Well, maybe bombs aren't WoMD (though in my oppinion they are) but we are going to bomb them with that kind of missiles Saddam isn't allowed to have. Or not?</font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#ffccff">You are saying we should fight only with those weapons that the UN allows Iraq?

As for what YOU think are weapons of mass destruction, I think you need to learn a little bit about "scale" killing a couple or a dozen people with a single bomb is far different from killing tens of thousands or even millions.....get a bit of perspective man. </font></font>[/QUOTE]I remember reading an unsubstantiated report that upwards of 30,000 Taliban were killed because of bombs in the U.S. air campaign in Afganistan.

Regardless, I think you are SERIOUSLY downplaying the devestation of bombs. As I recall one stray bomb during the gulf war killed hundreds of Iraqi as they hid in a shelter.

Also clusterbombs have a long lasting residual effects on population, although the EU and UN have called for a moritorum on these weapons, the U.S. still uses them.

Bombs don't just kill a few people, especially when hundreds of bombs are falling day in and day out.

I think you may benifit from some perspective as well.</font>[/QUOTE]That wasn't a stray bomb it was aimed at that target, a comand and control bunker, a legitamite target under any and all rules of war(an oxmoron if there ever was one ;) ) If anybody is going to get pissed about that then get pissed at the right people responsible for it. The idiots that allowed their families into a comand and control bunker, the Iraqi military.

<font color=aqua>It's not the US in particular, but the West in general that has cause all these problems in the Middle East. The US didn't create Israel. ;)

Animal, I know you are a good guy, and I'm not hitting you for your beliefs. I just disagree. [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

You bet your sweet pippy we would :D So would Everybody else what's the point?

Sure they dethroned the Taliban, but Afghanistan is no better off now then when they were under the rule of the Taliban. If you look back in history, the US where the ones who put the Taliban in power in the first place! They supplied weapons to the Taliban in an effort to drive the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan.[/QUOTE]
Nothing personal but check your history, the USA supplied the Ahfgan fighters yes, that war ended in 1989 or 1990. The Taliban came into power YEARS later out of Pakistan.
If you are going to take that logic where do we stop? It could be argued that the British are responsible because they could keep their colonists under control in the new world, or better yet they are responsible because they sent settlers over here in the first place. ;) But wait you also get Rome is responsible because they conquered the British Isles and Rome is the foundation of all western socities and laws. But wait if you order now you also get every civilization known to man through out the history of man all the way back to Eve because she ate the apple first. Yes this logic can be yours for only $19.95 plus shipping and handling, please make checks payable to John D. Harris, sorry No COD's or Credit cards. Logic will be shipped to you after your check has cleared the bank. ;)

As far as I can see the whole bombing of Afghanistan was useless and accomplished nothing. Sooner or later the entire Middle East is going to fly apart at the seams. I say get the hell out now, stand back, let them kill each other and let God sort them out. :D [/QUOTE]
What the "Hale" are they going to kill each other with? If we sell them the weapons to do it somebody will complain about it :D They have been killing each other for 1,000's of years Eygptians, Libians, Hitties, Persans (SP?), Babloynians, Medes(SP?), Syriains, Assyriains etc.

<font color=aqua>It's not the US in particular, but the West in general that has cause all these problems in the Middle East. The US didn't create Israel. ;)

Animal, I know you are a good guy, and I'm not hitting you for your beliefs. I just disagree. [img]smile.gif[/img] </font></font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I agree with that. It seems that the term US is a generalisation for the democratic world as a whole. Problem is, some people don't want that kind of life, yet we still try to force it on them.

Are you suggesting sending in ground troops for the enemy to kill? Would that make it more.. fair?

It's bizarre to me that you think a reasonable answer to civilian deaths caused by war is to send in ground troops earlier when they are sure to take MORE causalities.

Do lives count if they are wearing uniforms?

Can you provide a link that proves (hell, one that even says) sending in **gasp** ground troops would cause less civilian casualties during a military action? I'd be amazed if you could. [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]Huh? You have read way to much into my little statement about ground forces. As far as I am concerned, nothing about war will ever make it fair.

I question the honor in killing thousands of soldiers and/or innocents in massive attacks over a long time, like what womd do. Cluster bombs kill in mass over a long time, hence the term weapons of mass destruction. Dig the logic?

Ground forces may take and make greater casulaties on bothsides, but my remark about them was irony geared towards the Bush administrations hesitance to use U.S. ground troops in key operations in Afganistan. I was suggesting the use of ground forces to do it Right. Some speculations and opinions agree hasty action and the reliance on the Northern Alliance as ground troops may have resulted in the failure to capture key al queda and Talibon leaders that we are just starting to catch now, over a year and half later. Though it did result in the liberation of Afganistan and the scattering of the terrorists across the region. Regardless, that's the history of where we are at today.

I find your insinuating remark about whether lives count in uniform degrading. I value an American's life no more or no less than I do any other human. If were up to me there would be no war and no casulties on eitherside, but that is not the reality of world right now.

One of the lessons learned from America's last great unpopular conflict, Vietnam, is that a soldier, a U.S. soldier, is following the orders of the President. If the President conducts the country on an erronerous course, it will be revealed in the polls and in the history books, but you do not dis-value a soldier's life or his honor because he is following orders from the President to defend America, even if the threat is more percieved than it is real.

Sticking to the off-topic point, militarily, there are options other than clusterbombs. They all vary in effectiveness and casulty ratio, but they do exist.

<font color = lightgreen>I can appreciate this sentiment, since all human lives are valuable, but this particular line of reasoning is a little faulty. "I was only following orders" was the standard defense of those on trial at Nuremberg after World War II. A very bad precedent upon which to stand.... However, the question of "should a soldier disobey an immoral order?" will not be answered here (another topic for another day).

The original topic title is "Why?" Why attack Iraq, a year and a half after the events of 9/11/2001? Based on the collected intelligence reports, the main Al Queda stronghold was in Afghanistan. Since the evidence pointed to Al Queda being the culprits, go after them where they are hiding. Thus, when intelligence reports show strong links between Iraq and Al Queda, then Iraq finds itself of the list of pending targets.
Is it not the right of a country to defend itself reasonably (yes, I said "reasonably", not "nuke 'em till they glow") against an enemy who has attacked? As soon as the news about Pearl Harbor got to Washington, Congress assembled and passed a declaration of war the next day. There was no talking, no diplomacy, no "cooling off period", no chants of "give peace a chance". No, there was action.
I think those who oppose this proposed military action (since there is no "war" currently in progress) seem to be missing the point that there have been plenty of talks, diplomatic meetings, weapons inspector reports, etc. giving Hussein more than enough time to 1) distance himself from Al Queda and 2) comply with the UN sanctions mandated back in 1991 (sanctions to which he initially agreed). Hussein has had more than a decade to clean up his act. How much more time should he be given?

Were America to be as warmongering a nation as I have heard some suggest, then would we not have already invaded Iraq? Would there not already be an American flag flying over Baghdad?

Is America perfect? No! Yes, we used chemical weapons back in the Vietnam War. Yes, we have used cluster bombs and incendiary devices in our military actions. Yes, we are the only nation to have used nuclear weapons on another nation. So what? A nation is like a person--you make mistakes and face difficult choices when you are growing up, but you live and grow and learn.

Protest if you must. Chant. Burn some flags. Hate Bush and America. None of that will matter, though, because when Hussein is gone we will have one less rabid enemy and the Iraqi people will be able to choose their own fate instead of having one handed to them whether they like it or not.</font>

No - the US military intelligence (another oxymoron ;) ) claimed is was a military bunker. The same intelligence that apparently mistook the Chinese embassy in Belgrade for a government building.

No - the US military intelligence (another oxymoron ;) ) claimed is was a military bunker. The same intelligence that apparently mistook the Chinese embassy in Belgrade for a government building.</font>[/QUOTE]Well any military Intelligence in an oxmoron ;)
I guess I could see how that could be believed, after all a country that tries to hold diplomates hostage as human shields, remember the little British boy that Sodamn Insane held in his lap. Preached constantly about protecting their military targets with human shields, "Hale" even ask or read about the current wave of people that left to be human shields in Iraq. Where did the Iraqi government want them to be Human shield at? Was it schools? Or prehaps Hospitals? No I believe it was by the words of the human shield volunteers themselves legitamate military targets. If such a country claimed the bunker was not a target then they must be believed. Because they certainly wouldn't use human shields at any of their miltary tagets. Sorry Ar-Curin but the logic just doesn't hold water for me, now if it does for you then that's fine by me.

[ 03-06-2003, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

</font>[/QUOTE]I don't see how having an opinion could be considered arrogant. It's quite apparent that you don't agree with my opinions, and I have no problem with that, it is after all one of the privilidges of freedom, however, I do have a problem with being personally attacked for voicing such opinions.

Given the rather vague evidence available that Iraq has "strong" if any links to Al Queda, I hardly call the war on terror a principled reason to pre-emptively invade Iraq.

As far as making the world a better place, most of the world is against this conflict, so that shoots this point in the foot right from the start.

Hussien certainly thrives on power and dominion regardless of human suffering, that does not make him unique. He also waged war as an aggressor. The carnage of war is the most horrible thing humanity can do to one another. Whichever-side wins, many sons and daughters become dead bodies. Maybe if it were 1991 and we were all ready to take out the conquering dictator this would be a reasonable argument for starting and creating the carnage of war. It is not 1991 anymore.

The fact alone that Saddam has a sorrid past and may become a future threat doesn't stack up either.

If Iraq is being watched and monitored, until there is clear and present danger, it is not worth the cost.

I guess you can tell I disagree, but that's okay. [img]smile.gif[/img]

<font color = lightgreen>It most certainly is. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] </font>

<font color="#ffccff">If you use the right logic you can trace any human activity in the world back to "money" [img]smile.gif[/img] It is also aobut the troops having to fight in the heat and or cold..did you not see the other 2/3rds of my post? </font></font>[/QUOTE]Oh yes, I saw it. And I asked about the part that I was interested in. And if you had noticed, I mentioned the heat in my previous post, so I thought it would be unnecessary to answer to that part since I mentioned it first. [img]tongue.gif[/img] So I just answered to the money part. Since everyone is saying it's not about money. :D

Woman. [img]tongue.gif[/img] :D
I said that I wasn't sure what they call WoMD and that I thought (my oppinion) that bombs are one of those. If Saddam is forbidden to have certain missiles because he might use them, isn't it hypocrisy that we would use them on him? We certainly have used them on other countries, like he has. Just that our use has been more recent. You might not agree with me, but that's my oppinion. I don't think it makes us any better than him. And not to mention all the new weapons that we are going to use on him. As if we know what kind of effect they'll have.

<font color='white'>LMAO @ your first line. :D

On subject, we have used them on other countries, yeah. Lets use Afghanstan for example, since it was the most recent.

Taliban supports Al-Queda, Al-Queda planned out and carried out 9/11. Thus it was all in retaliation.

That makes scence right? See if you can make scence out of any agression Saddam has thrown out.

I am by far not a military expert, but what do you mean we dont know what effect they will have? I highly doubt we will use WoMD (Biological, Poisens, ect.) on Iraq, we will use Smart bombs and such is my guess. And we do know what effect they will have.
</font>

I just found this on the Human Rights Watch. Apparently we are thinking of using mines in Iraq, even though we know that these mines are going to be killing civilians for years later. And that most of the countries have banned them because of this. Aren't we good? ... :(

"Will the U.S. use mines again in Iraq?

The last time the U.S. used antipersonnel mines was in the Gulf War in 1991 and according to a study recently released by the General Accounting Office, the Bush Administration is reported to be reviewing war plans that include plans for the use of mines. The Pentagon has said it "retains the right to use landmines." The U.S. stockpiles approximately 90,000 antipersonnel mines in the Persian Gulf region in Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Diego Garcia, a territory of the United Kingdom in the Indian Ocean. The antipersonnel mines currently stored there are the same types used in 1991: the ADAM (stored in Qatar, Diego Garcia, and possibly Kuwait), Gator (stored in Qatar, Diego Garcia, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and possibly Kuwait), and smaller amounts of Volcano and MOPMS mines (both stored in Kuwait)."

From: http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/ir...#use_landlines

[quote]Originally posted by Iron_Ranger:

Quote:

Originally posted by Spelca: I am by far not a military expert, but what do you mean we dont know what effect they will have? I highly doubt we will use WoMD (Biological, Poisens, ect.) on Iraq, we will use Smart bombs and such is my guess. And we do know what effect they will have. </font>

I read in a Slovene newspaper that they are planning to use new kinds of weapons. Something that causes a great deal of pain, but doesn't kill (like a cannon or something). And some kind of bomb that sends out radio-waves which disable the equipment, but might, in direct contact with people, cause them to be burnt alive. As I said, this was in a Slovene newspaper, and I haven't really looked around for more information about it, because I have no doubt that we will use new weapons. Maybe not the kind I just mentioned, but some other ones. :(

Edit --- Some of the new weapons haven't been used in combat yet (hence 'new weapons') so we can't really know how they will work until we try them out.

[ 03-07-2003, 05:32 AM: Message edited by: Spelca ]

The new microwave bombs knock out electronic equipment, but I haven't heard anything about their capability to incinerate people. ;)

Using brief pain to disable the enemy without causing their death? Sounds like a pretty good weapon if it works.

Both of these weapons seem to fall into the catagory of weapons meant to save lives.

Yea, I know, but they said that in direct contact with the radio-wave the person could be fried alive. They don't really know, and that's what I was pointing out. That they don't really know how they would work in a combat environment.

<font color = lightgreen>There are devices which produce very directional high-frequency sounds that cause piercing headaches (useful for disabling people). The worst drawbacks seem to be a possiblity for piercing the ear drum.

There is a body of research to indicate that people have developed so-called "infrasonic" devices, although these should more correctly be called "sub-sonic" (since they are below our threshhold of hearing). This research finds lethal frequencies around 7 or 8 Hz, with a variety of other symptoms including destruction of internal organs, nausea, difficulty breathing, and possible epiltpic seizures (as certain frequencies interrupt the cyclic rythms of the brain). Unfortunately, sound is omnidirectional so this is not practical as a weapon--sound waves penetrate matter, preventing any defense (so the weapon user will suffer, also). This is not science fiction; it is science fact.</font>

The risk inherent in the anti-electronics cruise missile I saw a report on was that it would kill pacemakers... and could be VERY dangerous to hospitals (all life support knocked out). There was no mention of damage to living tissue, in fact it specifically stated that the device was NOT dangerous to life.