If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Heads Up ~~ Iraq & Atropine
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/12/international/middleeast/12NERV.html?ex=1037768400&en=3f56ee33041259da&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1
Pay attention dear cousins...the only justification for such a purchase as this is the intent upon using nerve gas in the immediate future...particularally considering the amount and the form it is to be supplied in...styrettes (self injectors) used exclusively by the military and in plants producing chlorinated hydrocarbons for insecticide!:mad:
If they use this VZ, Sarin, etc., in a war it gurantees that they will have to be nuked...!
The old war monger (warlord!) has spoken.
Pay attention dear cousins...the only justification for such a purchase as this is the intent upon using nerve gas in the immediate future...particularally considering the amount and the form it is to be supplied in...styrettes (self injectors) used exclusively by the military and in plants producing chlorinated hydrocarbons for insecticide!:mad:
If they use this VZ, Sarin, etc., in a war it gurantees that they will have to be nuked...!
The old war monger (warlord!) has spoken.
0
Comments
Nevertheless, I had to laugh at this statement from the article:
A bigger load of horsehite ive not read in a while. So Dr. Franz, the anthrax that was foisted on the American public last year (which was proven to originate from US labs) was just baking soda eh? lol.
Or the fact that the US delegates walked out of the BWC meeting in Geneva this past July when talk of third party verifications for all signatory nations was raised is in no way suspect since we obviously have nothing to hide ourselves. :rolleyes:
Ahhh yes, the double standards never end! let the good times roll!
One must presume that Clandestine would agree with Hussein using chemical WMD, because the US possesses them, whether the US have used them or not?
Curious, that...
Never trusted anyone who sought out every opportunity to attack his own country. Too easy to confuse that person with a Jihad Johnnie... easy for both the observer, AND the observed.
And if the Iraqis use chemical weapons, so what? They never signed up to the treaty, and our troops are given the antidotes and bio-warfare equipment as standard kit. Well, in the UK they are anyway.
No, he just isn't blinded by the lies and propaganda about your country.
Not being in the military means you aren't automatically brainwashed and have an ability to question your own country's motives.
Going along blindingly with your country, regardless of the conscequences, or if there is widespread doubt about the morality of those actions is the mark of a fool and a sheep.
BAAAAAAA
Perhaps my overt criticisms stem from hearing nothing but jingoistic rhetoric from many Americans who know as much about the world outside America as I do about astro-physics.
I simply am continually appalled by the hypocrisies that we as a supposedly freedom and democracy loving nation display in our national stance toward the rest of the world and then have the gall to wonder why events like 9/11 could ever have come to pass and why we are so despised in so many parts of the globe.
Like i said before, with great power and priveledge comes greater responsibility and reciprocity.
Actually, my experience with people in the military is that they have a much better idea of why they have the opinions which they might have, due to getting to some inside information, which the general public aren't always able to get.
It's not brainwashing, but awareness.
Talking very broadly here, before I get jumped at that not everyone is like this, yes there are exceptions, but in the whole, they are brainwashed to fight and not worry about it, to see war as more of a normality. Violence is built or programed into them, which gives them a lesser ability to see things from a non-violent stance and so are unable to see a route out of problems that doesn't involve war.
Know what that last sentence made me think of???
There's this Danish journalist called Herbert Pundik, and some time after the 11th of Sept I read one of his articles (shame that I don't remember the name nor date of it, as I could quote it more specifical).
In that article he, as many others, tried to focuse on the so-called hatred against the US and the west, from the arabic nations.
In that article he referred to a time where he was in Saudia-Arabia. Said that while touring the particual country he was in, he and his guide started talking to a group of young girls, who had just been released from school.
None of them seemed to have any warm feelings regarding the US, and had a lot of harsh criticism...
Though, when he later in that same conversation asked who would go to the US and study if he could get them visas, they all raised their hands.
Could be that the US is despised, and here you see one of the reasons for why.
I think that you'd enjoy his articles. Could probably find some common traits with this journalist...
He's the Danish national PC-terrorist supporter.
Good god, that I don't think that his articles are translated into English. Wouldn't want to hear you adopting his shit, and adding even more to your own
Love, Jacq xxx
Now forgive me, I don't anything about you and don't know about any possible accounts you may have had with soldiers or people serving within the military, though I know that the ones which I have met/know are calm people and most of all reasonable.
War is never a normality, for anyone.
May be that you are trained to act in war, but you'll never get "used" to it. Or as I heard a guy who deals with these things saying in an interview, "May be that I know how to kill, but that doesn't make me a killer".
If you get a "kick" out of seeing rage, death and destructure, then I don't think that the military is the suitable place.
In the whole, war is a last resort. But when it's needed, you have to take up the task.
Soldiers are trained to take up that task, not to enjoy it.
You should read the NY Times article that I linked in another thread.
You know different ones to me then. But as I said I was generalising and going from my own experiences.
Also one of my friends from the past who has just left the military is now going through serious problems readjusting due to the barinwashing he has gone through. Sorry he was one of my best mates before joining and ever since we have never got on as well because his whole character changed, now he's turned to me for support and help in fitting back into the community. He's having counceling twice a week for post traumatic stress and really is screwed at the mo. Just a pet hatred of mine at the moment, is the military.
As far as I'm concerned, it's the people who never question their government's actions and regard their military as the supreme authority and source of knowledge and wisdom who are the biggest danger to one's country and its citizens.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
And why would the use of chemical weapons against coalition troops have to guarantee the use of nuclear weapons, Diesel? Would you limit the use of nukes to low-yield warheads in a battlefield? Or would you just flatten the country and kill x million people for the sake of revenge? What will you do if there are no Iraqi divisions to nuke? Go for Baghdad?
The stated policy of the United States and NATO is that use of weapons of mass destruction against any of the members of NATO will result in immediate response with nuclear devices (the only WMD that the US and NATO hold). I'm not judging the policy, just pointing it out.
More seriously that is quite shocking, bit of a cold war relic isn't it?
No one has come up with a better deterent than MAD...still holds, and I doubt it will go away.
I understand why that policy is in place. It's a good deterrent if nothing else. But I hope it doesn't mean allied troops are under obligation to deploy WMDs even if there is no enemy to attack.
Perhaps you should educate yourself as to the difference between "revenge" and "deterrent". How would a nuclear response be considered a "deterrent"? After being employed, the original user of the WMD would be prevented from doing so, again.
Perhaps you would feel better if Hussein might have his way, and deploy his chemical and/or biological weapon in London/Paris/ Munich/Washington etc?
As with the "sniper" who was a US citizen, and ex- member of the armed forces... there are many "sleepers" within our countries just aching for the moment to get in their licks. Not just the US, but UK, and all around the world. Only a fool living in a state of denial would think otherwise.
Ooh plus we could then sweep in and steal all the oil (well after the radioactive half life dissipates at any rate (give or take a few thousand years) lol.
Methinks the warmongers are ascending into the realms of the absurd now. Kill, kill, kill eh boys?!
Indeed, but the sleepers appear in this case to arise out of our own fine armed services training. So if we really want to be secure Vit, perhaps we should never repatriate any of our armed service personnel since they are the best killing machines money can buy. :rolleyes:
You're missing the point. Diesel said that if Saddam were to use WMDs allied forces would be within their right of using a nuclear response. I'm asking would you be happy to nuke Iraq and kill millions of innocents when all you have to do to remove the threat of further attacks is eliminate Saddam himself (which is what you were going to do in the first place without the help of nuclear weapons)?
Don't start giving me the old bollocks about "if London was attacked next you'd think different". There are things that you can do and things that you can't. Nuking a country because some of your well equipped and vaccinated troops have been exposed to gas is simply unacceptable.
The "sniper" was an engineer. Not a combat soldier at all, and sure as hell not a sniper in the military sense of the word.