An Unnecessary War? (Long)

[Panag]

Originally posted by Azazel
How about a mole in the inspection team itself?

hi ,

some regards considering that ;

there could be many , instead of one , ....

communications , are they secure

maybe there is a mole or two outside the team , .....

what about the cleaners of the clothes , offices , etc , .....

eavesdropping , etc , .....

have a nice day

[uh Clem]

Sandman, you're on to something. I think it's this guy:

[Sandman]

If the secret police raid Rumsfeld's home I'm sure they'll find prayer mats, copies of the Qu'ran and secret terrorist documents.

And if they don't find anything, that's just proof that he's hiding something.

I can't wait for the show trials to begin.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
The mole is in the US state department!

[old cynical bastard]
The US is secretly supplying the info to the Iraqis so that they will know where to clean up. Then the US can claim Iraq isn't complying. It's brialliant.
[/old cynical bastard]

[GePap]

Saw something very funny last night:

On Hardball Chris Matthews is tsalking to the chief editor of Human Events (a conservative paper) among other about the admin. stating that it weill not rule out the use of nukes v. Iraq if Iraq uses WMD against US forces, Chris questioned such a stance, and he asked the editor is the admin. does not believe the theory of deterrence works anymore, then what is the point of making the statement to try to deter Iraq from using WMD agaisnt out troops...

Watching the editor of Human events deal with that Oh sovery simple question was so much fun.

So the questiong oes out to all of yah who back the invasion:

If detering Iraq is impossible, then do you hold the probability of Iraq using WMD against our troops, or giving WMD to Terrorist after we invade to be a statistical certainty, or just extremely high, given that nothing could possibly deter Saddam the madman from using them?

[Ned]

GePap, I think he will give the order. I am 50-50 on whether it will be carried out given that Bush has promised to execute anyone who does - implying some kind of hero status for defying Saddam.

[GePap]

Bush promised to try those who carried attacks as war criminals, but under what authority would he? Create an international panel? US military authority? Nah, Saddam would most likely trust only the most loyal of his forces with such weapons, and also those he could most likely kill if they refused. After all, soldiers always follow orders....

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
Bush promised to try those who carried attacks as war criminals, but under what authority would he? Create an international panel? US military authority? Nah, Saddam would most likely trust only the most loyal of his forces with such weapons, and also those he could most likely kill if they refused. After all, soldiers always follow orders....

I know that if I am such a general, I carry out the WoMD attack because I know that if I do not, I am dead meat.

In other words, I fear Saddam much more than I fear Bush.

[korn469]

DinoDoc, et al., our policy in Europe was that an attack on Europe was an attack on the US. Our doctrine called for massive retailation - which probably meant progressive retaliation until the Soviets surrendered.

actually the first SIOP called for a massive nuclear responce to any attack. russia nukes Paris, then we nuke everything from Warsaw to Moscow to Beijing, if it's red it's dead

i think the article makes some intelligent points, and i think that containment can work, but maybe isn't the most optimal strategy to use

Che, again, let us stick to the facts. The article calls for US containment of Iraq in the ME. If he nukes Teheran, do we nuke Baghdad? That is the question on the table.

Ned to answer your question, i think that since Iraq is a dictatorship, we can deter iraq without threatening to destroy the nation, but instead threatening to destroy the leadership is the best way to deter them, and we can destroy the leadership through conventional means

in fact i think we could destroy half of the iraqi population with WoMD, and if it doesn't destroy the leadership it wouldn't deter iraq

i think a good question is which would better serve america's long term goals? deterence or disarmament

i honestly don't know which is the right answer

[sprucemoose3311]

tangents and stuff

sidenote: Iraq is officially a REPUBLIC, Source: Goode's World Atlas (it has everything)

other note: The Kurds in the North will never have their own political nation because Turkey hates Kurds and will war with any Kurd nation and their allies.

Iraq's current regime's main goal is to destroy Isreal (massacre, pillage, make all Jews non-existent). They are our allies, we cannot just abandon them.
What if France's main goal was to wipe out Germany? Most likely there would be a war involving most of Europe... again.

Extreme point of view: The EU is tired of being bullied by the Western agenda (US, Britain, Australia, etc.). If the EU had their way every nation of Africa and Asia (except Japan and South Korea) would be members. They want nothing more than the power to exert their agenda over us. They have been working on pacts with China and are attempting to reassert themselves in Africa (which is important 40 years down the road). The EU cares only for its best interest and will hate anything America does to improve its econmoic preformance or political power. Taking Iraq would mean economic power, marketshare, and a future potential ally. Oil is just an added bonus we would receive as a spoils of war. Our main gains would be made in economic power, political power, and the acquisition of a strategic point to place troops in.
For a good example of how the world treats the US, Iraq is now the chairman of the UN Cnnference on disarmerment.
To be fair we cannot blame just one President for their world agenda.

Oh, I am against the war, but if there will be war, let it be now. Biological weapons are most effective in the summertime...

[sprucemoose3311]

(edit)


"Iraq's current regime's main goal is to destroy Isreal (massacre, pillage, make all Jews non-existent). They are our allies, we cannot just abandon them."

they are our allies= Isreal

sorry for poor sentence structure

[RGBVideo]

Iraq's current regime's main goal is to destroy Isreal (massacre, pillage, make all Jews non-existent).

Rrrright.

[RGBVideo]

The EU cares only for its best interest and will hate anything America does to improve its econmoic preformance or political power.

Fear towards United States is rising on the every side of the globe, or so it seems.

[Az]

The EU is tired of being bullied by the Western agenda

[Ned]

Originally posted by korn469

Ned to answer your question, i think that since Iraq is a dictatorship, we can deter iraq without threatening to destroy the nation, but instead threatening to destroy the leadership is the best way to deter them, and we can destroy the leadership through conventional means

in fact i think we could destroy half of the Iraqi population with WoMD, and if it doesn't destroy the leadership it wouldn't deter Iraq

i think a good question is which would better serve america's long term goals? deterence or disarmament

i honestly don't know which is the right answer

I agree with this. But the assumption of the article is a version of MAD. The article assumes that our own (meaning UN?) threats to use WoMD against Iraq deter Saddam because he has been acting rationally.

I do not agree that he has been acting rationally – at least if he has all the information we think he has when he makes a decision. But, since he is a ruthless, murdering, torturing dictator, he may not be getting bad news or proper risk assessments.

If he absolutely knew that the use of nuclear weapons would bring a certain and immediate end to his regime, then he might be deterred.

But given the farce of the last 12 years, a rational man would not be deterred by UN threats of massive retaliation – particularly if the feckless Europeans had anything to do with the decision to retaliate.