nuke iraq till they bleed american

[Popmartijn]

Of course it is. Why else do we have another Bush in office, a recession-in-denial, another impending Gulf War, manic military spending, coupled with equally manic tax cuts, and an alternate terrorist-edition of the Cold War?

We're repeating the 1980s and early 1990s all over again.

Melon

So will this mean Bush will lose the next election to Clinton?

HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT!

C ya!

Marty

 

[nbcrusader]

Only to pave the way for Jeb Bush!!

 

[hiphop]

I get the feeling that some wouldn?t mind if the whole arabic region was eradicated, with spin offs for Turkey and Europe, as long as it serves their criminal leader.

Who cares? Its an old option. No big nuclear bombs, small ones. Oh, nevermind, its just a re-phrasing of old strategy. We have called up God to make a reservation! All VIP seats in the nuclear fireworks show are booked by America, so why worry?

Now lets make a poll: Would you like the usage of nuclear bombs? Please answer with a simple yes/ no.

When do you think the curtains will open?

Is it going to be a good show? Better than New Years Eve at Times Square? Better than Sept. 11th? What do you think? Do you like the new game called Washington Roulette?

Oh and final question: if Bush told you to jump out of the window because its about preemptive strikes in favor of national security, would you? Yes, you would.

 

[Scarletwine]

Until this current administration the US nuclear stockpile was reserved for retaliation or concurrent response to only nuclear attack. I'm sure the Pentagon ect. would have liked this to be on the table for decades, but our government seemed to have enough sense to hold them back.

Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, ect have leaped to a new level of idiocy and evil IMO. If they allow the use of "small" nuclear bombs they will have turned from the axis of evil to the trinity of the anti-Christ. I see visions of the left-behind series in their future. He comes under the guise of the righteous afterall.

That may be a little extreme, and I don't truly believe in that, but I really can think of no reason to submit Iraqi civilians to radiation nor our fragile planet and ecosystem. We have enough conventional weapons to handle his WMD. There is no proof that Sadaam has nukes, I thought Israel took out his reactor.

 

[Flag Pole Pear]

scarlet, your revelations reference is not something i havent thought about.

i believe the next world war will be the last one. and by all indications to everyone outside the united states, its being pushed by bush and his evil cabinet.

truly, i can say with a straight face that american foreign policy is the single most dangerous thing in the entire world. osama bin laden? not even maybe. saddam? are you TRYING to make me laugh? dubya? damn straight. theres a bastard that has me and nearly everyone outside the us scared straight.

nevertheless, the american public has the grand option of excercising their right to vote this freak out of office. they wont though. what does it matter? theres two parties. is that some sort of joke?

 

[Flag Pole Pear]

let me make myself clear about osama: hes perhaps the most evil man in the world, BUT he does not have the power that the us does to make as big of an impact.

i wanted to clarify.

 

[Scarletwine]

nevertheless, the american public has the grand option of excercising their right to vote this freak out of office. they wont though. what does it matter? theres two parties. is that some sort of joke?

I'm not so sure about it. Unless he turns the economy around, and his stimulus packages only stimulizes(?) his corporate $$$ supporters, he'll be one term like his daddy regardless of a war. A former Attorney General, although a little mad, is providing impeachment process to the justice department in a few weeks. Where it will be buried.

 

[ouizy]

I still love the Onion headline:

"Bush's stqance on North Korea, Attack Iraq."


brilliant











this world is shit

 

[Flag Pole Pear]

haha ouizy

 

[Scarletwine]

I still love the Onion headline:

"Bush's stqance on North Korea, Attack Iraq."

brilliant

this world is shit

Sure feels that way sometimes.

 

[Dreadsox]

I am sorry I responded to this thread.

I should have know from the title that those with opposing views would be labeled as criminals, warmongers, ect....

How silly of me.....

HipHop.....If the administration has any hint that there are WMD that are about to be used against ANYONE, I 100% support the use of any means necessary to save lives. Yes, I do. I expect it. For you to try and trivialize and make it seem like I find it to be one big fun show, is quite insulting and below you.

I do not understand how people are so fired up by an editorial on potential scenarios, yet, nobody speaks passionately about Saddam's recent use of WMD within the past 30 years and continued development of them. Where is the outrage about the abuses he has put on his people.


Bear.....I truly believe with all my heart, that we are looking at a one term president. The only problem is, I have not seen one credible candidate from the opposition.


PEACE

 

[DrTeeth]

I do not understand how people are so fired up by an editorial on potential scenarios, yet, nobody speaks passionately about Saddam's recent use of WMD within the past 30 years and continued development of them. Where is the outrage about the abuses he has put on his people.

I think we can assume everybody here is outraged by Saddam's use of WMD and treatment of the Iraqi people. That's why I, for one, don't want anybody who calls himself the leader of the free world to destabilize the region, bring on a potential nuclear war and kill innnocent civillians in the process in order to prevent destabilization of the region, a potential nuclear war and the killing of innocent civillians.

 

[hiphop]

Intersting.....So you are saying that he does not?

Where did they all go?

Where have they been then?

I?m not trying to insult you personally, Dreadsox. I just think that none of your honored leaders, the political and economic elite of the United States of America, has learned anything out of Sept. 11th.

How do you want to protect American lives man? By firing nukes on Saddam? By startring WW III? The contrary will be the upcoming affect. Can?t you get this into your head? Can?t you get into your head that there is a difference between attack and defense? Why can?t you understand that? please explain it to me, Dreadsox. I am confused. Can?t you understand that firing off nuclear weapons, preemptively, for whatever reason IS NOT defense?

No one on this message board truly knows if and what Saddam has. But, if his plan would be to eradicate the American East Coast with nukes, why didn?t he start until now? Does he wait for Bush, or what?

The steps that are discussed in this thread, the strategy, is not saving American lives. Its killing American lives.

In my very humble opinion, Sir Dreadsox.

 

[STING2]

Scartletwine,

"Until this current administration the US nuclear stockpile was reserved for retaliation or concurrent response to only nuclear attack."

Thats completely false! US policy has always reserved the option of using Nuclear Weapons at any moment and at any time we felt they were needed. It was US policy to defeat a Soviet Warsaw Pact invasion of Europe from 1945 to the early 1960s with the massive use of nuclear weapons. A first strike before the invasion had started was considered most likely. It was only after the early 1960s that the USA developed the policy of "Flexible Response". Although "Flexible Response" attempted to emphasize fighting a potential war in Europe with the Soviets with conventional weapons, it clearly stated that the USA reserved the option to use nuclear weapons in any senerio it felt necessary.

Folks,

The Bush Administration is simply restating a decades old policy. The USA certainly reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in any situation it feels necessary, just like every US President has done since 1945. But I don't see Nuclear Weapons being used in Iraq because there is no need. But its important to reserve the option in the event of the unpredictable.

 

[Flag Pole Pear]

sting2, i hardly care when this policy began, its still evil.

 

[JOFO]

I'd like everyone to consider this: while evil, saddam is not dumb. he may be hiding his WMD just to provocate the u.s. into attacking iraq, at which point iraq will strike back with WMD, in which turn the u.s. will use nuclear weapons, and then the whole world turns against the u.s., and .......

you can fill in the rest.

 

[hiphop]

You?re contradicting yourself STING2.

In the same paragraph you say
1) that the US is reserving the right... just like every prez since 1945, so you say no big deal.
2) its important to reserve the option...

why is it important if its no big deal?

Anyway, like I said, I think its only dogbarking. Maybe, so that then they can say: noooo, see we are NICE! We are only doing a conventonal conventionalists war!

Fuck the Pentagon with its dogbarking.

Its about time the average betrayed American consumer stands up for his rights. His human rights, his citizens rights, which don?t include to be roasted for the interests of the elite of this country.

Oops. And if got any nukes (which he doesn?t anyway) I guess he reserves this option in any scenario he feels its necessary.

Hope he?s not a madman, like Bush displays he is.

 

[hiphop]

I'd like everyone to consider this: while evil, saddam is not dumb. he may be hiding his WMD just to provocate the u.s. into attacking iraq, at which point iraq will strike back with WMD, in which turn the u.s. will use nuclear weapons, and then the whole world turns against the u.s., and .......

you can fill in the rest.

Nice wargames there, JOFO. Are you enjoying the show?

Hope I don?t insult you, I know I can be provocative. But are you from the Pentagon? If not how can you lay out such a scenario? Evidence, please. Its not about considerations. Considerations are no reason for a war. Umm, or maybe for the US they are.

 

[anitram]

Whenever I read something new from this administration, part of me believes we have got to liberate the American people from this lunacy.

I can't believe how flippant they are about the use of nuclear weapons. Like they're deciding on an entree - let's have a filet mignon, but a small one you see, we don't want our cholesterol raised too much. It's outrageous. There is such an arrogance and a flippancy from the people in charge, a total disregard for humanity. Shame on them.

 

[hiphop]

Whenever I read something new from this administration, part of me believes we have got to liberate the American people from this lunacy.

YES! YES! YES!

Organize! Get up! Do it!!!

Shame on them IS NOT ENOUGH.

Liberation is the right word, at the right time.

 

[Dreadsox]

I think we can assume everybody here is outraged by Saddam's use of WMD and treatment of the Iraqi people. That's why I, for one, don't want anybody who calls himself the leader of the free world to destabilize the region, bring on a potential nuclear war and kill innnocent civillians in the process in order to prevent destabilization of the region, a potential nuclear war and the killing of innocent civillians.

I am not in any way saying I want to hurt innocent people. I am saying that if Chemical/Biological/Nukes are used or if intelligence indicates that they are about to be used on US Troops or any other group of people in the world by Iraq, I believe that all options should be explored. If that means a nuclear strike, so be it. I am not trivializing it.

All of the reading I have done on this topic, indicates he still hase WMD. He was inches from using them last time. GIven that there will be no next time if steps are taken to remove him, I fully expect him to use what he has.

I actually think he will not waste them on US troops. Israel is a sure target. I have not read anywhere where people do not think that he has them.

Thank you for responding respectfully.

Peace

 

[STING2]

HIPHOP,

Read what I have to say more carefully. Its important that the USA reserve the option to use Nuclear weapons if it become necessary because of the deterent effect it has. When I said it was "not a big deal" that is in reference to the uproar people have about what they mistakenly believe is some new policy which it clearly is not. There is no contradiction.


"Its about time the average betrayed American consumer stands up for his rights. His human rights, his citizens rights, which don?t include to be roasted for the interests of the elite of this country."

Please explain to me how I have been betrayed?


"Oops. And if got any nukes (which he doesn?t anyway) I guess he reserves this option in any scenario he feels its necessary."

He certainly has with nearly every weapon system he has ever had already.

Bush is attempting to enforce international law, while Saddam has broken every international law there is in the process killing 1.7 million people, yet you consider Bush Evil and are uncertain about Saddam.



Antrium,

One wonders when the Europeans will awaken from their lunacy they have been in since 1914.

 

[meegannie]

I'd like everyone to consider this: while evil, saddam is not dumb. he may be hiding his WMD just to provocate the u.s. into attacking iraq, at which point iraq will strike back with WMD, in which turn the u.s. will use nuclear weapons, and then the whole world turns against the u.s., and .......

you can fill in the rest.

I agree with this scenario, but not Saddam. I don't think he wants to be attacked at all. I do, however, think it's an ideal scenario for terrorist groups who'd love to see Saddam go AND have more reason to hate the U.S.

Which is exactly why I think we're making a huge mistake here.

 

[Scarletwine]

HIPHOP,

When I said it was "not a big deal" that is in reference to the uproar people have about what they mistakenly believe is some new policy which it clearly is not. There is no contradiction.

I've been into politics for quite some time and read quite voraciously. This is the first I've heard major newpapers talking about "little" smart nuclear bombs" and their use against an enemy in a conventional war. I understand reserving the right to use our arsonal, but that is not what this post spoke of.

QUOTE]Originally posted by STING2
Antrium,

One wonders when the Europeans will awaken from their lunacy they have been in since 1914. [/B][/QUOTE]

Not very respectful STING2. I don't think the Europeans have it bad. Well could use some of thier social programs and sensibility about violence versus sex in society. But sorry that's off topic.

Dreadsox,

Don't be sorry you posted. I don't think you are thought of as a warmonger ect. You are very calm and introspective in your posts. I do think that book has got you sucked in. He may know more than some, but it is still slanted towards his opinions.

 

[Dreadsox]

Dreadsox,

Don't be sorry you posted. I don't think you are thought of as a warmonger ect. You are very calm and introspective in your posts. I do think that book has got you sucked in. He may know more than some, but it is still slanted towards his opinions.

LOL....sucked in eh??? I am 100% aware of the slant of the book.
I am 100% still in favor of working through the UN unless.....
Someone makes a better case than our President has.

My honest concern, is that we may very well be unable to make the case. I do not believe that any person in the administration or the military wishes to use Nuclear Weapons. So where does that leave me.

Hypothetically, I am earnestly hoping we have many teams of CIA and Special Forces hidden deep in Iraq. I hope that these people are working to get into places where they can eliminate any threat of WMD use. If these people are there, and they reveal too much to the UN tomorrow, they are in danger.

Maybe this sounds too James Bondish. But I hope they are there and I hope they get the job done early.

 

[JOFO]

Nice wargames there, JOFO. Are you enjoying the show?

Hope I don?t insult you, I know I can be provocative. But are you from the Pentagon? If not how can you lay out such a scenario? Evidence, please. Its not about considerations. Considerations are no reason for a war. Umm, or maybe for the US they are.

I can lay out the scenario by giving my opinion on what I think could happen in this situation. I don't have evidence of anything; I don't work at the pentagon. all I'm saying is:
1. if saddam uses WMD, the u.s. says it reserves the right to respond with nukes
2. if the u.s. responds with nukes, the rest of the world is going to turn against us. (not that they're with us anyway).

as I've said before, the u.s. should come forward with all it's evidence, let the world see it, and then proceed from there. if that means invading iraq to force the removal of saddam, it should be with full u.n. backing.

 

[Scarletwine]

LOL....sucked in eh???

Nah, I just know that when I read a book I think is brilliant, it takes a while to get centered again. LOL.

Hypothetically, I am earnestly hoping we have many teams of CIA and Special Forces hidden deep in Iraq. I hope that these people are working to get into places where they can eliminate any threat of WMD use. If these people are there, and they reveal too much to the UN tomorrow, they are in danger.

I do hope Powell can make a case to convince me and the UN if Bush is hell bent on war. And not James Bond at all. I mean, I hope we do have people in there for covert ops. But then why don't they have Sadaam eliminated if we have them in there? I mean an American President announced to the world that we have eliminated Terrorists in one way or another. What's one paid assasination?

 

[The Absent One]

Saddam Hussein does NOT have nuclear weapons. The 'dossier' on iraq claimned that he had been trying to get materials to make them but had failed. Even if he could get them it predicted that it would take 10 years to develop a nuclear weapon. So thats out of the window immediately.

As for chemical and biological weapons. We know he had them, we have evidence he may still have them. Thats not enough to warrant an invasion though, let alone use of nuclear weapons.

I dont think Saddam Hussein wants to start a world war. I think he wants to stay in power as long as possible. He wants weapons because, as milosevic recently claimed and is being proven in North Korea, the US is vastly less agressive if you have. Its defense against the expansionist western ideals of liberalism and corrupt democracy that drives people to weapons development. And before anyone says the west is not expansionist just look at the last 50 years of wars. They have all been in promotion of liberalism. The ideals of the west. The cold war may be over but the west is still fighting for every victory.

Saddam doesnt want a war, but terrorists around the world DO. It will make it far easier to drum up anti-american feeling and will provoke greater attacks, not fewer. No matter how much destruction, regime change and mass killing you submit the region to.

So here's the connundrum. 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.
It is clear that a war in iraq will do none of these. By attacking iraq, no matter how much damage and destruction we do it will only increase hatred of the west - and thus the threat of terrorist attacks. Even the 6000 people killed in the World Trade Centre attacks is small fry compared to the deaths in a prospective successful invasion and regime chance, and thus subjects a local population to attrocities, not liberation.

So how can war be justified? I have NO idea!

Finally, Nuclear war would set a precident for fighting terrorist worldwide. I have no doub that if western nations were subjected to as much terrorism as israel is that they would react as harshly as Sharon does but this would simply give him another weapon with which the palestinian people can be controlled.
And as has already been said, where does this stop.

No war is a good war. All war is wrong. But some are more ridiculous than others. And this is one of those.
Say NO to war and demonstrate on Saturday 15th Feb accross the world against bush and blair's 'power trip' war.

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

 

[anitram]

Antrium,

One wonders when the Europeans will awaken from their lunacy they have been in since 1914.

You got my name wrong, and I do not live in Europe either.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Woohoo, go, The Absent One!

Well said.

As for the discussion of nukes-I've heard some people out there say we should just nuke them right now. I've mentioned that that would pretty much be a murder/suicide on our part, because of the nuclear fallout and all that spreading around the world and eventually killing off everyone and everything...but they don't seem to get it-they think the nukes would only kill the people we aim them at, and the rest of the world would be fine.

That kind of ignorance...really frightens me...

Thank god people like them aren't running our country.

Angela