Poll: If Iraq used WMD (aka NBC weapons) would you...

LordRaiden

Banned
Dec 10, 2002
2,358
0
0
...still support the war if you currently support it, or if you're already against it would you begin to support the war or continue to protest it?
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
To an Iraqi armed with an AK-47 a abrams tank column or A-10 is a WMD.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
If the Iraqi's were to attack us with WMD's I would support returning the favor in the form of a battlefield tactical nuke to wipe out the Wog Troops that launched them.
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If the Iraqi's were to attack us with WMD's I would support returning the favor in the form of a battlefield tactical nuke to wipe out the Wog Troops that launched them.

...And a few more to make sure!
:|
 

Feldenak

Lifer
Jan 31, 2003
14,093
1
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If the Iraqi's were to attack us with WMD's I would support returning the favor in the form of a battlefield tactical nuke to wipe out the Wog Troops that launched them.
World's largest, glowing, glass parking lot.
 

GagHalfrunt

Lifer
Apr 19, 2001
25,297
1,995
126
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
To an Iraqi armed with an AK-47 a abrams tank column or A-10 is a WMD.
And to an anthill a kid with a magnifying glass is a WMD.

That's pure garbage. Soldier vs soldier on the battlefield with conventional weapons is nowhere near WMD. If one side has better weapons, then the other side should just be more careful about who they pick fights with. Don't be so hopelessly naive as to equate an outgunned agressor like Iraq as a helpless victim of WMDs. The victims are the people that Iraq has already mass-murdered using REAL WMDs.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
If VX or Sarin were to be used on American Forces wouldn't their equipment become contaminated? If that were the case what other options would we have but to either withdraw totally or retreat and use Low Yield Tactical Nukes? As long as we don't use them on the civilian population I'd think it would be a appropriate response to the use of Chemical and Biological WMD's
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If VX or Sarin were to be used on American Forces wouldn't their equipment become contaminated? If that were the case what other options would we have but to either withdraw totally or retreat and use Low Yield Tactical Nukes? As long as we don't use them on the civilian population I'd think it would be a appropriate response to the use of Chemical and Biological WMD's
The exclusion of soldier or civilian would not matter. The "winds of war" would take on a whole new meaning. The equipment would indeed be contaminated. Thousands of gallon of water would be needed just to deal with a small release. That is not available.

Saddam knows this. Thousands will die. The chemical resistant suits are only a temporary solution. One cannot live in them for more than a few hours, most assuredly in the heat that is shortly to come because of the delay the UN has provided.

Anyone notice that civilians are rapidly becoming a disposable commodity?

 

Spyro

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2001
3,366
0
0
Originally posted by: LordRaiden
...still support the war if you currently support it, or if you're already against it would you begin to support the war or continue to protest it?
They don't have any WMD.
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
Originally posted by: wizardLRU
Originally posted by: LordRaiden
...still support the war if you currently support it, or if you're already against it would you begin to support the war or continue to protest it?
They don't have any WMD.

They have chemical weapons suits. They have pills despensed to soldiers to stop the effects of nerve gas. We have captured weapons that could be used in the dispersal of various chemical and biological includeing drone aircraft that could be used AND we have thousands of gallons on various WMDs that UN inspectors have said Saddam posseses.

He has used them against Iran and his own people several times.

But, what the hell....the President is wrong and Saddam is a Saint!
 

steell

Golden Member
Sep 2, 2001
1,569
0
76
But, what the hell....the President is wrong and Saddam is a Saint!
I don't think he will qualify as a "Saint" but I am pretty sure he will be at the same level of existance soon :D

 

andreasl

Senior member
Aug 25, 2000
419
0
0
The military has spent most part of the past century to protect itself against WMDs, especially the chemical kind. If it were to happen it would most likely be locally and not against the entire force. The US will setup de-contamination centers in the areas affected and rotate their units into those. That's SOP.

The real losers in this would be the population as they have NO protection at all. If the US responded with nukes, of any kind and yeild, it would be a complete political disaster several orders of magnitude larger than starting this war in the first place. Since most of the Iraqi military is hiding inside the cities (have have been since even before the war started) any nukes, however small, would greatly affect the civilian population. Not to mention that nukes are tabooed ever since 1945.

If Iraq used them it would ironically help sway the world opinion in the US favor. H*ll remember even the french promised to send troops to help in such an event ;)

If Iraq somehow sneaked WMDs into US soil and released them there well.... I don't even wanna think about that.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Is there a definition of WMD?
Chem, Nuke, Bio I guess are but what about really big smart bombs or a plane hijacked and driven into a mass of people at work in an office building?
 

andreasl

Senior member
Aug 25, 2000
419
0
0
Yes, it's Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons. The difference between these weapons and really big conventional bombs (like an airliner loaded full with fuel) is that the effects on these weapons remain in the area LONG after their use. Especially biological weapons. I saw a documentary on TV a while ago about some chinese province that was attacked by a huge cocktail of various WMDs by the japanese during WW2. There are still effects to this day (like Anthrax popping up every now and then, increased mortality among infants, etc etc) :(
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Were gonna find out. Saddam is RESERVING his WMDs for the FINAL battle in Baghdad where his citizens are expendable (disposable martyrs).

Looks like WWIII . . . today's news - USA warns Iran and Syria to stay OUT of the conflict. ;)
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: andreasl
Yes, it's Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons. The difference between these weapons and really big conventional bombs (like an airliner loaded full with fuel) is that the effects on these weapons remain in the area LONG after their use. Especially biological weapons. I saw a documentary on TV a while ago about some chinese province that was attacked by a huge cocktail of various WMDs by the japanese during WW2. There are still effects to this day (like Anthrax popping up every now and then, increased mortality among infants, etc etc) :(
I think I see now.. A WMD kills but is designed to NOT be selective and the residual is long term... I really think with all the words we have a better definition is available.. Can't think of one though.

 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If the Iraqi's were to attack us with WMD's I would support returning the favor in the form of a battlefield tactical nuke to wipe out the Wog Troops that launched them.
And if it was launched from inside a city - the most likely case?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If the Iraqi's were to attack us with WMD's I would support returning the favor in the form of a battlefield tactical nuke to wipe out the Wog Troops that launched them.
And if it was launched from inside a city - the most likely case?
Take out the Republican Wogs on the outskirts of the city!
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If the Iraqi's were to attack us with WMD's I would support returning the favor in the form of a battlefield tactical nuke to wipe out the Wog Troops that launched them.
And if it was launched from inside a city - the most likely case?
Take out the Republican Wogs on the outskirts of the city!
And then what?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If the Iraqi's were to attack us with WMD's I would support returning the favor in the form of a battlefield tactical nuke to wipe out the Wog Troops that launched them.
And if it was launched from inside a city - the most likely case?
Take out the Republican Wogs on the outskirts of the city!
And then what?
And then walk in to Baghdad with Reinforcements!

 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If the Iraqi's were to attack us with WMD's I would support returning the favor in the form of a battlefield tactical nuke to wipe out the Wog Troops that launched them.
And if it was launched from inside a city - the most likely case?
Take out the Republican Wogs on the outskirts of the city!
And then what?
And then walk in to Baghdad with Reinforcements!
Ok, now we're gettin somewhere. :)

What do "you" do to prevent Saddam from setting off his WMDs INSIDE Baghdad in an orgy of mass destruction - i.e. millions of civilian casualties designed to draw the Arabs into a general - jihad - war against the US and Britain?
 

Spyro

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2001
3,366
0
0
Originally posted by: Tominator
Originally posted by: wizardLRU
Originally posted by: LordRaiden
...still support the war if you currently support it, or if you're already against it would you begin to support the war or continue to protest it?
They don't have any WMD.

They have chemical weapons suits. They have pills despensed to soldiers to stop the effects of nerve gas. We have captured weapons that could be used in the dispersal of various chemical and biological includeing drone aircraft that could be used AND we have thousands of gallons on various WMDs that UN inspectors have said Saddam posseses.

He has used them against Iran and his own people several times.

But, what the hell....the President is wrong and Saddam is a Saint!
:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|
But, what the hell....the President is wrong and Saddam is a Saint!
Now where did I say that at?????

PERHAPS YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO RECOGNIZE SARCASM :disgust:
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
I hate to bring this up but this forum is no place for sarcasm - especially since feelings are intense and offence is often taken where none is meant. I was "guilty" of it earlier and spent a lot of time "explaining". :(

I'd just suggest for future for everyone to note that they are being sarcastic perhaps in a footnote to smooth things along here.

;)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY