Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Mr.Vicchio · Apr 10, 2004, 04:20 pm

If Iraq had no WMD... and the USA doesn't use them..

Why did the Iraqi Republican Guard have full WMD countermeasure suits, masks and other items on the ready during the war?

Just curious since there were no WMD as we all know, it was jsut a alie of the whole world prior to Bush acting on it, then it became his lie...

Why did the Iraqi's have Bio/Chem warfare suits, masks and the like?

The USA uses Nukes, not Gas, not Bio weapons.

Just curious.

Suburbanite · Apr 10, 2004, 04:26 pm

The result of any large explosion is unhealthy to breathe, and they can't trust America won't use tear gas or any other chemicals. Who would be so stupid as to unprepared their army like that?

Mr.Vicchio · Apr 10, 2004, 04:28 pm

Yeah.. uhm we are just uhm.. known for those uhm.. wepaons in major combat.. much more effective then smart weapons.. right.

Next dodge please.

Suburbanite · Apr 10, 2004, 04:32 pm

1. We have used Chemical Weapons, all the way up to Vietnam
2. Are our enemies going to sit there and think to themselves "Well... I guess we can trust America not to kill us with chemicals, so we better leave ourselves open to it."
3. George Bush's Military Budget does allocate money for chemical and biological studies, far be it for me to assume that those will never go to use.

Apr 10, 2004, 05:21 pm

The US military used defoliants in Vietnam, not actual chemical or biological weapons. I don't know of ANY use of these types of weapons in WWII, or Korea. If you're going to make this accusation you need to cite examples.
The current myth that Iraq did not have WMDs is simply htat, a MYTH. Iraq DID have WMDs and actually used them aganst Iran and their own citizens. Another myth is that these weapons were supplied by the US. The US did support Saddam during the Iraq/Iran war, only because Iran had taken american hostages and considered the US the Great Satan. Remember those days? I do. There is an old quote that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Reagan did not like Saddam, or his methods. Saddam was simply used as a pawn against Iran.
The support afforded Saddam was used to purchase or manufacture chemical weapons, but were not directly supplied by the US. Every country in the United Nations agreed Iraq had WMDs, and if Saddam did not have them after 1998, he sure tried to lead us all to believe he did. Another explanation of where they are is that there was quite a long run up before the Iraq war of 2003. Saddam had plenty of time to destroy or hide any WMDs he might have had. A bigger threat he posed was his nuclear weapons development program. He was trying to develop the bomb and if he ever did, does anyone actually believe he would not have used it or at least sold one to the first terrorist group with deep enough pockets. Would this terrorist group have ANY qualms about using their new big bomb?
Face it, all the venom spent yelling at Bush over the war is simple partisan politics. If Gore were in office and had done the same thing Bush did, the same people now yelling would be praising the war as a great humanitarian campaign.

Mr.Vicchio · Apr 10, 2004, 05:43 pm

Gee so Saddam feared the use of Chem Weapons that we haven't used in 30 years...

Right well whatever you think will make you feel better about avoiding the simpler truth...

and Daves pretty much spot on.

Suburbanite · Apr 10, 2004, 06:08 pm

There is no talking to you Vicchio, why bother?

Apr 10, 2004, 07:21 pm

Hey, Sub, when did the US military use chemical or biological weapons? Agent Orange doesn't count since its a defoliant and nobody knew it had such dire side effects. I was in the Army and a good friend of mine was an expert in the NBC field, Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical warfare. The Military does R&D in this field but only as a defensive measure. The funds you refer to are spent on how better to protect, or treat, the troops. USAMRID, the Army's version of the CDC, does maintain samples of various diseases etc. for experimental purposes. The US does not have any stockpiles of Chem. or Bio weapons. If you think they do, where are they?

Catch 22 · Apr 10, 2004, 07:26 pm

dave don't you think the military might have had an inkling to the dangerous effects of agent orange? It was such a popular tool one has to think they saw it’s effects in R+D. Moreover if the weapon was only thought to be a defoliant isn't that biological warfare then too? You’re destroying millions of acres of prime forest destroying entire ecosystems. That’s certainly not good for the Vietnamese population. So really what does it matter? You’re still employing a wmd.

Suburbanite · Apr 10, 2004, 08:01 pm

it is clear to me that you're already trying to defend the anticipated answer so you know the truth dave.

Apr 10, 2004, 09:22 pm

Well what's the anticipated answer I'm trying to defend. I only brought up agent orange because it was so devestatingand C22, the Army didn't know it was as dangerous as it was. I discount its use as a bio weapon because it was not intended to kill Vietnamese troops or citizens. I didn't until much later and had as much effect on US troops. No, the Army would not have used agent orange if they knew what would happen. I know it's popular to believe the worst of the military but it doesn't work that way.
Sub has stated flat out that the US military has used chem. or bio. weapons. When and where? If you can cite an example I will check it out and consider myself wrong. Unlike so many posters on this site, I'm willing to accept my shortcomings concede when I'm wrong. Prove me wrong.

Suburbanite · Apr 10, 2004, 10:11 pm

You're missing the point! They had protection from things like Mustard Gad because WHY THE HELL WOULD THEY TRUST AMERICAN TROOPS? I know I wouldn't trust my ENEMY! You think you've just PROVEN that there are WMDs with this, V? How rediculous.

PatrickHenry · Apr 10, 2004, 10:16 pm

Depleted uranium is a radiological as well as a chemical weapon in its effects on local populations and the troops exposed to the dust.
http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm
But Pentagon denial makes this one go away.

The US position on proliferation has no logic. Iraq must be invaded and occupied to prevent or reverse proliferation. But our puppet government in Pakistan has no such worries, even though the recent news stories implicate them in the global nuke trade.
http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2004/mj0.../mj04weiss.html

Oh, and its OK for Israel to have nukes, 'cause they're our friends. Except for that one little incident on the "Liberty"
http://www.ussliberty.org/

And now the Bushies want mini-nukes.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0328/p09s01-coop.html
They're more "usable" don't you see...
But don't worry, they will only be used on evildoers.

Apr 10, 2004, 10:32 pm

I've heard about depleted uranium causing problems too. However, DEPLETED Uranium means it's no longer radioactive. It's simply a very hard substance. If it were a health hazard don't you think the tankers handling the munitions, or riding around in the tanks covered with the substance would show signs of illness?

Mia · Apr 10, 2004, 10:41 pm

You'll see the effects on the Iraqi people soon enough, don't worry. You'll see deformed babies being born and all kinds of neat things from our "smart" weapons.

And Sub had a good point, why do you keep avoiding it? Just because you and I think our military wouldn't use biological weapons doesn't mean THEY should be unprepared. If you were them, would you take the chance?

The WPD's are in Syria, haven't you heard? That will be our excuse to invade them.

Osborn F Enready · Apr 10, 2004, 10:49 pm

Dave, check your facts. Depleted Uranium is a problem, and the U.S. knew this, but are not addressing it.

They also knew about the effects of Agent Orange, and you would be kidding yourself if you think they didn't!

You are wrong about the WMD's, as they were supplied cultures of spoors for several biological toxins and mixtures BY the U.S. until 1989, and many other countries prior and after. These are easily attained facts anywhere on the net through official sites.

Bush allowed Saddam to martyr himself to his cause without even dying by building this war on the threat of WMD, and not finding JACK! He claimed we were there to remove Saddam and the Bathe Party, yet we had no means for enforcing martial law until temporary order could be attained through local means, because of Bush's rush to war. We have given the Intelligence Community the biggest, most blatant black eye in its history, and discredited our word, and our intent. Now the 9-11 hearings are proving out all the facts, and watch at how they manipulate the facts in the biased media, and even though Condoleeza Rice didn't directly answer ANY question she was asked, she was applauded for her testimony!

This whole war, much like almost ALL recent military actions, were nothing but political pawns to pacify the party loyalists, and the corporate honchos.
Look at the facts on Columbia, Somalia, Africa, Haiti and alll the others you never hear about in the media, but are being reported in books and by investigative journalists around the globe.

Bi-Partisan politics has blinded this country, how much does it take to wake up?

BoneShintai · Apr 10, 2004, 10:52 pm

Hey Patrick, that last source: http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0328/p09s01-coop.html was an opinion piece. Which although it came from a reputable biased source it containes no link to any of it's information's source. Besides the battlefield is changing. Are you in the Coalation forces? The only reason people know what is going on in the battlefield without being in the war is by what they watch on tv, and we know how truthful that is.

Write Winger · Apr 10, 2004, 11:05 pm

Don't you understand...everyone the US is against are good and the US is bad.... Iraq was only preparing for the evil Americans to use nerve gas because Americans are bad and Islamic Terrorists are only freedom fighters...don't you people read the newspapers and watch CNN?

PatrickHenry · Apr 10, 2004, 11:47 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Write Winger,)
Don't you understand...everyone the US is against are good and the US is bad.... Iraq was only preparing for the evil Americans to use nerve gas because Americans are bad and Islamic Terrorists are only freedom fighters...don't you people read the newspapers and watch CNN?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Sarcasm isn't debating.
Will you admit that "some" of the things the US has done have not been good? If not, you're simply worshipping America, but that's one of the biggest of the modern day cults. Myself, I love it too much to leave it the way it is. That's my purpose on this site, finding common ground.

Are you in favor of corruption in government? or do you deny that corruption and fraud exists?

Is the Constitution a worthless piece of toilet paper, to be flushed away when it has been used up? Why then are officials sworn to uphold it? Why are the troops expected to defend it? Why has the public not been notified that the constitution has been suspended?

Do you deny that the CIA has been running drugs into America for years, and drug money is essential to the economy?

Just a few thoughts on your sarcasm towards those who see the need to change the present situation.,,

Suburbanite · Apr 10, 2004, 11:58 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
Sub had a good point<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Well said.

Apr 10, 2004, 04:20 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Mr.Vicchio Navy Veteran Location: Texas Posts: 6,335	If Iraq had no WMD... and the USA doesn't use them.. Why did the Iraqi Republican Guard have full WMD countermeasure suits, masks and other items on the ready during the war? Just curious since there were no WMD as we all know, it was jsut a alie of the whole world prior to Bush acting on it, then it became his lie... Why did the Iraqi's have Bio/Chem warfare suits, masks and the like? The USA uses Nukes, not Gas, not Bio weapons. Just curious. Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?

Apr 10, 2004, 04:28 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Mr.Vicchio Navy Veteran Location: Texas Posts: 6,335	Yeah.. uhm we are just uhm.. known for those uhm.. wepaons in major combat.. much more effective then smart weapons.. right. Next dodge please. Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?

Apr 10, 2004, 05:43 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
Mr.Vicchio Navy Veteran Location: Texas Posts: 6,335	Gee so Saddam feared the use of Chem Weapons that we haven't used in 30 years... Right well whatever you think will make you feel better about avoiding the simpler truth... and Daves pretty much spot on. Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?

Apr 10, 2004, 07:26 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
Catch 22 Igneous Magma Posts: 374	dave don't you think the military might have had an inkling to the dangerous effects of agent orange? It was such a popular tool one has to think they saw it’s effects in R+D. Moreover if the weapon was only thought to be a defoliant isn't that biological warfare then too? You’re destroying millions of acres of prime forest destroying entire ecosystems. That’s certainly not good for the Vietnamese population. So really what does it matter? You’re still employing a wmd. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, militarism and economic exploitation are incapable of being conquered Martin Luther King Jr.

Apr 10, 2004, 10:16 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
PatrickHenry 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,446	Depleted uranium is a radiological as well as a chemical weapon in its effects on local populations and the troops exposed to the dust. http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm But Pentagon denial makes this one go away. The US position on proliferation has no logic. Iraq must be invaded and occupied to prevent or reverse proliferation. But our puppet government in Pakistan has no such worries, even though the recent news stories implicate them in the global nuke trade. http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2004/mj0.../mj04weiss.html Oh, and its OK for Israel to have nukes, 'cause they're our friends. Except for that one little incident on the "Liberty" http://www.ussliberty.org/ And now the Bushies want mini-nukes. http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0328/p09s01-coop.html They're more "usable" don't you see... But don't worry, they will only be used on evildoers. "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams

Apr 10, 2004, 04:26 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	The result of any large explosion is unhealthy to breathe, and they can't trust America won't use tear gas or any other chemicals. Who would be so stupid as to unprepared their army like that?

Apr 10, 2004, 04:32 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	1. We have used Chemical Weapons, all the way up to Vietnam 2. Are our enemies going to sit there and think to themselves "Well... I guess we can trust America not to kill us with chemicals, so we better leave ourselves open to it." 3. George Bush's Military Budget does allocate money for chemical and biological studies, far be it for me to assume that those will never go to use.

Apr 10, 2004, 05:21 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
dave654 Guest Posts: n/a	The US military used defoliants in Vietnam, not actual chemical or biological weapons. I don't know of ANY use of these types of weapons in WWII, or Korea. If you're going to make this accusation you need to cite examples. The current myth that Iraq did not have WMDs is simply htat, a MYTH. Iraq DID have WMDs and actually used them aganst Iran and their own citizens. Another myth is that these weapons were supplied by the US. The US did support Saddam during the Iraq/Iran war, only because Iran had taken american hostages and considered the US the Great Satan. Remember those days? I do. There is an old quote that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Reagan did not like Saddam, or his methods. Saddam was simply used as a pawn against Iran. The support afforded Saddam was used to purchase or manufacture chemical weapons, but were not directly supplied by the US. Every country in the United Nations agreed Iraq had WMDs, and if Saddam did not have them after 1998, he sure tried to lead us all to believe he did. Another explanation of where they are is that there was quite a long run up before the Iraq war of 2003. Saddam had plenty of time to destroy or hide any WMDs he might have had. A bigger threat he posed was his nuclear weapons development program. He was trying to develop the bomb and if he ever did, does anyone actually believe he would not have used it or at least sold one to the first terrorist group with deep enough pockets. Would this terrorist group have ANY qualms about using their new big bomb? Face it, all the venom spent yelling at Bush over the war is simple partisan politics. If Gore were in office and had done the same thing Bush did, the same people now yelling would be praising the war as a great humanitarian campaign.

Apr 10, 2004, 06:08 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	There is no talking to you Vicchio, why bother?

Apr 10, 2004, 07:21 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
dave654 Guest Posts: n/a	Hey, Sub, when did the US military use chemical or biological weapons? Agent Orange doesn't count since its a defoliant and nobody knew it had such dire side effects. I was in the Army and a good friend of mine was an expert in the NBC field, Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical warfare. The Military does R&D in this field but only as a defensive measure. The funds you refer to are spent on how better to protect, or treat, the troops. USAMRID, the Army's version of the CDC, does maintain samples of various diseases etc. for experimental purposes. The US does not have any stockpiles of Chem. or Bio weapons. If you think they do, where are they?

Apr 10, 2004, 08:01 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	it is clear to me that you're already trying to defend the anticipated answer so you know the truth dave.

Apr 10, 2004, 09:22 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
dave654 Guest Posts: n/a	Well what's the anticipated answer I'm trying to defend. I only brought up agent orange because it was so devestatingand C22, the Army didn't know it was as dangerous as it was. I discount its use as a bio weapon because it was not intended to kill Vietnamese troops or citizens. I didn't until much later and had as much effect on US troops. No, the Army would not have used agent orange if they knew what would happen. I know it's popular to believe the worst of the military but it doesn't work that way. Sub has stated flat out that the US military has used chem. or bio. weapons. When and where? If you can cite an example I will check it out and consider myself wrong. Unlike so many posters on this site, I'm willing to accept my shortcomings concede when I'm wrong. Prove me wrong.

Apr 10, 2004, 10:11 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	You're missing the point! They had protection from things like Mustard Gad because WHY THE HELL WOULD THEY TRUST AMERICAN TROOPS? I know I wouldn't trust my ENEMY! You think you've just PROVEN that there are WMDs with this, V? How rediculous.

Apr 10, 2004, 10:32 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
dave654 Guest Posts: n/a	I've heard about depleted uranium causing problems too. However, DEPLETED Uranium means it's no longer radioactive. It's simply a very hard substance. If it were a health hazard don't you think the tankers handling the munitions, or riding around in the tanks covered with the substance would show signs of illness?

Apr 10, 2004, 10:41 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	You'll see the effects on the Iraqi people soon enough, don't worry. You'll see deformed babies being born and all kinds of neat things from our "smart" weapons. And Sub had a good point, why do you keep avoiding it? Just because you and I think our military wouldn't use biological weapons doesn't mean THEY should be unprepared. If you were them, would you take the chance? The WPD's are in Syria, haven't you heard? That will be our excuse to invade them. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Apr 10, 2004, 10:49 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
Osborn F Enready Principled Observer Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 13,873	Dave, check your facts. Depleted Uranium is a problem, and the U.S. knew this, but are not addressing it. They also knew about the effects of Agent Orange, and you would be kidding yourself if you think they didn't! You are wrong about the WMD's, as they were supplied cultures of spoors for several biological toxins and mixtures BY the U.S. until 1989, and many other countries prior and after. These are easily attained facts anywhere on the net through official sites. Bush allowed Saddam to martyr himself to his cause without even dying by building this war on the threat of WMD, and not finding JACK! He claimed we were there to remove Saddam and the Bathe Party, yet we had no means for enforcing martial law until temporary order could be attained through local means, because of Bush's rush to war. We have given the Intelligence Community the biggest, most blatant black eye in its history, and discredited our word, and our intent. Now the 9-11 hearings are proving out all the facts, and watch at how they manipulate the facts in the biased media, and even though Condoleeza Rice didn't directly answer ANY question she was asked, she was applauded for her testimony! This whole war, much like almost ALL recent military actions, were nothing but political pawns to pacify the party loyalists, and the corporate honchos. Look at the facts on Columbia, Somalia, Africa, Haiti and alll the others you never hear about in the media, but are being reported in books and by investigative journalists around the globe. Bi-Partisan politics has blinded this country, how much does it take to wake up? Petition of Redress of Grievances: http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ Osborn F. Enready

Apr 10, 2004, 10:52 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
BoneShintai Sedimentary Rock Posts: 1	Hey Patrick, that last source: http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0328/p09s01-coop.html was an opinion piece. Which although it came from a reputable biased source it containes no link to any of it's information's source. Besides the battlefield is changing. Are you in the Coalation forces? The only reason people know what is going on in the battlefield without being in the war is by what they watch on tv, and we know how truthful that is.

Apr 10, 2004, 11:05 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
Write Winger Molten Ash Location: Texas Posts: 96	Don't you understand...everyone the US is against are good and the US is bad.... Iraq was only preparing for the evil Americans to use nerve gas because Americans are bad and Islamic Terrorists are only freedom fighters...don't you people read the newspapers and watch CNN? My book... Write Winger: Solutions for the Politically Oblique available from Booklocker.com

Apr 10, 2004, 11:47 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
PatrickHenry 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,446	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Write Winger,) Don't you understand...everyone the US is against are good and the US is bad.... Iraq was only preparing for the evil Americans to use nerve gas because Americans are bad and Islamic Terrorists are only freedom fighters...don't you people read the newspapers and watch CNN?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Sarcasm isn't debating. Will you admit that "some" of the things the US has done have not been good? If not, you're simply worshipping America, but that's one of the biggest of the modern day cults. Myself, I love it too much to leave it the way it is. That's my purpose on this site, finding common ground. Are you in favor of corruption in government? or do you deny that corruption and fraud exists? Is the Constitution a worthless piece of toilet paper, to be flushed away when it has been used up? Why then are officials sworn to uphold it? Why are the troops expected to defend it? Why has the public not been notified that the constitution has been suspended? Do you deny that the CIA has been running drugs into America for years, and drug money is essential to the economy? Just a few thoughts on your sarcasm towards those who see the need to change the present situation.,, "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams

Apr 10, 2004, 11:58 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) Sub had a good point<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Well said.