US soldiers found a Chemical Factory in Iraq

[rsxer45]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...chemical_plant

Glad to see that the US gov't wasn't just lying to us. Also, the facility is 100 acres long. How the hell did the UN inspectors miss that? I wonder what will be the world's reaction.

[GTi-VR6_A3]

i am very curius to see how this all unfolds if it is truly a chemical weapons plant...

-GTi-VR6_A3

[Milliardo]

It's premature, as the story reported. Remember that Iraq has said the chemicals they have are for industrial, not military, purposes.

[speediva]

How was this missed before??? 100 acres is QUITE large. I guess we'll figure out what's up when the official "verdict" comes out.

[rsxer45]

Originally posted by Milliardo
It's premature, as the story reported. Remember that Iraq has said the chemicals they have are for industrial, not military, purposes.

If this story took place in probably any other country besides Iraq (let's say that the US is hypothetically having a war with another country), I would probably cast doubt on this accusation of chemical weapons. But, given that this is Saddam Hussein, who we all know is "honest and trustworthy", I kind of biasedly believe these allegations more than I actually should. But, I should wait before I cast my stones. We'll see what happens.

[YogsVR4]

As part of this story, there was an Iraqi general who was there and is answering questions. It does beg the question, why would an Iraqi general be at an industrial chemical facility?

[Milliardo]

Originally posted by YogsVR4
As part of this story, there was an Iraqi general who was there and is answering questions. It does beg the question, why would an Iraqi general be at an industrial chemical facility?

Remember that Iraq is a military dictatorship, so it would make perfect sense that most installations would be in the hands of the military, especially generals.

[YogsVR4]

Originally posted by Milliardo


Remember that Iraq is a military dictatorship, so it would make perfect sense that most installations would be in the hands of the military, especially generals.

In China, most of the large industries are run by the army. The generals do not live and work at them unless they are military in nature. The fact that a military dictatorship is in charge of the country (at least at the time this was written) does not necessarily lead to there being a army and specifically a high ranking officer present at the installation.

[Milliardo]

Originally posted by YogsVR4
In China, most of the large industries are run by the army. The generals do not live and work at them unless they are military in nature. The fact that a military dictatorship is in charge of the country (at least at the time this was written) does not necessarily lead to there being a army and specifically a high ranking officer present at the installation.

China has long left that state wherein the military is in full control, to a now more open, market-oriented society. Such is not the case with Iraq, thus ownership, or at least overseeing, facilities, is done by the military. Saddam is only following an old and simple rule: keep your military happy in order to stay in power. If he didn't, he would've been long deposed by a very discontented military.

[rsxer45]

Originally posted by Milliardo


China has long left that state wherein the military is in full control, to a now more open, market-oriented society. Such is not the case with Iraq, thus ownership, or at least overseeing, facilities, is done by the military. Saddam is only following an old and simple rule: keep your military happy in order to stay in power. If he didn't, he would've been long deposed by a very discontented military.

I going to have to claim ignorance on my part on this issue. I don't really know much about the Iraqi military ownership of factories and facilities. Can you give any factual examples were such is the case in Iraq, especially where a General is in control a such a facility (let alone a chemical factory). To me, it just personally it just feels peculiar to have a general stationed at chemical factory to keep hte military happy?

[Milliardo]

I can't give examples in Iraq about it; however, where I lived, back in the days of Martial Law then President Marcos gave his generals key positions in both government and businesses taken over by the government. Since his was of Martial Rule, then the military had control in almost all public and private sectors. Saddam did the same thing here: it's one of Machiavelli's rules, that you must keep your military happy, or else they will become discontent and overthrow you. To give another example, Roman emperors who were exceptionally cruel were also, surprisingly, exceptionally negligent of their military. Examples would be Nero and Caligula, whose despotic rules were thankfully short. Those emperors who kept their rules long kept the military happy with lavish pays. So that is one basic rule in government: keep your military content. Having your generals join in your fun would keep them busy, and forget about thinking of a revolt.

[GTi-VR6_A3]

Originally posted by Milliardo
I can't give examples in Iraq about it; however, where I lived, back in the days of Martial Law then President Marcos gave his generals key positions in both government and businesses taken over by the government. Since his was of Martial Rule, then the military had control in almost all public and private sectors. Saddam did the same thing here: it's one of Machiavelli's rules, that you must keep your military happy, or else they will become discontent and overthrow you. To give another example, Roman emperors who were exceptionally cruel were also, surprisingly, exceptionally negligent of their military. Examples would be Nero and Caligula, whose despotic rules were thankfully short. Those emperors who kept their rules long kept the military happy with lavish pays. So that is one basic rule in government: keep your military content. Having your generals join in your fun would keep them busy, and forget about thinking of a revolt.

so you still dotn know why the general was at the plant. you knwo who deos knwo the general and the guy that hes is telling all the info to. so for all you knwo what you are speculating is just as viable as wheat we are...

-GTi-VR6_A3

[Milliardo]

Originally posted by GTi-VR6_A3
so you still dotn know why the general was at the plant. you knwo who deos knwo the general and the guy that hes is telling all the info to. so for all you knwo what you are speculating is just as viable as wheat we are...

-GTi-VR6_A3

No, if you're trying to say that a general is in a chemical plant because it might be a weapons chemical plant, then you're coming to a premature conclusion. You want to already to put the finger on Iraq so bad that you will have that as "proof". It's no proof--like I said, Saddam's Iraq is a military dictatorship, so it is the norm in said regimes to place military personnel in positions in government, especially key installations. That does not mean those said installations have to do with weapons or the military; it's merely to ensure the regime's survival. Think of it as having mutually exclusive relationship: you feed me, and I feed you. Both sides then are happy: Saddam is content with his security, since he keeps his military happy. His military is likewise happy since they have their toys to play with, with profit on the side as a bonus. That's how military dictatorships work. You're trying to fish out something incriminating, but in such a regime having the military in various places is perfectly normal.

[GTi-VR6_A3]

Originally posted by Milliardo


No, if you're trying to say that a general is in a chemical plant because it might be a weapons chemical plant, then you're coming to a premature conclusion. You want to already to put the finger on Iraq so bad that you will have that as "proof". It's no proof--like I said, Saddam's Iraq is a military dictatorship, so it is the norm in said regimes to place military personnel in positions in government, especially key installations. That does not mean those said installations have to do with weapons or the military; it's merely to ensure the regime's survival. Think of it as having mutually exclusive relationship: you feed me, and I feed you. Both sides then are happy: Saddam is content with his security, since he keeps his military happy. His military is likewise happy since they have their toys to play with, with profit on the side as a bonus. That's how military dictatorships work. You're trying to fish out something incriminating, but in such a regime having the military in various places is perfectly normal.

first i never said he was there because it was a plant i just said that as a posibilty as it seems rational. i have yet to pint a finger if you read up. you are just trying to make the same statement i am but on the other side of things. i still dont see how runnign achem plant woudl keep a general happy though. to keep military happy according to machiavelli you wage war not engage in commerce. and saying that they have toys to play with leads to the idea that maybe the place woudl be a great place for a general to make toys(weapons). there are many flaws in your most recent arguement

-GTi-VR6_A3

[Milliardo]

Originally posted by GTi-VR6_A3
first i never said he was there because it was a plant i just said that as a posibilty as it seems rational.

Let's just say I can already see it coming some distance away. Since you can't accept that having a general in such a plant is perfectly normal in such a regime, what else would that imply? You're simply trying to fish out something that is incriminating.

you are just trying to make the same statement i am but on the other side of things.

Nope, we're saying two different things.

i still dont see how runnign achem plant woudl keep a general happy though.

It's all about profits. Since you can sell chemicals, those generals will be happy to have a share of the profits.

to keep military happy according to machiavelli you wage war not engage in commerce.

Machiavelli didn't write The Prince just for war; it's a practical guide on statemanship, actually. One of the premises of the book is that a government doesn't have to be well-loved; it simply has to keep the people content so as not to incite riots and rebellions.

and saying that they have toys to play with leads to the idea that maybe the place woudl be a great place for a general to make toys(weapons).

When we say toys, it doesn't just mean military hardware. For any regime, be it democratic, dictatorship, Communist or whatever else, a toy is something that is profitable for it. Military hardware is just one sort of toy. Power plants, communication facilities, and anything that actually would be profitable for a government is a toy, for as long as the government has direct control over it. So, snce Saddam and his boys have control of most of Iraq, such things are their toys to play with, whether they be militarily related or not.