nuke iraq till they bleed american

[meegannie]

Group Hug Everyone.

The world is going to pot and we may not have long left.
Sudenly 'Walking to Hawaii' by Tom Mcrae is looking worryingly prophetic

We'd better make the most of the time we have then!

 

[bonoman]

Even the 6000 people killed in the World Trade Centre attacks is small fry

ahhhhh no! thats a bit much my friend!!!!

 

[The Absent One]

Dont misquote me.
I said '..COMPARED to....'

I made absolutely NO reference to the 6000 in the wto being a small number. Its massive and tragic.

Read things properly before making non-sensical comments in future please.

 

[The Absent One]

Make the most of it? What do you have in mind?

 

[meegannie]

Watch the temper, boy.

I've heard some people out there say we should just nuke them right now.

If I hear ONE more comment about how we should turn the whole Middle East into a "sea of glass," I will throw myself out a window.

 

[meegannie]

Make the most of it? What do you have in mind?

You'll see.

 

[melon]

I think a little less than 3,000 died in the WTC. No need to exaggerate the figures...

Melon

 

[melon]

I'm a fatalist when it comes to all of this. Whatever happens will happen, and it is perfectly clear that we have no choice in any of this.

I look back to history, and tumultuous mass murders are terribly common. However, the world goes on, and we just have another shameful chapter in our world's history.

Again, let's hope that all of this is sabre rattling--which Republicans are actually terribly notorious for.

Melon

 

[The Absent One]

Well i wasnt exagerating the figures for any benefit to my argument. Your corrected figures make it even stronger! So thanks.

 

[Dreadsox]

Dont misquote me.
I said '..COMPARED to....'

I made absolutely NO reference to the 6000 in the wto being a small number. Its massive and tragic.

Read things properly before making non-sensical comments in future please.

First.....

Your post was excellent. I believe you have an excellent grasp of the situation, and your post conveys that.

Your number "6000" is too high. I believe it was closer to 3,000. Then again I may be mistaken.

As to Iraq having nuclear capabilities......Iraq successfully built a Nuclear device sometime around August of 1990. The problem was that it was too big to put onto a warhead to launch into Israel as was the plan if Bagdhad were threatened by coalition forces. They were missing one component, fissile material. UN inspectors estimate that at that time Iraq was only one year away from building a successful bomb.

Between the Gulf War and Inspections through 1998, his program was set back.

1994 there were 2,000 engineers and 12,000 workers trying to build the bomb. This was an expansion of the Iraqi program since the gulf war. These numbers come from the Director of the Program who defected from Iraq.

There is plenty of Uranium in Iraq for them to use, they just need to turn it into weapons grade material. If he kicked out the inspectors in 1998, it appears that possibly as early as 1999 the uranium enrichment program may have been up and running.

US Intelligence services estimate that the Iraqi's will have a complete bomb sometime as early as 2004 or as late as 2009.

German Intelligence agencies estimated in 2001, that Iraq was 3 to six years away. That places 2004-2007 as possible dates.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

If I hear ONE more comment about how we should turn the whole Middle East into a "sea of glass," I will throw myself out a window.

Ugh, really, no kidding.

Angela

 

[Dreadsox]

Watch the temper, boy.

I've heard some people out there say we should just nuke them right now.

If I hear ONE more comment about how we should turn the whole Middle East into a "sea of glass," I will throw myself out a window.

I really hope you do not think that is what I said!

 

[Scarletwine]

Your quote is quite interesting Dreadsox. I don't Sadaam is the only regime to use such tactics. Where was the US 1000's were killed in Africa, damn I can't think of the country, the Congo or Ruwhanda. The dictator killed hundreds of thousands of oppostion, only I believe it was more of a genocide than political.
It almost sounds like Bono's diatribe on Enniscillian(spelling), about "taking a man from his bed and gunning him down in front of his wife and children". We didn't go after the IRA, no we negotiated. I understand that many feel the time to negotiate is over, but NO NUKES.

This issue makes the subject of War or Nay, obsolete in its depth of evil.

 

[STING2]

The_Absent_One,

"For a war to be viable it has to achieve 3 things. It has to prevent greater loss of life and destruction that it causes, not subject the local population (that is supposedly being liberated) to deadly radiation or mass slaughter from invasion or bombing, and reduce the threat of future terrorist attacks."

Saddam has caused the death of 1.7 million people over the past 20 years. A WMD attack successfully carried out on a large population center by Iraq could kill hundreds of thousands of people if not millions. The History of Saddams regime and the potential destruction Iraq could cause once they have successful means of delivery and distribution of WMD weapons to large population centers outside its borders, will produce a staggering number of potential loss of life over the next decade if action is not taken to prevent this.

Invasion of Iraq meets all three of your criteria. The number of civilians that would die in an invasion of Iraq is a small fraction compared to the number that Saddam has already killed and the number that could potentially die if Saddam remains in power for a decade or more and improves his WMD capability. In addition the USA will not be using radiation or slaughtering civilians in an invasion. Everything will be done to keep civilians losses to a minimum. The greater number of Precision Guided Munitions in the US arsonal will help to keep Iraqi civilian losses low. There will be a temporary increase in terrorism initially, but once the 3 week war is over, and the Iraqi people are liberated and able to speak freely, and people worldwide begin to see the benefit to the Iraqi people and more of the horrors of Saddam's regime, this will help to disperse feelings and idea or desires for terrorism in the Arab world. In addition, Israel will be more likely to make certain consessions with Saddam gone as well which will certainly dampen the desire for terrorism among most Arabs. Finally all the terrorism and revolution fears that were speculated before the 1991 Gulf War, never happened once the war was underway.

 

[gvox]

Saddam has caused the death of 1.7 million people over the past 20 years.

See, this is the kind of unfactual information we do not need. If you recap how you arrived at this number it becomes plain that you blame deaths on Saddam that he had nothing to do with.

Iran sent their own old people and children into battle. Saddam did not deliberately target them. The blame for alot of the Iranian deaths in the Iran-Iraq war lies, lo and behold, not only on IRAN, but ALSO THE USA!

 

[Dreadsox]

Iran sent their own old people and children into battle. Saddam did not deliberately target them. The blame for alot of the Iranian deaths in the Iran-Iraq war lies, lo and behold, not only on IRAN, but ALSO THE USA!

Gabrielvox,

Can we at least point the finger at the European powers as well?
Let's not just blame the good ole' USA.

Peace

 

[STING2]

Scarletwine,

I realize you study politics, but I have known about US Nuclear policy since I first started to look into it in the early 80s. US field Artillery pieces, a 155mm howitzer was converted to fire a 1 Kiliton nuclear shell in 1953. I have the picture of the first test of this. I can assure, the policy of the Bush Administration is simply a restatement of old policies. We have had small nuclear weapons for decades. So have the Russians.

I agree about what you said with my comment with Anitrium and avoid saying something like that again. But, did you look at what prompted that comment? Anitrium comment was not very respectful either.

Anitrium,

I never said you lived in Europe. My comment was not a personal one. But it was inflammatory and unnecessary and I'm sorry for that.

 

[gvox]

Gabrielvox,

Can we at least point the finger at the European powers as well?
Let's not just blame the good ole' USA.

Peace

Point taken, although Im not aware just how much of a role any European nations played in the Iran-Iraq war..

But I don't know everything...

 

[meegannie]

If I hear ONE more comment about how we should turn the whole Middle East into a "sea of glass," I will throw myself out a window.

I really hope you do not think that is what I said! [/B][/QUOTE]



Nothing to do with anything you've said at all. Or anyone here, for that matter.

 

[Dreadsox]

Point taken, although Im not aware just how much of a role any European nations played in the Iran-Iraq war..

But I don't know everything...

Iraq was being supported by FRANCE, GERMANY, and The USA.

Under Reagan:

CIA Shared Intelligence with Iraq on Iranian troop movements.
Removed Iraq from Terrorist Supporting States List.
High tech export licenses issued to Iraq that allow access to equiptment that would be used for biological and chemical weapons development.

US provides Iraq with Agricultural AID.
1983 400 Million
1984 513 Million
1987 652 Million


France:
Supplied 40% of Iraqi Military Exports (1982)
Helped to Build Nuclear Reactor, capable of making weapons grade materials.

Germany:
Helped build the plants that were used to make chemical weapons.



In return, Iraq fought Iran, a country that wanted to spread it's revolution throughout the Middle East. Reagan also hoped to stop Saddam from sliding towards the USSR.

Saddam also voiced his support for Reagan's peace plan for Israel and Palestine.


Peace

 

[STING2]

Gabrielvox,

The Soviet Union supplied over 80% of Iraq's military combat equipment. The rest was supplied by the Chinese and the French. In addition, the Soviet Union kept 2,000 Soviet troops to train and advise the Iraqi military up until a few months before the 1991 Gulf War.

 

[Dreadsox]

Nothing to do with anything you've said at all. Or anyone here, for that matter.

Thanks goodness!

 

[Dreadsox]

See, this is the kind of unfactual information we do not need. If you recap how you arrived at this number it becomes plain that you blame deaths on Saddam that he had nothing to do with.

Iran sent their own old people and children into battle. Saddam did not deliberately target them. The blame for alot of the Iranian deaths in the Iran-Iraq war lies, lo and behold, not only on IRAN, but ALSO THE USA!

Ummmmmmm....one minor detail..............

Iraq invaded Iran.

 

[Foxxern]

So we supported an Iraqi invasion of Iran, but denounced and militarily pushed back one on Kuwait? Hmm....

 

[STING2]

The USA provided some support to Iraq mainly in the form of intelligence the movements of Iranian units. This was done because the USA, Soviet Union, and the rest of the Persian Gulf Region did not want to deal with the catastrophic situation that would result from an Iranian take over of Iraq.

 

[Dreadsox]

AS I recall....the United States had two main supporters in the Middle East up until 1979. Iran and Saudi Arabia. The United States counted on these two countries for stability in the region.

Then the Iranian Revolution occured in 1979. 55 Americans were taken hostage for 444 days.

In 1980, Saddam, fearing a similar revolution in his country(Iraq's population is over 50% Shi'ite Muslim, the same sect that started the revolution in IRAN)invaded Iran.

This was supported by many nations, because IRAN vowed to spread its revolution throughout the middle east. Many of the powers in Europe, the Middle East, and in Europe supported Iraq for this reason.

This is also what contributed to the decision to leave Saddam in power, to use Iraq as a buffer between Iran and the rest of the Persian Gulf after the Gulf War.

As to our removal of Saddam from Kuwait. Saddam attacked Kuwaitt because of the massive debt, and because of the poor condition of his country after the Iran/Iraq war. There was massive inflation on top of massive debt. The price of oil was plummeting and he was facing pressure from within to do something. He hoped by the invasion of Kuwait to help increase the price of oil, steal gold from the reserves in Kuwait, and by doing this, fix his dire economic problems.

Peace

 

[Kristie]

Saddam has caused the death of 1.7 million people over the past 20 years.

AIDS killed about 3 million people last year alone.

Not that I'm trying to start an argument, just adding a bit of perspective.

 

[JOFO]

AIDS killed about 3 million people last year alone.

Not that I'm trying to start an argument, just adding a bit of perspective.

are we trying to find a cure?

 

[MiniFly]

From what I understand, Iraq has/or not (not proven yet) biological and chemical weapons. They don't have nuclear weapons. But, yes, if they do and if Saddam feels pressed against the wall with no option, he might use whatever he has.

Nuclear weapons are expensive to maintain, develop and deploy. Unless Iraq is using all of it's resources on how ever many nukes they may or may not have, I'm willing to bet they do not have the money to contain one.

 

[MiniFly]

Okay, my main problem with this whole "Invade Iraq, kill evil Saddam and liberate the people (oil)" war is, once Saddam is gone, who is going to fill that gap? Undoubtedly, the power vaccum will be enourmous. This, in my mind could go one of two ways.
One: America installs another puppet and the same thing happens again like with Noriega and Saddam and various other South American dictators ala Chomsky.

Two: America allows the Iraqi people to decide on their own leadership. It could take gernations upon generations to get a good government in position, or it could take a matter of a few years. Either way, this must be the solution. In order to break this cycle America (and other Western nations) have/had going with thrid world nations is to just stop. Stop introducing new rulers, stop declaring war when things get out of hand, just cut it out. Instead, foster productive policies on the part of the new government in hopes of a New Deal (or similar) style of leadership.

Trade is a big part of this equation. America must begin fair and equal trade with third world countries as opposed to dominating the trade to achieve unfair prices. How much do your bananas cost? and how much of that money do you think goes to the workers who picked them? Trade that is fair and equal is a huge part of pulling "undeveloped" countries out from under western domination.