell showed this "proof" to the UN but it turned out to be no more than speculation and unsubstantiated assertion. If Saddam has anything more than the odd can of mustard gas, no one is aware of it. The insistance that he's hiding these things somewhere and that neither the inspectors nor our intelligence services can find them is an odd sort of faith.

theyeti

leonarde · 03-02-2003, 10:49 PM

No, Iraq admitted years ago----I believe in 1995--
that she had thousands of liters of VX gas and significant quantities of other toxin agents. But did NOT destroy them under UN supervision as required under 687 in 1991. Now we are supposed to believe that Iraq destroyed them "secretly" (ie without even documentation of when, where, by what means etc.). And so it goes....

Cheers!

Zar · 03-02-2003, 10:57 PM

If there is war, it will be a matter of the utmost interest what weapons Saddam's military uses. I almost have to think it will be a foreign policy disaster if Saddam does not use any chemical or biological weapons. If he had them, and he were about to go down, he would surely use them and take as many of the enemy down with him as possible.

It would be bad enough if, true to the CIA's predictions, a U.S. invasion provokes the use of these weapons. But this can be baited-and-switched like most things are. The bully picks a fight and blames the target of his attack for fighting back. The harder thing to explain would be if there is no such response. Then I think there is intense pressure for the United States to simply plant evidence or outright lie in order to avoid a politcal debacle. I can't bring myself to believe the U.S. would fire such weapons itself and blame it on Saddam.

Imagine the spectacle of "Shock and Awe" bringing many casualties, both military and (even more) civilian, followed by invasion, occupation and the killing of the Iraqi leaders, with chaos ensuing, only to find out that they really didn't have anything after all. That seems intolerable.

Shai Hulud · 03-03-2003, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Imagine the spectacle of "Shock and Awe" bringing many casualties, both military and (even more) civilian, followed by invasion, occupation and the killing of the Iraqi leaders, with chaos ensuing, only to find out that they really didn't have anything after all. That seems intolerable.

I don't agree.
When Iraq has been invaded the public will have swallowed at least a few weeks of nice a war. Very few people will actually remember about the chemical weapons.

I predict you won't hear anything about WoMD any more when the war starts.

Shai-Hulud

garraty · 03-03-2003, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde
No, Iraq admitted years ago----I believe in 1995--
that she had thousands of liters of VX gas and significant quantities of other toxin agents. But did NOT destroy them under UN supervision as required under 687 in 1991. Now we are supposed to believe that Iraq destroyed them "secretly" (ie without even documentation of when, where, by what means etc.). And so it goes....

Hmm, just wondering but when you say "Iraq" admitted to having all that nasty stuff back in 1995 you aren't referring to Sadaam's son in laws so called confession are you?

You may want to have a look at this.

While I admit it holds no proof as to whether these weapons were destroyed or not, your big capital NOT looks like another symptom of U.S. spin, as at no point did Iraq admit to weapons, without also adding they destroyed them.

And so it goes on and on and on...

Zar · 03-03-2003, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shai Hulud
I don't agree.
When Iraq has been invaded the public will have swallowed at least a few weeks of nice a war. Very few people will actually remember about the chemical weapons.

I predict you won't hear anything about WoMD any more when the war starts.

Shai-Hulud

A fair alternate prediction. We'll see.

leonarde · 03-03-2003, 05:18 AM

Previously posted:

Quote:

Hmm, just wondering but when you say "Iraq" admitted to having all that nasty stuff back in 1995 you aren't referring to Sadaam's son in laws so called confession are you?

No. When Hussein Kamel defected, there was a bit of a panic on Iraq's part: they feared Kamel would spill the beans on everything so they released thousands of pages of papers related to Iraq's WMDs. It was this info that was, by some sources, FAR more valuable than Kamel's debriefing(s). (Iraq tried to claim that Kamel himself had, unknown to other Iraqis, hidden the documents-----and the programs they referred to!!--- from UNSCOM. Not bloody likely).

Cheers!

leonarde · 03-03-2003, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Dear FRONTLINE, I watched with interest your program on Saddam Hussein. Although it was an excellent presentation, some points need to be clarified.

I served with the Defense Intelligence Agency in the office dealing directly with the Iraqi Directorate of Military Intelligence in the late 1980's, and personally particpated in the close relationship between the two military intelligence services as we cooperated against the Iranians until the end of the Iran-Iraq War.

I later served as General Norman Schwarzkopf's personal interpreter during Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and later served with the Central Intelligence Agency, where I was involved in many of the events you presented in program.

In the discussion of Hussein Kamil, it was stated that he provided important intelligence information on the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons programs.
Actually, he provided us with very little information - he was demanding too much money for what he was willing to provide. Assuming that he was telling us everything, the Iraqi government decided to release over 10,000 documents on these programs to the United Nations Special Commission, detailing volumes not only on the chemical and biological programs, but their ballistic missile systems as well.

///snip leonarde///

Rick Francona
Author of "Ally to Adversary - An Eyewitness Account of Iraq's Fall from Grace" port orford, oregon

above from:

www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/fr...ddam/talk/

leonarde · 03-03-2003, 05:35 AM

Partial post by Zar;

Quote:

If there is war, it will be a matter of the utmost interest what weapons Saddam's military uses. I almost have to think it will be a foreign policy disaster if Saddam does not use any chemical or biological weapons. If he had them, and he were about to go down, he would surely use them and take as many of the enemy down with him as possible.

I don't get it: why, and for what country "a foreign policy disaster"? The reason chemical and biological weapons are dicey----- besides the morality of their use and the possibility of retaliation in kind-----is that they depend on delivery systems and weather conditions (especially wind conditions): gas an enemy upwind of your position and your own troops may have higher casualties than the enemy. The total air domination of the allies in Desert Storm all but precluded the delivery by aircraft of chemical or biological weapons. The air domination figures to be the same this time.

Cheers!

03-02-2003, 08:46 PM	#1
spurly Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Oklahoma City Posts: 710	When will Hussein begin to destroy his chemical weapons I am very glad that he has begun the process of destroying the missiles that had too far of a flight pattern. But my question is when will he begin to destroy his chemical and biological weapons? Or when we he at least say what happened to them. The UN resolution demands that he does this. I don't think he will. But then again, I didn't think he would destroy the missiles either. Kevin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-02-2003, 10:43 PM	#2
theyeti Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Denver, CO, USA Posts: 9,747	What chemical weapons? The problem with arguments such as this -- and it's been coming ad nauseam from the Bush administration for months now -- is that it has not been established the Saddam has any chemical or biological weapons. We were told that there was proof that he had these weapons and that the inspectors would find them soon enough. They didn't. Then Powell showed this "proof" to the UN but it turned out to be no more than speculation and unsubstantiated assertion. If Saddam has anything more than the odd can of mustard gas, no one is aware of it. The insistance that he's hiding these things somewhere and that neither the inspectors nor our intelligence services can find them is an odd sort of faith. theyeti

03-02-2003, 10:49 PM	#3
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	No, Iraq admitted years ago----I believe in 1995-- that she had thousands of liters of VX gas and significant quantities of other toxin agents. But did NOT destroy them under UN supervision as required under 687 in 1991. Now we are supposed to believe that Iraq destroyed them "secretly" (ie without even documentation of when, where, by what means etc.). And so it goes.... Cheers!

03-02-2003, 10:57 PM	#4
Zar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Chicago, IL USA Posts: 3,477	If there is war, it will be a matter of the utmost interest what weapons Saddam's military uses. I almost have to think it will be a foreign policy disaster if Saddam does not use any chemical or biological weapons. If he had them, and he were about to go down, he would surely use them and take as many of the enemy down with him as possible. It would be bad enough if, true to the CIA's predictions, a U.S. invasion provokes the use of these weapons. But this can be baited-and-switched like most things are. The bully picks a fight and blames the target of his attack for fighting back. The harder thing to explain would be if there is no such response. Then I think there is intense pressure for the United States to simply plant evidence or outright lie in order to avoid a politcal debacle. I can't bring myself to believe the U.S. would fire such weapons itself and blame it on Saddam. Imagine the spectacle of "Shock and Awe" bringing many casualties, both military and (even more) civilian, followed by invasion, occupation and the killing of the Iraqi leaders, with chaos ensuing, only to find out that they really didn't have anything after all. That seems intolerable.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.