Bush and Nukes?

Originally posted by Aries
What are these supposed "valid reasons" Saddam had for invading Kuwait. Kuwait was a breakaway Iraqi province? Kuwait was drilling Iraqi oil? those are bullshit. he invaded cause they had oil and he wanted it. the invasion was nothing more than a country-sized street mugging. and how did he get assurance that the US wouldn't react when we most definately DID react? if that's rational to you, fine. And he did go to war with the US. we told him to get out of Kuwait and he didn't, so we made him get out.
Click to expand...
Kuwait was drilling Iraqi oil. This isn't something the Iraqis made up - the Kuwaitis have admitted doing it. Kuwait was also exporting more than its OPEC quota of oil, thus keeping oil prices low (therefore, seriously cutting into Iraqi revenues). At the same time, Kuwait was insisting that Iraq fully repay the loans that it got from Kuwait during the Iran war. Naturally, Kuwait had every right to demand the repayment of these loans - but when it was simultaneously stealing Iraq's revenues, there was certainly ample cause for a dispute. I'm not saying Iraq was right to invade - what I am saying is that they did have their reasons.

The US, through their ambassador April Glaspie, told Saddam Hussein that they "have no opinion" on conflicts between Arab states. The only such conflict at the time was the Iraq-Kuwait dispute. The Iraqis, understandably, read this as meaning that the US would not react. Later, when US satellite photos started revealing a massive buildup of Iraqi forces on the Kuwait border, the US did not voice any protests. Ergo, the Iraqis were convinced, on August 2nd 1990, that there would be no reaction.

The US did indeed offer Iraq a chance to get out of Kuwait. Iraq's response was positive. They agreed to withdraw, provided certain conditions were met. These conditions were quite acceptable, really - mediation in the Iraq-Kuwait dispute, and an international conference on the Palestine issue. The US rejected these proposals and insisted for an unconditional withdrawal, which they knew Saddam Hussein could not accept without facing a revolution.

if that wasn't a war, i don't know what is. as for killing those who oppose him, do you really think that all those villages he has gassed opposed him?
Click to expand...
Errr... yes. See, that's exactly how he determined which villages to gas - he gassed the ones that were supporting the uprising. This wasn't a genocide - the estimate, if I recall correctly, was about 2,000 people. Needless to say, there's a lot more Kurds in Iraq than that. There is no similiarity in this to what Hitler did. If anything, Saddam Hussein's actions resemble those of Winston Churchill, who... attacked Kurdish civilians in Iraq with mustard gas in the 1930s. Fancy that, I guess Churchill was also a Hitler-in-disguise.

as for your thing about repression, i will assume you mean israel. as for them, i don't know what the fuck they think.
Click to expand...
Well, Israel is pretty much the only conflict you could be referring to when you talk about suicide bombers exploding in shopping malls...
As for the logic behind a strategy that doesn't work... indeed, if a strategy doesn't work, then there is no logic in pursuing it. The trick is, you have to know that it doesn't work. This is clearly a problem in the middle of a conflict, as both the Palestinians and Israelis continue to demonstrate.

The article that Phillip Tanaka posted supports my point very well - it starts by saying that there is no evidence of Saddam Hussein's involvement in the anthrax attacks or September 11th, but that Saddam Hussein is a very bad guy who won't hesitate to use WMDs, because he's... umm, because he's bad. Oh yeah, and because this time the US wants to kill him, so he'll want to take a lot of people down with him. Why? Because he's BAD, man!
 
There's just something I want to ask in reply to a comment made that basically said "damned if you do, damned if you don't, or rather more accurately "they bitch if action is taken, and they bitch when action is not taken." I'm not sure who said it, forgive me, I'm very tired and want to get this down before I go to bed and forget about it. Anyway, I want to know whether all of you think a right answer to Iraq, and the War on Terrorism, even exists.
 
Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
There's just something I want to ask in reply to a comment made that basically said "damned if you do, damned if you don't, or rather more accurately "they bitch if action is taken, and they bitch when action is not taken." I'm not sure who said it, forgive me, I'm very tired and want to get this down before I go to bed and forget about it. Anyway, I want to know whether all of you think a right answer to Iraq, and the War on Terrorism, even exists.
Click to expand...

Of course a right answer exists.
There's always at least one "right" answer. The REAL question is, does anyone know what that right answer is?
 
Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
Anyway, I want to know whether all of you think a right answer to Iraq, and the War on Terrorism, even exists.
Click to expand...
That would depend on the question. I mean, are you looking for the morally right answer, or simply the right solution to the problem, morality regardless? Either way, there probably is a right answer, but I don't think anybody will know it for a while, even if it's actually implemented. It's the sort of thing that historians will come up with in fifty years when they can look back on this objectively.
 
I wouldn't put much faith in historians looking objectively as a subject that is as hotly debated as this one. Anything historians say about this will be infected with the 20-10 vision of hindsight, no matter how objective they try to be. And also, their views would vary because of their own personal feelings on the subject. Take the debate about rather the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagisaki (sp?) was the "right" choice or not. That was over 57 yrs ago and the historians still argue over it.
 
Without the benifit of 20-20 hindsight, the possible scenarios are endless. Iraq is alone and they use weapons of mass destruction on people whose only crime is being from the West. Iraq is attacked and they use WMDs anyway. Those against terrorism don't attack and terrorism sees those who fight terror as weak (I dare say that every single member of this group does not want terror to happen, but for the benifit of the doubt I chose not to say us) and attack. Iraq is attacked and terrorism takes advantage of the war. There are so many varibles. So, I'll try and rephrase my question. Taking into account the consequences of such an action, let's say that you were Bush, or Blair, or Howard, or the leader of your country. After thinking over the consequences of fighting or not fighting, would you stand up to terrorism and\or attack Iraq? Or would you feel that any action on your part will make you a target, and millions of innocent lives of your country will be put at risk? I know that it is a decision that I would not be able to make.
 
fight. that's my personality. If you give into those SOBs, you admit that they win. And i don't like to lose.
It may be a damned if you do, damned if you don't, but I'd rather be damned for doing something than be damned for not doing something. A good solution applied right now is better than waiting a couple hours, minutes, day, whatever for the perfect solution to present itself, at which time that "perfect" solution might be too late.
 
Really? You wouldn't be concerned that, say, North Korea will use nuclear weapons against Australia, Britain and the U.S. if Iraq is attacked?
 
No. Because we would then wipe them off the face of the earth. And they know it.
 
North Korea doesn't care enough about Iraq to attack anyone else if it's taken out, why would they?
 
Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
Really? You wouldn't be concerned that, say, North Korea will use nuclear weapons against Australia, Britain and the U.S. if Iraq is attacked?
Click to expand...
Huh? Is there any reason to be concerned about such nonsense?

Edit: D'oh, TC beat me to it.
 
like TC said, N. Korea doesn't give a rat's ass about any country other than its own. we could nuke the whole world except them and they wouldn't care.
as for "to hell with the consequences", we have to fight the fights that need fighting, not just the fights we can win. interpret that how you will.
 
Believe me, there's nothing that I'd like to see more than for the countries allied against tyranny (without making this a debate on the British Empire or American Imperialism) and terrorism to disintegrate, annihilate, hop and pop, shoot and loot, maim, rape, pillage, slaughter, burn, kick ass and take names with impunity. Without recourse. But unfortunetly that will not happen. North Korea has promised death to America if they try to disarm them of their nuclear weapons. Jimar Islamier, the people behind the nightclub bombing in Bali, have promised to destroy Australia if they continue their war on terrorism. And I wouldn't even mention it if I was not concerned that the friction from forces both foreign and domestic (a new wave of terrorism has people making urban myths, like 'I heard there may be a terrorist attack in Washington tomorrow'. It's never true, but it's intended to cause distress) would tear the world apart. But on the other hand, inaction may be the undoing for those who fight. That's what I'm trying to work out, yeah? Personnaly, I tend to agree that I don't like war, I don't want war, but I will support it if war has to take place. Or...'Many have suffered terrible losses. But what is being done here, it is important. More important than anything. Perhaps any war is wrong, perhap the cost of life is too high. But perhaps there are wars that must be fought. And the fight against terror and the war against Iraq is one of them.' to paraphrase what someone once said.
 
Personally, i'd love to see N. Korea try to destroy America. I've always found Nuclear explosions beautiful, and a war with N. Korea would provide many of those beautiful sites, on N. Korean ground. and against a country with it's people behind it, no terrorist group could destroy that country. the only reason those bastards are saying that they will destroy (add whatever country you want here) is to try to scare the population of said country. they can hurt us, but they can never destroy us.
i understand what your thinking. I personally believe that action, even if it is the wrong kind, if infintely better than inaction. War is upon us, rather we risk it or not, to paraphrase on of my fav. movies of all time. if my country is to be destroyed (and i don't believe that will happen, but i say this my point), i'd rather the U.S. of A. go down fighting than go down doing nothing. i said this in a previous post but i will say it again: we have to fight the fights that need fighting, not just the ones we can win, and the war on terrorism is one of those fights that need fighting.
 
Originally posted by Aries
Personally, i'd love to see N. Korea try to destroy America. I've always found Nuclear explosions beautiful, and a war with N. Korea would provide many of those beautiful sites, on N. Korean ground.
Click to expand...

Would you, then, support the use of nuclear weapons on innocent people? I'm not talking about someone who isn't from a country that is directly or indirectly (ex: weapons stolen from America) involved in terrorism, I mean those who are not waving guns about or making threats. Would you advocate the use of nuclear weapons on those people?

Originally posted by Aries
the only reason those bastards are saying that they will destroy (add whatever country you want here) is to try to scare the population of said country. they can hurt us, but they can never destroy us.
Click to expand...

Which makes me think...why doesn't someone comfirm that whoever threatens these actions has the ability to carry them out? I would have thought it to be Standered Operating Procedure, and it may already have, but it would weed out the, pardon the language here, cunts who can and would follow through with their threats and cunts who are just trying to take advantage of a fearful, post Sept. 11 world.

Originally posted by Aries
i understand what your thinking. I personally believe that action, even if it is the wrong kind, if infintely better than inaction. War is upon us, rather we risk it or not, to paraphrase on of my fav. movies of all time. if my country is to be destroyed (and i don't believe that will happen, but i say this my point), i'd rather the U.S. of A. go down fighting than go down doing nothing.
Click to expand...

I agree. But I feel that their should be just cause. In the latest Bond movie I think, someone asks what makes America (or maybe it was Britain) think it can be the world's police force. I feel that it should be in the hands of the U.N, or maybe that Rainbow Six multicultual counter-terrorist group I mentioned before.

Originally posted by Aries
i said this in a previous post but i will say it again: we have to fight the fights that need fighting, not just the ones we can win, and the war on terrorism is one of those fights that need fighting.
Click to expand...

And as far as terrorism goes, it is a fight we must fight, and win. If Saddam was somehow responsible for Sept. 11 then they should go to war. The question is, was he? With North Korea, I suppose the threats they make could constitute as terrorism, as they cause terror on innocent people. The Jimar Islamier should be targeted first, I think.
 
why would we nuke them if they arn't waving guns and making threats? but to answer your question, no i would not support the use of nukes against innocent civilian populations. now, directly targeting civilians, even if they are in a country we are at war with, i wouldn't support. that is against everything i believe in, against US military policy, and, hell, its just plain mean. but if a legitimate military target is in a civilian population center and nukes are the best weapon availiable (i.e. the target warrents a nuke, and anything less would risk american lives), that's a different story. I would regret the civilian deaths, but in war, people die, and not just the soldiers, and, this will probably sound cold, but if killing a thousand civilians saves 1 US life AND gets the target killed, i say do it. now if there was a way that the target could be taken out without the civilian deaths, it better be done first. military targets not in civilian population centers, ya'll better watch out.
as for confirming if a terrorist organization can carry out its threat, the CIA ain't invincible. and there are laws that directly interfear with intelligence gathering (such as not hiring criminals to infiltrate organizations to get info, etc). i would think that it would be SOP, but you never know.
as for the US being the world police force, it is the job of the UN. its just that they can't do a damn thing that involves the use of military forces without us. that's why it looks like the US is the police force of the world. most countries send a brigade, if that, while the US sends a division. like in somilia, when the US marines pulled out, before we sent in the 10th mountain, the UN force was on the brink of panic.
if Saddam supported 9/11, we should kick his ass. if N. Korea makes war against the US or if Bush decides they are terrorists, we should kick their ass. i don't care who we hit first, just so long as we hit.
 
I see what you're saying, and I pretty much agree with it. About the only real thing to comment on is the idea kill thousands of them to save one of ours. It's not something that I entirely disagree with, but they are similar principles that terrorists base their acts on. Why did terrorists attack in Bali? In the hope to kill a few Australians. Why did terrorists try to strike in Israel and England? In the hopes that a few Americans would die. That's their motivation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top