Does This Mean What I Think It Means?

[Ben E Lou]

Iraq says coalition will use WOMD. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/28/sprj.irq.iraq.sahaf/index.html)

Are they gonna use WOMD in Baghdad, and say, "we told you so," blaming it on us?

[Drake]

You spend a very large amount of time getting hysterical about this stuff, don't you?

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't really think too civilians who've been keeping up with Iraq would be particularly by surprised by something like you describe and I don't think there'd be anyone in the military nor the administration who hasn't planned for that specific scenario.

[CamEdwards]

I agree with Jon. I also think most of the world would see a WMD attack as having been started by Iraq. Many nations have already said as much.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Drake
You spend a very large amount of time getting hysterical about this stuff, don't you? LOL. My wife would crack up at that one. Nope, I've never been hysterical in my life actually. Just trying to get discussion going.

[Bee]

The conspiracy theorists would tell you that this is laying the ground work for the US to use WMDs against Iraq and then blame the Iraqis for it.

[Marmel]

When are we going to turn the desert into glass? (tm)

[Bee]

Originally posted by Marmel
When are we going to turn the desert into glass? (tm)

I hope this doesn't happen. My wife makes glass and it would really cut into her sales. ;)

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by Marmel
When are we going to turn the desert into glass? (tm)

And somewhere in middle America, a blonde asks "who would want glass for dessert?"

[ACStrider]

Who would have though that nuking the middle east could bring so many laughs? :p

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Sadly US using a thermo nuclear device isn't out of the question .
I fthings turn sour in Baghdad I wouldn't be surprised if we use one as a ''tactical'' decision on the field . Lets pray not though .

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER
Sadly US using a thermo nuclear device isn't out of the question .
I fthings turn sour in Baghdad I wouldn't be surprised if we use one as a ''tactical'' decision on the field . Lets pray not though .

Yes it is.

[Arles]

Considering Bush has already made it painfully clear that he is fighting a PC war and trying to avoid casualties on both sides (to the point of even potentially costing more of our own casualties), I don't see how anyone would think he would be willing to use a premptive WMD attack under any situation.

I even don't see any way that the US uses WMDs if we are attacked by Iraq with them. Not only would it be bad politically, but the US has enough non-WMD munitions to turn Baghdad into a big crater as it is.

Once again, CNN has taken Iraqi-fed propoganda without batting an eye. Remember, this is the same news organization that quoted an "Iraqi citizen" that said numerous civilian targets had been hit by US bombs. Of course, that citizen turned out to be the press liason provided by the Iraqi Ministry of Information. :rolleyes:

Arlie

[JonInMiddleGA]

But Arlie, that's CNN for you ;)

[Tarkus]

That claim is an obvious attempt to justify all the chemical and biological protective wear the US keeps finding. We only have to defend ourselves against the American imperialists. Pretty weak.

Tarkus

[Daimyo]

Why would we use a WMD when we could use a lot of smaller weapons and get the same affect without the stigma?

[Airhog]

well uranium tipped munitions and bombs should be considered WMD. the radation they give off can be harmful long after we have ended this war

[RendeR]

Originally posted by Airhog
well uranium tipped munitions and bombs should be considered WMD. the radation they give off can be harmful long after we have ended this war

just to clarify, there are no nuclear reactive elements in our conventional bombs. so thats not relevent.

the tank shells and some of the guns on aircraft and helicopters *A-10 tank killers, and apachies) do in fact use a depleted uranium tipped shell. The tips are not dangerous unless you have extremely long or direct (as in ingesting) contact with them. The impact destroys approximately 93% of the depleted uranium, the residuals decay at a much more rapid pace due to interaction with other metals and burning.

so beyond the fact that there is radioactive material involved in producing these weapons, they cannot and should not be thought of in that vein. They cannot kill thousands in a short time, nor do they make large areas of the battlefield uninhabitable.


Ren

[Airhog]

thanks for pointing that out.

[kcchief19]

Some of the discussion of this war has blown my logic circuits. On the one hand, Iraq is so incompetent that they can't figure out how to aim their missiles, yet they are so brilliant that they are able to target their own people with missiles so precisely to the point that we didn't even pick them up on radar.

Maybe they will use WMD against themselves and blame us. Brilliant strategy. Heck, in '91 it was said that the Iraqi's left behind copies of Western military strategy books in their bunkers -- maybe this time we'll find copies of the Fail-Safe DVD with Henry Fonda.

[astralhaze]

This isn't just Iraqi propaganda. Bush stated that if Iraq used chemical weapons, "all options are on the table." I would assume that includes nuclear weapons.