-Caveat Lector- "This assertion (about a possible use of UW by the coalition) explains:
a) why the military campaign's been so poorly prepared; b) why there aren't enough ground forces for its realisation; c) why reserves are far from the battleground and, correspondingly, won't be able to approach it in the moment when unconventional weapons are used, something that'll spare unnecessary coalition victims; d) why a force that's not enough to capture the city, is longing towards Baghdad, in spite of an impossibility of taking over the town with such forces; e) why exactly in the final stage of the attack an outrageously false information of victories in the operation, has started to be fed - exactly so as to present the use of UW as a desperate gesture on behalf of the defenders." April 3rd, 2003 http://www.irakwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=1555&lang=en About A Possible Use of Unconventional Weapons in the Conflict Between Iraq and the Anglo-American Coalition Today a feeling of concern wouldn't leave since the morning. 1. The war's been planned, especially, as an elimination of Iraq's UW. 2. Routinely since the beginning of the conflict, the coalition's asserting that Saddam's going to use UW, although the only place where he could succeed in doing so, is his own territory. 3. In recent reports the coalition speaks of a 95% probability of its (UW's) use (a precise probability! not clear how exactly counted), and about a certain red line around the city, although it's obvious that the use of chemical weapons in one's own capital is a suicide of the regime, and something Saddam shall never do. 4. The coalition's forces weren't enough even to capture a single town, excluding the scarcely populated regional seaport Umm-Qasr. 5. The ground forces' insufficiency has been revealed as early as after a week of fighting, in the beginning of the battle for Nasiriya, when the coalition's troops had to retreat for a day to regroup. However, in spite of the necessity of reinforcement with reserves, troops were sent round the town, without capturing it, and such a tactic has been observed during the entire course of the operation. 6. The impossibility of seizing any specific town is being ignored, and a movement towards a next town up north happens, up-stream the Euphrates. 7. In spite of the insufficiency of the ground forces and reserves present in the combat area that could enter combat immediately, the troops are shoving towards Baghdad. 8. To capture a city such as Baghdad, at least an equality in the numbers of the attacking and defending, is needed, something that really isn't there. 9. Despite an amassing superiority in the air, use of aviation and armoured vehicles inside a city is difficult, without carpet bombings and a complete destruction of the defending living blocks. 10. The only possible choice for attackers to win - is to use weapons of mass destruction. Having claimed the enemy's used it. 11. It's obvious that Iraq's inability to use nuclear weapons leads to a simple conclusion - Iraq's application of chemical or bacteriological weapons on a large scale. 12. Because it'd be impossible to find out the producer of chemical weapons used on the battlefield, there's absolutely no doubt that its use is going to be written off to the insane malicious tyrant, who's already used it in the past. And who won't forgo losing lives of the town's civilians. 13. This assertion (about a possible use of UW by the coalition) explains: a) why the military campaign's been so poorly prepared; b) why there aren't enough ground forces for its realisation; c) why reserves are far from the battleground and, correspondingly, won't be able to approach it in the moment when unconventional weapons are used, something that'll spare unnecessary coalition victims; d) why a force that's not enough to capture the city, is longing towards Baghdad, in spite of an impossibility of taking over the town with such forces; e) why exactly in the final stage of the attack an outrageously false information of victories in the operation, has started to be fed - exactly so as to present the use of UW as a desperate gesture on behalf of the defenders. 14. It's obvious that a very narrow circle of people is initiated into the plan of use of chemical weapons - that explains the appearance of conflicts between the military and political command of the entire operation. The military haven't been cleared on the true reason of their movements towards Baghdad. 15. This explains an absolute confidence in victory after two weeks of protracted battles without capturing cities, without much-needed reserves and without a sufficient number of troops to storm the city. 16. A quick ending to the operation and its justifying in the eyes of the world community shall make up for the losses that the coalition suffered and shall suffer as a result of using UW on its own troops. 17. Furthermore, it shall allow to hide any previous combat losses of the coalition before the moment of use of unconventional weapons. This explains too much - and this does disturb. Especially, this explains the mass hysterics about as of yet not found Baghdad's chemical or bacteriological arms, that's being forced on everyone. About the type of weapons to be used. Chemical weapons, possessing a practically instantaneous action, however have a serious disadvantage as compared with biological ones - chemical weapons are local. Biological armament, having a certain latent period to allow inhalation of a vaccine or antidote, however, is much more effective in a densely populated city, due to mutual infection inside the population. The question about unconventional weapons type can't be answered with certainty. There's a possibility for the virulent cultures to spread to other areas, yet the desert that surrounds the city makes it easier to establish a quarantine needed in such a case. The probability of use of nuclear weapons by America is low, as then questions from the entire world will follow, about why it was used in an area where there's a lot of civilian population. Any other kind of unconventional weapons can be attributed to Iraq with a real ease. Which is why those statements are made about revealing either warehouses with chemical protective suits, or certain mythical "objects" producing unconventional weapons. Which is why coalition's troops are dressing up in protective suits as they approach the city. I ask not to consider this message a statement, just a likely assumption based on the analysis of the above-listed facts. ��������: Danger (Translated by S-Priest) (12 �������.) Power Craised ����� Anonymous � 03.04.2003 [15:40] Its like all the past world powers like the romas and the nazis etc.. they all though they where indistructible, well guess what people united are more powerfull than any weapon. US forces may use Chemical Weapons ����� Anonymous � 03.04.2003 [15:42] I thought so too. US soldiers are fully prepared to dorn chemical and biological suits while Iraqi soldiers may not. I have a sense that US forces may use chemical agents as a last resort to kill Iraqi soldiers. I hope this isn't the case but if it does, America will go down history as in a terribly bad light. Bush gang can do anything ����� Anonymous � 03.04.2003 [15:57] The bloodthursty gang of the Bush administration is able to do anything to reach their ambitions. They have already done, how many children did they exterminate so far? People can be blind, but history not. The CURSE of humanity will fall upon all those who support the killing of Iraqis. Chemical agents ����� Anonymous � 03.04.2003 [16:00] Well argued!!! I remember the Chechen Moscow incident in which the Russian forces used certain disabling agents to immobilise the hijackers and subdued them. I guess the US may also employ similar chemical agents when fighting street by street. Whether this use of chemical agents is legal in warfare is still debatable. Once American soldiers enter the capital, i think they will surely put on their gas masks (MOPP-4) and storm buildings, etc. During the storming of buildings, they may fire/spray such gasses into the buildings, immobilising the occupants inside. It would be easy ����� Anonymous � 03.04.2003 [16:09] Since the Iraqi 'liberation' angle has gone out the window these guys desperately need an excuse to justify this war. It would be easy too. Just sneak in some ultra right wing loonies in with some canisters and a launcher and watch all hell break loose. In the end the agressors will win and the regime will get re-elected. The right wing media will parrot how evil Saddam was and how Bush saved us from his WMDs. I take solace in that 6 more years of the truely evil one will leave America in ruins. Let us all cheer the death of the whore. Nonlethal Chemical Weapons Pose Different Threat ����� Anonymous � 03.04.2003 [16:10] "Nonlethal Chemical Weapons Pose Different Threat" 322 4th St. NE Washington, DC 20002 (202) 543-4100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Baltimore Sun - March 27, 2003 - By Elisa D. Harris THE UNITED States is conducting what President Bush has described as a preventive war to eliminate Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. Statements by senior administration officials indicate that the United States may use chemical weapons of its own - so-called "nonlethal" riot control agents - against Iraqi troops if, for example, those troops use Iraqi civilians as human shields. Such actions are unlikely to protect innocent Iraqis from harm. They could also increase the risk to U.S. troops while violating one of the key disarmament agreements that U.S. military action is designed to uphold. In little-noticed testimony Feb. 5, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld confirmed before the House Armed Services Committee that the Pentagon has been trying to write rules of engagement that would permit U.S. military forces to use riot control agents (RCAs) in Iraq. Two of the scenarios that he and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard B. Myers, described - when women and children are hidden in a cave with enemy troops, or when they are used as human shields - echo the language of a 1975 executive order that requires prior presidential approval for the use of RCAs in war and permits such agents to be used only for defensive purposes to save lives. But in the view of most of the rest of the international community, the use of RCAs in situations involving combatants - even when combatants and noncombatants are intermingled - would violate the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which explicitly prohibits the use of RCAs as a "method of warfare." U.S. officials are aware of this restriction, which Mr. Rumsfeld characterized as a "straitjacket" in his congressional testimony. If, as is feared, Iraqi civilians are used to mask or screen attacks, America's use of RCAs is more likely to affect those civilians than Iraqi troops. This is because Iraqi military forces, which used chemical weapons repeatedly in their war with Iran and against their own Kurdish population in the 1980s, have been trained to survive the use of chemicals on the battlefield and carry gas masks as part of their standard kit. Iraqi civilians have been given neither anti-chemical training nor equipment and are thus completely vulnerable. Moreover, if RCAs are used in confined spaces, as Mr. Rumsfeld has suggested, this could prove lethal to the very young or very old or those who have serious respiratory problems, as has reportedly happened on occasion when Israel has used RCAs against Palestinians. The use of RCAs against Iraqi troops could also trigger the use of more lethal chemical agents by Iraq against U.S. military forces. Unlike the United States, Iraq is not a party to the CWC and is therefore not bound by its proscriptions. Moreover, under the 1925 Geneva Protocol, it has reserved the right to use chemical weapons in retaliation for the use of chemical weapons against it. In the fog of war, the use of RCAs could be mistaken for more lethal chemicals, leading Iraq to retaliate in kind. Even if Iraq knows that RCAs have been used, it could invoke its reservation under the protocol and retaliate with the more lethal mustard or nerve gas it is believed to possess. Such escalation is not a mere theoretical possibility. Since World War I, every use of lethal chemical weapons on the battlefield has been preceded by the use of some type of nonlethal or riot control agent. The use of RCAs by U.S. forces could also expose those involved to charges that they have violated international law. The International Committee of the Red Cross has issued a statement reminding the world that the use of chemical agents - whether riot control or lethal - in warfare is prohibited under the CWC. Washington's only significant ally in the Iraq campaign, Britain, long has held a similar view, having blocked U.S. efforts at the end of the CWC negotiations to declare that all of the uses of RCAs outlined in the 1975 executive order were permitted under the treaty. Humanitarian, military and legal considerations argue against the use of RCAs in the unfolding war with Iraq. The United States should not undermine international proscriptions against chemical weapons by using RCAs or other toxic chemicals on the battlefield. Elisa D. Harris is a senior research scholar at the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland, College Park, and former director of nonproliferation and export controls for the National Security Council. Copyright � 2003, The Baltimore Sun Another point in the argument ����� Anonymous � 03.04.2003 [16:34] Remember those anthrax attacks that turned out to come from a US lab? Perhaps that was the rehearsal. Conclusion Jumpers ����� Anonymous � 03.04.2003 [21:22] You people live in a world full of shit. I read all of your conspiracist propaganda and it adds up to a moronic jerk off session. The US is not perfect and may be governed by the few who have hidden agendas and all that, but you give too much credit to that line of assumption by thinking that something of this scale could be perpetrated. Go have a drink with hitler in South America on the Moon landing TV studio. I think you need it. Christian Extremists ����� Anonymous � 03.04.2003 [21:34] These are the people to watch out for. The Bush Regime is hiding the fact that there were 200+ domestic terrorist attacks in the USA, most by Christian Identity Extremist groups. These groups are unique in that they do have unfettered access to large amounts of money and have human 'resources' in the armed forces, which means they can obtain military weapons and intelligence. If you think arabs hate jews, just look at the Christian extremist movement, they make Osama Bin Laden look like an amateur. popravki k perevodu ����� Anonymous � 03.04.2003 [21:37] sdelal neskol'ko popravok k perevodu, vot rezultat: About A Possible Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMS) in the Conflict Between Iraq and the Anglo-American Coalition Today a feeling of concern doesn't leave since the morning. 1. The war's been planned, especially, as an elimination of Iraq's WMS. 2. Routinely since the beginning of the conflict, the coalition assert that Saddam's is going to use WMS, although the only place where he could succeed in doing so, is his own territory. 3. In recent reports the coalition speaks about a 95% probability of WMS use (a precise probability! not clear how exactly counted), and about a certain red line around the city, although it's obvious that the use of chemical weapons in one's own capital is a suicide of the regime, and something Saddam would never do. 4. The coalition's forces weren't enough even to capture a single town, excluding the scarcely populated regional seaport Umm-Qasr. 5. The ground forces' insufficiency was revealed as early as after a week of fighting, in the beginning of the battle for Nasiriya, when the coalition's troops had to retreat for a day to regroup. However, in spite of the necessity of reinforcement with reserves, troops were sent round the town, without capturing it, and such a tactic has been observed during the entire course of the operation. 6. The impossibility of seizing any specific town is being ignored, and a movement towards a next town up north happens, up-stream the Euphrates. 7. In spite of the insufficiency of the ground forces and reserves present in the combat area, that could enter combat immediately, the troops are shoving towards Baghdad. 8. To capture a city such as Baghdad, at least an equality in the numbers of the attacking and defending, is needed, something that really isn't there. 9. Despite an amassing superiority in the air, use of aviation and armoured vehicles inside a city is difficult, without carpet bombings and a complete destruction of the defending living blocks. 10. The only possible choice for attackers to win - is to use weapons of mass destruction. Having claimed that the enemy used it. 11. It's obvious that Iraq's inability to use nuclear weapons leads to a simple conclusion - application of chemical or bacteriological weapons on a large scale. 12. Because it'd be impossible to find out the producer of chemical weapons used on the battlefield, there's absolutely no doubt that its use is going to be written off to the insane malicious tyrant, who's already used it in the past. And who won't forgo losing lives of the town's civilians. 13. This assertion (about a possible use of WMS by the coalition) explains: a) why the military campaign had been so poorly prepared; b) why there are no enough ground forces for its realisation; c) why reserves are far from the battleground and, correspondingly, won't be able to approach it in the moment when WMS is used, something that'll spare unnecessary coalition victims; d) why a force that's not enough to capture the city, is longing towards Baghdad, in spite of an impossibility of taking over the town with such forces; e) why exactly in the final stage of the attack an outrageously false information about victories in the operation, has started to be fed - exactly so as to present the use of WMS as a desperate gesture on behalf of the defenders. 14. It's obvious that a very narrow circle of people is initiated into the plan of use of chemical weapons - that explains the appearance of conflicts between the military and political command of the entire operation. The military haven't been cleared on the true reason of their movements towards Baghdad. 15. This explains an absolute confidence in victory after two weeks of protracted battles without capturing cities, without much-needed reserves and without a sufficient number of troops to storm the city. 16. A quick ending to the operation and its justifying in the eyes of the world community shall make up for the losses that the coalition suffered and shall suffer as a result of using WMS on its own troops. 17. Furthermore, it will allow to hide any previous combat losses of the coalition before the moment of use of weapons of mass destruction. This explains too much - and this does disturb. Especially, this explains the mass hysterics about as of yet not found Baghdad's chemical or bacteriological arms, that's being forced on everyone. About the type of weapons to be used. Chemical weapons, possessing a practically instantaneous action, however have a serious disadvantage as compared with biological ones - chemical weapons are local. Biological armament, having a certain latent period to allow inhalation of a vaccine or antidote, however, is much more effective in a densely populated city, due to mutual infection inside the population. The question about unconventional weapons type can't be answered with certainty. There's a possibility for the virulent cultures to spread to other areas, yet the desert that surrounds the city makes it easier to establish a quarantine needed in such a case. The probability of use of nuclear weapons by America is low, as then questions from the entire world will follow, about why it was used in an area where there's a lot of civilian population. Any other kind of WMS can be attributed to Iraq with a real ease. Which is why those statements are made about revealing either warehouses with chemical protective suits, or certain mythical "objects" producing unconventional weapons. Which is why coalition's troops are dressing up in protective suits as they approach the city. I ask not to consider this message a statement, just a likely assumption based on the analysis of the above-listed facts. <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
