Iraqi Defector makes some unnerving assertions

Comments

• Reply 1 of 8

  ghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member

  December 20, 2001 11:22AM

  [quote]Originally posted by Moogs ?:
  
  <strong>Only I have a suspicion this war won't be just like the last one. It's going to be bloody and dirty for both sides.</strong><hr></blockquote>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  That's what they said the last time and for Afghanistan. Our Vietnam like quagmire was over in a snap.
  
  
  
  I was watching on TeeVee about a group of our tanks in Iraq that ****ed up and drove into a tank "kill box" (a trap). When they realized it they figured the only way out was to blast. They were shooting on Iraqi tanks so fast that two tanks would hit the same target at the same time.
  
  
  
  The recent air war in Afghanistan tells us the US can beat any land force ('cept for the "real" ones like China) with just a little bit of a foot hold and some cover (ie northern alliance).
  
  
  
  If the US wanted to it could drop Iraq like a house of cards.
  
  
  
  [ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>
• Reply 2 of 8

  noahj Posts: 4,503member

  December 20, 2001 11:41AM

  [quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
  
  <strong>
  
  I was watching on TeeVee about a group of our tanks in Iraq that ****ed up and drove into a tank "kill box" (a trap). When they realized it they figured the only way out was to blast. They were shooting on Iraqi tanks so fast that two tanks would hit the same target at the same time.
  
  
  
  &lt;snip&gt;
  
  
  
  If the US wanted to it could drop Iraq like a house of cards.
  
  
  
  </strong><hr></blockquote>
  
  
  
  For the first part a question, one tank got trapped, how? And two tanks would hit the same traget they were shooting at the same time? So one was trapped and one was not or two were trapped? You told the story but you left out the interesting parts and the details. (I love tanks, one of my favorite military vehicle. Abrahms tanks just rock! )
  
  
  
  As for the second part. I agree, Saddam would likley fall as fast or faster than the Taliban. But for the rest of it, remember Gulf War syndrome? If we hit a Chimical weapons hold, it could get nasty, and if he fires chemical weapons at us, it could get nasty even with a limited ground presence. We need to keep that in mind as we are otherwise wiping the floor with this madman.
• Reply 3 of 8

  ghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member

  December 20, 2001 11:49AM

  I may get slammed for this but I'm not a 100% on board with "Gulf War syndrome". If you take 500,000 of any group of people and do a hypertechnical medical analysis you're bound to find some "outliers".
• Reply 4 of 8

  moogs Posts: 4,296member

  December 20, 2001 5:00PM

  I guess what I meant by dirty and bloody, was that if there are two dozen under ground labs and such...it's unlikely we're just going to drop daisy cutters on them willy-nilly. Especially if we don't know what's in them, and furthermore if those unknown agents are amongst high concentrations of civilians (anyone doubt this? I don't).
  
  
  
  That is, troops, and not bombs will have to do most of the fighting to correct such a situation. And then there's the slug we have to lodge in Saddam's cranial region too...no second war with Iraq would be complete without roasting that bastard.
• Reply 5 of 8

  alcimedes Posts: 5,486member

  December 21, 2001 12:39AM

  yeah, the Iraq stuff was interesting, but there are a variety of reasons that he might say this. it certainly makes it a little more likely that he gets well taken care of. 'course, it could all be true too, who knows?
  
  
  
  as for the Gulf War Syndrome, i would guess that it has more to do with massive vaccinations than with chemical weapons from Saddam. just a guess.
  
  
  
  the mix of vaccines that the military troops got were very complex, who knows what all it might do in such a large population.
  
  
  
  -alcimedes
• Reply 6 of 8

  moogs Posts: 4,296member

  December 21, 2001 9:49AM

  Yah, hopefully with any geographic reference points he can give us, we can use some of our satellites (and spies perhaps, if any are over there) to look into this guys accusations. Obviously independant verification is a must. But even if it turns out he was only half telling the truth -- and there are only say 6 or 8 weapons labs -- that would be cause enough for a major smack-down.
• Reply 7 of 8

  marcuk Posts: 4,442member

  December 26, 2001 3:32PM

  I had (ie lost job) been working with a woman lately who was telling me about her husband who went to the gulf war, I can only tell what I was told, but she was cool and I had absolutely no reason to doubt her genuinity.
  
  
  
  Her husbands skin routinly erupts off his face and hands, literally just falls off, and also when he was discharged from the gulf, his medical records lad been completely lost by the UK MOD and he was basically given a new sheet with a clean bill of health!
  
  
  
  On the other hand, she also told me that he never speaks about his experiences in the Gulf, not even when he first got back, so I do wonder if his illnesses are psychological manifestations rather than physical. But I guess I'll never know
• Reply 8 of 8

  spaceman_spiff Posts: 1,242member

  December 26, 2001 3:59PM

  I don't know what to think about Gulf War syndrome. The problem is (from what I've read) is that there is no pattern to it. Those who you would think to be most likely to suffer from it don't necessarily. And those who should have been least at risk show symptons. But the symptons aren't consistent and there is also the "nocebo" effect. This is the opposite of a placebo - a pill that has no curative power that "cures" you anyway because you believe in it. A nocebo is something that can't make you sick but makes you sick anyway because you believe you should be sick. Is this happening with some of the victims of Gulf War syndrome? Maybe. I don't know.