Mass destruction weapons in Iraq

Printable View

Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

March 24th, 2003, 08:42 AM
Simon666

Quote:

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.
March 24th, 2003, 08:44 AM
Mick

Quote:

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)
March 24th, 2003, 08:51 AM
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.
March 24th, 2003, 08:54 AM
Simon666

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.
March 24th, 2003, 09:18 AM
Mick

[QUOTE]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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.
March 24th, 2003, 09:33 AM
Simon666

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?
March 24th, 2003, 09:50 AM
Mick

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.
March 24th, 2003, 10:03 AM
Elrond

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?
March 24th, 2003, 10:31 AM
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?
March 24th, 2003, 10:34 AM
Simon666

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 and here. 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.

Quote:

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.
March 24th, 2003, 11:31 AM
Mick

Quote:

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..
March 24th, 2003, 11:41 AM
Mick

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.
March 24th, 2003, 11:41 AM
Simon666

Quote:

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?
March 24th, 2003, 11:51 AM
Mick

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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 and here. 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....

Quote:

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.
March 24th, 2003, 11:59 AM
Mick

Quote:

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.

Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page