I hate being right

Go to Google.com search engine, type in "weapons of mass destruction" then press (I'm feeling lucky). Take a look at the error message that appears. It cracks me up

Hi RrhainI was actually responding to this

quote:

---

Yeah, our government talks a good talk about not having chemical weapons, but why on earth would anybody believe us?

---

About the believability of our government. Since it is not really reasonable to believe most governments, trying to find out the truth (considering the media is not REALLY independent) would be a formidible task as to why the Iraqi units had gas masks. And considering the entire "war" was presented by the media (I saw most coverage on CNN) like an episode of star wars with its own theme music and "embedded" journalists...it is unlikely any of us will ever get to know why the war happened, what actually happened during the war, and who is profiting from the raping..ahem..meant rebuilding of Iraq that is currently underway.My point about Europe had to do with the relative trustworthiness of the US government. Most of the governments that were so vocally against the war, particularly Germany, are now stumbling over themselves to kiss up to the US to ensure continuing and future business contracts...hardly seems they will be seeking the truth or showing much integrity themeselves in future developments since they are trying to protect their financial interests.

Your profile says you're from the Netherlands so I'm going to assume that is your government... If I'm wrong ignore the following.If I am right, then you can't really say anything. The Dutch government had no balls at all during the Iraq fiasco. It sat on the fence until the war started, then declared itself in support of the US. And is now about to, or in the process of, sending troops to Iraq to help the US occupation which has exhibited no plans on how to actually help the Iraqis.I realize that the majority of people in the Netherlands were critical of the US and the war. But the Dutch government played along with the US just as well as any of the rest.This was particularly embarrassing to me since I have always held the Dutch government up as a more rational government. Well maybe it's mainly Balkenende's fault, but in the US it's Bush's fault. Which means it is the government's fault of both countries equally.To my mind the only governments who did right in this conflict were: France, Germany, Russia, Canada, and Belgium. For Pete's sake even Belgium showed more cahones then the Netherlands!------------------
holmes

Rrhain was correct in stating that it may be the Iraqis were afraid of what the US would use.And as it turns out they were more than likely correct.As the war was just beginning, the Guardian had an article on the US's intended use of chemical-weapons in Iraq.
Chemical hypocrites | George Monbiot | The GuardianObviously those were "non-lethal" but in sufficient quantities? And either way the Iraqis would have to protect themselves from such gases just the same.I was always surprised that that bit of information never became the major uproar it should have been.------------------
holmes

quote:

---

I was always surprised that that bit of information never became the major uproar it should have been.

---

How many times can we all say this before it stops being a surprise?

Wow, the CIA came to the same conclusion I and others did. Maybe because it was blindingly obvious?Oct. Report Said Defeated Hussein Would Be Threat
Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines

quote:

---

The second thing I find strange is that many Iraqi units were found well equipped with gas masks, chemical suits and chemical antidote. Why would they burden their units with all this equipment if not for protection from their own chemical weapons? It doesn't make sense.

---

Standard procedure in modern warfare.
When Ronnie "I don't recall that" Reagan sent a division to storm Grenada, the paratroopers were issued brand new chemical suits and fresh filters for their gas masks, which are, by the way, standard equipment.
and the folks on Grenada were what - a handfull of Cuban soldoiers and some farmers?What bugs me about this WMD thing is that Rumsfeld declared that we knew where the weapons were, then, upon not finding them, went off on this "oh, they've had 10 years to hide them" bit.They couldn't have been that well hidden if we "knew" where they were - before the war, anyway.
or maybe 'we' just didn't know where they were in the first place.

Don't forget that they're supposed to be in Syria...or has the White House backed off of that assertion, too?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

If the Iraqis feared a chemical attack, would it be more likely that they would be 'wearing' them?

US troops--- fearing chemical attack--- were issued protective gear. As anyone who watched the continuing coverage of the Iraq War should know, our soldiers did not wear that gear unless there was an imminent threat of attack.Alarms would sound, orders would come and soldiers would don the gear until such time as they didn't have to anymore.I can only assume that Iraqis would be no different. That kind of gear is incredibly uncomfortable and greatly reduces combat capability (unless chemicals are in the air).------------------
holmes

Bit late to be ringing bells and donning gear when gas shells explode around you. Maybe the fact that neither side geared up could indicate that the officers of both sides had a low expectancy these weapons would be used.

Nighttrain responds to me:

quote:

---

If the Iraqis feared a chemical attack, would it be more likely that they would be 'wearing' them?

---

Only if they were afraid of an imminent chemical attack.Our own troops were worried about chemical attacks, but they were not wearing their chem suits 24/7.Think about it: Wear a plastic suit with restricted breathing in the middle of the Iraqi desert. Do you really think that's the best way to fight an enemy who isn't using chemical weapons right at this very minute?Then factor in the costs of replacing the air filters, checking for damage to the skin of the suit, and then replacing those suits that are damaged, and you can understand why you don't wear the thing until you are sure you have to.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Nighttrain responds to holmes:

quote:

---

Bit late to be ringing bells and donning gear when gas shells explode around you.

---

Indeed. But even worse is not being able to see the approaching army coming up to flank you because you've got a gas mask on and can only see the 15 degrees directly in front of you.Even worse is having a quarter of your forces in sick bay due to heat prostration from the suits.So yeah, you're probably going to lose some of your troops when the mustard gas starts dropping. But you'd rather lose them in the few battles that use chemical weapons than in every single skirmish.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

No offense, but you obviously don't know how protective gear is used in the military, or why. Check out Rrhain's more lengthy description (right above this one) for a good explanation.In short, the point of the military is to move fast and strike hard. People in protective gear do neither. Only when a strike is thought imminent, or highly likely in certain areas, would troops consider using such things.As it is a general criticized Bush for having encumbered his troopsby forcing them to haul such gear around and wasting their time with donning that gear everytime a missile was headed their way, if the administration had no real evidence Iraq had such weapons.------------------
holmes

quote:

---

I can only assume that Iraqis would be no different. That kind of gear is incredibly uncomfortable and greatly reduces combat capability (unless chemicals are in the air).

---

Indeed. Having been in the army, I can say this about our chemical suits - they suck (can't get them wet, among other things), and they are HOT - like wearing a blanket. When we were doing winter maneuvers, many of us would wear our chemical suits for warmth.So, yeah, they would not be worn unless they was reason to suspect an iminent attack.