US delivers armor to baltics

[AttorneyAtWar]

^^^

 

Okay, yes, LOL, but... from where did the chemical weapon stockpiles that ISIS overran appear? (WMD = Chemical, Nuclear, Biological. The old "ABC" is now "NBC". Is CBS feeling left out, as well as PBS?)

 

But, your point stands: you showed him a position he did not like so he called you a traitor. Debate over.

 

There is no verified evidence by the U.S. or NATO countries that ISIS has used or acquired chemical weapons in WMD form in Iraq.

Edited March 29, 2015 by Raptorx7

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Re: Chemical weapons in Iraq

 

There's some fluffiness on this, ranging from for sure and reals, chemical munitions turned up in IEDs (mostly mortars).  Given the numbers and age of the weapons involved its more likely they were simply forgotten about and in a box at the back of the Al Saddam Base of the Glory of Saddam's base of Saddam Defense's storage bunker, and got looted with everything else in there in 2003.

 

There's some other stuff floating around of similar nature, and some evidence that there might have been some sort of stockpile, or knowledge retention program (i.e. burying all the research stuff in a 50 gallon drum in the desert somewhere), but the vast stocks of flagrant UN violation CBRN stuff clearly did not exist.

 

On the other hand Iraq did violate the hell out of a lot of provisions of the 1991 ceasefire, and follow-up disarmament verification stuff so go figure.  

[Vanir Ausf B]

Okay, yes, LOL, but... from where did the chemical weapon stockpiles that ISIS overran appear?

 

The only chemical weapon ISIS has been reported to use is chlorine gas, a common industrial chemical.

[Battlefront.com]

^^^

Okay, yes, LOL, but... from where did the chemical weapon stockpiles that ISIS overran appear? (WMD = Chemical, Nuclear, Biological. The old "ABC" is now "NBC". Is CBS feeling left out, as well as PBS?)

Like others here, I've not heard of anything used that would have come from Saddam's stockpiles. Seems unlikely that for 11 years they sat around unnoticed in Iraq, while we were looking for them, and suddenly a bunch of deathcult whackjobs managed to get their hands on them within a few weeks.

If ISIS does have chemical weapons, they would more likely have come from Syria.

 

But, your point stands: you showed him a position he did not like so he called you a traitor. Debate over.

 

Like some other "debates" I've been involved with, it wasn't. He presented a position without the benefit of evidence. I proposed a counter position with the benefit of evidence. He refuted that position based on nothing but blind belief. I countered with sources that I knew he wouldn't call into question. He then opted out of even the facade of a debate by calling me a "traitor". But since he never supported his own position nor challenged mine with facts, it was never a debate.

 

 

Re: Chemical weapons in Iraq

 

There's some fluffiness on this, ranging from for sure and reals, chemical munitions turned up in IEDs (mostly mortars).  Given the numbers and age of the weapons involved its more likely they were simply forgotten about and in a box at the back of the Al Saddam Base of the Glory of Saddam's base of Saddam Defense's storage bunker, and got looted with everything else in there in 2003.

Oh, definitely! The thought that Saddam knew where every 122mm and 152mm chemical shell is a silly position to take. Heck, the US Air Force a few years ago misplaced a nuke

 

There's some other stuff floating around of similar nature, and some evidence that there might have been some sort of stockpile, or knowledge retention program (i.e. burying all the research stuff in a 50 gallon drum in the desert somewhere), but the vast stocks of flagrant UN violation CBRN stuff clearly did not exist.

Yup, and that is really all that matters.

 

On the other hand Iraq did violate the hell out of a lot of provisions of the 1991 ceasefire, and follow-up disarmament verification stuff so go figure.

Classic totalitarian leadership miscalculation. Saddam played his cards very, very poorly in the 2001-2003 game of poker with the US. Very poorly.

 

C'mon Steve, do we really need to rehash the old arguments again here? You know as well as well as I do that there is absolutely no solid evidence that has been presented to back up that 80% claim. I think that you would also agree that NATO is by no means an objective third-party force in this (or any other conflict)... so do we really need to go down that path again?

You mean where you reject the position I establish without offering a counter position based on factual information? No, you're absolutely right I have no interest in going down that path again. Though I agree with you that NATO is not a neutral party and therefore its information is suspect. However, I've not seen any counter evidence to their assertion. So unless you can make a factual based counter argument, you should not so casually dismiss NATO's numbers.

Based on what I've seen of the fighting, I think it's probably 70% Russian and 30% Ukrainian in the fight. Earlier I think it was closer to 50/50, but the casualties of the true separatist units and the increase in Russian military forces has changed the balance. Again, I'd be happy to get into a debate with you about this if you feel you are able to follow the most basic principles of debate (i.e. presenting a counter case other than saying "poppycock!")

 

Totally agree with your observations on the "tin-foil hat crowd", btw...

I've never once thought of you as flying with that flock, so I'm not surprised we are in agreement. The only people that would disagree with my position are themselves in the "tin-foil hat crowd".

Steve

[Buzz]

Never underestimate Media attempts to suck in eyeballs for ‘detailed reporting of facts.’   

 

In some US media the sky is falling screams for more eyeballs was ISIS was using ‘chemical weapons’ now… run away…. toss in a few not so glancing ‘analyst’ suggesting these were maybe the lost WMDs. More reality based reporting described adding chlorine to IEDs more a fear factor than Armageddon 2’s coming. Nasty to be sure but nothing more that Syria has been doing with Barrel Bombs upon their people...   

[DreDay]

You mean where you reject the position I establish without offering a counter position based on factual information? No, you're absolutely right I have no interest in going down that path again. Though I agree with you that NATO is not a neutral party and therefore its information is suspect. However, I've not seen any counter evidence to their assertion. So unless you can make a factual based counter argument, you should not so casually dismiss NATO's numbers.

Based on what I've seen of the fighting, I think it's probably 70% Russian and 30% Ukrainian in the fight. Earlier I think it was closer to 50/50, but the casualties of the true separatist units and the increase in Russian military forces has changed the balance. Again, I'd be happy to get into a debate with you about this if you feel you are able to follow the most basic principles of debate (i.e. presenting a counter case other than saying "poppycock!")

 

 

Sorry Steve, I have seen how your debate style goes...and while I completely understand and accept it; I simply have neither time nor the interests in getting into minute arguments on this board. As I have said before - If you want to take it to a PM conversation (which I totally support being made public), that would give me some time and flexibility to carry on our discussion (it does not have to be a debate, as I feel that we agree at least on 50% of our analysis); but I simply cannot commit to being present and cognizant on this board nearly as much as yourself. I have a job and a family to take care of (as you probably do as well), but the difference is that my job has nothing to do with this board and yours does. I do not expect you to agree or to accept my arguments, but I do ask you to be cognizant of the fact that most people (myself included) simply don't have an option to post here nearly as much as you can...

[c3k]

To be clear, I did NOT say anything about ISIS "using" chem weapons. Just that news reports said that "Isis had overrun" stockpiles. FWIW, my personal belief is that it was a pile of old stuff (pile being anything from a dozen old 120mm shells to several hundred of other types), probably corroding away, and in no way capable of use.

 

The old saw that "there were NO WMD" in Iraq is clearly false. Unless you think they got produced AFTER 2003?

 

As discussed above, I think they were some of the leftovers from the Iran-Iraq war, probably buried in the desert to avoid detection, and then forgotten about. 20+ year old chem ordnance is probably more hazardous to the user than anyone else. (Assuming they've even retained any active chemical.)

 

IMO, they were a remnant, barely worthy of a footnote. (I only mentioned it to show that there was a shred of truth for some to use to clothe their arguments.)

 

Ken

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

Classic totalitarian leadership miscalculation. Saddam played his cards very, very poorly in the 2001-2003 game of poker with the US. Very poorly.

 

To a mind boggling extent.  I had a professor who believed he legitimately tried to get rid of all WMD and WMD related activities because they weren't worth the trouble internationally....while strongly hinting he still had them to ensure folks still feared getting gassed for being uppity.

 

I'm of that mindset, and it explains why the validation teams were able to fairly securely say there were no WMDs left, while some not-crazy intelligence agencies (including non-US ones) were still claiming WMDs existed.

 

Re: Chlorine

 

It's an old trick.  We actually went pretty heavy on the MOPP (well. JLIST) gear going to Iraq in 2008 because chlorine trucks were being used as VBIEDs.  The efficiency of the bombs was very marginal. The actual effects were generally a fairly wide blast area from the truck going up, but a very small area that was pretty unhealthy to be around,  The open air detonations and lack of dispersal generally meant it was a mess to clean up, but not a lethal threat from the chemicals with only modest precautions (like not rolling in the wreckage while hyperventilating sort of precautions).  There were a fair number of people treated for chlorine exposure but most were returned to duty, or simply given some time off (like a day or two) to recover.  

[Buzz]

To be clear, I did NOT say anything about ISIS "using" chem weapons. Just that news reports said that "Isis had overrun" stockpiles. FWIW, my personal belief is that it was a pile of old stuff (pile being anything from a dozen old 120mm shells to several hundred of other types), probably corroding away, and in no way capable of use.

 

The old saw that "there were NO WMD" in Iraq is clearly false. Unless you think they got produced AFTER 2003?

 

As discussed above, I think they were some of the leftovers from the Iran-Iraq war, probably buried in the desert to avoid detection, and then forgotten about. 20+ year old chem ordnance is probably more hazardous to the user than anyone else. (Assuming they've even retained any active chemical.)

 

IMO, they were a remnant, barely worthy of a footnote. (I only mentioned it to show that there was a shred of truth for some to use to clothe their arguments.)

 

Ken

 

Yep… if there were some leftovers…they probably more hazardous to the user than anyone else. 

Should not be but am sometimes dumfounded by the media hype that jumps on anything as ‘proof’ that the world is about to end … again

 

To a mind boggling extent.  I had a professor who believed he legitimately tried to get rid of all WMD and WMD related activities because they weren't worth the trouble internationally....while strongly hinting he still had them to ensure folks still feared getting gassed for being uppity.

 

I'm of that mindset, and it explains why the validation teams were able to fairly securely say there were no WMDs left, while some not-crazy intelligence agencies (including non-US ones) were still claiming WMDs existed.

 

Re: Chlorine

 

It's an old trick.  We actually went pretty heavy on the MOPP (well. JLIST) gear going to Iraq in 2008 because chlorine trucks were being used as VBIEDs.  The efficiency of the bombs was very marginal. The actual effects were generally a fairly wide blast area from the truck going up, but a very small area that was pretty unhealthy to be around,  The open air detonations and lack of dispersal generally meant it was a mess to clean up, but not a lethal threat from the chemicals with only modest precautions (like not rolling in the wreckage while hyperventilating sort of precautions).  There were a fair number of people treated for chlorine exposure but most were returned to duty, or simply given some time off (like a day or two) to recover.  

Good description of how Iraq is reported to be managing Chlorine IEDs. Believe ist was a BBC report claimed one Iraqi combatant was killed by a Chlorine IED from ISIS early on. Since then precautions for Iraq’s press on ISIS accounted for these chlorine laced ‘terror’ surprises. 

Syrian civilians getting whacked by chlorine barrel bombs don’t have as many tactical options.

[Apocal]

 

Yep… if there were some leftovers…they probably more hazardous to the user than anyone else. 

Should not be but am sometimes dumfounded by the media hype that jumps on anything as ‘proof’ that the world is about to end … again

 

Good description of how Iraq is reported to be managing Chlorine IEDs. Believe ist was a BBC report claimed one Iraqi combatant was killed by a Chlorine IED from ISIS early on. Since then precautions for Iraq’s press on ISIS accounted for these chlorine laced ‘terror’ surprises. 

Syrian civilians getting whacked by chlorine barrel bombs don’t have as many tactical options.

 

 

Given the alternative payloads, I'd take chlorine.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

Given the alternative payloads, I'd take chlorine.

 

Still came with a whole truckbomb attached.  Those can be rather bothersome. 

[Apocal]

Still came with a whole truckbomb attached.  Those can be rather bothersome. 

 

I was thinking about the barrel bombs in that case, but yeah, I'd seriously prefer they replace any weight with chlorine rather than pack on more HE. Or build/install one of those nasty fragmentation kits.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Apocal

[Battlefront.com]

Sorry Steve, I have seen how your debate style goes...

You mean my stubborn habit of following the basic principles of debate and calling out people who don't? Yup, that's me.

 

 

 

I simply have neither time nor the interests in getting into minute arguments on this board. As I have said before - If you want to take it to a PM conversation (which I totally support being made public), that would give me some time and flexibility to carry on our discussion

This I don't understand. If you have the time to discuss this in PM then you have the time to discuss it on the Forum.

 

 

(it does not have to be a debate, as I feel that we agree at least on 50% of our analysis);

The percentages ebb and flow, mostly depending on how many formal Russian military are in/out of Ukraine at a given point in time. Which means it isn't possible to put a single percentage on the composition of separatist/Russian forces. I think 70/30 Russian/Ukrainian is about right for this period of the war.

but I simply cannot commit to being present and cognizant on this board nearly as much as yourself. I have a job and a family to take care of (as you probably do as well), but the difference is that my job has nothing to do with this board and yours does. I do not expect you to agree or to accept my arguments, but I do ask you to be cognizant of the fact that most people (myself included) simply don't have an option to post here nearly as much as you can...

I believe that someone who doesn't have the time defend positions should not take positions that require defending. "Drive by" challenges that lack documentation and are not defended hold little value.

Steve

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

I was thinking about the barrel bombs in that case, but yeah, I'd seriously prefer they replace any weight with chlorine rather than pack on more HE. Or build/install one of those nasty fragmentation kits.

 

Again, didn't quite work that way.  It was your average sized vehicular bomb that just happened to be a truck with noxious chemicals in a tank.  A lot of the internals (cab, often fuel tanks) or even externals (nestled into the truck's frame) would be full of explosive funness.  It'd be less dangerous than a comparable sized truckbomb, but likely about as lethal as your average VBIED (like bongo truck or mini-van sized) which was still bad juju.

 

I liked the ones that went off by themselves, and early though.  Those were the best by far.  Sometimes the remote detonator would be whispered to just right by another remote device, sometimes circuits would be completed, other times, home made explosives just couldn't hold it in any more.  It was pretty much the ultimate in schadenfreude.  

[Battlefront.com]

To be clear, I did NOT say anything about ISIS "using" chem weapons. Just that news reports said that "Isis had overrun" stockpiles. FWIW, my personal belief is that it was a pile of old stuff (pile being anything from a dozen old 120mm shells to several hundred of other types), probably corroding away, and in no way capable of use.

All clear!

 

 

As discussed above, I think they were some of the leftovers from the Iran-Iraq war, probably buried in the desert to avoid detection, and then forgotten about. 20+ year old chem ordnance is probably more hazardous to the user than anyone else. (Assuming they've even retained any active chemical.)

 

IMO, they were a remnant, barely worthy of a footnote. (I only mentioned it to show that there was a shred of truth for some to use to clothe their arguments.)

Agreed. But, of course, that's akin to having a huge police raid on a "major dope dealer operating out of his house" and finding a dried out joint that crumbles to the touch. Had drugs? Yes. Major dope dealer? Nope. And then the inquiries and lawsuits begin

To a mind boggling extent.  I had a professor who believed he legitimately tried to get rid of all WMD and WMD related activities because they weren't worth the trouble internationally....while strongly hinting he still had them to ensure folks still feared getting gassed for being uppity.

 

I'm of that mindset, and it explains why the validation teams were able to fairly securely say there were no WMDs left, while some not-crazy intelligence agencies (including non-US ones) were still claiming WMDs existed.

That is the common belief since 2004 when nothing was found. I also ascribe to this school of thought. Simply put, he underestimated how determined his foes were to invade regardless and overestimated the value of playing the game in terms of keeping himself in power. I can almost excuse this thinking in 2001 and 2002, but 2003 when it was clear the US was building up for a war? Sheer stupidity. A smarter man would have pulled the rug out from under the Bush Admin a few months ahead of campaign season. If he went to the UN and said "we got rid of everything and your inspectors can come in without interference" the US push for war would have been put on indefinite hold. But Saddam had the usual complacency of a tyrant who has been in power too long.

 

 

Re: Chlorine

 

It's an old trick.  We actually went pretty heavy on the MOPP (well. JLIST) gear going to Iraq in 2008 because chlorine trucks were being used as VBIEDs.  The efficiency of the bombs was very marginal. The actual effects were generally a fairly wide blast area from the truck going up, but a very small area that was pretty unhealthy to be around,  The open air detonations and lack of dispersal generally meant it was a mess to clean up, but not a lethal threat from the chemicals with only modest precautions (like not rolling in the wreckage while hyperventilating sort of precautions).  There were a fair number of people treated for chlorine exposure but most were returned to duty, or simply given some time off (like a day or two) to recover.

So ineffective were these attacks that I almost forgot about them until you brought them up Compare that to the Beirut Marines barracks attack, both in terms of physical effect and historical memory.

Steve

[DreDay]

You mean my stubborn habit of following the basic principles of debate and calling out people who don't? Yup, that's me.

Call it what you will sir. This (i.e. your “debate” style) is absolutely the last thing that I want to digest at this point.

This I don't understand. If you have the time to discuss this in PM then you have the time to discuss it on the Forum.

No sir, a pm (or rather public) correspondence allows both parties to address the other side’s arguments and beliefs at their own time and leisure. For instance, I have had a lazy Sunday today and I have enjoyed browsing and contributing to this board. I can also tell you that next week this board would be the absolute last thing on my mind due to my hectic work schedule. If you and I were to exchange messages at each other’s leisure, I would be much more inclined to stay consistent and to address your points in an orderly matter. Right now (or rather 8 hours from now), I simply would not be able to afford such luxury due to my other commitments.

Now I do understand that you don’t like PMs and that is your prerogative, but please understand that this (and most other) forum format benefits those that have the most time to dedicate to thme, and unfortunately that ain’t me…

The percentages ebb and flow, mostly depending on how many formal Russian military are in/out of Ukraine at a given point in time. Which means it isn't possible to put a single percentage on the composition of separatist/Russian forces. I think 70/30 Russian/Ukrainian is about right for this period of the war.

Right, I see that break down as the opposite (i.e. 70% local and volunteer/ 30% Russian regulars) but I think that we will both agree that these numbers are highly speculative based on our understating of the situation on the ground - that is something that we could discuss at our leisure, but again – I simply cannot commit to 24 hour (or even 7 day) turnaround time. By the time that I will have another lazy Sunday to post here, our old discussion would be completely outdated…

I believe that someone who doesn't have the time defend positions should not take positions that require defending. "Drive by" challenges that lack documentation and are not defended hold little value.

Steve

I understand your point, but I will counter this by saying that I do not see this forum as some kind of catalyst for foreign affairs discussion, the format and content here is simply not suited for that (as opposed to a quick and factual BMP-3 vs. M2A3 debate). I try to offer my knowledge and my (however subjective) understanding of the situation on the ground in these threads. I also try real hard to only speak about things that I have a pretty decent understanding of. Unfortunately I cannot always follow up on my statements or go into more detail due to more important (to me) time commitments and priorities. Somehow, I have a feeling that I am not the only one in that predicament. Personally, I feel good about my (however limited) contribution to this forum (with an exception of my last couple of posts in the Debaltsevo thread last week that were unnecessarily rude to you). I am human and I am man enough to say that I regret those.

However, this is your board sir – so if you do find my style to be counter-productive; I will gladly respect your wishes and avoid posting here. It’s your board and your rules sir.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

That is the common belief since 2004 when nothing was found. I also ascribe to this school of thought. Simply put, he underestimated how determined his foes were to invade regardless and overestimated the value of playing the game in terms of keeping himself in power. I can almost excuse this thinking in 2001 and 2002, but 2003 when it was clear the US was building up for a war? Sheer stupidity. A smarter man would have pulled the rug out from under the Bush Admin a few months ahead of campaign season. If he went to the UN and said "we got rid of everything and your inspectors can come in without interference" the US push for war would have been put on indefinite hold. But Saddam had the usual complacency of a tyrant who has been in power too long.

 

If I were Saddam I'd have taken the money and ran, but I think that's...just not Saddam.  The "House of Saddam" for being something that appeared on HBO is actually really good in terms of understanding the man vs the character.  It's still a TV drama series MOSTLY based on fact, but in a world that either ignores Saddam because the insurgency took the spotlight, or simply views him as a silly desert dwelling mini-Hitler, it's worth a look.

 

 

 

So ineffective were these attacks that I almost forgot about them until you brought them up   Compare that to the Beirut Marines barracks attack, both in terms of physical effect and historical memory.

 

It was one of the many things we were prepared and trained to deal with that totally 100% did not come to pass.  In a lot of ways it speaks well to the lack of sophsitcation and well, really "smarts' the insurgency had.  They often weren't that good, it's just a lot easier to make a bomb and blow up a restaurant than it is to stop such acts.  

[Apocal]

I liked the ones that went off by themselves, and early though.  Those were the best by far.  Sometimes the remote detonator would be whispered to just right by another remote device, sometimes circuits would be completed, other times, home made explosives just couldn't hold it in any more.  It was pretty much the ultimate in schadenfreude.  

 

You're welcome.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Apocal

[Battlefront.com]

Call it what you will sir. This (i.e. your “debate” style) is absolutely the last thing that I want to digest at this point.

Understandable given that your "debate" style is radically different from mine. Also different from defined standards, such as the rules for US national highschool debate competitions:

http://highschooldebate.org/rules/

In the Debaltseve thread you made many strong statements, either on their own challenging one of my own, without backing them up with anything but rhetoric. When challenged you were more likely to ignore or move onto a new point. Hence why I do not characterize your activities as a "debate". More like an unstructured argument without regard to rules of evidence.

I both understand and sympathize with your lack of time. We all make decisions about how we manage time, which is why I do not engage in off-Forum discussions. I am but one person and I also have limited time. There's 30+ thousand registered customers here. It is simply impractical for me to extend 1 on 1 time for this or any other purpose other than tech support.

 

Personally, I feel good about my (however limited) contribution to this forum (with an exception of my last couple of posts in the Debaltsevo thread last week that were unnecessarily rude to you). I am human and I am man enough to say that I regret those.

Thanks and on the scale of things your comments were mild. After 16 years of doing this I've developed Chobham skin

 

However, this is your board sir – so if you do find my style to be counter-productive; I will gladly respect your wishes and avoid posting here. It’s your board and your rules sir.

You are intelligent and articulate. I would prefer you to find a way to participate in a way that suits your time constraints. I LIKE having my views challenged. I LIKE learning. I do not like arguing without hope of either.

I suggest, perhaps, making more focused contributions when participating in a wider debate. For example, choose one or two specific points to counter and back them up so there is no need for a half dozen go arounds with people, like me, that will press you to defend your positions with something other than rhetoric. It is better to make one solid post than a half dozen weak ones. Probably takes less time too.

Steve

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

You're welcome.

 

Not sure what capability you are talking about, I mean there was a wide range of systems that did electronic whispers, but most of the ones we used simply made enough noise to drown out the trigger signal.  There were more than a few death by mis-dial/spam SMS moments though.

 

Not that I don't appreciate the jamming, just we had some pretty major prohibitions on doing anything that might set off an IED (our AO was Baghdad, even small IEDs could do a lot of collateral).  Anything that cooked off on its own was bad insurgent worksmanship or "operational" losses to the best of my understanding.  

[Apocal]

Not sure what capability you are talking about, I mean there was a wide range of systems that did electronic whispers, but most of the ones we used simply made enough noise to drown out the trigger signal.  There were more than a few death by mis-dial/spam SMS moments though.

 

Not that I don't appreciate the jamming, just we had some pretty major prohibitions on doing anything that might set off an IED (our AO was Baghdad, even small IEDs could do a lot of collateral).  Anything that cooked off on its own was bad insurgent worksmanship or "operational" losses to the best of my understanding.  

 

I wasn't in Baghdad, so the prohibitions weren't as strict. But yeah, they had IEDs, we had counters, they built counters to the counters in their new IEDs, we built new counters, etc. Sometimes the interplay would get pretty 'funny', especially when you saw them adapt tactically rather than technically.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Small bit of thread necrosis however relevant and interesting:

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/u-s-army-tanks-show-off-their-big-guns-in-the-baltics-cd380b3a315e

 

Apparently they're still tan for now.  

[Mhiester]

Nukes are so 21st Century....photon torpedos would be my choice, lets see an APS counter one of those babys.

It's simple, make sure the APS is covering the thermal exhaust port