Escalating potential conflict in Iraq

[skywalker]

Who would have thought he'd be nuts enough to use chemical weapons? Just as dangerous as Saddam using them is him sharing them.

Well, maybe because he used the chemical weapons on people who where unable to fight back in a significant manner?

Mark

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by skywalker: quote: Who would have thought he'd be nuts enough to use chemical weapons? Just as dangerous as Saddam using them is him sharing them.

Well, maybe because he used the chemical weapons on people who where unable to fight back in a significant manner?

Mark[/QUOTE]Maybe, but I'm not in favor of waiting to see if that's the difference.

Originally posted by MagiK: I think you need to go back to school.

Ad Hom

Originally posted by MagiK: You obviously lack a foundation about the war in Vietnam.

Ad Hom

Originally posted by MagiK: You also seem unable to comprehend the fact that while the US has occasionally done some wrong things,

As far as I can see, The American war in Vietnam basically repeated the colonial failures of the French, while alienating the Vietnamese people who didn’t really want that war fought.
Could you please explain to me how I have got It all wrong please, if you cannot, please retract your statement.

Originally posted by MagiK: in the end, the world is better off for having the US than for not.

The people in Vietnam and Laos Certainly weren’t. Even know in Laos there are unexploded bombs lieing around that claim many lives every month.
In fact what you typed is an oversimplifying blanket statement, please clarify what you mean if you wish to get a meaningful point across please.

[Ar-Cunin]

What I don't understand about this whole 'madman'-retoric is; why S. H. is constantly portraied as a raving lunatic, who - if he should aquire nuclear weapons - will immidiatly use these against his enemies (f.x. Isreal). Nothing is his previous career indicate that he is suicidal. And Israel have its own nuclear weapon with which to retaliate - Mutially Assured Destruction in action.

He did use chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds in northern Iraq - but that was when he was still one of the 'good-guys' - and had a reason to fear repraisals. When he fought the Coalition during the Gulf War he didn't use his stockpile of chemical and/or biological agents even though he evidently had the means to do so. (Scud attacks on Suadi Arabia, Israel and Qatar(?) ).

Originally posted by John D Harris: Dramnek_Ulk,

SAY MA NAME!

Originally posted by John D Harris: less then 100 miles from where I live the US goverment has a facility to destroy Chemical weapons, It is opperational, and destroies Chemical weapon stock piles all the time. Last week we had a terrorist scare here in the US (Utah) at another facility that DESTROIES chemical and Bio weapons. We have also cut our stock piles of Nuclear weapons in about half. But we would be fools to get rid of our weapons while others have them.

The USA's withdrawal from the 1972 Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty goes directly against its stated aims of improving global unity and peace in the fight against terrorism.

The USA has repeatedly broken the ABM treaty with its Star Wars Missile Test program.

the USA stood alone by blocking negotiations to strengthen the international ban on biological weapons, and by voting against a procedural motion at the United Nations supporting the global ban on nuclear testing.

etc etc.

Originally posted by John D Harris: If the rest of the world wants to effect a regime change here, well get together and start the process, but remember we have an armed population

Civilians with guns can’t really do much in a “proper war”,
(by proper I mean industrialised warfare, Although some people posit that this no longer has a place in a world where Weapons of mass destruction are so readily availible and so powerful and where global communications have been vastly enhanced)
hmmmmm.

Originally posted by johnny: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: Does anyone on here actually think that any of us want a war just for the "fun" of it? Or that anyone here actually looks forward to war?

No, but i AM looking forward to a world without maniacs like Saddam, Khadaffi, Bin Laden and the Ayatollahs.[/QUOTE]And Henry Kissenger?

[johnny]

Just what is your problem with Henry Kissinger dude ?

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: The USA's withdrawal from the 1972 Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty goes directly against its stated aims of improving global unity and peace in the fight against terrorism. The USA has repeatedly broken the ABM treaty with its Star Wars Missile Test program.

This isn't really true.

The 1972 ABM treaty was outdated, and the US gave the proper 6 months notice required to vacate that treaty. ABM is a weapons system, it's an anti-weapons system. The technology acquired during the testing has been implimented in the Patriot missle, which was used in the Gulf War to defeat Iraqi scuds. Of course, the successes of the Patriot Missle System were over stated during the Gulf War, but the technology would not have been there at all without ABM testing.

The 1972 treaty, and updates to it through the mid 70s, did allow for some systems to be in place by both countries. If I remember correctly, each country could have two in place, but they had to be several hundred miles apart and could not cover the capitals.

Testing was also allowed under the treaty, but "permission" had to be formally requested from the other country. One of the reasons the US left this treaty was because it took over 2 years for some testing near Alaska to be "approved" after proper notification. Politics and science never mix.

The MDA, or Mutually Assured Destruction, theory is not a very intelligent way of keeping the other guy from killing you is it? If MAD is such a great idea, then maybe we should do away with every type law enforcement in existance today and just let everyone carry around a machine gun. It's really the same principle. Besides, the old "enemies" aren't enemies anymore anyway, they're friends.

Prior to the vacating of the treaty and subsequently there have been agreements to reduce the number of nuclear warheads.

The US doesn't want ABM so it can nuke everyone while remaining safe from retaliation. That idea is nonsense.

If the US wanted global domination, the time for that would have been the Fall of 1945, when we had the largest airforce, the largest navy, the second largest army, and the only nukes in the world.

[ 09-17-2002, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: And Henry Kissenger?

I don't think anyone will argue that the Vietnam war was a good thing.

I will say the Cold War was a totally different era. The "threat" of Communism was what drove most of the ill remembered US political policies. For some it's hard now, nearly a dozen years after the fall of the Soviet Union, to remember how real the threat seemed. Maybe it wasn't the danger the West thought it was....or maybe it actually was worse, but either way, it was perceived as real and imminent and Democracies acted against it in some ways that are now seen as ridiculous.

On the History Channel, I saw an interesting program on espionage. It showed how the US had tapped into undersea signal lines to receive secret Soviet information in the 80s. This program told how the US used a pre-scheduled nautical military exercise to judge the Soviet response to "provocative" action(no actual provocative action was taken as this was a well publicised training exercise). With access to their sensitive data we thought we'd learn alot, and we did.

The US analysts were amazed when, instead of the Soviet forces assuming "first strike" positions as their counter move, they pulled back to protect their homeland. Analysts had to re-think their entire strategy against the Soviets because they had not reacted aggressively as we thought they would and as they had promised, but instead, they reacted as WE ourselves would have to a Soviet provocation. Their first action was to defend the homeland not destroy the enemy.

The Cold War was a different time, and some of what happened was reasonable while other actions, on both sides, can be blamed on reaction to the other side's paranoia. It didn't make it any less frightening. I can remember nuclear drills in school when you hid under your desk.

Vietnam? Not a shining light in the history of the US, but 30 years later, does that failure leave anyone feeling better about Saddam having weapons of mass destruction. I seriously doubt it, and I don't see how it applies.

Because the US had Henry Kissenger it's ok for Saddam to have chemical weapons? Because the US had a past political figure that did bad things in the world view, we should leave Saddam alone to do "his own thing". Now that doesn't add up, but it does make people explain their points more thoroughly. Maybe that was your point?

If I get carpal tunnel syndrome, I will sue...lol.

[ 09-18-2002, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Ar-Cunin: What I don't understand about this whole 'madman'-retoric is; why S. H. is constantly portraied as a raving lunatic, who - if he should aquire nuclear weapons - will immidiatly use these against his enemies (f.x. Isreal). Nothing is his previous career indicate that he is suicidal. And Israel have its own nuclear weapon with which to retaliate - Mutially Assured Destruction in action. He did use chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds in northern Iraq - but that was when he was still one of the 'good-guys' - and had a reason to fear repraisals. When he fought the Coalition during the Gulf War he didn't use his stockpile of chemical and/or biological agents even though he evidently had the means to do so. (Scud attacks on Suadi Arabia, Israel and Qatar(?) ).

I don't think anyone has said he would immediately use them, but the fear is that he would have the option of using them at all.

He certainly isn't suicidal. He's played the international community for all it's worth seeing just how far he could go over the past dozen years. He's "courted" death, but with reserve.

Only a mild version of "MAD" was in place during the Gulf War. If Saddam used his weapons of mass destruction against the coalition during the Gulf War, only his destruction was "assured". The coalition could have taken what he dealt out while obliterating him completely. The destruction was not mutually assured.

He is crazy though and don't you doubt it. Crazy "like a fox". He saw just what the UN would allow and has pushed the envelope ever since. He has nothing to lose as long as he doesn't use what he has in a confrontation with the UN.

Saddam will do as much as he's allowed to do, but the question for the international community is just that, "what is he allowed to do". Would it have been ok to nuke Iran or the Kurds? Can he use these weapons against anyone except the coalition?

In the US, convicted felons are not allowed to own firearms because of their potential inappropriate use. Some felons do get away with it, but when they are caught, they are stripped of those weapons and punished. Of course, the world doesn't follow US laws, but the principle is still the same. If the UN has determined a violation and further determined that disarming (weapons of mass destruction in this case) is called for, shouldn't the punishment be administered? I'm not necessarily talking conflict here, complete/total/unfettered re-admittance of the inspectors, with the ability to enforce the UN sanctions, will do.

If not, then why bother with the process at all?

[ 09-18-2002, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]