• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Poll: Do you think we should nuke Iraq?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
yes I do, but whatever I say about not dropping a bomb and having an invasion instead happens to get thrown to the side so I'm just going to stick to the bomb idea because no one listens.
 
I SAY KILLING THEM!
Don't use Nuclear weapon though, use PROTON BOMB Instead.. LOW radiation! and HIGH KILL RATES!! Doesn't DESTROY buildings! Kills ENEMIES TROOPS!!!..
 
"Clinotus, what's your point? why do we need to have military bases in any part of the eastern hemisphere...? we're in the western hemisphere."

To have military bases is an essential portion of US's foreign policy, to be able to react to world-wide disasters as soon as possible.

"Because we have the technology to kick some @ss in war, that means we should use it to protect other countries? Why can't we be a neutral country? Switzerland I has proven to be a very neutral country, they managed to stay out of WWII. Why can't we be like them?"

Which brings us to the second point, why do we interfere with other nation's actions?

Bad examples of foreign intervention in the past:
1) Vietnam
2) Bosnia

But can we really not intervene based upon just those 2 events? "Don't toss out the baby with the bathwater" as they say . . .

Why should we intervene? In a sense, because of our moral standings. Can you sit idlely aside as your neighbor beats up his wife? Can you sit there and watch as one of your neighbor another kills another? It's the guilt trip, and the belief that we can help towards the better. That is why we interfere. Sure, sometimes US interferes partially for selfish goals (establishing military bases, boosting public image, gaining some political power in other countries) but in the end if they did not have a beneficial reason the countries would not allow America to interfere in the first place.

Secondly, I don't know what era you're from, but isolationism doesn't work. As the Japanese and Chinese have tried in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, isolationism leads to the country falling behind in standard technology.

The result is either all the other countries cooperate as they do today, and excel past America. Else, warfare between foreign countries will lead to slow destruction of civilization. Also, US has many important alliances and if one of them enters a war, US is also forced to enter a war. Whether you like it or not, I think it's easier to stomp out 20 small fires than to try to put out one big fire.

Please stop whining without reason. If you do attempt to counter-argue, please base it with at least a bit of reason and judgement besides using absolute statements without elaboration.
 
I'd like to assure all those outside the US that the majority of us have higher thinking capacities than this kid.

So whats wrong with sitting? Should we invade cuba too since we dont like castro?
 
Hpkeeper:

This is a rolling arguement, each point into the next:

Did you know that, Iraq really consists of three nations. A Kurdish Nation in the north, a Sunni Arab Nation in the center, and a Shia Arab Nation in the south.

There are three different peoples living the the Iraq State. Most of them Arab.

Iraq's 18 million people have been struggling under UN-sanctions ever since President Sadam Hussein's decision to invade Kuwait on 2 Aug 1990. Did you know that more than half the population had to survive on government rations, which provide only half of minimum calorific requirements.

This means the the people are already suffering due to the impositions and trade embargos that we have forced upon them as a people in order to isolate their leader.

Did you know that the ruling group belongs to the Sunni minority, whereas the majority in Iraq are Shiite moslems?

The unification of the Iraqies is hugely overplayed by the Western media. The sanctions and embargos are already taking their toll on these people. This is already a nation divided. This ties to my next point.

Did you consider Ancientpc's very valid point: BTW, having a central enemy allows the US to establish military bases in certain neighboring countries which furthermore lowers US's worldwide reaction time. If Saddam were to be overthrown and no threat was imminent, the US military bases would promptly get kicked out theses countries

Would you seriously unite the entire not Arab but Muslim community with such an act? We would suddenly be no longer welcome in the middle east or on any world council for attacking a country without provication. The region would become united with anger at the Americans. And we are now, thanks to your suggestion, World terrorists. Lets talk about the instant regional destablization((got a car? Use oil?)). Or on the other side of the equation the Arab nations, now united, buy nukes which are on sale from the former ussr to avenge the deaths of millions of innocents.

Here you go:
Clinotus, what's your point? why do we need to have military bases in any part of the eastern hemisphere...? we're in the western hemisphere. Because we have the technology to kick some @ss in war, that means we should use it to protect other countries? Why can't we be a neutral country? Switzerland I has proven to be a very neutral country, they managed to stay out of WWII. Why can't we be like them?

Did you also know that Switzerland has one of the world's best trained militias?
Did you know Switzerland exports arms - Switzerland Arms Trade Biblography
Swiss Neutral? Read about the support to Germany in WWII in this link Link

Go Read a Book.
 
"What business do we have in Middle East affairs?"

If we don't have any business in the Middle East then we need to stop giving Isreal $2.7 billion a year. Israel is one of the biggest destabilizing elements in the Middle East and we are their #1 benefactor so you do the math. Most anti-American sentiments wouldn't even exist if we didn't keep Israel afloat.

Hussein is another destabilizing element in the Middle East and eventually he will need to be dealt with. He should have been removed in 1990 but the whinny liberals wanted to stop the ground war because we we obliterating the Iraqis. Well look where this kind of thinking gets you...we are still dealing with this bastard. The only true solution to a problem like Hussein is his death. If the Allies would have stopped WWII when it was apparent that Germany had lost, and left the Nazi government and Hitler in power where would the world be today? If we are too liberal in our thinking and policies we almost guarrantee that history (bad history) repeats itself.

I don't agree with using nuclear weapons in any instance, except the ones we dropped on Japan...but that's a different topic. Iraq does need to be dealt with but conventional means are more than sufficient. If Iraq ever uses weapons of mass destruction on a population then you can thank all the liberals who are afraid to truly exterminate a threat. Hopefully our new administration will find a way to hand Hussein his walking papers without too much bloodshed or worldwide dissent.
 

Its interesting to see that although almost all the people who have responded to this thread have said its a bad idea, about 1/4 of the people in the poll have voted "yes". That's a frightening thing, if the all the votes were serious.

 
<< But I do think the US was justified in WWII. >>

I have to disagree with this statement. The only &quot;justification&quot; I know for nuking Japan was that Americans underestimated the destruction of nuclear weapons. There are documents and evidence (not Japanese, btw) showing the Pearl Harbour attack could have been a conspiracy. Any ways, the following is what I concluded, based on my knowledge of history, to be the reasons for Americans nuking Japan:

- to save American lives (but to me, lives of Japanese civilians are just as valued)
- to quickly end the war
- to scare off the USSR

There are absolutely NO EXCUSES or JUSTIFICATIONS for using nuclear weapons. It leads to nothing but destruction of mankind.
 
I agree that nuclear weapons should not have been used at all if possible, but no one knew the true damage it would create. Also, as someone pointed out earlier, a land invasion would ultimately destroy more lives on both sides of the conflict than just the two bombs. With just the two bombs, US destroyed the Japanese Yamato spirit and therefore helped end the war sooner.

From what I've read of &quot;A Boy Called H&quot;, the Japanese were preparing for a land invasion and &quot;to the death&quot; warfare. In the end, the two bombs (in my opinion only one was needed) may have ironically saved more lives than without them.
 
hpkeeper, I'll make one attempt to explain what I think is wrong with your thinking. You are frustrated that we can't get rid of the Sadam problem. Your answer, since the current attempts don't work, is to do something more extreme. The underlying assumptions that you don't examine are these. I am frustrated with plan A. I must be relieved of my frustration. I will try plan B. What is relevant is not the merits of plan B, but that I must not experience frustration. This is where you shwo your immaturity. It does not occur to you, you are not grown up enough to have realized that frustration is part of life, that we can and must live with it successfully. The world is not here and will never procede in a manner that satisfies everyone's naive dreams. If you live the best life YOU CAN, you will have done as much as possible to improve the world. There are emotional states like compassion, forbarence, patience, wisdom, that allow people to transcend frustration. You may want to pet the tiger, but Mommy and Daddy aren't going to let you.
 
I'd like to assure all those outside the US that the majority of us have higher thinking capacities than this kid.


Its a good thing someone cleared that up. It is dumb, ignorant hicks like hpkeeper that give the US its bad reputation (and you were surprised they like burning american flags!)
 
I may be a little off here, but isn't fallout a bad thing and one of the reasons we haven't nuked Iraq? I'd rather not see WWIII either.

But that's just my opinion...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top