Ultimate Retaliation

[Shinova]

To Enlightment: besides, it could kill all chances for Bush getting reelected.



The US could use FAE devices, or are those outlawed or something?

[Enlightenment]

I think there is quite a bit of difference between merely going to war without world approval and using nukes. The war will just strain relations; using nuclear weaponry without adequate justification would destroy them. There are still limits to what the U.S. can do.

Of course. I know that and you know that but I'm not prepared to bet the farm on Shrubby understanding that.

To Enlightment: besides, it could kill all chances for Bush getting reelected.

You have much more faith in the US electorate than I. Damn near anything--up to and including incinerating Baghdad--can be justified under the guise of patriotism and 'security' against terrorism.

The US could use FAE devices, or are those outlawed or something?

There's no special restrictions on the use of FAEs above and beyond the normal limitations such as not intentionally targetting civilians.

[Joe]

Of course. I know that and you know that but I'm not prepared to bet the farm on Shrubby understanding that.

Maybe not Bush, but I think his foreign policy advisors know a little better.

You have much more faith in the US electorate than I. Damn near anything--up to and including incinerating Baghdad--can be justified under the guise of patriotism and 'security' against terrorism.

I would be willing to bet that the U.S. populace is not quite ready to see the nuclear annihilation of an entire country at this point. After another 9/11 caliber terrorist attack, then maybe.

[Enlightenment]

Maybe not Bush, but I think his foreign policy advisors know a little better.

Shrubby's policy advisors should have known better than to let him stomp around like a wild boar and drive a wedge between the US and the rest of the world at a time when cooperation is vital to keeping al Qaida under control. If they couldn't figure this out then there's no reason to assume that they would understand the ultimate ramifications of burning the rest of the US' bridges.

I would be willing to bet that the U.S. populace is not quite ready to see the nuclear annihilation of an entire country at this point. After another 9/11 caliber terrorist attack, then maybe.

In this thread we're talking about a gas attack against US forces. I believe that this would be enough to push the American public into 'no mercy' mode.

[Joe]

Shrubby's policy advisors should have known better than to let him stomp around like a wild boar and drive a wedge between the US and the rest of the world at a time when cooperation is vital to keeping al Qaida under control. If they couldn't figure this out then there's no reason to assume that they would understand the ultimate ramifications of burning the rest of the US' bridges.

Leap in logic. The damage that unjustified use of nuclear weaponry would do to U.S. relations with the rest of the world could only not be forseen by an absolute slobbering retard. Perhaps Bush's advisors have not been extraordinarily perceptive on certain issues. It does not follow that they would fail to realize an exceedingly obvious truth.

In this thread we're talking about a gas attack against US forces. I believe that this would be enough to push the American public into 'no mercy' mode.

Well, having 3000 of our civilians killed and two of our greatest national symbols destroyed by Islamic militants did not send us into "no mercy" mode. We've shown a LOT more restraint than you give us credit for. We could have opened the gates of hell on the entire Islamic world after 9/11, but we didn't.

[Axis Kast]

Bush is not a complete idiot. He's not about to devastate Iraq entirely on the possibility (no, off-chance) that he could somehow twist a nuclear assault to seem legitimate. You might not like the man, but that hardly reduces him to a trigger-happy twelve-year-old.

As has been said before, a tactical nuclear weapon would be used only on an isolated target - of which there may be none. Either way, the offending unit physically responsible for launch of the attack would be annihilated conventionally. That seems enough. Keep in mind that we're going to kick out an entire government. You can't go much further - even with nuclear retaliation. We're already deterring Hussein. No need to go overboard. This the White House knows.

[RedImperator]

A small tactical nuclear strike against the unit that launched the attack might be useful for prompting enemy missile/artillery crews to disobey orders to use chemical agents against US forces in the future. This is provided the attack is launched from an area where there won't be civilian casualties. I think that in the court of public opinion, a single innocent civilian incinerated by a nuclear weapon would be worse than a hundred killed in a conventional B-52 strike. Illogical, but it's also illogical to scream about Hiroshima and say nothing about Tokyo or Dresden.

[Uraniun235]

IIRC, according to an interview with Schwarzkopf, they told Saddam the first time around (in '91) that if he used WMDs, Saddam's hometown would be the first to get nuked.

I personally doubt they would retaliate against chemical weapons with nuclear weapons unless they were certain the Iraqis were planning to follow up with more chemical weapons, and that a nuclear attack was the quickest, surest method of preventing the launch of said chemical attack.

I seriously doubt the Iraqis will be stupid enough to test our resolve, however.

[Enlightenment]

Bush is not a complete idiot.

Obviously. He's several pieces short of being a complete anything, other than perhaps a complete and utter buffoon.

He's not about to devastate Iraq entirely on the possibility (no, off-chance) that he could somehow twist a nuclear assault to seem legitimate.

If Shrubby cared about his actions appearing legitimate he would have worked harder to go to war with UN backing rather than engaging in an act of foolishness that most of the planet regards as an illegitimate conquest. If he wants to nuke someone, he will nuke them. Legitimacy be damned.

You might not like the man, but that hardly reduces him to a trigger-happy twelve-year-old.

It is perhaps best to judge someone by the kind of supporters he attracts. From all indications, Shrubby's supporters tend be trigger happy nutcases with no more mental development than the typical teenager.

I seriously doubt the Iraqis will be stupid enough to test our resolve, however.

When backed into a corner, Hussain will order the use whatever he surprises he has left because he quite literally has nothing left to lose. He's not going to be afraid of retribution if he's staring death or imprisonment in the face. If Hussain's orders get carried out will depend on the Iraqi military and if they're more afraid of US retribution or whatever components of Saddam's security forces are within the area.

[Stravo]

You know it's funny. "Enlightenment" loves to make his snide little comments accompanied by broad brush strokes as usual. He insinuates (saying anything directly would be too intellectually honest) in this thread that Bush does not care a whit about Iraqi civilians. Yet, here we have a strike targetted specifically to kill the Iraqi leadership in order to prompt a quick collapse and surrender to avoid civilian casualties. The military is telling Iraqi forces hwo to surrender so as not to kill them unneccasrily (These are the Iraqi SOLDIERS mind you) and our advance into Iraq is considered quite slow, why? Perhaps because we're talking to elements within the government that is looking to surrender so as to avoid further blood shed. Has there been carpet bombing or idiscrimnate bombing of civilian areas? WHERE are these massive civilian casualties predicted (perhaps hoped for by the peaceniks?) by the other side? Looks painfully obvious to me that we're hoping the country and its power structure simply collapses. There is no massive blitzkrieg driving through Iraq blasting everything in sight. But no, Bush could care less about civilian casualties right?

Funny that. "Enlightenment" is WRONG again. Can't be...

[Sea Skimmer]

The PR damage would be too great.

Given that the US is more or less acting unilaterally with only the UK token allies for support I'm afraid that there might be an administration mentality of simply not caring if any fewer people support the US' actions. Certainly the rabid right wing here on sd.net believes that the US has very little if anything left to lose by alienating the rest of the international community.

Token allies? They have over 30,000 troops in Kuwait with a complete armored division. Its the same unit and as many men as they fielded for Desert Storm. Then theres the several thousand Australians, Polish forces enroot and the dozens of countries which have given support and are providing basing.

[Enlightenment]

You know it's funny. "Enlightenment" loves to make his snide little comments accompanied by broad brush strokes as usual. He insinuates (saying anything directly would be too intellectually honest) in this thread that Bush does not care a whit about Iraqi civilians.

I have neither said or implied anything about Shrubby's position on the value of Iraqi civilians. I have said that he doesn't care one whit for retaining legitimacy in the eyes of the rest of the world. That he cares not for legitimacy will be fundamentally obvious to anyone who can be bothered to be well enough informed of global affairs to realize that the majority of the planet regards Shrubby's war as illegitimate.

Yet, here we have a strike targetted specifically to kill the Iraqi leadership in order to prompt a quick collapse and surrender to avoid civilian casualties.

A quick surrender will reduce US casualties. This will be the priority, just as it should be. Your own troops are more important than the enemy.

This action in no way implies or suggests any concern for civilian lives.

The military is telling Iraqi forces hwo to surrender so as not to kill them unneccasrily (These are the Iraqi SOLDIERS mind you) and our advance into Iraq is considered quite slow, why? Perhaps because we're talking to elements within the government that is looking to surrender so as to avoid further blood shed.

As above. A quick surrender will save US lives.

Has there been carpet bombing or idiscrimnate bombing of civilian areas?

Carpet bombing is no longer militarily or economically effective. That's why no one bothers with it any more. It simply costs too much and puts too many aircraft at risk compared to precision attacks.

An absense of carpet or indiscriminate bombing in no way implies or suggests any concern for civilian lives.

WHERE are these massive civilian casualties predicted (perhaps hoped for by the peaceniks?) by the other side?

Given that the ground fighting has barely started in areas where civilians are likely to be found it's hardly surprising that there are precious few civilian casualties as of yet. Wait until the war reaches populated, urban, areas before passing judgement on what the final casualty count will look like.

An absense of civilian casualties in no way implies or suggests any concern for civilian lives as the ground battle has yet to reach any major concentrations of civilians.

Looks painfully obvious to me that we're hoping the country and its power structure simply collapses. There is no massive blitzkrieg driving through Iraq blasting everything in sight. But no, Bush could care less about civilian casualties right?

Argument does not follow. A slow advance can be caused by any number of reasons (cautious commanders, logistical problems, etc) and in no way indicates a concern for civilian casualties.

Funny that. "Enlightenment" is WRONG again. Can't be...

You're the one has an argument based on one unsupported assertion and another assertion based on nothing but a house of cards and yet I'm the one who's wrong? Riiight.

You're going to have to try harder than that unless you're intentionally trying to do an impression of Monty Python's black night.

[Enlightenment]

Given that the US is more or less acting unilaterally with only the UK token allies for support I'm afraid that there might be an administration mentality of simply not caring if any fewer people support the US' actions. Certainly the rabid right wing here on sd.net believes that the US has very little if anything left to lose by alienating the rest of the international community.

Token allies? They have over 30,000 troops in Kuwait with a complete armored division. Its the same unit and as many men as they fielded for Desert Storm. Then theres the several thousand Australians, Polish forces enroot and the dozens of countries which have given support and are providing basing.

I made an error in the post you quoted. Replace "UK token allies" with "UK and token allies" Pretty much everyone else is a token ally; an NBC decontamination unit here, 2,000 troops there, etc.

Let me put it this way. When the 'coelition of the willing' has to include such globally-feared superpowers such as Eritrea and the Czek republic, the degree of tokenism involved is blindingly obvious.

[Sea Skimmer]

I made an error in the post you quoted. Replace "UK token allies" with "UK and token allies" Pretty much everyone else is a token ally; an NBC decontamination unit here, 2,000 troops there, etc.

Let me put it this way. When the 'coelition of the willing' has to include such globally-feared superpowers such as Eritrea and the Czek republic, the degree of tokenism involved is blindingly obvious.

So what, they've got about as much power projection as the nations sitting it out, nil.

[weemadando]

I made an error in the post you quoted. Replace "UK token allies" with "UK and token allies" Pretty much everyone else is a token ally; an NBC decontamination unit here, 2,000 troops there, etc.

Let me put it this way. When the 'coelition of the willing' has to include such globally-feared superpowers such as Eritrea and the Czek republic, the degree of tokenism involved is blindingly obvious.

Fuck you.

Our commitment might seem small, but its a decent fucking portion of our military. Especially considering that we've got forces all over our region on Peace-keeping and anti-terror ops as well.

Usually I wouldn't snap like this, but it pisses me off that people write us off as a not pulling our weight.

[Enlightenment]

Fuck you.

Gee, was it something I said?

Our commitment might seem small, but its a decent fucking portion of our military. Especially considering that we've got forces all over our region on Peace-keeping and anti-terror ops as well.

Yes, and?

Australia sent what it could but 2,000 more troops won't make much of a difference to the outcome. It's not as if you sent five men and a jeep (which would be a token force in the context of what Australia could send) but even at the maximum limit of your power projection ability what Australia brought to the table is a token as far as the outcome of the war is concerned.

In no way does any of this suggest that you're not pulling your weight supporting the conquest.

[Axis Kast]

Obviously. He's several pieces short of being a complete anything, other than perhaps a complete and utter buffoon.

You may not favor his methods or strategy, but you only do yourself a disservice by writing off the President of the United States of America as a complete nitwit out of touch with reality.

If Shrubby cared about his actions appearing legitimate he would have worked harder to go to war with UN backing rather than engaging in an act of foolishness that most of the planet regards as an illegitimate conquest. If he wants to nuke someone, he will nuke them. Legitimacy be damned.

Most of the planet would consider American action in Iraq to be self-serving regradless. Need I remind you that a great deal of protestors in the Western world know next-to-nothing about this war and are merely participating in a sort of knee-jerk exercise for the sole purpose of attracting attention? It is one thing to make cogent arguments against invasion but quite another to join thousands of people with no geopolitical knowledge to speak of who equate Bush to Hitler and ascribe to France and Germany some kind of moral highground.

Bush isn’t looking for excuses to drop a nuclear weapon on Baghdad. No matter how much you try to claim that he is some trigger-happy Texan gun nut, it’s not going to become suddenly true. If he’s so willing to kill Iraqi civilians by the cartload, why haven’t we seen more casualties in Baghdad? After all, forty cruise missiles fell only two nights ago. Why haven’t we deployed tactical nuclear bombs against isolated Iraqi units? I mean, it’s only towel-heads from his point of view as far as you’re concerned, right? And can’t we stick it to Iran? Not like they could do much if we plastered their new reactors.

Your string of reasoning is flawed.

It is perhaps best to judge someone by the kind of supporters he attracts. From all indications, Shrubby's supporters tend be trigger happy nutcases with no more mental development than the typical teenager.

And his critics – some of whom believe that the United Nations is out for anything more than the self-serving majority or that George Bush is little more than a cowboy – are any less despicable?

When backed into a corner, Hussain will order the use whatever he surprises he has left because he quite literally has nothing left to lose. He's not going to be afraid of retribution if he's staring death or imprisonment in the face. If Hussain's orders get carried out will depend on the Iraqi military and if they're more afraid of US retribution or whatever components of Saddam's security forces are within the area.

I doubt whether any unit will carry out Hussein’s orders on a large scale – or potentially at all. If anything, he’ll hit Israel or his own people. The one will shoot down most of the missiles or take only minimal damage from a terrorist strike. The later will turn on him in an instant – not that they haven’t already. No, I don’t think the “backed into a corner” argument is really all that scary.

[Coyote]

Enlightenment, do you secretly hope and wish for massive civilian casualties just to make the US (or atleast Bush) look bad? Are you really so into the political face of this that you'd not mind piddling away the lives of thousands of people just to make a "nyah-nyah" point?

So what if a quick surrender saves US lives. It will also have the effect of saving Iraqi lives as well. You seem to think that it's not acceptable-- Iraqis must die in vast numbers so you can have Bush live down to this stance you've taken. You don't give a shit about them, you want your political points validated. You are as bloody and selfish as you accuse Bush of being.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

What bothers Endarkenment the most, is the utter HELPLESSNESS of his side.
His side has played the UN card. Trumped.
The "people won't stand for it card. Trumped.
You are all hatefull warmongers card. Trumped by indifference.
You see, we, (the center right) have written off the hard left, as irrelavant.
We no longer CARE about your moral scoldings.
The fact that dictators ignore, and have always ignored the moral scoldings of ANYONE, seems to be lost.

That which torques your head bolts, is the FUTILITY of your moaing. No one who CAN make a difference, listens to, or agrees with you.

You can't even use the person who you despise's NAME, (shrub(by))yet you will not do the same to Goddam Insane. That shows much about your view. You act as if, Bush desearves no respect, yet Saddam DOES.


It must suck being you, and believing what you do, knowing that the world is NOT moving the direction you want.
Like a petulant child, insults are the ONLY tactic you CAN use.
I expect many more, and in increasing bitterness.

Since 9-11, the tide has turned, in America, and the left refuses to, or is unable to, admit this simple obvious truth.
Ignore it at your own peril.

"The avalanche has started, it is to late for the pebbles to vote."

[jegs2]

I believe Enlightenment is entitled to his opinion. I'll not insult him for having those with which I disagree. Furthermore, I'll fight to defend his right to legally express those opinions.