Be prepared

[creapyrob]

But here's my question for those on the board, one I myself would be hard-pressed to answer with certainty. Let's say our troops swoop into Iraq, and Saddam releases tactical rockets against our heavy formations, rockets carrying germ bombs and chemical weapons. How do you believe America would respond, were our Patriot batteries to prove ineffective? It's a frighteningly possible scenario.

Forgot about the Neutron Bomb. We've been playing with those since the 50's, and as of '91 had about 350 in the big stockpile of weapons.

They can be fired from an 8 in. cannon or delivered via any suitable air carrier, bomb, rocket, UPS, etc.

A good 'theatre scale' weapons, without the fuss and muss of atomics.

More good info

[iblis]

I am not going to address whether any of this is right or wrong. I do not believe that morality will come into play here. Only practicality and the ethics of nations.

war is wrong. killing is wrong. that's not stopping anyone, though. peace and love only work in small groups; it seems to me that according to our nation and it's leaders, each action taken must have an iron clad, definitive nature; this goes against any concept of peace that i know of.

unless by peace, we mean "no one is alive to attack us".

really the tough part is deciding who is "more wrong" in all of this. i'm fairly sure though, that the iraqi civilians will be casting their vote against the U.S.

[mafiaman]

evidence being a giant belt buckle, a ten gallon hat, and a box of donuts?

That would just mean that the assassin was Buford T. Justice from Smokey and the Bandit

[vertigo25]

Here's an idea... give the 26 billion we're going to give to the Turks to use their bases to fund an uprising, or better yet, half of it to an uprising, the other half to helping rebuild.

I also just want to say that despite the fact that I am against *this* war, and pro-gun control, etc... I'm not a peace-nick per se. If assassination of Saddam would actually help (it wouldn't... his son would just take over) I'd support it a lot faster than I'd support this war. And, ironically, if we were going to war with N. Korea, I would support it.

I would like to see things change in Iraq, especially the suffering of the Kurds. I don't believe that throwing good Americans (like Jay) in the line of fire is the best way to do that.

I also don't think having a blase attitude about bombing *anyone* is at all funny or entertaining. There are some really good people who *will* die because of this war. Iraqi, American, British and others.

[mafiaman]

Should Saddam Hussein use any weapon of mass destruction against American or American allied troops invading Iraq, we win on the political arena. The use of WMD during Gulf War 2 will demonstrate that we were justified in taking this military action against Iraq becaus eit shows that he has not disarmed and that the UN Weapon Inspectors have been fooled repeatedly. It will be evidence to use against Saddam Hussein in the World Court.

A better question is, "Is Bush using American troops as bait to force Iraq into using Weapons of Mass Destruction against them to show that he still has them in violation of UN mandates?"

I do not believe that it is as important that Iraq have WMD as it is that they are being led by a man willing to use them.

[Celestial Dung]

I have a bias against war as I see it as a waste of human potential. When you're dead you can't do anything.

So naturally my reasoning will be colored by this feeling....just a warning.

For one thing I don't buy the "America as hero" illustration. If this were true we would have done something about China a long time ago. I think historically nations engage in war not because of a sense of moral duty but because of the desire to dominate or defend. In this case I think the American goverment wishes to wage war to dominate.

Another thing to consider is the opposition to this proposed war not only from within America but from other nations. If things don't go down neat and perfectly we could have a huge problem on our hands regarding the international community. We're not neccesarily the big dogs anymore what with our cultural and economic influence slipping.

As with Israel and Palastine I'm disgusted all the way around. Seems to me someone somewhere would learn that perhaps the best solution would be to share the land. Apparantly it's much more feasible to kill and claim holy favor.

[creapyrob]

...

A better question is, "Is Bush using American troops as bait to force Iraq into using Weapons of Mass Destruction against them to show that he still has them in violation of UN mandates?"

I do not believe that it is as important that Iraq have WMD as it is that they are being led by a man willing to use them.

Unfortunately I think you are right. I wouldn't not go so far as to say that our troops are being used as bait. But I do think Bush has made a put up or shut up call out.

I know that they knowwe will rain down death and destruction on them if they use WMD, but I don't think that they know just how much rain they will get or how fast it will come.

With our post MAD (Mutally Assured Destruction) weapons stockpile we could turn the entire world into a big glass parking lot. Yes yes we have dissarmed this and scaled down that but if you think for one second that we can't destroy the whole world Dr. Strangelove style your wrong.

So then the decison becomes how much is overkill? Whats off limits to hit? Basically it becomes a nuclear turkey shoot. And I hope and pry that we never ever have to come to those decisions.

My lightheartedness about the Neutron bomb is because I cannot fathom its use. Its an nuclear weapon with a low blast and a SUPER high radiation count. It is called the landlord bomb cause you can use it 'evict the tenants.' And by eviction I mean kill them all but leave all their equipment (building, vechicles, tanks, small arms, large arms, etc )relative unharmed. You have to wait a few days for the rad count to drop, and some things near the epicenter of the blast are forever irrated, but the rest of the area is fine in a week or 2. It is the punh in the mouth of a nuclear weapon without the long term side effects.

[creapyrob]

And what about N Korea?

I felt that it was not getting the media attention due to the fact that there is a large American Military base there (effectively called S. Korea), witl 30,000 American troops and 400,000 S. Korean troops. But what has been happening lately? I don't know, any of you?

[pryjmaty]

OK, mafiaman, you asked for it:

My opinions are NOT based on the fact that part of my nationality is Jewish. They are based on common sense and a study of the middle east.

First of all: it is common knowledge that many countries are not sympathetic to the Jewish people. Not as bad today as it was in the 30's & 40's. They were being run out of many countries or killed.

Most people have their own country(i.e. Russians have Russia, Norwegians have Norway). The muslum people have Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Morocco, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.
Why is it so wrong for the Jewish people to want one small area to call their own. NO! They do not want to take over all of these other countries; all they want is Israel.

My opinion is that the Palestinians should back the fuck off and let the Jews have one f-en country to call their own and stop trying to wipe them off the face of the earth.

I know that this will never happen. It all goes back to when Isaac took what Ishmael thought was his birthright. The thing that the muslims refuse to acknowledge is that it was not Ishmael's birthright. He was a bastard child of a concubine. Isaac was the legal heir.

[The Stormstress]

Oh, yeah, people were talking about assassination, too. Well, folks, unfortunately assassination is illegal.
...Or I could be wrong. But if you think I am, all I ask is that you tell me why.

Illegal...so fucking what!... It's not like the CIA & world powers have ever been truly held accountable by law.

Chaos?... Yes, it's the delivery man o' order...

This may b only a temporary solution, but it's a solution that doesn't require mass destruction & killing. If more conflict arises from it, then we still have the military option with a few less big wigs 2 direct the opposition, & certainly it sends a BOLD message (&, perhaps, even make them think twice... if only from a self-preservation standpoint) 2 those who would commit terrorist acts on our population!

[pryjmaty]

As far as the whole asassination issue goes: if Hussein was asassinated, it would only make him into a martyr to the muslim people. The LAST thing we need right now is for him to be a martyr.

[mafiaman]

war is wrong. killing is wrong

OK. I got that. While that is true for you, using the beliefs that you hold dear, it may not be true for someone else. Now, I'm not knocking what you believe in, just stating that there are many others who would find war and killing to not only be acceptible, but preferred.

peace and love only work in small groups

I gotta say, I don't buy this. Peace unfortunately is usually concurrent with superior firepower as history has shown.

really the tough part is deciding who is "more wrong" in all of this. i'm fairly sure though, that the iraqi civilians will be casting their vote against the U.S.

I'd have to agree. I'd also like to know what system of morality is being used to judge right or wrong.

I'm really not trying to be funny or insulting here. It is a slippery slope you stand on when you try to apply the morals that work for you to someone with an entirely different belief system. To say that American culture and Iraqi culture is different is putting it mildly.

Now, instead of showing how war is either right or wrong (which would not change the mind of a politician), let's see if we can prove that War in this case is either effective or ineffective in the goal of establishing a nonthreatening (to the USA) stable government in Iraq.

[mafiaman]

I would like to see things change in Iraq, especially the suffering of the Kurds. I don't believe that throwing good Americans (like Jay) in the line of fire is the best way to do that.

OK, sounds good. What would be a viable alternative?

[mafiaman]

I have a bias against war as I see it as a waste of human potential. When you're dead you can't do anything.

So naturally my reasoning will be colored by this feeling....just a warning.

CD, you should never have to preface a statement with that. I do not agree with it, but I will always support your ability to be able to express that belief. For us to engage in this dialogue we must be willing to look hard at other people's point of view. Hard enough that we can understand it and see where they are coming from. In the words of Valentine Michael Smith, "Do you grok where I'm coming from?"

For one thing I don't buy the "America as hero" illustration. If this were true we would have done something about China a long time ago. I think historically nations engage in war not because of a sense of moral duty but because of the desire to dominate or defend. In this case I think the American goverment wishes to wage war to dominate.

I think it has more to do with economics and some vital natural resources, than simple domination.

As with Israel and Palastine I'm disgusted all the way around. Seems to me someone somewhere would learn that perhaps the best solution would be to share the land. Apparantly it's much more feasible to kill and claim holy favor.

For many Fundamentalist Islamics, it is. Jihad is considered an essential part of their faith. Like it or not.
Perhaps Israel, or at least Bethleham, should be treated like Vatican City. Made into a neutral territory of the world for the world to use and administered by the United Nations. A sovereign city-state onto itself.[/i]

[mafiaman]

I know that they knowwe will rain down death and destruction on them if they use WMD, but I don't think that they know just how much rain they will get or how fast it will come.

With our post MAD (Mutally Assured Destruction) weapons stockpile we could turn the entire world into a big glass parking lot. Yes yes we have dissarmed this and scaled down that but if you think for one second that we can't destroy the whole world Dr. Strangelove style your wrong.

So then the decison becomes how much is overkill? Whats off limits to hit? Basically it becomes a nuclear turkey shoot. And I hope and pry that we never ever have to come to those decisions.

Here's where I think you are wrong.
Politically, it would be unwise to use the full nuclear capability of the US against Iraq if they nailed us with a WMD. That would be overkill and scare the rest of the world into siding against us. It would make more sense to continue using just conventional weapons to finish the war off. That way, the USA could say that, "Those dirty Iraqis cheated using WMD and we still kicked their butts with our Nukes tied behind our backs." It makes us look so much better on the World Stage.

Also, not many of our ICBMs or SLBMs are aimed at Iraq. In fact, many of them cannot be. The target coordinates for the warheads are hardwired in. The guidence systems are analog based. You'd have to rebuild the missile to change its target.

[jenna]

My opinions are NOT based on the fact that part of my nationality is Jewish. They are based on common sense and a study of the middle east.

i agree with your opinions. However, i'm pretty sure that my feelings on the matter are shaped by my Jewish heritage. For the most part, i'm against any violence. However, when in comes to the Isreal and Palestine i am all for Israel kicking Palestine's ass and keeping them out of the homeland.
There needs to be a place where it is safe to be Jewish. All other Nations have land that goes along with their nation. Hell, even with all the crappy treatment that Native Americans got from the United States, at least they ultimately got their reservations. So, why can't the Jews have a place of their own where they can celebrate their heritage as well?
Besides, it's their Holy Land, regardless of what Christians or Muslims might think. Both of those religions are just off-shoot cults of Judaism. The Jews are G_d's chosen people and that is their land. At no point did any prophet make any mention of G_d saying something along the lines of "Oh.... this is just your Land until some wacko off-shoot group comes along and decides that they are the true faith. After they come along it belongs to them." So, the Muslims need to just back the fuck up.
However, going a step further with all this, i don't think the US should get involved with all of this. Conflict in the region has been going on since wayyyyyyy before our country was even "discovered." The culture and beliefs are totally different. This comes down to being a Holy War. The mind set for a Holy War and the extremes that people will go to for it is something completely out of the realm of understanding of the American cultural mindset.

[mafiaman]

As far as the whole asassination issue goes: if Hussein was asassinated, it would only make him into a martyr to the muslim people. The LAST thing we need right now is for him to be a martyr.

Hmm, very true.
I am glad that you decided to add your voice to the discussion.
Thank You.

[mafiaman]

[. This comes down to being a Holy War.

I do not believe ther is such a thing as a "Holy War".
One done as religious justification, yes. But it is definitely not "Holy" by any definition.

[pryjmaty]

My opinions are NOT based on the fact that part of my nationality is Jewish. They are based on common sense and a study of the middle east.

However, going a step further with all this, i don't think the US should get involved with all of this. Conflict in the region has been going on since wayyyyyyy before our country was even "discovered." The culture and beliefs are totally different. This comes down to being a Holy War. The mind set for a Holy War and the extremes that people will go to for it is something completely out of the realm of understanding of the American cultural mindset.

I agree and disagree with this. I agree that Americans cannot understand the cultural mindset of the middleeast; however, I disagree about the US staying out of it. USA is one of the "superpowers" of the world. I believe that if it had not been for the backing of the US of Israel, Israel would have never even become a state.

[jenna]

[. This comes down to being a Holy War.

I do not believe ther is such a thing as a "Holy War".
One done as religious justification, yes. But it is definitely not "Holy" by any definition.

Agreed. It is kindof a contradiction in terms. Just using it because it is the phrase commonly used to describe wars fought for religious battles, and the way that it is percieved by those fighting it.