nuke iraq till they bleed american

[DrTeeth]

I gotta love when people say that the u.s. should just mind their own buisness.

when we go to somalia, people say "stay out".

when we don't go to bosnia, they say "where the hell are you?"

Talk about immature questions...

If I attacked an innocent man in the street, people'd call me an asshole.

If I didn't attack a man who's trying to rape someone, they'd call me an asshole too.

It's not the actions an sich people are condemning, it's the US' decision when, and when not to pull their weight what's been pissing people off.

 

[JOFO]

not sure I understand your response dr.

 

[DrTeeth]

I edited mine before I saw yours, hope this clears things up for you.

 

[Klaus]

DrTeeth:

Most people are not upset that the USA soldiers go to a country, it's how they do it.
(for example, they prefer it if it's under UN control)

Also.. to get a little polemic:

A man who works for the Mafia and kills 10 people is called a murder, is considered "danger to the mankind and everyone wants to see him imprisoned.
A man who works for the military (government) and kills 100 people is called a hero, and nobody is surprised if he gets medails for that.

A man who is not willing to kill just because he is told to kill won't get any of the above jobs.

Klaus

 

[Klaus]

I understand where you are going with this question. I will ask you some questions back. How many of these other nations have used them in the past 30 years? How many of them have attacked or invaded three other countries in the past 30 years? How many of them have signed Cease Fire treaties, and violated them?

Dreadsox: you should remember that the Daisy Cutters the US military used (not only)in Afghanistan awe WMD - and they are internat. illegal, many countries feel invaded from the US - so just counting "how many" might not be the best choice to devide good from evil.

Also i don't think that Iraq is the last country which will be attacked, if Bush can do what he wants to do.

U2girl:
I guess the Bush administration decided to finish the iraq war even for 9/11, they just need some reasons to "sell it to the public". That's why they pay 5 people to abuse the informations of CIA and FBI because those institutes weren't willing to abuse their power by:1st: decide who's guilty and then take only the documents who verify that thesis.

I'm affraid that Bush also put too many military to the iraqi border to stop now. If you start a war nobody cares about a few 100.000.000 $ more or less - if there's no war he has to tell the american people why he wasted that money.
So i'm affraid the autopilots course is set on "war".

Klaus

 

[hiphop]

If you start a war nobody cares about a few 100.000.000 $ more or less - if there's no war he has to tell the american people why he wasted that money.
So i'm affraid the autopilots course is set on "war".

Klaus

But the Americans should care! At the very least it takes their free college education, their ability for one free car per year, and they have to pay for medical care!

 

[U2girl]

that is an immature question. one crisis at a time please. this is not about the u.s. verses the world.

Immature? I didn't mean that question as "us verses the world", I am just hypothetically wondering how US would/will treat future situations like Iraq. (N. Korea for example)

If these kinds of things will happen with such regimes, what makes you think the world will get to pick it "one at a time"?

Dreadsox: well, who's to say there aren't countries that might do any of the things you mentioned?


All we are trying to say is that the "they might be dangerous, so let's strike first" pre-epmtive strike logic is a bit strange, and dangerous if other states will follow it, or the "inspectors didn't find any WMD, so that must mean that Iraq has them" logic.
Last but not least, this is not about hating America(ns), it's just a different opinion on its foreign policy.

 

[STING2]

People,

There are 17 UNITED NATIONS resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules that Iraq is in violation of. Iraq is in violation of the conditions of the UN 1991 Ceacefire agreement. The international community is obligated to use military force to enforce these resolutions and ceacefire agreement if Iraq is in violation of them. That is international law. That is the United Nations. The USA and several other countries are ready to do their duty under international law. Countries like France, Germany, Russia, and China, seem to value short term economic gain over international law.

Oh, Iraq is definitely a unique case. There has never been another country in history that has been in violation of 17 United Nations resolutions passed under chapter VII rules and United Nations Ceacefire agreement passed 12 years ago.


Klaus,

It is your opinion that daisy cutters are a mass destruction weapon. It does not do unlimited and unpredictable destruction like WMD can do. Its a 15,000 pound bomb with a definite burst radious. The USA has built some 30,000 pound bombs for possible use against the Iraqi military.

 

[Klaus]

Sting2:

not only my opinion, i guess it's outside the US republican party or outside US military common sense:

Quote from the Guardian:
...
Accordingly, the FBI has broadened its definition of WMDs to say that "though typically associated with nuclear/radiological, chemical or biological agents, [they] may also take the form of explosives, such as in the bombing of the Alfred P Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City."
...

Take the American "Daisy Cutter" bomb, which causes an explosion almost as impressive as that of a nuclear weapon. Television pictures of the US bombardment of Afghanistan last November showed a huge, red mushroom cloud with flames reaching 300 metres into the air - that was a Daisy Cutter doing its stuff near Kabul. It uses explosives similar to those in the bomb detonated in Oklahoma City, but is six times more powerful. Its blast flattens everything within 600 metres, which would seem very much like "mass destruction" in the middle of a city. In fact, even airliners flown by suicide hijackers can become WMDs, as September 11 showed.

Full article at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,671522,00.html

Klaus

p.s. also interesting the intro:

"In order to get beaten up by the United States, a country has to be two things: a "rogue state" and a possessor (or potential possessor) of "weapons of mass destruction" (WMDs). So who qualifies? Let's start with WMDs. The US government generally defines them as "nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons". Lots of countries have some: either openly, such as Britain, France, Russia and China; or more shiftily, such as Pakistan, India and Israel.

The nation with the world's biggest arsenal of WMDs is, of course, the US. But that's beside the point, as the US is not going to attack itself. More to the point is whether the customary definition of WMDs is satisfactory in the first place..."

 

[Dreadsox]

Dreadsox: well, who's to say there aren't countries that might do any of the things you mentioned?

All we are trying to say is that the "they might be dangerous, so let's strike first" pre-epmtive strike logic is a bit strange, and dangerous if other states will follow it, or the "inspectors didn't find any WMD, so that must mean that Iraq has them" logic.
Last but not least, this is not about hating America(ns), it's just a different opinion on its foreign policy.

I think I am oing to start a poll. I need to get a grasp on the number of people who believ Iraq has/does not have WMD. It is pointless to continue rehashing things again and again.

I guess you believe he does not have them?

 

[Klaus]

Dreadsox:
well i'm sure Saddam has these weapons and we have to do something against that but current Bush-logic would be also fine for a strike against the US.
Thank god we only have one US and one G.W.B on this planet.

Klaus

 

[Dreadsox]

Klaus,

Did you know that the US drops leafletts telling the enemy to leave the area, that they are about to drop one of those?

Pretty interesting military strategy isn't it?


Peace

 

[Klaus]

Dreadsox:

Imagine the 9/11 terrorists would have written letters to the workers or called them in the wtc - do you think the US people would love them for this?

Klaus

 

[U2girl]

Dreadsox: what does it matter what I think? It matters what UN think, since they *should* decide what happens. And if there will be war - whoever goes in - there had better be a good re-build of Iraq later.

I think this can be done other way, and not by war. And especially not by using nuclear weapons. I also think Iraq might be more dangerous to its neighbour countries than US and that N. Korea is more dangerous than Iraq (because it definitely has nuclear abilities, and long range rockets, plus it has threatened regarding sanctions and any US attack). But that's just me.


But you know what? You're right, it's no use talking anymore because we can't see eye to eye. If you have anything further on this PM me.



*edit* Allright, explain this: if US government is going in the right direction, how come there are anti-war demonstrations even in US (not to mention elsewhere in the world)?

Imagine that terrorists would use a WMD in Europe or US, and than they would say that they were "pre-emptive striking".

I think it's interesting to know that the "live shield" action (of civilians going to Iraq) was initiated by an ex-marine who thought in the Gulf war.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Talk about immature questions...

If I attacked an innocent man in the street, people'd call me an asshole.

If I didn't attack a man who's trying to rape someone, they'd call me an asshole too.

It's not the actions an sich people are condemning, it's the US' decision when, and when not to pull their weight what's been pissing people off.

Exactly.

And I agree with U2girl's posts, too.

Angela

 

[STING2]

Klaus,

"Take the American "Daisy Cutter" bomb, which causes an explosion almost as impressive as that of a nuclear weapon. Television pictures of the US bombardment of Afghanistan last November showed a huge, red mushroom cloud with flames reaching 300 metres into the air - that was a Daisy Cutter doing its stuff near Kabul. It uses explosives similar to those in the bomb detonated in Oklahoma City, but is six times more powerful. Its blast flattens everything within 600 metres, which would seem very much like "mass destruction" in the middle of a city. In fact, even airliners flown by suicide hijackers can become WMDs, as September 11 showed."

There is no United Nations convention that has declared a daisy cutter to be a Weapon of Mass Destruction. So other people have a different opinion. Thats just fine, but you could say that about any issue there is. No matter the issue, there will always be someone that has a different opinion. Thats just fine.


"It uses explosives similar to those in the bomb detonated in Oklahoma City"

One could make that claim about any bomb or explosive no matter how large or small.

The USA does not use daisy Cutters on civilians or in densly populated area's. So it has a burst radious of 600 meters, so what? There are a lot of other weapon systems that could achieve the same area of destruction in a matter of seconds or minutes. Things is, that the area is limited and controlled. There are no uncontrollable side effects in using a Daisy Cutter. That is why it is not consider to be a weapon of mass destruction by most objective sources.


"Bush-logic would be also fine for a strike against the US.
Thank god we only have one US and one G.W.B on this planet"

Again the United States is not in violation of 17 United Nations resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules. The United Nations has not launched illegal unprovoked invasions and attacks against four different countries in the past 20 years. The United States is not in violation of a ceacefire resolution.

 

[JOFO]

Exactly.

And I agree with U2girl's posts, too.

Angela

no, not exactly. my point still remains; in fact you've both proven it.
people are pissed that the u.s. decides where and when they're going to be involved in foreign affairs?

then if we were involved in EVERY affair, people would be pissed.
if we were involved in NONE, people would be pissed.
when we decide which to be involved, people are pissed.

sounds good to me.

 

[Dreadsox]

Dreadsox: what does it matter what I think? It matters what UN think, since they *should* decide what happens. And if there will be war - whoever goes in - there had better be a good re-build of Iraq later.

I think this can be done other way, and not by war. And especially not by using nuclear weapons. I also think Iraq might be more dangerous to its neighbour countries than US and that N. Korea is more dangerous than Iraq (because it definitely has nuclear abilities, and long range rockets, plus it has threatened regarding sanctions and any US attack). But that's just me.

As to your statement above, I pretty much agree with everything you have said above, other than, the nuclear weapons statement. I believe 100% the only thing that will prevent their use by Saddam, is his belief that we will respond with everything we are capable of if he uses them.

I have also made similar statements in the Korean thread. There is one major difference, N. Korea has not used WMD on other countries and its own citizens, and Iraq has. N. Korea has not invaded two other countries in the past 30 years. North Korea has not launched missles on three other countries in the past 30 years.

They have always come to the bargaining table and been able to work it out, unlike Iraq.

But you know what? You're right, it's no use talking anymore because we can't see eye to eye. If you have anything further on this PM me. [/B]

I did not say there was no use in discussing it. Many people have been reading these threads and are tired of the facts being repeated again and again. I can rehash all of the data....again and again, here in these threads. I question if you have read them since you are asking questions that have been debated in this thread and others.

All we are trying to say is that the "they might be dangerous, so let's strike first" pre-epmtive strike logic is a bit strange, and dangerous if other states will follow it, or the "inspectors didn't find any WMD, so that must mean that Iraq has them" logic.

In this case, it is hardly pre-emtive, when the man is violating a "Cease-Fire" agreement from a war that IRAQ started. I believe that over the past 30 years, ivading Iran, invading Kuwaitt, launcing missles into Israel a non-combatant, and using Chemical Weapons on its own citizens and Iran's kind of proves that Iraq is dangerous (Korea has not done this).

In 1998 when the inpectors were removed from the country, the materials were there. It is up to IRAQ to either produce the materials or prove what they did with the materials be it the place where they were destroyed, or some other proof of their destruction. But I digress. This has been argued again and again.

Allright, explain this: if US government is going in the right direction, how come there are anti-war demonstrations even in US (not to mention elsewhere in the world)?

Well, I think it is excellent. I have been very vocal about people's rights to express their opinions. It does not mean that they are right. As a matter of fact, I have seen protests like these just before the last Gulf War. I guess they were right 12 years ago? Amazing too, same slogans as well. I do however have tremendous respect and admiration for people who excercise their rights.

Imagine that terrorists would use a WMD in Europe or US, and than they would say that they were "pre-emptive striking".

I have and this is exactly why the UN needs to act in one way or another. As I have pointed out in the thread I started asking people to express other options besides war. However, if the UN continues on its present course, of allowing Saddam to continue trading on the black market ect.....well....something needs to be done.

I think it's interesting to know that the "live shield" action (of civilians going to Iraq) was initiated by an ex-marine who thought in the Gulf war.

Well, having been in a war who could blame him. I certainly did not like being taken away from my family 12 years ago. I did not like being put on alert for other reasons as well. It is not pleasant. I do have respect for him on one level. He has his opinions and convictions and is sticking to them.

 

[Dreadsox]

Exactly.

And I agree with U2girl's posts, too.

Angela

How about a nice comment for your friendly neighborhood Republican ?

 

[Dreadsox]

Dreadsox:

Imagine the 9/11 terrorists would have written letters to the workers or called them in the wtc - do you think the US people would love them for this?

Klaus

Klaus.......

#1 PLEASE DO not equate the Trade Center with combat between soldiers. I understand your point, but it is incredibly insulting to put the terrorists in the same group.

#2 I think that the United States drops leaflets to warn in advance is excellent. It prevents unncessary loss of life. I think, having been a soldier, and served in the military, it shows respect for the other side.

#3 I do not think, nor would I ecpect them to love me for this. AS a soldier, if I was given warning of their use, I would at least know that I had a chance to get the hell out of there and for that I would respect them.


Peace

 

[Klaus]

Hello Dreadsox ,

#1:
off course you can't compare Terror attacks like the 9/11 one with a war and i didn't want to compare that.
I was just looking for a example and i needed a attack versus the US. Since US wars have allways bin in foreign countries, (except civil war) it was the only thing that came to my mind.
Again: Terrorists are no Soldiers and a attack of terrorists is no war.

#2:
i thought they'd throw it for civilians or so called "collateral damage". If they do it for foreign soldiers i'm really surprised. Maybe sting2 can tell us why? I allways thought it was part of the job of the military to either kill or imprison their oponents?

#3:
you're right, i'd be glad for that information too and run into the next bunker.
Sounds to me like "old fashioned wars" like the "Red Baron" in Worldwar I - attacking with style.





STING2:

>"Bush-logic would be also fine for a strike against the US.
>Thank god we only have one US and one G.W.B on this
>planet"

let's quote the most important parts of:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,671522,00.html
again:

a)
"the FBI has broadened its definition of WMDs to say that "though typically associated with nuclear/radiological, chemical or biological agents, [they] may also take the form of explosives, such as in the bombing of the Alfred P Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City.""

b)
"Take the American "Daisy Cutter" bomb, which causes an explosion almost as impressive as that of a nuclear weapon. Television pictures of the US bombardment of Afghanistan last November showed a huge, red mushroom cloud with flames reaching 300 metres into the air - that was a Daisy Cutter doing its stuff near Kabul. It uses explosives similar to those in the bomb detonated in Oklahoma City, but is six times more powerful. Its blast flattens everything within 600 metres, which would seem very much like "mass destruction" in the middle of a city."

a+b the FBI would call "Daisy Cutters" WMDs

and:

"New York Times ran an editorial headlined "America as Nuclear Rogue" following a Pentagon planning paper that proposed pre-emptive US nuclear strikes against a list of non-nuclear powers. If any other country did that, it said, "Washington would rightly label that nation a dangerous rogue state"."

So just imagine there would be 2 G.W.B. in the world, both with the same sense for "we are good - let's bomb the evil ones"
i'm pretty sure G.W.B 2 would easily find the right words for America2 to justify a war with America1

And when i read today that some of the things Blair presented as justification why a war is neccessary was several years old and outdated i had to think imaginge this second G.W.B. would try to link the Bush family to the bin laden family and the support of Saddam - he could quote a lot.

nothing more, nothing less.
I never wanted to say that America or Bush are evil. I love the States, i was verry impressed by many things they did in history. Just the way they talk on TV makes me think "i'm glad there's only one G.W.B in this world" because i'm affraid they wouldn't like each other.

>Again the United States is not in violation of 17 United
>Nations resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules. The
>United Nations has not launched illegal unprovoked
>invasions and attacks against four different countries in the
>past 20 years. The United States is not in violation of a
>ceacefire resolution.

To make it short:
we tried this several times, we can quote paragraphs of laws and resolutions bud sadly - here's noone to decide who of us is right. Legal or illegal ? I guess we'd need a judge for international laws now ;-)

So i we still want the same thing, liberty and freedom for the people. I'm sure your prefered solution (war) will make the situation worse and you think the same about my solution.

Klaus

 

[Dreadsox]

Hello Dreadsox ,


#2:
i thought they'd throw it for civilians or so called "collateral damage". If they do it for foreign soldiers i'm really surprised. Maybe sting2 can tell us why? I allways thought it was part of the job of the military to either kill or imprison their oponents?

In Vietnam they were used to clear landing fields for the helocopters.

In Desert Storm it was attempted to use these to clear mine fields.

From USA TODAY:

"According to the official Defense Department report on the Gulf War, the entire staff of one Iraqi battalion surrendered after one of the bombs was dropped on a nearby minefield ? followed shortly thereafter by leaflets warning that the battalion would be hit next."


In Afghanistan, there are confliting reports about their use. The US military claims to have used two of these behind enemy lines for something. However, API reports that one was used on frontline positions. I recall they were using it to suck the air out of the cave system and force the hiding Al-Qaeda fighters out into the open. I have not found an article that says this but I remember reading it.

"Al-Qaeda defenses finally started to crumble on Monday, a day after US forces dropped their largest conventional bomb -- a 7.5-tonne (15,000-pound) "Daisy Cutter" -- on the caves."

http://www.inq7.net/wnw/2001/dec/13/wnw_2-1.htm

 

[Lilly]

this whole thing rather frightens me

But the Americans should care! At the very least it takes their free college education, their ability for one free car per year, and they have to pay for medical care!

Umm...free? There's nothing in the US that's free except the air.

Klaus: As far as a military person killing 100 people and getting awarded for it, I'd be a fool to agree. There is a difference between what happened to the military person who fought aimlessly during warfare and what the culture he comes home to thinks. Example, during WWI, Americans who were not soldiers kept the romantic ideals of war, their husbands, boyfriends, brothers were all going to defend America's honor blah blah, you've heard this all before.
But what is rarely spoken of, is what happened to the mental state of the men who did come home. Most of them suffered from post-traumatic stress syndrome before it was even known to be a disorder. Trench warfare grated on everything that was human in the men who fought WWI, and rarely were they eager to boldy kill 100 other soldiers.

Another point is that medals are not handed out for killing, but usually for saving. Example, winning the Purple Heart (one of, if not the highest honors in American Military) is most often awarded for risking your own life to save those of others (carrying your troops out of a bomb zone, securing a city, etc).



And as far as Americans not caring, I wouldn't go that far at all. This war is very much in the same vein as the Vietnam Conflict, the government is NOT listening to its constituents. There are a lot of Americans who are indifferent to whether we go to war or not, and an even greater number believe that the President is the leader and therefore should be followed ( ). The few Americans that have a loud enough voice to speak up are not getting enough of an audience to make any difference right now. It seems that no matter what happens (no support from U.N, divided support from Americans) the Bush Administration wants this war.

 

[Dreadsox]

Re: this whole thing rather frightens me

Example, during WWI, Americans who were not soldiers kept the romantic ideals of war, their husbands, boyfriends, brothers were all going to defend America's honor blah blah, you've heard this all before.

I know a few Great-Grandmothers who would like to go at you for this one! Many of my great-grandmothers' generation DID do a lot back home to help the war movement.

But what is rarely spoken of, is what happened to the mental state of the men who did come home. Most of them suffered from post-traumatic stress syndrome before it was even known to be a disorder.

My grandfather suffered from nightmares almost nightly until he passed away in 1993. He served in WWII and after the war was on details that cleaned up concentration camps.


It is good to see ya post! Where have you been?

]

 

[Lilly]

reading, but not posting.

I know a few Great-Grandmothers who would like to go at you for this one! Many of my great-grandmothers' generation DID do a lot back home to help the war movement.

Conserved gasoline? Remember the great sacrifices were mainly (and famously) made during WWII. Great-Grandmothers can get all the credit they deserve, but they still weren't the ones driving through the trenches, watching their friends die in horrific ways, and starving. That, to me, deserves a bit more commendation.

 

[Dreadsox]

Lilly: Nice to see you too Dreadsox

Dreadsox: Thank you Lilly.



I misread what you typed earlier. Sorry

 

[Lilly]

no, I wrote ambiguously, so all is well.

 

[Dreadsox]

 

[hiphop]

Re: this whole thing rather frightens me

Umm...free? There's nothing in the US that's free except the air.

And - wouldn?t you like some more things for free?

 

[U2girl]

One last thing: you can wrap it up all you want, but the fact is whoever strikes first in combat is the attacker, not the defending party.