KawiZX900 0 #26 January 26, 2003 sounds good to me, i'll buy a paper w/this story in it....as long as its blow hardy Accelerate hard to get them looking, then slam on the fronts and rollright beside the car, hanging the back wheel at eye level for a few seconds. Guaranteed reaction- Dave Sonsky Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveMonkey 0 #27 January 26, 2003 Quote here's nothing new here Which is the sad thing____________________ Say no to subliminal messages Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blewaway5 0 #28 January 26, 2003 I don't see nukes beeing used first by the U.S. simply because the whole freaking world looks WAY down on that shit. By the way, so the French won't join in our little coalition? That means we'll be lacking expertise in the key areas of what? Surrendering and running away? (Heard on Sat nite live, thought it was funny. Don't get all pissed at me now Truman Sparks for President Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skycop 0 #29 January 26, 2003 It may be sad, but it's also reality. The same reality that kept the peace for 60yrs. MAD never became reality (thank god). "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #30 January 26, 2003 QuoteQuoteWait a minute. The French don't like us going into Iraq to oust Saddam. We have basicly ignored their protests. Now, when they can't get anything done.....the FRENCH PRESS (Agence France-Presse) reports that we are planning to use nukes. Everyone is now in a tissy. Isn't that very convenient. Hmmmm.......who's wagging the dog now? Chris It was confirmed today on Meet the Press by the White House Chief of Staff that if Iraq uses any WMD, we reserve the option of responding in the same manner. This was his answer in direct response to a question asking if we were planning on using nukes. Frankly I don't see the problem. This has been NATO "Flexible response" police since at least th mid 1970's (since I had to take an interest in it). WE WILL DEPLOY WMD in response to, or to prevent the enemy deploying, WMD. OF course, we only have one type of WMD (at least, only one that we're willing to admit to & deploy), and that's Nukes. Cutting through about 11 paragraphs of culture & reasoning, I think that we have a problem of basic culture. The "Sad Hussy" (excuse the possibly inappropriate abbreviation) is wholly willing to sacrifice millions of his population and forces while the west is reluctant to sacrifice a single person. His perception of whe west's motives will cause him to pursue a "scorched earth" policy and hew will seek to make Iraq the "MArtyr" in the forthcoming conflict. As to the report by Agence France... It's already been said. Miles Copeland once made a very wise observation - "Listen to what someone is saying to you, then filter that through why they are saying it". There has always been a possibility that NATO, UN, US, Uk, Coalition forces will use Nukes in ANY of the conflicts since 1945 (and would anyone care to claim that we were right NOT to hit Pyongyang with 2 B-36's carrying "Little Boy" in 1951, or 1953?). There is a significant difference between the subconscious acceptance tha tthe west may use a Nuke in a conflict, and Agence-France's report which, while only stating that the US may use a WMD, implies that the US intends to use WMD. Of course, the French have always been pro Iraq. The Frence are also perpetually pissed on cheap red wine and are grossly overdue another "kicking" in a European war... What the hell was the point in allowing Germany to re-unify if it wasn't to give "Francois le Frog" a good thrashing again (maybe this time they'd hold off from surrendering until they're beaten - what's 15 minutes here or there...). I'm sure that the Brits would invade France themselves, if it wasn't for the fact that we already own all the really scenic farmhouses in Provence (and the rest of france isn't worth having - in fact, it's only fit for Frenchmen)! Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #31 January 26, 2003 it really doesn't matter which side of the fence your on here. choosing sides will not determine the victor. let's face it, "in war, there are no winners, only dead bodies and destroyed landscape" hopefully common sense will prevail some time or another, this is building up to be quite a serious situation. i was advised by my group to postpone my trip to the middle east because of the civil unrest in Bahrain, and the obvious military buildup in Quatar, Saudi-Arabia and Bahrain itself. the good citizens of Bahrain are rioting in the streets, burning American and Jeruselem flags, not to mention charactures of ol' wyuby, gee, wonder why they're all mad? was it something we said? in the end, ol' wyubya has to "kick somebody's ass" for making a fool out of him on 09/11, like he needs help looking foolish.--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skycop 0 #32 January 26, 2003 Well by gosh we would'nt want to make anybody mad! Let's just give em' a big hug (not with nuclear arms though) and build them some self esteem! "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #33 January 27, 2003 Quote I'd look a little closer at who wrote this article and what their agenda is and which direction the spin is in. I'm with you, Young Gun. The only information about the source of this article is as follows: January 26, 2003 Agence France-Presse This could be anyone with any motivation, or just someone with a lot of time on their hands wanting to stir the pot. Articles with this much gravity should be posted with more sources of information, please. Although the AFP is pretty respected (they claim to be the oldest existing news service), they have occaisionally posted stories that would make the Weekly World News folks balk.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #34 January 27, 2003 >I don't see nukes beeing used first by the U.S. simply because >the whole freaking world looks WAY down on that shit. Well, the whole world looks down on a unilateral invasion of Iraq, but that hasn't stopped our planning for it. We do have a published plan that calls for their usage in certain non-last-resort situations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #35 January 27, 2003 QuoteI cant rember the # but i mean that DK news ment that apox 80%of the bombs US would drop in a war at this time would be precisions bombs.. That's not very accurate, US news agencies are not being very forthcoming either. During the Gulf War, less than 20% of the bombs used were laser guided. That ratio isn't likely to change, even with GPS guided munitions.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #36 January 27, 2003 I seriously doubt the "no first use" policy has changed. I attribute these remarks to paranoia. However, the nuclear "option" is not without precedent as a psychological weapon. Back in GW1, SOSUS James Baker warned Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Azziz that any use of NBC on Iraq's part would result in nuclear retailiation on the part of the US. This little threat had its desired effect, and no overt use of NBC on the part of the Iraqis was noted. There is a possibility of inadvertent exposure of US troops to chemical agents (Gulf War Syndrome), but I believe the consensus is that Iraq, knowing full well what the stakes were, didn't intentionally use any chemical warheads."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #37 January 27, 2003 >I seriously doubt the "no first use" policy has changed. I attribute > these remarks to paranoia. From the BBC: "The leaked Pentagon report said nuclear weapons could be used in "retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons" and "against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack". The third category - "in the event of surprising military developments" - is described by the BBC's Washington correspondent, Paul Reynolds, as a "catch-all" clause. " I don't think it's paranoia if your government comes out and says that there are situations where they would be used _before_ a CBN attack. They may be just trying to scare people again, but saying you're going to do something is a lot closer to doing it than just dropping hints. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Galen 0 #38 January 27, 2003 There was an article (Reuters I believe) on Yahoo! news last week citing a Russian newspaper. It was basically telling the Russian people that the U.S. was not primarily concerned with ousting hussein from power but seizing Iraqi oil for our own benefit. The article also cited that Russia has openly stated in the past that it was in favor of lifting the embargo on Iraq because Russia had oil interests it was interested in pursuing in Iraq. I think we need to take the news with a grain of salt no matter where it comes from. "Undisclosed sources" could be anyone or no one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #39 January 27, 2003 Quote>I seriously doubt the "no first use" policy has changed. I attribute > these remarks to paranoia. From the BBC: "The leaked Pentagon report said nuclear weapons could be used in "retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons" and "against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack". The third category - "in the event of surprising military developments" - is described by the BBC's Washington correspondent, Paul Reynolds, as a "catch-all" clause. " I don't think it's paranoia if your government comes out and says that there are situations where they would be used _before_ a CBN attack. They may be just trying to scare people again, but saying you're going to do something is a lot closer to doing it than just dropping hints. ...so what else is new? Please see "SOSUS James Baker" in my prior post. "Leaks" such as this example are nothing more than psywar against the Iraqis. Hussein and Co can't beat us on the battlefield and they know it, so they'll try the same strategy they did before; id est, the "Somalia" approach, which they probably got a lot of inspiration from. It didn't work for Iraq last time (and backfired quite a bit, actually), but "hey, it worked for them, why not us?" A little miscalcualtion on their part. Hussein is smart, but inexperienced (never journeyed outside the Middle East in his life). He doesn't realize that Dubya isn't Klinton, this isn't 1992, and Baghdad isn't Mogadishu. Yes, the "Let's drag dead Americans through the streets" strategy worked very well there, but under completely different circumstances. In summation, the NBC option is not only not going to work for Hussein, it'll assure he and his stooges don't leave Iraq alive. The "leak" stuff is just Uncle Sam's way of reminding him of that fact."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #40 January 27, 2003 Once again, for everyone who thinks this is the foreign media making it up...I'll repeat my post from yesterday. QuoteIt was confirmed today on Meet the Press by the White House Chief of Staff that if Iraq uses any WMD, we reserve the option of responding in the same manner. This was his answer in direct response to a question asking if we were planning on using nukes. The source for this is ME. I heard it with my own ears. And if you don't believe me, order a copy of the transcript. Better yet... QuoteMR. RUSSERT: There are reports that we are preparing to use nuclear weapons, if need be, against Iraq. MR. CARD: Should Saddam Hussein have any thought that he would use a weapon of mass destruction,he should anticipate that the United States will use whatever means necessary to protect us and the world from a holocaust. MR. RUSSERT: Including nuclear? MR. CARD: I’m not going to put anything on the table or off the table, but we have a responsibility to make sure Saddam Hussein and his generals do not use weapons of mass destruction. "Mr. Card" is Andrew Card, the Whitehouse Chief of Staff. http://www.msnbc.com/news/864513.asp My personal opinion is that this is just a bluff to scare them, but Bush did state last year that the US nuclear policy had changed from a definitive non-preemptive strike policy to one of reserving the right to use nukes if necessary. If that doesn't encourage other countries to hurry up and get their own nukes, I don't know what would. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #41 January 27, 2003 QuoteMy personal opinion is that this is just a bluff to scare them it's no bluff, and you can't scare people who are not afraid of dying, who in fact can't wait to die, remember they will go straight to ALLAH if they die for their country or their beliefs, so this is no threat to them.--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #42 January 27, 2003 By "them" I mean the Iraqi leadership. I'm pretty sure Saddam has further plans for the earthly world that he'd not interested in sacrificing himself at this time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #43 January 27, 2003 >The source for this is ME. I heard it with my own ears. And if you > don't believe me, order a copy of the transcript. Better yet... I don't think there's any doubt about that; the US has made clear that we will respond to an WMD attack with our own WMD's. We've been saying that since the 60's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #44 January 27, 2003 Well, several people in the thread have disputed the veracity of this information and saying that you can't trust the source. Just wanted to point out to them who the source is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #45 January 27, 2003 QuoteI don't think there's any doubt about that; the US has made clear that we will respond to an WMD attack with our own WMD's. We've been saying that since the 60's. I hadn't read this thread until just now, I kept seeing the title and thinking "duh" if a WMD of any sort is used against Americans or American forces, then Bill Von, you are correct, we respond in kind. Its just that our WMD are very large, very powerful nuclear devises that tends to level large areas very very violently. Saddam had better think through wanting to use a WMD on Americans, or I think he might be in for a whole new world of hurt.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 7 #46 January 27, 2003 QuoteWell, several people in the thread have disputed the veracity of this information and saying that you can't trust the source. Just wanted to point out to them who the source is. No, it was being reported as though this was some sort of new policy. Which it isn't. It was reported in this manner just to whip up anti-American sentiment in my opinion so I did bring question to the source. Just as we hate seeing "parachute failed to open" it ticks me off when I see something to the effect of "the Americans are just now thinking about nuking Iraq" and nothing else. It does not tell the whole story of our response to WMD during PGW1 or any other conflict where the use of WMD was possible against us. Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #47 January 27, 2003 QuoteNo, it was being reported as though this was some sort of new policy. Which it isn't. I beg to differ. It IS a new policy. It's called the New Triad and is outlined in the Defense Departments report to Congress when asked for a review our nuclear posture, and submitted to Congress on 12/31/2001. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/npr.htm Excerpt: "U.S. military forces themselves, including nuclear forces will now be used to "dissuade adversaries from undertaking military programs or operations that could threaten U.S. interests or those of allies and friends." " "Composed of both non-nuclear systems and nuclear weapons, the strike element of the New Triad can provide greater flexibility in the design and conduct of military campaigns to defeat opponents decisively. Non-nuclear strike capabilities may be particularly useful to limit collateral damage and conflict escalation. Nuclear weapons could be employed against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack, (for example, deep underground bunkers or bio-weapon facilities)." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #48 January 27, 2003 BTW...that site has a ton of links to info on all sides of a number of different issues. Pretty good source of information. http://www.globalsecurity.org Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #49 January 27, 2003 I agree, it's an amazing site. That report you linked was very good. A lot of excerpts, and gaps in the report. The information there is chilling to ponder. Based on what is not published, I wonder what's in there that we aren't allowed to see! Wow. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #50 January 27, 2003 If you want more, since I know you dislike reading between the lines , why not go to the source? http://www.defenselink.mil/execsec/adr2002/toc2002.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
