Re: So what if the U.S. uses WMD?
 

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.

Re: So what if the U.S. uses WMD?
 

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

Re: So what if the U.S. uses WMD?
 

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.

Re: So what if the U.S. uses WMD?
 

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

Re: So what if the U.S. uses WMD?
 

"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?

Re: So what if the U.S. uses WMD?
 

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

Re: So what if the U.S. uses WMD?
 

"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 [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

Critical thinking
 

[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....

Re: Critical thinking
 

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.

Re: Critical thinking
 

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

Some Critical Differences
 

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.

Re: Some Critical Differences
 

"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.

Re: Critical thinking
 

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.

Re: Critical thinking
 

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

Re: Critical thinking
 

IrishHand you are such a funny fella! [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] 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?

Re: Critical thinking
 

"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.

Re: Critical thinking
 

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.

Re: Some Critical Differences
 

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?

Department of Attack
 

"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.

Re: Some Critical Differences
 

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.)

Re: Some Critical Differences
 

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.

Re: Some Critical Differences
 

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.

Re: Some Critical Differences
 

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.

Re: Some Critical Differences
 

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.

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

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

Re: Department of Attack
 

"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.

Re: DoA
 

"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.

Re: Some Critical Differences
 

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.

Re: Some Critical Differences
 

"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.

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

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

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

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

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

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

Re: So what if the U.S. uses WMD?
 

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.

Re: So what if the U.S. uses WMD?
 

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.

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

'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)