TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Iraq to use Chemical WMD in war...u morons
Pages (6): [1] 2 3 4 5 6 »
Iraq to use Chemical WMD in war...u morons
well reports are going on from all over that Iraq plans to use Chemical weapons of mass destruction on US troops in their warheads....NOW France are saying they will join the US and UK if this happens....
So now what are you anti war liberal fucks going to say??...are you still going to float around in your self-righteaous ether thinking your so smart that Iraq doesnt have the weapons??/.......
SOOOOOO when Iraq uses these weapons i feel you ALL owe Bush an apology.....you morons we where right.....
oh here are some links....
here
hahhahahah
Oh no thats right Saddam Hussein DOESNT have any weapons like that...
Iraqis May Use Chemical Weapons in Combat
By MATT KELLEY
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP)--Intelligence reports indicate a high risk that Iraq would use chemical weapons during a U.S.-led war to topple Saddam Hussein, Pentagon officials said Tuesday.
Those reports indicate Saddam has given field-level commanders the authority to use chemical weapons on their own initiative, without any further directives from the Iraqi leadership, Pentagon officials said.
``We continue to receive reports supporting the assertion that there is a high risk the Iraqi regime would use chemical weapons at some point during any conflict,'' Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Tuesday. It was the first explicit statement from the Defense Department discussing the chemical weapons risk.
President Bush and other U.S. officials say Iraq has stocks of chemical weapons, including the deadly nerve agents sarin, cyclosarin and VX and a mustard agent like that first used in World War I. Saddam has repeatedly denied having chemical or biological weapons, though Iraq has acknowledged developing both before the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
U.S. officials say they believe Iraq's chemical weapons are under the control of the Republican Guard, Saddam's best trained and most loyal troops. A large part of those forces are concentrated in and around Baghdad, where U.S. officials are concerned that fighting involving chemical weapons could kill many Iraqi civilians.
Most of Iraq's chemical arsenal, officials say, is loaded onto artillery and rockets that have a range of about a dozen miles or less.
Pentagon officials who discussed the chemical weapons issue on condition of anonymity said it was unclear what rank of Iraqi officers had been given the authority to order chemical weapons use.
Coalition troops awaiting invasion orders have chemical protection gear and equipment that can detect clouds of chemical agents up to three miles away. American tanks and armored vehicles have filters designed to keep the troops inside safe from the deadly agents. Anticipating the possibility of chemical combat, U.S. troops have trained extensively on operating in a contaminated environment.
AP-NY-03-18-03 1842EST
I don't think there's any doubt that Iraq still possesses some reminants of its biological/chemical weapons programs from the late 80's (guess who funded them?) but my argument was always that firstly the US are overplaying the quantity and quality of these weapons and the threat that they pose.
Iraq would never be stupid enough to use these weapons against another nation just for the sake of it (even though they don't have the means to now that they've destroyed half the Al Samoud's - which would struggle to make it past the Iraqi borders if launched from Baghdad anyway) and, as I have said time and time again, the threat is nowhere near significant enough to justify the high-level of civilian casualties that will doubtless ensue (especially if Saddam Hussein does use what biological weapons he has - ironically, this war could provoke the kind of scenarios - namely the deployment of cheical/biological weapons - that it was trying to prevent).
This isn't some sort of movie about good vs evil, or us vs the terrorists. This is warfare, and people will die. It is not the kind of undertaking we should be entering into on the "hunch" that Saddam may have a 15 year old vial of Anthrax hidden somewhere. I severely doubt that you would sacrifice friends of members of your family on the off-chance that Iraq has WMD's and it's unfair of you to expect that innocent Iraqi's should make this sacrifice just to appease your vague concerns.
Human life is more precious than that.
If ridding the world of Weapons of Mass Destruction were the government's primary concern, then don't you think they would focus on more dangerous regimes that pose a more imminent threat--like North Korea , Iran, or Pakistan for example? N. Korea, of course, is not the international punching-bag that Iraq is, so we actually have to think twice about starting shit with them.
Saddam, as nutty as he is, hasn't threatened any neighbors in over a decade--this is obviously a cover to distract everyone from the fact that the amorphous "war on terror" had accomplished nothing, that Osama is still on the loose, and that the USA is being run into the shitter.
WMD, despite the rote drilling into our heads of Iraq's imminent danger, are but an ancillary concern.
Apologize to Bush?? He should apologize to ME for stealing the election and running a country I care deeply about into the gutter with his simplistic vision of the world, his tax cuts and social service reductions that my grandchildren are going to be paying for, and for his maniacal belligerence.
Go listen to Rush and watch some more Fox news smart guy.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Renegade I don't think there's any doubt that Iraq still possesses some reminants of its biological/chemical weapons programs from the late 80's (guess who funded them?) but my argument was always that firstly the US are overplaying the quantity and quality of these weapons and the threat that they pose. Iraq would never be stupid enough to use these weapons against another nation just for the sake of it (even though they don't have the means to now that they've destroyed half the Al Samoud's - which would struggle to make it past the Iraqi borders if launched from Baghdad anyway) and, as I have said time and time again, the threat is nowhere near significant enough to justify the high-level of civilian casualties that will doubtless ensue (especially if Saddam Hussein does use what biological weapons he has - ironically, this war could provoke the kind of scenarios - namely the deployment of cheical/biological weapons - that it was trying to prevent). This isn't some sort of movie about good vs evil, or us vs the terrorists. This is warfare, and people will die. It is not the kind of undertaking we should be entering into on the "hunch" that Saddam may have a 15 year old vial of Anthrax hidden somewhere. I severely doubt that you would sacrifice friends of members of your family on the off-chance that Iraq has WMD's and it's unfair of you to expect that innocent Iraqi's should make this sacrifice just to appease your vague concerns. Human life is more precious than that. |
think he has WMD why are u against the war?...wtf lol...what a joke....i laugh at you people ....every day i read in here how Hussein has no WMD...now when he is about to use them u are all going to talk shit that of course he has soem left over...hahahhahah but i thought u guys all said he destroyed them?>?..make up your mind.....
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Konijn Island Apologize to Bush?? He should apologize to ME for stealing the election and running a country I care deeply about into the gutter with his simplistic vision of the world, his tax cuts and social service reductions that my grandchildren are going to be paying for, and for his maniacal belligerence. Go listen to Rush and watch some more Fox news smart guy. |
So much for a senisble conversation then.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tiesto14 LOL...hahahhahhahahha....liberal prick.... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Konijn Island Saddam, as nutty as he is, hasn't threatened any neighbors in over a decade--this is obviously a cover to distract everyone from the fact that the amorphous "war on terror" had accomplished nothing, that Osama is still on the loose, and that the USA is being run into the shitter. WMD, despite the rote drilling into our heads of Iraq's imminent danger, are but an ancillary concern. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Konijn Island If ridding the world of Weapons of Mass Destruction were the government's primary concern, then don't you think they would focus on more dangerous regimes that pose a more imminent threat--like North Korea , Iran, or Pakistan for example? N. Korea, of course, is not the international punching-bag that Iraq is, so we actually have to think twice about starting shit with them. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider I never realized there was a statute of limitations on what constitutes a threat. |
Re: Iraq to use Chemical WMD in war...u morons
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tiesto14 well reports are going on from all over that Iraq plans to use Chemical weapons of mass destruction on US troops in their warheads....NOW France are saying they will join the US and UK if this happens.... So now what are you anti war liberal fucks going to say??...are you still going to float around in your self-righteaous ether thinking your so smart that Iraq doesnt have the weapons??/....... SOOOOOO when Iraq uses these weapons i feel you ALL owe Bush an apology.....you morons we where right..... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider N. Korea, Iran, and Pakistan aren't prohibited by sanctions from possessing WMDs. Just like India, Israel, France, Britain, etc. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Konijn Island Sure there is--a "statute" that's based on common sense and logic. Follow me: Saddam threatened Kuwait in 1991. His effort failed. Since then he has pretty much minded his own business (there is no Al-Qaeda link). He has neither threatened any neighbors nor attacked the Kurds (the "murder of his own" people that we've heard repeated ad nauseum occurred in the mid-1980s under US auspices). Who exactly is he threatening? Occrider, are you suggesting that any country that has ever engaged in militaristic belligerence constitutes a threat? I assumme you see where this flawed logic would lead... |
Re: Re: Iraq to use Chemical WMD in war...u morons
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Nalin your idiocy is firmly cemented and noted |
Tiesto14 your a total dipshit, please do the world a favour and die. I would advise you to grow up, get a brain and feed it with some intellectual thoughts but hey, fuckit your not worth it so just rid us of your foul presence and make the world a better place, you piece of shit.
sincerily yours,
Prodigal
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Konijn Island Sure there is--a "statute" that's based on common sense and logic. Follow me: Saddam threatened Kuwait in 1991. His effort failed. Since then he has pretty much minded his own business (there is no Al-Qaeda link). He has neither threatened any neighbors nor attacked the Kurds (the "murder of his own" people that we've heard repeated ad nauseum occurred in the mid-1980s under US auspices). Who exactly is he threatening? In essence we're simply going to bombing a heavily civilian (and cosmopolitan) city because Saddamm is a bad guy. Occrider, are you suggesting that any country that has ever engaged in militaristic belligerence constitutes a threat? I assumme you see where this flawed logic would lead... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Actually I would say that common sense dictates that he is still a threat. If you were Kuwait would you feel comfortable having open borders with Saddam? I believe that you're misconstruing his "restraint" as stemming from his newfound benevolence when it's more likely that he fears retalitory strikes from the US. He, as a matter of fact, DID murder his own people following the gulf war when they staged an uprising. Despite his people starving around him he maintains the 5th largest army in the world and spends $1 billion on his military a year. I would say that all things considered he is a threat. No I'm not implying that any country that has ever done anything hostile should be considered a threat, I'm implying that Saddam's lack of "hostile" activity over the past 10 years is not a sign of him turning over a new leaf. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tiesto14 um Saddam is in violation of Resoutions 687 and 1441...that in itself is grounds for the U.S. to go in....case closed |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Konijn Island Two points: first, N. Korea and Iran have a tacit agreement that is supossed to inhibit nuclear activity--hence all the jittery nerves recently when N. Korea broke the UN seals on their reactors and started them up; second, if you're going to invoke broken UN sanctions as justification for the war, you're implicitly recognizing that the UN has enforcement authority. If it's the UN's rules (sanctions) that have been violated, let the UN enforce discipline--not maverick nations. |
Cheers to tiesto14!
as for all of you "liberal pricks" as tiesto14 stated, now that we know that they DO HAVE WOMD, you'll just come up with another thing to complain about the war..some other excuse that you won't be able to back up.
oh boii, like i said it before, it amazes me how some are so passionate about things they have no idea what they're talking about.
>JM<
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Konijn Island Those are UN resolutions not US resolutions -- i hope you understand the difference and the implications... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by JM Cheers to tiesto14! as for all of you "liberal pricks" as tiesto14 stated, now that we know that they DO HAVE WOMD, you'll just come up with another thing to complain about the war..some other excuse that you won't be able to back up. oh boii, like i said it before, it amazes me how some are so passionate about things they have no idea what they're talking about. >JM< |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.