U.S. Ready for Pre-Emptive Strikes in Terror War

[faded glory]

Re: Preemptive strikes?

Originally posted by axi
That's called terrorism, you know. These 3 countries never threatened the United States. Yet you are continuously threatening them. If that's not terrorism, then what is?

Hypocrites!

Dont be stupid. If you really have somthing contribute, say it. But your statement is completely false and you know it.


You forget the gulf war? You forget the Barracks bombing in 83? . You also forget Iranian clerics who said they would attack the USA with nuclear weapons if they ever got the chane? You forget 9/11.....oh wait,...umm.


go away moron.

[chequita guevara]

In Iran, there is a struggle going on between the reactionaries and the conservatives. Right now, the reactionaries have the upper hand, and the conservatives (called moderates in our press) are walking on eggshells, slowly taking a little bit here and a little bit there, trying to bring Iran back to the community of nations. Attack them now and you will destroy the whole process and and had power back to the clerics for another generation.

BTW, the barracks in Lebanon were legitimate military targets. Hezbollah are guerillas, not terrorists.

A new Korean war would be a very bad thing. South Korea stands the most to lose, as its military is very nationalistic (Korean nationalists, not South Korean nationalists) and might turn on the Americans. I have been told be soldiers stationed in Korea that they were fully prepared to turn their weapons on the South Korean armed forces. I have also heard from Koreans who say that many of the people who are drafted into the South Korean Army are sympathetic to the North.

That leaves Iraq, and most of the Arab world has already said it will not accept an attack on Iraq. There is no evidence that Iraq has suported terrorism (I'm sure you'll bring up the faked story about the Iraqi assassins, but it was later admitted to have been a false story).

As for weapons of mass destruction . . . be real. Iraq had chemical and biological weapons in the Gulf War and it did not use them. Why? Because despite all the rhetoric, Hussein is not insane, and knows that using such weapons would result in massive (possibly nuclear) retaliation.

Faded, you think with your TV too much. Use your brain instead, sometime.

[Az]

Hussein is not insane

*cough* I feel that gasing the Kurds , and the Iranians can be considered a usage of unconventional weapons . He has already used them multiple times .

Saddam is bad . No doubt . But getting him out of there is a very tricky job, since he will launch all he can if he's threatened.

I won't cry when he's gone . I am sure you won't either , che.

Hezbollah: I consider them not less crazy than those ****ers in Algeria. These are the people I'd kill myself given the chance.... crazy bastards.

North Korea- errmm... nothing to say actually ( maybe you'll give them some food, and them look what they're, coz they're in bad shape. )

Iran: when will that regime die out? ( not change and open up to the west , ro something but decay and dissolve ) I hope sooner than later.

[Natan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
In Iran, there is a struggle going on between the reactionaries and the conservatives. Right now, the reactionaries have the upper hand, and the conservatives (called moderates in our press) are walking on eggshells, slowly taking a little bit here and a little bit there, trying to bring Iran back to the community of nations. Attack them now and you will destroy the whole process and and had power back to the clerics for another generation.

The issue here is whether the Conservatives can take control before the reactionaries get nuclear weapons. If not, I think we have to take military action.

BTW, the barracks in Lebanon were legitimate military targets. Hezbollah are guerillas, not terrorists.

No, they kidnapped a bunch of journalists and blew up a Jewish community center in Argentina. Still, they're better then most.

A new Korean war would be a very bad thing. South Korea stands the most to lose, as its military is very nationalistic (Korean nationalists, not South Korean nationalists) and might turn on the Americans. I have been told be soldiers stationed in Korea that they were fully prepared to turn their weapons on the South Korean armed forces. I have also heard from Koreans who say that many of the people who are drafted into the South Korean Army are sympathetic to the North.

Interesting. I don't think it's a good idea to go after the North as long as it keeps its WMDs to itself, and I think (though I easily could be wrong) that Bush only mentioned North Korea for one reason - it's a non-Islamic country.

That leaves Iraq, and most of the Arab world has already said it will not accept an attack on Iraq. There is no evidence that Iraq has suported terrorism (I'm sure you'll bring up the faked story about the Iraqi assassins, but it was later admitted to have been a false story).

Not clear which story you're talking about here. It seems Iraqi dissidents abroad have been assassinated, and Iraqi defectors claim that that there is a terrorist training camp in Salman Park north of Baghdad. Iraqi also supports the Mujahadeen Khalq in Iran.

As for weapons of mass destruction . . . be real. Iraq had chemical and biological weapons in the Gulf War and it did not use them. Why? Because despite all the rhetoric, Hussein is not insane, and knows that using such weapons would result in massive (possibly nuclear) retaliation.

The issue is, if he ever feels that he's going down, he will use those weapons. We do not want a madman and self-described Stalinist dictator to be able to threaten us (or anyone else) with nuclear weapons.

[WFHermans]

The only country that has ever used weapons of mass destruction is the USA. So I propose a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Washington.

The South will rise again!

[Thue]

Originally posted by Natan
I think (though I easily could be wrong) that Bush only mentioned North Korea for one reason - it's a non-Islamic country.

That theory does have an aura of plausability to it...

[Eli]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
BTW, the barracks in Lebanon were legitimate military targets. Hezbollah are guerillas, not terrorists.

What about Buenos-Aires? Also guerilla operation?

[General Ludd]

Whining about a country having NBC weapons really doesn't mean much to me when the country doing the whining has stockpiles of the weapons, themselves.


I don't want the USA, Russia, Britain, India, China, ect... threatening anyone with NBC weapons anymore then I want Iraq to.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Osweld
Whining about a country having NBC weapons really doesn't mean much to me when the country doing the whining has stockpiles of the weapons, themselves.


I don't want the USA, Russia, Britain, India, China, ect... threatening anyone with NBC weapons anymore then I want Iraq to.

Yes, but if you can prevent another country from getting them? Especially one so unstable as Iraq.

[Khan Singh]

I'm no fan of any of these countries. But you can't launch "pre-emptive" strikes against countries unless you have extremely good reason to think that are about to attack you---imminently. Under the UN Charter we have a right to legitimate self-defense. But we can't just attack whomever we think might attack us.

The fact that it is politically convenient to do so now is not a legitimate justification. We are signatories to the UN treaty and we must abide by it. There is a lot of weasel room in the phrase "legitimate self-defense". But not this much.

Of course, if we have evidence that Iran or Iraq helped in 9/11, we can retaliate at will. But we will have to produce such evidence.

[Eli]

What about a country whose leaders promise to commit genocide when they get nuclear weapons?

[Khan Singh]

Geocide is a crime against humanity. All nations are obligated to try to stop it. But saying "Israel must be destroyed" is not the same thing as saying you are going to commit genocide as soon as you get nuclear weapons.

[WFHermans]

What about a country whose leaders promise to commit genocide when they get nuclear weapons?

Israel is such a country. according to Torah they have to exterminate every non-jew in Israel.

So let's nuke BOTH Washington and Jerusalem and take out two terrorist nations that have weapons of mass destuction and have already used them.

[Gatekeeper]

Everyone:

What are the odds that Bush mentioned Iran simply to engender some intra-fighting there?

As Natan said, there is a struggle going on in Iran now between the conservatives and the clergy. Perhaps Bush was trying to sow a bit of "now's the time to make your choice" type of seed? For some reason, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if that were the case — and, perhaps, some sort of non-public support from Bush, et al., is going (or will be) to the Iranian conservatives (moderates in American parlance).

Haven't they been saying for years now that North Korea's communist government would collapse? Seems to be going strong to me, despite starvation among the people and crumbling infrastructure.

Iraq. Baghdad should have fallen to U.S. and Allied military forces in 1991. We had to stop because the mission was to eject Iraq from Kuwait, not to conquer Iraq and force Saddam Hussein out. I believe our Arab friends at the time were also instrumental in making sure Bush Sr. was aware of the mission parameters. The rest is history.

CYBERAmazon

[Natan]

Originally posted by WFHermans
Israel is such a country. according to Torah they have to exterminate every non-jew in Israel.

1) Modern Israel has never been committed to fulfiling Torah law.
2) The Torah actually says no such thing, instead it says "There shall be one law for the native and the stranger amongst you."
3) This is made even clearer in the other sources of the Jewish religion, such as the Talmud.
4) Where do you get these anti-semitic lies?

So let's nuke BOTH Washington and Jerusalem and take out two terrorist nations that have weapons of mass destuction and have already used them.

Wow, I guess that the Israeli use of weapons of mass destruction was covered up by the Zionist controlled media, so we can only read about it on jewwatch.org?