US Troops are not prepared for chemical or biological attacks - Say *NO* to War -

[Frackal]

The intent was to provoke you. There is plenty left for a good discussion.


BTW, you started the name calling first.

 

[musclebrains]

The anthrax came from a US Military Lab. It did not come from Al-Queda. This has already been proven. Where have you been?

Well that just reiterates my point. I did not know that it had been ruled out that there were Al Qaeda operatives in the U.S.

 

[FreakMonster]

Well that just reiterates my point. I did not know that it had been ruled out that there were Al Qaeda operatives in the U.S.

The anthrax letters were just an Anti-Arab frame up.

 

[CanadianCripple]

The intent was to provoke you. There is plenty left for a good discussion.


BTW, you started the name calling first.

Provoke it did. You hit the one thing that would really do it too. You have to admit that "bitch" thing is very low class.

Anyway, I'll gladly respond to your little list when I have a few minutes. For instance, do you REALLY think an extra year of uncertainty would help the US economy?

BTW, I'm Canadian. So the redneck voice, 2 party stuff etc... may have seemed funny to you, but they don't apply. And the O'Reilly thing was posted by somebody else. The guy is usually too far out there for my liking.

 

[danielson]

Yeah, somehow the wingnuts have recruited many an "average joe" into their camp. Greeeeeeaata!

So what's wrong with the US, Britain & friends taking care of the mistake that is Saddam Hussein? You should be "overjoyed" they're going to smash his regime.

this is the only plus point i can think of


but

afghanistan had limited civillian casualties if the figures are accurate. any collateral damage was minimised and the northern alliance did a lot of the street fighting etc

in iraq there WILL be high civvy casualties as the iraqis will be fighting in the streets.

there will be high casualties amongst our troops. this is bad, especially if the war is for less than honourous reasons

no-one in the islamic world seems to want to to happen as they hate non-believer armies on their soil....so osama will get about 5 million new recruits

saddam may launch anything he does have hanging around causing catasrophe

any resources iraq has that would be pipelines to say israel would be bad PR

the money spent rebuilding iraqs infrastructure will probably be the same company rumsfeld owns stock in

they have yet to prove links between alqueada and iraq. they did with afghanistan

there are better targets.....pakistan, n.korea, saudi, even iran

 

[Doktor Bollix]

You cover a lot of ground there, but here's few points.

The danger to US troops is probably the least persuasive element of your argument. Iraq is by far the weakest of it's neighbors. It has very small numbers of chemical and biological munitions, according to even US sources, mostly weaponized as artillery shells. It only has hundreds where it would need many thousands and has focused on hiding such weapons rather than deploying them. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are only potential ones, his mobile bio-weapons labs are a danger for the future, but he has shit right now.

During the Gulf War, a far more powerful Saddam ordered chemical weapons used. Nothing happened because the central command could no longer reach unit commanders. Their communications infrastructure was dismantled by focused US attacks. The same thing will happen again except much faster. The US has some new toys just for the job.

In any case I am not convinced of the military effectiveness of chemical and biological attacks, even if Saddam had the power. Sure the likes of the British and the Iraqis have managed to kill many thousands of innocent civilians over the years, but battlefield conditions are generally too fluid to use weapons that require specific and non-fluid weather conditions and a static enemy.

Likewise I'm not convinced of the heat argument. The British successfully invaded Iraq during the Summer in 1941, and fought a brutal desert campaign against the Germans and Italians in North Africa. So I'm amazed when people say the US can't do it today when we have the technology to fight at night as effectively as during the day.

The danger to the US comes from other directions, but that's a different thread.

 

[CanadianCripple]

Danielson & Frackal, I surrender. I just spent the last 50 minutes + engaged in heavy debate with co-workers (massive argument had been building). These are people who I know to be otherwise intelligent individuals, but can't see the forest through the trees, so I can't think of anything I could say which would change your minds. Frackal, please don't even bother answering the economic question. It will only get me started again & I want the feeling of banging my head against a wall to stop.

So complain all you will. Bash Bush. Bash me. Bash the right. Bash history. Bash on...

*throws hands in the air & buries head in the sand* AAAAAH RELIEF!

 

[Testosterone boy]

Danielson & Frackal, I surrender.

Must be a French Canadian

 

[CanadianCripple]

Must be a French Canadian

LOL I was expecting that.

 

[danielson]

You cover a lot of ground there, but here's few points.

The danger to US troops is probably the least persuasive element of your argument. Iraq is by far the weakest of it's neighbors. It has very small numbers of chemical and biological munitions, according to even US sources, mostly weaponized as artillery shells. It only has hundreds where it would need many thousands and has focused on hiding such weapons rather than deploying them. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are only potential ones, his mobile bio-weapons labs are a danger for the future, but he has shit right now.

During the Gulf War, a far more powerful Saddam ordered chemical weapons used. Nothing happened because the central command could no longer reach unit commanders. Their communications infrastructure was dismantled by focused US attacks. The same thing will happen again except much faster. The US has some new toys just for the job.

i just meant dangers of urbanized fighting + fighting under rules of engagement constraints which if removed mean bad ad R

and another reason why saddam didnt use his WMD was because the allies made a huge list of consequences as to what would happen if he did. one of them was flooding bagdad by bombing the dams. the list was quite long apparently...

im more afraid he tries to blow a few up in the bases, or even sends a few iran and israels way