Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-16-2019 2:42 PM
182 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, kjsimons, Meddle, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx (8 members, 174 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,583 Year: 2,620/19,786 Month: 702/1,918 Week: 290/266 Day: 27/35 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
345678Next
Author Topic:   I hate being right
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 1818 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 16 of 119 (46178)
07-15-2003 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
07-15-2003 8:57 AM


Here's a laugh for you...
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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 07-15-2003 8:57 AM nator has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4518 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 17 of 119 (46186)
07-16-2003 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Rrhain
07-15-2003 7:55 PM


Hi Rrhain

I 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Rrhain, posted 07-15-2003 7:55 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by gene90, posted 12-23-2003 4:46 PM Mammuthus has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 18 of 119 (46244)
07-16-2003 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Gzus
07-15-2003 9:50 PM


gzus writes:

yeah, both your governments suck

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Gzus, posted 07-15-2003 9:50 PM Gzus has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 19 of 119 (46245)
07-16-2003 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Percy
07-15-2003 11:57 AM


percipient writes:

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.

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.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,931960,00.html

Obviously 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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 07-15-2003 11:57 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Dan Carroll, posted 07-16-2003 1:22 PM Silent H has not yet responded

    
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 119 (46248)
07-16-2003 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Silent H
07-16-2003 12:52 PM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Silent H, posted 07-16-2003 12:52 PM Silent H has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 212 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 21 of 119 (46788)
07-21-2003 10:02 PM


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
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20030721/ts_washpost/a20698_2003jul20


    
derwood
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 22 of 119 (46901)
07-22-2003 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Percy
07-15-2003 11:57 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 07-15-2003 11:57 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Rrhain, posted 07-22-2003 11:14 PM derwood has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 23 of 119 (46980)
07-22-2003 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by derwood
07-22-2003 12:57 PM


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!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by derwood, posted 07-22-2003 12:57 PM derwood has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Nighttrain, posted 07-26-2003 6:21 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2036 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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Silent H, posted 07-27-2003 12:11 PM Nighttrain has responded
 Message 27 by Rrhain, posted 07-28-2003 9:47 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 25 of 119 (47571)
07-27-2003 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Nighttrain
07-26-2003 6:21 AM


nighttrain writes:

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Nighttrain, posted 07-26-2003 6:21 AM Nighttrain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Nighttrain, posted 07-28-2003 6:11 AM Silent H has responded
 Message 30 by derwood, posted 07-28-2003 2:22 PM Silent H has not yet responded

    
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2036 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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Rrhain, posted 07-28-2003 9:50 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded
 Message 29 by Silent H, posted 07-28-2003 1:35 PM Nighttrain has not yet responded
 Message 32 by doctrbill, posted 07-30-2003 2:39 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 27 of 119 (47695)
07-28-2003 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Nighttrain
07-26-2003 6:21 AM


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!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Nighttrain, posted 07-26-2003 6:21 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 28 of 119 (47696)
07-28-2003 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Nighttrain
07-28-2003 6:11 AM


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!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Nighttrain, posted 07-28-2003 6:11 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 29 of 119 (47752)
07-28-2003 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Nighttrain
07-28-2003 6:11 AM


nightrain writes:

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.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Nighttrain, posted 07-28-2003 6:11 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

    
derwood
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 30 of 119 (47763)
07-28-2003 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Silent H
07-27-2003 12:11 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Silent H, posted 07-27-2003 12:11 PM Silent H has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
345678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019