Kodiak
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 3,279
a_unique_person said:
What you call having a picnic, I call being driven into the open to face troops instead of hiding in shadows to better murder civilians.
Seems like a decent deal to me. Iraq has become the world's largest roach motel.
Besides, It's well-known (and Kodiak has well supported) that Saddam paid big bucks to foreign suicide bombers. Kinda odd behavior for the secular xenophobe some are describing, ain't it?
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Most people acknowledge that Saddam had WMDs at some time in the past. Considering that the US can't even keep track of it's own uranium, it seems unreasonable to think that Iraq could ever account for every single shell ever created. Too many people had access to them. Not all of those people were absolutely loyal to Saddam (recall he had a rather tough program for keeping them in line.)
Personally, I am still dumfounded that we have found so few WMDs. I expected from the very beginning to find a few which had grown legs, so to speak. Trying to hype this incident into a story to support the WMD contentions made prior to the war is hyperbole of the highest order.
Personally, I am still dumfounded that we have found so few WMDs. I expected from the very beginning to find a few which had grown legs, so to speak. Trying to hype this incident into a story to support the WMD contentions made prior to the war is hyperbole of the highest order.
TAILGUNNER
Thinker
- Joined
- May 18, 2004
- Messages
- 138
the finding of this alledged sarin packed shell i say alledged because it is yet to be quantified other than in the field opens up a whole yard of possibilities
if this is part of the original arsenal of saddam that was supposed to be destroyed where's the rest and thats important in itself as the arsenal has far worse than just sarin
if it is not part of the original then who's making new batches and how many batches have been made and naturally what else is being prepared
its inconcievable that these terrorists and militia would let off a large cloud that would resort in the deaths of many iraqi civilians however in a military base it would be seen as a great victory for them
on a positive note the device was not the greatest attempt at sarin dispersal and does seem to suggest it is in the hands of those who are of yet to gain the knowledge to use such weapons effectively
for thank many people will be grateful
if this is part of the original arsenal of saddam that was supposed to be destroyed where's the rest and thats important in itself as the arsenal has far worse than just sarin
if it is not part of the original then who's making new batches and how many batches have been made and naturally what else is being prepared
its inconcievable that these terrorists and militia would let off a large cloud that would resort in the deaths of many iraqi civilians however in a military base it would be seen as a great victory for them
on a positive note the device was not the greatest attempt at sarin dispersal and does seem to suggest it is in the hands of those who are of yet to gain the knowledge to use such weapons effectively
for thank many people will be grateful
Nie Trink Wasser
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 1,317
woo doggy
I came in here thinking I could read about 'Sarin-loaded artillery shell in Iraq', but as usual with the JREF forum, it's a completely different thread now
I came in here thinking I could read about 'Sarin-loaded artillery shell in Iraq', but as usual with the JREF forum, it's a completely different thread now
TAILGUNNER
Thinker
- Joined
- May 18, 2004
- Messages
- 138
Nie Trink Wasser said:
its not i just posted about it above
rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 5,009
Re: Smoking gun....
I guess I'm the only one who wondered why they were pouring insecticides into arty shells? Oh, BTW:
Sarin is no joke. When I was in the Army and taking NBC classes they didn't call it Sarin, they just called it "nerve agent". If you get a drop of this crap on you, you have only a few seconds (depending on exposure) to use an auto-injecter with 2mg of atropine inside. They taught us to inject ourselves in the meaty part of the thigh.
If you don't hit it in time, the DI told us we would suffer "the 9 second watusi" ...9 seconds of hellish convulsions so strong that some of your bones will be broken. Not exactly a great way to go.
I sure hope they don't have more of these along with an artillery piece to deliver them.....they could sit well back and lob these rounds into the green zone if they do.
-z
NightG1 said:
I guess I'm the only one who wondered why they were pouring insecticides into arty shells? Oh, BTW:
- Sarin originally was developed in 1938 in Germany as a pesticide.
Sarin is no joke. When I was in the Army and taking NBC classes they didn't call it Sarin, they just called it "nerve agent". If you get a drop of this crap on you, you have only a few seconds (depending on exposure) to use an auto-injecter with 2mg of atropine inside. They taught us to inject ourselves in the meaty part of the thigh.
If you don't hit it in time, the DI told us we would suffer "the 9 second watusi" ...9 seconds of hellish convulsions so strong that some of your bones will be broken. Not exactly a great way to go.
I sure hope they don't have more of these along with an artillery piece to deliver them.....they could sit well back and lob these rounds into the green zone if they do.
-z
I couldn't find your use of the word on their web-addition, but be that as it may. I obviously agree that cutting of aid to a terrorist organisation is good, but I feel, and you have indicated you agree, that it fails to justify the cost of the war. The only thing that would do that IMO, is either the finding of a program for non-conventional weapons so extensive that it could actually be considered a serious threat, which seems extremely unlikely, or if you actually manage to make Iraq a stable democracy, and at this point I'm not too optimistic about that.Kodiak said:
Rumsfeld says it wasn't necessarily sarin
Washington-AP -- Don't jump to any conclusions just yet. That warning comes from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, after the U-S military in Iraq announced that a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve gas had exploded near a U-S military convoy.
Rumsfeld told a Washington, D-C audience that the "field test" showing the presence of sarin may not be accurate. He says more analysis needs to be done -- and that it may take some time to find out just what the chemical was.
....
http://www.wtkr.com/Global/story.asp?S=1873574&nav=0oa8AfMQ
Washington-AP -- Don't jump to any conclusions just yet. That warning comes from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, after the U-S military in Iraq announced that a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve gas had exploded near a U-S military convoy.
Rumsfeld told a Washington, D-C audience that the "field test" showing the presence of sarin may not be accurate. He says more analysis needs to be done -- and that it may take some time to find out just what the chemical was.
....
http://www.wtkr.com/Global/story.asp?S=1873574&nav=0oa8AfMQ
AtheistArchon
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 589
- Hmm. Re: the munitions...
- From what I know now, the round in question was a binary round with two chemical chambers that mix when armed, and disperse over a large area (airburst probably) when detonated. That, at least, is the theory behind chemical munitions.
- The reason why it didn't detonate properly is probably because these munitions contain a spin timer in order to protect the firing crew from short rounds. In other words, the weapon has to spin a certain number of times while in the air before it arms itself. You see the same thing on M203 grenades launched from underneath an M-16, because otherwise you could point the thing at your feet and blow yourself up. Granted, an artillery shell like this isn't likely to be aimed at a near target by mistake, but it can happen. Even worse, you don't want a live shell stuck in an artillery piece.
- From what I know now, the round in question was a binary round with two chemical chambers that mix when armed, and disperse over a large area (airburst probably) when detonated. That, at least, is the theory behind chemical munitions.
- The reason why it didn't detonate properly is probably because these munitions contain a spin timer in order to protect the firing crew from short rounds. In other words, the weapon has to spin a certain number of times while in the air before it arms itself. You see the same thing on M203 grenades launched from underneath an M-16, because otherwise you could point the thing at your feet and blow yourself up. Granted, an artillery shell like this isn't likely to be aimed at a near target by mistake, but it can happen. Even worse, you don't want a live shell stuck in an artillery piece.
How many Americans, Brits, Poles, Aussies were killed in Iraq over the 12 year investigation? How many billions of dollars less were spent each year? How many more Iraqis were killed or tortured in prisons during those 12 years?
Zero, 80ish billion per year, about zero. I vote for investigations.
"About zero" Iraqis were killed by Saddam in the last 12 years of the "investigations"? You're off by a few tens of thousands, at least, if not more.
To be more specific, have you seen the picture in the NY post of seven Iraqi merchants arrested by Hussein who had their arm cut off... in the very same Abu Gharib prison... who were flown to the US to get a new prosthetic arm? Why don't you tell them they are a few of those "about zero" victims of Saddam. See what they say.
And, of course, you must also include the thousands upon thousands of Iraqi children Saddam let starve for propaganda purposes to get the world to remove the "genocidal UN sanctions", while building himself more palaces and rearming the republican guard, etc., etc.
But, put together, a lousy hundred thousand--if not many more--of dead and mutilated Iraqis is "about zero" since, after all, if victims can't be blamed on the west, they don't count.
P.S.
By the way, according to the left, weren't the sanctions and inspections an evil imperialistic genocidal zionist republican conspiracy... until the moment GWB decided to invade Iraq, when they turned out into a wonderful thing, the silver bullet to preserve peace, virtually overnight?
Zero, 80ish billion per year, about zero. I vote for investigations.
"About zero" Iraqis were killed by Saddam in the last 12 years of the "investigations"? You're off by a few tens of thousands, at least, if not more.
To be more specific, have you seen the picture in the NY post of seven Iraqi merchants arrested by Hussein who had their arm cut off... in the very same Abu Gharib prison... who were flown to the US to get a new prosthetic arm? Why don't you tell them they are a few of those "about zero" victims of Saddam. See what they say.
And, of course, you must also include the thousands upon thousands of Iraqi children Saddam let starve for propaganda purposes to get the world to remove the "genocidal UN sanctions", while building himself more palaces and rearming the republican guard, etc., etc.
But, put together, a lousy hundred thousand--if not many more--of dead and mutilated Iraqis is "about zero" since, after all, if victims can't be blamed on the west, they don't count.
P.S.
By the way, according to the left, weren't the sanctions and inspections an evil imperialistic genocidal zionist republican conspiracy... until the moment GWB decided to invade Iraq, when they turned out into a wonderful thing, the silver bullet to preserve peace, virtually overnight?
An Infinite Ocean
Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2003
- Messages
- 235
Skeptic said:
If only Saddam had restricted himself to the torture technique of stripping his enemies naked and pointing at their penises. Then I might have been slightly less pro-war.
"If only Saddam had restricted himself to the torture technique of stripping his enemies naked and pointing at their penises. Then I might have been slightly less pro-war."
Are you implying that the US has restricted its torture techniques to stripping prisoners and pointing at their penises?
Are you implying that the US has restricted its torture techniques to stripping prisoners and pointing at their penises?
Zilla:
"I sure hope they don't have more of these along with an artillery piece to deliver them.....they could sit well back and lob these rounds into the green zone if they do."
Ah bless....are you worried that they may adopt the tactics of the US forces? Damned inconsiderate of the blighters, eh?
It's just not cricket is it? I remember the day when the baath street kids made do with peashooters and catapults...
"I sure hope they don't have more of these along with an artillery piece to deliver them.....they could sit well back and lob these rounds into the green zone if they do."
Ah bless....are you worried that they may adopt the tactics of the US forces? Damned inconsiderate of the blighters, eh?
It's just not cricket is it? I remember the day when the baath street kids made do with peashooters and catapults...
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
demon said:
Are you saying US forces shoot artillery shells full of Sarin?
I didn`t say they were...was talking more about the tactic of lobbing artillery into designated areas, eg Fallujah.
But, on a slight tangent, it is funny how people consider the "enemy" using chemical weaponry as such a low blow while our cluster bombs and DU for example, aren`t.
What is the actual difference to the blind man whether Sarin blinded him or the schrapnel from a bomb did? Does the guy injured by Sarin feel hard done by while another guy merely feels miffed that he happen to get caught in the crossfire during a good honest set to between foes? Does the kid who picks up a cluster bomb and looses his arms feel better than the kid who gets napalmed?
I guess it`s only the most loony anti-semite (or Brit-&-Yank hater) who would stoop so low and be so moronized as to say bombing over ten thousand civilians from near-orbitial heights could in anyway be worse than killing them in an inhumane way....just a thought.
But, on a slight tangent, it is funny how people consider the "enemy" using chemical weaponry as such a low blow while our cluster bombs and DU for example, aren`t.
What is the actual difference to the blind man whether Sarin blinded him or the schrapnel from a bomb did? Does the guy injured by Sarin feel hard done by while another guy merely feels miffed that he happen to get caught in the crossfire during a good honest set to between foes? Does the kid who picks up a cluster bomb and looses his arms feel better than the kid who gets napalmed?
I guess it`s only the most loony anti-semite (or Brit-&-Yank hater) who would stoop so low and be so moronized as to say bombing over ten thousand civilians from near-orbitial heights could in anyway be worse than killing them in an inhumane way....just a thought.
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
demon said:
I think if you want a problem with a country that blindly bombs the city you want to go yell at Russia and how the pounded Groznyy into a fine powder. USA goes to great length to minimize the civilian deaths. As opposed to the "freedom fighters" in Iraq who just suicide bomb civilians. Does the kid who gets suicide bombed feel better because a "Freedom fighter" did it?