While I am no expert on military topics, (unless fairly avid wargaming counts),
Fuel air bombs will kill alot of people over a large area, and while still technically causing mass destruction, the only residual effects are fire and ash.

Also what about *gasp* ground forces.</font>[/QUOTE]You don't want to send in ground forces, since your non-WoMD's might kill too many allied troops.

Actually Al-Queda and terrorists are the Enemy along with the Taliban leadership who supported Al queda.

This has nothing to due with the moral implications of obliberating thousands of conscript soldiers who cared little about Al queda and typically served the Taliban out of fear and poverty.

Whether they were hard-core loyalists or poor conscripts, I call the kind of bombing that kills thousands without recourse or defense "mass destruction".</font>[/QUOTE]They had years to make their decision about associating with terrorists. The Taliban leadership had weeks to surrender Osama and agree to dismantle the terrorist network in Afghanistan before the bombs started dropping.

So having a conscripted army is a reason to avoid conflict? If a nation has the draft they can't be attacked? Come on now? Let's get real... [img]smile.gif[/img]

Bombing that kills without recourse or defense? Um... bombs are dropped for a reason. The recourse AND defense to US bombing is not to be the target. Giving up is the best recourse because there is little to no defense. ;)

How would you have saved those innocent soldiers and gotten the job done? By not doing the job? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Actually Al-Queda and terrorists are the Enemy along with the Taliban leadership who supported Al queda.

This has nothing to due with the moral implications of obliberating thousands of conscript soldiers who cared little about Al queda and typically served the Taliban out of fear and poverty.

Whether they were hard-core loyalists or poor conscripts, I call the kind of bombing that kills thousands without recourse or defense "mass destruction".</font>[/QUOTE]They had years to make their decision about associating with terrorists. The Taliban leadership had weeks to surrender Osama and agree to dismantle the terrorist network in Afghanistan before the bombs started dropping.

So having a conscripted army is a reason to avoid conflict? If a nation has the draft they can't be attacked? Come on now? Let's get real... [img]smile.gif[/img]

Bombing that kills without recourse or defense? Um... bombs are dropped for a reason. The recourse AND defense to US bombing is not to be the target. Giving up is the best recourse because there is little to no defense. ;)

How would you have saved those innocent soldiers and gotten the job done? By not doing the job? [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]The bombing of Afghanistan was pretty much futile. They never got their hands on Osama, which was the whole point, right? I'm sure if the tables were reversed and a foreign power was threatining US soil, you wouldn't want to surrender, either.

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.

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

No WoMD can't tell a difference between cow crap and caviar. Seems to me you'd want to be against their modern day usage for just that reason.

Now historically, the Europeans were more than happy to use Mustard Gas and anything else they could get their hands on in WWI, and the US used Agent Orange as recently as 30 years ago, but what EXACTLY does that have to do with today? What does that have to do with Iraq? Surely you aren't suggesting we did it then, so let them do it now?

Are we talking about the historical use of Agent Orange or Mustard Gas? No we aren't, but if you want to talk about the historical use maybe you could enlighten us on the world-wide usage of chemical/biological weapons throughout world history.

Then you could move on to tell us about the British, French, and Chinese stockpiles because I'm sure you wouldn't mention the 30 year old US usage JUST to be... sensational.

Surely you had a point related to Iraq and weren't just disparaging the good ole U.S. of A., or is disparaging the US a point in and of itself these days? ;) [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 03-05-2003, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

No WoMD can't tell a difference between cow crap and caviar. Seems to me you'd want to be against their modern day usage for just that reason.

Now historically, the Europeans were more than happy to use Mustard Gas and anything else they could get their hands on in WWI, and the US used Agent Orange as recently as 30 years ago, but what EXACTLY does that have to do with today? What does that have to do with Iraq? Surely you aren't suggesting we did it then, so let them do it now?

Are we talking about the historical use of Agent Orange or Mustard Gas? No we aren't, but if you want to talk about the historical use maybe you could enlighten us on the world-wide usage of chemical/biological weapons throughout world history.

Then you could move on to tell us about the British, French, and Chinese stockpiles because I'm sure you wouldn't mention the 30 year old US usage JUST to be... sensational.

Surely you had a point related to Iraq and weren't just disparaging the good ole U.S. of A., or is disparaging the US a point in and of itself these days? ;) [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]I neither have the knowledge nor the time to discuss the complete historical usage of chemical/biological weapons, yet I find it odd that the US is admonishing Iraq for something that they themselves have done in the past. I suppose it's a case of those living in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones.

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]I oppose what "you" do because it was unnecessary. If the US hadn't been involved in Middle Eastern affairs from day one, where they had no business being, then this wouldn't be an issue right now. Ask yourself why the terrorist acts against the US, over the last dozen years, took place.

I'm sure you would fight to the death to defend your country as most would, but to say you'd give up anyone not associated with your country is a very broad generalisation. It's not that simple.

I was mistaken, by saying that the US supported the Taliban. I was under the impression that the Taliban were a derivitive of the Northern Alliance after the Soviets pulled out.

[ 03-05-2003, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: Animal ]

Perhaps those European nations who oppose military actions should be called to answer for their position based on their history. Can your "throwing stones" example be used for any time frame or is it only good for 30 years?

That's why your remark isn't a reasonable one. We aren't talking about 1973, and if you can't speak to all the other nations and all the other incidents then it's nothing more than sensationalism.

I don't mind debating the issues, but the US use of Agent Orange in Vietnam is a wrong from the history files and has NOTHING to do with Iraq's non-compliance. Sure it sounds good, but it says nothing about the issue. :(