galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

Coalition To Use WMD's First

Sat Mar 29, 2003 6:46 am

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
 
erj190
Posts: 371
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2000 12:26 pm

RE: Coalition To Use WMD's First

Sat Mar 29, 2003 6:50 am


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
 
747-451
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2000 5:50 am

RE: Coalition To Use WMD's First

Sat Mar 29, 2003 8:30 am

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)....
 
Guest

RE: Coalition To Use WMD's First

Sat Mar 29, 2003 5:09 pm

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




ADG
 
We're Nuts
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 6:12 am

RE: Coalition To Use WMD's First

Sat Mar 29, 2003 5:13 pm

*flame suit on*

Define WMD, ADG.
Dear moderators: No.
 
galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: Coalition To Use WMD's First

Sat Mar 29, 2003 10:28 pm

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
 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: Coalition To Use WMD's First

Sat Mar 29, 2003 10:33 pm

So, even if a conventional (whatever the hell that means) weapon causes 'mass destruction' it's not a 'weapon of mass destruction'???????
 
galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: Coalition To Use WMD's First

Sat Mar 29, 2003 10:41 pm

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
 
airplay
Posts: 3369
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 1:58 am

RE: Coalition To Use WMD's First

Sat Mar 29, 2003 11:21 pm

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.






 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Coalition To Use WMD's First

Sun Mar 30, 2003 7:26 am

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.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Coalition To Use WMD's First

Sun Mar 30, 2003 7:38 am

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.
 
747-451
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2000 5:50 am

RE: Coalition To Use WMD's First

Sun Mar 30, 2003 8:32 am

"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




 
Guest

RE: Coalition To Use WMD's First

Sun Mar 30, 2003 8:49 am

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
 
747-451
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2000 5:50 am

RE: Coalition To Use WMD's First

Sun Mar 30, 2003 9:12 am

"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


"



 
Guest

RE: Coalition To Use WMD's First

Sun Mar 30, 2003 12:39 pm

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
 
zeus01
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue May 08, 2001 11:06 am

RE: Coalition To Use WMD's First

Sun Mar 30, 2003 1:02 pm

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.
 
jessman
Posts: 1457
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 1:11 pm

RE: Coalition To Use WMD's First

Sun Mar 30, 2003 1:15 pm

"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.
 
airplay
Posts: 3369
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 1:58 am

RE: Coalition To Use WMD's First

Sun Mar 30, 2003 1:29 pm

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.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Coalition To Use WMD's First

Mon Mar 31, 2003 3:56 am

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.
 
airplay
Posts: 3369
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 1:58 am

RE: Coalition To Use WMD's First

Mon Mar 31, 2003 4:10 am

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.
 
USAFHummer
Posts: 10261
Joined: Thu May 18, 2000 12:22 pm

RE: Coalition To Use WMD's First

Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:38 pm

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
 
Guest

RE: Coalition To Use WMD's First

Mon Mar 31, 2003 7:05 pm

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
 
srbmod
Posts: 15446
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:32 pm

RE: Coalition To Use WMD's First

Tue Apr 01, 2003 5:58 am

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.
 
TechRep
Posts: 1877
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2002 6:53 am

RE: Coalition To Use WMD's First

Tue Apr 01, 2003 6:33 am

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
 
Guest

RE: Coalition To Use WMD's First

Tue Apr 01, 2003 7:02 am

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
 
Krushny
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2000 4:22 am

RE: Coalition To Use WMD's First

Tue Apr 01, 2003 9:56 pm

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 see it logical. I see the point of using NBC warfare overseas, or in the middle of the desert, but in your capital? If the Iraqis liberated a bio agent in the midst of the American troops, how could they prevent the local population to be contaminated too?

Of course there is also the posibility that the Saddamites want a grand catastrophic ending taking all the Bagdad population with them, a la Numantina. (I hope not).

 
Glenn
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:33 pm

RE: Coalition To Use WMD's First

Tue Apr 01, 2003 10:07 pm

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 not allowed outside the observation room. Apart from teh obvious shockwave which was stronger than I thought, the amount of rocks that then hit the building was an eye opener. More than double that, I wouldn't want to be 2 miles away let alone the block next door.

Next

Viva la Apple Pies
 
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: Coalition To Use WMD's First

Wed Apr 02, 2003 12:39 am

Hey, we have plenty of WMD's......and we use them all the time.

They are called MARINES!  Big grin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests