StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Shinova wrote:What does the line in latin say?

I don't know any latin but I would guess something along the lines of "knowledge is power".

"1. The first war was fought in open desert. This will be urban fighting. That means all those pretty tanks and a-10s will just be sitting there with their thumbs jammed up their asses. America has gotten nice and used to very low casuality fighting, and I wonder what will happen to public opinion when our sons and daughters start dying by the thousands in room to room operations."

That assuming that the Iraquis decide to fight.I think that it is a serious possibility but I would not bet too much money on that.

"3. The committee has made no contingency plans at all. If 300,000 troops aren't enough, they have no idea what to do. If they decide to implement a draft, it will cause some serious fucking shit to go down."

I think that before implementing a draft they would turn Iraq into a radioactive wasteland.

"4. Saddam has ordered 1.3 million antidotes for chemical weapons. This tells me that he plans to innoculate his troops and turn Baghdad into a biohazard zone."

And US soldiers are being inoculated too.

"5. Eventually the international community may or may not realize that Saddam didn't do anything and wasn't intending to, runs a secular government, and the only reason America is attacking is that we're greedy for his oil."

I think that the issue is more complicated than that.

Darth Wong wrote:

Many conspiracists would say this is a Free Masons Force.

Darth Wong wrote:

Stravo wrote:I know I'm liable to get flamed for this but quite frankly this does not seem to be any more threatening than Hoover's FBI or Joe McCarthy and we survived that.

And the people who were directly victimized by it are not important because they're Somebody Else ...

Ah, the wonders of the S.E.P. field.

This is a surprisingly exact amalgam of the MJ-12 and Illuminati insignia from Deus Ex (with the Illuminati pyramid replacing MJ-12's grasping hand). Wonder if somebody in the government is a fan...

MKSheppard wrote:

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote: 1. America has been digging itself into monster credit card debt to spend ourselves out of the recession. It's likely that this will bring our economy crashing down around our heads.

They've been predicting this since the 1970s, try again.

2. The war in Iraq is likely to spin out of control. The people in charge of planning it are fucking morons, and there are a lot of unpredictable variables that are not being taken into account.

How? We splattered them the first time around, and wasnt the war
in Afghanistan supposed to become a quagmire, but we blew the fuck
out of the Taliban in mere WEEKS?

"You've managed to kill everyone else but like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target!"

Who thought up of this thing? I know some liberties have to be given up in time of war, but this is absurd. There are ways we can stop potential terrorists while not turning the country into a police state. If only Asscroft knew that.

Admiral Piett wrote:"1. The first war was fought in open desert. This will be urban fighting. That means all those pretty tanks and a-10s will just be sitting there with their thumbs jammed up their asses. America has gotten nice and used to very low casuality fighting, and I wonder what will happen to public opinion when our sons and daughters start dying by the thousands in room to room operations."

That assuming that the Iraquis decide to fight.I think that it is a serious possibility but I would not bet too much money on that.

In case you haven't noticed, we're trying to kill their leader, who has control of the media and propaganda. They'll fight tooth and nail.

"3. The committee has made no contingency plans at all. If 300,000 troops aren't enough, they have no idea what to do. If they decide to implement a draft, it will cause some serious fucking shit to go down."

I think that before implementing a draft they would turn Iraq into a radioactive wasteland.

And irradiate the very oil we want control of? I would doubt it. Besides, using nuclear weapons would galvanize the world against the U.S. All the countries "on the fence" would be seriously fucking pissed.

"4. Saddam has ordered 1.3 million antidotes for chemical weapons. This tells me that he plans to innoculate his troops and turn Baghdad into a biohazard zone."

And US soldiers are being inoculated too.

Yes, but unlike us, he knows exactly what to innoculate his men against.

"5. Eventually the international community may or may not realize that Saddam didn't do anything and wasn't intending to, runs a secular government, and the only reason America is attacking is that we're greedy for his oil."

I think that the issue is more complicated than that.

How is it more complicated than that? I haven't heard one plausible explanation why we would possibly want to attack Iraq other than simple greed. I should remind everyone that not even the Bush administration thinks that Saddam has the capability to hit the U.S., and he had nothing to gain and everything to lose by using chemical weapons even if he did know how to weaponize them. As for the whole "threat to his neighbors" bullshit, you're goddam right he's a threat to his neighbors. What they forgot to mention is that the U.S. hates his neighbors' fucking guts. We funded and set up Saddam for the express purpose of being a threat to his neighbors, particularly Iran.

I'd really like to hear an explanation that fits the facts better than mine.

"In case you haven't noticed, we're trying to kill their leader, who has control of the media and propaganda. They'll fight tooth and nail."

In case you haven't noticed,last time some of them surrendered to a DRONE.

"And irradiate the very oil we want control of? I would doubt it. Besides, using nuclear weapons would galvanize the world against the U.S. All the countries "on the fence" would be seriously fucking pissed."

I was describing the extreme.There are a few options before nukes.Firebombing the resisting cities,for example.Certainly they will do that before a draft.

"Yes, but unlike us, he knows exactly what to innoculate his men against."

Its biological arsenal is more or less known.

"How is it more complicated than that? I haven't heard one plausible explanation why we would possibly want to attack Iraq other than simple greed."

Well, the war has boosted his popularity for example .But I think that this has more to do with the chess game of the regional politics.

Admiral Piett wrote: "And irradiate the very oil we want control of? I would doubt it. Besides, using nuclear weapons would galvanize the world against the U.S. All the countries "on the fence" would be seriously fucking pissed."

I was describing the extreme.There are a few options before nukes.Firebombing the resisting cities,for example.Certainly they will do that before a draft.

Umm, they wouldn't firebomb a city, thats almost as bad as nuking the place, massive civilian casualties, the populace back home would hate it, the international community would hate it, etc...

Ted wrote:Umm, they wouldn't firebomb a city, thats almost as bad as nuking the place, massive civilian casualties, the populace back home would hate it, the international community would hate it, etc...

Last time I checked the international community does not vote in the US presidential elections and your current president uses the international treaties as toilet paper.
If firebombing was the only option available to avoid a draft they will do that.Of course sieging the resisting cities and starve them may be an other one.
But frankly I do not think that it will be necessary.
EDIT
By the way,do not think that I am enthusiast about this war.Simply it is obvious that the Iraquis cannot win.But the US could lose,at least on the political arena.

Frankly, if the choice is between high American casualties(Draft, storming of Iraqi cities) and high Iraqi casualties(firebombing, carpet bombing), you know which one our high command will choose.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote: Just like the Simbianese Liberation Army didn't roll over? Oh wait, they're dead, the feds cornered them in a house and torched it on national TV to send a message. How about the guys at Wako? Oh wait, they're dead too. Ruby Ridge? The Freemen? Dead, and dead. Face it, citizens can't fight the government and live to tell about it, and you're no exception.

Remember that any army is recruted fom the people. If any government gets to the point where it feels it must use its army against its people then the government risks
1}The army refuses to obey orders and stays in barracks
2}The army assists the people in deposing the government.

This sort of senario is not about nutters in wako or other small minority outfits that noone gives a stuff about, but about the alieination of the clear majority of a nations citizens to such a degree that elections are not enough to give statifaction. In such situations no government can rely on its army simply because it is, by its very nature, representitive of the people.If a government does aleinate its people or brutalise them , then look at what happned in Eastern Europe in 1990-91.
No citizen can fight the government, but no government can win against its own population.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:In case you haven't noticed, we're trying to kill their leader, who has control of the media and propaganda. They'll fight tooth and nail.

You realize he's launched multiple Stalin-esque purges of his officer corps and others because people want him out? The whole reason for developing nuclear weapons is to regain power and prestige and to stave off coups by restoring Iraq to a position of importance.

And irradiate the very oil we want control of? I would doubt it. Besides, using nuclear weapons would galvanize the world against the U.S. All the countries "on the fence" would be seriously fucking pissed.

You have a poor understanding of the Arab conscript armies. Each and every time Isreal ran over them, and they really hate the Isrealis. The poor conscripted fool generally doesn't like Saddam nor the higher class pampered officer corps.

quote]Yes, but unlike us, he knows exactly what to innoculate his men against.

We do know what kind of chemical he has. We uncovered a lot of it during 1998. I wouldn't bet on the likelihood of anything different, since we found a lot of the higher-grade really shitty stuff.

How is it more complicated than that? I haven't heard one plausible explanation why we would possibly want to attack Iraq other than simple greed. I should remind everyone that not even the Bush administration thinks that Saddam has the capability to hit the U.S., and he had nothing to gain and everything to lose by using chemical weapons even if he did know how to weaponize them. As for the whole "threat to his neighbors" bullshit, you're goddam right he's a threat to his neighbors. What they forgot to mention is that the U.S. hates his neighbors' fucking guts. We funded and set up Saddam for the express purpose of being a threat to his neighbors, particularly Iran.

While Bush is seriously pissing me off, you're full of shit.

1) Are you so stupid as to think its really just a ICBM + warhead = attacks on U.S. deal? He has the current ability to supply agents, terrorists, whomever with sarin and VX I believe, and he could also supply them with smallpox, or even with reactor-grade uranium for radiological bombs. Not to mention nuke in a freighter...which WILL happen some day. I hope I'm not there to see it. The laughable idea that Al Quaeda would refuse sarin from Iraq or they or someone else wouldn't get it from a middleman with Iraq is absurd.

2) Saddam isn't that much of a threat to his neighbors, you're correct. We should've been nicer to the Iranians for convience's sake, but Bush is dipshit.

3) The idea that the U.S. shouldn't protect itself from one country it set up as a bulwark against the fundamentalists in Iran is weak. It's hypocrisy, but we're talking politics. This is tantamount to saying that the Germans didn't have the right to defend themselves against the Soviet bloc because they were originally responsible for putting Lenin in power. Sorry, politics doesn't work on such nice rules.

But fuck this Big Brother shit. Bush has lost credibility because he's more intent on keeping tabs on all of us then he has been on securing the Mexican border.

NecronLord wrote:

The Dark wrote:

Spanky The Dolphin wrote: "Science is Potential"?

I looked it up; it means "Knowledge is Power." Kinda frightening.

IIRC, Echelon is for overseas, Carnivore was the proposed domestic version of Echelon.

As did I. Except I have had latin lessons unlike whatever image-consultant-with-a-dictionary made that.

They have got their gammar wrong.

it should be "knowlege power is" with the verb at the end, as opposed to a simple english translation. I fear you may be getting a dud intelligence service.
<snip>

Ah. I did not realize that. In the modern Romance languages I've looked at, it's pretty much switched to subject verb object, such as the French "conaissance est puissance," or the Portuguese "conhecimento e poder."

Alyrium Denryle wrote:The problem is, once these rights are gone, we will never get them back.

That's a common falsehood. We got back rights that were lost during the McCarthy era; there are open Communists in the USA today who couldn't have existed in the positions they hold today, that they did, then.

I think this entire IOA thing is basically a bunch of Pentagon techno-geeks, who, in a time of national emergency, have been given leave to create their own agency without bureaucratic handlers. This is the inevitable result; certain sectors of the Pentagon can get plenty twisted. I know that from personal experience, and, hell, look at geeks here, imagine geeks working for the government doing classified stuff. There are actually a large number of them.

I suspect the logo is the case of a bunch of guys who have never left the basement of the Pentagon (even when the plane hit it on 9/11), getting to choose it for themselves, and deciding the Illuminati Eye looked "cool".

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
1) Are you so stupid as to think its really just a ICBM + warhead = attacks on U.S. deal? He has the current ability to supply agents, terrorists, whomever with sarin and VX I believe, and he could also supply them with smallpox, or even with reactor-grade uranium for radiological bombs. Not to mention nuke in a freighter...which WILL happen some day. I hope I'm not there to see it. The laughable idea that Al Quaeda would refuse sarin from Iraq or they or someone else wouldn't get it from a middleman with Iraq is absurd.

Terrorists will not probably use iraqui supplied gases.For them it would probably be better to manufacture the gas from the basic chemicals.It eliminates a lot of storage and transport problems.You can manufacture mustard gas in the your backyard with a barrel,a stick and a couple of basic chemicals.If you are really worried about the nuke in a freighter problem you should increase your security and/or reduce Pakistan to a smoking crater tomorrow.And what about helping the russians to secure their nuclear stockpile? The current program receives only one third of the planned funds,which are a microscopical fraction of what is going to be spent on a war in Iraq.

Admiral Piett wrote:

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
1) Are you so stupid as to think its really just a ICBM + warhead = attacks on U.S. deal? He has the current ability to supply agents, terrorists, whomever with sarin and VX I believe, and he could also supply them with smallpox, or even with reactor-grade uranium for radiological bombs. Not to mention nuke in a freighter...which WILL happen some day. I hope I'm not there to see it. The laughable idea that Al Quaeda would refuse sarin from Iraq or they or someone else wouldn't get it from a middleman with Iraq is absurd.

The idea that Iraq would offer it is also absurd.

Stuart Mackey wrote:Remember that any army is recruted fom the people. If any government gets to the point where it feels it must use its army against its people then the government risks
1}The army refuses to obey orders and stays in barracks
2}The army assists the people in deposing the government.

This sort of senario is not about nutters in wako or other small minority outfits that noone gives a stuff about, but about the alieination of the clear majority of a nations citizens to such a degree that elections are not enough to give statifaction. In such situations no government can rely on its army simply because it is, by its very nature, representitive of the people.If a government does aleinate its people or brutalise them , then look at what happned in Eastern Europe in 1990-91.
No citizen can fight the government, but no government can win against its own population.

Sometimes that sort of thing happens, sometimes not. It certainly didn't in Chile, for instance. Anyway, the point is that it's the military that determines whether dictatorships are overthrown, not the general populace, and the military often becomes drunk with their newfound power as national leaders and simply sets up a new dictatorship.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:In case you haven't noticed, we're trying to kill their leader, who has control of the media and propaganda. They'll fight tooth and nail.

You realize he's launched multiple Stalin-esque purges of his officer corps and others because people want him out? The whole reason for developing nuclear weapons is to regain power and prestige and to stave off coups by restoring Iraq to a position of importance.

There's a difference between the general populace and the officer corps. You can't point to his unhappy officers as evidence that the "people want him out".

And irradiate the very oil we want control of? I would doubt it. Besides, using nuclear weapons would galvanize the world against the U.S. All the countries "on the fence" would be seriously fucking pissed.

You have a poor understanding of the Arab conscript armies. Each and every time Isreal ran over them, and they really hate the Isrealis. The poor conscripted fool generally doesn't like Saddam nor the higher class pampered officer corps.

What the fuck are you talking about? What's that got to do with nuclear weapons?

Yes, but unlike us, he knows exactly what to innoculate his men against.

We do know what kind of chemical he has. We uncovered a lot of it during 1998. I wouldn't bet on the likelihood of anything different, since we found a lot of the higher-grade really shitty stuff.

Fair enough. Point conceeded.

How is it more complicated than that? I haven't heard one plausible explanation why we would possibly want to attack Iraq other than simple greed. I should remind everyone that not even the Bush administration thinks that Saddam has the capability to hit the U.S., and he had nothing to gain and everything to lose by using chemical weapons even if he did know how to weaponize them. As for the whole "threat to his neighbors" bullshit, you're goddam right he's a threat to his neighbors. What they forgot to mention is that the U.S. hates his neighbors' fucking guts. We funded and set up Saddam for the express purpose of being a threat to his neighbors, particularly Iran.

While Bush is seriously pissing me off, you're full of shit.

1) Are you so stupid as to think its really just a ICBM + warhead = attacks on U.S. deal? He has the current ability to supply agents, terrorists, whomever with sarin and VX I believe, and he could also supply them with smallpox, or even with reactor-grade uranium for radiological bombs. Not to mention nuke in a freighter...which WILL happen some day. I hope I'm not there to see it. The laughable idea that Al Quaeda would refuse sarin from Iraq or they or someone else wouldn't get it from a middleman with Iraq is absurd.

So what? France could supply terrorists with all those things, maybe we should attack France. This point is that there is no evidence he has ever done this, nor would it be in his best interest. There are other countries, such as Libya, who have both the means and the motive, and you don't see the U.S. attacking them.

2) Saddam isn't that much of a threat to his neighbors, you're correct. We should've been nicer to the Iranians for convience's sake, but Bush is dipshit.

3) The idea that the U.S. shouldn't protect itself from one country it set up as a bulwark against the fundamentalists in Iran is weak. It's hypocrisy, but we're talking politics. This is tantamount to saying that the Germans didn't have the right to defend themselves against the Soviet bloc because they were originally responsible for putting Lenin in power. Sorry, politics doesn't work on such nice rules.

What the fuck? Defend ourselves from Iraq? Are you fucking kidding me? Even the Bush administration admits that Iraq probably doesn't have the means to attack the U.S., and there's little reason to believe he has the will.

But fuck this Big Brother shit. Bush has lost credibility because he's more intent on keeping tabs on all of us then he has been on securing the Mexican border.

Bush is a fucking moron. It's Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld and a shitload of other CIA-type psychotic fucks who are running the show now.

Admiral Piett wrote:"In case you haven't noticed, we're trying to kill their leader, who has control of the media and propaganda. They'll fight tooth and nail."

In case you haven't noticed,last time some of them surrendered to a DRONE.

"And irradiate the very oil we want control of? I would doubt it. Besides, using nuclear weapons would galvanize the world against the U.S. All the countries "on the fence" would be seriously fucking pissed."

I was describing the extreme.There are a few options before nukes.Firebombing the resisting cities,for example.Certainly they will do that before a draft.

"Yes, but unlike us, he knows exactly what to innoculate his men against."

Its biological arsenal is more or less known.

"How is it more complicated than that? I haven't heard one plausible explanation why we would possibly want to attack Iraq other than simple greed."

Well, the war has boosted his popularity for example .But I think that this has more to do with the chess game of the regional politics.

Chess game of regional politics? What's that mean?

Chess game of regional politics? What's that mean?

Playing Civ in real-life basically.

Geopolitics- realpolitik all that stuff.

I guessed that, but I was asking what he meant by that statement specifically.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:
In case you haven't noticed, we're trying to kill their leader, who has control of the media and propaganda. They'll fight tooth and nail.

Do you get your news from Ba'athist Radio Baghdad? For starters, Saddam does not have total control of the media in Iraq. Cross-border broadcasts happen and they've proven impossible to control in Iraq. Television from the rest of the Arab world and from Iran (Both often critical of Saddam), from the world at large (Much moreso), and radio the same, along with leaflets dropped by our aircraft, and some print news circulated from the Kurdish areas which are virtually a seperate government, all reach the average Abdul on the street in Baghdad.

This is the same army where people were surrendering to TV Cameras and unarmed TV Cameramen in 1991. It's your average tinpot dictatorship army which had its moral spirit broken against the Iranians and then had its guts run over in 1991. And don't give me anything about them fighting harder on their home soil; a lot of those Iraqis who surrendered, well, they surrendered on their own soil (we did a big loop up into Iraq to encircle their forces in Kuwait you know), and had know idea if we'd keep on going or not - And they surrendered anyway.

We decimated the Iraqi Army; it is half the size it was before '91, and a lot of it is conscript infantry. If those guys would surrender on their own soil before, obviously not knowing the outcome of the war in advance, why wouldn't they surrender now?

When Saddam emptied his prisons the people, even the camp guards, were chanting "USA!" over and over. Jeeze. We're not going to have a problem invading Iraq or running a military governorship there.

And irradiate the very oil we want control of? I would doubt it. Besides, using nuclear weapons would galvanize the world against the U.S. All the countries "on the fence" would be seriously fucking pissed.

Oil doesn't get irradiated. Another fantasy about nuclear weapons there - You'd have to pelt Iraq with millions of ground bursts to destroy the oil reserves. They're deep underground and even cratering devices wouldn't touch them.

If the Iraqis use WMDs, we will probably retaliate with nukes targeted at a military target that hasn't surrendered or been annihilated yet. That preserves the concept of retaliatory strike without doing something extreme.

Yes, but unlike us, he knows exactly what to innoculate his men against.

We've been planning for years and years to fight the Soviet Army in Biohazard Zone Germany. Fighting Saddam with chemicals and biologics and nukes all around would really be no different; he has a decay soviet-style army. In fact, our army is considerably better than it was in '91, and his has gotten worse. Our NBC protection is better, too, for that matter.

Yes, we don't know what he has, but our vehicles are designed to operate in that enviroment, our suits are designed to operate in that enviroment, and our doctrine is quite capable of dealing with an NBC enviroment. Honestly, considering the casualties chemical weapons inflicted in WWI I don't see how WMDs short of nukes could inflict any more casualties on us than Saddam's conventional forces, if that.

How is it more complicated than that? I haven't heard one plausible explanation why we would possibly want to attack Iraq other than simple greed. I should remind everyone that not even the Bush administration thinks that Saddam has the capability to hit the U.S., and he had nothing to gain and everything to lose by using chemical weapons even if he did know how to weaponize them. As for the whole "threat to his neighbors" bullshit, you're goddam right he's a threat to his neighbors. What they forgot to mention is that the U.S. hates his neighbors' fucking guts. We funded and set up Saddam for the express purpose of being a threat to his neighbors, particularly Iran.

I'd really like to hear an explanation that fits the facts better than mine.

Saddam is a threat in the region because of his instability. Principally: He had several chemical warhead armed scuds aimed at Tel Aviv, but he never told anyone he was going to launch them if we went towards Baghdad. We only found out after the war: And deterrance is a concept that works only if the other side knows it's there. Otherwise it's just revenge.

Saddam is the sort of man who's just crazy enough he might disprove Strategic Paralysis; and so he is bad for the balance of power in the region as it exists (Which is being eroded anyway be the weakening of Iraq under sanctions - Which we would need if we didn't remove him).

Another strong argument, even stronger I'd say, is that Iran may collapse internally after we take out Saddam. The example of America following through with our word and finally ridding Iraq of Saddam, and of American troops along the Iranian border, able to provide support to the bodies in Iran working towards a democratic Iran, makes me very hopeful in that regard.

There are considerable indications, especially now with the Aghadari case, that the Iranian regime of the Ayatollahs is toppling from the inside. And I believe that action against Iraq could be the final straw in that regard; within less than a year after we enter Iraq, Iran will fall internally, without our needing to take military action, and a secular government will be extant there.

Finally, with Iraq down, we will be able to pump out enough oil from Iraq that any action we take in the long term against Saudi Arabia will not have a major effect on the world oil market, or at least as severe of one. I think that people overestimate our ability to operate sometimes. Saudi Arabia is obviously the primary threat in the War on Terror, but they have the "Saudi Oil Bomb", which first must be negated before we can taken any action, even so much as sanctions, against them.

Their terrorist actions must be countered; but first their ability to cause massive economic damage to the world must be countered. The way to do that is to break OPEC's control of the world oil market. And the way to do that is to start pumping out Iraqi oil under a non-OPEC aligned government. Once we start doing that we can safely take action against Saudi Arabia.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:
In case you haven't noticed, we're trying to kill their leader, who has control of the media and propaganda. They'll fight tooth and nail.

Do you get your news from Ba'athist Radio Baghdad? For starters, Saddam does not have total control of the media in Iraq. Cross-border broadcasts happen and they've proven impossible to control in Iraq. Television from the rest of the Arab world and from Iran (Both often critical of Saddam), from the world at large (Much moreso), and radio the same, along with leaflets dropped by our aircraft, and some print news circulated from the Kurdish areas which are virtually a seperate government, all reach the average Abdul on the street in Baghdad.

This is the same army where people were surrendering to TV Cameras and unarmed TV Cameramen in 1991. It's your average tinpot dictatorship army which had its moral spirit broken against the Iranians and then had its guts run over in 1991. And don't give me anything about them fighting harder on their home soil; a lot of those Iraqis who surrendered, well, they surrendered on their own soil (we did a big loop up into Iraq to encircle their forces in Kuwait you know), and had know idea if we'd keep on going or not - And they surrendered anyway.

We decimated the Iraqi Army; it is half the size it was before '91, and a lot of it is conscript infantry. If those guys would surrender on their own soil before, obviously not knowing the outcome of the war in advance, why wouldn't they surrender now?

When Saddam emptied his prisons the people, even the camp guards, were chanting "USA!" over and over. Jeeze. We're not going to have a problem invading Iraq or running a military governorship there.

[Johnny Carson voice]I did not know that[/Carson]. Point conceeded.

And irradiate the very oil we want control of? I would doubt it. Besides, using nuclear weapons would galvanize the world against the U.S. All the countries "on the fence" would be seriously fucking pissed.

Oil doesn't get irradiated. Another fantasy about nuclear weapons there - You'd have to pelt Iraq with millions of ground bursts to destroy the oil reserves. They're deep underground and even cratering devices wouldn't touch them.

If the Iraqis use WMDs, we will probably retaliate with nukes targeted at a military target that hasn't surrendered or been annihilated yet. That preserves the concept of retaliatory strike without doing something extreme.

Thanks for the correction. In any case, the primary concern is the political damage of nukes or large scale firebombing.

Yes, but unlike us, he knows exactly what to innoculate his men against.

We've been planning for years and years to fight the Soviet Army in Biohazard Zone Germany. Fighting Saddam with chemicals and biologics and nukes all around would really be no different; he has a decay soviet-style army. In fact, our army is considerably better than it was in '91, and his has gotten worse. Our NBC protection is better, too, for that matter.

Yes, we don't know what he has, but our vehicles are designed to operate in that enviroment, our suits are designed to operate in that enviroment, and our doctrine is quite capable of dealing with an NBC enviroment. Honestly, considering the casualties chemical weapons inflicted in WWI I don't see how WMDs short of nukes could inflict any more casualties on us than Saddam's conventional forces, if that.

Already conceeded that point against Illuminatus.

How is it more complicated than that? I haven't heard one plausible explanation why we would possibly want to attack Iraq other than simple greed. I should remind everyone that not even the Bush administration thinks that Saddam has the capability to hit the U.S., and he had nothing to gain and everything to lose by using chemical weapons even if he did know how to weaponize them. As for the whole "threat to his neighbors" bullshit, you're goddam right he's a threat to his neighbors. What they forgot to mention is that the U.S. hates his neighbors' fucking guts. We funded and set up Saddam for the express purpose of being a threat to his neighbors, particularly Iran.

I'd really like to hear an explanation that fits the facts better than mine.

Saddam is a threat in the region because of his instability. Principally: He had several chemical warhead armed scuds aimed at Tel Aviv, but he never told anyone he was going to launch them if we went towards Baghdad. We only found out after the war: And deterrance is a concept that works only if the other side knows it's there. Otherwise it's just revenge.

Saddam is the sort of man who's just crazy enough he might disprove Strategic Paralysis; and so he is bad for the balance of power in the region as it exists (Which is being eroded anyway be the weakening of Iraq under sanctions - Which we would need if we didn't remove him).

I never claimed Saddam wasn't a threat to the region. There are a lot of countries that are threats to their regions *cough* Israel *cough*, and we don't take action against them. If America was the righteous Globocop it portrays itself as, I might buy that argument as reason to go to war, but seeing as how we didn't intervene in any of the holocausts, racial/tribal/religious wars, civil wars, apartheid policies of the last few decades, I know that the reason has to be economically motivated.

Another strong argument, even stronger I'd say, is that Iran may collapse internally after we take out Saddam. The example of America following through with our word and finally ridding Iraq of Saddam, and of American troops along the Iranian border, able to provide support to the bodies in Iran working towards a democratic Iran, makes me very hopeful in that regard.

There are considerable indications, especially now with the Aghadari case, that the Iranian regime of the Ayatollahs is toppling from the inside. And I believe that action against Iraq could be the final straw in that regard; within less than a year after we enter Iraq, Iran will fall internally, without our needing to take military action, and a secular government will be extant there.

Hmm. Weird. How would the fall of Iraq lead to the collapse of Iran?

Finally, with Iraq down, we will be able to pump out enough oil from Iraq that any action we take in the long term against Saudi Arabia will not have a major effect on the world oil market, or at least as severe of one. I think that people overestimate our ability to operate sometimes. Saudi Arabia is obviously the primary threat in the War on Terror, but they have the "Saudi Oil Bomb", which first must be negated before we can taken any action, even so much as sanctions, against them.

Their terrorist actions must be countered; but first their ability to cause massive economic damage to the world must be countered. The way to do that is to break OPEC's control of the world oil market. And the way to do that is to start pumping out Iraqi oil under a non-OPEC aligned government. Once we start doing that we can safely take action against Saudi Arabia.

Interesting. I never thought about it from that angle. So instead of simple greed for another man's oil, it's a desire to control a majority of the world's oil so as not to be beholden to OPEC and particularly Saudi Arabia. I guess this is the "chess game" Piett was talking about.