Printable View
Lets say you do indeed take over the entire country.
You cause more civilian casulaties and lose more infantry yourselves.
What then if the Iraqi civilians attack your troops ?
What if you receive more terrorist attacks ?
What if you cannot find any chemical or biological weapons ?
1. There will always be people loyal to saddam, nothing to do about it.
2. This war will not stop terrorism, nothing can
3. We will find them. He has them, there is no doubt. He buries them in the sand and hides them. He moves them around so noone knows where they are. I dont understand how some of you can be so naive to think he dosent have them.
1) So what would the troops do ? Attack the civilians ?Quote:
Originally posted by dogsby
1. There will always be people loyal to saddam, nothing to do about it.
2. This war will not stop terrorism, nothing can
3. We will find them. He has them, there is no doubt. He buries them in the sand and hides them. He moves them around so noone knows where they are. I dont understand how some of you can be so naive to think he dosent have them.
2) That's not what half the pro-war people say.
3) So I'm naive because I think he could have actually destroyed them.
But at the same time, the pro-war people are not because they're believing their governments with absolutely no proof for an attack.
And by the way, I don't care either way if he has chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
I'm not saying he does or does not have them.
I'm just asking what if.
I say let then sort thier own problems out.
What ever you do someone is opposed. So I say look after our own and if people what to do something about somewhere else let them deal with it and don't get other people involved.
plenderj
I wouldn't call myself "pro-war" but I'll have a go at answering your questions anyway.
Do you mean actual civillians or just security forces dressed as civillians in order to confuse the coalition forces?Quote:
What then if the Iraqi civilians attack your troops ?
Presumably, people in civillian clothes who attack coalition forces will be regarded as enemy combatants and treated accordingly.
Even the pro-war people do not claim that the subjegation of the Iraqi regime will stop all terrorist attacks. Saddam is only one of the sponsors of terrorism. There are many more besides.Quote:
What if you receive more terrorist attacks ?
I guess that will be extremely embarassing for the British and American governments. They will have to admit they are wrong, I guess.Quote:
What if you cannot find any chemical or biological weapons ?
1. not sure what would happen there.
2. Im not half the pro war people. :)
3. If he destroyed them, why wouldnt he admit it to the un? why kick out the inspectors for the last how many ever years? If he has nothing to hide, why did he do this? Why didnt he claim everything he has in the last few months? Why dosent he feed his own people?
People will believe whatever they are told/read. People interpret things differently. I really dont care if he has wmd or not, he just has to be removed from power. (but he does have them :)
Dogsby
I mean the families of civilians who were killed by the US forces.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
plenderj
I wouldn't call myself "pro-war" but I'll have a go at answering your questions anyway.
Do you mean actual civillians or just security forces dressed as civillians in order to confuse the coalition forces?
Presumably, people in civillian clothes who attack coalition forces will be regarded as enemy combatants and treated accordingly.
Even the pro-war people do not claim that the subjegation of the Iraqi regime will stop all terrorist attacks. Saddam is only one of the sponsors of terrorism. There are many more besides.
I guess that will be extremely embarassing for the British and American governments. They will have to admit they are wrong, I guess.
Seeing as most people are armed, I wouldn't put it past them to attack US soldiers.
And re; terrorism I more mean that a US occupation of Iraq could incite more terrorism and hatred from the region against the US.
I honestly could never see that happening.
If I was in his position I'd react the exact same way.Quote:
Originally posted by dogsby
If he destroyed them, why wouldnt he admit it to the un?
If someone started pissing all over my country I'd make it as damn difficult as possible to get a straight answer out of me.
what about all the people that were cheering as we came in to free them from being controled by a dictator? Saddam has murdered more peoples families than we will in accidental deaths of civiliansQuote:
Originally posted by plenderj
If I was in his position I'd react the exact same way.
If someone started pissing all over my country I'd make it as damn difficult as possible to get a straight answer out of me.
Not necessarily representative of the entire population though.Quote:
Originally posted by kleinma
what about all the people that were cheering as we came in to free them from being controled by a dictator? Saddam has murdered more peoples families than we will in accidental deaths of civilians
We have no idea how things will pan out yet.
And I personally think its going to get very very nasty.
plenderj
Well, I don't think that US forces will be capable of making such a distinction. Any people that attack US troops, be they in civillian clothes or not, will be dealt with in the same way.Quote:
I mean the families of civilians who were killed by the US forces.
Seeing as most people are armed, I wouldn't put it past them to attack US soldiers.
Again, can such a distinction be made?Quote:
And re; terrorism I more mean that a US occupation of Iraq could incite more terrorism and hatred from the region against the US.
Perhaps the war will incite more terrorism but how much of it will be thwarted before we even know about it? How will we know whether or not it would have happened anyway?
Even if you knew behaving in such a way meant your certain destruction? I doubt it.Quote:
If I was in his position I'd react the exact same way.
If someone started pissing all over my country I'd make it as damn difficult as possible to get a straight answer out of me.
1. If someone is shooting out our troops, our troops will return fire. Even now Saddams military has been dressing as civilians and shooting at us.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
Lets say you do indeed take over the entire country.
You cause more civilian casulaties and lose more infantry yourselves.
What then if the Iraqi civilians attack your troops ?
What if you receive more terrorist attacks ?
What if you cannot find any chemical or biological weapons ?
2. I'm sure we will.
3. Would be a blunder on our part. But I'm pretty sure we are going to find them and I'm afraid we will find them the hard way (him launching them). Seeing his troops carry gas masks and atropine is not a good sign.
we are at war and nothing you guys can type makes 1 tiny bit of difference at all...
how does that make you feel?
1. Grab a gun go outside and start shooting at a police officer, he'll shoot back.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
1) So what would the troops do ? Attack the civilians ?
2) That's not what half the pro-war people say.
3) So I'm naive because I think he could have actually destroyed them.
But at the same time, the pro-war people are not because they're believing their governments with absolutely no proof for an attack.
And by the way, I don't care either way if he has chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
I'm not saying he does or does not have them.
I'm just asking what if.
2. I have not heard the arugment that offing Saddam will stop terrorism.
3. There is several reasons why I won't beleve him. The first one is that he has had a history of lying to the weapon inspectors. All through the 90's he lied to them, threaten them, and even kicked them out. The 2nd reason is that he wouldn't have destoryed them in a secret way, he wouldn't have had reason to threaten weapons inspectors, or the likes. He would be able to provide proof that he did it. The 3rd reason is that already during this war we have been uncovering scud missles. We found some the other day in a checmail weapons plant. Its hard to think up inoccent excuses for having scuds in a checmial plant. The 4th reason is he is supplying his troops with Gas Masks and Atropine which suggests to me and people in military that when we get so close to bagdad he is going to shoot them at us.
Maven don't you realize its not worth arguing anymore??? no one is going to sway this way or that.. just be happy you live in the best nation on the planet.. and don't waste your breath.. its not worth it... they are all just jealous ;)Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
1. Grab a gun go outside and start shooting at a police officer, he'll shoot back.
2. I have not heard the arugment that offing Saddam will stop terrorism.
3. There is several reasons why I won't beleve him. The first one is that he has had a history of lying to the weapon inspectors. All through the 90's he lied to them, threaten them, and even kicked them out. The 2nd reason is that he wouldn't have destoryed them in a secret way, he wouldn't have had reason to threaten weapons inspectors, or the likes. He would be able to provide proof that he did it. The 3rd reason is that already during this war we have been uncovering scud missles. We found some the other day in a checmail weapons plant. Its hard to think up inoccent excuses for having scuds in a checmial plant. The 4th reason is he is supplying his troops with Gas Masks and Atropine which suggests to me and people in military that when we get so close to bagdad he is going to shoot them at us.
Sad.Quote:
Originally posted by kleinma
we are at war and nothing you guys can type makes 1 tiny bit of difference at all...
how does that make you feel?
And we can't stop it if we wish to.
I can only hope for the allied troops they'll win.
Jealous of what ?Quote:
Originally posted by kleinma
they are all just jealous ;)
:confused: :confused:
He was just saying that if you had the opporunity to move here, you would in a second. We're the greatest country in the world with the greatest opportunities. You'd be lying to yourself if you said you didn't want to be here
I would never want to move to the US. And I've never wanted to.
If you're such a great country why don't you tackle your own problems first before "helping" anyone else ?
And statements like that is arrogance embodied.
If you truly feel that you're the best nation out there with the best resources and the best of everything... then I dunno.
You'll never value anyone else's arguments because you'll believe your country must be completely right about the things its doing.
Couldn't have stated it better.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
I would never want to move to the US. And I've never wanted to.
If you're such a great country why don't you tackle your own problems first before "helping" anyone else ?
I have to join Jamie in this.
I am absolutely 100% arrogant about the country that I live in. And rightly so. It is the greatest country in the world. And you can't even deny that. You can disagree with our morals, you can disagree with our politics, but you can't disagree with the opportunities here. Every countries have problems. I'd say ours are pretty small. It would be far more arrogant of us to tend to our minor problems and ignore our responsibility of policing the world.
LOL I know, its just a good way to waste type...Quote:
Originally posted by kleinma
Maven don't you realize its not worth arguing anymore??? no one is going to sway this way or that.. just be happy you live in the best nation on the planet.. and don't waste your breath.. its not worth it... they are all just jealous ;)
Hopefully this war will end quickly and we can all get back to arguing about what is the best sort algorithm or why c++ is better then VB. =)
posted by plenderj:
Don't worry, mate, they will always find what they want to find, even if they have to show us scrap as the did in Afganistan.Quote:
What if you cannot find any chemical or biological weapons ?
What if aliens landed and pigs started to fly?Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
Lets say you do indeed take over the entire country.
You cause more civilian casulaties and lose more infantry yourselves.
What then if the Iraqi civilians attack your troops ?
What if you receive more terrorist attacks ?
What if you cannot find any chemical or biological weapons ?
X
Bush would find precedence to fool the US people into thinking they're a threat and you'd blow them to pieces.
You mean you hope it does. Thats kinda sick hoping more civilians die to prove your point. I personally hope they can see past the Iraqi state TV brainwashing and see the coalition forces are their to finally get rid of that murdering, raping, and brutal dictator that is Saddam. I also hope no more innocents have to die because of Saddam.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
Not necessarily representative of the entire population though.
We have no idea how things will pan out yet.
And I personally think its going to get very very nasty.
X
Hi ppl ;)
I think we should not talk about this war on this forum!!!
Why we just talk about what we all luv: programing, PC's, games, ... :D
The people who's against this war will be all the time against and the people who agree with this war don't understand why not everybody is against Iraq! So it doesn't mather what you say!!!
[on each search for a example or a problem I get back all that stuff about the damn war]
bye ;)
More proof that you anti-war people wont even believe evidence presented right in front of your eyes. You will just claim it was planted by the coalition forces.Quote:
Originally posted by Juan Carlos Rey
Don't worry, mate, they will always find what they want to find, even if they have to show us scrap as the did in Afganistan.
However I find it funny how you are quick to believe the far left propaganda rags that spew anti-war garbage.
X
Ugh :( A little modesty please. You think it's the greatest country on earth because I doubt you have been further than Shiitville Arizona, and whilst you are sat on your fat ass divulging whatever nationalistic craop on TV is shoved down your throat. You are a poor representative of your country, a country that I very much enjoy, and in which I have many friends and work colleagues.Quote:
Originally posted by run_GMoney
I am absolutely 100% arrogant about the country that I live in. And rightly so. It is the greatest country in the world. And you can't even deny that. You can disagree with our morals, you can disagree with our politics, but you can't disagree with the opportunities here. Every countries have problems. I'd say ours are pretty small. It would be far more arrogant of us to tend to our minor problems and ignore our responsibility of policing the world.
I suggest you read Michael Moore's book "Stupid White Men". It's good therapy to read how disgusting one's country has behaved in history; I know, I'm from the UK...
They have good pie there.Quote:
Originally posted by Gaffer
Shiitville Arizona
I agree, its just meaningless when nobody makes an effort for a constructive argument, at the end of the day nobody is going to change their minds and they've had a nice way wasting their and other peoples time.Quote:
Originally posted by X8-452
Hi ppl ;)
I think we should not talk about this war on this forum!!!
Why we just talk about what we all luv: programing, PC's, games, ... :D
The people who's against this war will be all the time against and the people who agree with this war don't understand why not everybody is against Iraq! So it doesn't mather what you say!!!
[on each search for a example or a problem I get back all that stuff about the damn war]
bye ;)
Ked. Some of us - both pro and anti-war people have made constructive arguments.
Then you get a few people like Arc who come along name-calling which then turns the thread to crap :rolleyes:
Jamie, you're the supermoderator around, you should keep track of them.
If I were to be a third-party spectator yes I should.
But if I'm involved in an argument and then I go and delete or edit people's posts, its using my power in an un-fair manner.
Obviously if people use serious name-calling etc. I will delete those posts.
I've been called ignorant by the same one or two people repeatedly, but if instead of debating back I use my power as a supermod, then its not fair.
fair enough, I wouldn't risk moderating anyone to risk being pointed out as being unfair.
Well I'm sure you can name a country that offers greater opportunities for everyone, more so than the US. Can you do that?Quote:
Originally posted by Gaffer
Ugh :( A little modesty please. You think it's the greatest country on earth because I doubt you have been further than Shiitville Arizona, and whilst you are sat on your fat ass divulging whatever nationalistic craop on TV is shoved down your throat. You are a poor representative of your country, a country that I very much enjoy, and in which I have many friends and work colleagues.
I suggest you read Michael Moore's book "Stupid White Men". It's good therapy to read how disgusting one's country has behaved in history; I know, I'm from the UK...
Fat ass? 145 pounds, good try though. At least you're not guilty of generalizing all Americans :rollseyes:.
I have no desire to read any book or see any movie by Michael Moore.
You can call me arrogant. It doesn't bother me in the least bit. I keep seeing these "you think you're better" or "you arrogant americans" posts that I had to take it over the top.
I'm not going to see anything that has something to do with michael moore either.Quote:
Originally posted by run_GMoney
Well I'm sure you can name a country that offers greater opportunities for everyone, more so than the US. Can you do that?
Fat ass? 145 pounds, good try though. At least you're not guilty of generalizing all Americans :rollseyes:.
I have no desire to read any book or see any movie by Michael Moore.
You can call me arrogant. It doesn't bother me in the least bit. I keep seeing these "you think you're better" or "you arrogant americans" posts that I had to take it over the top.
Everyone just has their panties in a twist. If I was in Iraq, and we passed some civilians and then looked back to see them shooting at me, yes I would shoot them. So would any other serviceman. We're not going to stop, and try and negotiate for them to drop their weapons. We're not the Police, we're Marines, and this is war. You just have to have the power to know when to do it. I think that they are doing a great job so far. Face it. This is war. People die in war. It's tragic when a cilvilan dies, don't get me wrong. I'm not that ruthless.
The war is not going to stop terrorism. You don't like that? Blame Eve. She ate the apple. It's not about stopping all terrorism, but reducing it. Do you think that if you took out all of the executives and their money out of a company, the company will fall? Of course it would. BUT parts of that company can still go on. You can take out every higher up terrorist in the world, but you are still going to have guys who can wear a bomb and blow up a bus or something. But by taking out higher powers, maybe you won't have jetliners taking out cities. Now I know someone will come back and say that then the lower guys can become the higher guys, like getting promoted. Yes that's true. Bringing me back to my first point. It's not going to stop it, but reduce it.
If you don't think that there are any weapons, then WHY did the Marines fine antidotes for chemical weapons, as well as biosuits to protect them from these "non-existent" chemicals in the hospital they recently took over? I'm not sure on this one, but didn't he also say he didn't have Scud missiles? But then he fired 4 of them at Kuwait. Whatever.
But then I agree with everyone else. The war is going on, and as sad as it might be, people need a break from it. Taking a break doesn't make you a bad American. I'm a Marine, so if I could I would be out there with my fellow brothers fighting this battle. Time to start a new "something other than war" post. I'll start some great posts about things people love.
September11th didn't happen because anyone had chemical or biological weapons.
I've never seen a terrorist attack using weapons like that.
So how would this war reduce terrorism ?
I was talking about this and Operation Enduring Freedom. This war is to try and save what's left of a country, and to prevent him on causing terror outside of his country. He has the money, the supplies, and the power to cause mass destruction outside of his country. Like they said earlier. Iraqi citizens were rejoycing when the Marines were tearing down the pictures of Saddam. If you want to hear it, I have an interesting radio call-in from a woman born in Iraq, praising the US for what they are doing.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
September11th didn't happen because anyone had chemical or biological weapons.
I've never seen a terrorist attack using weapons like that.
So how would this war reduce terrorism ?
If Iraq doesn't have WMD then why has the UN passed one resolution after another? I think that everyone in the UN agrees that he HAS broken resolutions or they wouldn't STILL be passing them. The UN has said by passing one resolution after another that they believe he is STILL a problem. The US hasn't been passing all of these resolutions on their own? Obviously other countries feel he has not complied with the agreed upon conditions of his surrender after INVADING Kuwait. The only reason the US is in Iraq now is because after 911 GWB decided it was time to really enforce some of the resolutions that the UN has passed. I have to go with the president this far. If they don't find WMD then I think we are over there for the wrong reason. If those people want to be liberated they can do it the way the US did by revolution. We did also have some help by the French I believe and if asked by Iraq for support in a revolution the way the French supported us then sure help them if the end goal is freedom. The US had a little conflict called the Civil War that lasted for four years. It was a poor south against a much larger north. It dragged on for 4 years because the south had better leadership and committed men even against overwhelming odds. The only reason that the north finally won was because Gens Grant/Sherman understood one thing... sometimes you cannot defeat a well committed enemy even if you have overwhelming odds in your favor until the cost is to great to continue... SCORTCHED EARTH. I don't want to see anyone killed but as far as civilian deaths go it is war and if we are there we should win. Unfortunately I think the only way will be to "win" it will be as Grant & Sherman came to understand by total WAR. I hope for a quick end with as little bloodshed as possible on both sides.
Hey buddy, you ****ing started it :(Quote:
Originally posted by run_GMoney
Well I'm sure you can name a country that offers greater opportunities for everyone, more so than the US. Can you do that?
Fat ass? 145 pounds, good try though. At least you're not guilty of generalizing all Americans :rollseyes:.
I have no desire to read any book or see any movie by Michael Moore.
You can call me arrogant. It doesn't bother me in the least bit. I keep seeing these "you think you're better" or "you arrogant americans" posts that I had to take it over the top.
For a start I don't know how you could even quantify "opportunities". I would have thought that with the gradual denegration of communism in China that opportunities are flowing out of 1bn peoples asses. It still doesn't make China the "Greatest".
I don't think you're arrogant - I work in possibly the most arrogant industry out there. You're just....misguided.
PS Why won't you read Michael Moore? Have you ever read anything, or do you just judge him from hear-say?
he isn't misguided... that is your opinion.. but i guess whoever doesn't agree with you is misguided huh???Quote:
Originally posted by Gaffer
Hey buddy, you ****ing started it :(
For a start I don't know how you could even quantify "opportunities". I would have thought that with the gradual denegration of communism in China that opportunities are flowing out of 1bn peoples asses. It still doesn't make China the "Greatest".
I don't think you're arrogant - I work in possibly the most arrogant industry out there. You're just....misguided.
PS Why won't you read Michael Moore? Have you ever read anything, or do you just judge him from hear-say?
we don't agree with you.. you don't agree with us.. and that is just how it is.. we state our opinions.. you state yours.. nothing we say will change your mind.. nothing you say will change ours.. and you can at least agree with me on that point
So you say people are flocking to China because the opportunities, standards of living, etc are better than the US? That's what you saying, correct? I'll let you absorb that one without further mention.Quote:
Originally posted by Gaffer
Hey buddy, you ****ing started it :(
For a start I don't know how you could even quantify "opportunities". I would have thought that with the gradual denegration of communism in China that opportunities are flowing out of 1bn peoples asses. It still doesn't make China the "Greatest".
I don't think you're arrogant - I work in possibly the most arrogant industry out there. You're just....misguided.
PS Why won't you read Michael Moore? Have you ever read anything, or do you just judge him from hear-say?
Second, I didn't start anything. I stated how I felt about the country that I live in. Your the one that "attacked" me about not being modest. You can disagree with me all you want. Again I don't care. Like it or not, America IS the land of opportunity and that makes us the greatest country IN MY OPINION!!!
Michael Moore annoys me because all he does is ***** about the country he lives in. He's welcome to take up residence elsewhere. But he won't. Do you know why? Hint: It's the basis for our discussion right now.
I'm with kleinma on this one...I'm tired of arguing over moot points...we're not going to change our opinion anymore then the anti-war people would change theirs.
And yes we are the best country on the planet...ask any immigrant who has come here and made a decent life for themselves...This country was founded by people who wanted to escape oppression...people who wanted freedom...and that ideology still exists to this day..."Want a better life? better opportunity? Then go to america." We set the standards that other countries strive to reach...We have made countless contributions to the well being of this planet and the people who inhabit it...We supply aid to hundreds of countries (even ones that hate us) why? because it is the right thing to do...we have a duty as a superpower to set an example to other countries, and to provide assistance to countries that can't do it themselves.
You can say that americans are arrogant or warmongers or whatever you want...we don't care...The simple fact is without our support and aid, most countries and governments would have failed long ago...So say what you want about us...We know the truth...and secretly so do you.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I remember the IRA using sarin gas in a subway in England.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
September11th didn't happen because anyone had chemical or biological weapons.
I've never seen a terrorist attack using weapons like that.
So how would this war reduce terrorism ?
As I have said in another thread, the rebuilding of Iraq will go far in reducing terrorism in the long term and help stabilize the entire region.
1. Trick Question! They will be killed obviously. Once they take up arms they are no longer civilians they are soldiers.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
Lets say you do indeed take over the entire country.
You cause more civilian casulaties and lose more infantry yourselves.
What then if the Iraqi civilians attack your troops ?
What if you receive more terrorist attacks ?
What if you cannot find any chemical or biological weapons ?
2. Then more people will Die. I think depending on the severity there are a number of different ways to play that one out. Are you talking car bomb or someone dropping 2 tons of anthrax on Washington DC?
3. Then the US is fooked bigtime. I'm not talking foot in mouth fooked either. There was SOLID proof that Iraq had massive stockpiles of Weaponized Anthrax and VX gas . This is not even argued against by UN weapons inspectors. If these stockpiles are not in Iraq then they have either A. Been destroyed or B. sold to the highest bidder. Saddam has already been given ample time to proove they have been destroyed. He has not proven this. That only leaves option B. That is a very scary thought.
Oh, and to answer your questions.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
Lets say you do indeed take over the entire country.
You cause more civilian casulaties and lose more infantry yourselves.
What then if the Iraqi civilians attack your troops ?
What if you receive more terrorist attacks ?
What if you cannot find any chemical or biological weapons ?
1. We are not taking over the country...American has never colonized anything...That's british and french thinking, not ours.
This is an attack on saddam's regime...We will secure the capital, take out the regime, then help them build a government for their people (of the people and for the people) Not a dictatorship for saddam and his cronies.
2. The troops WILL defend themselves. If a civilian picks up a weapon and starts attacking, then he is not a civilian anymore, he is a combatant and will be dealt with as such.
3. This isn't going to stop terrorism, but it will have a solid ground on which to build from. There will always be propaganda spread around about how bad the americans are (which is a funny thing because it isn't just americans that are involved, but anyway) There will always be a Terroist recruiter (pusher) preying on young minds to "Rise up against the imperialistic pigs".
4. I doubt we will find them anytime soon. Once the regime has been defeated, and high ranking officers in saddams regime start babbling to save their own asses...we will find them. Answer me this...If they don't have them...Why did we find 3,000 chemical suits, gas masks and atropine injectors in the hospital where saddams soldiers where hiding?????
Doesn't sound logical to me to carry this stuff if there wasn't a potential threat?
well the fact that we have found:Quote:
Originally posted by MasterBlaster
3. Then the US is fooked bigtime. I'm not talking foot in mouth fooked either. There was SOLID proof that Iraq had massive stockpiles of Weaponized Anthrax and VX gas . This is not even argued against by UN weapons inspectors. If these stockpiles are not in Iraq then they have either A. Been destroyed or B. sold to the highest bidder. Saddam has already been given ample time to proove they have been destroyed. He has not proven this. That only leaves option B. That is a very scary thought.
1)a "suspected" chemical weapons plant with "suspected" scub missles in it
2)thousands of chemical suits
3)stockpiles of atrophine
it would be safe to say that iraq was stocking up for a time where they would use chemical weapons
those quotes around suspected was pre-emptive towards a response saying it hasen't been proven yet ;)
So we've found an "antique" chemical/biological weapons delivery system. We've found Primitive chemical suits that are useless against Anthrax an VX gas(If you want me to expand I will) and atrophine. Atrophine is useless in an anthrax attack and not very effective in treating VX gas poisining. Basically once the VX hits you you are screwed. Someone who is not infected has to stick you in the heart with the atrophine because you are already a convulsing puss ridden mess by the time you realize you've been hit. In the immortal words of the old Wendy's lady "Where's the Beef?"
hey Nick Cage pulled it off ;)Quote:
Originally posted by MasterBlaster
So we've found an "antique" chemical/biological weapons delivery system. We've found Primitive chemical suits that are useless against Anthrax an VX gas(If you want me to expand I will) and atrophine. Atrophine is useless in an anthrax attack and not very effective in treating VX gas poisining. Basically once the VX hits you you are screwed. Someone who is not infected has to stick you in the heart with the atrophine because you are already a convulsing puss ridden mess by the time you realize you've been hit. In the immortal words of the old Wendy's lady "Where's the Beef?"
Holy sheit, Gaff is a porn starQuote:
Originally posted by Gaffer
I don't think you're arrogant - I work in possibly the most arrogant industry out there. You're just....misguided.
[cheesey 70's style guitar lick]
ba boom chicka wahh wahhh
[/cheesey 70's style guitar lick]
Does the existence of any sort of WMD automatically lead to the fact that it will be used?
As someone pointed out in another thread, WMD's are actually defensive weapons, based on the MAD philosophy.
So Saddam having those weapons doens't mean he's a direct threat to the US (that said, he is a threat to the Kurds and Shi'ite population within Iraq, but the Chinese kill more every year, andthe US and others are tripping over themselves to trade with rather than attack them).
Can anyone say "North Korea"? They've also got WMD's (nukes in this case, and probably a good chance of Chem and Bio weapons as well). And they are the one's threatening a pre-emptive strike. Oh, yeah, and they have ICBM's capable of delivery to mainland US... the Iraqis don't.
One thing I've noticed is that nobody is discussing the change in global politics this particular war has bought on. The notion of pre-emptive strikes actually destroys the exisiting political and diplomatic structures that stops the various nations from killing each other. It is now justifiable to attack any country if you think they might one day threaten your national security... that is actually a huge change in focus.
I get the distinct (and rather cynical) impression that the US needed to be seen to be fighting terrorism as an ongoing thing, but for all it's military might, it's really geared toward inter-nation warfare rather than the guerilla warfare that tends to typify terroism. The British have had some experience in this (35 odd years in Northern Ireland and still no outcome). So it attacked a target that it could sort of justify and it could theoretically beat.
- gaffa
The existence of any sort of WMD leads to the fact that SADAAM IS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE THEM!!!Quote:
Originally posted by gaffa
Does the existence of any sort of WMD automatically lead to the fact that it will be used?
But it's OK that the US and Britain can?
Why can I smell the faint whiff of hypocracy here?
- gaffa
Atrophine is the only antidote I know of for type vx =PQuote:
Originally posted by MasterBlaster
So we've found an "antique" chemical/biological weapons delivery system. We've found Primitive chemical suits that are useless against Anthrax an VX gas(If you want me to expand I will) and atrophine. Atrophine is useless in an anthrax attack and not very effective in treating VX gas poisining. Basically once the VX hits you you are screwed. Someone who is not infected has to stick you in the heart with the atrophine because you are already a convulsing puss ridden mess by the time you realize you've been hit. In the immortal words of the old Wendy's lady "Where's the Beef?"
The only situation in which the US or Britain would ever use them is in a full scale war with another nation that has comparable military strength (China, god forbid).Quote:
Originally posted by gaffa
But it's OK that the US and Britain can?
Why can I smell the faint whiff of hypocracy here?
- gaffa
Saddam has used them against his own people, for not wanting him in power.
Rofl. I'm sorry, i didn't mean to turn a thread to "crap"by pointing out your ignorance on certain subjects. I myself have been called a LOT worse on these threads by people who share your point of view, but i guess it's no big deal when they do it:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
Ked. Some of us - both pro and anti-war people have made constructive arguments.
Then you get a few people like Arc who come along name-calling which then turns the thread to crap :rolleyes:
Yes it is OK that we have them because we won't use them. Also, perhaps you could show me the UN resolution saying US and Britain is not supposed to have them. If these things are going to exist, I'd rather they be in the hands of a country that is far less likely to use them. Who would you rather be in control of them?Quote:
Originally posted by gaffa
But it's OK that the US and Britain can?
Why can I smell the faint whiff of hypocracy here?
- gaffa
EDIT - Do you think I could have said "them" a couple more times?