He hasn't, and I still think he needs a lot of killing, but how about you finally start giving some evidence for your assertion of him being such a fucking threat to American security when the far more militarily dangerous and politically unstable North Korea is not considered to merit similar attention? Your rambling about NK earlier boils down to "they might actually hit us back, so we can't do anything", and as far as Iraq is concerned, they couldn't do even that (hit the US directly) even if they did have WMD.
Saddam Hussein supports networks of terror that target American citizens. Al-Qaeda operatives reportedly move throughout the region – and through Iraq – with impunity. Whether or not because Saddam permits it or because his manhunts have failed is unimportant. The point is that under its current régime, Iraq has become a hotbed of threats both official and unofficial, clear and unclear.
My “rambling” about North Korea centers on the fact that engagement of any kind is impossible unless we want to deploy 700,000 American soldiers and millions of unwilling South Koreans against Kim Jong-Il and his corresponding millions of the People’s Army. Seoul is not much enamoured of that position at his time. How would
you tackle the North Korea issue any more effectively than George W. Bush?
Excuse me? Now that you have actually started getting results with the weapons inspections in Iraq, they suddenly failed? Or is it that you disregard what the inspectors are saying because it isn't what you want to hear? If you get the UN approval, fine, nix Saddam, but if you don't, just leave it be, because if you don't, that will be the floodgate. It will be the green light for anyone with the means and the desire to do whatever they want to go ahead, and you're deluding yourself if you think that the US can deal with India and China similarly if they choose to get belligerent over something. You can't, not and retain any friends anywhere. Besides, with the inspections, Saddam does not have the capacity to develop any WMD. Your arguments have no leg to stand on, you're just saying that "we can and therefore we will", which makes your attitude that of a bully.
A “floodgate?” I refuse to place my security as a citizen of the United States of America at the feet of an organization open to the manipulation of a self-serving majority.
Weapons inspections have failed already in South Africa, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Israel. What makes you believe they are any more effective at his point in time, after Hussein has had eight years in which to prepare?
Did I
say that we intended to “deal with” China and India? Preemption must be approached and carried out on a case-to-case basis. Your general arguments against its universal application don’t hold up because there is no universal application to speak of.
Hussein already
has stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction according to certain reports. James Bone of The Times made this argument in a recent article, “Iraqi Drone ‘Could Target Troops.’”: “‘“UNMOVIC has credible information that the total quantity of biological warfare agent in bombs, warheads and in bulk at the time of the Gulf War was 7,000 litres more than declared by Iraq. This additional agent was most likely all anthrax,’ it says. The report says there is ‘credible information’ indicating that 21,000 litres of biological warfare agent, including some 10,000 litres of anthrax, was stored in bulk at locations around the country during the war and was never destroyed.”
“We can, and therefore we will” is a legitimate argument whether or not it meshes with your concept of a perfect world. Keep in mind that Iraq has threatened us. Ignoring our responsibility to our own security –even over your insistence that we desist – is ridiculous at best.
Oh, you don't like analogies that show how easily your argument was exposed for the pathetic smokescreen attempt that it was? Yes, Hamas targets American ally (Israel), but the issue is far more complex than that and I'm not opening another Israel/Palestine debate with a moratorium on that subject in force. That's just a sidetrack here anyway.
My “argument exposed?” HAMAS
as an organization has carried out attacks that have resulted directly in American deaths on
multiple counts. When a rapist commits a crime, he is taken to trial. When he is a member of a larger crime ring, that whole organization is itself brought before the law. The United States Army does not endorse terrorist activity as a matter of course against foreign citizens. HAMAS has done so in the past.
The same applies also if it's a Finn that gets caught in the crossfire, they know better than to go there. There are some of my countrymen in Israel who should get caught in it if there was justice in the world, and good riddance. Hamas calls for Jihad against the US is tied to unquestioned US support of Israel's apartheid and oppression policies, and I can't see how the US can condemn support for the terrorist activities in a conflict by one state when it is actively supporting the terrorist activities of the opposite side (and state terror, at that). But that's again going off on the moratorium subject. Cut support for Israel and I'll give this argument a little more consideration if you choose to bring it up again.
If you admit that HAMAS has called for a Jihad and made it organizational policy to harm Americans, then how can you deny or oppose our wishes to end that threat – or sources that support it – on a legitimate basis? That certainly doesn’t bolster your claim that we should avoid providing for our own security. Cut off support for Israel? You mean let millions of Jews die a bloody death at the hands of an invasion? No, thanks. Israel has nothing to do with this.
You keep an eye on potential threats and if they become actual you do something about them, and if you get hold of those members who did not abide by the order not to associate with AQ, you take care of them as individuals. Hamas is a terror organisation (part of it, anyway), but so is the IDF from the Palestinian point of view, so you might to take a little bit of a more balanced look.
It's really fucking funny that you have to bring up a line of argument this pathetic to the table, especially the way you tout the Palestinian organisations as national security threats to the US and its allies when nobody in Europe seems to be concerned about that as a threat. Anything to justify your war, isn't it? You could use Saddam's record of genocide, just too bad that the US has been tacitly complicit in it, first by providing him with WMD in the 1980s, and later failing to give promised support to anti-Saddam forces, leaving them hanging out to dry. You don't have a case, not with the arguments you've been using.
Sure, you can go ahead and have your war, but ten or twenty years down the line when somebody else decides they can do whatever they want and tell you to piss off when you object, I will tell you to go fuck yourself when you whine you need help dealing with them. You helped set up the fucking rules, now play by them. Or not, but don't start complaining when others follow suit eventually.
A “balanced look?” One kills American citizens as a matter of course and another does not.
Nobody in Europe seems concerned because nobody in Europe has been made the target of a Holy War or seen a pair of planes crash into their World Trade Center towers.
The United States was as complicit as Iraq’s current source of munitions – France -, or the leading Russian and Chinese arms dealers. We rank fourth in the long list of Iraqi allies. At the time, support for Hussien was worthwhile in order to offset the Soviets.
The only thing I've heard is that Iraq, like Saudi Arabia, provides money to the bomber's families.
They are also suspected of providing weapons, training, and safehaven for terrorist groups operating against Israel.
You are making things up. Intelligence agencies are not so naive to look for only direct links, and they certainly would include training, arms, and money under their 'links' section. There are no links whatsoever- if there were they'd be trumpeted from the rooftops.
They are being trumpeted – by the United States of America.
Al-Samoud is a kitbash of pre-existing equipment. It is hardly on the level of sophistication of a nuclear effort.
One is an indicator for, not a component of the other.
So can any other shithole country, the Al-Samoud only has little more range than 150km. Hardly indicative of high technology- the Soviets were doing this 40 years ago. As for them being effective, that's another matter.
The Al-Samoud 2 has a 300km range.
Source please.
Certainly. Although Iraqi ties to the al-Qaeda network are as-yet unconfirmed on anything more than an indirect level – the next question deals with this -, Hussein is a major patron to numerous Palestinian movements advocating violence against the State of Israel.
According to the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism [U.S.A.], a branch of the Office of the Secretary of State of the United States of America, the Republic of Iraq under Saddam Hussein “issues public statements endorsing terrorism is a legitimate tactic” subsequent to “the formation of an international coalition against the invasion of Kuwait.” The data contained in their overview includes coverage of events by which American and other foreign citizens became unwilling human shields and contains additional information regarding Iraq’s previous links to both the Arab Liberation Front (ALF) and the Palestinian Liberation Front. “Even before the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq provided safehaven, training, and other support to Palestinian groups with a history of terrorist actions,” according to the site’s historical record.
Supporting evidence is also found in a 14 September 2002 article of the Sydney Morning Herald, acknowledging Iraqi ties to the families of Palestinian terrorists and cataloguing a total of “between US$30 and US$35 million” in exchanges between Baghdad and the bereaved. The article, titled “Iraq Stepping Up Support of Palestinian Uprising,” also reads, “Asked about Iraqi weapons shipments to the Palestinians, [Ibrahim] Zannen [“a spokesmen for the pro-Iraq Arab Liberation Army in Gaza”] said, ‘Iraq is supporting the Palestinian uprising by all means.’” His statements are backed by furious Israeli accusation of Iraqi connection to a series of recent bombings, many of which – such as that against Haifa on 5 March, 2003 – have led to the deaths of American citizens and prompted a cycle of retaliatory violence between both Arab and Jew.
Every other country with remote controlled planes also has this 'capability'.
But not necessarily the desire. And we cannot curb “every other country” per se. We can curb Iraq – whom we know to have designs on our troops.
133mm artillery rockets? Do you even know what they are? There are anti-tank missiles that are larger in diameter. Meh?! What do artillery rockets- first seen used in war in WW2 (i.e. Soviet Katyushas, German Nebelwerfers) have to do with a nuclear program?
The evidence doesn’t add up in El-Baradei’s case. He acknowledges that despite its being unlikely, those aluminum tubes
might be fashioned – with effort – into primitive nuclear centrifuges.
Iraq, he claims, has been working on rocket-artillery for upwards of two dozen years. Yet with acknowledged links between Baghdad and the governments of South Africa, Russia, and China during that time – all acknowledged experts; the Soviets have a standing 81mm system -, why the slow going and ultimate failure of their program to yield results?
So what? Since when does possible/ probable possesion of WMDs tell someone about what they plan to do with them?
It’s circumstantial evidence. With a nuclear capability, Saddam would be beyond all reproach.
Good. Let em work.
They work – halfway - slowly and improperly. They have failed before and are likely to do so again.
Nonsense. American aircraft can fly well above their effective range, wiping them out with JDAMs or other PGMs. In addition, their primitive fire control radars can be jammed completely without effort, making them even less effective. This was figured out in the Gulf War.
And what if these were crashed into the ground? Why permit the threat to come to us on the basis that we
might be able to intercept it in time?
This all comes under terrain.
Your point? It’s doesn’t make assailing North Korea any more viable.
If you call a tussle between patrol boats a tangle with the SK navy, you're out of your mind. The NK navy is nothing but a bunch of floating fodder for Harpoons.
It’s evidence that they’re not so horrible as you seem to intimate. After all, if training is so far different, why couldn’t the South Koreans repel the Northern boats without taking fewer losses?
And if you looked further than a cursory examination of the worst military analysis website ever, you'd see that NK's tanks and AFVs are inferior and antiquated- little more than targets to any vehicle that is from 1975 onwards. NK has no T-72s. It still uses T-34s in some cases- and it's most numerous tank is a cheap copy of the Russian T-54, which was introduced in 1947.
You should also be aware that Iraq now has 2,200 tanks- the majority of which (700) are T-72 tanks. The rest are all superior to NK tanks. Iraq also fields 3,800 armored fighting vehicles. Check your numbers next time.
Iraq’s tanks are still far more open to missile attack and direct air power. North Korea’s can take strong advantage of the terrain you’ve so callously dismissed. One will be able to use their weapons – no matter how primitive. Another will not.
And we're also talking about a military with hardly any mechanization, hell even motorization, compared to Iraq's, and way inferior equipment, including a very badly equipped air force.
It’s going to be fighting nearly hand-to-hand. It’s too expensive to consider a conventional assault on the North. Seoul would burn with or without a victory on our part.
No, it'll be man to M2 Bradley.
The M2 Bradley is susceptible to rocket-propelled grenades. Especially in that kind of environment.
I'm not saying NK wouldn't be hard. But it's army is hardly a worhty opponent to SK and the US.
Oh, but it is. We’re talking about Seoul being flattened at the start of the war and a possible North Korean missile strike on American ships and other South Korean targets. The damage they could deal is enormous.
I'm not arguing for war with NK. I'm merely dispelling some myths about the 'scary' North Koreans. Quite frankly, South Korea would kick their ass alone.
But not before being brought to their own knees.
Ok this is getting beyond a joke. The Republican Guard consists of eight divisions. Do you know how large a division is, even? What the hell are you talking about, 5,000 men?!
I have heard reports that indicate only 5,000 of the Republican Guard as being both battle-worthy and willing to fight.
But whether or not we’re talking about eight divisions, it won’t be a problem.
They can be handled militarily. Easily. It will be a long fight, but they are hardly what I'd call scary. To be honest, you've made so many blatant errors in fact I really don't think you should be calling me incorrect.
North Korea
can be handled military- but hardly without full mobilization of American fighting forces. You
severely underestimate their ability to do us significant damage in any conflict. You don’t think that if attacked, Kim would fire off a nuclear missile at Los Angeles?
- interestingly, the same fudging of the truth has happened with the oft-heard 'Saddam expelled inspectors in 1998' claimed- which also never happened).
