Chemical Weapons Factory, South Iraq

Dancing Monkey

RE: Supposed Chemicals Weapons Factory discovered by Allied Forces.

1, The US did not nessessarily want to have a blaze of publicity about this until it could verify it, the story was seemingly broken by an Israeli journalist.
2, They have said they won't make any further comment on it until a team of experts has analysed it. Even the Pentagon called it a chemicals factory and not a chemical weapons factory because they said they did not know.
3, The factory was camouflaged and "sand stepped", which is made to look like a sand dune. It was not declared even as an ordinary chemical factory in the Iraq declararation.
4, The US troops who discovered it also had a chemical weapons expert with them, hinting that they knew of its existence and were actually searching for it.
5, The weapons inspectors had no knowledge of this building, also hinting that if the US knew about it they certainly didn't tell Hans Blix.

gandalf

Well considering most major media outlets have pulled the story from their main pages I would consider it to be very suspect indeed.

You have to remember the UK-US are desparate to find these and I would expect them to even "manufacture" such a discovery to justify this illegal war.

Only time will tell.

Gandalf.

HFXOC

This story was broken by FOX news ( leading gungho US network), it was then picked up by its sister network SKY News ( another network renowned for its balanced reportage). The original story was posted by a reporter from the Jerusalem Post (no comment).

Until such a time as independent, unbiased and objective reporters can review the evidence, I suggest we treat this report with a grain of salt ( or a bag of cement as is likely the case!!!)

Johnmb

Even Sky News has distanced itself. Their reporter has emphasised the fact that the US is desparate to find such factories, and gives that as a reason why they jumped to conclusions. He has effectively said that it is not a chemical weapons factory, or at least is unlikely to be one, that has been found according to Sky's website. It would be a bit much to think the inspectors missed such a "hugh" chemical weapons factory when they were in the area. They weren't just looking with their eyes, they had equipment that wouldn't be fooled by covering the buildings with sand.

PH01

Might be a 'baby food' factory.

bug

The weapons inspectors had no knowledge of this building, also hinting that if the US knew about it they certainly didn't tell Hans Blix.

I'm not sure, (feel free to contradict me), but I reluctantly watched sky news early this morning and they had a guy on the phone line speaking about the alledged chemical w.p., he had been a member of the weapons inspectors team and said he was very familiar with the area and had been there and said in his opinion it is not a chemical weapons factory, he did however not give an incling as to what he thought it was.

Jake303

The guy in question is Scott Ritta, he said he knew the area very well and was very sceptical about the report.
Turns out it was a 100 acre site, surely the weapons inspectors and the USA knew of its existence, reckon this stories going nowhere

Do you really think the US & UK will win this war, before they "find" complete evidence of WMD production? I believe that if saddam does not indeed have WMD's the US & UK will plant such weapons. Even to the point of playing to everyones fears, and planting an actual Nuke in Iraq, to find, simply because it would justify their whole invasion.

Victor

Originally posted by Jake303
Scott Ritta

Scott Ritter, he has actually been quite vocal about inspections working best.

Originally posted by klaz
Do you really think the US & UK will win this war, before they "find" complete evidence of WMD production? I believe that if saddam does not indeed have WMD's the US & UK will plant such weapons. Even to the point of playing to everyones fears, and planting an actual Nuke in Iraq, to find, simply because it would justify their whole invasion.

With respect, if your beliefs extend to that kind of nonsense, I'll say a prayer for you.
Tony blair put it well today,in making reference, to how poor, the British and Irish authorities have been over the last 30 years, in finding IRA arms dumps, yet we know they have them.
Now , how big is Iraq again??
mm

Victor

Originally posted by Man
Tony blair put it well today,in making reference, to how poor, the British and Irish authorities have been over the last 30 years, in finding IRA arms dumps, yet we know they have them. Now , how big is Iraq again??

Not directly comparable, it's a lot easier to hide 100 AK-47s than a major chemical plant. And the British and Irish governments have specificly **not** looked for years.

Originally posted by Victor
Not directly comparable, it's a lot easier to hide 100 AK-47s than a major chemical plant. And the British and Irish governments have specificly **not** looked for years.

I disagree, victor, they were looking for long enough, with poor sucess.
Surely it's as difficult to find, hidden semtex as say a tonne of antrax.
mm

Hobbes

Originally posted by Jake303
The guy in question is Scott Ritta, he said he knew the area very well and was very sceptical about the report.
Turns out it was a 100 acre site, surely the weapons inspectors and the USA knew of its existence, reckon this stories going nowhere

The story can be traced back to a story that came out of a paper printed in Israel. That appears to be the source.

As for the area, I have also seen reports that the UN inspectors knew of the site over 12 years ago, but that's not wildly reported either so I would put much stock in that either.

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
I disagree, victor, they were looking for long enough, with poor sucess.
Surely it's as difficult to find, hidden semtex as say a tonne of antrax.

Not when one can be acquired easily over the black market, and the other requires some specialist equipment, labs, technicians, base chemicals, storage facilities, etc. etc. etc.

The point is that any WMD being looked for would have been produced in Iraq, and that meant that there was an entire trail, from factory to storage/destruction which can be followed. The Inspectors' job was to verify this trail, and to answer any inconsistencies in it.

The whole scare tactics used by the allied spokespeople is that they wish to prevent such weapons becoming so proliferate that they too are sold on the black market just like crates of AKs and Uzis, because at that point they truly do become impossible to police.

jc

Sand

Not when one can be acquired easily over the black market, and the other requires some specialist equipment, labs, technicians, base chemicals, storage facilities, etc. etc. etc.

And as a counter balance one could be hiding such arms from the governments and agencies of the area youre hiding them in - OR the governments and agencies of the area could be the ones doing the hiding.

Originally posted by bonkey
The point is that any WMD being looked for would have been produced in Iraq, and that meant that there was an entire trail, from factory to storage/destruction which can be followed. The Inspectors' job was to verify this trail, and to answer any inconsistencies in it.
jc

Thats if any trail, paper or otherwise exists.
One would have to assume, if a decision was taken ( and thats "if" ) to retain Antrax, then procedures to make it easy for inspectors would not be followed.

It's a bit like the bottle of poteen, that was in this house ( before we drank it...in case I get a visit from the guards:D ) , that had to be produced illegally somewhere, but unless, the guards get a tip off, they are going to have one hell of a job going through all the sheds/garages in Ireland to find the still.
Thats all , thats needed, a small hut, for to store or produce some of the worlds most dangerous chemical agents.
mm

Jake303

Originally posted by Man
With respect, if your beliefs extend to that kind of nonsense, I'll say a prayer for you.
mm

Hes not the only one that needs your prayers then!

Many that Iv spoken to believe that if no WMDs are found that they will be planted, I myself am firmly of this opinion.
Im not saying I dont think Saddam doesnt have any, Im simply saying that IF he doesnt they will be planted to justify this war.

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
Thats if any trail, paper or otherwise exists.
One would have to assume, if a decision was taken ( and thats "if" ) to retain Antrax, then procedures to make it easy for inspectors would not be followed.

There are no procedures to "make it easy for inspectors".

Saddam was running a pretty strict regime, to say the least. The last thing he wanted was some fanatical opposition group being able to lay their hands on his WMDs and using them on him or his army. And whatever you can say about the man, he's not stupid enough to believe himself immune to attack from within....especially after that wee rebellion after Gulf 1.

For that reason, he would need strict documentation of everything, to ensure that he had control over his weapons....to keep himself safe. He would need to keep it safe....so that he could keep tabs on stuff.

What you are basically arguing here would be akin to saying that a company only keeps books in order to satisfy auditors. Most companies I know keep them to know the state of their business as well - how can you know if an employee is ripping you off if you dont keep your paper trail?

There is a paper-trail in all major developments of this nature....from every single step of the way. Not only is it how business works, but it is even moreso how science projects are run, and I would say weapons production tops the line in keeping tabs on their kit.

The inspectors basically turn up and say "show us this stuff please", and then verify the information provided against itself and all external facts. Inconsistencies are where the questions arise, and thats the path we saw followed.

jc

Originally posted by bonkey
There are no procedures to "make it easy for inspectors".

Saddam was running a pretty strict regime, to say the least. The last thing he wanted was some fanatical opposition group being able to lay their hands on his WMDs and using them on him or his army. And whatever you can say about the man, he's not stupid enough to believe himself immune to attack from within....especially after that wee rebellion after Gulf 1.

For that reason, he would need strict documentation of everything, to ensure that he had control over his weapons....to keep himself safe. He would need to keep it safe....so that he could keep tabs on stuff.

What you are basically arguing here would be akin to saying that a company only keeps books in order to satisfy auditors. Most companies I know keep them to know the state of their business as well - how can you know if an employee is ripping you off if you dont keep your paper trail?
jc

But normal conventions, I suspect ( and neither you or I can know for sure ) could not apply here.
what I was getting at , really was, Sadam would not want to , say on the one hand , he has no WMD's and on the other, have a paper trail that could be found by Blix.
He may well have had some protection in place in terms of accounting for what he had , and perhaps, the fact that he was only producing a paper trail at all 4 months into the inspections was suspicious.
mm

Originally posted by Jake303
Hes not the only one that needs your prayers then!

Many that Iv spoken to believe that if no WMDs are found that they will be planted, I myself am firmly of this opinion.
Im not saying I dont think Saddam doesnt have any, Im simply saying that IF he doesnt they will be planted to justify this war.

Don't worry I'll include you too Jake;)
I actually think, barring a disaster in weeks to come, Bush won't bother trying to justify this war at all to anybody, if his objectives are achieved.
mm

Typedef

It's pretty curious that Iraq, a State which was fully prepaired to use Chemical and Biological weapons against Iran, hasn't used the Chemical and Biological weapons said State is supposed to still posess, instead favouring conventional warfare and expaditing it's own defeat (militarily).

Makes one pose the question, why would a man, being chased by another man (who is trying to kill him) would not use a gun he has, to defend himself from attack, but, instead chooses hand-to-hand combat, even though he is being chased by three adversaries, one of whom is perhaps five times his size.

Highly illogical. Perhaps a simpler rationalisation of the non-Use of Chemical and Biological weapons by the Iraqis, is that, the Iraqi regieme no longer has the capability to deliver such weapons, or, even more probable, Iraq simply doesn't have those weapons any longer.

Take North Korea as an example of what I'm saying. North Korea has stated it will use Nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons if it is attacked. Thus, nobody will attack North Korea.

If Saddam did have Chemical and Biological weapons at his disposal and the means to threaten the likes if Israel, Kuwait, Turkey and Saudi Arabia with those weapons, that is exactly what would have happend before the American invasion.

In short, had Iraq posessed such weapons, it would have threatned to use those weapons against civilians in American allied countries in the region, as a means of deterrant.
Since that didn't happen, Iraq doesn't have the capability to pose such a threat.

qed.

yankinlk

oHHHHHHHHHhhhhhh, and you think Saddam is logical then?

Hobbes

Originally posted by yankinlk
oHHHHHHHHHhhhhhh, and you think Saddam is logical then?

Actually I do. I don't equate logic has having a moral backbone.

The worst thing you can do is under estimate your enemy or believe they are stupid. Saddam didn't get to his position of power by being stupid or illogical.

Typedef

yankinlk


oHHHHHHHHHhhhhhh, and you think Saddam is logical then?

Since Saddam used Chemical weapons against Iran, it is stupid to assume he wouldn't use said weapons as a means of deterrant to invasion, if indeed Iraq did have Chemical weapons.

Perhaps a more rational proposition is that indeed the CIA is quite aware of the fact that all Iraqi Chemical and Biological weapons have been destroyed or Iraq no longer has the means to deploy the same, ergo, invasion of Iraq and annexation of Iraqi oil can be perpitrated without fear of reprisal against Israel, Kuwait, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

However since you mention it, I find it hardly plausable Saddam Hussein could install himself into power, without some basic scruples and the ability to make a threat to use his weapons as a means of deterrant.

Since such a threat was not forthcoming and no Chemcial or Biological weapons have been used as a means of defence by Iraq, the idea that the US/UK alliance is disarming Iraq in this war can be proved to be a spurious proposition.

Again, all Saddam would have to do is threaten to drop his Chemical weapons on Israel and bargin for lifting of UN sanctions, just like North Korea. So, since none of this has happened, it is quite likely (I think) that the US & UK are quite aware of the fact that Saddam can't really mount any real kind of Conventional/Chemical or Biological reprisal attack and have thus decided to annex Iraq, for all intents and purposes, so as to ensure the supply of cheap Iraqi petrochemicals for the next two decades.

Good enough?

Originally posted by Typedef
Makes one pose the question, why would a man, being chased by another man (who is trying to kill him) would not use a gun he has, to defend himself from attack, but, instead chooses hand-to-hand combat, even though he is being chased by three adversaries, one of whom is perhaps five times his size.
qed.

True.
Except, unless he's thought all along, that the best way to use them against the infidel, is to give them to terrorists.
That way he retains the *cough* higher moral ground by claiming he hasn't got them any more.
Perhaps he has done so, or more likely will do so now that the end of his regime is nigh.
mm

yankinlk

or maybe the sandstorms are hindering him

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
True.
Except, unless he's thought all along, that the best way to use them against the infidel, is to give them to terrorists.

Now...see..this is more of it. Where does all this "infidel" thing come from? Before Gulf War 1, Iraq was just about the most liberal and progressive of all of the ME states, and it was a well known fact that Saddam Hussein himself was effectively an atheist.

It is since then that the major religions have started to take a hold, which has resulted in Saddam realising that he must pay at least lip service to his religion, lest he face a holy insurrection in protest to his unbelief.

So, this whole "infidel" crap is mostly just for show. Who else is he gonna blame for his nation still having sanctions which prevent it from lifting itself out of the bomb-torn mess it was in? Himself? Well, it might be more honest, but not bloody likely. The US bombed his people, the US were behind the sanctions, the US were the cause of all evil. Sure - he goes a bit overboard there at the end, but lets be honest - certain western politicians are just about as clam and reasonable when they go off half-cocked blaming everyone else for a mess they had a hand in.

Now, here's the kicker. Other than these "inflammatory" speeches - which as I have argued have some valid basis and some equivalents in the "free west" - Saddam Hussein has never been known or shown to have taken any action against a western nation. OK - he "funds" Palestinian suicide bombers, but Israel is at best half-western, in that it is most definitely a Middle-Eastern problem. But other than that...what has he done?

Nothing. Nothing at all. He's fought local nations, he's fought internal wars and maintained his internal oppression, but he has never made an action against the US, or Europe in any way.

All we have are insinuations from various governments, and then cleverly spun by the media. This evening CNN were showing headlines from around Europe. After two anti-war ones, they switch to some paper in the UK - possibly the Telegraph, who had "an insightful article" which made the point that while anti-war protestors were making their voices heard as loudly as possible, not one of them had proposed an alternate means to depose this evil regime.

Now, while its a valid point, the war is not about deposing an evil regime. Well - its deposing an evil regime for lying about its WMDs, which will be proven when the evil regime is deposed, and in doing so, the real objective of removing the threat of these WMDs will be accomplished.

Now, the anti-war protestors generally have plenty of suggestions about how to ensure that any remaining WMDs are put beyond use, if indeed they exist....but apparently solving the "real" issue isnt good enough any more. Nope - we're to say how the solution of deposition can be achieved without war...which is a farcical question.

Will regime change be a good thing? Sure - if the West dont screw it up like so many times before. Is it a reason to go to war? No - I dont think so, because I dont want nations like the US declaring war on whoever has p1ssed them off enough this year/decade, and who is weak enough to conquer. Deposing regimes through armed force and invasion simply because you have an objection to them is not a civilised act.

jc

Deposing regimes through armed force and invasion simply because you have an objection to them is not a civilised act.

Agreed.
I heard James Rueben on the politics Show on BBC 2 this lunchtime , talk about the different influences behind U.S policy at the moment as he saw it.
The prevailing group including good old Rummie, are going down the road, Bonkey talks about above in Rueben's view.The impression I got was that we can expect more of it.
Ultimately, the justification given being the fear of what might happen if nothing is done-the whole pre-emptive course.

One wonders so if Osama is achieving his objective, as this course is being argued as a reaction to 9-11 yet being seen in the grass roots mainly of the Islamic world as a war on their religion , not on terror.
The outcome of this war will go a long way towards answering that question for me.
I've heard, the supporters of this war mention Kosova a lot.. Clearly, the brownie points for that didn't last long.

Where Myself and Bonkey would probably profoundly disagree though would most likely be in the fact, that I am not so disturbed that it is the U.S that is taking this road and not some other country who may want to bring a system not conducive to the kind of life , we in the west lead, a life much easier to bring to chaos, with nerve agents in the wrong hands.
mm

Victor

Originally posted by Dancing Monkey
5, The weapons inspectors had no knowledge of this building, also hinting that if the US knew about it they certainly didn't tell Hans Blix.

Blix has since siad he was aware of it.

Meh

Originally posted by bonkey
Now, here's the kicker. Other than these "inflammatory" speeches - which as I have argued have some valid basis and some equivalents in the "free west" - Saddam Hussein has never been known or shown to have taken any action against a western nation. OK - he "funds" Palestinian suicide bombers, but Israel is at best half-western, in that it is most definitely a Middle-Eastern problem. But other than that...what has he done?

Nothing. Nothing at all. He's fought local nations, he's fought internal wars and maintained his internal oppression, but he has never made an action against the US, or Europe in any way.

Didn't he try to assassinate Bush Sr. a decade ago? Of course, Bush Jr. is very careful not to cite this incident as a reason for the war, to avoid it being seen as some sort of family vendetta.

Victor

Originally posted by Meh
Didn't he try to assassinate Bush Sr. a decade ago?

That was in Saudi Arabia so it's not quite a strike against the USA. If only Osama Bin Laden had the job :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Meh
Of course, Bush Jr. is very careful not to cite this incident as a reason for the war, to avoid it being seen as some sort of family vendetta.

Someone was making disparaging remarks about this being the reason that Bush wanted to take out Saddam's sons aswell.