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>