If WMD existed, evidence would be widespread

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

The military doesn't even control every weapon in it's arsenal, it's hardly up to them whether nukes get used or not.

Yeah, I know. Just following orders.

Scary but true.

Are you saying if battlefield nukes are developed as Bush and Co. propose (in violation of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and every disarmament treaty the US has ever signed) and they are actually used in combat the military wont be responsible for their use? In the event they are developed and used who would be firing these weapons, the Boy Scouts?

Nuclear weapons are not used until the civilian leadership of this country specifically directs their use. Neither tactical, which we no longer deploy, nor strategic.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

My apologies for the tailgating, BOBDN.

 

[UltraQuiet]

While your statement is true . . . and quite fortunate considering it saved the world from oblivion during the Cuban Missile Crisis . . . it does not address the primary problem. Let's take a hypothetical; if the US possessed a low-yield bunker buster do you think it would NOT have been used in Iraq?

Used on what? No, I don't think it would have been used.

With regards to the current debate about low-yield nukes . . . my understanding is that civilian leadership is driving the pursuit not the military brass. I am not sure which is worse . . . the chickenhawk's pursuit of palatable WMD or a military unwilling to reject chickenhawks who are eager to use them.

How does the military "reject" the civilian leadership?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Used on what? No, I don't think it would have been used.

UQ, do you really think we would drop 4 JDAMs on a house instead of a low-yield bunker busting nuke?

How does the military "reject" the civilian leadership?

Like you guys usually do it . . . leak to the media. In all seriousness, I wish someone would resign based on something other than Enron connections (Secretary White). I thought Powell (used to be a good soldier) would do it but he's either too much of a "yes, man" or is trying to save the country by fighting the evil Neocons from within. I will accept the latter . . . assuming he ends the WMD charade relatively soon.

What's his name, Gen Shenseki was skewered for saying it would take several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq. No one rallied to his defense but the military will apparently tolerate casualties in the field to allow the civilians to claim 100K or so troops will get the job done.

 

[Moonbeam]

How does the military "reject" the civilian leadership?
-------------------------------------
That's what I want to know. Certainly somebody ought to be very clear on what is and is not a legal order. It's not everybody who can say no especially in an armed organization that is powerfully trained to follow orders.

 

[Moonbeam]

Fighting the Neocons from within is all well and good, but can you imagine if he quit saying the anmin was a fraud with the intention to seek the Repub nomination himself to clean house?!

 

[Lucky]

Lucky, come on now. Do you think the US military has a single weapon in their arsenal they wouldn't use? They are considering developing "limited" thermo-nuclear battlefield weapons! Wake up my friend. They use Uranium 238 as shell casings for their armor penetrating weapons and bunker buster bombs. What wouldn't they use?

I honestly think you are missing my point. That's fine. My apologies for nit-picking your posts and not wanting to argue on the larger issues, but your statement on using chemical weapons just struck a nerve with me.

 

[UltraQuiet]

UQ, do you really think we would drop 4 JDAMs on a house instead of a low-yield bunker busting nuke?

Yes.

Like you guys usually do it . . . leak to the media. In all seriousness, I wish someone would resign based on something other than Enron connections (Secretary White). I thought Powell (used to be a good soldier) would do it but he's either too much of a "yes, man" or is trying to save the country by fighting the evil Neocons from within. I will accept the latter . . . assuming he ends the WMD charade relatively soon.

What's his name, Gen Shenseki was skewered for saying it would take several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq. No one rallied to his defense but the military will apparently tolerate casualties in the field to allow the civilians to claim 100K or so troops will get the job done.

I'll ignore your disparagement of Powell.

Rumsfeld has very few friends, in uniform, in the Pentagon. There were rumors, some I've heard from what I consider good sources, about very heated "discussions" between Franks and Rumsfeld about how many troops to deploy. Franks had a choice, resign or obey his civilian masters as have all senior military leaders (except McArthur) since this country was founded. You'll also notice that Franks is retiring this summer. Very few senior military officers resign in protest. They understand their place in the food chain and work within the system to keep it from getting too fscked up. Another example would be Clintons changing of the gay policy in the service. Many at the flag level were diametrically opposed to the change, including Powell. How many resigned?

One of the biggest transgressions you can make in the .mil is disagreeing with the boss in public. You do it in private or you are quite probably going to get your ass kicked. Literally and figuratively.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I'll ignore your disparagement of Powell.

All of your points are well taken . . . except this one. I do not think my comments are necessarily disparaging. Every administration has a certain number of "yes men" . . . the Bush administration just has more than its share, IMHO. I personally do not believe Secretary Powell is a yes man but I have trouble getting his square peg argument into the round hole otherwise known as US policy towards Iraq. I would like to believe he is honorably serving his country FIRST and then the President of the United States. When they come in conflict I expect him to make the right decisions. IMO, he's fighting the good fight in private but in public he gives the impression that all is well. The American public trusts and has more respect for him than any other member of this administration . . . why waste that power on something you don't believe in? And mark my words if something doesn't vindicate him (confirm administration claims) soon he will wind up with far more fleas than his neocon brethren.

 

[DZip]

How many people need to die before it can be said they were casualties of WMD? 10, 100, 1000, 10000,? To be classified as a WMD what is the value of mass? Saddam proved he had these weapons when he gassed the Kurds. He was required to destroy these weapons and show proof of that destruction as a condition of the cease fire agreement. He never showed proof of their destruction. Logic would tell us that they must still be somewhere. Maybe hidden in Iraq or even moved to Syria, Russia, or even Saudi Arabia. Only when someone uses these weapons will all the critics be happy

 

[nowareman]

Originally posted by: DZip
How many people need to die before it can be said they were casualties of WMD? 10, 100, 1000, 10000,? To be classified as a WMD what is the value of mass? Saddam proved he had these weapons when he gassed the Kurds. He was required to destroy these weapons and show proof of that destruction as a condition of the cease fire agreement. He never showed proof of their destruction. Logic would tell us that they must still be somewhere. Maybe hidden in Iraq or even moved to Syria, Russia, or even Saudi Arabia. Only when someone uses these weapons will all the critics be happy

The use of these weapons in the past is irrefutable. Their use or posession as a reason to go to war now is so far unproven.

If there are no WMD in Iraq the reason was invalid. The movement of WMD in the quantities the Bush administration claimed would be impossible to effect without detection. If the weapons were destroyed and the reason this war was waged was because proof was never proffered then I would suggest the inspections conducted by the UN prior to the war would have been the proper course to follow.

If the UN inspectors found WMD disarmament would have been justified. Without the WMD everything is just conjecture.

I sincerely hope no one ever uses WMD. I am sure no one, including the critics, would be happy to see that happen.

 

[LunarRay]

Folks seem to abhor Saddam's crew for using WMD to kill the Kurds... Why isn't just killing them the issue. If he used rocks or .45's or tanks or MOABs would that make it ok... ? Some would argue it was simply Civil War... like our own, I suppose and that would lose the issue into the abyss of 'we did it, so what'. I've seen this argument before on this forum. I just fail to see why the use of one weapon makes it more wrong versus a less wrong wrong.

I just don't understand the difference...

 

[Moonbeam]

How would it have sounded if we invaded Iraq becasue Saddam had a shotgun?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
How would it have sounded if we invaded Iraq becasue Saddam had a shotgun?

The truth never seems to have the unifying force of a lie. A shrug of the shoulder is all would have occured if shotguns were the issue. I see, I think. Like we don't go into Africa where lots are dying because its not in our National Security Scope and Iraq was. So in order to prosecute the issue we had to first justify the actions of Saddam as being a threat to our national security... WMD. Oh and btw.

Article 51


Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Will Blix be comming here?

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: BOBDN

The military doesn't even control every weapon in it's arsenal, it's hardly up to them whether nukes get used or not.

Yeah, I know. Just following orders.

Scary but true.

Are you saying if battlefield nukes are developed as Bush and Co. propose (in violation of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and every disarmament treaty the US has ever signed) and they are actually used in combat the military wont be responsible for their use? In the event they are developed and used who would be firing these weapons, the Boy Scouts?

Nuclear weapons are not used until the civilian leadership of this country specifically directs their use. Neither tactical, which we no longer deploy, nor strategic.

And it is the civilian leadership which is clamoring for low yield tactical nukes to be developed for use in battlefield situations. If they tell the military to use them they will.........ergo, "just following orders." Still pretty damn scary.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

UQ, do you really think we would drop 4 JDAMs on a house instead of a low-yield bunker busting nuke?

Yes.

Like you guys usually do it . . . leak to the media. In all seriousness, I wish someone would resign based on something other than Enron connections (Secretary White). I thought Powell (used to be a good soldier) would do it but he's either too much of a "yes, man" or is trying to save the country by fighting the evil Neocons from within. I will accept the latter . . . assuming he ends the WMD charade relatively soon.

What's his name, Gen Shenseki was skewered for saying it would take several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq. No one rallied to his defense but the military will apparently tolerate casualties in the field to allow the civilians to claim 100K or so troops will get the job done.

I'll ignore your disparagement of Powell.

Rumsfeld has very few friends, in uniform, in the Pentagon. There were rumors, some I've heard from what I consider good sources, about very heated "discussions" between Franks and Rumsfeld about how many troops to deploy. Franks had a choice, resign or obey his civilian masters as have all senior military leaders (except McArthur) since this country was founded. You'll also notice that Franks is retiring this summer. Very few senior military officers resign in protest. They understand their place in the food chain and work within the system to keep it from getting too fscked up. Another example would be Clintons changing of the gay policy in the service. Many at the flag level were diametrically opposed to the change, including Powell. How many resigned?

One of the biggest transgressions you can make in the .mil is disagreeing with the boss in public. You do it in private or you are quite probably going to get your ass kicked. Literally and figuratively.

I'd like to see Rumsfeld try to kick Tommy Franks' ass. My money is on General Franks.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: DZip
How many people need to die before it can be said they were casualties of WMD? 10, 100, 1000, 10000,? To be classified as a WMD what is the value of mass? Saddam proved he had these weapons when he gassed the Kurds. He was required to destroy these weapons and show proof of that destruction as a condition of the cease fire agreement. He never showed proof of their destruction. Logic would tell us that they must still be somewhere. Maybe hidden in Iraq or even moved to Syria, Russia, or even Saudi Arabia. Only when someone uses these weapons will all the critics be happy

Um, no, logic would not tell us that.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
How would it have sounded if we invaded Iraq becasue Saddam had a shotgun?

Moonbeam! Maybe that's it!

I saw that tired newsreel footage of Saddam firing that rifle about - oh - 10,000 times in the months leading up to the invasion. Yep, that must've been it!

And I thought the Republicans supported the NRA. I guess Saddam isn't a member. Or maybe he's late with his dues.

 

[Moonbeam]

Hehe, the shot of Saddam and the gun was exactly the picture I had in mind. It too saw it thousands of times.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Hehe, the shot of Saddam and the gun was exactly the picture I had in mind. It too saw it thousands of times.

The picture I had in mind was that Major (german) in the cement bunker at Omaha beach during the invasion as depicted in "the longest day" da da da daaaaah.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Bush following my advice
Asked whether American credibility is at stake, Bush pointed to the outcome of the war, not the search for weapons of mass destruction.

"The credibility of this country is based upon our strong desire to make the world more peaceful, and the world is now more peaceful after our decision," he said. Bush also insisted that al-Qaida had a presence in Baghdad.

"History will show, history and time will prove that the United States made the absolute right decision in freeing the people of Iraq from the clutches of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)," Bush said.

Bush stopped short of promising that banned weapons or evidence of their manufacture will be found.

 

[Tal]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Lucky

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Here's something interesting I came across. Keith Payne at the Pentagon. He thinks we can win a nuclear conflict with only 20 million casualties, "a level compatible with national survival and recovery."

Sick.


Link

Ok, I dont like to start calling names but you are a dumbass if you are seriously presenting the statements in a 1980 article while in the midst of Soviet cold war tensions as applicable to the current situation.

BTW Lucky, the grade school name calling that you don't like to start is a poor replacement for facts. If you don't think the 1980 aritcle is jermaine to the current situation read some of the other links. They are all interconnected.

Or you could take the time to find some info to refute mine - instead of the name calling.

Or, lacking any factual information, is that the only means you have of expressing yourself forcefully?

I'm not sure many of your sources are what I would consider quality much less coherant journalistic sources. UCLA? Prison something or other. C'mon. We can all do a google search can't we? Don't get too full of yourself. And no, I'm not a nazi. stop it.

 

[Tal]

Here's a link that supports that the US used DU tipped ammo. And it's from a conservative source. I'll take this one!

http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200303/PEN20030314b.shtml

 

[Tal]

Here's another from the BBC. Says hell yes we use Depleted Uranium. And we "kicked the crap out of them." hehe. That's kinda funny. And this article says that even within the WHO that there is a lot of uncertainty about whether or not this causes cancers or anything bad at all. Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to claim that it caused all the 3-toed wildabeast monkey rabbits......

BBC

 

[prometheusxls]

Originally posted by: HJD1
Folks seem to abhor Saddam's crew for using WMD to kill the Kurds... Why isn't just killing them the issue. If he used rocks or .45's or tanks or MOABs would that make it ok... ? Some would argue it was simply Civil War... like our own, I suppose and that would lose the issue into the abyss of 'we did it, so what'. I've seen this argument before on this forum. I just fail to see why the use of one weapon makes it more wrong versus a less wrong wrong.

I just don't understand the difference...

Well, I have to agree with you it makes little difference to a dead man if he was killed with rifle or poison gas or whatever. The reson the WMD are so dangerous is because it allows a small relatively poor country to serriously threaten a large country like the US. This is because WMD are cheap, effective, and easy to use in proportion to the ammount of damage they cause as compared to say conventional troops.