Sarin? Or not?
Okay. It is beginning to look like an artillery shell used as an Improvised Explosive Device(IED) may contain two chemicals that when mixed produce sarin(GB).
As in all of the previous false alarms about illegal Iraqi weapons, "additional testing will be done outside of Iraq, more detailed testing, but the initial tests in the field show the presence of sarin." So said an unnamed U.S. military official.
Sorry, but I'm skeptical. There have been too many lies and too many false alarms for a thinking person to rush to judgment.
If this can be shown by a third party to be a binary device of the type noted by the FAS here, it doesn't begin to validate the casus belli for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
The critical thing for the GB to be viable is for the difluoromethylphosphonate to have retained its integrity. I'll cede the point that this is mostly an academic one, but it does require comment.
It seems likely that if this story fleshes out, that the binary device was manufactured prior to the 1991 Iraq War.
It must be remembered that we went to war over ongoing WMD programs, including nuclear, bio, and chemical weapons production taking place contemporarily for which there is simply no evidence that has been shared publicly.
The last point is the key point. Iraq was a growing threat we were told.
The truth is something altogether contrary to what we were told. Iraq was not a growing threat. Well, maybe in this sense; sanctions against Iraq were a humanitarian disaster of epic proportions. This could engender anti-U.S. sentiments. That was certainly a threat.
This fact could be a threat to the veneer of the U.S. being a benevolent power. That's the only threat.
As in all of the previous false alarms about illegal Iraqi weapons, "additional testing will be done outside of Iraq, more detailed testing, but the initial tests in the field show the presence of sarin." So said an unnamed U.S. military official.
Sorry, but I'm skeptical. There have been too many lies and too many false alarms for a thinking person to rush to judgment.
If this can be shown by a third party to be a binary device of the type noted by the FAS here, it doesn't begin to validate the casus belli for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
The critical thing for the GB to be viable is for the difluoromethylphosphonate to have retained its integrity. I'll cede the point that this is mostly an academic one, but it does require comment.
It seems likely that if this story fleshes out, that the binary device was manufactured prior to the 1991 Iraq War.
It must be remembered that we went to war over ongoing WMD programs, including nuclear, bio, and chemical weapons production taking place contemporarily for which there is simply no evidence that has been shared publicly.
The last point is the key point. Iraq was a growing threat we were told.
"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."That was everyone's favorite Dick speaking on 08/29/2002.
The truth is something altogether contrary to what we were told. Iraq was not a growing threat. Well, maybe in this sense; sanctions against Iraq were a humanitarian disaster of epic proportions. This could engender anti-U.S. sentiments. That was certainly a threat.
This fact could be a threat to the veneer of the U.S. being a benevolent power. That's the only threat.
No comments :
Post a Comment