SARIN NERVE GAS

Off Topic
41

Ptrdr, you know I’m not against eradicating terrorism, but I’m not so sure that the US (coalition of the willing) is going to invade every muslim country and really get the job done.

Instead, we’re going to smack down the politically incorrect ones and piss off muslims who are hiding in the other ones. Maybe if we are lucky all those with terroristic tendencies will cruise into Iraq to get eradicated.

I believe we are fighting an idea or an idealogy. If that is the case, the simplistic view of killing off the current crop of extremists is simply a temporary measure until the next group reaches weapon bearing age.

42

Resolute-

If we stayed on our own continent, the only country we could invade would be Canada. Now what fun would that be, huh?

I guess we could invade Mexico, wait - they’re invading the U.S. one U-Haul trailer at a time.

Plus, it would be a little uncomfortable torturing and killing the same folks who so dutifully bring me my drinks in Cancun each summer.

43

PtrDr
WTF, did you watch the news last nite and I’m talking all stations including your beloved Fox! The experts are saying Al Qaeda has recovered from our Afghanistan campaign and our spread out in at least 60 different country’s. They said Al Qaeda’s recruitment is up to all time highs and there are more of them then a year ago!

Tom Clancy who although is not a politican, but has always been an ultra conservative friend to the right especially on defense came out and said there are serious problems with this administration!

Did you see the terror alert? There saying and this is from your beloved Ashcroft, Al Qaeda elemants are in the country already and expect an attack forthcoming!

WTF, Zinni, Franks, Schwarzkopf, Clark, Shinseki,
are all saying this was a blunder that did not need to happen for our security, but the fact that it was carried out was done in an incompetent manner resulting in the mess we are in right now!

Open your damn eye’s! Did you really think occupying one country was going to wipe out terrorism? If so I’ve got some beachfront property you might be interested in!

Five fuckin generals, but no there biased they have hidden agenda’s, their nutless according to you!

Remember the speeches to congress a little more then a year ago? Remember imminent danger!
BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, you are being played!
If I’m wrong then MEA CULPA, MEA CULPA, MAXIMUM FUCKING MEA CULPA! to borrow a phrase from Dick Marcinko!

Well, no matter how much you and Zeb, and JeffR, and Rainjack, want to live in fantasy land, i think enough of the American people see through this bullshit and Georgie and company are going to be packing their bags in Nov.!

44

Elk,

You are beginning to sound a little like algore. Ease down, man. Take a deep breath. Pump some iron. You’ll feel better.

In the absence of any viable alternatives, I’ll stick with W.

You ought to come over to our “fantasy land.” It’s a place where we take the fight to the enemy. Our allies know where we stand. We believe in the dogma of deterrance. We live according to principles and practice the rule of law. You ought to come on over.

Jeff

45

We need to get Tim to run as independant, I don’t want to vote for either fools!

46

Let’s see five highly experienced Generals on one side of the scale… JeffR, Rainjack, PtrDr, Doogie on the other… I think I will go with the Generals!

47

Elk -

Let me get this straight - you are actually going to acknowledge Algore’s rants, and trust the wisdom of a former NATO commander(Clark) who, by all accounts, was at best a backstabbing opportunist?

The only member in your circle of Generals that didn’t leave the military with an ax to grind was Schwartzkauf(sp?).

If you are going to believe anything that “A-Yugo-for-everyone” Gore has to say, then my prayers are with you, and yours.

Let’s go back one year - did any of your Generals stand up against the war then? I’m not trying to be rhetorical, but I don’t remember them saying a word. Everyone was on the bandwagon - what was the vote in congress to declare war? I think there were only 4 or 5 that voted against going to war.

Now the whole left-wing fraternity has amnesia - and someone has convinced them that the cure can be found in blaming Bush.

48

LOL! Nobody wanted to vote against the war because the US was in a fit of patriotism… voting against it would appear unpatriotic. How does coming to ones senses, noticing mistakes and voicing an opinion seem unreasonable to you? I guess you’ve never changed your mind or made a mistake? Hahahahahah… you should be in the Bush administration.

And Jeff, with the rule of law? Hahahahaha. Hahahahahahaha! Hahahah! Ahahahahbwaahahahahahah. Whichever law happens to agree with the viewpoints of the administration. If it doesn’t, just change it or ignore it. Bwahahahahahahahaha.

49

Rainjack
I did not even watch Al Gore’s speech, true I caught a few sound bites, but the information I was referring to came from Hardball Chris Mathews, Keith Oberman, Lou Dobbs, and dare I say it some of the commentary on Fox. You guys remind me of Nero playing his violin while Rome burned! The house of cards is starting to fall for the neocon’s! I was hesitant to be overconfident at first, but unless a miracle happens Bush is gone! I will eat crow if I’m wrong in Nov., but Can’t you see it even staunch Republicans are starting to speak against Dubya!

50

"Let’s go back one year - did any of your Generals stand up against the war then? I’m not trying to be rhetorical, but I don’t remember them saying a word. "

Yes they did. Zinni, Clark, and others testified before Congressional committees that invading Iraq was not necessary and ill-advised.

Also, I’m surprised, I thought Jeff would have caught this news and posted it:

Sarin Shells Made Before 1991 War
United Press International

The 155-mm shells containing sarin gas that exploded in Iraq May 17 were manufactured before 1991, a senior U.S. official said Wednesday. That was a pre-Gulf War shell, a different category than the weapons being sought by the Iraq Survey Group, Brig. Gen. David Rodriguez, the joint staff deputy director for operations, told a Pentagon news briefing.

The artillery shells were rigged to explode as a roadside bomb but failed to detonate. Apparently unknown to the bomber, the shells did not contain explosives but two liquid chemicals that were meant to mix and create sarin, a deadly nerve agent.

U.S. Army soldiers found the shells and detonated them in place, releasing a small amount of sarin gas that sickened them.

Rodriguez said the sarin shells were the only ones of their kind found yet.

It’s the only two we’ve seen the entire time, said Rodriguez.

An artillery shell bearing traces of mustard gas was discovered in Baghdad, Knight-Ridder reported May 7.

Neither find is being offered as evidence of Saddam Hussein’s alleged illegal weapons programs, one of the prime reasons offered by the Bush administration for the March 2003 invasion and war.

Saddam’s forces used both sarin and mustard gas against Kurds in Halabja in the 1980s.

http://www.wokr13.tv/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=83e2bd4a-5f1c-4e84-9166-4e3a8e847643

51

"The only member in your circle of Generals that didn’t leave the military with an ax to grind was Schwartzkauf(sp?). "

Rainjack wasn’t there axe given to them because these dumb military experts didn’t want to go to war with dubya?

I pose this as a serious question: Do you feel more qualified then them to determine what is militarily smart or right?

52

Two things.

First, on the digression about the generals, I don’t think this illustrates too much. I would love for someone to go back to any war and come up with the plan that some of the generals didn’t disagree with – whether it was the winning or losing plan. You are always going to have disagreements among the commanders on how to handle the situation. That’s why you put one person in charge: He listens to the various ideas and makes a choice based on the recommendations, which are often conflicting. You can argue about the choice, but the mere fact there were those who disagreed is not anything particularly noteworthy.

Also, for the sake of context, you should at least look in to the root cause of the main disagreement: what kind of manpower was necessary to do a successful invasion/occupation. On the one hand, you had one side arguing for a smaller, more highly technical force to go in quickly (this is the side that won the argument, as far as it goes). On the other, you had those who wanted to go in slowly, with greater numbers, and secure areas as they moved. This would obviously have taken longer both to prepare for and to enact.

You can argue either side, but that was the main issue.

Second – I’m glad Lumpy finally pointed this out in his post above – the WMD issue was 1 of 4 main justifications (along with many other minor justifications) used to justify the action in Iraq. The reason it dominated the discussion was because that was the justification on which the media fixated, wrote about, and asked questions about. However, the administration never used WMD as the sole pillar on which to justify its actions.

A small digression on that point: All this “See I told you so – no WMD” is complete horse puckey. NO ONE was arguing there were no WMD before Bush sent the U.S. troops in to Iraq. EVERYONE was arguing that Saddam should be given more time to comply with the U.N. resolutions and prove he was going to get rid of the WMD it is documented that he possessed. This includes all the objecting European countries and the few (at the time) objecting Democrats in Congress.

I don’t know that anyone in the administration knows where the WMD went, and I don’t suppose anyone on this forum knows either. I don’t really know why Saddam didn’t invite the inspectors in to verify he had no WMD, if in fact none were there – maybe he really was crazy? Maybe he thought Bush was bluffing and was more afraid of looking weak to his Arab neighbors? It doesn’t make much sense, if there were no WMD – and we haven’t found any yet. Maybe there were none, and everyone was wrong; or maybe they were shipped to Syria, or buried in the desert.

But nobody can sit back smugly and say “I told you there weren’t any WMD” because nobody did.

53

Elk1 -

First off, I don’t even OWN a violin (down here we call them fiddles, but I digress).

Secondly, It’s not me against your all-star line up of ex-military experts. They were on the losing side of what was certainly a very lengthy and detailed debate about the war.

The fact is, it was everyone in the military brain trust against your five guys. I’m going to go with the numbers and stay on my side.

54

But nobody can sit back smugly and say “I told you there weren’t any WMD” because nobody did.

BB, while nobody was able to be certain that Saddam didn’t have any, we also didn’t have any additional information available to us upon which to make that decision.

However, you might recall that some other countries were very unsure that the evidence presented by the US was in fact correct. Have you forgotten the newly hated countries of France and Germany as well as the perennially hated China?

Who are the American populace, whipped into a frenzy after 9-11, to question their own leaders and their own super duper intelligence agencies? Nobody gave the public an alternative viewpoint. Don’t you remember the with us or against viewpoint of the time? It was voiced by the administration and felt by everyone. Who among you was strong enough to voice dissent (and actually be heard) at that time? Maybe a few hollywood and music industry personalities who were quickly attacked for their opinions.

As for politicians, it would be political suicide for any politician to go that road – so what you got instead was some very moderate comments. You know that politicians always cover their butt for the long term.

It’s not really fair to argue that because nobody was strong enough to stand up to the onslaught that people did not disagree earlier so they cannot now.

People have every right to look at evidence, judge whether or not they will commit political suicide and hold their tongue until a more opportune time.

At the same time, I can agree that a lot of the second guessing is just political posturing after the fact because an election is coming up. Both sides make up tons of crazy stuff and lob it out there.

After all the above, I would say it was the administration, via language and strategy, that beat the drums of war and made it nearly impossible for anyone to offer dissent. I think that is irresponsible really. However, Bush was on his only little holy mission, so it is understandable.

55

vroom:

Perhaps you remember things differently than I do. I do not recall France, Germany, Russia or China questioning the fact that Saddam had large amounts of WMD. In fact, he was documented to have such. The question at hand was how long to give him to get into compliance, i.e. to destroy and confirm the destruction of his WMD.

If I am wrong, please show me the source of any of the above countries questioning whether Saddam possessed the WMD.

Also, the point isn’t that people can’t look back and re-question ideas. The point is that you can’t apply 20/20 hindsight to a decision made under uncertainty, or, if you prefer, under a commonly held misconception.

As to your point about politicians, I agree to a point. There were likely politicians who questioned the rationale but who felt compelled to go along with what they thought – seemingly correctly – was the popular will.

However, I give them no respect for covering their asses. In fact, even if you think Bush is wrong, but believe he was doing what he believed to be correct, I don’t see how acting on what one believes could possibly be worse than “covering [one’s] ass” by voting to send troops, some of whom will die and many of whom will kill, if you actually disagreed with sending them.

This is beside the point with whether you agree or disagree with the war. I would never vote for someone whom I suspected of covering his ass in that manner, no matter what.

The administration didn’t make it “impossible” for people who dissented to voice their dissent. They simply made it unpopular to do so. If those politicians couldn’t even muster the courage to vote their consciences against the war if they thought it was immoral, or even wrongheaded, what could they possibly be trusted to vote their consciences on? Whatever they thought was popular? The mere thought that so-called leaders would simply follow the crowd on such an issue makes me ill.

56

BB, Get ready to hate all politicians then, because they all do the expedient thing… whether left or right.

57

GO CANADIANS!!! YOU REALLY SAY IT LIKE IT IS. ALL MY LOVE FROM MEXICO!

K.

(Note from Mod: No yelling please.)

58

If this dud shell was ANY proof of WMD, the president would have mentioned it in his speech at the War College on Monday night!!!

Instead, the president didn’t say a single word about this shell or WMD in his speech. Why not?

59

Heck, I haven’t participated in political discussions much recently, so what the heck…

If I am wrong, please show me the source of any of the above countries questioning whether Saddam possessed the WMD.

Also, the point isn’t that people can’t look back and re-question ideas. The point is that you can’t apply 20/20 hindsight to a decision made under uncertainty, or, if you prefer, under a commonly held misconception.

Which part of “the inspections are working, give the inspectors more time” makes you think other countries also believed Saddam had WMD? Hans Blix was making his reports and his advice was interpreted differently by countries such as France, Germany, Russia and China.

I remember watching his reports on TV on a regular basis. Then Colin Powell went in and attempted to convince the UN (or the world) that Saddam had WMD with his speech and demonstration vial.

After this speech, again, these other countries stated that they had their own sources of information and that they did not corroborate what the US was saying.

I certainly am not going to waste my time trying to find transcripts of UN sessions to “prove” this to you. There are reasons other countries did not join the coalition of the mislead. One of those was a reasonable doubt about the presence of WMD and the appropriateness of invading a country on the principle of preemptive speculation.

Finally, as a historian, you should agree that it is important to analyze the mistakes of the past so that they are not simply repeated. Isn’t that how the subject of history is always sold? Learn from the past to do things better in the future?

Okay, really finally, just to reiterate, while I’m arguing the above principles I’m not against wiping out terrorism nor do I think that the use of military force is inherently wrong. I’m not a pacifist and I’m not an appeaser and being a critic does not make me a supporter of the bad guys.

60

vroom:

As I recall it, the line wasn’t “the inspections are working” but rather “we need to give the inspections enough time to work.” This difference is significant, although neither case implies the lack of WMD. The first would seem to imply they were in the process of verifying the destruction of the WMD, while the latter would imply that they thought the inspections could work.

Also, I think you are blending, in your recollections, debates about a possible Iraqi nuclear program with recollections about other types of WMD. No other countries questioned whether Saddam had large amounts of chemical and/or biological weapons. The debate, and the “other intelligence”, concerned nuclear weapons programs only.

Finally, you’re right about history – it is important to examine the past to learn from our mistakes. It’s also important to examine what went right and why, so that we can continue our successes. However, in this case, it seems to me that people are trying to re-write history by implying that there was some sort of question concerning whether Saddam possessed WMD. This was not the case.

We can and should figure out what happened to the WMD Saddam did have, why there are apparently no large amounts in Iraq now, what intelligence was bad and what was good and why, and why Saddam would have resisted free-er inspections if he did not have WMD, especially given the consequences.

BTW, as an aside, I am pleased that you are for the war on terrorism. It certainly is possible to be for fighting terrorism and against Iraq, or against certain aspects of Iraq. One does not have to agree with each aspect of what has transpired to be for the goal. I know I don’t. But the goal is very important, and it is of paramount importance that we succeed in Iraq, both for Middle East stability and in the fight against terrorism.