http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/11/12/iraq.antidote/index.html U.S. officials: Iraq ordered nerve gas antidote From Barbara Starr CNN Washington Bureau Tuesday, November 12, 2002 Posted: 9:14 AM EST (1414 GMT) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Bush administration officials said Tuesday they believe Iraq has ordered as many as 1 million doses of atropine, a drug used to counter the effects of nerve gas. However, the same officials said they did not know whether the drug had been shipped to Iraq. The officials said Iraq began ordering the drug this year from firms in Turkey. However, officials with the Turkish Ministry of Health and Turkish Union of Drug Manufacturers said that there had been no request of the drug from Iraq and no export of the antidote to the country. Bush administration officials said they are in touch with Turkish officials about the orders and are trying to determine whether some firms may have tried to ship the drugs without their government's knowledge. U.S. officials said orders have been ongoing throughout the year, raising the question of why Iraq is stockpiling the drug. The officials said there are several possibilities -- that Iraq wants to protect its troops in the event that nerve agents are released or if the United States bombs a site where nerve agents are stored. Atropine is commonly used in hospitals around the world to resuscitate patients who have had heart attacks. Sources said the orders from Iraq have included other antidotes, wash-down showers and Geiger counters, which detect and measure radiation. The report comes as Iraqi officials decide how to respond to a U.N. resolution ordering the Baghdad government to allow unfettered inspections for weapons of mass destruction. The United States has threatened to use military force to disarm Iraq if it refuses access to U.N. weapons inspectors. Since they don't have any WMD, I guess this means that they expect the US to use nerve gas?
I wouldn't be surprised if they feared the United States using chemical/biological or even nuclear weapons on them. After all, the US is the only country to aggressively use nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and used chemical/biological weapons in Vietnam. The "Daisy Cutter" bombs used in Afghanistan last year were actually the largest bombs used since the nuclear bombs in WWII. I think Saddam is a power driven dictator, but i'm sure his position is international law is a joke. First the UN wants him to give up his weapons when the US is basically going to attack anyway. If someone was going to attack the US, would we turn over our weapons to them before they did so? Would we let "weapons inspectors" in the country that would know EXACTLY where all the weapons are and what the country has?? Isn't that giving up a significant amount of information when you're sure that you will be attacked?? Just my opinion.
F. D. Khan: Then you'd be underestimating the strength of domestic political considerations in the US... as many others have done, notably in the Soviet Union and China. Dictators generally think of other leaders of having power of negotiation/invasion equal to their own. Even in the post-9/11 US, American leaders have considerably less leeway in deciding who to invade. Popular opinion would not permit Bush to attack an Iraq that complied - fully and truthfully - with weapons inspections. He'd get massacred in public opinion, and his position would be damaged in the next election.
It is a strange situation to be in for Iraq. but they did this to themselves when they invaded. They should have tried to solve their problems peacefully. They should have threatened war. But never used it. Just as the U.S. is doing to Iraq.
But imagine their situation. Ten years ago they were bombed back to the 1200's destroying their entire infrastructure of the country. Do you remember watching the bombing of Baghdad, all the tracer fire which was only 1/100 of the bombs being dropped?? That was incredible the amount we bombed that country. They've got to be scared as hell, and then they think that we want to use our Weapons Inspectors to find out what they have and where they have it. We've already said it, that Saddam and his Ba'ath party will not stay in power no matter what, so why should they let the inspectors in??
The calculus and war models all showed that the overall loss of life would be less by using the atomic bombs than slugging through a ground war. Agent Orange was used to control the thickness of the vegetation in the area. We were being slaughtered because we were unfamiliar with the terrain. The point is that he wants to have these weapons to use them offensively...not defensively. You have always shown a huge bias toward the Arab states...but this is extreme even for you.
Biased? I'm stating facts, what is extreme about what i'm saying?? When has Iraq EVER lifted a finger against the United States?? Even the Kuwaiti's and the Saudi's don't feel that Iraq is a threat. How is this being biased? Is our attacking a country and killing thousands really needed?? Its strange how now days we can demonize a country, destroy their country, kill millions through war and sanctions and then not let them sell their goods; yet they are threatening the United States of America?? C'mon... who's being biased Refman?
Refman: Neither of these is a worthy excuse. Using the bomb not only killed thousands of innocent civilians, it also destroyed land for over 100 square miles, sentenced future generations of Japanese to extreme cancer risk levels and thrust the entire world into nuclear proliferation. We shouldn't have been in Vietnam in the first place nevermind dropping chemicals into areas where we knew people would be. I would never defend Iraq's use of weapons of mass destruction, but I'm not going to defend ours either.
They're ordering Geiger counters? Uh oh... And Agent Orange wasn't a frikken weapon, it was a defoliant. That's about the tenth time you've tried to say that the US used chem weapons on the Vietnamese, please.
hey FD....you should really think about what you are saying. why dont you ask yourself why hasn't saddam complied with the treaty that was negotiated after the gulf war? why wont he allow UN inspectors into his country? we wont attack his country if he allows the inspections and disarms. so don't act as if military action is a forgone conclusion...it is in saddam's hands. attacking saddam is probably going to happen because of all the BS that he has pulled in the past and how defiant of the international community he has been. also when did the US recently kill millions of people through sanctions? maybe if saddam concentrated on feeding his people and not trying to build up an army then he might have some international sympathy. give me a break man...how can you even say that sanctions have killed people? it is the corrupt leadership that has killed people.... i am not justifying everything the US has done in its past because we have done some bad things out of ignorance, but quit with the hyperbole and come back to reality for a bit.
Jeff-- War is never pretty. This was WW2...a huge war. Yes...it killed thousands. Would you have preferred millions by going ahead with a ground war we were losing? Do you know what the Japanese were putting our soldiers through upon their capture? It was a bad situation all the way around. The decision to use the bomb wasn't one made over a putt on the 7th green. It was labored over and was not an easy call to make. This was a war for global domination and we were losing the Pacific front. Had we not used the bomb nobody knows what would have happened or where we would be today. As for Vietnam...I agree we shouldn't have been there. But that is rather inconsequential since we were there. Agent Orange is no more a weapon of mass destruction than Weed-B-Gone or DDT.
The US is not going to "attack anyway". The threat of force is just that - a threat. It's the only thing Saddam understands so that's why Bush is pushing it so hard. Actually, Saddam could probably stay in power forever if he would just quit screwing with his neighbors and quit working on NBC weapons. He's broken every promise he's made when negotiations were attempted and sanctions don't work because he's willing to use his own people's suffering for PR. If Saddam would, say, work towards improving the lives of his people no one would have a problem with him. For whatever megalomaniac reason he insists on starting wars - one against the Iranians and one against the Kuwaitis. These wars have killed thousands of innocent Iraqis, Iranians and Kuwaitis. People keep calling Bush a warmonger but he hasn't done anything. Saddam is the warmonger as demonstrated by his past actions and his present pursuit of NBC weapons (which are not defensive weapons). Judge a man by his actions, not his words. Also, who says the Kuwaitis don't feel Saddam is a threat? Of course they do and so does Saudi Arabia. If they aren't screaming it out loud it's because the leaders of those countries are walking a fine political line. As far as the use of atomic weapons in WWII, it is totally unfair to judge histories actions by today’s standards. Did the bombs kill lots of innocent civilians? Yes but so did the firebombing of Tokyo (which probably killed as many innocents as one of the other atomic bombs did). The V2's that Hitler fired off had no military purpose - he was just killing civilians indiscriminately. Those bombs probably saved more lives then they killed because it brought a quick end to a war against people who weren't willing to surrender. Not to mention the quick surrender probably kept Japan from being invaded by the Russians (imagine Japan as a communist country...) Lots of innocent people were killed in WWII by both sides. And if another war of that scale broke out today, many more would be killed again. Innocent people are going to get killed in a war. It's not right or good but it's going to happen. Saddam is the person who can stop this potential war. All he has to do is "play nice".
