Should America invade Iraq?

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

The US once tried its level best to kill as many civilians as possible...

The US Army chose Hiroshima as a target precisely because it was surrounded by mountains on three sides (and sea on the fourth) to contain the blast. I believe the idea was to get an idea of the weapon's power without actually letting it loose on, say, Tokyo.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[FallRate 0]

I may have missed it in this thread, but there is much opposition to attacking Iraq which is based on the belief that there is no "legal" justification for it, via the UN. But four years ago Iraq removed all UN weapons inspectors in violation of the terms of cease-fire. And for four years we have done little to enforce the UN resolutions. Hussein has made it clear he will not abide the Resolutions. At this point, if we are to see that the Resolutions are complied with, a "change of regime" is necessary. The way in which this can be accomplished is debatable, but the fact that such a change is necessary is not.

FallRate

[Canuck278 0]

Quote

***
A better answer would be to train and equip the Kurds in the North and let them do it.

Umm they just found out that There are taliban members hiding amongst and being helped by the Kurds.......

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

Look at your response, someone who knows far more than most about the potential of nuclear weapons - you thought a small nuke could kill millions.

It wasn't really the blast, heat, or shock I was thinking of. I know that even with the largest nuclear weapons that only extends for a few miles.(About 5 I think) It sounds like I am over estimating the potential of the radiological contamination. When you give figures it doesn't sound nearly as dangerous as I might have thought.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

they just found out that There are taliban members hiding amongst and being helped by the Kurds.......

If they would like to take over Iraq...I say let them..... but make it clear that we ARE watching.

[JeanJeanie 0]

_________________________________
And, now that we know what to expect, we can stop it before it gets here.
_________________________________

"Before it gets here" ?

It's already here..................weapons of destruction, easy to produce in your own garage.

Remember Oklahoma?

jeans

PS
Help me get out of this post!

~~We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly~~MLK

[fasterfaller 0]

So Bill , I guess that you believe that Iraq couldn't have taken possession of nuclear material from Russia . That could have never happened . They also could not have employed former Soviet scientists to build weapons for them . I'd bet you also believe that no terrorist organization has nuclear weapons at this time . I would bet you were wrong . I would also bet that they have already brought nuclear weapons into the U.S. The blast from a single warhead would be bad , but if you set off a few low yield weapons a few miles apart , how bad would that be ? I think you are living in a fantasy world if you don't believe this possible . I am not too worried about North Korea but would worry about China if we ever had a major conflict with North Korea .

[fasterfaller 0]

I also want to add that the U.S. should stop selling ANY nuclear technology to ANY other countries .

[Schroeder 0]

Am I wrong or did Iraq not just sign some sort of accord or deal with Russia???
Oh wait I'm right here's the link
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020818/wl_nm/russia_iraq_dc_7
How many new complications is that gonna spawn? 40Billion is alot of money, and I'd imagine the russians would want to protect their interests.

If I ventured in the slipstream; Between the via-ducts of your dreams.......could you find me?

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

I am not too worried about North Korea

Can I ask why? They are only the world's largest State supporter of terrorism and they are also the world's largest exporter of "sensitive" arms technology. Remember when they fired a missle right through South Korea's air space and over Japan. I think they are pretty damn scary. Maybe that's just because I spent 14 months with nothing between me and them except a couple of chain link fences.

[fasterfaller 0]

I am more worried about China and what they would do if we were involved in a conflict with North Korea . I agree they are bad but , I think we would have to deal with China at the same time as North Korea and that would be a big problem . Just my opinion .

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

I think we would have to deal with China at the same time as North Korea and that would be a big problem .

I don't think so. The only way the war would resume there is if NK attacked the South. We are holding the leash on the South and I think China has a pretty tight leash on NK. It's really hard for me to see open conflict again unless we were at huge Odds with China. It wouldn't start by itself.
That being said the tension on the peninsula is pretty amazing. Once I was supposed to roll out at 0330 but it was cancelled because the North was getting nervous. I guess that command element hadn't been "To the field" in 5 years or so. They were convinced that we were about to attack them. Pretty cool to know that you can make the other guy shake in his boots....especially when he out numbers you by more than 1 million.

[billvon 3,096]

>So Bill , I guess that you believe that Iraq couldn't have taken
>possession of nuclear material from Russia .

They certainly could have; so could North Korea, the Palestinians, Mugabe, or Chavez. That would make them able to make a dirty bomb. They can't really make a nuclear weapon out of it unless they can test it in a bomb, and we haven't seen any nuclear tests yet.

All those organizations have been declared by the US to be unfriendies in the strongest possible terms. When are those countries scheduled for invasion?

>I'd bet you also believe that no terrorist organization has nuclear
> weapons at this time . I would bet you were wrong .

I would not claim that. We will not stop any terrorist organization by invading Iraq; should we just kill all Arabs?

>I would also bet that they have already brought nuclear weapons into
> the U.S.

I doubt that simply because they make great terror weapons when they go off, lousy weapons if they are found by us first. What's the benefit in smuggling a weapon like that into the US - and then not using it immediately?

Makes a good conspiracy theory though. Did you get that one from "a beautiful mind?"

>but if you set off a few low yield weapons a few miles apart , how bad
>would that be ?

You vastly underestimate the difficulty of doing this. How do you harden triggers against EMP? How do you coordinate the detonators? (they have to go off within milliseconds to have the cumulative effect you desire.) Heck, the US would have a hard time doing this if we tried in another country.

>I think you are living in a fantasy world if you don't believe this
>possible .

And I think you've been watching too many action adventure movies. The real world does not have a lot of easily transported, suitcase size stainless steel bombs with large LED displays slowly ticking down the time until the end of the world.

Will we see terrorism in the future? No doubt. Will attacking Iraq help prevent it? Not in the least. And by allying just about every Arab country against us, our attack might just bring about the very terrorism we seek to prevent.

[Deuce 1]

Quote

The real world does not have a lot of easily transported, suitcase size stainless steel bombs with large LED displays slowly ticking down the time until the end of the world.

Dammit! And I knew how to disarm those from watching Keanu do it.

Sh*t.

[SpeedRacer 1]

maybe this is giving dubbya more credit than he deserves. Now, its probbly true that some sort of conflict will come to pass between Saddam Hussein & us + or - other countries. Possible Bush & co. realize that they're not actually going to attack this month, or maybe this year (they've actually said as much on more than one occassion).

BUT by ACTING as though the USA is just a hair trigger away from kicking Saddam's butt, what happens?

Well, first of all, Saddam Hussein realizes that if he tries any shit, he'll get his butt kicked. This would make him very cagey & unlikely to try any shit. He wants to survive, above all. You need to understand that HE isn't ready to lay down his life for Jack shit. But when he wants to seize oil fields, he's more than willing to spread propaganda to under-educated Muslims that this is a JIHAD!! GO OUT THERE & FIGHT FOR ME, ER UH, THE OIL, ER UH, I MEAN, UH, YOU'RE DOING IT FOR ALLAH!! (I'll just wait here in one of my bunkers..)

At the same time, Bush's sabre-rattling causes the Iraqi opposition groups start gearing up. They start making alliances with one another. This sets the stage for an uprising, or at least instability in Iraq, when Saddam's many enemies realize that at last there might be some hope.

Andwhen THAT happens, other countries will be more likely to join in, when they "realize" its not just an American agenda. (Don't forget that most countries despise Saddam Hussein, even if they disapprove of the USA launching an attack right now.)

See, after Bush senior pussied out of helping out the opposition groups (like the Kurds, etc.) versus Saddam Hussein, Bush Jr.s has to present a really hard line in order to convince them that if they rise up against Saddam Hussein, they'll be backed up by the mightiest nation in the world. (But I wouldn't blame the Kurds etc. one bit for not trusting us.)

Nevertheless I think that's whats going on right now. Dubya actually probably has no intention of attacking in the near future, but he's making those noises in order to set the stage for it later on.

justa thot.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 3,096]

>I believe the idea was to get an idea of the weapon's power without
> actually letting it loose on, say, Tokyo.

Had they desired to simply show what the weapon could do, they could have wiped out a military base of, say, 1000 people instead of dropping it on a city of over a million - and they would have stopped after one bomb. Instead they chose two very populous cities. As they had already ended two massive firebombing campaigns of Tokyo, killing around 140,000, perhaps they simply needed a fresh target, one where the destruction would be more visible - and one where the emperor would be so overwhelmed by the human toll that he would be willing to surrender.

Don't let revisionist history fool you - we did our level best to kill as many people in Japan as possible. There were no surgical strikes to take out just weapons production plants while leaving civilians uninjured. Killing is what war is all about. Firebombing and nuclear weapons were very effective in that regard.

[FallRate 0]

Quote

I believe the idea was to get an idea of the weapon's power without actually letting it loose on, say, Tokyo.

I could be wrong (I'm on my fourth beer), but I remember "learning" that Tokyo was not considered a prime target as it had already been leveled by conventional bombing.

FallRate

[jfields 0]

I agree with Bill. We could have demonstrated the a-bomb with far fewer Japanese casualties. We chose not to. I'm not saying that we made the wrong decision, just that we could have done things differently, but didn't. What can I say, I'm biased. I was born on Pearl Harbor Day.

(Some bombing decisions were made strictly to avoid the emporer. He was the person able to call it quits for Japan. Had we removed that leadership, their pre-existing plans for "ketsu-go" (defense to the bitter end, or something) would have remained in place and we may have been forced to invade. So we chose targets with both military value and shock value.)

I recently read a book about the issue that is packed with facts and documents from the inner circles of Japanese power near the end. I highly recommend it:

"Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire" by Richard B. Frank

While you are at it, check out "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes

[Skyrad 0]

'Why is the Middle Eastern World so Anti-American, ANTI-WESTERN? Could some places possibly interpret some of our actions as "acts of terrorism"? '
America claimed it went to war in Kosovo partly because Serbs were executing Kosovans and burying them in mass graves. New evidence has uncovered that 3000 Afghan prisoners suspected of being Taliban were executed in he desert in Afghanistan on orders of Americans. Their bodies were then placed in a mass grave. Upto 30 American servicemen allegedly watched the executions, which were carried out by Northern alliance men.
Question...........Should American soldiers face trial for war crimes if they either carried them out or were involved in them?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

Your arguments sound rational and logical, I think you're spot on on this one.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

on orders of Americans

Thats a pretty bold claim. You should really have some facts to back it up.

Quote

Should American soldiers face trial for war crimes if they either carried them out or were involved in them?

Let's get one thing straight. A scenario right from the "Final exam" of US Special Forces training. Your team is to make contact with, organize, and use indigenous forces. During the scenario a woman is captured when she tries to deliver a bomb and kill the local leader. Of course, they (Local forces) take her out and shoot her in the head. What's the correct response from the SF candidate. Urge him not to kill her because it is a violation of international law. Report back to your superiors on the matter. Whatever you do DON'T tell him that you are ratting on him. This could get you and your entire team killed. So..while American soldiers MAY have known about or even witnessed acts such as these I wouldn't say that it was "Done on their orders" Trust me....it is made abundantly clear what will happen to you in the event of an ROE violation. Even in a training exercise you can be prosecuted (Really prosecuted and thrown in jail) for "killing" a non combatant. Even though it's just "laser tag."
BTW...that's why the US backed out of the deal on International war crimes courts. We don't want the hassle. Besides...the military will screw you good all by themselves without the "help" of the international community. In fact.....I have a friend that was kicked out of the Army after a ten year career for killing a Somali kid that was trying to kill him. I seriously doubt US soldiers are committing war crimes.

[Michele 1]

Quote

New evidence has uncovered that 3000 Afghan prisoners suspected of being Taliban were executed in he desert in Afghanistan on orders of Americans. Their bodies were then placed in a mass grave. Upto 30 American servicemen allegedly watched the executions, which were carried out by Northern alliance men.

Cite sources of evidence, please?

Thanks!
Ciels and Pinks-
Michele

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

[Skyrad 0]

Will do.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Michele 1]

Thanks!

[billvon 3,096]

>See, after Bush senior pussied out of helping out the opposition
> groups (like the Kurds, etc.) versus Saddam Hussein . . .

So you think we shouldn't "pussy out" helping opposition groups? You think we should still be supporting Al Quaeda, an opposition group we helped create to fight the commies? Hard to defend that position.

>(But I wouldn't blame the Kurds etc. one bit for not trusting us.)

Nor would I. We've proven to be one of the least trustworthy countries around.

>Nevertheless I think that's whats going on right now. Dubya actually
> probably has no intention of attacking in the near future, but he's
> making those noises in order to set the stage for it later on.

If that's the case, good for him. I think that's one of the ways we won the cold war - kept the USSR spending all its money on defense. Its economy eventually collapsed, partly as a result of that massive spending. Such a strategy might work on Iraq as well.