What if Saddam uses WMD? - Page 3

B-Man · #21 03-20-2003, 05:02 PM

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 · #22 03-20-2003, 05:05 PM

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 · #23 03-20-2003, 05:14 PM

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 · #24 03-20-2003, 06:31 PM

"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 · #25 03-21-2003, 04:51 AM

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 · #26 03-21-2003, 07:09 AM

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 · #27 03-21-2003, 11:27 AM

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. [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

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 · #28 03-21-2003, 11:57 AM

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 · #29 03-21-2003, 01:00 PM

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 · #30 03-21-2003, 02:02 PM

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.