What if Saddam uses WMD?

[B-Man]

If Saddam uses chemical weapons against U.S. troops (in Kuwait, Iraq, or wherever), what would be an appropriate military response from the U.S.? Would the use of WMD by the U.S be justified?

[Easy E]

From what I understand, nuclear weapons (limited or otherwise) has been our stated, standard response to a use of chemical/biological weapons.

[Clarkmeister]

Call me crazy, but I think our various bombing raids qualify as using WMD too.

I mean, what is worse? Us using 'conventional' weapons and killing 100,000 Iraqis or Them using 'WMD' and killing 10,000 Americans?

Once war starts, everything is a WMD as far as I'm concerned. I just hope that for our boys' sake, our WMD kick more ass than their WMD.

[marbles]

"From what I understand, nuclear weapons (limited or otherwise) has been our stated, standard response to a use of chemical/biological weapons"

--I'll be surprised if we go nuclear on this one. With the White House standing firm with the "we're freeing the Iraqi people" message, I can't imagine they'll want to kill hundreds of thousands through nuclear fallout. If Saddam goes chemical (and I assume he will), I suspect we'll unload our entire arsenal of those new super-daisycutters before we go nuke.

[B-Man]

I don't think its the same at all.

For one thing, we go out of our way to minimize civilian casualties (something very few (or even possibly none) other countries in history have done).

I predict we will kill far fewer than 100,000 Iraqi civilians. I might be wrong, but that's my feeling. If Saddam tries to make a last stand in Baghdad and creates a "hornet's nest," that could change things...

Chemical weapons are designed to do one thing--kill everyone who is near them, and do it in a horrible manner.

Also, the use of chemical weapons has been outlawed for decades. So in a legal sense, there is a distinction. But more importantly, I think there is a moral distinction.

[Clarkmeister]

Well, we can try to minimize civilian casualties, but we will kill some, and I am damn near 100% certain Iraq will kill precisely ZERO or our civilians. Given that, I'm not sure what your point really is.

I didn't know that someone bleeding to death because an exploding building fell on them was worse than mustard gas or whatever.

"Chemical weapons are designed to do one thing--kill everyone who is near them, and do it in a horrible manner."

Sounds a lot like our bombing raids to me.

[B-Man]

"Chemical weapons are designed to do one thing--kill everyone who is near them, and do it in a horrible manner."

Sounds a lot like our bombing raids to me.

Similar perhaps in the end result, but very different purposes and means of getting to the result. We bomb infrastructure, military targets and, apparently, high level political leaders. Our objective is to destroy the target, not kill as many people as possible (though anyone in the building will be in big trouble). If we wanted to kill as many people as possible, we would be doing things like specifically targetting civilian areas, residences, hospitals, etc.

Use of chemical weapons by Saddam would be for one purpose--kill as many Americans (and British, Australians, etc.) as possible. Our objective is not to kill as many Iraqis as possible, in fact, a major concern is minimizing deaths of Iraqis.

[nicky g]

"For one thing, we go out of our way to minimize civilian casualties (something very few (or even possibly none) other countries in history have done)."

"Use of chemical weapons by Saddam would be for one purpose--kill as many Americans (and British, Australians, etc.) as possible. "

But the chemical weapons would be used against coalition troops, not civilians. (I don't really think it makes no difference whether you use chemical or conventional weapons, I'm just being devil's advocate here. I do think the usedepleted uranium and cluster weapons is a disgrace however, that will be responsible for many civilian deaths, and more military deaths than is really necessary to win the war).

"Our objective is not to kill as many Iraqis as possible, in fact, a major concern is minimizing deaths of Iraqis. "

I hope so, including Iraqi troops as far as possible. Obviously it's absurd t go to war and hope not to kill any enemy troops, but if they behave the way they did last time at Basra then Bush Jr as well as Bush Sr will be guilty of war crimes.

[HDPM]

I think if they use chemical weapons against troops we will be more restrained than we have threatened. I think our response should be to utterly destroy the Iraqi army. I'd let guys surrender, but every weapon, every tank, vehicle, building ever used by their military etc... should be destroyed. And in another "highway of death" scenario, they should be killed to the last man. Retreat is not surrender. If it took nukes to kill a retreating army to the last man, they should be used. If we could do it without, fine. But I would require unconditional surrender and then destroy anything military (using their own weapons to save money) if they used chemical weapons. I would also do something America has not really done and take spoils of war. Basically I would take their oil or tax it. I would also take big chunks of Iraq to have a permanent base in the mideast and maybe provide for a Palestinian homeland. Having a nice American territory would help keep the Saudis in line even. I doubt we will go far enough if WMD's are used on our troops though.

Given the potential of WMD's, our response to their use against us must be brutal. We are dealing with thugs, not nice guys. Brutal force works better than we would care to admit. Or in fact be comfortable using for that matter. Once WMD's are unleashed, the stakes are too high to give Chirac or Powell talk and appease strategies a shot. We must clearly deter anybody from using WMD's against us. That is harder in the case of terrorism, but easier in terms of state sponsored terrorism or military use.

Also, our bombing now is in no way similar to WMD's. The fact is we could nuke Iraq and there's not a damn thing the world could really do about it. China, Russia, France, would not respond with nukes if we took out Baghdad and the other big cities with nukes. Sure, people would complain and we would lose standing in the "international community". But we could do it. We don't do that. And if we did it would be immoral and inhuman. But we could obliterate the civilian population there if we chose to. That does not mean what we are doing is right, but it does show we are restrained and measured in our use of force. Anybody think the same would be true if Saddam had that power?

[MMMMMM]

^

[MMMMMM]

"If Saddam uses chemical weapons against U.S. troops (in Kuwait, Iraq, or wherever), what would be an appropriate military response from the U.S.?"

Catch him and drop him feet first into a giant shredder?

[B-Man]

I think you have some good ideas, but I don't see us implementing them under any foreseeable scenario. Right or wrong, there would be too much political heat from the international community.

[nicky g]

"it does show we are restrained and measured in our use of force".

No. All it shows is the US is not as bad as Saddam would be with nuclear weapons. Is that really a worthy benchmark to be judged against?

If you believe all the things you write you clearly have no sense of the value of human life and at best tenuous connections to reality.

[HDPM]

I clearly said using nukes against the Iraqi population would be immoral and inhuman, even though we could get away with it. I do not think this is evidence that I clearly have no sense of the value of human life. Nor did I say that because we clearly are better than Saddam that we are automatically justified in our use of force. That is a separate topic that I did not address. What I addressed is what we do if WMD's are used on our troops. In discussing the issue, I assumed the real world. And in the real world the response to the use of wmd's must be brutal. This does not show a disregard of the value of human life or a tenuous connection to reality. We were able to fight limited wars in Korea and Vietnam without resort to WMD's because the stakes of their use were high. China was not going to give nukes to the NVA because of what would happen if they were used. The consequences would be terrible. What do you think would happen if we had a policy that allowed for the use of WMD's on us with no response? The answer is that they would be used more. We can expect WMD's to be used in the future, and those who would use them must face a terrible price. And that is because human life has value.

I don't understand the need for personal attack in your post BTW.

[Parmenides]

What if US intelligence sets fire to 4 oil wells (instead of them all like Saddam would do) and blames it on Saddam?


It would be much like 9-11, that's what.

[B-Man]

What if US intelligence sets fire to 4 oil wells (instead of them all like Saddam would do) and blames it on Saddam?

It would be much like 9-11, that's what.

You haven't been posting here very long, but this post, like many of your others, illustrates why you are the leader (far and away) in the category of "Highest Percentage of Completely Moronic Posts."

[MMMMMM]

Actually, B-Man, I believe he has been posting here a long time, under various pseudonyms: quite a bit longer than you, in fact, and perhaps longer than me. I won't reveal here what I believe are his aliases, but rest assured that when he adopts a new name, you'll quickly know (if you are following the forum): the style is unmistakable.

[B-Man]

rest assured that when he adopts a new name, you'll quickly know (if you are following the forum): the style is unmistakable.

can't argue with that!

[brad]

well the US has already said that iraq may use 'false flag' operations in which iraqi soldiers dressed as americans commit atrocities to blame the US.

why wouldnt the US do things (like blow up oil wells) to blame on iraqis?

especially since declassified military plans call for false flag operations in which americans are killed by a covert american force false flagging as an enemy?

its not far fetched at all.

[brad]

well its confirmed that US troops in gulf war 1 were exposed to low levels of nerve gas and stuff and the military and VA just denied it and gave them prozac and said they were crazy.

of course if its indisputable (ie, mass casualty) then they dont have that option this time.

[B-Man]

Brad, in your head there may be a fine line between hyopthetical and fact, but as I often say in response to your posts, please show me some facts to back up what you are saying. Just because something could have happened, it doesn't mean it did happen. And without even a shred of evidence, there is no reason to think it happened.

[B-Man]

U.S. troops were exposed to sarin in the first Gulf War because we blew up an Iraqi chemical weapons factory; Iraq did not use sarin against us. There is a very big difference between one and the other.

[brad]

true. thats all im saying.

im saying the US may not want to 'escalate' (ie, if theyve threatened to use nukes or something) if everything is under control and then some small chemical attack it may be easier to just keep it under wraps until war is over rather than say we got hit with chem and then look weak by not 'escalating'.

thats all im saying.

[Jimbo]

"If you believe all the things you write you clearly have no sense of the value of human life and at best tenuous connections to reality."

nicky g, the value of any given human life is relative not absolute nor equal. Suppose either you or I had to die in order to save the world? Whom would you chose? I certainly know my druthers.

[Parmenides]

Then the USA has liberated Iraq. It will be ruled by a US General while the likes of Hallibuton and Enron rob it blind. The Army will turn its guns on Iran. The war will go on.

[nicky g]

HPDM,
I take your point that the threat of retaliation may be necessary to prevent WMD atttack ion the first place - that wasn't what I was attacking, this is:
On what I described as your tenuous connection to reality:
"I would also do something America has not really done and take spoils of war. Basically I would take their oil or tax it. I would also take big chunks of Iraq to have a permanent base in the mideast and maybe provide for a Palestinian homeland. Having a nice American territory would help keep the Saudis in line even. "
I don't think turning Iraq into a US outpost to be used for whatever purposes it chooses is justifiable, though it may not be a totally unrealistic scenario. I don't see what the Palestinian issue has to do with Iraq using WMDs on American troops, but regardless: the Palestinians don't want any old land any more than the Israelis do, and they are entitled to live in the Paestinian territories just as much as the Israelis are entitled to live in Israel. Talk of shipping either side off to Iraq, or Jordan, or Madagascar or wherever is absurd and outrageous. SHipping them to a post WMD Iraq is not realistic.

On the value of human life:
"And in another "highway of death" scenario, they should be killed to the last man. Retreat is not surrender. "
This seems to justify what was done last time round (if I misunderstand, apologies), which I don't think was remotely justifiable. No, retreat isn't surrender. In the last Gulf War, however, surrender was not what was called for, withdrawal from Kuwait was. 100,000 conscripts were killed gratuitously and mercilessly, after having done what was asked of them. I don't see how doing this can ever be justified.
I do think that that particular post was not very realistic and displayed a lack of concern for the value of human life in the sections I quote. I apologise unreservedly for making my attack personal.
Jimbo, all the situation you describe proves is an instinct for self-perservation. It does not proove that wither of our lives is any more valuable than the other - quite the opposite, as our conflicting desires are totally relative, cancel each other out, and are not moral decisions. From an overall point of view, all life is valuable, though of course certain rights to it may be lost when other lives are threatened.

[HDPM]

The Palestinian homeland thing probably won't work. And besides, Paris or the Vatican are higher on my list for a new homeland outside of the area. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

As for spoils of war, I think we should actually do this if WMD's are used on us. It sends a message. America has not taken spoils of war before, but WMD's have not been used. I think it is justifiable but unrealistic, but you think it is realistic but unjustifiable. I think America will be too reluctant to do that because it is just a strong arm deal.

As for the highway of death, well when you are a soldier in an army and you are fighting you are fair game. I said I would allow unconditional surrender at any point. But before surrender I think you kill them to the last man. It would be horrible of course, as are some of the pictures I have seen from the highway of death. If they surrender their equipment could be destroyed with no further loss of life. Sometimes it just sucks to be in an army. Especially an incompetent one run by a crazy dictator. The answer is social revolution or fleeing. Look, the US has been calling Iraqi military leaders on their personal cell phones. That's how good our electronic surveillance is. We broadcast over their frequencies. We have told them to give up when the time comes. If they don't give up they will be beaten. And if they use WMD's I do think that any non-surrendering resistance should be utterly crushed-killed to the last man. If they don't use WMD's we can just crush them more nicely if there is such a thing in war. And I do think the highway of death thing the last time was justifiable. In hindsight we didn't go far enough. The men and equipment that escaped are now being used again.

[Clarkmeister]

I love how its OK for us to line them up and slaughter them but god forbid they use "WMD" (a laughable term in light of the weapons we are using) to defend themselves.

Like I said earlier in this thread. Us using 'conventional' weapons to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis is worse than them using 'WMD' (weapons of minimal distruction compared to some of the stuff we use) and killing a handful of Americans.

[HDPM]

A big line needs to be drawn between WMD's and other weapons. Not because of their battlefield effectiveness (or lack thereof) in this particular battle. People who would use WMD's must be deterred. For instance, if we tolerate it, the guys in that region who have WMD's will give them to state sponsored terrorists. Iran and Iraq hired Soviet scientists who are superior bioweapons engineers. I assume they already have vaccine resistant genetically engineered smallpox. That is a perfect terror weapon. Iran must know that if they gave this stuff to terrorists and we could establish the link between the government and the terrorists, the price would be total destruction of Iran if they used it on us. Such a bioterror attack on a big American city could kill millions. If Saddam survives in power he will give WMD's to terrorists. They will use those weapons on us. So far that has not happened, but to think it can't happen or won't happen is false optimism at best, foolishness at worst. Now and in the future we need to strongly deter the use of WMD's on us.

[nicky g]

I don't really see why it's not ok to use WMD but it is OK to box in a retreating army that has complied with the demands asked of it and been guaranteed a safe retreat and cluster bomb and napalm every last man in it to death.
(Note - I don't think either those things are ok).

"The men and equipment that escaped are now being used again. "
Well, yeah... But even Iraq is entitled to an army. We're attacking Iraq, this time.

[HDPM]

I agree if you guarantee a safe retreat it is wrong to kill them all. I would not guarantee a safe retreat were I in command. I would accept surrender. Retreating armies I would fight and destroy. Surrendering ones would be spared, but their weapons would be taken and destroyed.

[brad]

'I assume they already have vaccine resistant genetically engineered smallpox. That is a perfect terror weapon. Iran must know that if they gave this stuff to terrorists and we could establish the link between the government and the terrorists, the price would be total destruction of Iran if they used it on us.'

1) thats why med. pers. not taking s.p. vaccine

2) looks like next terror attack right before we're ready to invade iran

[IrishHand]

You have failed to draw any meaningful distinction between conventional weapons and WMD. The only thing you do is imply that WMD make better "terror" weapons - which makes zero difference in the context of our invading a sovereign nation. It's ridiculous to argue that they aren't completely justified in using every gun, gas, powder and brick in their entire country to repel our invasion.

[IrishHand]

What idiot army destroys a captured enemy's weapons? You appropriate them for your own purposes, be they military use or future sales.

[Pot-A]

That is most certainly not true. Captured Iraqi weapons will be neither destroyed, nor used by us, nor sold. They will be maintained by the Iraqi army under new leadership.

The last thing we want is a defenseless Iraq in that part of the world.

[IrishHand]

Umm...I would say that giving captured weapons to a puppet military qualifies as "using" them - or did you think this new Iraqi military would enjoy some level of self-determination?

The last thing we want is a defenseless Iraq in that part of the world. Fear not, my son! We will be happy to set up a few US military bases in Iraq to ensure that it won't be defenseless (among other things).

(If you prefer the "selling" analogy, it works just as well. We'll be glad to re-arm their newly US-friendly government in exchange for the favorable trade agreements that will surely be forthcoming after we remodel their country.)

[Cyrus]

"If Saddam uses chemical weapons against U.S. troops (in Kuwait, Iraq, or wherever), what would be an appropriate military response from the U.S.? Would the use of WMD by the U.S be justified?"

I thought that Weapons of Mass Destruction was another term for nuclear weapons, was it not? Mustard gas bombs qualify as WMD? I would think that the Mother Of All Bombs would fall under the WMD category, then.

But why does any action by the United States have to be "justified"? For better or worse, the U.S. have placed itself, through actions and words, completely outside any jurisdiction and legality. The U.S. answers to no one, anymore.

If it is "saving face" you are talking about, I'm afraid that the high moral ground has been lost. Even in the countries whose leadership supports the invasion of Iraq, the popular opinion runs highly against the whole thing.

[Jimbo]

"Even in the countries whose leadership supports the invasion of Iraq, the popular opinion runs highly against the whole thing." Then I say it is a very good thing that we do not allow the popular opinion of other countries' citizens to deter us from protecting our mutual interests.

[Clarkmeister]

"Then I say it is a very good thing that we do not allow the popular opinion of other countries' citizens to deter us from protecting our mutual interests. "

Exactly what the leader of North Korea thinks.

[Jimbo]

Exactly what the leader of North Korea thinks. You certainly are a radical little rascal Clarkmeister. Look at it in poker terms. We are playing no limit and North Korea is trying to play with a short buy-in. I do not like their chances.

[Clarkmeister]

The point Jimbo is that once you say its OK for us to use that type of logic, you concede that its OK for others to use it as well.

[IrishHand]

C'mon now Clarky...you should know by now that there is one set of rules for us, and one for everyone else.

[Jimbo]

The point Jimbo is that once you say its OK for us to use that type of logic, you concede that its OK for others to use it as well. Sure they can use the same logic Clarkmeister, it is just that they may find themselves quite a bit less successful in the implementation phase than they expected. Take professional golf as an example. Mich can say he is neither intimidated by nor an inferior player to Tiger. However when he must back up his words his atomic bombs are just too small to do as much damage as Tigers.

Yes in today's society we set the rules and others either accept them or suffer the consequences. Anyone who does not understand why is pooly informed. Now as to whether or not this is fair is certainly open to debate but as to whether or not it is factual is not.

[MMMMMM]

WMD are subcategorized as follows: Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical. Biological and Chemical are sometimes paired in subcategory while Nuclear retains its own subcategory.

[MMMMMM]

"Exactly what the leader of North Korea thinks."

Fortunately, our idea of a pre-emptive strike against North Korea would likely entail merely taking out the Pyongbyon reactor and their 2 or 3 nuclear weapons, and privately telling Kim Jong-il to sit down and shutup while this is happening or else.

North Korea's idea of a pre-emptive strike, should they become capable of it, would probably include taking out all of our nuclear bases and major cities, as well as Seoul, Tokyo and our Pacific Rim bases.

Isn't it nice to know that overwhelming force happens to be on the side of rationality and decency at this stage in history?

[nicky g]

I think most of us are arguing about whether it's fair. If it wasn't factual, there'd be no argument.

[nicky g]

"Isn't it nice to know that overwhelming force happens to be on the side of rationality and decency at this stage in history? "

It certainly would be /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[Lee Jones]

[Before you read very far, you should understand that I am extremely upset about this war. To the point that I'm considering participating in public protests against it.]

David and Mason spend a lot of time talking about unclear thinking. It seems to me that the behavior of our government is exactly that.
If we take Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/et. al. at their word, then they are pre-emptively striking a bad regime that poses a threat to us and its neighbors.

As Clarkmeister said, that's what the leader of North Korea thinks. And he's (terrifyingly enough) crazier and more paranoid than our own leaders.

Or, the best example I've heard so far - why shouldn't India nuke Pakistan in case Pakistan is getting ready to nuke them?

The truth to tell, I don't take the White House Hawks [1] at their word. I think this is about oil and/or monetary gain and/or 9/11 revenge and/or power and/or who knows what all else.

But it is so depressing to see that most of the American public doesn't see the horrifying implications of world-wide acceptance (and adoption) of Bush's stated policy.

This is all aside the unspeakable crime of blowing up completely innocent civilians in a war that their country didn't start. I remember how we used to laugh grimly at the reports from Vietnam: "We had to destroy that village to save it," they said, and they thought that made sense.

Regards, Lee

[1] Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz....

[Jimbo]

Lee you wrote "But it is so depressing to see that most of the American public doesn't see the horrifying implications of world-wide acceptance (and adoption) of Bush's stated policy.

From my perspective is is equally depressing that you and a minority of others see this policy in the light you portray.

[brad]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

[MMMMMM]

Iraq, Iran, and North Korea have all either made direct threats against the USA and/or supply weapons to terrorist organizations which have made such threats (and which organizations have carried out attacks as well.)

Saddam Hussein called for Jihad against the USA with a full-front-page newspaper ad on Dec.27, 2000. He may also have tried to assassinate Bush Sr. He is likely at least providing sanctuary to some terrorists now.

Iran supplies more weapons to terrorists than does any other country. The organizations it supplies include al Qaeda, and it harbors some al Qaeda.

North Korea has threatened to attack the US mainland with nukes if we do as little as to impose sanctions. North Korea sells weapons to rogue regimes and may sell to terrorists, and within a year North Korea may be able to produce one nuclear bomb per week. al Qaeda already has well-funded operatives in place throughout the Pacific to take delivery of North Korean nuclear material when it becomes available.

So: we appear to be considering pre-emptive action against only those regimes which have already made hostile threats and/or which have taken hostile actions, and which threaten to supply our worst enemies (such as al Qaeda) with very dangerous weapons. That seems a bit different than a blanket doctrine of pre-emption.

Also, the idea of pre-emptive attacks is not an entirely new historical development.

Also, those regimes which you fear might start considering such a doctrine, have actually already considered it. It is only practical considerations, not some greater code of international ethics, which have caused them to not implement such attacks. Rest assured that these rogue nations, if they could successfully employ pre-emptive attacks, would do just that, as well as committing other aggressive attacks that would have nothing to do with pre-emptive doctrine.

[nicky g]

"The organizations it supplies include al Qaeda"

Iran (or did you mean Iraq?)was a long term ally of the Northern Alliance, against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The type of Islam propounded by the Iranian mullahs is as far from that of al-Qaeda you can get. Certainly some Taliban and al-Qaeda fighers have crossed into Iran, but nothing like the numbers that are in Pakistan, a US ally, whose intelligence service created the Taliban and was, probably in large parts still is, an al-Qaeda ally. It's absurd to claim Iran is an al-Qaeda ally and I doubt you can find any more evidence for this than for the claims that Iraq is linked to bin Laden.

[BruceZ]

Don't take to the streets Lee. Such protests will not stop the war, but they may very well prolong it and cause the loss of additional lives. Saddam is encouraged by our show of disunity, and he may even believe that if he holds out long enough that we will quit due to opposition at home. If you want the war to be over, the best way to achieve that is to show unity, not disunity. This is true regardless of whether you believe the war is right or wrong.

Other nations are well aware of the concept of pre-emptively striking in defense; they don't need us to teach them about that. They adopt this policy or not depending on whether it will be permitted by the world powers, not on what the US does. But this is not just a pre-emptive strike against a bad regime that poses a threat. Iraq is in violation of the terms of surrender from the previous war, a war in which Iraq was the aggressor. In that sense, this is a continuation of that war, not a pre-emptive strike. If these terms of surrender are not defended, that will truely set a bad precedent. It would show the world that the US is too weak to even defend the terms for which it fought a war, and those who died for that cause will have died in vain. It is a show of weakness, not a show of strength, which is most likely to provoke rogue nations and terrorists to take actions against us that they otherwise would not.

[IrishHand]

From my perspective is is equally depressing that you and a minority of others see this policy in the light you portray.
Which minority is this? Lee was referring to world-wide acceptance. The world, by any measure I've read, is squarely opposed to current US policy. Even members of the "Coalition of the Willing" (what the rest of us call "Britain and Spain") don't have popular support for the Iraq invasion.

Seems to me the only relevant "minority" is the one blindly supporting a policy that lacks legitimacy or rationality (at least in terms of what's presented to the public - it's perfectly rational if you look at is as economic imperialism, which is another story entirely).

Irish

[Jimbo]

IrishHand you are such a funny fella! /forums/images/icons/smile.gif Not quite to the level of absurdity that Paramenides reaches but you are trying!

Here is the quote by Lee i was addressing:
"But it is so depressing to see that most of the American public doesn't see the horrifying implications of world-wide acceptance (and adoption) of Bush's stated policy."

Now what part of the American public is not clear to you? It appears that Lee should know to whom he is referring better than you. Here is a quote of your interpretation: "Which minority is this? Lee was referring to world-wide acceptance." Counselor (if you are indeed an attorney) you should read more carefully or at least edit from a source more difficult to find than the same thread.

Now here is my quote which you managed to misunderstand as well:

"From my perspective is is equally depressing that you and a minority of others see this policy in the light you portray." It should be clear that Lee and I both were referring to the American public, he the majority and I the minority. Are you sure your real name is not Mark Glover?

[Michael Davis]

"It is a show of weakness, not a show of strength, which is most likely to provoke rogue nations and terrorists to take actions against us that they otherwise would not."

Then why aren't terrorists attacking Eritrea?

Somehow I doubt that this "show of strength" makes us less likely to be a terrorist target.

[Jimbo]

Then why aren't terrorists attacking Eritrea? Let me take a guess!! Because no one else in the world would notice? Except for the Eritreans of course! After all 80% of their working population either farm or herd goats and cattle. The terrorists need major air time else their effort would be wasted.

[MMMMMM]

So if Iran only provides a little bit to al Qaeda (either directly or indirectly), and a lot to other terrorist groups, that's not sufficient reason to cut off Iran's support?

[Cyrus]

"Other nations are well aware of the concept of pre-emptively striking in defense."

Every time a country attacked another, the attacker claimed it "defended" something or other, be it vital interests, danger of imminent attack or innocent lives at the other side of the border. Whatever. Attackers rarely, if ever, admit they're just plain attacking.

..Pre-emptive nuclear strike (i.e. First Strike) was much discussed during the Cold War. It was found to be quite an intriguing concept by the deviant psychopaths drawing scenarios with millions of deaths in the Nat'l Security Council. Now the Cold War is over and we don't have to deal with messy nukes no more; so pre-emptive conventional warfare is most definitely here to stay.

[brad]

israel publicly stated theyre gonna start sending asassination squads into the US; should we invade israel too? (also israel along with china is #1 purveyor of nuclear tech.)

[MMMMMM]

They are going to send hit teams anywhere in the world for the purpose of hunting and killing radical Islamic terrorists. I wish them much success in this endeavour, especially in the USA.

[brad]

yeah well lets hope youre not a waiter. (reference to that danish waiter they killed by mistake.)

yeah having foreign hit teams assassinating americans makes me feel real good.

[MMMMMM]

brad I don't think they will be assassinating Americans (and I didn't hear anything about a Danish waiter). They are looking for specific Middle Eastern terrorists who are probably here illegally or on visas.

If they had been doing this earlier it's possible they might even have nailed Mohammed Atta & Co. before the WTC disaster.

[brad]

well its confirmed mossad was 'tailing' all the arab suspects in 9-11.

different people make different stuff out of that fact, but you may have a point.

[adios]

Aren't chemical weapons in violation of the Geneva Convention? Here's a story about possible Iraqi use of chemical weapons, you know those weapons that there was no prove of:

Coalition Jets Pound Republican Guard Near Baghdad; Chemical Attack Feared (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81983,00.html)

[adios]

"Every time a country attacked another, the attacker claimed it "defended" something or other, be it vital interests, danger of imminent attack or innocent lives at the other side of the border. Whatever. Attackers rarely, if ever, admit they're just plain attacking."

Huh? Clearly there have been times in history where a country(s) should have acted pre-emptively in their defesnse and the results were disasterous because they didn't.

"..Pre-emptive nuclear strike (i.e. First Strike) was much discussed during the Cold War. It was found to be quite an intriguing concept by the deviant psychopaths drawing scenarios with millions of deaths in the Nat'l Security Council. Now the Cold War is over and we don't have to deal with messy nukes no more; so pre-emptive conventional warfare is most definitely here to stay."

Good thing Israel helped keep it that way with their pre-emptive strike on Iraqi nuclear facilities in 1981.

[Cyrus]

"Clearly there have been times in history where a country(s) should have acted pre-emptively in their defense"

Such as?

"Good thing Israel helped keep it that way with their pre-emptive strike on Iraqi nuclear facilities in 1981."

If you accept pre-emptive and unilateral action as legitimate, then you cannot later invoke any kind of legal constraints on the part of the combatants. And that includes the Geneva Convention. Going outside the law and then invoking it is illogical.

If you accept unilateralism and pre-emptive action only from the part of a select few, such as the United States and Israel (okay, and Britain too -- room for Spain?), then the rest of the world is liable to undertake any measures necessary, however odious and immoral, in order to redress somewhat the balance. Ergo, the recipe for more terrorism.

This is a self-defeating logic.

[nicky g]

The Danish waiter thing was a while ago, but well-documented. It was a collassal and unforgivably avoidable intelligence cock-up, and Israel has never apologised or offered compensation to his fiance, who was pregnant at the time and with him when they killed him. THere's a good account of it in the book that came out to tie in with that film about the Black September attack on the Munich Olympics (12 days in September? Narrated by Michael Douglas is all I remember)

I don't think Iran have supplied any help to al-Qaeda. The fact that some Taliban or al-Qaeda fighters have crossed into Oran is irrelevant - we're talking about huge open spaces here that are pretty easy to hide in , it does not remotely suggest that the Iranian governemtnis in anyway supporting them.

[nicky g]

"They are going to send hit teams anywhere in the world for the purpose of hunting and killing radical Islamic terrorists. I wish them much success in this endeavour, especially in the USA."

But... it's totally illegal.

[The_Baron]

Let's put it in more simplistic terms for you. They shoot at us, they get blown up, this is much better than any of our people getting shot or blown up. It's always better for the other guy to get blown up.
For whatever it's worth, a 2000lb bomb has an effective casualty radius of something on the order of 250 meters. It's effects last something on the order of 2.5 seconds. A 152mm artillery shell loaded with VX nerve agent has an effective casualty radius of roughly 75 meters, it also renders a teardrop shaped area, widening as a function of atmospheric conditions, downwind uninhabitable and lethal for anywhere between days and a few hundred years. The stuff has essentially the consistency of axle grease and lethality measured in micrograms per kilogram. It doesn't just go away. Artillery shells don't come one to a building, they come four or five or ten thousand to a complete fire mission. Work out the numbers using just 2500 rounds fired along a geographic line. Tell me how much area is destroyed by that. Now look at the four foot deep, 25 foot wide blast crater left behind by that 2000lb JDAM.
Get over it, a High Explosive bomb isn't a WMD by any definition. It's just a bomb.

The Baron

[The_Baron]

Why would the US have any interest in any sort of warehousing or merchanting of confiscated Iraqi arms? They're several generations out of date and a single M-16A2 will bring in approximately the same price as any dozen Kalashnikovs of your choice. Of course you destroy their weapons. If someone wants to buy non-NATO standard weapons, they go to the former Warsaw Pact. If someone want's to buy modern, state-of-the-art weapons, they go to the US or the UK. If all they want is cheap, easy to operate and NATO standard, they call France. This is the reality of modern weapon sales.

The Baron

[The_Baron]

What would Ameinias think about your near total lack of analysis of the situation and your flagrant hyperbole? Not very pythagorean of you, don't you think.

The Baron

[The_Baron]

This is one of the traditional hypocrisies of warfare. It's not okay for the other guy to do it. Just as it's always best for the other guy to drop his grenade rather than throw it at you. If he does throw it, it's always better to grab him and throw him on top of it. If that doesn't work, of course, you toss your platoon leader on top of it and put him in for a medal.
The reality of it is, the side with the biggest guns gets to set the rules. Iraq can't win. They've brought their entire bankroll plus rent money and those quarters and Canadian dollars they found under the couch. That's every penny they've got. Bill Gates just walked in, bought in and the tournament manager decided to make it unlimited re-buys. They're going to lose.
Their rational decisions now need to be based around doing the fewest number of things that will annoy the attacking force. Standing up, putting a torn sheet on the end of a stick and surrendering is the rational choice. Beyond that, they're just provoking a bigger and bigger ass whipping than they're already getting. Warfare devolves to kindergarten rationales. If the big kid kicks you, you fight back. If the big kid kicks you and a dozen of his even bigger friends join in, you run away. Iraq is the little kid, he's already lost his lunch money and he's better off just giving up.

[The_Baron]

What does, "fair", have to do with it? It's a war. Warfare and Fairness are ludicrous to try to toss together. It's just a blind quirk of the psyche of the US population that restricts our actions to their current limits. The US is in a position to nuke every city of more than 2500 people in Iraq and there's absolutely nothing any other country could do about it. The US has all of the good cards in this game. The Iraqis have got a 2-7 offsuit and they're not even allowed to see the flop, let alone play it. We're starting with AA and flopping AAK for ourselves. Iraq has lost. It's not fair, it's just how wars work.

[brad]

'VX nerve ... downwind uninhabitable and lethal for anywhere between days and a few hundred years.'

dont get crazy. maybe youre thinking of anthrax (spores) or du (radioactive)