What if Saddam uses WMD?

[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.