Russia say U.S. may fabricate WMD evidence

[Wayne Grabert]

I suppose the bad news and political fallout will come everyday that the Bush League Administration remains in power, but I thought I'd pass along these links.

Russia Claims US may fabricate WMD evidence in Iraq (http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_221875,0005.htm) Russia_on Wednesday expressed concern that Washington could fabricate evidence of Iraq allegedly hiding its weapons of mass destruction in an effort to justify the US-led attack on Baghdad.

Speaking before the Federation Council (Russian Upper House) on Wednesday Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov cautioned Washington and London that Moscow is not going to trust their claims of finding evidence of WMD in Iraq.

"Even if the American-British forces report that they have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the final assessment of their origin can be given only by international inspectors," Ivanov said.

"No other assessments (WMD evidence) can lead to a final conclusion, this is the understanding within the framework of the UN Security Council," Ivanov said.

India says war on terror can't have double standards. (http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=20087) India on Wednesday strongly disapproved the "double standards" pursued by the US and some others in dealing with Pakistan's sponsorship of terrorism, saying the fight against international terrorism was "ill-served" if threats in some cases were met with military means and in others with calls for restraint and dialogue.

New Delhi's sharp rebuff came following the renewed call by the US for resumption of Indo-Pak dialogue, disregarding India's growing concerns over cross-border terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir aide and abetted by Pakistan.

Can't bomb Iraq and tell us to talk to Pakistan, India says. (http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=20068) India on Tuesday countered the renewed call by the US for resumption of talks with Pakistan, asking why military action was resorted to against Iraq and Afghanistan instead of dialogue to resolve the crisis confronting the two countries. "If dialogue per se is more critical than combating international terrorism with all necessary means, then one can legitimately ask why both in Afghanistan and Iraq military action instead of dialogue has been resorted to," External Affairs Ministry spokesman told reporters.

He was asked about remarks made by US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher in Washington that "violence will not solve Kashmir's problems. Dialogue remains a critical element in the normalization of relations between India and Pakistan."
Three cheers for the Bush Doctrine! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

EDITED TO ADD: I have to add one more, though it is at this point speculative. Is the US using napalm in Iraq? (http://www.phillyimc.org/article.pl?sid=03/03/24/199241&mode=thread)

[DrBenway]

Is there any need for Russia to speculate at this point about the U.S. planting evidence of WMD? Why not wait for said evidence to appear, or not appear, first?

Red flag suggesting Russia may be anxious about what the U.S. is going to find in Iraq.

[schplurg]

Agreed Doc...nothin like defending yourself before you're accused to make you look guilty.
***
Cop: "Mind if I search your vehicle?"

Driver: "Sure. But there are no drugs in the trunk, I swear. And if you find any, they aren't mine!"
****
I do understand them wanting a second opinion I s'pose. Wouldn't hurt the U.S. either if others corroborated the stories.

I can't wait for the final episode!

[EvilYeti]

The Bush administration brought this on themselves by presenting weak and downright false information regarding Iraqi WMD's prior to the invasion. While I support the war, I've always had issues with the way our government has gone about justifing it.

I had a sinking feeling our previous duplicity would come back and bite us at some point. Looks like I was right :( .

[crackmonkey]

I agree - I think Bush should have been much more forthcoming with evidence of WMD. Having said that, the Russian accusation sounds a little bit worried... have they been selling more than just night-vision goggles and GPS jammers to Saddam?

[Richard G]

Does this shock anyone?

[Plutarck]

This is the same country that fights "terrorists" all day that just happen to sure seem like they just want independence from the Russian Thugarchy, right?

I'm gonna go out in a limb here, and say that there is not a single government on the entire planet that wouldn't fabricate and lie about absolutely anything, if they thought it would serve the interests of the day.

Politicians and world leaders are not renowned for their honesty.

[fishbob]

Russia_on Wednesday expressed concern that Washington could fabricate evidence of Iraq Hey - there has been expressing of this concern on this board for the last week or so. The Russians are a little slow on this one.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by fishbob
Hey - there has been expressing of this concern on this board for the last week or so. The Russians are a little slow on this one.

Yup...I knew this charge would rear it's ugly head...just kinda surprised it's the Russkies and not the Iraqis!!

Also, Wayne...war is a nasty business. If we are dumping nape on the enemy so what? It's not a chemical warfare agent...it's an incendiary device. Chemical warfare agents are blister agents, (mustard) nerve agents, (vx) choking agents (chlorine). Look it up, although nape is a chemical, it's not a chemical warfare agent...nor is it a WMD. Trust me,...I was in the army and trained on this crap....and you don't forget the pictures in the books they show you!

If I were there facing the Iraqis I would be real happy to see nape....I wouldn't much care how the enemy was dying...just so that they were dying!

The battlefield is a place of death....it's kill or be killed for all soldiers on either side. Let's not sit here in our comfy chair and debate battlefield exigencies. If you have not heard a shot fired in anger on a battlefield you are in no position to judge the needs of the men whose lives may be saved by the use of napalm. This is for the commanding officers on the scene to decide. When politicians or pressure from protesters at home force their opinions upon the battlefield it kills our soldiers, and encourages the enemy.

Others from the left object to the use of DU ammo by the A-10's....without it the armor piercing rounds aren't. That equals alot of enemy tanks still killing our men...all because some peace-nik thinks it's poisoning people...even though there is no scientific proof that it's harmed anyone other than the occupants of the tank!

If we disallow the tools our men need to win with, then we are guilty of causing loss of life among them. Once the body count goes high enough the left points to it and proclaims it too high!

Well, if we lose one man the toll is too high. If we lose that man and many others, but accomplish the mission and victory we have made their loss mean something. If we run from the battlefield we've made their great sacrifice meaningless.

I was once merely annoyed by the protestations of ANSWER etc... now I'm beginning to think of them as the sworn enemy of this country. If war ever comes to these shores I have no doubt that these are the people that will be fighting on the side of our enemies.....the American vichy. :mad:

-z

[UnrepentantSinner]

Given the state of the art explosives we have in our HE and DPICM rounds, there really is no role for napalm. It's a 60 year old technology (well 1500 if you count Greek Fire) and doesn't serve a purpose on this battlefield as I see it.

You could do much more damage with an MLRS strike using DPICM on massed troups than with napalm.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by rikzilla

Others from the left object to the use of DU ammo by the A-10's....without it the armor piercing rounds aren't. That equals alot of enemy tanks still killing our men...all because some peace-nik thinks it's poisoning people...even though there is no scientific proof that it's harmed anyone other than the occupants of the tank!

Isn't DU the prime suspect for the cause of Gulf War Syndrome? I've heard that the Syndrome's symptoms resemble those of radiation sickness.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Given the state of the art explosives we have in our HE and DPICM rounds, there really is no role for napalm. It's a 60 year old technology (well 1500 if you count Greek Fire) and doesn't serve a purpose on this battlefield as I see it.

You could do much more damage with an MLRS strike using DPICM on massed troups than with napalm.

Translating from Artillery speak to English:

DPICM = dual purpose improved conventional munitions

UPS,

It took me about a minute to remember what that one means. Many others here don’t have a clue.

Another guess other than DPICM, but I don’t think most reporters know the difference between napalm and a fuel-air explosive.

Calling Napalm a chemical weapon is a joke. It is gasoline used as an explosive. If it is a chemical weapon, so is every explosive ever made.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Doubt

Calling Napalm a chemical weapon is a joke. It is gasoline used as an explosive. If it is a chemical weapon, so is every explosive ever made.
Napalm is not considered a chemical weapon by the military, but this overlooks an important point made by the article. Naplam is considered a prohibited weapon. (http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2003/03/21/1047749944836.htm) Marine Cobra helicopter gunships firing Hellfire missiles swept in low from the south. Then the marine howitzers, with a range of 30 kilometres, opened a sustained barrage over the next eight hours. They were supported by US Navy aircraft which dropped 40,000 pounds of explosives and napalm, a US officer told the Herald.

A legal expert at the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva said the use of napalm or fuel air bombs was not illegal "per se" because the US was not a signatory to the 1980 weapons convention which prohibits and restricts certain weapons. "But the US has to apply the basic principles of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and take all precautions to protect civilians. In the case of napalm and fuel air bombs, these are special precautions because these are area weapons, not specific weapons," said Dominique Loye, the committee's adviser on weapons and IHL.

And we were supposed to be relying on precision weapons, a.k.a. smart bombs.

[EvilYeti]

Smart bombs are expensive and not necessary when engaging massed enemy forces in the open. In that case you want to drop as much ordinance as possible in a general area. Guided bombs would be a waste.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Napalm is not considered a chemical weapon by the military, but this overlooks an important point made by the article. Naplam is considered a prohibited weapon. (http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2003/03/21/1047749944836.htm)
And we were supposed to be relying on precision weapons, a.k.a. smart bombs.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Smart bombs are expensive and not necessary when engaging massed enemy forces in the open. In that case you want to drop as much ordinance as possible in a general area. Guided bombs would be a waste.


Well, if its use is limited to forces in the open (away from civilian areas), then it really doesn't matter if it's napalm or something else that achieves the same result.

[Scared Chicken]

If I were there facing the Iraqis I would be real happy to see nape....I wouldn't much care how the enemy was dying...just so that they were dying!
<....>
If we disallow the tools our men need to win with, then we are guilty of causing loss of life among them.

Applying this same logic to the Iraqi's.. I guess its okay for them to use biological or chemical weapons to defend themselves ? Im sure the Iraqi's value the life of their own troops more than that of the invading army...

Also, regardless of any political point of view, I have a hard time seeing the difference between getting killed by getting ripped appart by a bomb, slowly dying from 2nd or 3rd degrees burns, getting a bullet in your stomach or dying from biochemical agents.. and while you're at.. even a tactical nuclear bomb. On the face of it, its kinda weird one way of killing is allowed, and the other isnt :rolleyes:

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by DrBenway
Is there any need for Russia to speculate at this point about the U.S. planting evidence of WMD? Why not wait for said evidence to appear, or not appear, first?

Red flag suggesting Russia may be anxious about what the U.S. is going to find in Iraq.

Yes! You've got that right!