1) wishful thinking 2) propaganda 3) preparing the background for a dirty trick eventually to come in order to use freely moabs with fewer risk of public opinion's uprising. 4) other I've just heard the daily chemical weapon story it sounded like "saddam may have ordered his troops to use chemical weapons, we don't know if he has actually done it but it's important to repeat the words "chemical weapons" in every briefing or interview so keep asking these kind of questions". Why? I think a mix of 1 and 2. When I see rumsfeld in tv for more than 2 secs I automatically start to fear 3.
I don't know what you're reading but heres what I read: "We have seen indications through a variety of sources and reporting means that first orders have been given that at a certain point chemical weapons might be used," U.S. Brigadier General Vincent Brooks told a news conference at the U.S.-led war headquarters in the Gulf state of Qatar. But he added: "I have not seen anything that says that an order has been given to fire. We know that the capability does indeed exist, we know that the will exists and we are taking this very, very seriously." http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030328/ts_nm/iraq_chemical_dc_3 They are preparing for the possibility of chemical attacks. But then again, you believe that Iraq has no chemical weapons because the UN sanctions were working, right?
if and when an attack occurs - and 500 soldiers die - who could not don their masks in 9 seconds - or the rest of the garb - then they just want everybody to be prepared.
Re: Re: Why in every US/uk briefing they say saddam has ordered to use chemical weapons? sardinia sees what sardinia wants to see, just like we see what we want to see. everything is in the eye of the beholder... yup.
Because for many people the words "use chemical weapons" has the same effect as "playmate orgy". Your ears perk up, you turn your head and you pay attention. And that is what the media wants you to do (and the army wants you to listen to them, not anyone else). Speculation and misdirection. Both quotes are probably equally likely, but I know which I'm rooting for.
A bit of salesmanship too, I might add. While it is indeed imperative for those military personnel directly in the line of fire to be prepared for such a possibility, this is just another very carefully constructed sales point for this war. They are saying these things for the public's ears, not for those in military uniform.
It's everyone's duty to parse the statements by interested participants. Is this a big surprise? Most answers to controversial questions can be summed up to "we don't know" or "maybe." Whose fault is it if your ears hear that answer as propaganda or misdirection?