10/11/2004

WMD's in Iraq

I just found an interesting post over on the Hammorabi blog concerning WMD's. For those of you unfamiliar with the blog, it is published by an Iraqi. Here is a telling portion of the post to which I'm referring:

...about the situation in Al-Latifyiah & Yosfyiah. He described it as the most miserable. He added that the terrorists are Arabs from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Algeria, Yemen, Jordan, Sudan and others. He told that Saddam kept his WMD with these thugs and they keep it in barrels hidden in these two regions.

In other words, the terrorists holed up in Al-Latifyiah & Yosfyiah have barrels full of biological and or chemical agents hidden in these two towns. These are the same guys that murdered Kenneth Bigely, Jack Hensley and Eugene Armstrong. It seems troubling that these people would be demanding the release of the female Iraqi prisoner known as Dr. Germ in view of this information.

Another interesting piece of that post concerns al-Quaeda and Iraq:

...the son of Abdullah Azam who is the God father of Usama Bin Laden (Hothiyafa Abdullah Azam) called Al-Arabyiah TV last night from Jordan and told them that Al-Qaeda got strong bases in Iraq and they can enter in and outside Iraq freely when they like.
Blogger Sheryl said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2:46 AM  
Blogger Sheryl said...

I always said before we went to war that if the inspections could not work on the grounds that the weapons could be moved, then what good could it possibly be to bomb any one country? That weapons could just be moved.

Of course, no one listened to me, and we bombed the shit out of Iraq. But then the war wasn't actually about WMDs. It was about the second largest oil reserves on the planet.

Now we are paying nearly twice the price for gas we did in Clinton's time, don't have the weapons (if they even exist), and we're $200 billion down the toilet that could have been used on the American economy.

If I were you, I would not brag that there might still be WMDs, because as you point out, we ain't found 'em if they do exist. Maybe playing offense is not the best defense after all.

Maybe just maybe pre-emptive war pisses people off. And if you are right, those people still have their weapons to play with. The ant nest has been stepped in, but the pesticides have not reached their targets.

2:50 AM  
Blogger The G-man said...

Not much for consistency are you? First you claim we went to war for the oil, then you complain that we're paying too much for oil.

8:48 AM  
Blogger Sheryl said...

In case you hadn't noticed, we are in the middle of a class war. The Bush administration did not got to war to keep oil prices down. He went to war to keep his friends in the oil industry wealthy. And having a monopoly on natural resources actually means we pay more at pump because less suppliers means higher prices.

I never said this oil war was done for the American consumer.

You conservatives talk a lot about consistency. Thought itself is about being able to differentiate concepts and make different decisions in different circumstances.

It's one thing to be a hypocrite (like Bush,) where you say one thing and do something else. It's quite another to see the differences between things and adapt your ideas to the context of the actual variables involved.

Consistency means I get daily email messages for viagra. Differentiation would be realizing that it is not necessary for a female to receive such ads. Is that inconsistency? Yes. Is there are a high probability that I will need viagra any time soon? No.

8:38 PM  
Blogger The G-man said...

Sheryl, you'll find my response in the new posting to the ol' blog titled "The Middle East in Detail".

12:31 AM  
Blogger Angela said...

Sheryl is another *confused* liberal that thinks we went to war for oil.

9:58 AM  
Blogger Paul G. said...

So let me get this straight.

The terrorist supposedly have the WMD's and instead of using them against Infidels the use kidnapping and execution.

Look, one thing I've never done is assume is that my enemies are stupid. This assumes they are.

12:44 PM  
Blogger The G-man said...

This assumes nothing. It simply states what a caller to a program that aired in Iraq had to say.

On the other hand I will say that employing biological or chemical weapons is not as simple as pointing a gun and pulling a trigger. It takes some specialized knowlege that not everyone possesses.

Since you obvioulsy think otherwise, perhaps you could explain to us how you would employ botulin toxin.

12:56 PM  
Blogger Paul G. said...

botulin toxin, which way do you want, as an airborne mist or as a water or food contaminant?

This stuff is not extreme science in usage - primarily you don't want to be down wind and you should expect to take casualties yourself.

You have enough WMD components under your kitchen sink to kill a rather large number of people simply by mixing them.
Add a common pressure operated sprayer and the number of dead and injured goes up dramatically.
No specialized training needed, just the simple knowledge of how.

12:09 PM  
Blogger The G-man said...

This is a rather interesting tactic you are employing here.

Firstly I will say that I could construct an explosive device out of common household items, but I've recieved training to know how to do that.

You are insinuating that everyone has the knowlege to create and employ chemical or biological weapons. I would contend that you are incorrect.

Mainly because I have been trainined in improvised munitions, but I wouldn't know how to create a chemical or biological weapon.

My military training has taught me how to employ protective devices in the event of such an attack, but not how to employ or create these weapons.

If it were truly as simple as you say, why does it take such great expenditures for a state to acquire the knowlege and equipment to employ these weapons.

I do know from research that VX gas is generally deployed in the form of two stable components that are mixed in a specific proportion when the material is intended to be used. BUT I wouldn't know the proportions nor would I know how to chemically synthesize these components.

3:07 PM  
Blogger Paul G. said...

Well, I'd name the most common simply made chemical gas, but honestly it's just too damned simple for me to responsibly repeat it in an open forum like this.
Let it suffice that it was one of the WWI weapons used in France and still contaminating caves, heavier than air.

I'm sure if I know it, then AQ does as I learned about it in chemistry class in 1972.

Cost is a relative term, it depends if you want it to kill or cripple, most of the real nasties are chemical because biological is much less reliable and difficult to manufacture and maintain - theres a good chance that if there were any biologicals (aside from anthrax) undestroyed, they aren't worth a damn now in potency.

10:41 PM  

|

<< Home

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com