If no WMD found; will Bush be made out to be a liar?

[uh Clem]

I can state from first hand knowledge that there were American units in Vietnam that were issued gas masks and atropine injectors, although the notion of VC/NVA use of chemical weapons never even rose to the level of rumor. It was simply an Army requirement that the equipment be available; it was never used (nor even distributed to soldiers).

Given that chemical weapons were used during the Iran-Iraq War, there's no surprise that Iraqi units were prepared for their use.

If these weapons got out becuase of the war, then the war failed to protect us form these weapons getting into the hands of terrorist, and perhaps made the situation worse, which would he the opposite of what the Bushies said this war would acheive vis a vi WMD's.

IIRC the CIA was said to be saying this before the war.

[Ned]

By the way, CNN is now reporting that we captured the "Bio Lady, who was in charge of Iraq's bio-weapons development. Perhaps she will give us some idea as to what that mobile lab is being used for, if anything.

How do you guys feel about giving these people cushy villas is in Europe in exchange for talking?

As to the point about equipping the Iraqi troops with chemical weapons gear as supposedly being in anticipation of the United States use of those weapons against them, this doesn't make any sense. We did not use chemical weapons in World War II, in Korea, in Afghanistan, and in Gulf War I. Why would any commander equip his troops to defend against a mode attack we have never ever used in history of United States military, as far as I know?

No, the honest answer is that the Iraqi military fully expected to use chemical weapons at some point and they expected retaliation in kind.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
On the "weapons moved out of country" aspect:

If that were true, it makes Bush a second type of liar: according to Bush, this war was needed to protect Americans from these weapons, and their ability to get into the hands of terrorist. If these weapons got out becuase of the war, then the war failed to protect us form these weapons getting into the hands of terrorist, and perhaps made the situation worse, which would he the opposite of what the Bushies said this war would acheive vis a vi WMD's.

Is that a better lie?

GePap, no,what it means is that if Syria has those chemical weapons, they will produce them or else.

Let me understand you GePap. Is it your position that we should have left Saddam alone to develop weapons of mass destruction, including chemical, biological and nuclear?

[GePap]

No, the honest answer is that the Iraqi military fully expected to use chemical weapons at some point and they expected retaliation in kind.

Did you not read the answers given? The "honest answer?" what make you the judge of honest answers? And how the hell would we retaliate in kind? chemicals wepaons are banned! The US should have no chem weapons, unless you believe otherwise.. (next time you want to spin fact your way, at least get the spin right [if they had it, it was to protect themselves when they used them..that is what you should say]): of course, this makes little sense if you add your "weapons moved to Syria"a rguemnt, after all the US had control of the air early on, and should have had the baility to interdict large convoys (which is what it would take to move all those WMD's), so for all that to be moved so well so quickly, plans would ahve had to be made ahead of tie, which would mean the Iraqis would know that they would not use, and thus would, given you point of view, not even need the equipment. Of course, you believe FOX news is the parragon of honest journalism: before the war, that crack (erhead) team of "journalist" were saying all the WMD's were with the RG south of Baghdad, which of course would ahve made it impossible to move them to Syria that quickly, but of course, tnohing was found with the RG, so FOX must have been wrong (oh, perish the thought)

[uh Clem]

As to the point about equipping the Iraqi troops with chemical weapons gear as supposedly being in anticipation of the United States use of those weapons against them, this doesn't make any sense. We did not use chemical weapons in World War II, in Korea, in Afghanistan, and in Gulf War I. Why would any commander equip his troops to defend against a mode attack we have never ever used in history of United States military, as far as I know?

No, the honest answer is that the Iraqi military fully expected to use chemical weapons at some point and they expected retaliation in kind.

We x-posted; I dealt with this in the post before this.

How do you guys feel about giving these people cushy villas is in Europe in exchange for talking?

To get cushy villas, they'll say what they know their captors want to hear. I look forward to hearing about Iraq's "Manhattan Project."

[Pax]

If Iraq is in violation of an agreement with the U.N., does that give the U.S. or ANY member state the right(casus belli) to LIBERATE Iraq from it's established government.
Then argument some have made that it does not matter if they did not have WMD. Can an argument be made that it did matter if they had them.
We must have similar evidence on Israel. Could'nt we argue that Israel may have Nuclear weapons and has used wmd on Palestinians.
By definition of a police action does Iraq, Vietnam, or any country fall under U.S. jurisdiction, without U.N. authorization?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


GePap, no,what it means is that if Syria has those chemical weapons, they will produce them or else.

Syria has had, for a long time, its own arsenal of WMDs, just like Israel has. and if Bush can;t find any evidence of WMD's in Iraq, that "or esle" you just stated is an utterly meaningless threat.

Let me understand you GePap. Is it your position that we should have left Saddam alone to develop weapons of mass destruction, including chemical, biological and nuclear?

"to develop"? you point is that they had already developed, no?

One of my points is that we could have left him there and he would not have been a threat to us in the way the admin stated he was.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Ned
As to the point about equipping the Iraqi troops with chemical weapons gear as supposedly being in anticipation of the United States use of those weapons against them, this doesn't make any sense. We did not use chemical weapons in World War II, in Korea, in Afghanistan, and in Gulf War I. Why would any commander equip his troops to defend against a mode attack we have never ever used in history of United States military, as far as I know?

Equipment of military units isn't designed to be against a single enemy. It has to serve in all cases and eventualities. The fact, that the US has never used chemical weapons, is irrelevant. The United States has the largest stockpile of them in the world, and a commander would be insane not to equip his soldiers with means of protection. By the way, this is usually not in the power of military commanders to decide, but written in the service regulations.

[Pax]

As to the point about equipping the Iraqi troops with chemical weapons gear as supposedly being in anticipation of the United States use of those weapons against them, this doesn't make any sense. We did not use chemical weapons in World War II, in Korea, in Afghanistan, and in Gulf War I. Why would any commander equip his troops to defend against a mode attack we have never ever used in history of United States military, as far as I know?

No, the honest answer is that the Iraqi military fully expected to use chemical weapons at some point and they expected retaliation in kind. [/QUOTE]

The United States Military also equips with chemical protective gear. Are you saying keep it on our people because we are going to use(B&C) it or to protect against it's use??

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap
"to develop"? you point is that they had already developed, no?

Simply because one has WMDs does not mean that they cannot be enhanced, new ones developed, nuclear ones developed or better delivery systems developed.

[GePap]

Yeah, the Iraqi would build nukes under their conditions..has not the last month shown some fo the problems with this line of thinking?

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap
Yeah, the Iraqi would build nukes under their conditions..has not the last month shown some fo the problems with this line of thinking?

Given that parts of their nuclear program went undiscovered by inspectors well into the midlate 90s, when there was far more scrutiny then after the inspectors left - yes, I think they could have.

[GePap]

Of course, with the uranium from Niger....

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap
Of course, with the uranium from Niger....

Umm.. no. In 95/96, After the UN believed that they had dismantled all of Iraq's major nuclear weapons research facilities, an Iraqi defected and told them of a nuclear weapons program initiated after the gulf war(which they then proceeded to destroy - and, of course, state that they believed they "had dismantled all of Iraq's major nuclear weapons").

[Darius871]

Originally posted by GePap

after all the US had control of the air early on, and should have had the baility to interdict large convoys (which is what it would take to move all those WMD's)

Not that I buy the reports about them being buried in Lebanon, but just FYI they said that they were loaded into tankers before the war and unloaded in a Mediterranean port.