bsd- Do you mind telling us what your position in MAD is? And, if you believe in it, why we should abandon it in the case of Iraq?
im a firm adherent of madness as many atoters would confirm.
i say take hussein out, secure the oil, screw the frogs and soviets, that fvking putin needs being tought who is the boss man, carve the oil and restructuring, privatisations, building, oil services, and 'new model army' between british and USA mainly, and give the iraqies a state, and the kurds self rule, to screw the turks who are idiots and bullies.
MAD worked between two large nation states. It will not work in this situation.
1) We can assume that the Soviet leaders cared about their people. Saddam has proven that he doesn't. Saddam has very deep underground bunkers, he would survive.
2) The time that MAD worked the best was when it took an ICBM to deliver a nuclear device and or it would be apparent which country attacked. Now a nuke could be smuggeled into NYC and exploded. How would the US know who to retaliate against?
3) If Saddam could secretly prove to the US administration that it was nuclear capable and then state that he had nukes hidden in five large US cities what could the US do? Saddam would be free to invade Kuwait and many people on here would still be chanting "show me the proof".
Mad worked under a special set of circumstances, those circumstances have changed.
1) We can assume that the Soviet leaders cared about their people. Saddam has proven that he doesn't. Saddam has very deep underground bunkers, he would survive.
2) The time that MAD worked the best was when it took an ICBM to deliver a nuclear device and or it would be apparent which country attacked. Now a nuke could be smuggeled into NYC and exploded. How would the US know who to retaliate against?
3) If Saddam could secretly prove to the US administration that it was nuclear capable and then state that he had nukes hidden in five large US cities what could the US do? Saddam would be free to invade Kuwait and many people on here would still be chanting "show me the proof".
Mad worked under a special set of circumstances, those circumstances have changed.
bsd - <<yeah but you can say pointless things, and ill stick to reality, geddit?>>
<<thats like taunting an armed robber because you dont know if he has bullets in it.>>
Oh crap, I'm been suckered into a round of mudslinging. :disgust: Have a good night.
<<thats like taunting an armed robber because you dont know if he has bullets in it.>>
Oh crap, I'm been suckered into a round of mudslinging. :disgust: Have a good night.
Yeah, those Soviets were nice, caring people. They cared so much that they sent millions of their own to Siberia to die, more perhaps than were killed by the Nazis. I think that love for ones people does not affect the effectiveness of MAD.
Saddam might survive, but his palaces would be gone, his army would be gone, and, most importantly, he would no longer be able to project power over anything but a radioactive wasteland.
That's a problem, but I think our intelligence agencies would be able to figure out how it got into the country. Our retaliation would just come a month later instead of a few hours later. Besides, we all have heard of the infamous Soviet brief case nukes, yet we didn't immediately start WWIII to take care of a problem.
That's a potential problem, but I think a far more likely scenario is once we have his back to the wall, he uses his weapons on Israel, putting them in a tough position. Strike back, and risk causing WWIII (we all know how the world would react if Israel launched a retaliatory chemical/nuclear attack), or sit back and be Saddam's bitch. Quite frankly, I can't see doing the latter. Another possible outcome would be if Saddam gave his weapons to al-Quada. If he was about to fall, what would hold him back from doing this? Right now, al-Quada and Iraq don't have the strongest of ties, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Just look at the Iraq-Iran war for a clear example.
I agree, the conditions have changed, but the basic policy remains solid. I'd rather force Saddam to make the first move rather than do it ourselves and give him no choice. It is nice for once to have a conversation on here that doesn't devolve into simple name calling and insults.
The major problem I see with letting Saddam have the first move is wondering how many people would die in the blast. This is a completely different culture we are talking about. Making assumptions based on what we would do does not always apply.
The lure of being acknowledged as the next Saladin is still strong in many of the Arab leaders.
Jane Meyer: Saddam On the Couch - Hussein, Psychoanalyzed
An Iraqi Man of Letters
See, I don't think he will make the first move. He has too much to lose by doing so. If we take away his incentive not to strike though, that is when I believe he would be most likely to strike. I just think he is far too intelligent to do anything that would weaken his grip on power. He's made too many enemies over the years to simply give up his weapons, but to use them would be suicide.
anyway if he strikes first there will have to be a conventional retaliation, even for the israelies, since he is a dictator his government has nothing to do with the people, so a counter nuclear strike would be genocide,a nd would lead to a prosecution for genocide etc...
also we need to keep testing our weapons systems, this is a good opportunity, plinking republican guards.
in history he will be written off as a great leader, despot, mentally flawed and sufferig an inferiority complex since childhhod, the sourge of his own people, who hate him, and only a semi useful and relevant hep to the palesinians, who mainly entertained them only when it suited his own image creation and self preservatory instincts. btw hussein was born in Tikrit village, as was Saladin, who was actually a Kurd, and Saladin was peaceful until he fought, and he never really lost, where as Hussein has ever won, and is always violent, what a loser, his head will be on a stick by march at latest.
Originally posted by: Talon02
a.k.a. We are scraing the sh1t outta him
Scares the sh*t out of most countires.
Dang president bush...he doesn't release any evidence that Saddam has WMD...oh wait, they have books written by people who were asscociated with the SPECOM UN team that got kicked out on amazon that recount the many ways Iraq has tried to hide its WMD program......hmm, whats this? UN team found mustard gas shells the other day...hmm,.....hmm, dont let the clue hit you people...Saddam has weapons of mass destruction if you care to analyze the information avaliable. I hardly think the feds need to compromise CIA and NSA sources just to pleasr those who are too lazy to look up info for themselves.
link to story on mustard gas...dont even try to say it is not a wmd...maybe is it not techically, but it was the most disgusting weapon used in conventional warfare up to now
link to story on mustard gas...dont even try to say it is not a wmd...maybe is it not techically, but it was the most disgusting weapon used in conventional warfare up to now
You mean 3rd world? I recall that most countries, including Iraq, expressed sympathy. Now, most citizens in first world coutries believe that the US isn't entirely innocent in creating the conditions which lead to 9/11. Russia seems to lead that list for non-Muslim countries.
Meanwhile, Russia looks around innocently and says 'What warcrimes in Chechnya?' and wonder why those mean Chechens are storming thier theatres.
Russia is near dead last on the list of countries who should be pointing thier fingers at the US for improper use of force.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Anyone want to put money on this scenario?
The Administration examines the document, and then states it does not match it's own intelligence. Since they do not dovetail 100% there is justification for attack.
Hard to say if an attack will happen based on this alone, but I bet this pony is brought out to trot in any case.
The Administration examines the document, and then states it does not match it's own intelligence. Since they do not dovetail 100% there is justification for attack.
Hard to say if an attack will happen based on this alone, but I bet this pony is brought out to trot in any case.
1. If it doesn't match, the US will attack
2. If it admits to anything, the US will attack
3. If it admits to nothing, the US will attack
4. If it offers complete and total surrender, the US will attack
The US will attack. Period.
Gaard quote:
Ok, so they came to the same conclusion seperately? Right? Look, I'm not in a position to speak for anyone else, but because I voice concerns over this thing doesn't mean that I'm on SH's side. If you (and others) are fine with your country going to war over reasons like "Trust me" or "We have evidence, we just can't say what it is" that's cool with me. I would hope that you would extend me the same courtesy. I've been called everything from a treehugger to a pacifist to a sympathiser. The fact is, I'm just as against SH having WMD as you are. The fact is, if he does have them I'm all for going in and throwing down the hammer. But another fact that a lot of people on this board don't seem to realize is that if one has questions regarding whether or not our government is being truthful with us, if one has questions regarding motives for sending in troops, if one doesn't agree with you on what constitutes evidence, or for what reasons a war is warranted....it doesn't mean that person is any less of an American. It doesn't mean that person is on the side of the other country.If, at some point in the future, the rockhard evidence that our president says he has is revealed, I say go in. Do you understand my concerns?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I understand your concerns. I find them very intelligent and intelligently expressed.
Ok, so they came to the same conclusion seperately? Right? Look, I'm not in a position to speak for anyone else, but because I voice concerns over this thing doesn't mean that I'm on SH's side. If you (and others) are fine with your country going to war over reasons like "Trust me" or "We have evidence, we just can't say what it is" that's cool with me. I would hope that you would extend me the same courtesy. I've been called everything from a treehugger to a pacifist to a sympathiser. The fact is, I'm just as against SH having WMD as you are. The fact is, if he does have them I'm all for going in and throwing down the hammer. But another fact that a lot of people on this board don't seem to realize is that if one has questions regarding whether or not our government is being truthful with us, if one has questions regarding motives for sending in troops, if one doesn't agree with you on what constitutes evidence, or for what reasons a war is warranted....it doesn't mean that person is any less of an American. It doesn't mean that person is on the side of the other country.If, at some point in the future, the rockhard evidence that our president says he has is revealed, I say go in. Do you understand my concerns?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I understand your concerns. I find them very intelligent and intelligently expressed.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter