'Huge' Suspected Chemical Weapons Plant Found in Iraq

[adios]

Simply USA propaganda? I doubt it.

'Huge' Suspected Chemical Weapons Plant Found in Iraq

[Chris Alger]

Of course it's propaganda. Compare the headline -- "'Huge' Chemical Weapons Plant Found" -- the with actual text down below: "U.S. Central Command ... said it was premature to call the Najaf site a chemical weapons factory." So the "weapons" desgination comes from the media, not even US forces on the scene. And not just the media, but the stridently pro-war Fox News and Jerusalem Post (the latter being one of the more famous conduits in the world for official disinformation). According to a more recent report in the Sydey Morning Herald, US troops hadn't even been able to locate chemicals in the plant, much less chemical weapons. "Investigators from the US Army's Third Infantry Division made a preliminary check of the air around the Al Najaf Storage Depot but found no trace of chemical agents, officers said." The report also quotes Tommy Franks as saying that "it would not surprise me" if no chemicals were found. Some "weapons plant." http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...354572197.html

Your "undislcosed drone" story also turns out to be a gross exageration, after being trumpted in headlines around the country. According to a more recent report by the AP's Niko Price:

"Part of Washington's rush is based on its fears that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction, and U.S. officials have cited as proof what they called an undeclared drone that Iraq was developing to spread chemical and biological weapons.

But Iraq showed journalists Wednesday what it said was the drone. Made mostly of balsa wood and held together with screws and duct tape, it had two small propellers attached to what looked like the engines of a weed whacker.
In New York, Ewen Buchanan, spokesman for chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, said after inspectors examined photographs of the drone: "Yes, it would appear to be the drone with the 7.45 meter (24.5 foot) wingspan that was discovered by inspectors recently."

Officials of the Ibn Firnas State Company, in the al-Taji area just north of Baghdad, said the drone is a prototype designed for reconnaissance, jamming and aerial photography.
They said it couldn't possibly be used to spread weapons of mass destruction, and accused Secretary of State Colin Powell of misleading the world by saying it could. Powell told the U.N. Security Council that the drone "should be of concern to everybody."

"He's making a big mistake," said Brig. Imad Abdul Latif, the project director for the drone. "He knows very well that this aircraft is not used for what he said."

The aircraft is guided by a controller on the ground, who has to be able to see the plane to direct it, Latif said. He said the controls have a range of five miles - a fraction of a U.N.-imposed limit of 93 miles."
http://216.239.57.100/custom?q=cache...2&ie=UTF-8

So we're going to war to combat "weapons of mass destruction" made out of balsa wood and duct tape and chemical weapons with no chemicals. Do you really think that we're not going to be called to account for it, that we won't have to pay a terrible price for this?

[B-Man]

So we're going to war to combat "weapons of mass destruction" made out of balsa wood and duct tape and chemical weapons with no chemicals. Do you really think that we're not going to be called to account for it, that we won't have to pay a terrible price for this?

What are you trying to say? Even if we don't find WMD or evidence of WMD in Iraq (and I would wager we will, but let's assume we don't), please tell me you aren't suggesting that future terrorist attacks against the U.S. would be justified if we don't find chemical weapons in Iraq.

[IrishHand]

What are you trying to say?
I would guess he's trying to say that it's a joke that we're using such lame pretexts in our "Iraq has WMD and is a big threat" justification for the invasion.

Even if we don't find WMD or evidence of WMD in Iraq (and I would wager we will, but let's assume we don't),
Of course we will. We're going to occupy the whole damn country - the odds of not "discovering" a big cache of WMD is awfully close to zero. Of course, I'll be waiting for the explanation about how they had those WMD and didn't use them in a situation that clearly dictates they can and should. (That's my favorite part of our invasion - that we are solely responsible for creating a situation wherein Iraq's use of any WMD in their possession is both justified and infinitely more likely.)

[B-Man]

Thanks, but you restated the obvious without responding to my question about his veiled threat (the "terrible price" he says we are going to pay). What I want to know is whether Alger (and, I suppose, you) thinks this war justifies future terrorist attacks against the U.S. That's what he seems to be saying.

I'll be waiting for the explanation about how they had those WMD and didn't use them in a situation that clearly dictates they can and should.

Please explain why Iraq "should" use WMD. All that would do would be (a) cost them any sympthathy and political capital they have left around the world (including even the despicable nation of France), and (b) instigate a response the likes of which have never been seen. Saddam wants to go down in history as a martyr; if he uses outlawed weapons and brings about the death of millions of his own citizens, that wont be accomplished. (nor will it help him win the war; nothing he can do would do that)

[Chris Alger]

I'm predicting, not prescribing.

[IrishHand]

Please explain why Iraq "should" use WMD.
If a rogue aggressor nation invaded your nation, I would say you're justified in using any and all means at your disposal to repel than invader and protect your land.

(a) cost them any sympthathy and political capital they have left around the world (including even the despicable nation of France),
I don't think there's too much worldwide sympathy for Hussein. You'll note that the countries opposed to the US are the same ones which supported UN sanctions of Iraq. Clearly, it's not an issue of supporting Iraq - it's an issue of not supporting the US's invasion.

If you prefer, think of it in the Amerocentric way. Let's say North Korea launches a "pre-emtive, defensive" strike on their hostile neighbor, South Korea. In the first day, they wipe out 30,000+ US servicemen in the area. In a very short time-span, they have occupied the full of the Korean peninsula and established excellent coastal defenses. How do you think the US would respond?

(b) instigate a response the likes of which have never been seen
You mean something along the lines of the world's most powerful military invading it while at the same time continuing a ruthless bombing campaign on those portions of the country which haven't been occuped? Or did you mean turning Baghdad into Lake America? (Or would it be Lake Iraqi Freedom?) Frankly, I don't think he's too concerned about this option, nor would I be. Anytime the bully decides to beat you up, you either let him beat you up, or you resist knowing full well that if things go poorly for this particular bully, he can always opt to pull out his gun and shoot you.

Saddam wants to go down in history as a martyr
I actually don't think he's all that interested in dying right now, but I assume you know him better by vitrue of what you've learned from the US media.

(nor will it help him win the war; nothing he can do would do that)
Maybe, but maybe not. If his intent is to resist to the last (which I doubt, by the way), it would be far better to raise the stakes as high as he can in the hopes that the US opts not to be cruxified internationally for precipitating a war which leads to the use of a nuclear weapon.