America's WMD Policy

[cgross 1]

Without starting an arguement, because that is not what we need now, but, Richard were you so vocal in 98 when clinton launched missles into Iraq? Or when the US went against the UN in Kosovo, to get rid of a genocide maniac?

I do not at any time remember the administration saying this was going to take 2-3 days. I remember the media interpreting that from "RETIRED" generals though. The media made people think it would be short and sweet. Us people that live in reality know war is never that easy.

I do not think the war is going badly at all. I think it is going great. 8 days and we are 50mile from the capitol... only 50 dead. I am not that concerned with Basra and Um Casar(sp). When we take Bagdad (and it will be messy, urban warfare is) things in th outskirts will begin to fall in place.
IMO

[flyingferret 0]

I no way did I associate spending with strength. The two are linked, but not on a 1:1 ratio. Other things were more harmful, things like the little yellow card. In any case, I have no proble with military spending. Domestic spending is doomed anyway if you do not have the might to enable persistance of your way of life.

To answer others about, the long war, do you guys really just regurgitate what the media shows you? The markets were through the roof the first few days, then the media starts saying 'ruh-roh, it might take longer than 48 hours' and everyone starts questioning. If anyone really thought that a ground war could even come close to conquering a state in 2 days, they are incredibly naive, ie the media. You could hardly drive a tank at full speed to baghdad in 2 days. I think for this war being a week old, we are hauling serious ass. Our losses have been tiny, our progress in mileage tremendous, and we now have airbases in both ends of Iraq, one of which had been mothballed since we last used it. It is only just beginning, I think the Pentagon has done a bang up job.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[cgross 1]

kineaa was saying that sodaminsane would have broken a UN resolution "IF" he does in fact have WMD
*******************************************

Thanks for the clearing that up, the wording with the () made it unclear.

[Genie 0]

Quote

Quote

Ive never been as scared as reading this thread which seems to show that at least some people approve of using a nuclear weapon on civilians to retaliate against an unsupported and hated leader.

Genie:
i respect your thoughts. but the nuculear weapons, if utilized will not be "in rataliation of a hated leader" if utilized, it will be to bring an "abrubt end" to the war***.
Thank you for your respect rgoper but youare equating apples with oranges here. Whether or not using nukes in japan was a good thing, im not getting into. However at that time America was at awar with a nation of people whose culture dictate death before dishonour. This is not the case in Iraq. You say the iraqis know what you have and they know you will use it - the iraqi government probably does - not the iraqi people. I cannot under any circumstance say that America using a nuke in iraq can be positive in anyway. In Japan it did cause the country which would never have surrendered before, to surrender. But this is NOT the same situation. I would guess that about 80% of the iraqis would love to surrender now - but if they do their families will be killed. Or, they will be killed by their own side, or they remember the promises they were given if they had an uprising before when they ended up massacred - te problem in all of these threads seems to be the underlying assumption that the Iraqi leader will act/think/react in the same manner as a sane middle aged american. this simply isnt the case and the longer people act like it is the longer this will all go on.

From watching the news when i can i have the distinct impression that this will end up a guerilla war - and in such a war all your much vaunted military power doesnt count for much. Im speaking from experience here - 30 years the british have been trying to winkle the IRA out of Northern Ireland - theyve never succeeded - and they have 30 years of practice at it with some of the best armed forces in the world, SAS etc. (who also invaded Ireland btw but we never made a fuss about it) What seems to have been ignored in all of this is that Iraq has a lot more practice at on going war - and despite what everyone said about how the 'liberators will be greeted with kisses' - they dont like being invaded. They probably wont like it much more in two months time. And you know - using a nuke on innocents is pretty much guaranteed to make sure they never like being invaded by americans. We know in our country what its like to live with an ongoing guerilla war - you never have. the closest you got was vietnam and you didnt have a very successful outcome there. This is all going pearshaped - but that does not, can not and will not justify you bombing iraq with a nuke because you want to save your soliders lives. If you wanted to save their lives, you shouldnt have sent them in there in the first place. Im sorry to be so harsh, and i dont want to see anymore soldiers die - but at least they had the choice to take that route in life, they have been well told that this could cause their death, that they could be maimed etc - kinda like a waiver huh? and they made that choice. I respect and admire them all for doing so. I am physically revolted at the idea of America using a nuke for that reason. I am also fairly revolted at the idea of using them for retaliation - you think Sadaam wouldnt be cheering if he got you to nuke him? yes hed die - but hed have got his own way, and you have no idea of the pandoras box you would open - remember Japan was just Japan - i have no idea how many muslim worshippers there are in the world - but i guess they would all try to retaliate in some way or another. This is an horrific subject to even discuss and i find it very hard to believe that people can even think of condoning it.

Genie

(you btw is obviously referring to the US not you personally rgoper!)


don't get me wrong, i've always said we shouldn't be there. but now that we are, we must do what we have to. the statistics from hiroshima and nagasaki speak volumes for human loss of life, but the iraqis know what we have, and they know we may use it. it would be to their advantage to "force our hand" by deploying WMD on our troops just to "vilianize" the US and coalition fighters in the world community knowing we could use nuculear weapons in retaliation. that said, iraq knows that if they use chemicals, we might follow up with nuculear weapons. it was my prediction at the onset of the invasion that this war may culmanate with such atrocious and destructive events. it's sad, but true. if the iraquis had any sense at all, they would simply "throw down their weapons" and submit to a superior adversary. but as you've said, and i've said a gazillion times, these people don't think in a rational manner, they are "anshala"

[rgoper 0]

yes, in fact, i was. i have never supported, and never will support any administration that uses my tax $$$ to be the "world's policeman" and Wyatt did say that he expected this war to be short, 2 or 3 days. review all of his press conferences, you'll see the evidence for yourself. to make my stance clear, i do not support the conditions under which we utilized to get us where we are. i wanted the UN inspections to continue, we waited 12 years, 12 months isn't too much to ask. that said, i am in support of every young man and woman "laying their lives on the line for us" in this confrontation, no matter what the political agenda. i'm glad your perception of the chain of events so far seem to fit your ideals as they don't impress me at all. i went back and figured that some 60% of people supporting this war effort were in ages 11-16 during the gulf war, and not even born before, or during viet nam, as most of our troops are in their early teens, and early 20's.
an exchange of ideals should not be considered as an argument per se, but as a learning tool, i can certainly learn from you, or anyone else for that matter.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[cgross 1]

Wow lengthy....

OK, I hear you. I understand, and agree with a gooddeal of what you said. However, I disagree with the notion that we shouldn't be there in the first place. But, we will never agree on that, so no sense in discussing it.

But, you need to remember that the coallition has lost 50 lives because we are being "TOO" careful. We are respecting the innocents much more than we need to under the Geneva Conv(sp). Under said convention we have the right to attack hospitals, churches, mosques, if they are being used by the enemy for defensive reasons. If they are using a human shield, we "Legally" can shoot, and the legal fallout is on the hands of the person taking the hostage. But we are not doing this (yet). I therefore suspect we wouldn't use NUKES. It would defeat our overall purpose. However, do know that that option is "ALWAYS" on the table. I would suspect you would see some real "Shock and Awe" if they use WMD, but you will not see nukes in Iraq. My opinion of course.

[AndyMan 7]

The idea of using Nuclear weapons in Iraq makes little sense to me.

Bush has sold this war largely on the basis of liberating the iraqi population. You can't nuke people you're trying to liberate.

Secondly, the idea that this might be a valid technique to save the lives of servicemen is bunk. If the US were truely interested in saving the lives of servicement, they would not have put them at risk in the first place. Bush decided that freeing Iraq was worth the loss of servicemen.

Bush made the decision that US lives were worth risking. This is very different then Hiroshima, where LBJ (wasn't it?) decided that taking Japan was NOT worth risking US soldiers, and ruled out an invasion force. Once US troups hit Iraqi soil, Bush made his choice and effectively ruled out "protecting soliders" as a justification for nuclear force.

The point of Hiroshima was to seek the surrender of Japan, and it accomplished that goal very effectively. Nuking Baghdad does nothing to further the goal of liberating the Iraqi people.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[cgross 1]

Well, I will give you some credit here. Most of the people I see opposed to this war have been puting 100% of their energy into making a fuss about it and protesting. I am glad to see you atleast support the guys and galls out there dying even though you don't agree with the politics behind it.

IMO- the protesters should be puting the energy into something constructive like donating all their "free" time at a food pantry or something instead of wasting time blocking traffic. But, they can do what they want, I suspect though it will not change the minds of the administration.

Chris

[rhino 0]

Hook.. I agree..

Considering that not many people in Baghdad will be alive anyways if Sadham used chemical weapons nuking baghdad won't be that big of a deal. You are in a sense frying people that are dead already to kill the rats..

Correct me if I am wrong?

If we do use a nuke in Iraq I fear that the terrorist backlash will be 1,000 fold and the name of the terrorist game will then turn to WHO CAN NUKE THE US FIRST?

That is unless we can prove that Sadham killed all of the people in baghdad himself.

I don't know.. Crappy situation all together really..

I think we should be dropping platoons on every rooftop in Baghdad and start wiping mother f-ers out... Let's just get it on..

Rhino

[Michele 1]

Quote

and Wyatt did say that he expected this war to be short, 2 or 3 days.

Richard, I'm sorry, but who are you referring to when you say "Wyatt"? I have tried a search for both Bush and Cheney with short war/2-3 days, and couldn't find it. I want to reveiw the press conference, but I'm not sure which press conference to reveiw!! LOL!

Thanks, Richard!

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[rgoper 0]

your opinions and thoughts, albeit in oposition to mine or not, will always be well recieved. that said, i referred to hiroshima and nagasaki merely to highlight the lives that could be lost in such a deployment. i dissagree with you when you say the iraqis don't know our (US) might, and potential. they know what we have, and what we don't have, the coalition has dropped som 100 million leaflets over this country in the last 90 days. they have access to Al-Jazeer as well. again, i am opposed to our presence, but now that this cannot be changed, we must do what we have to, even if it seems inhumane. i hate it, and i tried my best to stop the initial deployment. but if you know anything about ol' Wyatt Earp, and his pappy, you see what we're up against.

Quote

but the nuculear weapons, if utilized will not be "in rataliation of a hated leader" if utilized, it will be to bring an "abrubt end" to the war

sad, but true.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[rhino 0]

Quote

b-52s and B-2s can reign hellfire.

We have 15 or so 22,000 lbers built so far. Probably 25 by now.. Those will more than do the job.

[rgoper 0]

Quote

but who are you referring to when you say "Wyatt"?

i started refering to GWB as "Wyatt Earp" & TB is "Doc Holiday" pre-invasion, it is satirical in my mind and meaning i think these 2 individuals aren't taking this situation with enough seriousness, thus the reference to the invincible "Earp & Holiday" incident at O.K. corral in Tombstone Arizona, and if you watched the movie you can see no one want's to be the first to STOP killing. Wyatt was asked on several occasions on how long he thought this war would take back when he was initially promoting his "Shock-N-Awe" campaign, he referred to a "short war, "hopefully" lasting 2 or 3 days"

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[cgross 1]

I am not trying to be a dick, but do you have articles, or transcripts to show that? Even if you think GWB is dumb, he can't have thought it would take 2-3 days. Just to drive the troops to bagdad would have taken 4 days.

[rgoper 0]

Quote

Bush has sold this war largely on the basis of liberating the iraqi population.

the premise the way i understood it, was to "dissarm Sodaminsane" he only referred to "liberating the iraqi people" after he seen what a cluster-fu*k he's gotten himself into.

Quote

You can't nuke people you're trying to liberate.

says who? you don't think ol' Wyatt & Doc won't do it? they may kill them, but they'll "be liberated"

Quote

Secondly, the idea that this might be a valid technique to save the lives of servicemen is bunk. If the US were truely interested in saving the lives of servicement, they would not have put them at risk in the first place.

no arguement there.

Quote

Bush decided that freeing Iraq was worth the loss of servicemen. Bush made the decision that US lives were worth risking.

as american citizens, WE let him do this.

Quote

This is very different then Hiroshima, where LBJ (wasn't it?)

Truman, not LBJ

Quote

Once US troups hit Iraqi soil, Bush made his choice and effectively ruled out "protecting soliders" as a justification for nuclear force.

Wyatt made this decision pre-deployment.

Quote

The point of Hiroshima was to seek the surrender of Japan, and it accomplished that goal very effectively. Nuking Baghdad does nothing to further the goal of liberating the Iraqi people.

agreed. but yet again, this was not the "initial objective" we seem to be ad-libbing our plans to suit the agenda as we go along.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[rgoper 0]

Quote

do you have articles, or transcripts to show that?

unfortunately, no. because of where i am right now, i don't have recording capabilities.

Quote

Even if you think GWB is dumb, he can't have thought it would take 2-3 days

i don't think he's dumb, i think he's "the village idiot" this "braintrust" actually thought the "shock-n-awe" campaign would have them all come out with their hands up.

Quote

Just to drive the troops to bagdad would have taken 4 days.

i'm sure ol' Wyatt was aware of this, but never dreamed it would go this far. remember, they had some "inside intel" on sodamninsane, they actually thought with a swift murder of this leader, they would experience a "walk in the park" but just like Antonio Banderas said in the movie "Desparado" while they were having the initial shoot out in the bar..."You Missed Me!" "Tried To Shoot Me In The Back...Eh?"

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Most of the people I see opposed to this war have been puting 100% of their energy into making a fuss about it and protesting.

I think that's probably because most of the people you see opposed to the war are on 10 second clips on the news. Most of the people that I have spoken to that opposed the war, plus most of those on here that are opposed to the war, have said they support the troops, think that Saddam needs to be ousted, and support the purported goal of the war. What we don't support is the way we're going about achieving that goal.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"The idea of using Nuclear weapons in Iraq makes little sense to me. "

Yup, I agree with Andyman...To add to his points...
This makes little or no tactical, political, or moral sense. The threat of a nuke as a deterrent, I think, was more aimed at keeping the loony in his box until the 'liberation' force could assemble and begin their campaign.

Also look at things from the enemy's viewpoint, he would damage his cause for international support if he were to use any chem/bio weapons now. Not that we should lower our guard. World opinion would turn against him, allying themselves with the coalition.
Also consider that the upcoming street fighting is not the best environment to use an open territory weapon. I pray I'm right on this.....

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[freakydiver 0]

Having worked with highly volitale Radionuclide material - I should hope a nuke never goes off ANYWHERE in the world when I'm alive. The stuff is bad enough sitting underground letalone in the airstream...

-- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." --

[rgoper 0]

Quote

What we don't support is the way we're going about achieving that goal.

it's gonna rain! i'm in complete agreement with what you said in your post. but, i do wonder "where, oh where" do these "polls" come from supporting the effort and direction on Wyatt's behalf? no one's ever asked me jack. how many on here have participated in a poll of such origin?

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[billvon 2,463]

>We have 15 or so 22,000 lbers built so far. Probably 25 by now..
>Those will more than do the job.

Uh, we're talking a city the size of Dallas here. It's going to take a _lot_ more than 15 ten-ton bombs to level it. You can use those on strategic targets only, but then you're stuck going street by street and checking all the buildings. It's doable but will take a _long_ time and we will see a lot of casualties.

[billvon 2,463]

>I do not at any time remember the administration saying this was
>going to take 2-3 days.

I remember six days as one prediction. Let me see if I can find it . .

-------------------------------------

Any war with Iraq would be swift and not require a full US mobilisation, says US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. . .

"It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months," he said, speaking at the American air base at Aviano, in northern Italy.

(from the BBC.)

"All Washington's calculations depend on a quick war and an easy victory. 'There's an assumption that the Americans will be greeted as liberators, and very little consideration of the deep anti-American sentiment as the result of 10 years of poverty due to the sanctions', one UN official said."

(from the Guardian.)

[rhino 0]

Quote

Uh, we're talking a city the size of Dallas here. It's going to take a _lot_ more than 15 ten-ton bombs to level it. You can use those on strategic targets only, but then you're stuck going street by street and checking all the buildings. It's doable but will take a _long_ time and we will see a lot of casualties.

I know what you mean..

Divide the city into sectors... Those bombs are 1/100 the size of Heroshima I believe.. Not sure exactly but I believe that bomb incinerates everything within 1500 meters in all directions.. Drop a bomb on one sector, BOOM.. The sheer terror factor alone might scare them into running. If that doesn't work hit another sector. BOOM. Maybe you get lucky hitting an area that has the majority of them in it and then send in the troops?

Just an idea.. Better than nuking the whole place..

I think threatening with nuclear weapons is childish. I can't see in the realm of reality JWB actually being that stupid.

Do you think he would actually use one? Even a small tactical nuke?

Rhino

[flyingferret 0]

Yeah, Bill is right, look at New York they took out two building and that did nothing to disrupt our lifestyle /sarcasm off.

I think dropping a couple of MOABs in populated areas would be amazing. But I also think it would be sad, and I dont see that being close to the top of our list of options.

So if he said six days, six weeks, I guess those were the two finite options? Nothing inbtween or past?

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[billvon 2,463]

>Yeah, Bill is right, look at New York they took out two building
>and that did nothing to disrupt our lifestyle . . .

If New York had been getting the shit pounded out of it every ten years for a half century, then losing the WTC's would not have had nearly the effect it did. The primary shock value was to people who really believed that all that stuff that was happening in the middle east couldn't happen here.

You're talking about bombing people who get bombed pretty regularly; trying to terrorize people who have been living with terror for 30 years. You're not going to stop the diehards in Baghdad with bombs unless you kill them, and trying to kill everyone in Baghdad would make us better at genocide than some other famous villians throughout history.