12-05-2003 21:12									#151
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

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.

quote: 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.

	12-05-2003 21:13									#152
	Tired of ads?

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.

	12-05-2003 21:19									#153
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: 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?

	12-05-2003 21:22									#154
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: 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)

	12-05-2003 21:23									#155
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

quote: 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."

	12-05-2003 21:25									#156
	Got spare money?

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?

	12-05-2003 21:25									#157
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	12-05-2003 21:26									#158
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

	12-05-2003 21:31									#159
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

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??

	12-05-2003 21:32									#160
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: 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.

	12-05-2003 21:42									#161
	Get a bigger avatar today!

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

	12-05-2003 21:57									#162
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: 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.

	12-05-2003 21:59									#163
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

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

	12-05-2003 22:08									#164
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: 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").

	12-05-2003 22:25									#165
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: 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.

	12-05-2003 22:28									#166
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

They're in Syria.

Unless the administration changes its current "Syria First" policy by going after Iran.

In which case, they're in Iran.

	12-05-2003 22:31									#167
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by uh Clem They're in Syria. Unless the administration changes its current "Syria First" policy by going after Iran. In which case, they're in Iran.

This morning in the news: W admin asserted that Republican Guard soldiers took them away.

In other words, anywhere but here.

	12-05-2003 22:32									#168
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

connorkimbro: so then Bush is going to use his "faith-based" intiatives to get us to believe in the WMD's

elden: I know the CIA can do better with photoshop... that's my point... so why didn't they?

	12-05-2003 22:35									#169
	Put an end to popups!

quote: 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),

Hmm, massive firepower against convoys of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Good idea? (Not that the US shouldn't have done a damnsight more, but bombing the stuff isn't always the wisest choice)

	12-05-2003 22:35									#170
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Darius871 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.

Wow, what a crackerjack outfit our naval blockade must be in tankers filled with WMD's got through

Edan:

Any new defectors with the same story lately? About post 1998?

	12-05-2003 22:35									#171
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by GePap Wow, what a crackerjack outfit our naval blockade must be in tankers filled with WMD's got through

Am I mistaken, or weren't tankers THE way Iraq exported oil? Did American ships rigorously inspect every tanker that left Iraq
->before<- the war?

quote: Originally posted by Sava elden: I know the CIA can do better with photoshop... that's my point... so why didn't they?

Wait a sec, I missed all the media frenzy about forged photos... or is this just your expert opinion? 'Ooh, dem things look photoshopped.'

	12-05-2003 22:38									#172
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Edan Hmm, massive firepower against convoys of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Good idea? (Not that the US shouldn't have done a damnsight more, but bombing the stuff isn't always the wisest choice)

Bombing the stuff out in the middle of the damn desert (which is what the space between the Euphrates-Tigris valley, and Syria, would not have realesed some "doom shroud", plus most chem weaposn break up quickly in the sun and heat, so yes, if such things ever existed, blow the convoy up!

Not to say I actually beliee there ever was a convoy, and if there was, I just reiterate my "Bush's other lie" post made above.

	12-05-2003 22:39									#173
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Edan: Any new defectors with the same story lately? About post 1998?

Whether or not there are doesn't change Iraq's capability of hosting a nuclear weapons programs under sanctions and right under inspectors noses (just like North Korea...) However, I seem to remember hearing of a defection in 2000 (or thereabouts)

	12-05-2003 22:39									#174
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Darius871 Am I mistaken, or wasn't tankers THE way Iraq exported oil? Did American ships rigorously inspect every tanker that left Iraq before the war?

Yes, since 1990, as part of the UN sanctions.

	12-05-2003 22:40									#175
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Darius871 Am I mistaken, or weren't tankers THE way Iraq exported oil? Did American ships rigorously inspect every tanker that left Iraq ->before<- the war?

What tankers? IIRC, even the "Oil for Food" programme had been stopped prior to the war.

Another thing is, tanker modification work would surely detected by US spy sats.

	12-05-2003 22:44									#176
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by GePap Bombing the stuff out in the middle of the damn desert (which is what the space between the Euphrates-Tigris valley, and Syria, would not have realesed some "doom shroud", plus most chem weaposn break up quickly in the sun and heat, so yes, if such things ever existed, blow the convoy up!

Umm, There are a number of towns and cities in the region near the Syrian border. And, from what I remember, someone in the military said they would purposefully not bomb suspected WMD sites in order to prevent the possibility of a large number of civilian deaths (and frankly, I think they did a pretty good job of minimizing civilian casulties as best they could ).

	12-05-2003 22:46									#177
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Darius871 Am I mistaken, or weren't tankers THE way Iraq exported oil?

They also exported it (both under sanctions and ignoring the sanctions) to Syria through a pipeline.

	12-05-2003 22:48									#178
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by GePap Yes, since 1990, as part of the UN sanctions.

Well you learn something new everyday; that sounds like quite a feat to check every nook and cranny of dozens of tankers making hundreds of trips throughout the decade. But hey, if you say they did.

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger What tankers? IIRC, even the "Oil for Food" programme had been stopped prior to the war.

How long before the war? The articles I've read on the tanker story (again, not that I buy it, I was just pointing out that an easily detected land convoy was not the only possibility) said that they departed as early as the time of inspections.

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Another thing is, tanker modification work would surely detected by US spy sats.

Why would the work have to be that extensive? Any secret compartments that would be necessary could all be built below decks and invisible. Secondly, there would be numerous ways of getting the weapons inside that would be indetectable.

	12-05-2003 22:50									#179
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Yes, there are towns, but mostly it is desert, and no, hitting a convoy in the middle of the desert, away from towns, would mean few civilian casualties.

But the point is moot, becuase, as i said before:

Bush said the point of this war (or the point he emphazised most before the war) was to protect Americans form Iraqi WMD's, specifically, from them getting into the hands of terrorist. IF there were any weapons, and somehow they made it to somewhere out of Iraq, out of US control, then Bush FAILED to achieve one of his main goals, since those WMD's would still be out there, capable of landing in Bin Ladn's hands (by this sort of logic) and "killing thousands upon thousands of Americans", if we go by what this admin. says these weapons are capable of.

Meaning (if this were true), Bush did not lie about WMD's, just the ability of this war to protect us from them.

as I asked before, is this somehow a better lie?

	12-05-2003 22:52									#180
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Darius871 Well you learn something new everyday; that sounds like quite a feat to check every nook and cranny of dozens of tankers making hundreds of trips throughout the decade. But hey, if you say they did.

They could not check every nook or cranny..but getting hundreds of mustard gas shells, thousand of tons of chemcial agents, 10,000 liters of anthrax, 28,000 liters of boutlism (spll?), 2 dozen SCUD's would surely require much more space than just a few nooks and crannies, would they not? (the afore mentioned stuff is what we said they had before the war)