What if Saddam uses WMD?

[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.