posted
Speaking of that same logic, glass, why was it that the Iraqi troops were equipped with chemical warfare gear? It is widely known we don't use gas on our foes.... anymore .
-------------------- Spend Word For Word With Me And I Shall Make Your Wit Bankrupt.
IP: Logged |
posted
Gas... not MK77 Every weapon we have uses the reaction of chemicals at some level. Man can you stop this idiotic spin for just a moment and just be a real person... I don't mind discussing politics with commies or even idiots but you are trying too hard to "win"
-------------------- Spend Word For Word With Me And I Shall Make Your Wit Bankrupt.
IP: Logged |
Your "most logical way to deduce that there were no WMD's is to look at the actual behaviour of the forces involved... " isn't logical at all. He had them in 1990. That is known and documented. He didn't use them then even though at that time they were fully ready for deployment. In the second instance, he did not have access to them as he had them hidden away where the inspectors could not find them.
I posted the links on other threads. You discounted them then so I'm not going to bother looking them up again. There were two seperate incidents, one by US troops, one by Polish troops. One involved a Mustard Sarin mix, the other Sarin. Both were positive field tests with no confirming lab test results released on either. As the chemicals degrade very quickly in a desert environment, by the time they were returned to the lab for verification, they would probably get no reading.
But we covered that already on the other threads as well.
Logically, you could ask why if they used two already why have they not used more. The answer to that question also has a logical conclusion. As the chemicals are very dangerous and not typically stored in warheads as used in the roadside attacks, the idiots trying to arm them probably killed themselves in the process.
IP: Logged |
posted
Chemical protection is very bad in any wartime environment except a chemical one. It is heavy, it is cumbersome. It restricts movement and vision to a very high degree. It restricts communication and leads to very high heat illness casualties. It is not carried unless there is a known requirement for it.
IP: Logged |
posted
the major difference is that I'm coherent where as you are quite obviously grasping at straws... trying to make conclusions where none should be made... you are losing and you are getting desperate... trying to say that MK77 is a chemical weapon in the same category as say ricin is just wrong. The implication was made... It was an atempt at flashy advertising... The problem is that it was misleading, which results in you looking amateurish at best. Just argue the points with honesty and no spite... Relax... breathe
-------------------- Spend Word For Word With Me And I Shall Make Your Wit Bankrupt.
IP: Logged |
posted
uhhh??? i dunno brain, maybe because everybodyhas bio hazzard defense???? they did have a few enemies in the region....
as far as our stuff? i'll believe it when i see more evidence. i hope we didn't, but if we did? the only accountable party(ies) are the SecDef and up IMO....
there may be good reasons...
i've been saying all along that the "insurgency" could not be doing nearly as well as it has been without a LOT and mean a A LOT of civvie support...where do you draw the lines? i dunno, i'm not on the ground... i do know that you don't go into war to lose men/women for no reason, and we can't leave till we finish getting a new govt setup...
and maybe we'll need some US trials to find out what is/was Just and what isn't... IMO? right now isn't the time to be raising hel about it....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Not the new stuff. Way way better than the old system. Easy and quick to clear, and realy light weight. Kind of like a wind breaker, just a little heavier. PLus the top has an integrated hood on it.
-------------------- If it wasn't for bad luck I'd have no luck at all.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: uhhh??? i dunno brain, maybe because everybodyhas bio hazzard defense???? they did have a few enemies in the region....
as far as our stuff? i'll believe it when i see more evidence. i hope we didn't, but if we did? the only accountable party(ies) are the SecDef and up IMO....
there may be good reasons...
i've been saying all along that the "insurgency" could not be doing nearly as well as it has been without a LOT and mean a A LOT of civvie support...where do you draw the lines? i dunno, i'm not on the ground... i do know that you don't go into war to lose men/women for no reason, and we can't leave till we finish getting a new govt setup...
and maybe we'll need some US trials to find out what is/was Just and what isn't... IMO? right now isn't the time to be raising hel about it....
posted
strider you have no proof...at least you admit that...
i have shown you dozens of YOUR own govts statements that sadam was disarmed and you discount them and say i am ignoring data...LOL.... i know sadam HAD them during iran-iraq... BUT i also know there werent as many iraqis "murdered" by him as you claimed.... you grasp onto the worst possible propaganda and cling to it..
you need to be more critical of all data...
i don't take 4art's stuff at face value either....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
We went into Iraq because saddam would not voluntarily prove he had disarmed... Argue as you might... that is the fact.. He was in violation of a CEASE fire agreement... What happens when one VIOLATES a CEASE fire agreement?
-------------------- Spend Word For Word With Me And I Shall Make Your Wit Bankrupt.
IP: Logged |
I do have proof, I've already posted it several times. As you saw it then, I see no need to continue reposting it over and over.
What statements were made by the Government of the United States that said Sadamn was disarmed? OFFICIAL documents. Are you sure they aren't statements by individuals in the government, individuals that might have a political agenda?
How is it you "know" that there weren't as many iraqi murdered by Sadamn as I've claimed? (not my claim by the way, the claim of half a dozen world organizations and Tony Blair). Did you personally count them? Do you know for a fact that they found them all and the totals are less?
IP: Logged |
posted
Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.
Your "most logical way to deduce that there were no WMD's is to look at the actual behaviour of the forces involved... " isn't logical at all.
i think you don't understand logic strider...
i'm glad you are no longer in a chain of command too..
battle plans are drawn on intel available... the battle plans that were followed indicated NO WMD were going to be used... it isn't anything more than common sense which seems to be a luxury these days...
i stated this on: posted March 17, 2004 11:22 I do not buy the buried deep in the desert story as an explanation for why we have not uncovered the supposed WMD. I think Iraq has been under a microscope since the Gulf War. We probably know more about the surface movements of the Iraqui's over the last ten years than ANY other group of people--including our own. So I admit I am confused here. All of the peices of the puzzle were carefully placed on the table over the period of a year or more. The question becomes SERIOUS because some of the most influential and intelligent people in our country (and other coumtries) were apparently conned. This may have been one of the biggest hoaxes ever pulled off. Who did it? Saddam said--I quote very loosely--"I can't disarm. I have no WMD anymore. I won't leave my country just because you tell me to." We Americans enered the Iraqui war believing we were going to stop a BIG WMD buildup----very shortly it became a "humanitarian" mission. That would be laughable if it is possible to laugh about any war being "humanitarian". http://www.allstocks.com/stockmessageboard/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/ubb/get_topic/f/2/t/002774/p/1.html?
i DEDUCED this using logic a long time ago...... and you are still refuting the govt's own findings......
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
"the most logical way to deduce that there were no WMD's is to look at the actual behaviour of the forces involved... Quinn points out sadam woulda used 'em if he had 'em; i agree."
He had them in 1990, didn't use them, faulty logic.
Our battle plans indicated no WMD's were not going to be used? Funny, they didn't tell the troops. The following link will take you to a photo page. Note the large olive green bag attached to the left hip in the photos. That is a chemical mask. There is even a photo of an individual in full MOPP gear, that's the entire chemical protection outfit for non-military types.
You have put you finger on it. Logically incabable. And I add, unwilling to learn.
Parts of my life have been spent, professionally, in the company of many sorld famous logicians and, as yet, I have never heard a one of them claim to "fully understand logic", in part because they were generally humble, but also because each of them knew that such a statement is trivally illogical and they were amongst people that understood and could proove that fact.
Logic is not something that can be entirely proved or settled, because there are logical systems that lie in direct contradiction to one another. Izaak Walton was quite correct in "The Complete Angler" when he said, "Fishing, like mathematics, can never be fully learnt".
IP: Logged |
posted
srtider: carrying MOPP suits and chemical masks to theatre is not STRATEGIC it is TACTICAL...
how far in the mil did you go...
this is a little complicated i know, but the STRATEGISTS displayed their lack of respect for WMD in almost everything they did....
this is about as complicated as 'splainin' to you why evolution is not "just" a theory on the same scientific level as creationism... or that we know less about gravity than we do about evolution
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
I'm fully aware that gas masks in the field are tactical. Chemical weapons use in the field is also tactical. What's your point?
You said:
"the most logical way to deduce that there were no WMD's is to look at the actual behaviour of the forces involved... Quinn points out sadam woulda used 'em if he had 'em; i agree."
The first force involved is Iraq forces which did not use chemical weapons, using your "logic" above, they didn't have them. Not accurate. They had them in 1990 and did not use them then either. In fact in 1990, they were very readily availble for use and were not used. This disproves your "logic" that had he had them he would have used them. Using the first portion of the comment, you look at their behavior, didn't use them in 1990, didn't use them in 2003, no difference, no bearing on whether he had them or not.
The second forces involved were coalition forces primarily made up of US troops. Looking at the forces, they were deployed with MOPP gear and carried their masks on their persons. Using your "logic" that tells me the US had reason to suspect the possible use of chemical weapons. Again, this contradicts your statement that Saddamn would have used them if he had em. It also contradicts your other comments that Iraq had no WMD's and the US knew it. If we KNEW he didn't have them, we would not have had our troops carry MOPP gear and masks into the field.
They are the first things dropped when the threat no longer exists.
IP: Logged |
posted
You want to know why the strategics "displayed their lack of respect for WMD in almost everything they did...."? First, I've not seen anything to indicate they did. Overall strategy is not released to the public for security reasons so I'm curious as to your source.
Second, if they did display a "lack of respect" it is for a variety of reasons, the primary being we once again practically destroyed their ability to do anything with the shock and awe air bombardment. This eliminated command and control which was needed as Hussein did not delegate authority to his subordinates and the means of delivery.
Chemical weapons must have a delivery system. This is typically artillery or aircraft. No aircraft were capable of flying and the artillery was located destroyed or otherwise neutralized. That left the primary threat of chemical weapons at the source of storage where they could either leak or be rigged to explode when approached.
IP: Logged |
and you can't deny that i deduced correctly very early on...it wasn't wishful thinking on my part either..as a matter of fact?..it made me feel pretty bad, but i don't cling to my belief systems when they fail....
i was following the smallpox issue very closely...
finally? the strategy was broadcast on FOX and CNN every day as it unfolded.... and the strategy was NOT one of containmnet...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
I have no idea what you already stated nor where to go back and read it.
I also can't deny what you deduced very early on as I have no idea what it is that you deduced. As for clinging to beliefs, I don't cling to beliefs either. I look at the facts. What I don't do is try to read things into the facts that are not there. Nor do I use the opinions of politicly motivated individuals and treat them as facts.
No strategic strategy was broadcast on either Fox or CNN as it unfolded. Very little tactical strategy was broadcast either. The media was strictly limited in what it could and could not release from the embedded reporters. What you saw on Fox and CNN were talking heads that were simply talking and giving their opinions on what they could see which was pretty much what everyone else could see.
The strategy of containment which you mentioned is one of preventing a foreign power/enemy from moving out of or transfering portions of it's military or weapons systems out of country. It can also be reversed into keeping said items from entering the country. That strategy was practiced by the United States and the United Nations against Iraq.
Yes enough incorrect information in your answers. I don't need to dig any further at all to see that.
Still waiting on the OFFICIAL government documents. Also waiting on your definition of containment since you so obviously got it wrong the first time around.
IP: Logged |
Yes enough incorrect information in your answers. I don't need to dig any further at all to see that.
Still waiting on the OFFICIAL government documents. Also waiting on your definition of containment since you so obviously got it wrong the first time around.
it is difficult to be polite to you....
but i have answered many of your questions in which you refuse to acccept common sense... so i'm not surprised...
tough break on the dover school district for your intelligent design friends...
even now? you post an explanation of containment Foreign POLICY and claim that refutes my statement about the lack of containment strategy of the weapons that Sadam had... your reading comprehension is abyssmal...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
