The Talking Lion

Saturday, August 13, 2005

WMD found in Iraq...

US forces have uncovered a chemical weapons plant in Iraq:
U.S. troops raiding a warehouse in the northern city of Mosul uncovered a suspected chemical-weapons factory containing 1,500 gallons of chemicals believed destined for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces and civilians, military officials said Saturday.

Monday's early morning raid found 11 precursor agents, "some of them quite dangerous by themselves," a military spokesman, Lt. Col. Steven A. Boylan, said in Baghdad.

Combined, the chemicals would yield an agent capable of "lingering hazards" for those exposed to it, Boylan said. The likely targets would have been "coalition and Iraqi security forces, and Iraqi civilians," in part owing to the difficulty anyone deploying the chemicals would have had in keeping the agents from spreading out over a wide area, he said.

So we were justified in invading after all?

Nope, these weapons are being made by members of the insurgency the invasion created.

Awesome, huh? Just when you think that the worst possible results of our monumentally fucking up Iraq would be 50 civillian deaths every two days, the insurgents are making chemical weapons!

It's a good thing that we found these, but who can say at how many other locations these things are being made. I mean, how vulnerable do you want our troops to be?
They already aren't outfitted with the strongest armor available, now they have to worry about dying horrible deaths at the hands of chemical weapons.

We are the champions.


  • I urge you to explain what you mean by "monumentally fucking up Iraq". One wonders if you will say such things to your children, once they learn quite a different lesson from their history books in so many years. For instance, explains:

    "The Iraqi government now believes that at least 12,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed during the last 18 months. In the last ten months, about 800 Iraqi civilians and police have been killed each month. Adding a bit more to account for unreported deaths (especially in Sunni Arab areas where chaos, not the government, runs things) the death rate is running at the rate of about 45 dead per 100,000 population per year."

    Saddam's "democide"(, if you will, contributed to approximately 100 dead per 100,000. While certainly high, and cause for alarm, this new morbidity isn't quite as brutal as the old morbidity. Furthermore, this new morbidity is preyed upon by a military machine profoundly different than what we had even 3 years ago when we invaded Iraq, let alone before 9/11.

    The new armor is merely us upping the ante, after the insurgents, accredited with a significant ability to adapt (mainly by using huge amounts of explosives because the smaller amounts are barely audible inside Strykers and other armored vehicles, for instance), upped their IED ante (bigger bombs, more usage of snipers, IED-iniatiated ambushes etc). This development is manifest in the nature of war in general; the process of upgrading our armor is a sign of the adaptability and flexibility required of our military in fighting any insurgency as well as this specific insurgency; and this adaptation is integral to our careful waging of a protracted war across the globe that should extend far beyond Iraq, without hurting our economy (the better for it to continue to furnish above adaptability at a higher rate that Islamofascists), nor dissuading the historically fickle American public (see "Paper Tiger" image), which you seem so earnest to persuade into accepting naive bullshit or puerile inarticulate tantrums, bereft of any understanding of the menace that faces America and other Western democracies. Sure is a good call for those fearless and unabashed patriots at the NYtimes to advertise such a thing to our enemies. I guess informing the same enemy of our CIA's private airline companies, those companies' logos (the better to target them) and travel routes didn't result in a more media-friendly disaster so I guess I should wish them luck in this latest bout of trying to undermine something they cannot understand.

    And I would be willing to wager US troops worry more about discerning moron Iraqi drivers from car bombers than from chemical weapons attacks. The only chemical weapons attack in the theater was a cyanide-laced watermelon given to Iraqi MPs that put them in the hospital for awhile.

    By Blogger deeds not fap, at Monday, 15 August, 2005  

  • How are we fucking up Iraq?

    How aren't we?

    Not to be snide, but if I have to explain everything we've done wrong my fingers might just fall off. But hey, I'll give it a shot in an upcoming post.

    Also, just because there hasn't been an attack on our troops using chemical weapons doesn't make the fact that the insurgents have developed them less alarming, dick.

    By Blogger Arun, at Tuesday, 16 August, 2005  

  • -most functional democracy in the ME, evinced by free elections, arguably large turn out, constitutional consensus seems a likelihood in the very near future
    -aberantly (for the ME) politically mature Shia and Kurdish groups, resisting the Sunni provocations to descend the country into the chaos that would make Hussein's rule, and the dictatorships intrinsic to the middle east (and manifest of its profound problems) preferred
    -Functional Iraqi army, navy and marines, now with 3 additional transportation divisions to free up more US troops from the logistical train, now also securing towns with more piddly security concerns while other Iraqis tag along with or blaze ahead of (with US rear support) of US troops in counter insurgent operations
    -economic growth

    profanity seems the requisite when youre backed into a corner and have nothing else to do but swear, but its also a pathetic thing to see


    By Blogger deeds not fap, at Wednesday, 17 August, 2005  

  • also, chemical weapons would be more alarming to Iraqis, than our troops because:

    -we have gas masks & lord knows how much training in dealing with their deployment
    -chemical weapons are not that tactically sound so to speak as unlike a missile or a barrage of gunfire, the weather can help you accurately "deliver" chemical munitions (unlikely) or hurt you by blowing it either away from your target or even back towards you (likely); most people leading troops into battle wouldn't gamble for that uncertainty.

    something more interesting to note is that usage of chemical weapons in iraq may create a frustrating situation in which US deterence policy would be discredited insofar as we would likely refrain from a nuclear response; perhaps the fence sitters that fancy terrorism a law enforcement issue (reprimands, deportation, media-celebrity for terrorists and paperwork), and not a war (guns, bombs, robots, hunting and killing from the top-down and the bottom-up) would be persuaded to more aggressive measures by the images of iraqi women and children clutching at their inflammed and vomit covered faces, falling to the ground and eventually convulsing until their possessed muscles snap their malnourished bones and they die in gruesome agonizing delirium

    By Blogger deeds not fap, at Wednesday, 17 August, 2005  

  • I didn't notice you responded.

    So sorry for the delay. I'm sure you were on pins and/or needles.

    I'm not in a location (family vacation/coke binge) where I can address everything you're saying here. But I should be by Wednesday.

    Debating with someone who seems to know a thing or two is a lot more fun than wasting time with our last troll (who seems to have disappeared).

    By Blogger Arun, at Friday, 19 August, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home