|
Iraq to use Chemical WMD in war...u morons (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| drizzt81 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I've always said that chemical weapons are obsolete as a tactical military weapon. However they are still deadly when used strategically to attack cities or civilians.
But I don't think the fact that those weapons are outdated decreases their potency. Vx gas will kill you just as effectively as a bullet. |
the question is what counter measures have been developed during the past 50+ years to these agents.
and tiesto, no I do no want to walk through a field of VX, Sarin etc. but I am not a soldier, hence not equipped as they are. I am quite sure that nowadays, any of these agents are not threatening to a high tech army, such as the american. |
|
|
| tiesto14 |
| quote: | Originally posted by drizzt81
the question is what counter measures have been developed during the past 50+ years to these agents.
and tiesto, no I do no want to walk through a field of VX, Sarin etc. but I am not a soldier, hence not equipped as they are. I am quite sure that nowadays, any of these agents are not threatening to a high tech army, such as the american. |
well we are not afreaid of them being used against soldiers..we are afraid if it being used against civilians....LISTEN please:rolleyes: |
|
|
| drizzt81 |
| quote: | Originally posted by tiesto14
well we are not afreaid of them being used against soldiers..we are afraid if it being used against civilians....LISTEN please:rolleyes: |
but in order to use them again civilians, you need to DELIVER them. what ICBM's does Saddam have?
and please, remember what you said earlier:
| 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... |
(my emphasis) |
|
|
| tiesto14 |
| quote: | Originally posted by drizzt81
but in order to use them again civilians, you need to DELIVER them. what ICBM's does Saddam have?
and please, remember what you say:
(my emphasis) |
wrong...u can sell them to terrorists or bring them in on ships then spread them in high populated areas...come on think |
|
|
| drizzt81 |
| quote: | Originally posted by tiesto14
bring them in on ships then spread them in high populated areas... |
[somewhat off topic]
yes, like the Oil tankers that Mr. Bush would like to see coming out of Irak sooner rather than later.
[/somewhat off topic] |
|
|
| tiesto14 |
| quote: | Originally posted by drizzt81
[somewhat off topic]
yes, like the Oil tankers that Mr. Bush would like to see coming out of Irak sooner rather than later.
[/somewhat off topic] |
i take it u give up....lol |
|
|
| drizzt81 |
| quote: | Originally posted by tiesto14
i take it u give up....lol |
no, i want to make you think, WHY exactly u need this war. It appears to me that bush uses the 'terrorists' agrument a lot to justify pretty much anything he wants to do. |
|
|
| sifntj0r |
*thread hijack*
yes the sasr are among the best in the world, easily able to hold their own with the other elite special forces units in the world.
over 400 taliban killed without a single sasr fatality in afghanistan.
there was a little discussion in aus.ta forum about the sasr, so i figure i'll post a good story here.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Dowlz
Have you heard about the "37th brigade" (there is no such thing btw, it's a nickname). I have a mate who's an SASer and when he was over in Afghanistan, 400 yanks had got themselves stuck in a valley and they were sitting ducks to the Taliban who had dug themselves in nicely on top of the ridges. I think the yanks were delta squad or something pretty poorly trained.
US tried to send in a helicopter and rescue them. Completely screwed up, helicopter got shot down. So they sent in 12 Australian SAS guys (one of them who's my mate). I kid you not. These guys fired 37 bullets between them. That's an average of 3 bullets per guy. They managed to strategically kill all the leaders and the rest got so pissed scared they ran off home. Rescue the 400 Americans from a completely hopeless situation. Saved the day and were nicknamed the 37th brigade cause they saved the Americans with 37 bullets.
So in summary, our SAS rock, are one of the best (if not THE best) in the business and the Yanks love em.
|
|
|
|
| fantom |
Hahaha, some of you people just crack me up big time... especially this tiesto14 dude. Buhahahahahaa!
Ok, sure, Iraq has all kinds of chemical and biological weapons in their possession, but so do another dozen of countries, but nobody goes out starting wars against them?!
It all smells like a whole bunch of typical US brainwashing using the word "terrorist" a bit too often (Saddam was leading Iraq for the last 25 years or so, and they just found him to be threatening now? Interesting...) and this is more of a charade to cover up the intentions of getting all those oil tankers out of world's SECOND biggest oil supplier (Iraq is second only to Saudi Arabia).
And asking Saddam to disarm is just en stupid! Why should he? He doesn't look like a danger to the "world peace" as Bush states all the time... I'd rather see United States disarm and give up all their nukes and chemical weapons, since they seem to be causing more and wars these days than anybody else! |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by fantom
Hahaha, some of you people just crack me up big time... especially this tiesto14 dude. Buhahahahahaa!
Ok, sure, Iraq has all kinds of chemical and biological weapons in their possession, but so do another dozen of countries, but nobody goes out starting wars against them?!
It all smells like a whole bunch of typical US brainwashing using the word "terrorist" a bit too often (Saddam was leading Iraq for the last 25 years or so, and they just found him to be threatening now? Interesting...) and this is more of a charade to cover up the intentions of getting all those oil tankers out of world's SECOND biggest oil supplier (Iraq is second only to Saudi Arabia).
And asking Saddam to disarm is just en stupid! Why should he? He doesn't look like a danger to the "world peace" as Bush states all the time... I'd rather see United States disarm and give up all their nukes and chemical weapons, since they seem to be causing more and wars these days than anybody else! |
For answers to your qustions please do a search.. They've been thoroughly discussed about 20 times already. :) |
|
|
| tiesto14 |
| quote: | Originally posted by fantom
Hahaha, some of you people just crack me up big time... especially this tiesto14 dude. Buhahahahahaa!
Ok, sure, Iraq has all kinds of chemical and biological weapons in their possession, but so do another dozen of countries, but nobody goes out starting wars against them?!
It all smells like a whole bunch of typical US brainwashing using the word "terrorist" a bit too often (Saddam was leading Iraq for the last 25 years or so, and they just found him to be threatening now? Interesting...) and this is more of a charade to cover up the intentions of getting all those oil tankers out of world's SECOND biggest oil supplier (Iraq is second only to Saudi Arabia).
And asking Saddam to disarm is just en stupid! Why should he? He doesn't look like a danger to the "world peace" as Bush states all the time... I'd rather see United States disarm and give up all their nukes and chemical weapons, since they seem to be causing more and wars these days than anybody else! |
moron...go read up on the atrocities Hussein has commited against his own people and the Kurds....then come back and tlak ...
besides right now Hussein is prob dead and Iraq is better off as are the Kurds/.....so go shed a tear for your dead tyrannt as i piss on his grave... |
|
|
| trancedfarmer |
| quote: | Originally posted by tiesto14
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 |
none of those reports prove that they have those types of weapons... |
|
|
|
|
