You have no idea what you're talking about.

Post #92,682 by Brandioch 3/28/03 10:38:56 PM Reply	You have no idea what you're talking about. Will he use them once we get closer to Baghdad? Or will he save them for last? Chem/bio weapons are nearly INEFFECTIVE against troops on the move. That's because they LEAVE THE CONTAMINATED AREA soon after the weapons hit. I know I've said this before, but it seems that SOME PEOPLE'S CHILDREN have trouble comprehending it. Chemical weapons are used: #1. To channelize attackers. #2. To soften hardened targets. #3. To degrade combat performance by forcing troops to button up. Now, we are converging on a point target (Baghdad). #1. Would not apply because we are already channelized. #2. Would not apply because we are NOT hardened targets. #3. Could apply, but doing that would invoke #2 against the defenders in the city. In other words, if Saddam used chemical weapons against troops attacking Baghdad, the chemicals would settle in the places where the DEFENDERS are most likely to be and KILL THE DEFENDERS. Great, Saddam would use chemical weapons to kill his own troops so the US troops have an easier time taking the city. Why that makes PERFECT sense. The CORRECT time to have used them was when the US troops were in Kuwait. What if he really dis disarm all chemical weapons? He still has the extended range SCUDs he could have used them in that had traces of the chemicals in their empty warheads. IF he has those SCUD's, the "traces of the chemicals" would do LESS damage than a conventional warhead. So, why not just load them up with CONVENTIONAL explosives and toss them? Hmmmm, makes you wonder, doesn't it? Even if he doesn't have any chemical weapons, what about the human rights violations, the bad leadership, and the attempt to drive him out of power? Will conditions really improve Post-Saddam in Iraq, or will we create yet another monster that we will have to face sometime in the future? What the fuck does THAT have to do with ANYTHING? North Korea's dictator is just as bad as Saddam AND has and active nuclear weapons program. Once you get past the bullshit about Saddam's "WMD's" you see that this "war" is worse than stupid. It is pissing off the rest of the world and wasting resources that should be applied to North Korea.
Post #92,690 by orion 3/28/03 10:44:48 PM Reply	Are you saying we should have attacked NK instead of Iraq? NK< does, after all, have Nukes, which last time I checked are WOMD. Maybe Saddam doesn't want to use chemical weapons to gain political support from his neighbor countries against the Colitation forces? That way he can claim not to have them, and that the whole thing was wrong. Seems to make sense when they have Iraqi troops waving a white flag of surrender and then start shooting soon after the US troops lower their weapons, or Iraqi soldiers dress up as US Troops and start shooting civilians, or use bombs to attack civilians and then blame it on the US Troops. Saddam figures he cannot win via technology or brute force, so he is playing mind games. He sure seems to have fooled you. "Bill gates cannot guarantee Windows, so how are you going to guarantee my safety?" -John Crichton to the Emperor of the Scarrans on [link\|http://www.farscape.com\|FarScape]
Post #92,707 by Brandioch 3/28/03 11:17:19 PM Reply	Okay, predict the lottery numbers for next week. Maybe Saddam doesn't want to use chemical weapons to gain political support from his neighbor countries against the Colitation forces? Maybe. But, if so, then I had to correctly guess Saddam's motivation IN ADVANCE of the attack. I am a God. Saddam figures he cannot win via technology or brute force, so he is playing mind games. Maybe. But, if so, then I had to correctly guess Saddam's motivation IN ADVANCE of the attack. I am a God. He sure seems to have fooled you. Here's a free clue. Usually, it is not the one who predicts the outcome that is the fool. If we play cards and I take all your money, who's the fool? If we bet on a game and I take all your money, who's the fool? And so on.
Post #92,736 by orion 3/29/03 12:52:19 AM Reply	But you didn't correctly predict Saddam's motivation in advance of the attack. You may have made a prediction, but you haven't been proven right yet. So what is his motivation then? This is not a game of cards, and I am not playing the game whatever it is. I am mearly stating reasons why Saddam didn't use the chemical weapons yet. "Bill gates cannot guarantee Windows, so how are you going to guarantee my safety?" -John Crichton to the Emperor of the Scarrans on [link\|http://www.farscape.com\|FarScape]
Post #92,816 by Brandioch 3/29/03 12:32:17 PM Reply	By your logic, I did. But you didn't correctly predict Saddam's motivation in advance of the attack. You may have made a prediction, but you haven't been proven right yet. And when it is proven correct, by your logic, I would have had to correctly guess Saddam's motivation. Along with a host of other correct guesses. So what is his motivation then? At least try to follow the conversation. You are the one saying that Saddam hasn't used nuke/chem/bio because of excuse#1 and excuse#2 and excuse#3 and excuse#4 and excuse#5. Now, I made my prediction PRIOR to any of those events. Which means that I had to CORRECTLY "guess" the outcome of EACH of those events DAYS PRIOR to those events happening. Because (here's where you keep getting lost) at ANY ONE OF THOSE EVENTS my prediction would have been falsified had I "guessed" wrong. The more excuses you make for why things aren't happening the way they "should" be happening -means- the more events I had to "guess" correctly DAYS and WEEKS in advance. I take it you do not have any experience with statistical analysis.
Post #92,879 by orion 3/29/03 4:52:42 PM Reply	When or ever? When it is proven correct? How do you know it won't be seen as false? You are pretty darn well sure of yourself. What if Saddam launches a chemical attack on Kuwait tomorrow, will you eat crow then? Or will you claim it was the US faking the attack to make Saddam look bad? I took statisical analysis in college, I had to in order to get my associates. For some things, like human behavior, you cannot apply math to it all of the time. I have given valid reasons why Saddam isn't using WOMD, and you call them excuses. They are not excuses, they are guesses why he hasn't used them. Valid guesses, because Saddam wants to get support from his neighbors against the US. "Bill gates cannot guarantee Windows, so how are you going to guarantee my safety?" -John Crichton to the Emperor of the Scarrans on [link\|http://www.farscape.com\|FarScape]
Post #92,935 by Ashton 3/29/03 9:56:26 PM Reply	Class failed you. There are some things for which there is insufficient evidence - in fact, most things.. that people concern themselves about, BTW. As to this game? Sorry there is no set of answers that will explain why logic is not enough. Some days ya just have to bite a cat. Cats like to play a lot, too.. Ashton
Post #93,000 by Brandioch 3/30/03 2:26:22 AM Reply	No, they are excuses. A prediction has to be PRIOR to the action (or non-action). An excuse is what YOU give when something does NOT happen the way you think it will. What if Saddam launches a chemical attack on Kuwait tomorrow, will you eat crow then? Hmmm, then my prediction will have been proven false. But, I will RIGHT NOW predict that tomorrow (Sunday) there will NOT be any chemical attack on Kuwait launched by Saddam. Now, if I am proven right ONCE AGAIN (100% accuracy so far), will YOU eat crow? No, you won't. Because you didn't say there WOULD be an attack did you? Which brings us back to YOU offering nothing but EXCUSES when things don't happen the way you think they should. While I can PREDICT the events with 100% accuracy. 100% accuracy. No chemical attack on Kuwait on Sunday launched by Saddam. 100% accuracy. Pucker up and kiss my ass. For some things, like human behavior, you cannot apply math to it all of the time. Read BF Skinner. I have given valid reasons why Saddam isn't using WOMD, and you call them excuses. That is because they are excuses. They are not excuses, they are guesses why he hasn't used them. No, they are excuses for why something that you think SHOULD happen has NOT happened. Valid guesses, because Saddam wants to get support from his neighbors against the US. No, that is a specific excuse for why he hasn't used them. Otherwise, you would be able to predict that Saddam WOULD NOT use nuke/chem/bio weapons -because- he wants the support of his neighbors which he would not get if he used them. There. That is a prediction. Now, what happens when Saddam USES nuke/chem/bio weapons? Well, your PREDICTION is proven WRONG. Then you have to make EXCUSES for why you were WRONG. I took statisical analysis in college, I had to in order to get my associates. You are so stupid that you can't tell a "WMD" from a rocket and you insisted that I was spelling "Niger" wrong. hahahahahahhahahahahaha Your college education seems to be lacking in many areas.

Welcome to IWETHEY!