You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Iraq-Jordan
Tests Confirm Nearly One Gallon of Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell
2004-05-18
Posted by:Dragon Fly

#11  RC, I don't think my satellite catches that Lynndie network. Is it with the Spice channels?
Posted by: Anonymous4021   2004-05-18 4:51:48 PM  

#10  CrazyFool

The Geneva convention works only for people who respect it, if your opponent violates it you are free to ignore it. For instance, your opponent fires at you from a hospital or hiding between civilians. Not only are free to shoot back but if you are capture him you can execute him for war crimes.
Posted by: JFM   2004-05-18 3:35:26 PM  

#9  NBC now has an excuse for not reporting this. Iraqi employee of NBC is claiming abuse by soldiers. But, good ol' Fox; "Gallon of Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell" as its banner.
Posted by: BigEd   2004-05-18 3:30:35 PM  

#8  RC has got it right regarding coverage. The media is focused on defeating Bush. This will get short mention, massive spin, and then will be buried. One day...tops.
Posted by: Rex Mundi   2004-05-18 2:08:16 PM  

#7  CF & RC - And I think we need to make it very-very clear and very-very public that we will not abide by the GC ifsince the opposition doesn't.

Hey, panty head come here and sniff this. . .is it yours?
Posted by: BigEd   2004-05-18 1:59:29 PM  

#6  I dont think they Geneva Convention covers these asshats.

Isn't use of chemical weapons one of the Big Ones as violations of the GC go?
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2004-05-18 1:57:07 PM  

#5  BigEd. I dont think they Geneva Convention covers these asshats.

And I think we need to make it very-very clear and very-very public that we will not abide by the GC if the opposition doesn't.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2004-05-18 1:52:00 PM  

#4  Looks like we need to take anyone locals associated with this shell to the undisclosed location and pull out some lavender panty hats. We NEED to find the source of this. F**K the Geneva convention. F**k the Dems in the Senate especially Levin, Biden, and BAGOGAS. Just do it, and keep it quiet.
Posted by: BigEd   2004-05-18 1:47:53 PM  

#3  But whatever the reasoning, the story of unmarked chemical weapons munitions turning up randomly in central Iraq is bound to get real interesting. Real fast.

Bull. The story won't get the coverage it deserves. Instead we'll get All Lyndie, All The Time.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2004-05-18 1:46:49 PM  

#2  Interesting comment in an e-mail which Jonah Goldberg posted to NRO's "The Corner:"

Jonah, [a source which Jonah linked to in an earlier entry] got very close to, but missed, the really huge news behind the sarin gas shell. The thing was not marked. This is not the way you manufacture, store or deploy chemical munitions. They require special handling and careful considerations when used to avoid endangering your own troops. So why in the world would this chemical munition not be clearly marked?

1. Hiding the things from inspectors. Chemical weapons, disguised as conventional ordinance, would be extremely difficult to detect by anyone, especially if they were mixed in with conventional ordinance at weapons dumps, with innocuous markings (perhaps simple numbers) to allow handlers to tell the difference. If this be the case, our missing WMDs may very well be hiding in plain sight to this day, undiscovered until terrorists grabbed what they thought was a regular conventional artillery round from an unsecured sight that inspectoirs may have already gone through.

2. Disguising the things from Saddam's own commanders. It was no secret that America was serious about WMDs, and threatened war even during the Clinton administration over it. It was also no secret that WMDs were what American military commanders most feared in the event of an Iraqi invasion (remember the worries during the first Gulf War?). Saddam surely would have anticipated America appealing directly to Iraqi field commanders not to use chemical weapons, and may have known that we would hold those who did personally responsible in war crimes trials post invasion. We threatened exactly that. Faced with the possibility that his own commanders may not follow orders to use chemical weapons, he issues artillery shells and other weapons that are devoid of known markings that distinguish between types of ordinance. That means that if Iraqi cammanders shoot anything at all, the will likely shoot chemical weapons in the mix. Ironically, that may have backfired on Saddam. Many Iraqi Republican Guard Units deployed around Baghdad melted away faster than expected. What if that is because Iraqi commanders that suspected they had chemical weapons "in the mix" refused to use any of their weapons and abandoned their post?

Of course, this is loaded with speculation. But whatever the reasoning, the story of unmarked chemical weapons munitions turning up randomly in central Iraq is bound to get real interesting. Real fast.

--Joe Frye

Posted by: Mike   2004-05-18 1:39:03 PM  

#1  **Self Edit** Nearly One Gallon. Uhg!
Posted by: Dragon Fly   2004-05-18 1:36:22 PM  

00:00