The funny thing is you talked about protecting yourselves from America and then you brought up all these dumb-ass nations who have nothing to FEAR from America, or other countries for that matter, for various reasons.Mr Bean wrote: Burchill makes the assertion that the only way to protect your country from America is to have WMD....
Just think that one over for a moment, Alright then, PROTECT yourself from America? Why did South Africa give up thier Nuclear weapons if its the only way to protect themselves? Why has not Quatar or SA pursed Nuclear Weapons programs of their own? I can't recall Columiba or Brazil attempting to Devolpe Nuclear weapons.... Infact the few who have are either Communist Countrys or Dicatorships with a noted History of attacking other countrys in Wars of Conquest in the last century
Here's some better examples: USSR. India. Pakistan. Israel. China.
What? I'm sorry that doesn't add anything to the debate whatsoever. He's absolutely right. The fact that you posess WMD doesn't tell someone else what you're going to do with them.Second Burchill admits that knowing what Saddam has won't tell us what he do with them, What Burchill fails to note is the fact that you can't use what you don't have
Oh come on. He launched missile attacks on a neutral country- which he COULD have loaded with WMD. He didn't. This HURTS your argument.He also mentions the fact that Saddamn did not use them During the Gulf War but failing to note he launched missle attacks on a Neutral Country, also failing to note exactly how effective Biological and Chemical weapons are aginst Naval Warships or Airplanes....
Once again you hurt your own argument. Firstly, he could easily have deployed WMD against American troops in rear areas away from his own, and it's a falsehood that his own troops weren't protected- all of Iraq's vehicles in front line troops came as standard with NBC protection (see BMP-1, T-55 tanks, etc) and to assert that none of them had gas masks requires some proof, considering how common they are.He could not use them aginst the America Ground troops as they where protected and his boys where not, If he did use them it would have ment his ass instead of the slap on the wrist and being made to sit in time-out that he got
No, that's not a strawman, you're just trying to restrict the scope of the argument. He has never used WMD on those that can retaliate. There's a BIG difference.Strawman-The point that is made is that Saddam is willing to use WMD, Period not on who or what he will use them on, If Burchill is so adminate that we can't know what Saddam will do with WMD then he can't very will claim in the next paragph that
How is that a contradiction?Oops thats a Contradiction is it not? We can't know what Saddam will do with his WMD, but we can be sure he won't use them aginst anyone with WMD!
ONE:
Burchill says that the mere fact that a state has WMD doesn't tell you what he's going to do with them.
TWO:
Burchill, realizing this, then looks at Saddam's history (i.e. he didn't use them in 1991) to make the conclusion that he has been deterred from deploying WMD against the US, who can retaliate
No, you're just making up contradicitons because you don't understand what he's saying.Burchill can't have his cake and eat it to but he will try his best to
Most intresting here
check your facts. That attack happened before the Gulf War- in March 1988.While phrase like this its looks quite daming, However if one notes the fac that "We continued to supply him with the means to aquire them" was the "Oil for Food" program then its quite diffrent
He's not blaming failures, he's simply pointing out that previous administrations didn't have a problem with Iraq's behavior.Lastly Burchill does what every other person does, Blaim past failures on the current Admistration and hope no one understands how fuck up that is
I'm sorry Mr Burchill but here in America, If we fuck somthing up, Generaly we try and fix it instead of ignoring it for the rest of Entity, but then, We would critizied if we did that...
How is that a leap in logic? You just proved his point. They didn't give a shit that he invaded Iran. They helped him do it.Leap in Logic:If we have two enemies we hate, Hey don't we help out the side that will get its rear kicked if we don't and let them beat the @%@% out of each other
I'm sure you're very proud, considering America created fundamentalist Iran in the first place in the 1950s by kicking out the democratically elected government and replacing it with a military dictatorship of the Shah. Oh the genius.In every other place but the Media this move was prasied as the genius it was, We disliked both Iraq and Iran and by supporting them BOTH during their war, We effectily wreacked Iran's Economey and destroyed their Leadership, We nearly managed the same with Iraq but they managed to recover
Sudan? You still haven't done anything to disprove it's point. Egypt has fought wars with Israel and vice versa for decades. Neither of them are pariah states.Burchill also points out that Iraq has neighbors that are just as bad, Citing as his examples? Isreal.... and Egypt.... and those wars where Egypt and Sudan did their best to wipe Isreal off the face of the Earth,
Yet Egypt still attacked Israel no matter how many times it's government changed, and in the same way Israel continued repressing the Palestinians.And the best part? While we will confine ourselves only to Saddam's Acts while in Power, We are more than happy to go back twenty years before Saddam's time to name examples of why his Neighbors are so bad, Nevermind the fact that unlike Iraq, Their goverments have changed between five to thirty times since then
Oh, so it's your assertion that Reagan 'failed' in Iraq and that Bush has come like the Messiah to 'set things straight' is it?Blaming the Faliures of the past on the Leaders of Today and compltly unaware of how much of a Logic Flaw that is, Oh nevermind the fact Burchill uses it as justification on why we should not be going to war, Because we did not do somthing about it sooner we can't do anything now
THREE ADMINISTRATIONS (Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43) have made it their policy to kick Iraq's ass, ever since 1991. The only thing that's stopped them was they didn't have 9/11.
What the? Could you perpetrate a more lame strawman? So when I use the phrase Sino-Russian War, I'm perpetrating the race card?!A very intresting quote, I'll note the last part first and work my way up, "Ango-American attacks" What does that mean? The white man beat up on poor Iraq, are we seeing a poor choice of words or a poor attempt at trying to play the Race card?
Already dealt with above.Second, We see the third time the Blaming the Past on the Presant Logic Fallcy is applyed and thirdly it should be noted..
450 cruise missiles sounds like a threat of force to me.All Clinton did was launch at attack, There was no Build-up, There was no massive ground Campain, There was a few Cruise Missle strikes, Not a single American Trooper touched Iraq Soil
Not much of a threat of force now is it?
Dealt with above.Number Five, Blaming the Past on the Presant
NO, they haven't. You've already made usubstnatiated claims in this thread once before. Either provide evidence, or not. His armed forces have not been rebuilt at all. They are reduced in size, equipment, and capability. I also don't see why you use January 1992 as some sort of benchmark, considering the war was in 1991.Second, His armed forces, HAVE been Rebuilt, Not as much as he has had before but they are signficalty better off than they where as of Jan '92
Source please. In 1991 Iraq had a massive, well known WMD stockpile, more long range missiles that are more effective than the pathetic kit-bash "Al-Samoud" missiles with less range, as well as other means- air delivery, artillery delivery etc.Third, Strawman, He had Chemical and Biological Weapons that where useless aginst his enemies in 91, He has made many steps forward in Missle Techology and his Nuclear Program is much further along than it has ever been.
Red herring. It doesn't matter what they can do, the question is why they would be used.And as its been said before, Nuclear weapons work wonders aginst NBC suits, Tanks, and even Naval Ships if you can hit close enough the Radation will kill the Crew even if the Expolsion won't sink the ship
No, it's not that 'fallacy' (which I disagree with) because they were screaming for an attack ever since Bush came to power, not the administration before, while some, like Rumsfeld, were in positions of power in the 1980s, and shook Saddam's hand with a big fat smile on his face.This has never been a reason I supported and Mr Burchill's reponse is well reasoned and insightful, Its still commits the Sixth time of Past on Presant Fallicy but he overall makes his point quite well that the above reason is flawed
They don't have the reasons. They've been desperately trying to draw a link between Al-Quaeda and Saddam and failed every time.Burchil has a great line here
Despite forensic efforts by Washington to produce a pretext for war Prehaps he ment Frantic but as it stands and the languaged used he's implying either that Washington does not have any reasons or that they are manfucationg them
The FBI already said the anthrax was domestic American. Don't you watch the news?Second he out right lies to, Richard Armitage did explain how Biological and Chemical weapons can be passed to Terrriots without engangering the Host Country, We still don't know who the Anthrax came from, Nearly every single Country on the Planet has some store of Chemical or Biological weapons, Not many have them Weaponised form, But they are praticualy un-traceble when it comes time to play the blaim game after an attack is made
So you'd support pre-emptively attacking every nation who isn't friendly to the US before they get nuclear weapons?Good Logic here, but it has been noted before, Once a Country has Nuclear weapons, There is not much you can do aginst them, We can't slap sanctions on China, we depend on each other to much for that, Us for them leaving Tawian alone and cheap goods, Them for our Oil and our money, Not to mention our Tourist Dollers
Of course, we should've attacked them months ago.If China wanted to expand its current completent of fourty Nuclear Missles to say, Four Thousand, Could we do anything about it? Can we do anything about Pakistan or India(Send them to war aginst each other of course but they would in all likleyhood end up annilating each other, which we don't want)
Right, it's not about whether the war is right, it's about 'sending a message'.Burchill for the seventh time is comming that fallicy, Blaming the Past on the Present, You work with what you have Mr Burchill, If you have have four Countrys with Nukes and two that will soon, Which is easier to tackle? Which sends a clear message. Sure you can try and buy things from China, Or North Korea, But you know what? We will come right by, take it anyway from you and remove you from power.
It'd be better if you quoted him directly instead of attacking what you think he's saying.For Breivty I won't quote the Aritcule he quotes but umm
The discussion below is by Kenneth Waltz, a US conservative and the leading theorist of neo-realism in international relations.
I have to ask, What the Hell is a Theorist of Neo-Realism? Has Realism become unreal so as to require a Neo-Realism? And what in that gives him any cloute to comment about the us of Nuclear Weapons by Terriosts?
Yes I am questioning the mans Crebility because frankly it reads very oddly to me
But I'll put that aisde for a moment and discuss his pieace as if he were the Head of the US Nuclear Weapons Division and Terriost Strategic planning
Waltz makes a few points
Almost westernized? Who says? Iraq may be secular and pretty liberal by ME standards, but the Shi'ite population is plenty repressed by the other religious minority- they may prefer govt by Shi'ite Iran.Pure Assumption that the Shi'ite popluation which is almost Westernised will welcomly walk into the Religious oppresion of the Iranian's
That's if women have any say. Policy isn't decided by the people, especially in such countries. On a higher level, those in Iraq may well decide going with Iran is the way to maintian their sovereignty against a US puppet.In-fact its one of the few good things that Saddam has done, Women have near equal rights to Men in Iraq and it an excellent reason why Iraq won't go running to Iran the instant we pull out
