Mass destruction weapons in Iraq

[Gabriel Fleseriu]

As we are all discussing the evolution of the newest events in the Persian Gulf, I thought we best pick up one issue at a time and try to handle it as analythical as possible.

I have thought about the question "why didn't Iraq use any mass distruction weapons yet?".

Fact: at the time I'm posting this, no source reported the use of mass destruction (i.e. chemical, biological or atomar) weapons. Moreoever, the allied troops haven't found any such weapon in Iraq yet.

Analysis: I see three possibilities:
1. The iraqis don't have any such weapons -- this is the most simple possibility.
2. They have a limited quantity of such devices. I guess that they cannot have a large quantity of mass destruction weapons, because that would have been noticed by the UN inspectors. Ok, then. If they have it why don't they use it? One issue that didn't come in the news (yet) is, that if they would use mass destruction weapons, in any form, this would instantly legitimate the war against iraq. We know that many states do not aggree with this campain. I think this would be a strong argument against using such weapons.
3. They save the limited ammount of weapons for the ultimative defence of Baghdad. Hummm...somehow the argument from 2. holds here too, but who sais that the decisions necessarily have to be purely rational ones? They have put some oil filled channels in flames around Baghdad today (CNN and other media sais) to "hinder the pilots of the bombers". Not necessaily a usefull decision, if you ask me; cruise missiles don't have pilots.

What is your oppinion about this particular issue?

[Mick]

My opinion on this is I think supported by the 91 campaign, because for the same reason they did not use WMD (which they clearly had at that time) was the fear of the retrubution that would follow. Our largest tactical nuke I think is 1000 times the power or maybe it's 100 times the power of Hiroshima, and we have a number of them. I would hesitate to think of the destruction in terms of lives they would cause.

The second point is, as we have seen or has it has been reported or has you might have read, if you read expatriate accounts. Is the majority of iraqi troops do not want to fight, nor would they follow those orders. Using WMD on someone elses property is one thing, using it on your own is another.

The third point would be..why, our troops are protected by the best and finest chemical and biological suits. If your into the line of thinking ohh those won't work, well we spent a considerable amount of time and money invested in the average solider and protetive equpiment and they _d_a_m_n well better work :)




[Edited: Inappropriate language in the context of the topic]
[Edited: heh heh removed the doctor strangelove text]

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Mick_2002
My opinion on this is I think supported by the 91 campaign, because for the same reason they did not use WMD (which they clearly had at that time) was the fear of the retrubution that would follow. Our largest tactical nuke I think is 1000 times the power or maybe it's 100 times the power of Hiroshima, and we have a number of them. I would hesitate to think of the destruction in terms of lives they would cause.
I thought Saddam did not care about his people. Last time he knew he could survive without using them, this time he knows he couldn't. So why wouldn't he use them? He's a dictator after all, he can bomb soldiers or Israel with these weapons if he wants to and if he has them. Unless Saddam is indeed taken out, which would be the first good thing I hear in this stupid war.
Originally posted by Mick_2002
The second point is, as we have seen or has it has been reported or has you might have read, if you read expatriate accounts. Is the majority of iraqi troops do not want to fight, nor would they follow those orders. Using WMD on someone elses property is one thing, using it on your own is another.
There are Iraqi troops that do want to fight, as you might have noticed by now in Umm Qasr. Do you believe Saddam would have entrusted these weapons to the soldiers that do not wish to fight? And he has used these weapons already against his own people in the North, I don't recall him liking the South (Basra, Umm Qasr) either, remember the little Shia thing last time?
Originally posted by Mick_2002
The third point would be..why, our troops are protected by the best and finest chemical and biological suits. If your into the line of thinking ohh those won't work, well we spent a considerable amount of time and money invested in the average solider and protetive equpiment and they _d_a_m_n well better work :)
Since when has the use of protection means preserved the enemy from using these weapons? In WWI, despite of gas masks, gas was still used against the enemy. And he can still throw them on non-military targets or on bases such as those in Kuwait? Or do the US troops walk around in their outfits there? And remains the fact that you have to pull these outfits on real fast, often that fast that the time is not available.

[Mick]

Originally posted by Simon666

I thought Saddam did not care about his people. Last time he knew he could survive without using them, this time he knows he couldn't. So why wouldn't he use them? He's a dictator after all, he can bomb soldiers or Israel with these weapons if he wants to and if he has them. Unless Saddam is indeed taken out, which would be the first good thing I hear in this stupid war.


Here we go again. So Saddam has a missle in his pants? He can run around and fire off every piece of artillery or missle in one night. We are talking about soldiers. We are talking about their home, and their country. We are talking about their will to fight, and while I am sure they would lay down their life for a just cause, but defending Saddam is not a just cause.


There are Iraqi troops that do want to fight, as you might have noticed by now in Umm Qasr. Do you believe Saddam would have entrusted these weapons to the soldiers that do not wish to fight? And he has used these weapons already against his own people in the North, I don't recall him liking the South (Basra, Umm Qasr) either, remember the little Shia thing last time?


Hmm Saddam trusts any of his soldiers? Which one would that be?

I don't call Umm Qasr a fight, I call it a coffee break. If you can not see the overwhelming force, tactics and equipment we have then your missing something. But as I say that I am reminded of the french. The french could have stopped the germans cold in WWII, they had a superiour tank, the renault. The had inferriour tactics, and thus succumbed. It is the sum of the parts, and right now Iraq has no parts to sum.



Since when has the use of protection means preserved the enemy from using these weapons? In WWI, despite of gas masks, gas was still used against the enemy. And he can still throw them on non-military targets or on bases such as those in Kuwait? Or do the US troops walk around in their outfits there? And remains the fact that you have to pull these outfits on real fast, often that fast that the time is not available.

Gas Masks came about why then? Logic, Simon, Logic.

And BTW yes they are walking around with protective suits on, some of our armoured vechiles are chemical/biological proof (which is to say why I call a bullet proof vest, bullet resistant) so the specs say. As far as pulling them on fast, well we kinda know when artillery has been fired or a missle has been fired. See 'radar', see how we counter fire artillery battries, some how I really do think it has to do with rader, but I could be wrong...but that isn't likely in your lifetime or mine.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Mick_2002
My opinion on this is I think supported by the 91 campaign, because for the same reason they did not use WMD (which they clearly had at that time) was the fear of the retrubution that would follow. Our largest tactical nuke I think is 1000 times the power or maybe it's 100 times the power of Hiroshima, and we have a number of them. I would hesitate to think of the destruction in terms of lives they would cause.

Originally posted by Mick_2002
Here we go again. So Saddam has a missle in his pants? He can run around and fire off every piece of artillery or missle in one night. We are talking about soldiers. We are talking about their home, and their country. We are talking about their will to fight, and while I am sure they would lay down their life for a just cause, but defending Saddam is not a just cause.
I was not talking about soldiers, I was talking about Saddam who would not hesitate to use this weapons to save his own life. You're maybe reacting to the wrong part of my answer.

Originally posted by Mick_2002
Hmm Saddam trusts any of his soldiers? Which one would that be?
At some point, you have to rely on other people to defend you. If you're talking about individual soldiers, Saddam indeed trusts none. That doesn't mean however he will not ask anybody (Republican Guard, nephew he hasn't killed yet) to defend him, thus entrust his defense to them. If he trusts none of his soldiers, he could take no action.

Originally posted by Mick_2002
And BTW yes they are walking around with protective suits on, some of our armoured vechiles are chemical/biological proof (which is to say why I call a bullet proof vest, bullet resistant) so the specs say. As far as pulling them on fast, well we kinda know when artillery has been fired or a missle has been fired. See 'radar', see how we counter fire artillery battries, some how I really do think it has to do with rader, but I could be wrong...but that isn't likely in your lifetime or mine.
Mr. strategic genius, how much time in advance does radar give a warning that a missile has been fired and how much time does it take to put such a suit on? And how would you discern a chemical from a conventional artillery shell?

Small calculation example: Al Samoud missile. Let us say this missile is rather slow and flies at Mach 3, thus around 1 km/s. The Al Samoud flies 180 km far, if you believe US/UN claims. A small multiplication learns you have at most 3 minutes time between launch and impact. This implies you also have some time to detect it when it is a certain distance in the air, a certain time to sound the alarm, find out what is going on, find where the hell all your equipment is and put it all on in the remaining time. This is in the case it impacts right on top, unlikely, but even then. Let alone what happens if artillery shells are fired over much shorter range at around the same speed.

[Mick]

Originally posted by Simon666


[QUOTE]
I was not talking about soldiers, I was talking about Saddam who would not hesitate to use this weapons to save his own life. You're maybe reacting to the wrong part of my answer.


No..you missed the point. Who fires the weapons? Saddam? If I am going to Nuke brussels, my president might give the order, but whom do you think follows that order, or not follows it as we hope they/I would if given that order ;)


At some point, you have to rely on other people to defend you. If you're talking about individual soldiers, Saddam indeed trusts none. That doesn't mean however he will not ask anybody (Republican Guard, nephew he hasn't killed yet) to defend him, thus entrust his defense to them. If he trusts none of his soldiers, he could take no action.


What action has he taken? Some broad pre-defined orders, he has no command and control. He never did.


Mr. strategic genius, how much time in advance does radar give a warning that a missile has been fired and how much time does it take to put such a suit on? And how would you discern a chemical from a conventional artillery shell?


I don't need to worry about that, I leave that up to our fine armed forces to deduce. And you don't discern, you be prepared.


Small calculation example: Al Samoud missile. Let us say this missile is rather slow and flies at Mach 3, thus around 1 km/s. The Al Samoud flies 180 km far, if you believe US/UN claims. A small multiplication learns you have at most 3 minutes time between launch and impact. This implies you also have some time to detect it when it is a certain distance in the air, a certain time to sound the alarm, find out what is going on, find where the hell all your equipment is and put it all on in the remaining time. This is in the case it impacts right on top, unlikely, but even then. Let alone what happens if artillery shells are fired over much shorter range at around the same speed.

I'm sorry you have already violated the UN resolutions. 180km what were you thinking?

[SolarFlare]

The fact is, firing weapons of mass destruction on US troops would not save Iraq or Saddam. Even if they could kill hundreds of thousands of troops by firing off all the weapons, (which is very very very very unlikely), there are still millions more against them. I think the reason he doesn't use them, if he has them, is because he knows there are better uses for them.

So what could he do with them that would be more effective? He could be selling them to dangerous groups, or he could plan to use them himself against local cities - possibly even Baghdad.

[Goodz13]

I don't think that Iraq has WMD. I beleave that Saddam has complied with UN inspectors and got rid of the weapons before the inspectors came in. I beleave that Bushes strategy has been from the beggining, disarm then attack.

Please note that I'm not on Iraq's side, nore do I think that Saddam should stay in power, I'm just against the whole campaign.

[Mick]

Originally posted by Goodz13
I don't think that Iraq has WMD. I beleave that Saddam has complied with UN inspectors and got rid of the weapons before the inspectors came in. I beleave that Bushes strategy has been from the beggining, disarm then attack.

Please note that I'm not on Iraq's side, nore do I think that Saddam should stay in power, I'm just against the whole campaign.

I don't disagree with you about Bush wanting to remove Saddam, I believe he put that in his dear diary as soon as he started his run for presidency. I do disagree with you about WMD. They have them, and they have labs to create them. It will all come out in short order.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Mick_2002
It will all come out in short order.
The US claim to have arrested a general who could know more and have searched a chemical plant they suspected of producing WMD. Then there are four options:

There will be found WMD, Bush is right.
There will be found WMD, Bush is right but has misled us by keeping it silent for weapons inspectors just to prove only invasion works and not the weiners of the UN.
There will be found WMD, but later it will turn out it is as fake as Bush citing a non-existing IAEA report, the Nigerian false documents of Iraq trying to purchase uranium, and Blair's magnificently original report that's actually copy-and-pasted and that the factory found is actually a teddybear-production line.
There will not be found WMD, only some chemicals for civilian use showing Bush' stupid invasion is a big lie from day one.


My best guess is that is will either turn out to be nothing or else later turn out as fake evidence and propaganda to justify this stupid war. Which option(s) do you think is (are) likely?

[Elrond]

Originally posted by Mick_2002
We are talking about their home, and their country. We are talking about their will to fight, and while I am sure they would lay down their life for a just cause, but defending Saddam is not a just cause.

Their homes are being bombed. It seems that some soldiers have decided to fight, and that not every one surrenders.

Obviously, the Iraqis are poorly equiped and will probably not be a big trouble, but some of them doesn't welcome the US soldiers. Given the coalition tactics of bombing cities, they HAVE something to fight for that is worth much more than SH.

Hmm Saddam trusts any of his soldiers? Which one would that be?
None, But he still have some parts of his army in which he would have much more confidence than others.

I don't call Umm Qasr a fight, I call it a coffee break. If you can not see the overwhelming force, tactics and equipment we have then your missing something. But as I say that I am reminded of the french. The french could have stopped the germans cold in WWII, they had a superiour tank, the renault. The had inferriour tactics, and thus succumbed. It is the sum of the parts, and right now Iraq has no parts to sum.
Lousy argument. The French had a good tank, may be two... They had so few that they had no chance against the german tanks. This came from an initial strategy mistake. After, that, they really didn't have a real chance of doing anything. When the war started, it was already too late.

About Iraq, they have a very poor army, and we know they have about no chance to beat the US-led coalition. But they can still do some damage and kill some coalition soldiers, even if that's about all they can do.

Would some dangerous crazy leader attack your country, with an army so big you would have no chance of success, would this army bomb your cities, would you just surrender because the opponent is too strong?

And I don't know why they wouldn't use their WMD. Launching a few missiles with gaz have very little chances to trigger a nuclear ripost by the US. It could kill a few soldiers, as they don't wear their gas-mask 24 hours a day. And SH has not really anything to loose anymore, and probably have enough loyal soldiers to launch a few of them.

[Simon666]

I didn't notice Mick's original reply yet, but now that I see Elrond reacting to it:
Originally posted by Mick_2002
No..you missed the point. Who fires the weapons? Saddam? If I am going to Nuke brussels, my president might give the order, but whom do you think follows that order, or not follows it as we hope they/I would if given that order ;)
Saddam gives the order, soldier carries out. Why would a soldier not agree on launching a SCUD missile against Kuwait, Israel or Qatar if there would be no retalliation? I think there are no SCUDS. And I also agree with Elrond, nuclear retalliation is unlikely or would turn the entire world - not just muslims - against the US if they only fired some chemical shells in their defense, which might work as US soldiers do not were gas masks all the time. So the point that soldiers would refuse to execute these orders is unlikely, especially if he entrusted these to the Republican Guard.
Originally posted by Mick_2002
What action has he taken? Some broad pre-defined orders, he has no command and control. He never did.
I believe he did set up a strategy in advance, although by now he has probably indeed no command and control. Apparently the US army's assumption of "isolated pockets of resistance" is not correct whatsoever as are the assumptions they would be accepted with open arms in the south. Dropping such controversial weaponry as cluster bombs on Basra is not helping in turning the people against Saddam, rather on the contrary.
Originally posted by Mick_2002
I don't need to worry about that, I leave that up to our fine armed forces to deduce. And you don't discern, you be prepared.
Your fine armed forces brilliant strategists had occupied and secured Umm Qasr after one day. Guess again. And I ask myself how the heck is it possible soldiers can drive lost and get captured with present day technology and GPS? Maybe to many uneducated people in the army and people for which the army is the only job they can get?
Originally posted by Simon666
Mr. strategic genius, how much time in advance does radar give a warning that a missile has been fired and how much time does it take to put such a suit on? And how would you discern a chemical from a conventional artillery shell?

Small calculation example: Al Samoud missile. Let us say this missile is rather slow and flies at Mach 3, thus around 1 km/s. The Al Samoud flies 180 km far, if you believe US/UN claims. A small multiplication learns you have at most 3 minutes time between launch and impact. This implies you also have some time to detect it when it is a certain distance in the air, a certain time to sound the alarm, find out what is going on, find where the hell all your equipment is and put it all on in the remaining time. This is in the case it impacts right on top, unlikely, but even then. Let alone what happens if artillery shells are fired over much shorter range at around the same speed.
Originally posted by Mick_2002
I'm sorry you have already violated the UN resolutions. 180km what were you thinking?
Giving good counter-arguments isn't your strongest point, isn't it?

[Mick]

Originally posted by Simon666

Your fine armed forces brilliant strategists had occupied and secured Umm Qasr after one day. Guess again. And I ask myself how the heck is it possible soldiers can drive lost and get captured with present day technology and GPS? Maybe to many uneducated people in the army and people for which the army is the only job they can get?


I'm pretty sure that supply groups don't have GPS, but you should be able to read a map. But then the desert isn't the best place to try and pick out landmarks to go by.


Giving good counter-arguments isn't your strongest point, isn't it?

Asking questions that are not ridiculious in the first place isn't yours ;)

[Gabriel Fleseriu]

Dang it! Mick, Simon, why on earth do you have to attack each other again??? C'mon, people, I'm sure we can analyze the facts impartally and without jumping at each other.

[Mick]

Originally posted by Elrond


Their homes are being bombed. It seems that some soldiers have decided to fight, and that not every one surrenders.

Obviously, the Iraqis are poorly equiped and will probably not be a big trouble, but some of them doesn't welcome the US soldiers. Given the coalition tactics of bombing cities, they HAVE something to fight for that is worth much more than SH.


None, But he still have some parts of his army in which he would have much more confidence than others.


My comment was to reflect using WMD on your own terriotry. But they have done it before in Iraq. I don't find it hard to believe anyone being patriotic and wanting to defend their own lands, but lauching WMD on your own land, I would any person doing so would hesitate. Also the circumstances are different, some don't want to fight for Saddam. I don't say all, I say some. And we are doing our best not to bomb their homes, just saddams homes.


Lousy argument. The French had a good tank, may be two... They had so few that they had no chance against the german tanks. This came from an initial strategy mistake. After, that, they really didn't have a real chance of doing anything. When the war started, it was already too late.


Actually they had more tanks than the germans. They just spread them out. While the Germans used their blitzkrieg and concentrated armour tactics.


About Iraq, they have a very poor army, and we know they have about no chance to beat the US-led coalition. But they can still do some damage and kill some coalition soldiers, even if that's about all they can do.

Would some dangerous crazy leader attack your country, with an army so big you would have no chance of success, would this army bomb your cities, would you just surrender because the opponent is too strong?


No I wouldn't surrender if I beleived in what I was fighting for. My point is I do not think the vast majority of Iraqi soldiers believe in what they are fighting for.


And I don't know why they wouldn't use their WMD. Launching a few missiles with gaz have very little chances to trigger a nuclear ripost by the US. It could kill a few soldiers, as they don't wear their gas-mask 24 hours a day. And SH has not really anything to loose anymore, and probably have enough loyal soldiers to launch a few of them.

They may or may not kill a few soilders. Gas masks are not the only thing you need when dealing with WMD. They are as prepared as they can be with chem/bio suits and gas mask ready. I'll point out again that some of our armour M1A2 I believe is chem/bio resistant. I have to agree, you'd have to kill alot of our soilders to trigger any tactical nuke usage. I don't know about SH, if you have read his bio you would see he is the consumate survivour. I believe he believes he can get out of this. If he uses WMD he certainly wouldn't be able to negotiate at the end for exile. But who knows his mind...

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Gabriel Fleseriu
Dang it! Mick, Simon, why on earth do you have to attack each other again??? C'mon, people, I'm sure we can analyze the facts impartally and without jumping at each other.
Sorry. But someone I know has told me I'm talking to Bush himself based upon the arguments, so I'm not the only one with that impression. I just like either a good reaction based upon facts - as you say Gabriel - on my objections (which are also facts, check them) instead of talking around the subject.

[Mick]

Originally posted by Gabriel Fleseriu
Dang it! Mick, Simon, why on earth do you have to attack each other again??? C'mon, people, I'm sure we can analyze the facts impartally and without jumping at each other.


I'm not attacking him, I'm poking fun at him, but I promise not to poke fun at him anymore :) Feel free to delete any responses you think are attacks :) (not that you couldn't already)

[Gabriel Fleseriu]

Editting or deleting posts would be against the idea of a mature and analythical, fact based, discussion. I won't delete anything. I'd like to forget for a while that I'm a moderator and just discuss.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Mick_2002
My comment was to reflect using WMD on your own terriotry. But they have done it before in Iraq. I don't find it hard to believe anyone being patriotic and wanting to defend their own lands, but lauching WMD on your own land, I would any person doing so would hesitate. Also the circumstances are different, some don't want to fight for Saddam. I don't say all, I say some. And we are doing our best not to bomb their homes, just saddams homes.

If it is the only way to fence off an invading country, it is an option, even to the US. In the Cold War they intended to use neutron bombs against the Russians in West Germany because they believed they would not be able to stop them if the Russians attacked on a large scale. The fact that there would be large amounts of fall out was not considered an issue and portraited as not that bad as neutron bombs cause (a little) less fallout than other types of nukes and because the pressure and radiation effects were less. But then again, West Germany was not US territory so I guess it was okay to blast it with nukes.
Originally posted by Mick_2002
No I wouldn't surrender if I beleived in what I was fighting for. My point is I do not think the vast majority of Iraqi soldiers believe in what they are fighting for.
By the amount of resistance pulled up, I think you might reconsider soon, if not already.
Originally posted by Mick_2002
They may or may not kill a few soilders. Gas masks are not the only thing you need when dealing with WMD. They are as prepared as they can be with chem/bio suits and gas mask ready. I'll point out again that some of our armour M1A2 I believe is chem/bio resistant. I have to agree, you'd have to kill alot of our soilders to trigger any tactical nuke usage. I don't know about SH, if you have read his bio you would see he is the consumate survivour. I believe he believes he can get out of this. If he uses WMD he certainly wouldn't be able to negotiate at the end for exile. But who knows his mind...
OK, those are valuable arguments. But if you look at images in e.g. Umm Qasr I see a lot of soldiers not wearing gas masks and who could be killed if they launched a chemical shell. US ground troops, when outside their vehicles, do not always have gas masks on. And you would not always notice gas is used, not all combat gasses are visible.

Even the Pentagon realises this. I have seen amusing footage of US soldiers getting low tech chemical/biological detectors such as pigeons in a cage (true, didn't you see it yourself?). The funny thing is that if the soldier would notice in the heat of battle his pigeon is dying he might himself be dead 10 seconds later. Gas masks alone are not enough, some gasses penetrate through skin and such a suit cannot be put on that fast you know.

[Mick]

Originally posted by Simon666

[QUOTE]
If it is the only way to fence off an invading country, it is an option, even to the US. In the Cold War they intended to use neutron bombs against the Russians in West Germany because they believed they would not be able to stop them if the Russians attacked on a large scale. The fact that there would be large amounts of fall out was not considered an issue and portraited as not that bad as neutron bombs cause (a little) less fallout than other types. But then again, West Germany was not US territory so I guess it was okay to blast it with nukes.


True. But that was always a hypothetical war. What you might do or plan to do, gets tossed out the window as soon as a war starts. I'm on the side that russian tactics would have bogged them down very rapidly (no clear command and control). They could have punched thru the fuda gap at great cost. But unrelenting bombing of their supply facitlites (most notably oil production and stores) would have slowed them to a crawl. I don't doubt that a war at that time wouldn't have been protracted. And I do see tactical nukes on both sides being used. But our policy is no first use. I'm a big fan of some of Russias milatry equipment (at that time), Backfire bomber, T-80. And BTW a war with them could have also involved strategic nukes so nobody would be safe. But let us remember why we were in West Germany, because after WWII Stalin was clearly intent on invading the west. Patton saw this, but people were already tired of war at that time. So his views (outspoken views) were not warmly recieved.


By the amount of resistance pulled up, I think you might reconsider soon, if not already.


Never said it would be a cake walk. I expect the closer you get to baghdad the more resistance you will encounter.


OK, those are valuable arguments. But if you look at images in e.g. Umm Qasr I see a lot of soldiers not wearing gas masks and who could be killed if they launched a chemical shell. US ground troops, when outside their vehicles, do not always have gas masks on. And you would not always notice gas is used, not all combat gasses are visible.


No but they are wearing their chem/bio suits underneath, good thing it's not 100+ outside. We have detection equipment. We have some modified AFV's to detect chem/bio usage. Some AFV's have detection equipment that is standard.


Even the Pentagon realises this. I have seen amusing footage of US soldiers getting low tech chemical/biological detectors such as pigeons in a cage (true, didn't you see it yourself?). The funny thing is that if the soldier would notice in the heat of battle his pigeon is dying he might himself be dead 10 seconds later. Gas masks alone are not enough, some gasses penetrate through skin and such a suit cannot be put on that fast you know.

Yes we also had those in 91 if I recall correctly. Their purpose I would wager is to be used outside of the vehicle when moving towards a target. I doubt anyone is going to be looking at the piegion in the heat of the battle as you said. See my above comment on suits. You need to look closely because of the kevlar that they wear, you might not be able to see it at all since it is worn underneath.

They are called:

Joint Service Lightweight Integrated Suit Technology and protects against all known or suspected chemical or biological agents.

Furthermore, if you are going to use WMD, you need to use them at a standoff range and hope the wind doesn't turn. As the Iraqi's have inferiour if at all any protection.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Mick_2002
True. But that was always a hypothetical war. What you might do or plan to do, gets tossed out the window as soon as a war starts. I'm on the side that russian tactics would have bogged them down very rapidly (no clear command and control). They could have punched thru the fuda gap at great cost. But unrelenting bombing of their supply facitlites (most notably oil production and stores) would have slowed them to a crawl. I don't doubt that a war at that time wouldn't have been protracted.
Remains the fact that is was considered and was part of the plan, whether or not the Russians would have won or not does not matter in this light. I'm sure the West Germans would not have appreciated "hypothetical" nukes detonating on their territory if they did go along their plan, and whether you find it likely or not and whether tactics change during war or not, it was the plan.
Originally posted by Mick_2002
No but they are wearing their chem/bio suits underneath, good thing it's not 100+ outside. We have detection equipment. We have some modified AFV's to detect chem/bio usage. Some AFV's have detection equipment that is standard.
OK, good argument, did not know it was underneath their cloathes, I thought they had to pull it over their suits to be able to ensure it is fully sealed, no contamined air can get it. This would be considerably slower, but if you say so, I guess you're right about that.
Originally posted by Mick_2002
Furthermore, if you are going to use WMD, you need to use them at a standoff range and hope the wind doesn't turn. As the Iraqi's have inferiour if at all any protection.
As the Iraqi's probably don't hold their chances high it is not unlikely they will do whatever they can to save their ass and kill that of Americans. And the Iraqi's can also make such stupid mistakes as the US did, so don't count on it they wouldn't if they had an opportunity, wind correct or not. Under fire by US artillery and ground troops in the heat of battle, it is not unlikely they would try if they could. There have also been already reports of suicide commands forcing women and children to be used as human shield, so why would there be no people to be found to use chemical weapons in a risky suicide attack?

[Mick]

Originally posted by Simon666

Remains the fact that is was considered and was part of the plan, whether or not the Russians would have won or not does not matter in this light. I'm sure the West Germans would not have appreciated "hypothetical" nukes detonating on their territory if they did go along their plan, and whether you find it likely or not and whether tactics change during war or not, it was the plan.


Not our plan. Our plan is 'No First Use' but we are going to be prepared. Times have changed. There is no reason for our troops to be in Germany IMHO.


OK, good argument, did not know it was underneath their cloathes, I thought they had to pull it over their suits to be able to ensure it is fully sealed, no contamined air can get it. This would be considerably slower, but if you say so, I guess you're right about that.


Each soilder is issued 2 chem/bio suits. Wouldn't make sense not to wear them and the hood can be tucked down, like wearing a sweat shirt/with hood and say a jacket over it.


As the Iraqi's probably don't hold their chances high it is not unlikely they will do whatever they can to save their ass and kill that of Americans. And the Iraqi's can also make such stupid mistakes as the US did, so don't count on it they wouldn't if they had an opportunity, wind correct or not. Under fire by US artillery and ground troops in the heat of battle, it is not unlikely they would try if they could. There have also been already reports of suicide commands forcing women and children to be used as human shield, so why would there be no people to be found to use chemical weapons in a risky suicide attack?

Yep, so much for Geneva Conventions being honored. But I guess you can't expect every enemy to act with honour.

[Elrond]

Originally posted by Mick_2002
Actually they had more tanks than the germans. They just spread them out. While the Germans used their blitzkrieg and concentrated armour tactics.
As far as I remember, they had about one division (may be not even a full division) of these new tank, the rest being tanks from the WWI -> Not nearly as efficients as the new ones.

No I wouldn't surrender if I beleived in what I was fighting for. My point is I do not think the vast majority of Iraqi soldiers believe in what they are fighting for.
I don't think they believed in fighting for SH, but I think the more it goes, the more they believe in fighting for their country. If it continues that way, they might fight as desesperate people, and that can really be dangerous.

Yep, so much for Geneva Conventions being honored. But I guess you can't expect every enemy to act with honour.

True, like bombing civilians. Most of the goverment facilities are surrounded by civilian buildings. I am not sure that it is SO important in the military opint of view to destroy them, but that is sure a way to make people angry. I even saw on TV that some of this facilitied contain civilian apartments. You can think of that as a way of using human shields, but when that's done in time of peace, it might just be to create homes for people.

We still have to see some WMD. Somehow I hope some will be found to make the war a little less pointless. I just hope it will really be a "dangerous" stock of them, and not something created by the US to justify the war. Will we ever know the truth?

[Gabriel Fleseriu]

I am affraid there is a big difference between theory and practice when it comes to ABC protection suits. If worn correctly, the light ones are effective only over a limited ammount of time, and not against all agents. The reality is that in the heat of the battle, the suits get damaged, are worn incorrectly because they often hinder the movement or hurt and so on. If you ever drove a large distance in a row, you probably know that after 14-16 hours of driving the most confortable sports shoes begin to become unpleasant. What do you think about a kevlar suit worn over 48 or even 72 hours in a row?

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Mick_2002
Not our plan. Our plan is 'No First Use' but we are going to be prepared. Times have changed. There is no reason for our troops to be in Germany IMHO.
I remain with my point. It was part of the plan if West Germany was attacked. And I believe the at the time "No First Use" policy was just a PR measure and to reassure Russia so that it wouldn't act stupid and launch missiles first/attack West Germany right away.
Originally posted by Mick_2002
Each soilder is issued 2 chem/bio suits. Wouldn't make sense not to wear them and the hood can be tucked down, like wearing a sweat shirt/with hood and say a jacket over it.
Due to the heat and the fact that these are closed to everything so all your sweat leaks into them, I think there are some military arguments for not wearing them. I remember the story in my newspaper that when introducing the suit to the press with great pride the soldier demonstrating it fainted due to the heat and the lights and in the room. And that is only on a demonstration, not even in the heat of Iraq and the heat of battle. Story here (http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/news/Nov2002/a20021114teusoldiers.html) and here (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20030105-9999_1n5biochem.html). If that were to happen in Iraq, the US army would progress, say, one meter per day? :D

Apparently there are also a number of flaws and problems but I didn't have the time yet to read the full articles.
Originally posted by Mick_2002
Yep, so much for Geneva Conventions being honored. But I guess you can't expect every enemy to act with honour.
Read my post in "War Developments". So is shooting soldiers who have surrendered. I guess you can't expect every friendly nation to act with honour. And I doubt the legality of cluster bombs, especially against civilians or targets where vast amounts of civilians are located as in Basra. Remember the huge number of unexploded munitions act as mines.

[Mick]

Originally posted by Gabriel Fleseriu
I am affraid there is a big difference between theory and practice when it comes to ABC protection suits. If worn correctly, the light ones are effective only over a limited ammount of time, and not against all agents. The reality is that in the heat of the battle, the suits get damaged, are worn incorrectly because they often hinder the movement or hurt and so on. If you ever drove a large distance in a row, you probably know that after 14-16 hours of driving the most confortable sports shoes begin to become unpleasant. What do you think about a kevlar suit worn over 48 or even 72 hours in a row?

Yes it is in theory to some extent. But then again, we do not go around bombing our own civilians with WMD to test that theory. And I know what is about to come with the syphilis testing. Attacking civilians? Saddam has a great history of that. I can't see how you can sit back there and defend him and say we are activley attacking civilians. I would love to hear your arguement on that. Would SH use civilians for his own purposes, yes and he had done so. Do we go through great lengths to minimize civilian casutalties, yes. So I have to ask what is your point on that?

And we wouldn't be wearing NBC suits if we didn't have to worry about him having WMD, would we? You are saying, well you could poke a hole in it, but the larger question is why do we have to wear them. It will be all out soon. Do you doubt, a regime that has already used them, just politely said, ohh ok, we will destory them..

[Mick]

Originally posted by Elrond

As far as I remember, they had about one division (may be not even a full division) of these new tank, the rest being tanks from the WWI -> Not nearly as efficients as the new ones.


I don't think they believed in fighting for SH, but I think the more it goes, the more they believe in fighting for their country. If it continues that way, they might fight as desesperate people, and that can really be dangerous.


Actually they outnumbered the germans in pure fire power and numbers, I'll have to go look this up, if you want it's been a bit since I researched WWII but I stand by what I say. The reanult tank was a fine piece of machinery back in those days. Again I say, the loose usage and the concentration of the early panzer tanks by the germans was the difference.


True, like bombing civilians. Most of the goverment facilities are surrounded by civilian buildings. I am not sure that it is SO important in the military opint of view to destroy them, but that is sure a way to make people angry. I even saw on TV that some of this facilitied contain civilian apartments. You can think of that as a way of using human shields, but when that's done in time of peace, it might just be to create homes for people.


I am sorry, we are human like you. Would you target a civilian? I'm not sure how you can say that we are targeting civilians? Please provide facts on that. What you see on TV has to be taken with a grain of salt, don't you think? Or do you believe everything the media reports? I don't.


We still have to see some WMD. Somehow I hope some will be found to make the war a little less pointless. I just hope it will really be a "dangerous" stock of them, and not something created by the US to justify the war. Will we ever know the truth?

There is a war going on there. Things get a little confusing in the fog of war. It will all come out. I just hope, people will learn a lesson in this. That is to never pacify someone that is clearly evil.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Mick_2002
It will be all out soon.
If the full truth to be out real soon would be that he didn't have WMD and no terrorist connections, would you rebuild the entire infrastructure you bombed, give medical aid and proper financial compensations to the families of the victims involved, both civilian and military and American and Iraqi, as in that case Iraqi soldiers would defend their country from an illegal attack? Would you make a humiliating public apology it is not true, you tried to make up false evidence to justify the war and risk the whole world to turn against you into eternity? Would your leaders risk their careers?

Or cheaper and easier, fabricate evidence he has?

[Mick]

Originally posted by Simon666

I remain with my point. It was part of the plan if West Germany was attacked. And I believe the at the time "No First Use" policy was just a PR measure and to reassure Russia so that it wouldn't act stupid and launch missiles first/attack West Germany right away.


As an American it goes to the fact that there is a gulf between you and I. Sadly, you do not understand what we stand for. I say to you again, we will not USE first. Many many americans would never obey such an order. I remind you many of my friends are in the Armed Forces. We will not use first. How clear on that can I be?



Due to the heat and the fact that these are closed to everything so all your sweat leaks into them, I think there are some military arguments for not wearing them. I remember the story in my newspaper that when introducing the suit to the press with great pride the soldier demonstrating it fainted due to the heat and the lights and in the room. And that is only on a demonstration, not even in the heat of Iraq and the heat of battle. Story here (http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/news/Nov2002/a20021114teusoldiers.html) and here (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20030105-9999_1n5biochem.html). If that were to happen in Iraq, the US army would progress, say, one meter per day? :D


I almost have to agree with you. My old man is a 27 year retired veteren of the DC police force (I always like to say he got his 15minutes of fame, he has a shot of just him running across the street when reagan got shot (time/life magazine), they took hinkley away in his patrol car) having said that, he never wore his bullet resistant (and I say resistant) vest while patroling the streets, his words, **** thing is too hot....



Apparently there are also a number of flaws and problems but I didn't have the time yet to read the full articles.

Read my post in "War Developments". So is shooting soldiers who have surrendered. I guess you can't expect every friendly nation to act with honour. And I doubt the legality of cluster bombs, especially against civilians or targets where vast amounts of civilians are located as in Basra. Remember the huge number of unexploded munitions act as mines.

Are you there? No? Niether am I. So many Iraqi soilders captured in the first gulf war put their cases to the Hague? Right? Right? Media is disinformation and propaganda, I urge you not to listen. As it leads to disucssions on re-clasiffcation about SCUDS.

[Mick]

Originally posted by Simon666

If the full truth to be out real soon would be that he didn't have WMD and no terrorist connections, would you rebuild the entire infrastructure you bombed, give medical aid and proper financial compensations to the families of the victims involved, both civilian and military and American and Iraqi, as in that case Iraqi soldiers would defend their country from an illegal attack? Would you make a humiliating public apology it is not true, you tried to make up false evidence to justify the war and risk the whole world to turn against you into eternity? Would your leaders risk their careers?

Or cheaper and easier, fabricate evidence he has?

1. It has already been proven in the past he has WMD. Why would he not have them now. Or do you believe what SH says to you?
2. Yes we will rebuild Iraq. How is that not evident. We will spend billions of our money to rebuild Iraq. Have not the American people done so before? Or do you not remember _your_ history?
3. No public apology will be necassary. You seem to forget who you are defending. I'm sorry to have to say your back in conspiracy land. I've asked you before to read expatriate accounts, so far I don't think you have, or do you believe the CIA is paying them? Please do not turn a blind eye to the iraqi plight, read the accounts, read the history, look at the history. Digest it, understand it.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Mick_2002
As an American it goes to the fact that there is a gulf between you and I. Sadly, you do not understand what we stand for. I say to you again, we will not USE first. Many many americans would never obey such an order. I remind you many of my friends are in the Armed Forces. We will not use first. How clear on that can I be?
I've seen training of missile operators in the US and I have the distinct impression their entire education is based on obeying to the unlikely and undesirably. So they WILL launch first if ordered to. Don't try to fool people here.
Originally posted by Mick_2002
Are you there? No? Niether am I. So many Iraqi soilders captured in the first gulf war put their cases to the Hague? Right? Right? Media is disinformation and propaganda, I urge you not to listen. As it leads to disucssions on re-clasiffcation about SCUDS.
I can tell you haven't read my post as you also would have read my reaction to Cimperiali. Come back when you read it. And by the way, even CNN says now they were NOT scuds. Upset? Disappointed?
Originally posted by Mick_2002
1. It has already been proven in the past he has WMD. Why would he not have them now. Or do you believe what SH says to you?
2. Yes we will rebuild Iraq. How is that not evident. We will spend billions of our money to rebuild Iraq. Have not the American people done so before? Or do you not remember _your_ history?
3. No public apology will be necassary. You seem to forget who you are defending. I'm sorry to have to say your back in conspiracy land. I've asked you before to read expatriate accounts, so far I don't think you have, or do you believe the CIA is paying them? Please do not turn a blind eye to the iraqi plight, read the accounts, read the history, look at the history. Digest it, understand it.

You're not answering to my question, you're carefully evading it. If (look at the if in my post) all of what I posted would come out true, would the US do all of what I asked? Even if unlikely?

[Elrond]

Originally posted by Mick_2002
I am sorry, we are human like you. Would you target a civilian? I'm not sure how you can say that we are targeting civilians? Please provide facts on that. What you see on TV has to be taken with a grain of salt, don't you think? Or do you believe everything the media reports? I don't.

I don't say you target civilians. I say you bomb target that contain civilians.

There's probably a lot of think that might or might not be true on TV, but when they say that government facilities also host civilians, I don't think they just invented that one.

But may be you don't believe that any civilian has been hit so far.

I know this is war, and people die in wars, including civilian, but some of the targets in the centre of Bagdad will cause a lot of civilian casualties for a very limited (or inexistent) military advantage.

[Mick]

Originally posted by Elrond


I don't say you target civilians. I say you bomb target that contain civilians.

There's probably a lot of think that might or might not be true on TV, but when they say that government facilities also host civilians, I don't think they just invented that one.

But may be you don't believe that any civilian has been hit so far.

I know this is war, and people die in wars, including civilian, but some of the targets in the centre of Bagdad will cause a lot of civilian casualties for a very limited (or inexistent) military advantage.

No I firmly believe there have been civilian casutaties. I am just disputing the fact that people seem to think we target them in a caviliar attitude. The structures are command and control structures. We are not there, we do not know.

[Elrond]

Originally posted by Mick_2002
1. It has already been proven in the past he has WMD. Why would he not have them now. Or do you believe what SH says to you?
We now he HAD them, he might not have any WMD of any value anymore. Even if he has some that he didn't destroyed, it might be so old that it wouldn't harm you, would you try to breathe it.

I know SH lies a lot. He may say the truth sometimes. And if you have done all this war for a barrel of old gaz, it seems a little vain. As I said, I hope there will be more...

2. Yes we will rebuild Iraq. How is that not evident. We will spend billions of our money to rebuild Iraq. Have not the American people done so before? Or do you not remember _your_ history?
It is NOT evident at all.

And I don't speak only about the US. I speak about every country. The international community made promesses for a lot of money for Afghanistan. They had almost none. Most of the money that came to rebuild and help people in Afghanistan has come from helping organism, not from public money from the international countries. This is not what was promised, and in that I talk about European countries as well as USA and others.

And the USA will have spend so much money in this war, to what you can add that it has lost a lot of money since Bush is president. You won't have much money to spend to help Iraq being rebuilt.

It is even likely that Bush hopes that most of the other countries will feel guilty about what happened or something, and will give enough money to rebuilt Iraq so the US won't have to.

[Mick]

Originally posted by Simon666

I've seen training of missile operators in the US and I have the distinct impression their entire education is based on obeying to the unlikely and undesirably. So they WILL launch first if ordered to. Don't try to fool people here.


Propaganda in full swing. Which movie were you watching when you deduced that?


I can tell you haven't read my post as you also would have read my reaction to Cimperiali. Come back when you read it. And by the way, even CNN says now they were NOT scuds. Upset? Disappointed?


I read it. Your not there, who's to say some bomb didn't kill those soldiers, whos to say they were not fighting? You are not there, nor am I. No I'm not upset about the SCUDS, I was just answering your post before based on misinformation. Doesn't it just prove that watching/listening to the media leads to false facts.


You're not answering to my question, you're carefully evading it. If (look at the if in my post) all of what I posted would come out true, would the US do all of what I asked? Even if unlikely?

No and you evaded my prime question in 2 war or not. When you answer that, I'll answer yours. Go back and read it, the 'defend that' part...

[Mick]

Originally posted by Elrond

We now he HAD them, he might not have any WMD of any value anymore. Even if he has some that he didn't destroyed, it might be so old that it wouldn't harm you, would you try to breathe it.


I'm not going to do the sniff test are you? :)


I know SH lies a lot. He may say the truth sometimes. And if you have done all this war for a barrel of old gaz, it seems a little vain. As I said, I hope there will be more...


Whoa there big fella, What truth, what truth do you think SH has said?


It is NOT evident at all.

And I don't speak only about the US. I speak about every country. The international community made promesses for a lot of money for Afghanistan. They had almost none. Most of the money that came to rebuild and help people in Afghanistan has come from helping organism, not from public money from the international countries. This is not what was promised, and in that I talk about European countries as well as USA and others.

And the USA will have spend so much money in this war, to what you can add that it has lost a lot of money since Bush is president. You won't have much money to spend to help Iraq being rebuilt.



Lets get something straight here. I don't like Bush, I hate the idiot. I would rather my trillion dollar tax cut gone to the defict. But the fact remains we are 40+% of the world economy, 100 billion is a drop in the bucket. And I'm sorry the european comunity isn't helping more, but I think some have. I know we have put billions into afghaninstan.

It is even likely that Bush hopes that most of the other countries will feel guilty about what happened or something, and will give enough money to rebuilt Iraq so the US won't have to.

Yes. Help us rebuild other countries. Isn't this what everyone is here for? Help us help the starving and the needly. Which country has contributed more to the world than the US?

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Mick_2002
Propaganda in full swing. Which movie were you watching when you deduced that?
Not movie, documentary. Can't remember. If you want to, I'll look it up. If it were an unobjective documentary, would the US army have allowed it?
Originally posted by Mick_2002
I read it. Your not there, who's to say some bomb didn't kill those soldiers, whos to say they were not fighting? You are not there, nor am I. No I'm not upset about the SCUDS, I was just answering your post before based on misinformation. Doesn't it just prove that watching/listening to the media leads to false facts.
Still not read it? I said myself I was not there and so on. And since when is CNN a false source when if it were scuds it would be good news for the US? Is CNN involved in one of the conspiracies you accuse me to believe?
Originally posted by Mick_2002
No and you evaded my prime question in 2 war or not. When you answer that, I'll answer yours. Go back and read it, the 'defend that' part...
Which one would the prime question be? :rolleyes: A link would help. And it is easy to say answer that, you know pretty well that thread was closed on your own request.

[Mick]

Originally posted by Simon666

Not movie, documentary. Can't remember. If you want to, I'll look it up. If it were an unobjective documentary, would the US army have allowed it?


Yep look it up, I'm interested. Are you saying we represt all documentaries? Micahel Moore is in trouble then :)


Still not read it? I said myself I was not there and so on. And since when is CNN a false source when if it were scuds it would be good news for the US? Is CNN involved in one of the conspiracies you accuse me to believe?


I don't watch CNN other than crossfire, it's a bunch of drivel.


Which one would the prime question be? :rolleyes: A link would help. And it is easy to say answer that, you know pretty well that thread was closed on your own request.

Do I have to do all the work for you :) :) here's the link... the defend that part. I asked that the thread be closed because _we_ you and I seem to be firm in our believes (passionate), and I agree with Gabe saying that we are what could be seen as attacking each other which I don't think is the case. But it's besides the point the original question was to war or not to war, we are at war, so the point is moot.

http://www.codeguru.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=230111&perpage=15&pagenumber=17

[Simon666]

I'm gone for Chinese dinner for a couple of hours. Could you post a direct link by the time I come back? Probably till tomorrow then.

[Mick]

Originally posted by Simon666
I'm gone for Chinese dinner for a couple of hours. Could you post a direct link by the time I come back? Probably till tomorrow then.

I thought I did, try opening the link and cntrl-F searching for defending

BTW: pick me up some beef and broc :) :) :) fried rice with that 2 :)

[SolarFlare]

Can't we just start a thread called "The Simon and Mick show" (or "The Mick and Simon show" - you'd have to fight for that) where you two just go at it, no restrictions, the rest of us can all watch in amusement but not say anything? :D:D:D

[Simon666]

Originally posted by solarflare
Can't we just start a thread called "The Simon and Mick show" (or "The Mick and Simon show" - you'd have to fight for that) where you two just go at it, no restrictions, the rest of us can all watch in amusement but not say anything? :D:D:D
How about we settle this like in an MTV deathmatch? :D I like the Marilyn Manson skeleton rip. :cool:
Originally posted by Mick_2002
The pacifist view of 'don't rock the boat' your interrupting my beautiful life, that I can go home from work, and fix a nice dinner for my family, and tuck them away all satisfied at night. Meanwhile while I am protesting, I forget, that what I am doing is religating millions of people to DEATH. Starvation try reading about it, try reading about toture, rape and murder. Try protesting in the streets when a dictator drags your family away. But it's ok, I don't have to see that on the TV. I'd rather watch a military action that saves lives and protest about it. I'd much rather prefer the millions that are starving because of dictators (see North korea please and Iraq please) just go away and die and not bother my little world. It's ok, after all Saddam and Kim Jong will die, they won't be replace by a son or a cronnie, the starvation won't go on...but that bad bad USA..I just can't understand why they would choose a 1000 deaths over 10 million, there they go rocking the boat again...btw have you seen my peace sign?
Is this your fabulous argument?

As far as starvation is concerned: the US bombed electricity plants in Basra so they are without food and electricity. And when the shiites go to the US troops they get no water and no food. Instead, I heard on the news the first thing shipped in by the engineers are pipelines to restore oil production, no humanitarian aid for the people starving due to US actions. And then wondering why they are not glad in the south. And do you think they forgot the old Bush told them to rise up but allowed the Republican Guard to massacre them? For them, Operation Iraqi Freedom is a cruel joke as they may be very hungry, but they don't eat US bullshit.

As far as rape, mass murder and torture, that track record is shear meaningless to the even worse toll of the humanitarian catastrophe caused by the US, deaths due to bombardments and the outbreak of diseases due to the lack of water and electricity, which can easily run into thousands or tens of thousands, the US is the greatest war criminal ever as this war is illegal. That is what we are protesting against. The starvation is currently bigger than ever, so I do prefer 1000 deaths over 10.000's due to the bad, bad USA.

How about shipping in humanitarian supplies in through Umm Qasr? To dangerous I hear? Not under control? It would cause unnecessary casualties? I thought it first was secure. But enough bitter sarcasm, even then the US doesn't care about unnecessary casualties as they want speed at the cost of the soldiers in the rear and elsewhere, just to appease the markets, the shareholders.

And the final result: the oil price will be 10 cents lower and stable for a longer period. Ten thousands of deaths for ten cents a gallon (around that) less, a justified price for George W. Bush who has no daughters at the front and whose home does not risk being bombed to smithereens. Hurray for the good ole USA. The entire world will bare the fruit and pay ten cents less (in Europe due to taxes nothing will probably change). That is what will happen when we appease to a dictator, and I mean Bush.

[Mick]

M comes before S. But I'm sure Simon would dispute that :) :) :)

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Mick_2002
M comes before S. But I'm sure Simon would dispute that :) :) :)
Indeed. Last time I checked, 666 came before 2002. :p :cool:

[Mick]

Originally posted by Simon666

How about we settle this like in an MTV deathmatch? :D I like the Marilyn Manson skeleton rip. :cool:

Is this your fabulous argument?

[QUOTE]
As far as starvation is concerned: the US bombed electricity plants in Basra so they are without food and electricity. And when the shiites go to the US troops they get no water and no food. Instead, I heard on the news the first thing shipped in by the engineers are pipelines to restore oil production, no humanitarian aid for the people starving due to US actions. And then wondering why they are not glad in the south. And do you think they forgot the old Bush told them to rise up but allowed the Republican Guard to massacre them? For them, Operation Iraqi Freedom is a cruel joke as they may be very hungry, but they don't eat US bullshit.

As far as rape, mass murder and torture, that track record is shear meaningless to the even worse toll of the humanitarian catastrophe caused by the US, deaths due to bombardments and the outbreak of diseases due to the lack of water and electricity, which can easily run into thousands or tens of thousands, the US is the greatest war criminal ever as this war is illegal. That is what we are protesting against. The starvation is currently bigger than ever, so I do prefer 1000 deaths over 10.000's due to the bad, bad USA.

How about shipping in humanitarian supplies in through Umm Qasr? To dangerous I hear? Not under control? It would cause unnecessary casualties? I thought it first was secure. But enough bitter sarcasm, even then the US doesn't care about unnecessary casualties as they want speed at the cost of the soldiers in the rear and elsewhere, just to appease the markets, the shareholders.

And the final result: the oil price will be 10 cents lower and stable for a longer period. Ten thousands of deaths for ten cents a gallon (around that) less, a justified price for George W. Bush who has no daughters at the front and whose home does not risk being bombed to smithereens. Hurray for the good ole USA. The entire world will bare the fruit and pay ten cents less (in Europe due to taxes nothing will probably change). That is what will happen when we appease to a dictator, and I mean Bush.

Sorry I don't check the price of Gas as I fill up. But then I have a Gas friendly car. Humanitarin aid will flow when it is safe to flow. What you say is well again ridculous. Maybe you should look up how many Billions, that's with a 'B' the US puts out for humanitatiran aid.

EDIT: Engineers are being sent in to cap the oil fields set afire by iraqi's, I know I know, we bombed them and that set them on fire. Just like the oil trenchs we set on fire outside of baghdad. Nice pictures of Baghdad BTW lets make our own people breath the smoke from the oil trenches.

[SolarFlare]

Originally posted by Simon666
Indeed. Last time I checked, 666 came before 2002.
Hehe! Just a note, you have in above post Originally posted by solarflare for the second quote, which should be Mick I think.

So you can replace "solarflare" with "Mick665" ;).

[SolarFlare]

Hasn't anybody said anything about Bush's successful attempt to solve the problem of overpopulation? US army's next destination: India. Only kidding :D!

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Mick_2002
Sorry I don't check the price of Gas as I fill up. But then I have a Gas friendly car. Humanitarin aid will flow when it is safe to flow. What you say is well again ridculous. Maybe you should look up how many Billions, that's with a 'B' the US puts out for humanitatiran aid.
I told you before, why not now, as it appears speed is more important than the lives of soldiers, which is in turn more important than hundreds of Iraqi's dying to starvation? And as far as the humanitarian aid is concerned, due to the war, it is drastically lowered. Another nice effect.
Originally posted by Mick_2002
EDIT: Engineers are being sent in to cap the oil fields set afire by iraqi's, I know I know, we bombed them and that set them on fire. Just like the oil trenchs we set on fire outside of baghdad. Nice pictures of Baghdad BTW lets make our own people breath the smoke from the oil trenches.
Remains the fact that those seven oilwells are not that much of a problem as it will take a while to put them out anyway. The population is starving right now. And wasn't this about the people, getting a taste of US freedom, MacDonalds and Coke,... oh, the water must come druling in their mouth. And not for freedom, but from the hunger.
Originally posted by solarflare
Hehe! Just a note, you have in above post Originally posted by solarflare for the second quote, which should be Mick I think.
Sorry, it is 11 at night here. The thinking goes a lot worse, especially Mick will be able to tell you it's true. :D
Originally posted by solarflare
So you can replace "solarflare" with "Mick665".
You're the neighbour of the Beast? :D

[SolarFlare]

And another point - Bush is doing the whole world a favor by teaching them a lesson, without getting them in direct danger. The ultimate moral we should learn from all this is: don't elect a stupid president. Oh wait, we didn't elect him.

[Mick]

Originally posted by Simon666

Sorry, it is 11 at night here. The thinking goes a lot worse, especially Mick will be able to tell you it's true. :D


Take a nap.


BTW: since this thread is about WMD and how we started babbling back in forth about absolutly nothing.

How is it, that people will believe that Saddam will try and obtain nuclear capabilities but cannot believe he would or has chemical/ biological weapons.


Requirement:
Res. 687 (3 April 1991) Requires Iraq to declare, destroy, remove, or render harmless under UN or IAEA supervision and not to use, develop, construct, or acquire all chemical and biological weapons, all ballistic missiles with ranges greater than 150 km, and all nuclear weapons-usable material, including related material, equipment, and facilities. The resolution also formed the Special Commission and authorized the IAEA to carry out immediate on-site inspections of WMD-related facilities based on Iraq's declarations and UNSCOM's designation of any additional locations.

Result:
Baghdad refused to declare all parts of each WMD program, submitted several declarations as part of its aggressive efforts to deny and deceive inspectors, and ensured that certain elements of the program would remain concealed. The prohibition against developing delivery platforms with ranges greater than 150 km allowed Baghdad to research and develop shorter-range systems with applications for longer-range systems and did not affect Iraqi efforts to convert full-size aircraft into unmanned aerial vehicles as potential WMD delivery systems with ranges far beyond 150 km.

Requirement:
Res. 707 (15 August 1991) Requires Iraq to allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to any site they wish to inspect. Demands Iraq provide full, final, and complete disclosure of all aspects of its WMD programs; cease immediately any attempt to conceal, move, or destroy WMD-related material or equipment; allow UNSCOM and IAEA teams to use fixed-wing and helicopter flights throughout Iraq; and respond fully, completely, and promptly to any Special Commission questions or requests.

Result:
Baghdad in 1996 negotiated with UNSCOM Executive Chairman Ekeus modalities that it used to delay inspections, to restrict to four the number of inspectors allowed into any site Baghdad declared as "sensitive," and to prohibit them altogether from sites regarded as sovereign. These modalities gave Iraq leverage over individual inspections. Iraq eventually allowed larger numbers of inspectors into such sites but only after lengthy negotiations at each site.

Requirement:
Res. 715 (11 October 1991) Requires Iraq to submit to UNSCOM and IAEA long-term monitoring of Iraqi WMD programs; approved detailed plans called for in UNSCRs 687 and 707 for long-term monitoring.

Result:
Iraq generally accommodated UN monitors at declared sites but occasionally obstructed access and manipulated monitoring cameras. UNSCOM and IAEA monitoring of Iraq's WMD programs does not have a specified end date under current UN resolutions.

Requirement:
Res. 1051 (27 March 1996) Established the Iraqi export/import monitoring system, requiring UN members to provide IAEA and UNSCOM with information on materials exported to Iraq that may be applicable to WMD production, and requiring Iraq to report imports of all dual-use items.

Result:
Iraq is negotiating contracts for procuring—outside of UN controls—dual-use items with WMD applications. The UN lacks the staff needed to conduct thorough inspections of goods at Iraq's borders and to monitor imports inside Iraq.

Requirement:
Res. 1060 (12 June 1996) and Resolutions 1115, 1134, 1137, 1154, 1194, and 1205. Demands that Iraq cooperate with UNSCOM and allow inspection teams immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to facilities for inspection and access to Iraqi officials for interviews. UNSCR 1137 condemns Baghdad's refusal to allow entry to Iraq to UNSCOM officials on the grounds of their nationality and its threats to the safety of UN reconnaissance aircraft.

Result:
Baghdad consistently sought to impede and limit UNSCOM's mission in Iraq by blocking access to numerous facilities throughout the inspection process, often sanitizing sites before the arrival of inspectors and routinely attempting to deny inspectors access to requested sites and individuals. At times, Baghdad would promise compliance to avoid consequences, only to renege later.

Requirement:
Res. 1154 (2 March 1998) Demands that Iraq comply with UNSCOM and IAEA inspections and endorses the Secretary General's memorandum of understanding with Iraq, providing for "severest consequences" if Iraq fails to comply.

Res. 1194 (9 September 1998) Condemns Iraq's decision to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA.

Res. 1205 (5 November 1998) Condemns Iraq's decision to cease cooperation with UNSCOM.

Result:
UNSCOM could not exercise its mandate without Iraqi compliance. Baghdad refused to work with UNSCOM and instead negotiated with the Secretary General, whom it believed would be more sympathetic to Iraq's needs.

[Simon666]

I don't give a shit. None of these contains "by all means necessary" and I can give you an even longer list of violations by another state with weapons of mass destruction, you know which one I'm talking of: Israel.

And you don't answer me why it is more important the engineers have equipment with them to restore pipelines and oil installations while the burning ones aren't put out yet and the rebuilding hasn't started. Those trucks could contain food and supplies. And no answer either why speed is more important than the lives of soldiers, in turn more important than hundreds or Iraqi people, who it is supposed to be all about, starving of hunger, thirst and diseases due to the US bombing power plants and water pipelines and making food transports dangerous.

And before accusing me of the same (not answering something): I'm still looking for that documentary. I get too many hits on Google. Using Rocketshiki I found another documentary I saw on the BBC about their Russian equivalent.

[SolarFlare]

Originally posted by Simon666
I can give you an even longer list of violation by another state with weapons of mass destruction, you know which one I'm talking of: Israel.

Israel isn't in violation of resolutions passed by the UN.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by solarflare
Israel isn't in violation of resolutions passed by the UN.
Oh reeeaaaallllyyyy? (http://www.middleeastnews.com/unresolutionslist.html)

[SolarFlare]

Originally posted by Simon666
And no answer either why speed is more important than the lives of soldiers, in turn more important than hundreds or Iraqi people
Amelioration of American displeasure for their own government.

[SolarFlare]

Originally posted by Simon666
Oh reeeaaaallllyyyy? (http://www.middleeastnews.com/unresolutionslist.html)
Yes reeeaaaallllyyy. Those are opinions, not orders, from the UN. And look at the source, you fool. Do you think that site is the place to get unbiased facts about Israel?

[Simon666]

Originally posted by solarflare
Yes reeeaaaallllyyy. Those are opinions, not orders, from the UN. And look at the source, you fool. Do you think that site is the place to get unbiased facts about Israel?

Still reeeaaalllyyy? (http://www.rightoutthere.com/articles/resolutionsrejected.html)

[SolarFlare]

Originally posted by Simon666
Still reeeaaalllyyy? (http://www.rightoutthere.com/articles/resolutionsrejected.html)
Okay, so Israel deported a few Palestinians, and Iraq wants to nuke the world.

Also, Israel's latest "crime" was over a decade ago. I tried looking for those citations on the un webpage (un.org (http://www.un.org)), but trying to load the actual resolution documents kept freezing my computer. Doesn't my new optical mouse do anything to improve processor speed??

[Simon666]

Originally posted by solarflare
Okay, so Israel deported a few Palestinians, and Iraq wants to nuke the world.
I know Israel is supposed to be a democracy (although it is going fast downhill now), but Iraq wanting to nuke the world? just the US and Israel and you know pretty well there is a difference between wanting and being able, both by not having the means (fake Nigerian documents, non-existing IAEA report about those aluminium tubes) and by knowing what the response would be. Saddam didn't use WMD last time against Israel and the US, remember, and remember why?

And Israel has more or less a system of Apartheid, where Palestinians are systematically discriminated and held back, undisputedly. Not an example of a model democracy either.

Originally posted by solarflare
Also, Israel's latest "crime" was over a decade ago.
You're even giving me more fuel. Bush said Iraq has defied the UN for 12 years as argument to show Saddam's evilness, Israel for even decades more. Deporting hundreds of thousands of Palestinians (a few?!?!) in both 1948 and 1967 is not exactly a small crime either.

[SolarFlare]

Originally posted by Simon666
... knowing what the response would be. Saddam didn't use WMD last time against Israel and the US, remember, and remember why?
First of all, MAD is not proven to work. And if he did fire off a nuke, it would affect every living being on this planet, not just a few million people.

Additionally, Saddam did try to use WMD against Israel. He fired (I think this is the correct number, but not certain) 39 Scuds at Israel, many loaded with WMD cargo. And obviously he didn't do that to the US because he didn't (and doesn't) have the technology.

[SolarFlare]

I think a huge problem here is that we're disagreeing on the facts.

[Mick]

Originally posted by Simon666

I know Israel is supposed to be a democracy (although it is going fast downhill now), but Iraq wanting to nuke the world? just the US and Israel and you know pretty well there is a difference between wanting and being able, both by not having the means



Add Iran and Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and Syria (well maybe not just yet, they are buddy buddy right now)...the list of targets for SH is long and distinguished.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by solarflare
First of all, MAD is not proven to work. And if he did fire off a nuke, it would affect every living being on this planet, not just a few million people.
First of all, scientifically one nuke affecting everybody on earth is crap. A nuke typically contains a few tens of kilos of fissile materials, in Chernobyl, tens of tons went up into the air. It would affect the minds and policies of everybody on earth however.
Originally posted by solarflare
Additionally, Saddam did try to use WMD against Israel. He fired (I think this is the correct number, but not certain) 39 Scuds at Israel, many loaded with WMD cargo. And obviously he didn't do that to the US because he didn't (and doesn't) have the technology.
Based on what? As far as I know, all these scuds had no WMD charge, some were only filled with concrete.

[galathaea]

There were 42 missiles sent towards Israel. All analyses of Scud debris showed conventional warheads only. No evidence of any biological or chemical payload in any of the missiles...

[SolarFlare]

I don't think arguing over whether Israel or Iraq is worse will help the situation. There's only one thing we can know about them for sure: they both start with 'I'. Wait a sec, does this mean both Iran and India have also been defying the Security Counsel?

[Mick]

Originally posted by solarflare
I think a huge problem here is that we're disagreeing on the facts.

And the fact that alot of people around the world are basing their opinions on things that are not _FACTS_. I like to stick with facts. It helps :)

Do not trust what is being reported to you is my motto :) :) :) Though I will make the occasional sarcastic comment. Please don't misconstrue that I actually believe any of the bunk (and it is bunk right now) that is being spewed from the media. I believe things that make sense but only truely believe them when I can see the evidence. I am not paranoid everyone is after me :)

Saddam having WMD makes sense. But until I snort a line of Anthrax I can't point a definiatve finger and say he has them. But I can put my opinion out that he does, based on the history of the man (I call him man so you'll understand, I prefer animal) and the history of his baath party.

[SolarFlare]

Originally posted by Simon666
First of all, scientifically one nuke affecting everybody on earth is crap.
That's right. And the retalliation would be virtually harmless, right again?
Originally posted by Simon666
A nuke typically contains a few tens of kilos of fissile materials
Whoa whoa whoa there you go again Simon!! Check the facts. Maybe you have some baby nukes like that, but I certainly don't. The largest unclassified nukes the US possesses are hundreds of megatons. Besides, the effects of radiation from the two nukes off in Japan are still being studied.
Originally posted by Simon666
Based on what? As far as I know, all these scuds had no WMD charge, some were only filled with concrete.
There are reports that he had missiles loaded with chemical and biological weapons and groups which had orders to fire them if Iraq or Hussein was ever in danger. And don't you say "oh, it was only a report?" What do you think all the information you've ever seen is?

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Mick_2002
Add Iran and Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and Syria (well maybe not just yet, they are buddy buddy right now)...the list of targets for SH is long and distinguished.
Even if, would you object? Iran is already considered part of the Axis of Evil, Syria is considered as a next target as considered a state that supports terrorism and Saudi Arabia is proven to house terrorist (15 of 19 hijackers, remember), problem with this despicable regime, as bad or even worse than Saddam, is that the US is rather buddy-buddy in spite of all.

I doubt him targetting Syria, as you say, they are buddy-buddy. Iran is even more unlikely as it is far more powerful now than in the eighties and as it looks now would have a nuke way before Saddam could if there would have been no second Gulf War. Strategically and tacticly this is not a good idea Mick. :D And Saudi Arabia, as far as I'm concerned, he can blow them to smithereens. I do not recall he had such serious issues with them that he intended to make war with them. Kuwait and Israel okay.

[Mick]

Originally posted by galathaea
There were 42 missiles sent towards Israel. All analyses of Scud debris showed conventional warheads only. No evidence of any biological or chemical payload in any of the missiles...

There is much to be said for Saddam's "restrant" in the 91 war. Or the fact that Israel has nuclear capability though I for one was suprised by their restrant. I expected Israel to strike back and strike back hard. I expect them to do the same even more so, should the US fail and not prevent launches from western Iraq in the current conflict.

Lets not get bogged down in Israel.

[Mick]

Originally posted by solarflare
Whoa whoa whoa there you go again Simon!! Check the facts. Maybe you have some baby nukes like that, but I certainly don't. The largest unclassified nukes the US possesses are hundreds of megatons. Besides, the effects of radiation from the two nukes off in Japan are still being studied.


You know I wouldn't be surprised if it had 'Made in Texas' stamped on them. You know, everything is big in Texas.

[SolarFlare]

Originally posted by Mick_2002
There is much to be said for Saddam's "restrant" in the 91 war. Or the fact that Israel has nuclear capability though I for one was suprised by their restrant. I expected Israel to strike back and strike back hard. I expect them to do the same even more so, should the US fail and not prevent launches from western Iraq in the current conflict.

Well, Saddam wasn't nearly conquered in the Gulf War. He will be in this one. Israel didn't retalliate last time only because of US pressure to not respond. The US is obviously their huge ally, so they had to obey. Israel would have struck back hard, albeit not with nukes. At the moment, Iraq probably doesn't even have deployment systems powerful enough to reach Israel. And if they do, Israel have already vowed that this time the will fight back, and hard.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by solarflare
That's right. And the retalliation would be virtually harmless, right again?
Iraq is not that big. If you would use everything you had it would be overkill. A strikeback against strategic targets or a couple of cities would even then release much less radio-active material than in the Chernobyl blast. Not that that was harmless either, but did you notice anything? I didn't.
Originally posted by solarflare
Whoa whoa whoa there you go again Simon!! Check the facts. Maybe you have some baby nukes like that, but I certainly don't. The largest unclassified nukes the US possesses are hundreds of megatons. Besides, the effects of radiation from the two nukes off in Japan are still being studied.
Check the above about overkill and such. A probable nuclear counter attack would consist probably of tens or hundreds of kilos, not tons. The smallest amount of plutonium needed for an atom bomb is classified though estimated at around 8 kilo. The amount of radio-active material is also coming from other stuff than plutonium, such as materials around the bomb holding it together, but their half lifes are shorter. Complex stuff, but nevertheless, it would not be worse than Chernobyl. And people are living pretty much "normal" again in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Cancers are much higher ofcourse.
Originally posted by solarflare
There are reports that he had missiles loaded with chemical and biological weapons and groups which had orders to fire them if Iraq or Hussein was ever in danger. And don't you say "oh, it was only a report?" What do you think all the information you've ever seen is?
I did hear that too and I think it is true. But what you said about those landing on Israel is not true. And even if it is true (probable), than we're back at point one: were these weapons really destroyed and if not, can they still cause harm so that action would be necessary?

[Simon666]

Anyway, see you guys tomorrow. I'm off. It is 0.30 in the morning here.

[Mick]

Originally posted by Simon666

Even if, would you object? Iran is already considered part of the Axis of Evil, Syria is considered as a next target as considered a state that supports terrorism and Saudi Arabia is proven to house terrorist (15 of 19 hijackers, remember), problem with this despicable regime, as bad or even worse than Saddam, is that the US is rather buddy-buddy in spite of all.

I doubt him targetting Syria, as you say, they are buddy-buddy. Iran is even more unlikely as it is far more powerful now than in the eighties and as it looks now would have a nuke way before Saddam could if there would have been no second Gulf War. Strategically and tacticly this is not a good idea Mick. :D And Saudi Arabia, as far as I'm concerned, he can blow them to smithereens. I do not recall he had such serious issues with them that he intended to make war with them. Kuwait and Israel okay.

Do you know why I am cool with Iran and China? Because there are outspoken dissidents.. There is a freedom movement going on in both countries...check it out. If you can't do it for yourselfs (Iraq) we will do it for you (that one is just for you Simon) :)

God Bless America Land that I Love (sing it with me now!)

[Mick]

Originally posted by Simon666
Anyway, see you guys tomorrow. I'm off. It is 0.30 in the morning here.

Night Simon!!!

[SolarFlare]

Originally posted by Simon666
Iraq is not that big. If you would use everything you had it would be overkill. A strikeback against strategic targets or a couple of cities would even then release much less radio-active material than in the Chernobyl blast. Not that that was harmless either, but did you notice anything? I didn't.
Are you saying that if a nation launched a nuclear weapon it wouldn't be a big deal?
Originally posted by Simon666
Cancers are much higher ofcourse.

Okay, so let's just find a cure for cancer and then we can nuke whomever we want.
Originally posted by Simon666
were these weapons really destroyed and if not, can they still cause harm so that action would be necessary?
I agree with you here, that is improbable.

[edit: removed inaccurate statistics on Fat Boy and Little Man]

[Mick]

Originally posted by Simon666

Iraq is not that big. If you would use everything you had it would be overkill. A strikeback against strategic targets or a couple of cities would even then release much less radio-active material than in the Chernobyl blast. Not that that was harmless either, but did you notice anything? I didn't.

Check the above about overkill and such. A probable nuclear counter attack would consist probably of tens or hundreds of kilos, not tons. The smallest amount of plutonium needed for an atom bomb is classified though estimated at around 8 kilo. The amount of radio-active material is also coming from other stuff than plutonium, such as materials around the bomb holding it together, but their half lifes are shorter. Complex stuff, but nevertheless, it would not be worse than Chernobyl. And people are living pretty much "normal" again in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Cancers are much higher ofcourse.

I did hear that too and I think it is true. But what you said about those landing on Israel is not true. And even if it is true (probable), than we're back at point one: were these weapons really destroyed and if not, can they still cause harm so that action would be necessary?


I hope we never reach the day where we have to check just how much radiation was released from a nuclear warhead. Alot of people forget that the firebombing of tokyo killed more than both atomic bombs combined. But back in that day, it was ok to bomb civilian targets and yes the nazi's were the first to bomb civilian targets if we are talking WWII, doesn't make it right, nor do I think the allies would have hesitated to bomb civilian targets first. I was a mind set back then, the worlds thinking has changed for the better since.

[galathaea]

Actually, they were around 15 and 22 kiloton devices, respectively. But I am not defending Simon666's line of reasoning here (in fact I think with 200,000+ immediate deaths, the thinking goes the other way)...

[SolarFlare]

Originally posted by galathaea
Actually, they were around 15 and 22 kiloton devices, respectively. But I am not defending Simon666's line of reasoning here (in fact I think with 200,000+ immediate deaths, the thinking goes the other way)...
Yes those numbers are right, mine are wrong... I was thinking of something else at the time I typed it, sorry. But there were fewer than that many immediate deaths, although the exact number is a petty detail.

[Mick]

Yes and I think our newest tac nuke is 100x the power of the aforementioned atomic explosions. 100 times, think about that, and that's just what we classify as a tactical nuke. I'm sure some of you have at least watched documentaries on hiroshima and nagasaki lets not try and put anyone through that again. I still have to go back to strangelove for some reason...is this some wierd fetish I have, I don't know ;) Would Freud look at me and just say remarkable (think little rascals)....



We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when
But I know we'll meet again, some sunny day
Keep smiling through, just like you always do
Till the blue skies drive the dark clouds far away
So will you please say hello to the folks that I know
Tell them I won't be long
They'll be happy to know, that as you saw me go
I was singing this song...


And for those that love pink.


Does anybody here remember Vera Lynn?
Remember how she said,
That we would meet again,
Some sunny day.
Vera!
Vera!
What has become of you?
Does anybody else in here feel the way I do?

[Elrond]

Originally posted by solarflare
whoa whoa whoa there you go again Simon!! Check the facts. Maybe you have some baby nukes like that, but I certainly don't. The largest unclassified nukes the US possesses are hundreds of megatons. Besides, the effects of radiation from the two nukes off in Japan are still being studied.

I'd like to see a missile able to carry a megaton of fissil material!!!!!!!!!!!!! It would allow us to send the ISS in space in one shot. How good!

Megaton is not a unit of weigth here! It's the equivalent dynamite (I think) you need for an explosion of same intensity. I don't have a clue how much fissil material is required for that, be kilo is probably a better unit for that.

[Elrond]

Originally posted by Mick_2002
Do not trust what is being reported to you is my motto :) :) :) Though I will make the occasional sarcastic comment. Please don't misconstrue that I actually believe any of the bunk (and it is bunk right now) that is being spewed from the media. I believe things that make sense but only truely believe them when I can see the evidence. I am not paranoid everyone is after me :)

Since the beginning, every thing that goes with your point of view makes sense, and everything that doesn't does not make sense. It seems that everything you don't like MUST be propaganda.

Yes, SH having some WMD does make sense. And I even agree with that. It makes sense, but it doesn't mean he has them. If he doesn't have them, it probably be because he didn't manage to be able to create it, or because he decided to spend his money otherwise (even if probably not wisely), ... but he may still have no WMD, even if it seems more likely that he have some (and definitely NOT because of the evidences the US has shown).

But the US targetting anything else than very highly military objectives doesn't (you never gave to Simon a straight answer about that missile lost in or near Iran). Having civilian people living in government building is SO incredible that it must be propaganda as well, ...

[Mick]

Originally posted by Elrond


I'd like to see a missile able to carry a megaton of fissil material!!!!!!!!!!!!! It would allow us to send the ISS in space in one shot. How good!

Megaton is not a unit of weigth here! It's the equivalent dynamite (I think) you need for an explosion of same intensity. I don't have a clue how much fissil material is required for that, be kilo is probably a better unit for that.

You are correct. the original intention was to equate it with tons of trinitrotoluene.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by solarflare
Are you saying that if a nation launched a nuclear weapon it wouldn't be a big deal?
What do you mean with not a big deal? Politically, it would be one big mess, people around the world would be furious on the countries doing these things. But technically, it would not be a big deal for the world, yes, only for the countries involved and some of the neighbouring countries where there is fallout. But some parts of Ukrain and large parts of Belarus (where dimm_coder is living) that received doses from Chernobyl that would make rehousing recommended are just continued to be inhabited. And so are Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Death toll would be huge, there would be a large number of wounded for a pretty long time, cancers and other diseases would be much higher during a very long time, but they probably could remain to be inhabited.
Originally posted by solarflare
Okay, so let's just find a cure for cancer and then we can nuke whomever we want.
There is still the political thingy and some conventions not to cause harm to civilians in war, which dropping nukes on cities would do unquestionably.
Originally posted by Mick_2002
Yes and I think our newest tac nuke is 100x the power of the aforementioned atomic explosions. 100 times, think about that, and that's just what we classify as a tactical nuke. I'm sure some of you have at least watched documentaries on hiroshima and nagasaki lets not try and put anyone through that again. I still have to go back to strangelove for some reason...is this some wierd fetish I have, I don't know Would Freud look at me and just say remarkable (think little rascals)....
What do you mean with yes? What and who are you reacting to? To the fact that these would cause much more radio-activety? Actually, it is not that simple. I read once the Russians planned to test a 100 Megaton bomb (I think the heaviest tested is around 50 Megaton, correct me if I'm wrong), which was estimated to cause less radio-activity problems.

In order to be maximum effective, an atom bomb should be detonated at a certain height, just as an ordinary grenade is more dangerous when it explodes a little above ground. For a 100 Megaton bomb this would mean the radio-activity is spread over a much larger area. Considering that the amount of radio-activity does not increase linearly with the strength of the bomb, it would mean less radio-activity per unit of surface. There is also the fact that then large amounts of radio-activity would rise up high into the stratosphere. This air in this layer of our atmosphere contains very little turbulence - and thus mixture -unlike the troposphere (where we live in) and moves pretty much horizontally. This ensures that particles such as from volcanoes can stay for several years over there. Radio-active vapor from this bomb (there would be no radio-active particles due to the necessary height of a 100 Mton blast) would stay in for thousands of years and be gradually released spread over the maximum available area, the entire earth, probably at levels below natural radiation.

A 100 megaton bomb would be much cleaner per amount of explosive power because nearly all energy would come from fusion and not fission, unlike other, smaller A- and H-bombs. For more info on the Tsar Bomba, go here (http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Russia/Sovwarhead.html) and here (http://www.vce.com/tsar.html). They claim however that the effect of this bomb at full yield on global fallout would have been tremendous. It would have increased the world's total fission fallout since the invention of the atomic bomb by 25%. For more info on testing a 50 Megaton version of it, go here (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/CWIHP/BULLETINS/b4a13.htm). Militarily, it is rather useless as too big and dropping multiple smaller bombs it much more effective to destroy an area. Same probably goes for conventional munitions of more than one ton. The non linearity of the increase in destruction is becoming more clear then, as bombs destroy pretty much a volume ~r³ instead of an area ~r². So basically, an 8 times heavier bomb will destroy only a 4 times bigger area. (4 = pow(8,3/2))

[Mick]

Originally posted by Elrond


Since the beginning, every thing that goes with your point of view makes sense, and everything that doesn't does not make sense. It seems that everything you don't like MUST be propaganda.

Yes, SH having some WMD does make sense. And I even agree with that. It makes sense, but it doesn't mean he has them. If he doesn't have them, it probably be because he didn't manage to be able to create it, or because he decided to spend his money otherwise (even if probably not wisely), ... but he may still have no WMD, even if it seems more likely that he have some (and definitely NOT because of the evidences the US has shown).

But the US targetting anything else than very highly military objectives doesn't (you never gave to Simon a straight answer about that missile lost in or near Iran). Having civilian people living in government building is SO incredible that it must be propaganda as well, ...

Ohh simon had a question :) Where did I state that we can hit a target 100% of the time? Missles can and do go off target, did you expect us to be perfect. I admit, at least it's better than what is being fired towards Kuwait, but it is still not without error. Asking the question about civilians living near goverment buildings is pretty much ridiculous...nobody lives near goverement buildings...what are you thinking? I mean DC is just full of wide open space where the civilians are seperated from the goverment offices.

PS: I'm not the one buying into the propaganda :)

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Elrond
Megaton is not a unit of weigth here! It's the equivalent dynamite (I think) you need for an explosion of same intensity. I don't have a clue how much fissil material is required for that, be kilo is probably a better unit for that.
It is actually not that much. I think a simple Trident missile has an explosive power in the Megaton range. It is probably not possible to have a missile that carries that much fissile material in case of an A-bomb, but for an H-bomb it is no problem whatsoever. There is also fusable (or what is the opposite of fissile) material in an H-bomb, and hydrogen fusion is much more explosive per amount of weight than plutonium (or uranium) fission.

[Elrond]

Originally posted by Mick_2002
Ohh simon had a question :) Where did I state that we can hit a target 100% of the time? Missles can and do go off target, did you expect us to be perfect. I admit, at least it's better than what is being fired towards Kuwait, but it is still not without error. Asking the question about civilians living near goverment buildings is pretty much ridiculous...nobody lives near goverement buildings...what are you thinking? I mean DC is just full of wide open space where the civilians are seperated from the goverment offices.


Ok, are you evading the question again? I don't see why DC having no civilian implies it does not make sense there are civilians in and near Iraq's governement building! Or do you think all countries in the world are like the US?

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Mick_2002
Ohh simon had a question :) Where did I state that we can hit a target 100% of the time? Missles can and do go off target, did you expect us to be perfect. I admit, at least it's better than what is being fired towards Kuwait, but it is still not without error.
Then stop ridiculising it is impossible the US set a couple of oil wells on fire due to misses if you're saying it yourself.
Originally posted by Mick_2002
Asking the question about civilians living near goverment buildings is pretty much ridiculous...nobody lives near goverement buildings...what are you thinking? I mean DC is just full of wide open space where the civilians are seperated from the goverment offices.
So why use cluster bombs in Basra? Do you know what cluster bombs are? Would you like you sun or daughter playing with these colored toys coming back home with an arm or a leg ripped off, if coming back at all because their head is blasted off? Would you like to go to work driving through a minefield of unexploded submunitions?
Originally posted by Mick_2002
PS: I'm not the one buying into the propaganda
I put this line in my translator from English to Simonish and pressed the button for Simonish to English and the following line appeared:

I'm not buying Iraqi propaganda but I'm buying the US propaganda because it makes me feel good and because then I don't have to think for myself.

[Mick]

Originally posted by Elrond


Ok, are you evading the question again? I don't see why DC having no civilian implies it does not make sense there are civilians in and near Iraq's governement building! Or do you think all countries in the world are like the US?

No, I'm sorry, it didn't make sense to you :) We have plenty of civilians around goverment buildings. My point was you are stating the obvious. Do you need to state the obvious? Please state the obvious one more time.

[Elrond]

Originally posted by Mick_2002
PS: I'm not the one buying into the propaganda :)

I didn't said you where. But listenning to you, EVERYTHING that does not support your point of view is propaganda. That's not really open minded and can't be right.

So may be you are, finally! :)

[Mick]

Originally posted by Simon666

Then stop ridiculising it is impossible the US set a couple of oil wells on fire due to misses if you're saying it yourself.


Ok kids, here we go, we have a couple of thousand square miles, Ok now listen up, now listen back there johnny, we are going to miss, here me, we are going to miss, and in that couple of thousand sqaure miles, we are just going to happen to hit an oil well. You kids listen up back there!!! now back to the oil well, yes it is strategic....yawn...flip...back to the enquierer...this just in, Micheals nose is fake..


So why use cluster bombs in Basra? Do you know what cluster bombs are? Would you like you sun or daughter playing with these colored toys coming back home with an arm or a leg ripped off, if coming back at all because their head is blasted off? Would you like to go to work driving through a minefield of unexploded submunitions?


Yep I know what a cluster bomb is, do you? Lets see, hmm media, ohh cluster bomb, I'm a reporter, I know what that is. Do you know what it is? Do you know why it wouldn't be used in a city? Why not just cluster f it all?


I put this line in my translator from English to Simonish and pressed the button for Simonish to English and the following line appeared:

I'm not buying Iraqi propaganda but I'm buying the US propaganda because it makes me feel good and because then I don't have to think for myself.

I know, it's evident :)

[Mick]

Originally posted by Elrond


I didn't said you where. But listenning to you, EVERYTHING that does not support your point of view is propaganda. That's not really open minded and can't be right.

So may be you are, finally! :)

Only things that aren't conspiracy theorys or just plain bunk. So far they fall in the two previous categories. Talk about not being open minded, from what I have seen, there isn't alot of open minds here. It's more anti-US in any form or fashion.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Mick_2002
Ok kids, here we go, we have a couple of thousand square miles, Ok now listen up, now listen back there johnny, we are going to miss, here me, we are going to miss, and in that couple of thousand sqaure miles, we are just going to happen to hit an oil well.
Very funny. In entire Iran, a country a lot bigger than France, you managed to nearly hit or hit an oil refinery. Bingo.

And that was a missile that went out of course and landed in Iran. Let alone what can happen with missiles landing of course in Iraq itself.
Originally posted by Mick_2002
Yep I know what a cluster bomb is, do you? Lets see, hmm media, ohh cluster bomb, I'm a reporter, I know what that is. Do you know what it is? Do you know why it wouldn't be used in a city? Why not just cluster f it all?
Do you call this an answer? Have you more pathetic ones than this or is this your current record?

[Mick]

Originally posted by Simon666

Very funny. In entire Iran, a country a lot bigger than France, you managed to nearly hit or hit an oil refinery. Bingo.


So they say. But there you go again, you know exactly what happened. Stay tuned.


And that was a missile that went out of course and landed in Iran. Let alone what can happen with missiles landing of course in Iraq itself.

Do you call this an answer? Have you more pathetic ones than this or is this your current record?

Did you call that a question?

[Simon666]

Oh, even better, I looked it up once. Apparenly, in Iran, a country bigger than France to repeat myself, it appears two missiles actually hit (http://news.findlaw.com/politics/s/20030322/iraqusairandc.html) the oil refinery depot. Tell me, if you're the expert, what is the statistical chance on that?
Originally posted by Mick_2002
Did you call that a question?
Yes. I find it very interesting to know how you would justify using a cluster bomb in a city like Basra, provided it is true (which you seem to doubt). I and many others think it is, maybe if someone has pictures we would know it is true. Could someone reading this help looking for pictures or reports?

[Mick]

Originally posted by Simon666
Oh, even better, I looked it up once. Apparenly, in Iran, a country bigger than France to repeat myself, it appears two missiles actually hit (http://news.findlaw.com/politics/s/20030322/iraqusairandc.html) the oil refinery depot.

Dude keep surfing, your there!!! You've got everything at your fingertips. Everything has been confirmed. Try acutally waiting until people know what happend. This is my point with you. Try calming yourself and stop relying on what you don't know and what people feed you.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Mick_2002
Dude keep surfing, your there!!! You've got everything at your fingertips. Everything has been confirmed. Try acutally waiting until people know what happend. This is my point with you. Try calming yourself and stop relying on what you don't know and what people feed you.
Tell me what is the chance of it NOT being a US missile? Iraq couldn't hit an open desert with a missile if it wanted too, it's missiles are that inaccurate and they haven't launched that many to have a statistical chance. The US and British probably launched hundreds. If the Iranians could have launched it themselves, they would know and if there was such a chance, certainly not put themselves in the focus as they think they might be next on target. They have too much to lose if they believe there is a reasonable chance the missile is NOT from the US. Think strategical Mick, as you taught me. :D

[Mick]

Originally posted by Simon666

Tell me what is the chance of it NOT being a US missile? Iraq couldn't hit an open desert with a missile if it wanted too, it's missiles are that inaccurate and they haven't launched that many to have a statistical chance. The US and British probably launched hundreds. If the Iranians could have launched it themselves, they would know and if there was such a chance, certainly not put themselves in the focus as they think they might be next on target. They have too much to lose if they believe there is a reasonable chance the missile is NOT from the US. Think strategical Mick, as you taught me. :D

:) :) :) I haven't taught you anything :) :) :)

I don't think it is unreasonable that a missle has landed in Iran, or that a missle has struck a bus on the border of Syria. I just point out that I would like to have the facts, not some reporter that is giddy to get the latest sound bite in.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Mick_2002
I don't think it is unreasonable that a missle has landed in Iran, or that a missle has struck a bus on the border of Syria. I just point out that I would like to have the facts, not some reporter that is giddy to get the latest sound bite in.
It is not just a reporter, it is the state of Iran that is pissed a bit.

[Mick]

Originally posted by Simon666

It is not just a reporter, it is the state of Iran that is pissed a bit.

Let them be. Maybe they are next :) But back to reality, lodge a complaint. What do you want them to do about it? Attack the coalition troops? S happens. Just what exactly do you expect? A antiseptic war? And this goes to the point of civilians, lets get back to why we are there, a brutal dictator defied the UN. And if you don't think it's legal, I'll see you in a court of law, I suspect you would lose. Will you call Saddam as a witness?

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Mick_2002
Let them be. Maybe they are next :) But back to reality, lodge a complaint. What do you want them to do about it? Attack the coalition troops? S happens. Just what exactly do you expect? A antiseptic war? And this goes to the point of civilians, lets get back to why we are there, a brutal dictator defied the UN. And if you don't think it's legal, I'll see you in a court of law, I suspect you would lose. Will you call Saddam as a witness?
First of all: you're talking around the point here. Point is it very likely happened, by analysing the facts and statistics, the reports (yes, those horrible reporters, those commie bastards) and the reaction of a state.

But if you want an answer in order to talk around the point of it having happened very likely: I know a brutal idiot in charge of WMD who defied the UN. I know a country brutally destroying civilian homes defying the UN for decades. And I like to call Kofi Annan as witness. Saddam would come in very handy too as witness however. Could we know first hand how your country supported him, Rumsfeld included. But I guess directives have already been given from Rummy to the Pentagon to under no circumstance capture him alive. So even if I would like to call him, Mick, I couldn't.

[Mick]

Originally posted by Simon666

First of all: you're talking around the point here. Point is it very likely happened, by analysing the facts and statistics, the reports (yes, those horrible reporters, those commie bastards) and the reaction of a state.

But if you want an answer in order to talk around the point of it having happened very likely: I know a brutal idiot in charge of WMD who defied the UN. I know a country brutally destroying civilian homes defying the UN for decades. And I like to call Kofi Annan as witness. Saddam would come in very handy too as witness however. Could we know first hand how your country supported him, Rumsfeld included. But I guess directives have already been given from Rummy to the Pentagon to under no circumstance capture him alive. So even if I would like to call him, Mick, I couldn't.

Did I mention we created the UN so we get to do what we want :)

Kofi seems to be towing the line currently, let me know when he steps out of line. We'll bring him to texas where we know how to handle those types of people. Do I have to link the weapons export list yet again to you? Something like, france, germany, russia blah blah

I was hoping well at least my advisors, well scratch that my friends said it would just be great to capture him alive, take him to new york, and drag him behind some big SUV that gets a mile to the gallon. I figure at the end, we can have a big texas Bar-B-Q little saddam steaks with some slaw on the side. Whatcha think?

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Mick_2002
Did I mention we created the UN so we get to do what we want :)
No, but I had the impression Bush thinks it. It's nice when it is spoken out once so everybody knows what to expect.
Originally posted by Mick_2002
Kofi seems to be towing the line currently, let me know when he steps out of line. We'll bring him to texas where we know how to handle those types of people. Do I have to link the weapons export list yet again to you? Something like, france, germany, russia blah blah
Fine, sue Kohl and Chirac too. Both corrupt assholes. The more the merrier. Maybe then we'll really start giving an example against dictators by cleaning out our own closet.
Originally posted by Mick_2002
I was hoping well at least my advisors, well scratch that my friends said it would just be great to capture him alive, take him to new york, and drag him behind some big SUV that gets a mile to the gallon. I figure at the end, we can have a big texas Bar-B-Q little saddam steaks with some slaw on the side. Whatcha think?
I'm afraid you'll have to eat your steaks with a delicious napalm sauce in a restaurant annex bunker downtown Bagdad. :D

[Mick]

Originally posted by Simon666

I'm afraid you'll have to eat your steaks with a delicious napalm sauce in a restaurant annex bunker downtown Bagdad. :D

I prefer my Saddam with some fava beans and a nice chianti.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Mick_2002
Kofi seems to be towing the line currently, let me know when he steps out of line. We'll bring him to texas where we know how to handle those types of people.
By the way, what do you mean with this line? What is the meaning of the expression "towing the line"? And what has he done to be towing the line?

[Mick]

Originally posted by Simon666

By the way, what do you mean with this line? What is the meaning of the expression "towing the line"? And what has he done to be towing the line?

I was being sarcastic. Towing the line, means to go 'along' with something no matter what your opinions are.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Mick_2002
I was being sarcastic. Towing the line, means to go 'along' with something no matter what your opinions are.
OK, that still leaves open why and how Kofi is towing the line.

[Elrond]

Originally posted by Mick_2002
I was being sarcastic. Towing the line, means to go 'along' with something no matter what your opinions are.

Excuse us, but we are not native english speaking people. It's difficult for us to be efficient in sarcasm when speaking english, and often even more difficult for us to understand when you are sarcastic or serious.

[SolarFlare]

Originally posted by Simon666
What do you mean with not a big deal? Politically, it would be one big mess, people around the world would be furious on the countries doing these things. But technically, it would not be a big deal for the world, yes
Even when you agree you disagree!
Originally posted by Simon666
If the Iranians could have launched it themselves, they would know and if there was such a chance, certainly not put themselves in the focus as they think they might be next on target. Think strategical Mick, as you taught me.
Nobody likes having their words thrown back at them, but you should really take your own advice here. Those missiles could be Iraqi, Iranian, or Coalition forces. All three groups have motives. All three groups have means. Don't rule them out, don't single one out.
Originally posted by Elrond
Excuse us, but we are not native english speaking people. It's difficult for us to be efficient in sarcasm when speaking english, and often even more difficult for us to understand when you are sarcastic or serious.
Use emoticons! :rolleyes:

[Mick]

Originally posted by Elrond


Excuse us, but we are not native english speaking people. It's difficult for us to be efficient in sarcasm when speaking english, and often even more difficult for us to understand when you are sarcastic or serious.

I know but I am sarcastic by nature I can't help it. It's why I use alot of :) :) :)

[Mick]

Originally posted by Simon666

OK, that still leaves open why and how Kofi is towing the line.

He isn't and he is to some extent. I respect people that stick to what they feel strongly about. Whether they are right or wrong. Persons that shift their views based on the current situation, well remind me of greasy politicians. Kofi hasn't towed the line in the sense about the war.

This was why I said my comments were sarcastic.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by solarflare
Even when you agree you disagree!
There is a big difference between political and technical feasibility. The war could be easily won by bombarding Bagdad with carpet bombardments, cluster bombs, MOAB's, napalm strikes etc. without major technical consequences. But the political consequences of this would be enormous.
Originally posted by solarflare
Nobody likes having their words thrown back at them, but you should really take your own advice here. Those missiles could be Iraqi, Iranian, or Coalition forces. All three groups have motives. All three groups have means. Don't rule them out, don't single one out.
I don't rule them out, I said it is (very) unlikely they are Iraqi or Iranian. Iraq due to the shear limited number fired by them (seems like less than 10) and Iran due to the political and military consequences if it would turn out NOT to be an American/British missile.

[SolarFlare]

Originally posted by Simon666
it is (very) unlikely they are Iraqi or Iranian. Iraq due to the shear limited number fired by them (seems like less than 10) and Iran due to the political and military consequences if it would turn out NOT to be an American/British missile.
But the members of the Iraqi regime know they're falling, wouldn't they take this opportunity over any other to shoot off a missile at their greatest Middle Eastern enemy, the Iranians? And as for Iran, they could have done it to stage it to look like either the US or Iraq did it, for sympathy. But it is also likely that it was an American shot.

[Mick]

Originally posted by solarflare

But the members of the Iraqi regime know they're falling, wouldn't they take this opportunity over any other to shoot off a missile at their greatest Middle Eastern enemy, the Iranians? And as for Iran, they could have done it to stage it to look like either the US or Iraq did it, for sympathy. But it is also likely that it was an American shot.

No, they would, if they could launch a missle towards Israel. Iran, kuwait, Saudi Arabia, would be a secondary target. And remember I said if they 'could'...right now, I think the US has a good control over western Iraq. Pac3's are a nice addition. I did my part so to speak, glad to see progress in that area.