Author
|
Topic: I hate being right
|
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: 06-08-2004
|
|
Message 24 of 119 (47507)
07-26-2003 6:21 AM
|
Reply to: Message 23 by Rrhain 07-22-2003 11:14 PM
|
|
If the Iraqis feared a chemical attack, would it be more likely that they would be 'wearing' them?
This message is a reply to: | | Message 23 by Rrhain, posted 07-22-2003 11:14 PM | | Rrhain has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 25 by Silent H, posted 07-27-2003 12:11 PM | | Nighttrain has replied | | Message 27 by Rrhain, posted 07-28-2003 9:47 AM | | Nighttrain has not replied |
|
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: 06-08-2004
|
|
Message 26 of 119 (47667)
07-28-2003 6:11 AM
|
Reply to: Message 25 by Silent H 07-27-2003 12:11 PM
|
|
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.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 25 by Silent H, posted 07-27-2003 12:11 PM | | Silent H has replied |
|
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: 06-08-2004
|
|
Message 31 of 119 (47951)
07-30-2003 1:48 AM
|
|
|
My point exactly. How do you anticipate a chemical attack? Ring up the opposition for a daily menu? The pre-war hype went overboard on the readiness of the Iraqis to use CB weapons, so one would go into battle expecting the worst. If the Iraqis feared the Coalition using same, wouldn`t it be likely that they would be worn. I understand they are cumbersome and hot, but the alternative when facing a chemical attack would be a high percentage of casualties.Since the logical place for these types of weapons would be a set-piece battle such as on the last approaches to Baghdad, with exposed trenches, why wouldn`t the opposing commands issue orders for them to be worn there?
Replies to this message: | | Message 33 by Quetzal, posted 07-30-2003 4:54 AM | | Nighttrain has not replied |
|
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: 06-08-2004
|
|
Message 35 of 119 (48291)
08-01-2003 7:42 AM
|
Reply to: Message 34 by derwood 07-31-2003 11:25 AM
|
|
Hi,SLPx, any idea of the terrain when Saddam used chems on the Iranians?
This message is a reply to: | | Message 34 by derwood, posted 07-31-2003 11:25 AM | | derwood has not replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 36 by Quetzal, posted 08-01-2003 8:58 AM | | Nighttrain has replied |
|
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: 06-08-2004
|
|
Message 37 of 119 (48354)
08-01-2003 8:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 36 by Quetzal 08-01-2003 8:58 AM
|
|
Thanks,Q.Fascinating stuff. So the Iraqis showed no reluctance to using it when their capital was under no direct threat, but refrained when the end of the regime was in sight. Sounds like supplies might have been exhausted and never replaced.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 36 by Quetzal, posted 08-01-2003 8:58 AM | | Quetzal has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 38 by Quetzal, posted 08-04-2003 4:52 AM | | Nighttrain has not replied |
|