|
|
| Author |
Message |
Akronn
Guest
|
 Posted: 03/29/03 - 21:09 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Haha, actually we have chem/bio suits too but I'm sure we don't plan on using those types of weapons. Soooo.... their existence proves nothing.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
Kbarr
Guest
|
|
Posted: 03/29/03 - 21:09 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | | Haha, actually we have chem/bio suits too but I'm sure we don't plan on using those types of weapons. Soooo.... their existence proves nothing. |
Idiot.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
Guest
|
|
Posted: 03/29/03 - 21:11 Post subject:
|
|
|
Well I guess that settles that.
Tell me, Kbarr, where exactly are Saddam's WoMD. I'm glad you're on the case 
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Brael
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 2122
|
|
Posted: 03/29/03 - 21:14 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Akronn, were using our chemical suits because of the possibility of Iraq using chemical weapons on our troops, the only reason Iraq would have them is if they planned on using chemical weapons on us or were scared of us using chemical weapons on them, something tells me they arent scared of us using chemical weapons on them though
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Jinu
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 2396
|
|
Posted: 03/29/03 - 21:17 Post subject:
|
|
|
Iraqi offenses:
Forced women and children to act as human shields in buildings occupied by Iraqi troops.
Located headquarters in schools, day care facilities and, in one case in Nasiriyah, a children's hospital. More than one Iraqi prisoner of war has told American troops they do not need to worry about bombing schools because the schools have all been turned over to Iraqi militia forces.
Lured U.S. forces into an ambush by pretending to surrender.
Positioned artillery in residential areas so that even when radar systems locate it, U.S. commanders won't pummel it.
Used ambulances with the Red Crescent symbol — the equivalent of the Red Cross — as personnel carriers, ferrying reinforcements to Iraqi positions under the noses of U.S. troops.
Worn U.S. uniforms.
Forced women and children to retrieve dead Iraqi troops and their weapons.
Forced Iraqi civilian men and regular soldiers to fight by threatening to kill them and their families if they refused.
-------------------------------------------
against all this, we've lost 20-30 troops. i think we should just support the army till these guys come home. and good god, isn't Wulf over there still!?
Last edited by Jinu on 03/29/03 - 21:19; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
Guest
|
|
Posted: 03/29/03 - 21:17 Post subject:
|
|
|
Not necessarily us, but any number of their neighbors too.
I don't particularily think Iraq is concerned with our bio/chem weapons... but they would be foolish to not have suits available.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Brael
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 2122
|
|
Posted: 03/29/03 - 21:35 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
They were obtained from France just before we went into Iraq Akronn, if they were concerned with their neighbors using chemical weapons on them wouldnt they have got chemical suits/atropine sooner?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Syke
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 2976
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
|
|
Posted: 03/29/03 - 23:44 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Jinu wrote: | and good god, isn't Wulf over there still!?
|
I have faith in Wulf. Actually, I have to say I would trust my life to every realpoor poster here had we been sent out to war because of the vast amount of intelligence and rational thinking.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Silvermouse
RealPoor Jedi
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 11015
|
|
Posted: 03/30/03 - 03:14 Post subject:
|
|
|
"He said Iraq, like many other nations, cannot match American weaponry. "They have bombs that can kill 500 people, but I am sure that the day will come when a single martyrdom operation will kill 5,000 enemies."
Oops! He forgot a few zeroes on the bomb thing. We can kill significantly more people with our bombs than 500.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Kbarr
Guest
|
|
Posted: 03/30/03 - 03:48 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | Well I guess that settles that.
Tell me, Kbarr, where exactly are Saddam's WoMD. I'm glad you're on the case |
Shadup shithead.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
The Gossipmonger
Luke Warm
Joined: 08 Feb 2003
Posts: 193
Location: The Balkans
|
|
Posted: 03/30/03 - 04:39 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Jinu wrote: | Iraqi offenses:
Forced women and children to act as human shields in buildings occupied by Iraqi troops.
Located headquarters in schools, day care facilities and, in one case in Nasiriyah, a children's hospital. More than one Iraqi prisoner of war has told American troops they do not need to worry about bombing schools because the schools have all been turned over to Iraqi militia forces.
Lured U.S. forces into an ambush by pretending to surrender.
Positioned artillery in residential areas so that even when radar systems locate it, U.S. commanders won't pummel it.
Used ambulances with the Red Crescent symbol — the equivalent of the Red Cross — as personnel carriers, ferrying reinforcements to Iraqi positions under the noses of U.S. troops.
Worn U.S. uniforms.
Forced women and children to retrieve dead Iraqi troops and their weapons.
Forced Iraqi civilian men and regular soldiers to fight by threatening to kill them and their families if they refused.
|
The Soviet Union did 90% of those actions in 1941-1942, it is called fighting an enemy with superior equipment, training, and air support.
Seriously talking about threats, and before Kbarr enlightens us with his quality one-liners, North Korea isn't a threat, when every day they call the US names and say they'll nuke you? And Iraq with its arsenal of T55s, RPGs, and CHEMICAL SUITS!!! is the greatest threat in the world, yeah, right (all armies have chemical suits you f*****g idiots, oh, and next time, when "finding" something, tell your army to delete the english language markings on the boxes. Decide, they are either brand new, or they are pre-91, when you were supplying Iraq with weapons and equipment).
Oh, and Docter, has your brain been damaged? You always post those dubious articles you read, reminding me of mindless drones in Nazi Germany who took to heart everything they read in the Volkicher Beobachter. Are you a KKK member and a confederate romantic, or a supporter of the UNITED States of America? Make up your f*****g mind already.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Brael
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 2122
|
|
Posted: 03/30/03 - 07:18 Post subject:
|
|
|
Ashta, no one takes N. Korea seriously, theyre a bunch of rice eating, smell like shit, starcraft players, until N. Korea gets some ghosts and upgrades their vision/cloaking abilites to deliver those nukes they have they cant do a thing with them
Seriously though, no one believes a damn thing N. Korea says, they're simply trying to make the US backdown to avoid a conflict they will never be stupid enough to enter by using empty threats
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Xthos
Can't Stop Posting
Joined: 09 Nov 2002
Posts: 550
|
|
Posted: 03/30/03 - 08:10 Post subject:
|
|
|
I don't place much in the finding of the chemical suits, they could be for the neighbors, or could be because they want to use WMD, its a gray area for the most part. Figures they bought em from France though 
North Korea's ruler likes to be in the news, hes a CNN and other news sources fanatic. He issues the same statements almost everyday, because they seemed to keep printing them, even though he said it the day before. They want negotiations with the U.S. ONLY, they want to try to bind us over and rape us for consessions period. They will find that once you are a nuclear power, you have to act responsibly, or they will be screwed. I don't particularly like the way Clinton dealt with them, but if he felt it was the only way then thats cool. He should of atleast had people inspecting crap to make sure they were keeping their part of the bargain.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Kaldon
Luke Warm
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 210
|
|
Posted: 03/30/03 - 14:32 Post subject:
|
|
|
Heh, if Iraq actually had any sort of WMD that might cause significant casualties, USA wouldn't have attempted to attack.
As for how military operations go, they had a planned estimate of two weeks, however it is now obvious that they are going to take much longer.
Iraqis did learn from the last Gulf War and used a much more sensible defense plan this time. They decided not to counter Americans out in the plains, because the formidable American armored formations would have made short work of them and they rather opted to defend in the cities and behind rivers. They did accept the fact that they had to give up all the Iraq west of the Euphrates river without fighting.
As it is now, they still have actually intact about 80% or more of their army waiting mostly in the cities. Their bet is on forcing the Allied troops to go into metropolitan urban areas and have them fight block-by-block in order to win. This is something that is going to have two effects: 1) A higher number of casualties for them, as fighting in a city is much more dangerous and time consuming than fighting in the plains and 2) a rise in world public outcry as Allies are forced to bomb and turn to rubble Baghdad, Basra etc. thus killing a great number of civilians along as collateral damage.
Iraqis cling to the mad hope that, at some point, the cost of this operation for the Allies will be unacceptable and they will be forced to withdraw.
There is an extremely low probability of this happening in my opinion, however from then on, things are going to get real nasty: How do you conquer a fortified city of 5,000,000 ,as Baghdad is, with 200,000 troops waiting in it and every civilian a potential kamikazee? Allies first will have to totally cut off and surround the city, this is a maneuver that will require some time and a number of forced river crossings, then siege the city and try to take the key points of it with close quarters fighting. This is an operation of a magnitude we haven't seen since World War II, fights like Stalingrad, Leningrad and Berlin come to mind.
Allied High Command in order to win this war will have to accept a number of casualties that was previously deemed unacceptable and the fact that tens or even hundreds of thousands of civilians will die along in the process making USA look real bad.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
compusmack
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 15 Oct 2002
Posts: 6354
|
|
Posted: 03/30/03 - 15:22 Post subject:
|
|
|
I do think that this war's projected timeline has skewed into an negative light.
I do think that we underestimated the resistance we would encounter.
I DONT think that Iraq would be trouble free if we had left them alone.
I DONT think that they will be able to attack us with terrorism of any quantity in the U.S. (they are trying to scare you)
I DONT think that Iraq is a newcomer to the suicide bomb/terrorism routine, i'm willing to bet they finance this shit all the time under the table.
I DONT think that we will lose this war, it's obvious that we are smoking them but we can't do it in less than a month.
Personally, I don't dwell on this anymore. There is little I can do right now but await the results and hope for the best. I think that we probably didn't start out strong enough in the war, but we are upping the offense and it should help us finish the job.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Kbarr
Guest
|
|
Posted: 03/30/03 - 15:44 Post subject:
|
|
|
| The Gossipmonger wrote: | | and before Kbarr enlightens us with his quality one-liners |
You short, fat, sweaty, short order cook. Stop showing your love by putting me in all your posts, its embarrassing.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Paden
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 23 Oct 2002
Posts: 9362
Location: North CAROLINA!
|
|
Posted: 03/30/03 - 15:47 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Kbarr wrote: | | The Gossipmonger wrote: | | and before Kbarr enlightens us with his quality one-liners |
You short, fat, sweaty, short order cook. Stop showing your love by putting me in all your posts, its embarrassing. |
O-W-N-E-D
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Eduin
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1046
Location: Glasgow
|
|
Posted: 03/31/03 - 02:51 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Brael wrote: | | They were obtained from France just before we went into Iraq Akronn, if they were concerned with their neighbors using chemical weapons on them wouldnt they have got chemical suits/atropine sooner? |
Iraqs *ENTIRE* stockpile of chemical and biological agents were supplied by the nation with hte largest supply of said weapons.
THE UNITED STATES.
Deal with the facts. The US provided Iraq with the weapons it used to kill several thousand Marsh Arabs and Kurds. US weapons, from the US stockpile.
For yaers the US has bypassed international treaties by claiming to be performing research - why that research requires them to manufacture mortar shells which are capable of housing militarised forms of these agents is a mystery...
...well to the brain dead.
As for Iraq, the "shelf life" of these agents is quite short. Militarised chemical and biological agents are unlikely to exist in Iraq as the supply from the United States was stopped long enough ago for all stocks in Iraq to now be intert.
Sorry to let the facts get in the way of your fascist/Bushist doctrine.
Regards,
Eduin
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Eduin
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1046
Location: Glasgow
|
|
Posted: 03/31/03 - 03:00 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Brael wrote: | Ashta, no one takes N. Korea seriously, theyre a bunch of rice eating, smell like shit, starcraft players, until N. Korea gets some ghosts and upgrades their vision/cloaking abilites to deliver those nukes they have they cant do a thing with them
|
Are you a f*****g retard?
Wait your post already answered that.
But just for the hard of thinking, here's the deal. Iraq's longest range missile can reach a range of 600 miles. They have between 8 and 12 of these missiles remaining having used some in Gulf War 1, some being destroyed in air raids and a couple this time round. All were armed with conventional warheads.
North Korea, on the other hand, is a major supplier of long range missiles to the third world (remember the Yemeni shipment in February) and their best missiles have a range of around 1500 miles. Their technological progress is advancing (Iraqa *isnt*) and the range of their missiles is increasing with every dollar of foriegn revenue their arms industry brings in.
North Korea *has* chemical weapons, it is believed to have biological weapons and it has an active Nuclear program.
Sorry, just *what* do you want to consider a country a threat? And GIVEN THAT COUNTRIES NOT FULFILLING WHATEVER STRINGENT CRITERIA YOU DECIDE ARENT A THREAT WHY THE f**k ARE YOU SENDING BOYS TO DIE IN IRAQ WHICH IS MILES BEHIND "NON-THREATENING" NORTH KOREA!
Regards,
Eduin
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Kbarr
Guest
|
|
Posted: 03/31/03 - 03:08 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Eduin wrote: | GIVEN THAT COUNTRIES NOT FULFILLING WHATEVER STRINGENT CRITERIA YOU DECIDE ARENT A THREAT WHY THE f**k ARE YOU SENDING BOYS TO DIE IN IRAQ WHICH IS MILES BEHIND "NON-THREATENING" NORTH KOREA!
Regards,
Eduin |
Relax shithead, once we put the genie back in the bottle over here, we will spend some time dealing with that other shit hole.
Now you keep watching the BBC, it seems to be getting you SO upset.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
khrath
Guest
|
|
Posted: 03/31/03 - 04:40 Post subject:
|
|
|
eduin, you prove time and time again that you dont read up on things before opening your mouth.
As far as korea goes, they aren't a threat.
North korea is the neighbors dog barking at you because he can smell the meat you're cooking on your grill outside in the backyard.
He may sound like he'd bite you, but it just isnt gonna happen, and he's really just wanting attention and maybe some table scraps.
Thats actualy a really good summary of them =P
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Eduin
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1046
Location: Glasgow
|
|
Posted: 03/31/03 - 05:05 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Khrath wrote: | eduin, you prove time and time again that you dont read up on things before opening your mouth.
|
Just answer the following questions with Iraq or Korea.
Which country sells missiles on the international arms market?
Which country admits to an active nuclear weapons programme?
This isn't very hard, even for you Kraft. Korea is *far* more of a threat than the Iraqis. But admitting that might show what a farce this war is, so I guess you will stay blind to the truth.
Regards,
Eduin
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Kbarr
Guest
|
|
Posted: 03/31/03 - 05:27 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Eduin wrote: | | Khrath wrote: | eduin, you prove time and time again that you don't read up on things before opening your mouth.
|
Just answer the following questions with Iraq or Korea.
Which country sells missiles on the international arms market?
Which country admits to an active nuclear weapons programme?
This isn't very hard, even for you Kraft. Korea is *far* more of a threat than the Iraqis. But admitting that might show what a farce this war is, so I guess you will stay blind to the truth.
Regards,
Eduin |
Answer these you dimwit.
Would it be smart to let iraq build up a larger WMD program along with a nuke program?
Would it be smart to stop them now, before they get fully equipped with either or both of said weapons?
Or just let them go on their merry way and in 10 years have to deal with a Korea AND a nuke/bio/chem equipped iraq?
The only farce I see, you ass, is your air of intelligence.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
lauren000
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3510
Location: colorado springs
|
|
Posted: 03/31/03 - 16:41 Post subject:
|
|
|
you know, how often do you hear people talk about the liberal biased media? Don't think I've really seen anything liberal biased thus far, from the media.
I think bush is an inarticulate idiot, who strongly resembles a chimp. But that doesn't mean he's wrong about attacking iraq, and korea is gonna be next...
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Manuva
Banned
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 2536
|
|
Posted: 03/31/03 - 16:45 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
He's proud to be born a man tho
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Kbarr
Guest
|
|
Posted: 03/31/03 - 18:40 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Manuva wrote: | | He's proud to be born a man tho |
LOL
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
rollin
Rookie
Joined: 15 Oct 2002
Posts: 88
|
|
Posted: 03/31/03 - 19:51 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
i love acid
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Kudil
Luke Warm
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 135
|
|
Posted: 04/01/03 - 02:18 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | | the flower princess wrote: | | Liberal c***s like you are gay. Support your country you dirty b*****d. I guarantee that american officials know alot more about this stuff then people like you think. |
Yeah, but unfortunately the wrong ones are often calling the shots. That's why we've got folks speaking up. The war is on and isn't gonna stop until the job is done, I don't think there's any disagreement there, but please will Bush and Rumsfeld step aside and shut up already? Now isn't the time for ego-tripping.
As for what's wrong with our plan, Manuva, it's been stated by military brass (the guys who actually do know what's going on, not Rumsfeld) We're over-extended to the point where supply lines are very weak, we're not well-manned enough (got a 100,000 more troops on the way, including many tanks, so that's verified), and we grossly under-estimated some of Iraq's lesser armies. Battles in the south still rage on with a long ways to go yet. March to Baghdad indeed.
Oh well, we'll fix this in a month or so. |
Yup, we are a bit over extended, Yup, we did underestimate them a bit.
As to the first, do you think they didn't know that marching straight to 60 miles south of baghdad wouldn't over extend our supply lines? Do you think they would have done it had they not had other divisions, and the brits covering/taking the cities in the south and dealing with the various pockets of resistence?
f**k man.. it's not to tough to figure out that the first part is planned.
As to underestimating them... Yah, we f****d up, we thought we were fighting the f*****g french..... Apparently these f***s have some backbone. But we are up to what? 50 dead? My god, how catastrophic.
Don't get me wrong, i mourn for each of those families, but it could be MUCH worse. And yes, more will die. But those boys (and girls i suppose) that are over there, they were not drafted, they decided to be in our armed forces, and they knew the risks when they signed up..... Unlike the poor bastards living under Saddam's rule .... Who could be killed (brutally) at a whim.
And as to N. Korea, yup, they are a threat too, but they also haven't been violating UN resolutions for 12 years.... There is a situation we need to attempt to handle diplomatically. If diplomacy doesn't work, well then we've got a problem. The question is, would China have their back? Cuz I don't wanna f**k with China.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Xthos
Can't Stop Posting
Joined: 09 Nov 2002
Posts: 550
|
|
Posted: 04/01/03 - 06:31 Post subject:
|
|
|
China and Japan are pretty p****d that they want/have nukes. The U.S. is playing it right, if they would of dealt with them immediatley, they would of extorted Bush for more then they got from Clinton.
North Korea doesn't worry me as much as Iran, which is on its way to nukes most likely. They all still want to kill Salmon Rushdie for his book, who knows what those crazy bastards will do with nukes.
We like to bring up Americas involvment with Iraq, well it pales in comparasson to all the nuclear technology built/supplied by European nations in the middle east.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
