Iraq WMD Dossier Statement

The International Institute for Strategic Studies ^ | Monday, September 9, 2002 | John Chipman

[Republican_Strategist]

Iraq & Weapons of Mass Destruction

[Hatteras]

We just had a kid in a neighboring county who was arrested after setting off a pipe bomb in a field. The authorities found two other unexploded pipe bombs at the scene. Of course, his momma said that he was "a good kid and would never hurt anybody. He was just playing around, etc..."

Interestingly, they charged him with "possessing weapons of mass destruction". Now, I don't condone pipe bombs in the hands of 17 year-olds, but "weapons of mass destruction"? BTW, the youngster is now cooling off until the family can put together the $150,000 bond.

[CJ Wolf]

"These weapons were distributed to military units, who were delegated to use them if coalition forces advanced on Baghdad or used nuclear weapons."

Looks like we blinked last time.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Good post. I was actually just checking in to see if anyone had posted this article.

Overall, I feel this is a good report, as I have respect for this organization. However, I do wonder if they were a little conservative on estimating Iraq's capabilities.

Iraq has been underestimated before by numerous think-tank organizations.

[phasma proeliator]

ping.

[Joe Brower]

The overused euphemism "weapons of mass destruction" is just the latest buzzword utilized for maximum fear-mongering effect and therefore maximum political gain. Just like how the word "terrorist" is being applied to any and every thing. These terms are already getting to be so overused they cease to have any real meaning.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Ping!

[steveegg]

Sounds like a case for wiping Iraq off the face of the earth.

[Mixer]

Interestingly, they charged him with "possessing weapons of mass destruction".

If the weapons in question were capable of killing a lot of people then I agree with the charge. Since this kid was in a filed with no other humans around or buildings that could occupy peopel then I think this charge is rediculous and a poor way to set an example. Much like profiling old ladies at airports has become.

[Go Gordon]

The overused euphemism "weapons of mass destruction" is just the latest buzzword utilized for maximum fear-mongering effect

I prefer Weapons for Human Annihilation (WHA). Feel better?Afterall, the intended purpose is to kill people, not necessarily break things. BTW, if WMD does put fear into the hearts of the illinformed - GOOD. Maybe they'll wake up to the threat we're facing.

[Joe Brower]

Twist it around all you like, but a pipe bomb is NOT a "weapon of mass destruction". End of line.

[CJ Wolf]

Churchill used to blow things up as a kid...

[johnb838]

Yeah well I was talking to someone who said they were charged with terrorism for no reason (whatever), not realizing that saying something along the lines of "I'll kill you if you do" is a violation of a law called "making a Terroristic Threat". Doesn't have to have anything to do with Al-queda or Arabs or Saddam Hussein.

[iceskater]

Please forgive my ignorance but is this International Institute for Strategic Studies a reliable source of information? Or are they another DEBKA? Sorry, I just haven't run across them before.

Thanks.

[Joe Brower]

A-yep. Like I said, apply the "scary word du jour" to anything and everything in order to further whatever pet cause is at hand. By that measure, everyone has been guilty of being a "terrorist" at some point in their lives.

Ridiculous. And all-too-predictable.

[Go Gordon]

Twist it around all you like, but a pipe bomb is NOT a "weapon of mass destruction".

JB, I agree with you. My comment had nothing to do with the pipe bomb. It had to do with your commentary on the use of the term "WMD".

[Joe Brower]

When I was TAD with the Marines EOD twenty years ago (quite a fun bunch, I can assure you), WMDs were solely ABC. Even goodies like Daisy-cutters, large ANFO and similiar weapons did not qualify as WMDs. I figure EOD specialists ought to know. I still don't like the WMD label being applied to everything under the sun that goes bang. The term thusly loses it's definition.

As far as Americans waking up to the threat, well, I fully expect one of our larger cities to be a total wipe before that happens. And when (not if) it does, you'll see a lot of "woulda, shoulda, coulda" finger-pointing. And we'll still have the usual amicus hostis apologists running around mewling their usual tripe. Assuming they aren't part of the ash-heap, of course.

[cake_crumb]

"The overused euphemism "weapons of mass destruction" is just the latest buzzword utilized for maximum fear-mongering effect and therefore maximum political gain. Just like how the word "terrorist" is being applied to any and every thing."

I disagree. The problem is that these terms weren't used enough in the past. WMD is simply a more accurate way of terming exactly what such weapons are, be they cobalt bombs, nukes or chemical coctails. They were made for the maximum amount of distruction. The biggest impact - no pun intended.

"Terrorist" has also been used far too infrequently in the past, in favor of PC terms like "activist" and "freedom fighter", thus giving terrorists a patina of moral superiority and blurring the meanings of those words to the point that terrorists became synonomous with the type of people who stage sit-ins and carry signs, without causing loss of life. That blurring was dangerous, and 9/11 was only the latest proof.

If you can't handle the brutal truth of the terms "WMD" and "terrorist", that is your problem. Personally, I prefer those non-PC descriptions in favor of ACCURACY.

[Joe Brower]

You are reading my comments out of context. My statements are made in relation to Hatteras' post #3. We were talking about WMD terms being applied to simple pipe bombs, which is absurd.

As far as "brutal truths" go, I can handle them as readily now as I could when I was with the 5th Marine Amphibious Brigade in 1980 when we were prepped to wipe Iran off the map during the hostage crisis. Better, actually, since I much more fully realize now what is at stake.

And concerning Iraq, yes, the appelation of WMDs is quite appropriate. It is all to ironic that the mewlings of those who do not want to eradicate this threat now will be sitting on ground zero when Saddam launches. Their protestations on his behalf will not save them. Oh well.