Iraqi Troops possibly being armed with chem/bio weapons

Post by **Xouqoa** » March 18, 2003, 7:46 pm

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm ... ID=2394095

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81303,00.html

Propaganda or truth? Who knows. *shrug*

Scary, if it's for real.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 18, 2003, 8:11 pm

I don't see any reason why Saddam wouldn't order using chemical or biological weapons. He know's he's a goner and may as well go out with a bang.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 18, 2003, 8:29 pm

Well if "US Officials" said it then it must be true. I've never known "US Officials" to be wrong before. They rank right up there with "Unamed Sources."

What is all this horseshit about chemical weapons anyway? What fucking country hasn't used chemical weapons in warfare since they were invented? Are you gonna try Iraqis as war criminals for throwing mustard gas canisters at an invading force?

Ajran · Post by **Ajran** » March 18, 2003, 8:38 pm

kyoukan type-R wrote:Are you gonna try Iraqis as war criminals for throwing mustard gas canisters at an invading force?

Not at all.. except for that small problem that they aren't supposed to have any of those weapons in the first place and emphatically deny that they do. If he uses chemical or biological weapons he proves to the world he has had them all along and that he was lieing.

-Ajran

Post by **Xouqoa** » March 18, 2003, 8:44 pm

Ajran wrote:Not at all.. except for that small problem that they aren't supposed to have any of those weapons in the first place and emphatically deny that they do. If he uses chemical or biological weapons he proves to the world he has had them all along and that he was lieing. -Ajran

That's kinda what I was thinking.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 18, 2003, 8:46 pm

I don't think mustard gas grenades count as weapons of mass destruction but I might be wrong.

20,000 lb. bombs aren't though!

Badslinkee · Post by **Badslinkee** » March 18, 2003, 8:57 pm

typical leftish bullshit spewing out kyoukans mouth. Shit, the only reason I registered in the first place was to say SHUT THE FUCK UP to kyoukan. I guess I just forgot about it till now.

thx

P.S. SHUT THE FUCK UP KYOUKAN

Post by **Xouqoa** » March 18, 2003, 8:59 pm

Mustard Gas is a chemical weapon, isn't it?

Iraq employed mustard against Iran during the Iran?Iraq War (1982?1988). One source15 estimates that there were 45,000 mustard casualties.

Neat, huh? Link

Anything that can kill 45,000 people should be considered a WMD. (Even a 20,000 pound bomb.)

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » March 18, 2003, 9:36 pm

Does anyone else know if WMD just = NBC (Nuclear Biological Chemical)? I know that these were just referred to that in older news...and figured the TV network claimed that it was not fair to slash their ratings while calling their network's acronym teh debil

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » March 18, 2003, 9:49 pm

Guns kill that many! One attack of mustard gas isn't going to wipe out that many, I hope you didn't think that's what happened.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 18, 2003, 10:31 pm

Badslinkee wrote:typical leftish bullshit spewing out kyoukans mouth. Shit, the only reason I registered in the first place was to say SHUT THE FUCK UP to kyoukan. I guess I just forgot about it till now.

thx

P.S. SHUT THE FUCK UP KYOUKAN

OH NO!

Post by **Xouqoa** » March 18, 2003, 10:33 pm

I realize it wasn't all in one attack, but I think that the way the chemical works classifies it as a WMD. A mustard gas attack against a clustered group of enemies (or a town) is easily capable of killing 5,000 people, though.

VariaVespasa · Post by **VariaVespasa** » March 18, 2003, 10:53 pm

If he has the weapons then whether or not he uses them depends on whether or not he thinks he's toast. If he thinks he can survive politically without them then he wont because his biggest asset at the moment is the split in nato. Using the weapons he supposedly doesnt have would prove the US was right all along and a lot of the opposition, both politically and among the various civilian populations, would disappear and he'll wind up with more people he has to fight and whose intervention he might not survive. His best chance of survival is to try to create mass casualties and hope it breaks the US's will to fight, but thats gonna be hard to do without WMD (and probably those wont really help either, theyll just slow the US down rather than stop them, since the US does have chemical warfare gear, its just a pain to fight in.). His only real chance is to try to do a stalingrad thing in Bagdad, but that depends on loyalty of the army issues, and how much effect US smart weapons and nightfighting gear can have on old-style house to house fighting. History has clearly shown how ineffective attempting to resist outside of cities is likely to be. The president clearly intends to ignore public opinion during the war (and to a certain extent should) and has too much time left in his term for Saddam to hope that vietnam war style protesting will force a halt to military action anytime soon so working on US public opinion wont really work.

If he thinks he's toast whatever he does then all bets are off I'd imagine, although concerns about how he's viewed by history could still stay his hand.

I guess we'll find out one way or another in the next week.

*Hugs*
Varia

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » March 18, 2003, 10:54 pm

Nice to see Dregor is still a dumbass. Try and look up some mad infoz on something you have no clue on.

Dont think chemicals are a WMD? To me radioactive radation is almost the same thing as having my insides decay in to a pool of blood from mustard gas and other nasty shit, and drown in it while tring to breath. Or grow a huge blister from a blister agent attack that maims sp? you to the point of your nerves are exposed to air for the rest of your life and you live in constant pain. I would love to die to a huge blast than to slowly die from that shit.So in my eyes it is a WMD. We have it, and we should get rid of it also.

Ive seen movies of this shit after a attack in training.Ive been trained for this stuff,and how to advoid it in the woods,front lines. What a wonderful thing of being part of the Army Infantry. At least Im at home now and hope my good friends wont have this stuff used on them,and pray Bush is totally wrong that Saddem hasnt disarmed.

Jugata · Post by **Jugata** » March 19, 2003, 9:16 am

I woulda stowed some of that shit away if I knew 250k peeps were sitting on a boat waiting to beat my ass. It's like the little kid that uses a pipe on the big kids head the 2nd time he tries to beat him up. This war is gonna be nasty unless Saddams own people fuck him.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » March 19, 2003, 9:43 am

If they use chem/biological weapons, it kind of proves our point and also justifies us going in there. Hell, the French said they would aid us anyway they could if Iraq used chemical weapons.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » March 19, 2003, 9:56 am

the U.S. military plans to unleash as many as 3,000 satellite-guided bombs and cruise missiles in the first 48-hours

Obviously, mustard gas is a WMD, but 3000 individual bombs dropped within 48 hours are not WMDs. This war will indeed be brutal.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » March 19, 2003, 10:12 am

Jesus Humhrey Christ some of you are fucking dumbasses. I don't care if they shoot a fucking mustard gas spitwad. The whole reason for this is that they vehemently deny having any of this left. All of you whining fucksticks have bitched and moaned about how wrong the U.S. is and that there are absolutely no chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons in Iraq. If they use ANYTHING from those categories, no matter how small, it completely and utterly proves that the U.S. was correct and that all you pussies should shut the fuck up.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 19, 2003, 11:02 am

kyoukan type-R wrote:Well if "US Officials" said it then it must be true. I've never known "US Officials" to be wrong before. They rank right up there with "Unamed Sources."

What is all this horseshit about chemical weapons anyway? What fucking country hasn't used chemical weapons in warfare since they were invented? Are you gonna try Iraqis as war criminals for throwing mustard gas canisters at an invading force?

Here is the problem with it!! He is not suppose to have any Chemical Weapons.

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » March 19, 2003, 11:03 am

Cartalas wrote:
kyoukan type-R wrote:Well if "US Officials" said it then it must be true. I've never known "US Officials" to be wrong before. They rank right up there with "Unamed Sources."

What is all this horseshit about chemical weapons anyway? What fucking country hasn't used chemical weapons in warfare since they were invented? Are you gonna try Iraqis as war criminals for throwing mustard gas canisters at an invading force?

Here is the problem with it!! He is not suppose to have any Chemical Weapons.

And we won't try them for war crimes, we will just kill them. Carry on~

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 19, 2003, 11:05 am

Gurugurumaki wrote:
Cartalas wrote:
kyoukan type-R wrote:Well if "US Officials" said it then it must be true. I've never known "US Officials" to be wrong before. They rank right up there with "Unamed Sources."

What is all this horseshit about chemical weapons anyway? What fucking country hasn't used chemical weapons in warfare since they were invented? Are you gonna try Iraqis as war criminals for throwing mustard gas canisters at an invading force?

Here is the problem with it!! He is not suppose to have any Chemical Weapons.
And we won't try them for war crimes, we will just kill them. Carry on~

Fine by me!!

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » March 19, 2003, 11:15 am

Xyun wrote:Obviously, mustard gas is a WMD, but 3000 individual bombs dropped within 48 hours are not WMDs. This war will indeed be brutal.

Please, just stop. What kind of spin job is that crap. If he says he doesn't have them and they are, not only, turned up, but actually used then it's a clear cut case of him lying to the UN and the world.

There's just no defense for it. Not even some twisted spin job.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 19, 2003, 11:21 am

Innoculating troops his troops against chem/bio agents doesn't mean he has or will use them any more than our side innoculating troops does. Seems a pretty prudent war preparation for anyone IMO. Especially in this case when Iraq _knows_ it's opponents has such weaponry.

So you should all calm down and stop frothing. Personally I think the chance of any such weapons being used by either side is almost zero.

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » March 19, 2003, 11:23 am

vn_Tanc wrote: So you should all calm down and stop frothing. Personally I think the chance of any such weapons being used by either side is almost zero.

You're kidding that you would even think US, Britain, and the allies would use chemical weapons aren't you?

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 19, 2003, 11:26 am

If we aren't prepared to use them why have them?
Of course we'd fucking use them if the situation demanded it.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » March 19, 2003, 11:30 am

vn_Tanc wrote:Innoculating troops his troops against chem/bio agents doesn't mean he has or will use them any more than our side innoculating troops does. Seems a pretty prudent war preparation for anyone IMO. Especially in this case when Iraq _knows_ it's opponents has such weaponry.

So you should all calm down and stop frothing. Personally I think the chance of any such weapons being used by either side is almost zero.

Personally, I know the chance of us using that type of weapon is zero. I do not know that of the iraqi's. This will be this guy's final stand, who knows for sure what will come out of it. Innoculating troops is not for protection against the weapons America could use, come on. Kevlar maybe, but innoculations?

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » March 19, 2003, 11:33 am

vn_Tanc wrote:If we aren't prepared to use them why have them?
Of course we'd fucking use them if the situation demanded it.

How would a situation demand it, that a 21,000 pound bomb wouldn't take care of. We don't want to wipe out the entire Iraqi populace, just destroy specific targets. No way in hell will we use chemical or bio weapons, those can't be controlled(wind conditions, exposure to allies, etc.)~

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 19, 2003, 11:39 am

I'm no military planner and neither are you but again we have "100% certain" and "personally sure" and no fucking backup to that opinion other than "but it's US! We're the good guys!"
I guarantee you somewhere there is a plan that calls for their use. I'm sure the probability of said plan being called upon is extremely low but it's gonna be non-zero.
And the corrollary of that is that when you go into war you prepare for EVERY eventuality no matter how remote the chance of it occurring and that includes innoculating your troops.

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » March 19, 2003, 11:42 am

vn_Tanc wrote:I'm no military planner and neither are you but again we have "100% certain" and "personally sure" and no fucking backup to that opinion other than "but it's US! We're the good guys!"
I guarantee you somewhere there is a plan that calls for their use. I'm sure the probability of said plan being called upon is extremely low but it's gonna be non-zero.
And the corrollary of that is that when you go into war you prepare for EVERY eventuality no matter how remote the chance of it occurring and that includes innoculating your troops.

Fair enough, I thought you were a General though, huh~

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » March 19, 2003, 11:45 am

yeah.....Generaly Stupid

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » March 19, 2003, 11:49 am

Generaly Stupid

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » March 19, 2003, 11:52 am

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:yeah.....Generaly Stupid

Tanc is a good guy, although I don't agree with his views, just need to know him.

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » March 19, 2003, 12:03 pm

While I'm sure some upstart officer wrote a report about a plan for us using chemical weapons, considering the situation, do you really think we would use them against Iraq? We've been making this huge case about how Iraq has these weapons of mass destruction, and how they need to be disarmed. Would we then go off and use them against Iraq, with the whole world watching our every action and just wanting an excuse to throw more mud? I'm asking this as a question, because I don't know if we would turn around and use the same weapons that we've been trying to take from them.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » March 19, 2003, 12:16 pm

I may be totally out to lunch here, because I don't feel like looking it up...
but wasn't mustard gas banned in by Geneva Convention after WW1? I was always under the impression that it was. If thats the case, then wouldn't arming someone with it and using/commanding its use (be it grenades or artillery shells or some other method of delivery) be considered a war crime?

I guess I don't see a grenade as a WMD but if my assumption of the above is true...

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » March 19, 2003, 12:18 pm

kyoukan type-R wrote:Well if "US Officials" said it then it must be true. I've never known "US Officials" to be wrong before. They rank right up there with "Unamed Sources."

What is all this horseshit about chemical weapons anyway? What fucking country hasn't used chemical weapons in warfare since they were invented? Are you gonna try Iraqis as war criminals for throwing mustard gas canisters at an invading force?

WHAT!?!11? IRAQI'S HAVE IMAGINARY MUSTARD GAS CANNISTERS?????

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 19, 2003, 12:31 pm

wasn't mustard gas banned in by Geneva Convention after WW1?

Yeah but like most things the Geneva Convention outlaws their use not their possession. Same with dum dum bullets, flechettes etc.
That's assuming a war will be fought according to the convention anyway. Plenty aren't.

As for the will we/won't we thing - that's not the point I'm trying to make. Of course I don't believe we'll need to use such weapons. However from the Iraqi POV, they know we have them, therefore the chance of their use is non-zero, therefore troop innoculations are a prudent measure.
I make this point simply to counter the "innoculations = HE WAS WMD AND IS GONNA USE THEM!!1!" sentiments posted here.

It also seems to be the assumption that should chemical/bio weapons be used against our troops that we will automatically nuke Iraq - an idea that has got seen a lot of support here from the unthinking masses. How is this different from replying with chemical weapons? Why is one notion acceptable and other beyond countenance?

And anyway "WMD" has become such an overused term as to be almost meaningless. When MOAB doesn't count but a mustard gas canister does it's time to check your head. And also mustard gas is a hell of a different prospect than VX which has been the hot topic lately. Mustard gas can be seen, stinks, is survivable and needs fairly large concentrations to kill (it's a horrific weapon don't get me wrong). VX is odourless, colourless, infiltrates the body and kills in minute doses. I guess the (thin) distinction I'm trying to make is that if a mustard bomb went off in your city you'd be able to run. If nerve gas ever did you wouldn't. Hence applying the same emotive "WMD" term to both is a little misguiding.

Post by **Xouqoa** » March 19, 2003, 12:40 pm

I think the only way the US/Allies would use WMD against Iraq is in a doomsday scenario. I think (think being the keyword, strictly hypothesis!) that we would use them in even a retalitory manner if the situation called for it, but it would have to be a pretty fucking desperate situation. I really don't see it happening, but you never know!

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » March 19, 2003, 12:51 pm

Xouqoa wrote:I think the only way the US/Allies would use WMD against Iraq is in a doomsday scenario. I think (think being the keyword, strictly hypothesis!) that we would use them in even a retalitory manner if the situation called for it, but it would have to be a pretty fucking desperate situation. I really don't see it happening, but you never know!

Under what circumstances could you see the USA in this encounter being pushed so far into a corner that they would use the weapons they are so vehemently opposing?

Mort · Post by **Mort** » March 19, 2003, 1:09 pm

If Saddam sent a scud full of VX into Isreal... Im thinking we would make him very sorry (Nuke Maybe?).

Post by **Xouqoa** » March 19, 2003, 1:14 pm

Atokal wrote:Under what circumstances could you see the USA in this encounter being pushed so far into a corner that they would use the weapons they are so vehemently opposing?

I dunno, really. I imagine it would have to be pretty horrific. However, if it came to that I would expect us to just withdraw instead of unleashing that hell upon anyone.

If our troops were cut off from retreat, and beset on all sides by Iraqi forces which were armed with/using Chem/Bio weapons, I could see the US commander giving the order to use them. I think that is a HIGHLY unlikely scenario, due to the amount of Naval/Air Force power we will have in the skies over Iraq. Like I said... doomsday scenario. I really don't think it'll come to that, though. Hopefully this will be a quick war, over before it even starts.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 19, 2003, 1:25 pm

US wont be taking chem/bio weapons into the field, so there will be no scenario where they could be used.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 19, 2003, 1:28 pm

Just as in 1945 these weapons would be used then the other options won't work. "Other options" not working in this particular case is highly unlikely though I'd say.

Winston Churchill constantly suggested gassing the nazi troops in WW2 as he had done in WW1. Eisenhower didn't go for it. So one 'good guy' stopped another doing something heinous.
When the US overran Germany they found 1000s of gas-filled shells unused at a time when the german army was _hurting_ for artillery ammunition. Hitler refused to sanction their use. Even the biggest 'bad guy' of the last few centuries had a line he would not cross.

Good guys/bad guys is never a cut and dried issue. Everything is relative and there are no absolutes

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 19, 2003, 1:30 pm

US wont be taking chem/bio weapons into the field, so there will be no scenario where they could be used.

True but there will be a vast number of tactical and strategic nukes available. You can't innoculate against those though

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 19, 2003, 1:40 pm

absolutely.

i dont think the US will find itself in a situation where a conventional alternative is not available though. You arent going to drop a nuke if a small troop detachment is isolated in an urban environment, and beyond that, there are no likely scenarios for groups of US troops to be in trouble.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 19, 2003, 1:47 pm

True

But if there were an innoculation against nukes and Iraqi troops were being given it would we have people here trumpetting about how it proves he has them?

I reckon. . .yes!

Mort · Post by **Mort** » March 19, 2003, 1:57 pm

If Saddam sent a scud full of VX into Isreal... Im thinking we would make him very sorry (Nuke Maybe?).

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » March 19, 2003, 2:16 pm

WTF? 48 minute double post?

Mort · Post by **Mort** » March 19, 2003, 2:18 pm

Wooooops, Boss walked in and left VV going in the backround....

/apol

Gutterr · Post by **Gutterr** » March 19, 2003, 8:16 pm

Mort wrote:If Saddam sent a scud full of VX into Isreal... Im thinking we would make him very sorry (Nuke Maybe?).

Unless there was a direct attack on US soil, I could pretty much quarantee you won't see a nuke. The only remote possiblility I would ever even think that the US would use a nuke would be to blow one up in the atmosphere for the EMP effect, and scare tactic.

noel · Post by **noel** » March 19, 2003, 10:06 pm

I can't see any scenario that could possibly occur that would cause the US to use a tactical nuke. There's just no way in hell.

VeeshanVault

Iraqi Troops possibly being armed with chem/bio weapons

Iraqi Troops possibly being armed with chem/bio weapons

lol

Re: lol