war in iraq Options

[technicolour]

Maybe they didn't have nukes, maybe they weren't ready. Or, maybe they shipped their WMDs to Syria, because they believed they could beat us the conventional way. Using WMDs has dire political consequences. Saddam wanted to beat and embarass the US. Using WMDs against us would mean that we were right. If their forces had beaten us, AND we failed to find WMDs, it does the following:

1) Allows Saddam to continue developing WMDs.
2) Demolishes US credibility
3) Encourages other countries to do the same

And no, we didn't rush into this. Bill Clinton dealt with the same exact thing years before.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/...s/clinton.iraq/

He believed they had WMDs. Are you going to call him a liar? He launched military strikes on Iraq. Are you going to say he put Americans in harm's way for an unjust cause?

How many times has Saddam kicked out UN weapons inspectors? How many times has Saddam tried to pull secret operations? Do you guys remember the Babylon Gun? Or more recently, does Oil for Food ring a bell?

We clearly did not rush into this, nor were our actions without just cause.

Amen.

[*mipadi*]

Actually we did in one small country known as part of the USSR land, well I guess you would not call it USSR due to the fact that the USSR denied them any relation with there country. I can't recall the exact name but we have a military base there, so when the USSR had it durring the "war" we "infiltrated" there boarders I guess. Odessa was in a small branch of the soviet union that did not want to be part of the soviet union, the soviets had used it from weapons trainings and such. So a British and US fleet took it over 2 years before the cold war and then the USSR declared it free from them before the cold war. That's not really invading there boarders, but after the USSR fell, it became part of Russia again. Plus we never invaded there boarders but we did invade there are space with plenty fire power to take out the whole continent of Asia. I did a paper on it in Middle School. I read it in a book name The Soviet Propaganda Machine. Martin Ebon. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1987
It shows that not only did the USSR have allies close to our home land, that if other countries possessed the need to bomb us that they could have neqs in Mexico or Cuba or maybee ever Canada. Our good old intelligence trys to take out the country itself, Well in this case of Iraq - they could be on other sides of the world. As for Iraq, I dought that they could have moved them in time, but it is possible. Very slim chance, considering that only one country around Iraq that would consider it.

Odessa was never a possession of the US or Britain, to my knowledge. It was a part of the Ukraine in the 1920's, which became part of the USSR. It was briefly occupied by the Germans in World War II, but liberated by the Soviets in 1994, who maintained possession until the Ukraine became an independent state following the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

I'm also doubtful that the US "did invade their [air] space with plenty of fire power to take out the whole continent of Asia." We had some incursions in their air space, namely a U-2 spy plane piloted by Gary Powers, but I don't think we ever sent bombers or other aircraft into Soviet airspace in numbers large enough to actually do any real damage.

In the specific case of nuclear weapons, there is no way Iraq was a direct threat to America. Iraq's missiles barely have the range and accuracy to hit targets in Israel. Now, granted, Iraq could've posed a threat to American interests, but the suggestion of a direct hit on America is ridiculous.

As for the suggestion of nukes in Mexico or Canada, I'm don't follow what allusion or point you are trying to make.

[medic]

I'm also doubtful that the US "did invade their [air] space with plenty of fire power to take out the whole continent of Asia." We had some incursions in their air space, namely a U-2 spy plane piloted by Gary Powers, but I don't think we ever sent bombers or other aircraft into Soviet airspace in numbers large enough to actually do any real damage.

There were multiple B52 units in the air over the Soviet Union. That's why part of the treaty was to destroy most of the B52 rudiments. They where broke into peaces and cut down the middle so when Russian satellites flew over it would look as if they all where out of commission.

Here is a photo of the B52 bone yard somewhere in Arizona I belive.

[sadolakced acid]

Now why did he not use neqs, they are hard to come upon, plus a country the size of Israel against the force of Iraq, it would not be needed. It would be a waist of needed bombs.

Now on with your quote, in any war there will be a lose of lives. Its expected to happen.

you said he had nukes, right? that he had WMDs and just moved them before the war?

and isreal has a very large military. why would it be a waste of needed bombs? isreal is america's ally. nuking them with one nuke would make the US not attack iraq. nuclear detterant thing.

There were multiple B52 units in the air over the Soviet Union. That's why part of the treaty was to destroy most of the B52 rudiments. They where broke into peaces and cut down the middle so when Russian satellites flew over it would look as if they all where out of commission.

Here is a photo of the B52 bone yard somewhere in Arizona I belive.

the B52s constantly flew nuclear warheads over canada, ready to fire them if nessissary. they didn't go over the soviet union. they were too big and too slow. they would have been shot down immediatly.

[medic]

the B52s constantly flew nuclear warheads over canada, ready to fire them if nessissary. they didn't go over the soviet union. they were too big and too slow. they would have been shot down immediatly.

and isreal has a very large military. why would it be a waste of needed bombs? isreal is america's ally. nuking them with one nuke would make the US not attack iraq. nuclear detterant thing.

I'm sorry but they did, during the cold war sadly they did. It was on the History Channel when they did a show about the B52 bombers. I mean unless the people from the military where lying, that's always possible. WoW, this website tells all about it http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-52_hist.htm

Sending a neq to a allied country would not do as much harm as if he invaded it and took it down with bruit force. It would show that he had no last resort but to send in a neq because he does not have the military back bone to invade and defend. In this case a nuclear bomb would be last resort.

[*kryogenix*]

you said he had nukes, right?  that he had WMDs and just moved them before the war?

and isreal has a very large military.  why would it be a waste of needed bombs?  isreal is america's ally.  nuking them with one nuke would make the US not attack iraq.  nuclear detterant thing.
the B52s constantly flew nuclear warheads over canada, ready to fire them if nessissary.  they didn't go over the soviet union.  they were too big and too slow.  they would have been shot down immediatly.

They do not have a very large military. As of 2005, the IISS gave an estimate of 125,000 ground troops. However, Israel has a very high quality military. They spend something like 20% of their budget on the military. And their airforce is one of the best in the world. And it's widely believed Israel has nuclear weapons as well. If Iraq were to nuke Israel, Iraq would no longer exist.

The B-52 is a strategic bomber, so if it indeed was used to bomb Russia, it would be used in large numbers with a large number of expected casualties.

[Mulder]

no. its not america's place to go deal with matters across the world. especially without the UN's approval. I might be more accepting had we gone with other countries, without America controlling the situation in Iraq. THe military is supposed to protect America, not necessarily anywhere else, especially if they adamantly say that they don't want us there!

[technicolour]

So you're saying that we would have to have the UN's approval just to go to the bathroom?

Not ALL iraqi's say they want us out.

[*kryogenix*]

no.  its not america's place to go deal with matters across the world. especially without the UN's approval. I might be more accepting had we gone with other countries, without America controlling the situation in Iraq. THe military is supposed to protect America, not necessarily anywhere else, especially if they adamantly say that they don't want us there!

Look up coalition of the willing. Several countries have pledged support for the Iraq war.

[Mulder]

So you're saying that we would have to have the UN's approval just to go to the bathroom?

no....

i said its not our place to go into other countries and try to rebuild their way of life.

[*kryogenix*]

no....

i said its not our place to go into other countries and try to rebuild their way of life.

even though intelligence says that they threaten ourselves and our allies?

[Mulder]

everyone is entitled to their own opinion. america does have some threats. osama bin laden. have we caught him yet? no. because we've concentrated on Saddam Hussein. After 9/11, America needed someone to blame. Saddam Hussein, even though hes an awful person, had nothing to do with 9/11 or the possession and distribution of WMD's. and thats what the whole basis of the war was. whether or not iraq may have been a future threat to america was not the reason we went there.

[technicolour]

everyone is entitled to their own opinion. america does have some threats. osama bin laden. have we caught him yet? no. because we've concentrated on Saddam Hussein. After 9/11, America needed someone to blame. Saddam Hussein, even though hes an awful person, had nothing to do with 9/11 or the possession and distribution of WMD's. and thats what the whole basis of the war was. whether or not iraq may have been a future threat to america was not the reason we went there.

Damn right i'm entitled to my own opinion. 9/11 was something that we HAD to find out WHO DID IT. If someone killed tons of our fellow countrymen I would want to know who. And they would have to pay.


WE WENT THERE BECAUSE THEY WERE A THREAT TO US! THE BASIS OF THE WAR WAS ABOUT THE WMD'S. Get your facts straight.

[*CrackedRearView*]

no.  its not america's place to go deal with matters across the world. especially without the UN's approval. I might be more accepting had we gone with other countries, without America controlling the situation in Iraq. THe military is supposed to protect America, not necessarily anywhere else, especially if they adamantly say that they don't want us there!

The UN is a big, fat pile of corruption, and we should never wait for its approval.

Never.

[*mipadi*]

Look up coalition of the willing. Several countries have pledged support for the Iraq war.

You forgot Poland!

[Spirited Away]

no.  its not america's place to go deal with matters across the world. especially without the UN's approval. I might be more accepting had we gone with other countries, without America controlling the situation in Iraq. THe military is supposed to protect America, not necessarily anywhere else, especially if they adamantly say that they don't want us there!

I really hate to tell you this, but please read the thread. Your comment has already been said and debated. I guess if you really want to, you'd refute those who debated against your comment, but that means you would have to read the thread.

[ryfitaDF]

my signature on the petition to impeach bush, and my plans to take part in the sept. 28th march on washington D.C. for the same reason signify that i'm opposed to the war.

i know war is justified somtimes (like if we were to do it with a country that were actually a threat like N. korea), but iraq does not qualify as such a war. i don't feel safer with saddam out of power. i feel more indangered that this war will only inspire more terrorists to attack within the borders of the country.

even though intelligence says that they threaten ourselves and our allies?

intellegence now known to be false. i don't know about you or the president, but when i make a mistake, i clean it up and kiss ass so whoever is effected by the mistake doesn't, say, bomb my twin towers.

The UN is a big, fat pile of corruption, and we should never wait for its approval

said the optspoken conservative. hehehe

[*CrackedRearView*]

said the optspoken conservative. hehehe

Normally I'd take offense to such an ignorant comment, but it's just that -- ignorant.

You seem to be one of those morons that lumps conservatives into one big group and uses the fact that they're conservative against anything they might have to say.

The correct thing to do would be to ask for reasons why I feel the UN is useless, because believe me, I would have bombarded you.

Way to be open minded, pal. And here I thought that's what your political party fought for: open-mindedness.

I'm starting to dislike this forum more, and more everyday.

[sammi rules you]

:[ no no no, you like it, tres beaucoup !

[Mulder]

Damn right i'm entitled to my own opinion. 9/11 was something that we HAD to find out WHO DID IT. If someone killed tons of our fellow countrymen I would want to know who. And they would have to pay.
WE WENT THERE BECAUSE THEY WERE A THREAT TO US! THE BASIS OF THE WAR WAS ABOUT THE WMD'S. Get your facts straight.

i did say that it was basis of the war. at least we agree on something. but enough from me.

[sadolakced acid]

one thing undeniable is that in the begining of the war the bush administration adamently claimed that saddam was restarting his chemical and nuclear programs and that was the reason for the war. And, later, they changed the reason for the war to the fact that saddam was a ruthless dictator who needed to be toppled.

[*mipadi*]

And then somewhere in there they changed the reason to Saddam Hussein's alleged (but incorrect) link to al-Quaida and 9/11.

[sadolakced acid]

which means the original reason was wrong, and they knew it then, so they came up with a new reason.

the motives, i can guess at.