War in Iraq is upon us

[airspirit]

The UN is going to be holding Iraq in material breach of the resolution passed recently due to their BS dossier they released regarding their weapons program. I find it sad that they just couldn't own up to what they have so we could dispose of it and leave them be.

I find it extremely sad that innocent people in that country are going to die for the monomaniacal actions of one insane dictator.

I think it is even worse that things have come to this point. Saddam could have stopped the whole process by admitting to what he has. Instead, he denied everything and is counting on modern flower children worldwide to prevent a war against him so he can keep his weapons and use them to hold a region hostage. Nobody can now say honestly that this is a war of American aggression. We gave him the chance to confess, and he refused.

Before anyone says there is no proof, let me give you a list:

Tons of VX gas were never accounted before in the previous inspections;
Tons of anthrax were never accounted for;
Tons of warheads with chem/bio weapons capability was never accounted for;
No explanation for the Al pipes was given in 12000 pages of documents;
Multiple viral bioweapon projects were never accounted for (smallpox is one that has never been attributed to Iraq);
Multiple illegally ranged missles were never accounted for.

The list goes on and on. Some of these things were supposedly destroyed by Iraq, but they refuse to give proof. Some were never answered for, and Iraq refuses to comment on them (such as the weaponized viruses). Put that with them continuing to fly illegally in the No-Fly zones, shooting at our planes, and continuing financing of Palestinian terrorist groups (blowing up buses and pizzarias is NOT military action or something that makes you a 'militant', it makes you a TERRORIST), and you have a pattern of outright rebellion against international law that justifies any action we take against that lunatic.

"What about the children???" This is my favorite. All of the lefty nut-jobs that are going over there (Sean Penn should be tried for treason and sedition and shot in a firing squad) commenting on how WE are killing innocent people are just that: nut-jobs. If Saddam would have cooperated years ago, his country wouldn't still be under sanctions, and the people wouldn't be hurting.

"Why don't we just remove the sanctions? Who are we to bully them?" *sigh* Would you release a murderer or a rapist from prison because he isn't happy there? Same thing here. You don't just untie the hands of a regime as militant as that one and say "Have a nice day!" If we removed sanctions with the leadership and mentality they currently have, that extra income wouldn't go to the poor children, it would go into tanks and bombs and nukes. Don't kid yourself into thinking that the west is doing this to them: by keeping the line they are right now, they are doing this to themselves.

It is looking like we are giving him until the end of January even NOW to confess and allow us to dismantle his weapons programs, or else the troops and planes start pouring across his borders the last week of January. I doubt he'll do anything to prevent it except militarize his country. The man is a nut through and through, and it is time he gets what is coming to him.

What worries me right now is how this will turn out. There is word that if he uses the chemical and biological weapons he has, we might retaliate with nukes. What do you guys think of that possibility?

[g.l.amour]

i have read a good opinion piece about what the problem is over there. too bad it is written in dutch, linking would be useless.

what it says comes down to this. ever since the arab world has been divided after colonialists left, ppl have felt little to no affection to their fellow citizens of the country. e.g. someone is more a citizen of bagdad or riad instead of being a citizen of iraq, or saudi arabia. rulers of those countries (syria, saudi arabia, iraq) are almost paranoid family dictatorships, with ancestral roots in one city. it is said that such leadership can work in small (city) states like Qatar, but on a large scale can be quite disastrous: filling prisons and graves.

so, to sum up. the ppl in those country see themselves more as citizens of a certain city(state), then of a country. ridding iraq of saddam will be a good result for us. but not necissarily for those countries because there is no national identity as we almost automatically presume there is.

i'm not judging about the imminent war. i am making a sideline comment: what when saddam is gone???

anyway. the piece i stole some ideas from was a transcript from a Brittish writer named Jonathan Raban. the ones interested in a historical overview can find good stuff from that bloke

[bigben2k]

Nukes can't be used by the US. Anyways, the EU would have an objection.

Actually, this report shows that we are at an escalated level, but that we are not yet at war.

Actually, I'll disagree with you : I think it's wrong to kill innocent people. I think you may have misinterpreted the "nut-job"'s intent: to tell Saddam to quit using people as shields. A secondary message is to tell the attacking country to avoid killing civilians at all costs.

Under a UN sanction, it is strictly forbidden to cause any civilian casualty, under any circumstances. IF however an individual country declares war on another, then that rule is out, and it's up to each country to apply their own (democratically set?) rules of war, and respect any related treaties.


My question would be this: can the UN force the US to accept a UN mandate to attack Iraq? If not, would the US accept a UN mandate?


(BTW, nice research on the weapons! Where did you find that info?)

[decodeddiesel]

Bags are already packed, literally. Look for me on CNN guys.

[bigben2k]

Woot! Our psych specialist has been unleashed on Saddam: watch out!

[g.l.amour]

the best of luck decodeddiesel.

[utabintarbo]

Originally posted by bigben2k
Nukes can't be used by the US. Anyways, the EU would have an objection.

Well, then let THEIR troops get gassed. I think the mere threat of turning the desert around Baghdad into glass would probably wake the Saddam's sycophants from their stupor. If Saddam were to give the order, I doubt his "Generals" would have the 'nads to risk that many Iraqis' lives (not to mention their own asses).

Originally posted by bigben2k

Under a UN sanction, it is strictly forbidden to cause any civilian casualty, under any circumstances. IF however an individual country declares war on another, then that rule is out, and it's up to each country to apply their own (democratically set?) rules of war, and respect any related treaties.

I believe it is forbidden to intentionally cause civilian deaths. To kill civilians sitting on top of a valid military target is unfortunate, but not illegal. They should know to get out of the way. If not, Darwinism in action!

Bob
(smewhere to the right of Genghis Khan on this issue )

[airspirit]

Take for example all of the US citizens packing their bags for Iraq so they can volunteer to be human shields for that psychopath: if we need to take out the target, I hope a few clueless college students don't prevent us from blowing it to hell.

As far as not using nukes, we are perfectly justified in using them in the instance that the opponent uses a WMD first. That is the rule in the WMD game. If he uses anthrax on our troops, for example, we are perfectly justified in nuking him to hell. Otherwise, there is no point to having our arsenal: if the UN forbade the use under all circumstances, we'd have to twiddle our thumbs and wait for death if the Chinese (for example) were to launch a nuclear missle (they can't at this time, but go with it) at us. It is called deterrence because if they use a WMD first, they can rest assured that we will turn their camel-farking asses into space dust, and their country into the world's largest pane of glass.

It would be nice to think that it could never happen, but that is the reality of the situation, me buckos. Uta has it right in saying that this deterrence will probably keep the generals from giving the order: in the instance that Saddam would get desperate enough to use a weapon like that, his generals would already realize that the war was lost and would turn on him in the blink of an eye. He would effectively be de-fanged if he gave that order. The only way one of these weapons could be used, in reality, is if he did it himself.

[airspirit]

As far as civilian deaths, my understanding of that facet of international law is sketchy. In the case of "incidental death" from attacking a military target (the janitor of a missle silo, or something), it is legal. In the case of mobbing civilians attacking a military unit, it is legal. To walk into downtown Baghdad and start capping grannies: that is forbidden regardless of the state of war.

In WMD situations, all of these guidelines go out the window. If he were to use a WMD on one of our bases (anthrax, VX, botulism, viruses, mustard gas, etc ... all of which he is KNOWN to have with a certainty), we could retaliate against Baghdad with a nuke with impunity. That specter of death is also part of the deterrence theory.

It is never lawful to use a WMD in any circumstance unless one is used against you. In theory, none should ever be used if the law is followed. Here are some clarifications of this, though.

For example: India and Pakistan goes to war. India starts kicking ass and marches across the border into Pakistan (original aggressor, allowing invasion under law), and the Pakis drop a nuke on the invading army, killing 50K. The Indians could then drop a nuke on any target in Pakistan with impunity and remain inside the law (no sanctions). The worst the Pakistanis will get, since they only attacked a military target, though, is sanctions, in all probability.

Next example: Same situation, but Pakistan drops a nukie bomb on New Dehli. Pakistan has now committed a war crime as well as opening the WMD door. India can bomb them with impunity (no sanctions). All Pakistani leadership is now going to be arrested and shipped to the WC tribunal and hopefully executed.

Next example: To soften the Pakis up for invasion, the Indians use a viral weapon on a military target (WMD door is open) which spreads to the civilian population (debatable war crime, depending on circumstance), but now the Pakistanis can nuke Indian targets with impunity (no sanctions).

As you can see, as long as nobody opens the WMD door, civilians cannot be touched. As soon as that door is opened, the floodgates of hell can pour out of it, depending on the fury of the aggrieved nation.

[cybrsamurai]

I don't think that it is Iraq that we will be at war with... Really the only thing we want is Saddam and more Oil controll. If this werent the case I think Northern Korea would be a better target of our world policing. I seriously doubt that many people in Iraq would identify themselves with a horrible oppressive dictator like Saddam. I also doubt that we would use a Nuke even if biological warefare was used by Saddam. If we were to nuke Iraq it would solidify the entire arab world against us, and as much as we depend, and our poloticians depend on oil I seriously doubt they would want to do that. With that being said I think it would be horrible to condemn thousands of civilians to death in order to kill one man.

[bigben2k]

Thanks for the clarifications! (Uta; you're right, see how forgetting one word can lead to misunderstanding? )

Beyond the generally accepted "rules", I'd like to believe that a counter-strike to a WMD (Weapon of Mass Destruction) would be in a similar proportion i.e. you shouldn't be nuking 100'000 people out of existence because a dozen guys got terminally sick on the battlefield. Without this "measured response", there would be an infinite escalation of blows, which, in the case of nukes, would affect the surrounding countries (remember Chernobyl?).

As for what Iraq would ACTUALLY do, I (also) like to believe that the whole regime is on the brink of a civil revolution, but for some reason, it's just not happening. Does anyone know why?

My next question would be: what would be the mandate of a UN order?

[cybrsamurai]

I have a friend that lived in Iraq for many years. He believes that very few people there have any allegiance to Saddams regime, but he has money and power. Wealthy people and politicians live without law. He told me stories of how wealthy people with any political connections can rape and kill without repercussions. I think in this type of society fear is enough to keep people complacent. As with any revolution they would need weapons and money to pull it off, anyone with enough wealth and money in Iraq probably enjoys the current regime.

[Joe]

well atleast there will be something good on TV now

[cybrsamurai]

What they should do is once this war is over they can release a 4 dvd collecters set of Gulf War I and Gulf War II directors cut versions. Where we get extra incite in to the workings of the smart bomb that hits Iraqi guy in the forehead as he works in the "baby milk" factory. That just might be a contender with LOTR this christmas!

[DragonsDream]

Did anyone see on CNN where the UN inspectors went to an “Alcohol Beverage Factory” (That’s just how the Iraqi guy said it on camera in English)? Isn’t Alcohol against there religion?

[utabintarbo]

Originally posted by bigben2k
...

Beyond the generally accepted "rules", I'd like to believe that a counter-strike to a WMD (Weapon of Mass Destruction) would be in a similar proportion i.e. you shouldn't be nuking 100'000 people out of existence because a dozen guys got terminally sick on the battlefield. Without this "measured response", there would be an infinite escalation of blows, which, in the case of nukes, would affect the surrounding countries (remember Chernobyl?).

...

One possibility is to lob a tactical (small) nuke somewhere out in the desert (perhaps a SAM site) which would have minimal incidental impact. The powers-that-be in Baghdad would see that and sh!t themselves bright white, know that we mean what we say, then go find Saddam and chop him into small pieces (which would then be shipped to D.C. as proof). End of war.

Bob

[utabintarbo]

Originally posted by DragonsDream
Did anyone see on CNN where the UN inspectors went to an “Alcohol Beverage Factory” (That’s just how the Iraqi guy said it on camera in English)? Isn’t Alcohol against there religion?

No doubt export only. No reason not to take the infidel's money!

[yoshana]

My 2 cents on the whole thing..

Use of a WDM against the US would result in payment in kind and in all reality an ecalation.

Say that he (Sadam) does attack a military target, say a CP,
with a chemical/biological attack, the US doctrine would call for tactical necular deployment on specified military targets.

No they wouldn't nuke Bagdad, but the airbase outside it with a
5KTon Tactical would sufice. Yes you would still have civillian casualties but that is an unfortunate side affect of war, it is never fought in a place where no one lives.

There are standards that even the US, who refused to sign the chemical wepons ban and the land min ban, will adhere to in war.

And that is the civilians and civilians can't ever be legally targeted. Nuking bagdad.. a civillian target would be a war crime, not that the US wouldn't get away with it, but civilian casualties as a result of attacking a military target are ok.

And yes were are the only contry on the face of the planet to use atiomic weapons in a war. Yes they were civilian targets, yes it was an atrocity. But to the winners go the spoils and the glory and the 'right' to have histroy seen from your perspective.

The reason we still maintain the stockpiles of weapons is that our military doctrine specifically states the use of WDM in certain cases.

The irony is that the tactical nuclear weapons main use when built was as a defensive strategy, not offensive. They were to be used to stop a Soviet Tank invasion into Europe during the cold war, to keep Nato forces and Europe as a whole from being overrun.

Peace is a good thing, no one dies, excpet for murder and accidents... Like the statistic that more Ameircans were murdered in our capital during the Gulf War than US Sodiers in the war.

Thanks thats my 2 cents... end rant

[utabintarbo]

Originally posted by yoshana
...

Use of a WDM against the US would result in payment in kind and in all reality an ecalation.

What is a "WDM"?

Originally posted by yoshana


And yes were are the only contry on the face of the planet to use atiomic weapons in a war. Yes they were civilian targets, yes it was an atrocity. But to the winners go the spoils and the glory and the 'right' to have histroy seen from your perspective.

...

I disagree with your characterization of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki strikes as an "atrocity" Please refer to thread here, and especially to airspirit's posts, for a little bit of context. NOT using a weapon that will end a war is an atrocity. They started it, we finished it. And we didn't rewrite the history books to our perspective. I think that 50 yrs of scrutiny has given the world an objective view of the reality of that war. Your cynicism is misplaced here.

Bob

[Rattlehead]

Thank You utabintarbo...

My Grandfather fought in WW2 and if not for "fat man" and "little boy" he would have had to face an assault that surely would have cost him his life (not to mention the children he had).

Sadam just can't tell the rest of the world to go away while he develops biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons and expect us to not see what is coming.

It's too bad we can't just send in snipers and put an end to this very inexpensively and with no loss of civilian life.

[Blackeagle]

Yoshana,

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were struck as military targets, and rightly so.

Hiroshima: Ground zero was the main factory for ball bearings for military use such as aircraft. Without it the Japanese ability to build weapons was greatly reduced.

Nagasaki: The largest torpedo factory in all the world was ground zero.

So NO atrocity at all. Get your facts straight, do some reserch, don't just buy the revisionist view some now wish to "spin" the past acts of the US as.


edit : You might also read my post on that thread linked above for you. It will show you some other facts you should research on the conduct of what are often now portrayed as the "poor innocent Japanese" who were victomized by the might of the US.

Why aren't those acts remembered and condemned? They should be, but that isn't PC these days.

[cybrsamurai]

Justified or not it is still an atrocity to kill that many civilians.

[Joe]

Originally posted by Blackeagle
Hiroshima: Ground zero was the main factory for ball bearings for military use such as aircraft. Without it the Japanese ability to build weapons was greatly reduced.

Incorrect Hiroshima's target ground zero was a bridge in the center of town.

[iroc409]

it's good to see that most people on board here seem to be of sound mind.

one thing that i have read over the past couple months about this entire conflict is in the actual military powers and the unrest of aforementioned in saddam's arenal. it is in hopes of the US that, with limited airstrikes and such, that the military force as a whole could easily be sent into chaos of sorts and crumble easily, not taking into account the great decrease in military power (not taking into consideration WDMs). i am certainly in hopes of this, however i would not bet on it as a certainty.

as far as a 'retalitory' use of WDMs are concerned, i am all for it, and i do not believe this war has 'oil control' as one of its primary concerns. i think the survival of our country would in fact be on a primary list of concern. this, in reference with saddam's anti-US sentiments and probably terrorist involvement. take into consideration if he supports the al quieda (SP?) with the task of sneaking a nuke into a highly populated region of the US, and it is detonated. this threat, amoung other WDM threats of similar nature, is why i would list this as a primary concern.

as far as the structure of the country, deeming most of the country as innocents i don't think i personally can justify. even in the case that they are forced by their superiors into such situations, it does not make them any less dangerous to us. look into history of events with the underlings of the leaders in WW2. they were not all supportive, but carried out their tasks nonetheless unquestioningly.

to add, slightly, to the scope of this rant over this conflict, i wish to voice my concern - and utter dismay - of the 'peaceniks'. these people make me so mad i could spontaneously combust. now, myself i cannot describe from first-person experience, only by closely related experience of loved ones and colleagues these things. however, i do have what i feel is a decent grasp of such. the people that want to stop us from killing soldiers over seas, and think that war is bad, and that everyone can settle this from smoking a phat blunt and singing songs. this is clearly not the case. i have discussed many of these things with relatives that went through wars, including those of japanese descent (and my elders). what these folks do not understand in any respect (peaceniks) is what has been taken to actually preserve our way of life of US citizens, and what conditions are like in these other countries. for example, i saw ani difranco on tv the other day, and she made me so mad i turned off the tv, and it wasn't even mine. these people don't take into consideration OUR people and OUR way of life.

consider it this way. so, by not going to war, we can save a few thousand casualties of foreign conflict. but what if these people came back to us, and 'dropped the bomb' on us, killing millions? does that not mean anything to anyone? if by killing a few thousand of them saves millions, or even just a few thousand of ours, does that not contain any merit? think about the way they treat their own people, even. if people like her do not like our way of thinking, then go live there, where a woman can be killed just for looking at another man. but, really, is there no merit in saving our own people, in protecting them, and preserving our way of life? would you rather live like they do, with such oppression of their people? i would rather live in a country that would do what it takes to protect their own, and live with those responsibilities on my nation than to live in a country that lives with such oppression and strife with thier own people.

i think as well that many of these people were not involved in any way with the terrorist acts of but a year ago, and have no idea what that is like as well. i was fortunate, and lost no one i knew or loved, but my beloved girl at the time lived there, with her father, and goes to school there. imagine, and entire hi-rise office building on a collegiate campus emptied, not because of the building was destroyed, but that the people that worked in it were all killed. and then the fact that you have to live next door to that building. or knowing good friends who got a call from their father saying "i love you honey, i'm not going to make it". can you imagine recieving that call? knowing your father was in a known targeted building, or not being able to get ahold of someone for hours that you love dearly and don't know if they are alive or dead?

i got lucky in those respects, so i can not even begin to know what that felt. but i realize it. is there no merit in preventing that further?

i also think in many respects that most of these people being my age, are also merely afraid to be picked for the draft to be sent away to die. i was, and still am afraid my number will be picked. but, i have made the decision, that i will go unquestioning if i must, will not run and will not file as a conscienscious (SP) objector. i know that many have gone before me, and have died to protect my way of life, my freedoms that i enjoy today. those may not have been here if it were not for that. i want to think that these freedoms i enjoy will be around for my children, and my grandchildren, and if that requires i be shipped off, then so be it. then my siblings will have to bear the burden of continuing the family name. sometimes i think some of these people just fear going off to war, so they oppose it altogether. in any respect, it is rather sad that they do not appreciate our country. please try it elsewhere, then. what scares me even more is that we live in a day and age that the people in power tend to listen to the smaller, more radical groups, not for the good of the country, but to stop them from bitching.

ok, this post was waaay too long, i'm going to bed

let the flames commence...

btw, just to make myself clear. i am not wishing on a draft, nor at the moment do i see it likely. i do not intend to enlist, although i have considered it greatly. but, i hope that my contribution will be towards the strength and what makes this country great, freedom and capitalism in the business world. i own my own business, one with great promise, and my desire (and hopefully skills) to excel in. the people who started companies like ibm, boeing, etc, are part of what make this country what it is, and i hope i can contribute in that way, while sidestepping the corruptions of recent in the news. i still would go, if the worst were brought upon us.

now i'm done. i swear.

[iroc409]

lol.. and airspirit, i am so with you on so many things

we agree too much. we should form a club ;P