Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Coalition To Use WMD's First  
User currently offlineGalaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 24
Posted (11 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2239 times:

lol this has got a set up or somthing, i can see it now, Iraq will use WMDs on their own people and blame us for first strike. Of course there are those on here that are gullable enough and hate America and the coalition enough to believe it.

Iraq: Coalition may use WMD
Friday, March 28, 2003 Posted: 1:32 PM EST (1832 GMT)
SPECIAL REPORT

• War Tracker
• On the Scene Map
• Commanders: U.S. | Iraq
• Weapons: 3D Models
• Casualties | POW/MIA
• Special Report

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraq's information minister said Friday that coalition forces -- not Iraqis -- might resort to weapons of mass destruction out of frustration and defeat

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/28/sprj.irq.iraq.sahaf/index.html


"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineErj190 From Portugal, joined Dec 2000, 397 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (11 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2211 times:


Of course the US is going to use Chemical weapons first

How the Heck do you want to massively kill gazillion flies, mosquitoes and the likes without a bug spray ? Big grin


User currently offline747-451 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2417 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (11 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2169 times:

WMD's have already been deployed! The blather of Rumsfeld, Carter, Clinton (both), Sarandon, Baldwin (extra lethal gas bomb), Moore (triple threat of gas (!), mass, and density)....

User currently offlineADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (11 years 4 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2141 times:

Actually, the US has dropped at least 2 WMD on Baghdad, if not more ... so I guess the Iraqis were right.




ADG


User currently offlineWe're Nuts From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (11 years 4 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2122 times:

*flame suit on*

Define WMD, ADG.



Dear moderators: No.
User currently offlineGalaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 24
Reply 5, posted (11 years 4 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2097 times:

What two WMDs did the US drop ADG, are you refering to the 4700lb bunker busters? Those arent WMD those are conventional munitions, again you make yourself look the fool with rediculous statements like that


"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
User currently offlineEg777er From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 1837 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (11 years 4 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2093 times:

So, even if a conventional (whatever the hell that means) weapon causes 'mass destruction' it's not a 'weapon of mass destruction'???????

User currently offlineGalaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (11 years 4 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2084 times:

First off the 4700lb bunker buster did not create "mass distruction" it leveled a building not an entire city block. a weapon of mass distruction is a weapon that is used to inflict massive casualties on a scale much larger than any conventional weapons could ( a conventional weapon uses conventional explosives ie not nuclear and does specific damage to a specific target) while a WMD ie.. nuclear weapon, dirty bomb, chemical & biological weapon is inteneded to inflict mass casualites not exclusive to a specific target.


"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (11 years 4 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2082 times:

So I guess the coalition forces are a collective "Weapon of Mass Destruction". Because over the last week they have inflicted massive casualties.

If a biological weapon only ends up killing 100 people is it still considered a weapon of mass destruction?

If a non-nuke cruise missle strikes contaminates or prevents the distribution of a city's water supply (a city of say 5 million) would that put it in the WMD definition?

Is a 767 driven into a building killing over a thousand people a WMD?

These silly definitions of what is or isn't a single WMD just cloud the issue. The arguement used here totally ignores the hundreds of cruise missles launched in this war even though the resultant damage and loss of life argurably equal the damage of a single so-called "WMD".

You just have to look at CNN's "war" website. They describe the US nukes as "tactical". That's an attempt to avoid classifying them as WMDs. They even go so far as calling some "mini-nukes". How precious! Tactical weapons, whether they are nukes or not, have the ability to cause a great deal of deaths.

Don't get me wrong! (as usual) I don't condone Saddam using chemical weapons but if you want to prevent this sort of thing, maybe we should have come up with an alternative plan other than forcing his hand in this war that is destabilizing the region more and more each day.








User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 9, posted (11 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2042 times:

Even the Daisy Cutter and the MOAB aren't WMD's.

I have yet to see anybody dispute that those market shells might have been Iraqi AAA comming back down.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2029 times:

So I guess the coalition forces are a collective "Weapon of Mass Destruction". Because over the last week they have inflicted massive casualties.

What "massive casualties", Airplay. Even according to Iraqi reports, only about 370 civilians have died in the whole war. That is not "massive" by any stretch. And if you refer to military casualties, well, that goes with the territory, doesn't it. If they're going to fight the Marines or the Army, they're going to die, aren't they? People in Uniform know that they may die, that's part of war.

But again, you give out bogus information to again flame your loathing for the U.S. Saying these casualties are massive is about as funny as when Indianguy claimed that U.S. recon plane that was 150 miles from the DRPK was withing a "cat's whisker" of that woebegone country.


User currently offline747-451 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2417 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (11 years 4 months 4 weeks ago) and read 2014 times:

"Is a 767 driven into a building killing over a thousand people a WMD?"

You're kidding right? You CAN make a distinction between a hijacked 767, a strictly civiliian aircradft used to take passengers on holiday or business trips :-i, not being used for the puropse it was intended right  Yeah sure. If a 767 is a weapon of mass destruction, so is a bus, a train or a cruise ship. Any thing can be used as a weapon now can't it?  Yeah sure


"So I guess the coalition forces are a collective "Weapon of Mass Destruction". Because over the last week they have inflicted massive casualties."

If 370 is "mass casualties"  Yeah sure what do you call approx. 3000??? armegeddon?  Insane

"...maybe we should have come up with an alternative plan other than forcing his hand in this war that is destabilizing the region more and more each day."

Many things were tried, the UN, 12 years worth of grovelling...er ... inspections, negotiations, even France paying blackmail and it hasn't kept him quiet. As far as this action destabilizing the whole region, it certainly says alot about the condition of the various dictatorships, theorcracies and tyrannies that typify a >majority< the "governments" of the area... Insane

"They describe the US nukes as "tactical". That's an attempt to avoid classifying them as WMDs. They even go so far as calling some "mini-nukes". How precious! Tactical weapons, whether they are nukes or not, have the ability to cause a great deal of deaths."

As do 767's  Insane again it comes to "intent" now doesn't it. It is highly doubtful that the US would use any sort of nuke in the area firsty, where as SH would if he had them. Tactical is a defencive term, WMD's are more than likely used offensively a tyrant such as Hussein or the Cazalwearing /high heel shoed/big haired Kim Jung Il, first to commit an act of barbarism...but again a bomb is a bomb--and how it is used is the key. I would rather use a bomb th blow up SH's palace/rape room/laboratory that have him bomb the Sears Tower or the Louvre.... Insane






User currently offlineADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (11 years 4 months 4 weeks ago) and read 2007 times:

Define WMD, ADG.

A weapon that causes mass destruction.

What two WMDs did the US drop ADG, are you refering to the 4700lb bunker busters? Those arent WMD those are conventional munitions, again you make yourself look the fool with rediculous statements like that

incorrect, what is really ridiculous is people who change the meaning of words to suit themselves. The terms are dictionary defined .. look them up:

weapons
mass
destruction

So, even if a conventional (whatever the hell that means) weapon causes 'mass destruction' it's not a 'weapon of mass destruction'???????

Go Canada would have you believe that they aren't because that way he can claim that the US hasn't used them. As I said above, the terms are quite specific in the dictionary. What GC is referring to is most likely nuclear, biological or chemical, but if we even look there we see that when Hussein "gassed the kurds" he killed 2000. A good diasy cutter or bunker bomb can kill far more than that so I can't see how he can argue with any degree of credibility that one is a WMD and one isn't.

The only difference I can see is who is dropping them, but surely he isn't saying that if American drops it then it isn't a WMD but if Iraq does it is?

Clearly it's just another case of the ignorant changing the meanings of words to suit themselves.

What "massive casualties", Airplay. Even according to Iraqi reports, only about 370 civilians have died in the whole war. That is not "massive" by any stretch.

Wouldn't that depend if that constitutes members of your family or not?  Laugh out loud

You're kidding right? You CAN make a distinction between a hijacked 767, a strictly civiliian aircradft used to take passengers on holiday or business trips :-i, not being used for the puropse it was intended right

Clearly you have missed the issue he raised.

Blah blah rant rant (snipped).

As do 767's again it comes to "intent" now doesn't it. It is highly doubtful that the US would use any sort of nuke in the area firsty, where as SH would if he had them.

Again, you're making statements you cannot justify. You sound like you should be on Fox News as one of their cast...

Tactical is a defencive term,

defenSive? Tactical isn't a defensive term at all, I suggest you learn what it means.

WMD's are more than likely used offensively a tyrant such as Hussein or the Cazalwearing /high heel shoed/big haired Kim Jung Il, first to commit an act of barbarism...

Again you clearly lack understanding of basic terms. WMD's are weapons of mass destruction go look the words up.

but again a bomb is a bomb--and how it is used is the key. I would rather use a bomb th blow up SH's palace/rape room/laboratory that have him bomb the Sears Tower or the Louvre....

but that doesn't change whether a bomb is a WMD or not, that's just you voicing your opinion.




ADG


User currently offline747-451 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2417 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1992 times:

"Again, you're making statements you cannot justify. "

Previous actions speak volumes of proclivities don't they? SH gassed a large number of Kurds with, well, gas. If he had something else to use, he would and will. Can you say with absolute certainty he wont??

"Wouldn't that depend if that constitutes members of your family or not? "

I am aquainted with these emotions ADG, my father was murdered on January 18th, and know that death is very devastating, especially when violence is involved. But again 370 is not 3000. So what is the point.

"Clearly you have missed the issue he raised."

No ADG, I haven't. What I did realize is that the comments were assinine. So then by his single dimensional definition "anything" is a WMD, from a 747SR to all the chemical plants along Route 1 in Edison NJ.

"defenSive? "

Can't you move past the spelling thing  Smile


"





User currently offlineADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1981 times:

Previous actions speak volumes of proclivities don't they? SH gassed a large number of Kurds with, well, gas.

Yes, and a black man was dragged to his death chained on the back of a car in the US once too .. does that mean that we should say with certainty that it will happen again?

If he had something else to use, he would and will. Can you say with absolute certainty he wont??

No I can' no more say with certainty that he won't than you can say that he will.

I am aquainted with these emotions ADG, my father was murdered on January 18th, and know that death is very devastating, especially when violence is involved. But again 370 is not 3000. So what is the point.

What constitutes a large number is dependant on the person. To someone living in a country of 285,000,000 people probably thinks 370 dead isn't that much but to someone in a country of 20,000,000 it nearly exceeds the number of people who die on our roads per year so to me, for instance, that is a lot of people to have died. Now I don't necessarily agree that 370 dead consititues a "large number of dead civilians" in regards to this war, I just wanted to make the point that the number is relative to what you are used to.

Can't you move past the spelling thing

Just asking, you appear to like to throw big words around, so you should be able to spell them  Laugh out loud



ADG


User currently offlineZeus01 From United States of America, joined May 2001, 744 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1974 times:

You know ADG, your would make a great Soviet. You love your conspiracy theories. Once agian, your communist ignorance shine through the haze of war like the sun. Oh my gosh.


A WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION--as defined by the United Nations consists of only and limited to NBC weapons--meaning ALL Nuclear (including dirty bombs), Chemical and Biological agents. WMD's according to the UN Charter does not include conventional munitions (bunker busters, daisy cutters, artillery etc.).

A hijacked plane isn't a WMD and neither is a conventional cruise missile. ADG, quite throwing around your definitions of things as if those definitions were fact, its just not right.


NOTE: we are all typing here. WE all will make mistakes in spelling and grammar, it is inevitable. Anyone so pathetic as to attack a persons views based on their spelling only makes a fool of themselves.


User currently offlineJessman From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1506 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1964 times:

"Yes, and a black man was dragged to his death chained on the back of a car in the US once too .. does that mean that we should say with certainty that it will happen again?"

I'm unsure of the logic behind this statement. Those that dragged the black man were thrown in prison. SH has no body inside his country to put him in prison. If these sickos weren't thrown in jail you can't say with certainty that they wouldn't drag somebody every day. I submit that they probably would, seeing as how they taped it and expressed their pleasure every time an appendage was violently ripped off.


User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1974 times:

And if you refer to military casualties, well, that goes with the territory, doesn't it. If they're going to fight the Marines or the Army, they're going to die, aren't they? People in Uniform know that they may die, that's part of war.


Alpha1,

Are you implying that the definition of WMDs has anything to do with whether the victims are military or not? What a silly conclusion to draw.

I guess if Saddam kills 100,000 coalition force personnel with chemical weapons then its just a "defensive" act. But if he kills 1000 civilians then the classification of the weapon changes??

Again, in the coalition force's eyes it seems that the definition of WMDs is based on who is lobbing it.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 18, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1930 times:

ADG.

Your definition of WMD's is so vauge even the front bumpers of cars would count.

I have been told my farts cause mass destruction, do I now have to register my arse with the UN?

I had a Chimichanga last night.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1924 times:

ADG,

You're confusing WMDs with SBDs. (Silent but deadly) Although the existence of these weapons have been well known and documented, they are extremely difficult to detect until it's too late.

Advanced deployment techniques have been developed whereas once the weapon is discharged, the deployment vehicle can flee the scene quite easily.

The one weak point is that there is little control of when the weapon deploys. My dad told me tales of the plans of many men to maintain the discharges in glass jars or sofa cushions, but the efforts of these brave soles were for naught. Many suffered watery eyes, and nausea in their selfless attempts.

SBDs cannot be considered WMDs. Although they are responsible for "grossing out" many friends and even destroying marriages, their range is quite limited and you can't drop them from an airplane. You pretty much have to deliver the ordnance in person. That's why the coalition forces don't use it.


User currently offlineUSAFHummer From United States of America, joined May 2000, 10685 posts, RR: 53
Reply 20, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1887 times:

Post 9/11 havent they started to consider large commercial aircraft as WMD's given what happened????

Greg



Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
User currently offlineADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1856 times:

You know ADG, your would make a great Soviet.

My what would make a great Soviet?

You love your conspiracy theories.

That's the criteria for being a great Soviet?

Once agian, your communist ignorance shine through the haze of war like the sun. Oh my gosh.

LMFAO ...  Laugh out loud Hey, i'm not the one who put "you wuold make a great Soviet" and "you love conspiracy theories" into the same paragraph  Wink/being sarcastic.

A WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION--as defined by the United Nations consists of only and limited to NBC weapons--meaning ALL Nuclear (including dirty bombs), Chemical and Biological agents. WMD's according to the UN Charter does not include conventional munitions (bunker busters, daisy cutters, artillery etc.).

I'm not that interested in what we call "wank terms",which are terms that are amended to suit a particular country. It's like using the term "collateral damage" when the term is in reality "murder of civilians".

A hijacked plane isn't a WMD and neither is a conventional cruise missile.

When a hijacked plane hits a building and causes 3000 deaths I'd suggest that is a weapon of mass destruction. Unless you're going to tell me that there wasn't mass destruction on the site of the WTC on September 11th 2001.

ADG, quite throwing around your definitions of things as if those definitions were fact, its just not right.

Actually, i'd suggest that the UN term as you have quoted is outdated and doesn't take into consideration the damage/destrucation that can occur with other weapons.

NOTE: we are all typing here. WE all will make mistakes in spelling and grammar, it is inevitable. Anyone so pathetic as to attack a persons views based on their spelling only makes a fool of themselves.

 Laugh out loud depends what they misspell doesn't it?

I'm unsure of the logic behind this statement. Those that dragged the black man were thrown in prison.

It means that horrific things happen all the time and the gassing of the kurds was a single incident that is being used ad nauseum to justify a course of action that will most likely result in the deaths of more people than who were killed in the attack.

The analogy of that black man is that it's a single incident that hasn't (in my knowledge) been repeated and we don't judge America and it's dealing with the blacks on the single incident that occurred on that night.

I have been told my farts cause mass destruction, do I now have to register my arse with the UN?

Chuckle

Airplay,

I think you mean to direct that to L-188. I have registered his arse as a WMD.

By the way .. WMD have been discovered at FOX and CNN... "Wild Media Distortions".




ADG


User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1826 times:

The Coalition will only use WMDs in retaliation for a WMD attack on their troops, either directly or indirectly. Since the Coalition battleplan was not what the Iraqi s were anticipating (they had expected Coalition forces to come through several congested routes and would launch WMDs in those bootlenecks to inflict the max casualities). The thought is that once the Coalition forces get with a certain distance from Baghdad and Tikrit, the Republican Guard units will launch WMD attacks on Coalition forces. The Iraqis would be absolutely desparate to use their WMDs, because the U.S. has already said that if they are the victims of an attack using WMDs, that the country responsible for the attack would get nuked. Perhaps Iraq wants that to happen in order to get International sympathy on their side; but even so, this would prove that Iraq was never sincere in their attempts to be rid of WMDs, and would backfire in their face.

User currently offlineTechRep From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1815 times:

I was privy too a lot of NBC training while in the Air Force. Kunsan AB has some of the most intense NBC training I have ever seen and we would train three-weeks in the gear at various “MOP” levels with one week off, continually for a one-year tour.

I can tell you this, chemical and/or biological ordinance will not be used in a densely populated city with civilians or non-combatants even if attacked by like weapons. These weapons are area weapons and are designed for battlefield use not for population centers. The military doctrine is very clear in this area.

The only way NBC weapons would be used in population centers would be in a full-scale provocation (World War Scenario), First strike against our homeland by an enemy military force or Mutual Annihilation. We are so well trained and equipped for NBC attacks we could literally fight safely, in a hot area, for 3 days without leaving.

IMO we would not use Chemical or Biological weapons in Iraq. I can’t see any scenario where Nuclear weapons would ever be deployed to the region either. Doctrine may have changed in 12 years but unlikely.

TechRep


User currently offlineADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1822 times:

If you use the terms WMD as meaning Biological or Chemical weaponry then I also believe that the US forces will NOT use them in Iraq.



ADG


25 Krushny : Techrep, it is very interesting what you say. I have been thinking about the posibility of the Iraqis using WMD's in the Bagdad siege, and I do not s
26 Glenn : if you think a 4700lb bomb will reduce a building to rubble and nothing else thing again. I have been 3 Klms away from a 2000lb bomb detonation. I was
27 Post contains images JeffM : Hey, we have plenty of WMD's......and we use them all the time. They are called MARINES!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
U.S Plans To Use Nukes In First Strikes. posted Tue Jun 18 2002 10:09:09 by JETPILOT
Anyone Tried To Use Your Credit Card? posted Wed Nov 8 2006 11:07:28 by Oly720man
What's A Good/easy To Use Video Editing Program? posted Wed Oct 25 2006 03:06:08 by Mke717spotter
Teen Girls Less Likely To Use Condom posted Fri Aug 4 2006 03:57:03 by Dc10s4ever
Why The Old Shoudnt Be Allowed To Use Computers posted Fri May 12 2006 20:03:42 by Nighthawk
NBA: Spurs, Cavs Look To Close Out First Round posted Sat May 6 2006 02:05:11 by Falcon84
Anyone Else Going To Use Chat? posted Wed Mar 8 2006 22:00:56 by Mattlad
SF To Use Dog Poop For Power. posted Wed Feb 22 2006 02:12:29 by FutureSDPDcop
How To Use A Traffic Roundabout In Your Country? posted Sun Jan 15 2006 00:42:46 by HT
Ebay - Easy To Use? posted Fri Jan 13 2006 03:13:02 by Fly_yhm