StarDestroyer.Net BBS

[quote="Vympel"]Should we pre-emptively attack Venus?quote]

Hell yes. The poisonous atmosphere of Venus could be used for a terror attack by the dinosaur-men that inhabit the surface of our "sister planet."

Wicked Pilot wrote:

BoredShirtless wrote:So fucking what, you still haven't put forward a reason why Iraq would want to do these things. People could think of plenty of worst case scenarios, given the right set of preconditions. In the one you quoted below, it ceases to be the Most Likely if you dont invade.

Uh, let's see. He invaded Kuwait, and took their oil fields. When his army was getting routed by the USMC from the south, and the US Army bearing down from the west, he set the fields on fire. He created the greatest man made ecological desaster ever, and destroyed the Kuwaitis economic infastructure. And the whole time, he himself wasn't even a target. Oh how we forget the past when it suits us.

When you reply to a thread, you'd do well to read the starting post.

Bored, Starting doing alittle thinking instead of contunialy pointing to your first post and not bothering to refute anything

Now then stay with me here, The question that was put is...
If you where Saddam Hussian and you wanted to hurt America Badley what would you do?

The answear of course as I mentioned was to Destroy Middle East Oil Production,
We have enough AA systems in place around Iraq that using Migs to do it is not possible(Unless its a Sucided run of his entire Air-force, We could not get enough Planes Aloft in time with enough Sparrows and Side-winders to get them all)

Leaving the option down to a Ground Assult(Would take much to long to get your tanks to all the Oil Fields and blow them all up)

Insurgants(He would have to train them on the spot given he has no decidated force and given the fact no one is allowed to Cross the Iraqy boarder they would be pretty easy to notice)

Or Missile attack, We are supposdly able to shoot down SCUD's and his other Missles, But its still a untested system and we don't have enough to go around

And Vympel your telling me, Saddam, Facing either Exile or Invasion and Excuition would not think... "Hmmm if I wanted to hurt America badly how would I do it, Ahh this is the best option no way I'll be using that"

Cut the Middle East Oil and the entire World Economey heads south, its very simple folks, He does not possess the Weaponry to Completly Destroy all Production(Question of Quanity not Quality) but he will if we leave him alone...

Mr Bean wrote:Bored, Starting doing alittle thinking instead of contunialy pointing to your first post and not bothering to refute anything

Now then stay with me here, The question that was put is...
If you where Saddam Hussian and you wanted to hurt America Badley what would you do?

Yeah I'm a little confused here Bean, I can't seem to find this question in that article I posted. And for the life of me I also don't see how it relates to this thread.

[snip]

Nice article. I'll try to refute it tomorrow night.

Yeah I'm a little confused here Bean, I can't seem to find this question in that article I posted. And for the life of me I also don't see how it relates to this thread.

Try and keep up, Remeber posts don't exist as completly seperate entinies onto themselves, I refer back to previous posts to answear things you asked

1. The Saddam Destroys the Middle East Oil Suppy is THE Most Likley Worst Case, It is also the most likley senario should we wait longer than another year to deal with him
2. He does not possess enough Munitions to do achive his goal, nor does he have the Accurasy he needs in his Missles to be asured of Descrution, Give him Nukes and He justs has to get within a quater mile rather than one hundred feet he needs with Conventioal Munitions, Once he gets either one of those he will be effectly un-attackble in the Political sense, If he gets Nukes instead of more accurate Missles he's now also un-attackble in the Military Sense

This is not Techowank, This is not Bullshit, This is what was handed to me and I read six months ago when we began the Build-up in the Gulf

Mr Bean wrote:

If you would have read the article, I wouldn't need to point out that the US could easily "chug along" without Iraq's oil. Your point or scenario is shit even if it where based on fact: your "ok"ing the death of hundreds and thousands of innocent people, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, green lighting the inclusion of ANOTHER puppet regieme, all because of a scenario you dreamed off after a night of back to back Rambo/Armgageddon/[insert Hollywood action movie here].

Read the quote agian Captian Brillant, I'm talking about Saddam blowing up the Rest of the Arab Worlds Oil Infastructor not his, He can simply shut off his production, And furthermore it does not take alot of Firepower to fry the Oil Fields of The Middle East, A few pounds of high Expolsives and the right Wind Conditions and half the Oil fields will burn themseles down in Short Order, The two things Saddam has lacked has been enough missles to do the job and enough Firepower to do it with, He now has one of the two

IIRC, all of the Saudi oil pipelines go through exactly one point somewhere along their run. Knock that out and you shut down the KSA's oil production entirely.

There are also nasty things you can do to their water supply with a minimal number of conventional and nuclear warheads (I've seen someone come up with a minimal attack plan).

BoredShirtless wrote:When you reply to a thread, you'd do well to read the starting post.

Quit dodging critizism by pointing to your sacred article. We read it, it was bullshit. If you have a point to make, then do it. Stop sticking one finger in your ear going "LA LA LA LA LA" while pointing at the article with your other hand.

Wicked Pilot wrote:

BoredShirtless wrote:So fucking what, you still haven't put forward a reason why Iraq would want to do these things. People could think of plenty of worst case scenarios, given the right set of preconditions. In the one you quoted below, it ceases to be the Most Likely if you dont invade.

Uh, let's see. He invaded Kuwait, and took their oil fields. When his army was getting routed by the USMC from the south, and the US Army bearing down from the west, he set the fields on fire. He created the greatest man made ecological desaster ever, and destroyed the Kuwaitis economic infastructure. And the whole time, he himself wasn't even a target. Oh how we forget the past when it suits us.

I'd actually argue that the worst man made ecological disasters have been the above ground nuclear tests and accidents like Chernobyl.

Did you know that after a nuclear battery powered satellite exploded while launching in the upper atmosphere (not the nuke bit, but the booster rocket) it sprayed out enough plutonium that EVERY man, woman and child has ingested enough particulate plutonium to be detected by a geiger counter.

IIRC, all of the Saudi oil pipelines go through exactly one point somewhere along their run. Knock that out and you shut down the KSA's oil production entirely.

Pipelines can be fixed in a few months, Oil Field Wells can not

And the nice (Ok maybe not nice, Useful thing) about Oil Fields is they tend to burn very easily once you get them going so even a partial strike or a single rocket stands a good chance of taking the entire Oil Field if Damage Control does not know there stuff, And half a dozen such strikes in seperate areas will make sure it will go up no matter how much they know

weemadando wrote:Did you know that after a nuclear battery powered satellite exploded while launching in the upper atmosphere (not the nuke bit, but the booster rocket) it sprayed out enough plutonium that EVERY man, woman and child has ingested enough particulate plutonium to be detected by a geiger counter.

And how many rems exposure would that be?

Mr Bean wrote:

IIRC, all of the Saudi oil pipelines go through exactly one point somewhere along their run. Knock that out and you shut down the KSA's oil production entirely.

Pipelines can be fixed in a few months, Oil Field Wells can not

And the nice (Ok maybe not nice, Useful thing) about Oil Fields is they tend to burn very easily once you get them going so even a partial strike or a single rocket stands a good chance of taking the entire Oil Field if Damage Control does not know there stuff, And half a dozen such strikes in seperate areas will make sure it will go up no matter how much they know

Oh, I know, but the pipeline attack would be quicker and cripple all of their supplies while an attack on their wells would be relatively limited, though longer-term.

phongn wrote:

weemadando wrote:Did you know that after a nuclear battery powered satellite exploded while launching in the upper atmosphere (not the nuke bit, but the booster rocket) it sprayed out enough plutonium that EVERY man, woman and child has ingested enough particulate plutonium to be detected by a geiger counter.

And how many rems exposure would that be?

Minimal, but its a good bit of trivia.

Does anyone have an "official" source that detailed Kuwait drilling into Iraqi oil wells?

weemadando wrote:

phongn wrote:

weemadando wrote:Did you know that after a nuclear battery powered satellite exploded while launching in the upper atmosphere (not the nuke bit, but the booster rocket) it sprayed out enough plutonium that EVERY man, woman and child has ingested enough particulate plutonium to be detected by a geiger counter.

And how many rems exposure would that be?

Minimal, but its a good bit of trivia.

Hardly anything that I would worry about then.

Oh, I know, but the pipeline attack would be quicker and cripple all of their supplies while an attack on their wells would be relatively limited, though longer-term.

Thats why I said going after the Refinerys(Which happen to be right next to the Oil Wells most times)

Refinerys take years to rebuild, Expesive in both manpower and manfactuing of new parts(They don't keep those things on-hand to completly replace a lost refinery meaning extra time to spool up production and what-not)

Mr Bean wrote:

Yeah I'm a little confused here Bean, I can't seem to find this question in that article I posted. And for the life of me I also don't see how it relates to this thread.

Try and keep up, Remeber posts don't exist as completly seperate entinies onto themselves, I refer back to previous posts to answear things you asked

You're getting confused Bean. I've asked you questions, but:

"If you where Saddam Hussian and you wanted to hurt America Badley what would you do? "

was not one of them. FYI I'm still waiting for answers to:

1. If Iraq where to cease oil production for a six to ten year period like you say [not that she would as she needs oil to pay for food and medicine, http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/ ], explain how this would send the US and the worlds economy down the shitter without first killing herself.
2....should I try reading your mind to get the reasons why this article gets it wrong, or will you tell me over this forum?

What you're trying to do Bean is to divert attention away from all the arguments the article makes with your blanket rebuttal "Worst Case Scenario". And what makes it even worse is your "Scenario" relies on the US invading! Address the damn article in a way which doesn't insult your intelligence.

And BTW I'm not really interested in rubbish which was drawn up by the same government who has been caught out in lies, half truths and war propaganda. However I'm a little bored at the moment so I'll go ahead and play along.

Mr Bean wrote: 1. The Saddam Destroys the Middle East Oil Suppy is THE Most Likley Worst Case, It is also the most likley senario should we wait longer than another year to deal with him

....well go ahead and convince me. You've made a claim, now argue for it.

Mr Bean wrote: 2. He does not possess enough Munitions to do achive his goal, nor does he have the Accurasy he needs in his Missles to be asured of Descrution, Give him Nukes and He justs has to get within a quater mile rather than one hundred feet he needs with Conventioal Munitions, Once he gets either one of those he will be effectly un-attackble in the Political sense,

Anybody else see the irony of this one?

Mr Bean wrote: If he gets Nukes instead of more accurate Missles he's now also un-attackble in the Military Sense

Fine. So don't attack him.

Mr Bean wrote: This is not Techowank, This is not Bullshit, This is what was handed to me and I read six months ago when we began the Build-up in the Gulf

Well I'm utterly underwhealmed.

Wicked Pilot wrote:

BoredShirtless wrote:When you reply to a thread, you'd do well to read the starting post.

Quit dodging critizism by pointing to your sacred article. We read it, it was bullshit. If you have a point to make, then do it. Stop sticking one finger in your ear going "LA LA LA LA LA" while pointing at the article with your other hand.

My sacred article eh So why was it bullshit Wicked? You gonna tell me why, or should I just...believe you

was not one of them.

It's point out a flaw in the aritcule, try and keep up

If Iraq where to cease oil production for a six to ten year period like you say [not that she would as she needs oil to pay for food and medicine, http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/ ], explain how this would send the US and the worlds economy down the shitter without first killing herself.

Straw-man:I'm not talking about Iraq losing its oil supply I'm talking about the entire Middle East oil being cut off for a 6-10 Year period

should I try reading your mind to get the reasons why this article gets it wrong, or will you tell me over this forum?

Each post is not an island onto itself when I answear a question of yours in one post, I will refer back to it later, try and remeber what we are talking about

"Scenario" relies on the US invading! Address the damn article in a way which doesn't insult your intelligence.

Strawman-The question posed is if Saddam wanted to hurt America, How best could he do it, Not if America invaded how best could he hurt them

....well go ahead and convince me. You've made a claim, now argue for it.

A few facts for you
1. Saddam is an not an utter moron
2. The State Deparment is not composed of utter morons
3. Saddam does not like the US
4. Saddam does not want to lose his power
Now if you want to present Evidance to disprove any of those statments then by all means

Anybody else see the irony of this one?

Any-one else noitce the fact you did not try and Counter the statment?
Fact is a good twenty percent of the American population would not stand for another WII size Body bag count no matter what the cause, making it politcaly impossible to attack

Fine. So don't attack him.

I see... So we just sit here, let him conintune you repress his people, Trade Oil to France/Germany and Russia for Weaponry and things nessary to build WMD
What if he decided to Invade Kuwait agian? If he has twenty Nukes and the Missiles with enough Range to hit Ohio, Do you think he would have been attacked in 91?

Your talking the classic idiot apporch, Ignore the problem and hope it goes away

Well I'm utterly underwhealmed.

And you could not counter a single point brought up nor did you answear my questions though I have yours....

Mr Bean wrote: Strawman-The question posed is if Saddam wanted to hurt America, How best could he do it, Not if America invaded how best could he hurt them

The CIA disagrees with you. They have stated on more than one occasion that Saddam is only likely to use WMD if "backed into a corner". As I've said on other threads- which nation WOULDN'T use WMD if it was about to lose a war?

A few facts for you
1. Saddam is an not an utter moron

Precisely. So why would he perpetrate that ridiculous Tom Clancyish scenario?

2. The State Deparment is not composed of utter morons

I personally have never heard any such claim about Iraq destroying Middle East oil production come out of the state department, or any other official source whatsoever.

3. Saddam does not like the US

Right.

4. Saddam does not want to lose his power

Gargantuan leap in logic. Explain why Saddam not wanting to lose power is in anyway related to him destryoing ME oil production. In fact, that's a sure fire way to get killed in a few days flat.

Now if you want to present Evidance to disprove any of those statments then by all means

There's not much disproving required. They just don't support your argument.

I see... So we just sit here, let him conintune you repress his people, Trade Oil to France/Germany and Russia for Weaponry and things nessary to build WMD

Hello unsubstantiated claims and outright falsehoods. Iraq is under crushing weapons sanctions and has recieved no military aid from Russia or France. Brand spanking new weaponry to rebuild it's shattered, smaller, demoralized, underfunded Army would be very easily spotted. The most Iraq has been able to do is innovate with stuff it has on hand, like it's mobile SA-3 launchers.

What if he decided to Invade Kuwait agian? If he has twenty Nukes and the Missiles with enough Range to hit Ohio, Do you think he would have been attacked in 91?

What if the Soviet Union decided to invade West Germany and finish the job it left in 1945? If it had 20,000 nuclear warheads with enough range to pummel America, do you think it would've been attacked in 1989?

Mr Bean wrote: A few facts for you
1. Saddam is an not an utter moron
2. The State Deparment is not composed of utter morons
3. Saddam does not like the US
4. Saddam does not want to lose his power

This is why your worst case sceario is pretty much impossible. Saddam
is deadmeat if he tries this. He will only do this if he is deadmeat
anyways. An US attack is the most likely event that might trigger
this action.

Thunderfire wrote:

Mr Bean wrote: A few facts for you
1. Saddam is an not an utter moron
2. The State Deparment is not composed of utter morons
3. Saddam does not like the US
4. Saddam does not want to lose his power

This is why your worst case sceario is pretty much impossible. Saddam
is deadmeat if he tries this. He will only do this if he is deadmeat
anyways. An US attack is the most likely event that might trigger
this action.

I also have to wonder at the intellectual veracity of the State Department, actually. After Powell's embarassment at the UN with his 'intelligence' briefing, a huge chunk of which was plagiarized from a student paper in the UK on a different topic (Iraq and it's military/intelligence relations with other countries in the mid-late 1990s, not 2002) with various words 'hardened' and no reference of the source and Powell going on about how 'solid' his claims were, you really have to wonder.

Mr Bean wrote:

was not one of them.

It's point out a flaw in the aritcule, try and keep up

Which flaw is that Bean?

Mr Bean wrote:

If Iraq where to cease oil production for a six to ten year period like you say [not that she would as she needs oil to pay for food and medicine, http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/ ], explain how this would send the US and the worlds economy down the shitter without first killing herself.

Straw-man:I'm not talking about Iraq losing its oil supply I'm talking about the entire Middle East oil being cut off for a 6-10 Year period

Answered below.

Mr Bean wrote:

should I try reading your mind to get the reasons why this article gets it wrong, or will you tell me over this forum?

Each post is not an island onto itself when I answear a question of yours in one post, I will refer back to it later, try and remeber what we are talking about

Looking at this entire thread, you've not addressed one of the pro war myths that article [IMHO] destroyed. Stop talking about worst case scenarios [this one won't even happen if you don't invade, convince me otherwise], and discuss the article.

Mr Bean wrote:

"Scenario" relies on the US invading! Address the damn article in a way which doesn't insult your intelligence.

Strawman-The question posed is if Saddam wanted to hurt America, How best could he do it, Not if America invaded how best could he hurt them

Again why would Iraq want to hurt the US Bean?

Mr Bean wrote:

....well go ahead and convince me. You've made a claim, now argue for it.

A few facts for you
1. Saddam is an not an utter moron
2. The State Deparment is not composed of utter morons
3. Saddam does not like the US

Why doesn't Iraq like the US Bean?

Mr Bean wrote: 4. Saddam does not want to lose his power

Pretty sure if you polled every head of state you'd find none would want to lose power.

Mr Bean wrote: Now if you want to present Evidance to disprove any of those statments then by all means

And all this magically connects the dots and volla Saddam will destroy all Middle Eastern oil! Magic!

Mr Bean wrote:

Anybody else see the irony of this one?

Any-one else noitce the fact you did not try and Counter the statment?
Fact is a good twenty percent of the American population would not stand for another WII size Body bag count no matter what the cause, making it politcaly impossible to attack

Try and keep up, you said he will be effectly un-attackble in the Political sense The irony is you only look at Iraq as a country which has to be attacked, whether it be militarily or politically.

Mr Bean wrote:

Fine. So don't attack him.

I see... So we just sit here,

Correction: you have never ever been "only sitting" when it comes to the Middle East.

Mr Bean wrote: let him conintune you repress his people,

Please, like your government gives a shit.

Mr Bean wrote: Trade Oil to France/Germany and Russia for Weaponry and things nessary to build WMD

He's doing this? Prove it.

Mr Bean wrote: What if he decided to Invade Kuwait agian?

Then you'd deal with it if it happens. Preemptive strikes on a soverign nation over "what ifs" is not only just plain fucking wrong, but breaks international law. What if Australia decided to invade NZ, why don't you deploy a couple of thousand troops down there just in case.

Mr Bean wrote: If he has twenty Nukes and the Missiles with enough Range to hit Ohio, Do you think he would have been attacked in 91?

Great another "what if". I've got no idea what would have happened, and neither do you. Who knows he may never have invaded Kuwait, or Iran would be half its size...yes let's dwell on "what ifs" Bean, it's a nice break from reality isn't it.

Mr Bean wrote: Your talking the classic idiot apporch, Ignore the problem and hope it goes away

When did I say that?

Mr Bean wrote:

Well I'm utterly underwhealmed.

And you could not counter a single point brought up nor did you answear my questions though I have yours....

You've answerd jack my friend. I asked you to discuss the article. Instead you've given my nothing but a bunch of "what ifs" which are mostly based on the myths dealt with in the article. How can you epect me to belive in a "what if" if it's based on lies? Question: do you believe in war propaganda?

I was hoping not to have to type out another long ass winded reply nor take your presious aritucle and repeat all the problems with it that others have noted but.. Oh well
First I'll go back and address the aritcule point by point then get into your lastest line by line quotathan(Which I'll try to avoid doing myself)

Anyway

Is Saddam Hussein likely to use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against the US and its allies?

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

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

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....

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

Saddam Hussein has form: he has used WMD before

It is true that Saddam Hussein has used these weapons before, against those who couldn't respond in kind - Iranian soldiers and perhaps most infamously on 17 March 1988 against "his own people" in the Kurdish city of Halabja. Within half an hour of this attack over 5000 men, women and children were dead from chemical weapons containing a range of pathogens which were dropped on them.

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

Saddam has been successfully deterred from using WMD against other states with WMD. There is no reason to believe this situation has changed or will.

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!
Burchill can't have his cake and eat it to but he will try his best to

Most intresting here

If Washington and London are genuinely concerned about Iraq's WMD, why did they continue to supply him with the means to acquire them for 18 months after the attack on Halabja?

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

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...

Saddam Hussein has invaded his neighbours twice

True, but this can hardly be a source of outrage for Western governments or a pretext for his removal from power given they actively supported his invasion of Iran in the 1980s

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

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

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,

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

Saddam Hussein is a monster who runs a violent, oppressive regime

True again, though this didn't prevent him from being a favoured ally and trading partner of the West at the peak of his crimes in the 1980s. As Mark Thomas notes, the conspicuous aspect of British Labour's attitude to Iraq has been the failure of Blair, Straw, Prescott, Blunkett, Cook or Hoon to register any concerns about Iraq's human rights record whenever the opportunities arose in the British Parliament during the 1980s and 1990s (New Statesman, 9 December, 2002).

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

Only the threat of force by the US has forced Iraq to accept weapons inspectors

Possibly true, although this ignores the fact that the last time force was used against Iraq on a significant scale because of its non-compliance with UN Security Resolutions, the opposite effect was produced. After the Clinton Administration and Blair Government attacked Iraq from 16-19 December, 1998 (Operation Desert Fox), the result was the collapse of Richard Butler's UNSCOM and the absence of weapons inspectors from Iraq for the next four years.

*No-Relivatn Infomation Sniped

Richard Butler withdrew his weapons inspectors on Washington's advice only hours before the Anglo-American attacks in December 1998.

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?


Second, We see the third time the Blaming the Past on the Presant Logic Fallcy is applyed and thirdly it should be noted..
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?

Has the threat posed by Saddam Hussein increased recently?

The West, particularly London and Washington, was solidly supporting Saddam when he committed the worst of his crimes at the zenith of his power and influence in the 1980s.

His armed forces have not been re-built since their decimation in 1991. Why are Saddam's attempts to develop WMD a concern now if they weren't when he actually used them?

Number Five, Blaming the Past on the Presant
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
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.

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

The events of September 11, 2001 have made disarming Iraq more urgent
The problem with this argument is that those in Washington who are now urging war against Iraq are the very same people who publicly called for Saddam Hussein's overthrow well before 9/11.

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

Saddam Hussein will pass WMD on to terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda

Despite forensic efforts by Washington to produce a pretext for war, no credible evidence for this claim has been found. All we are left with is unsubstantiated assertions by Bush Administration officials such as Richard Armitage that he has no doubts Iraq would pass WMD on to terrorists (though he doesn't explain how an obvious return address resulting in reciprocal annihilation could be concealed).

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

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

Much of this is a smokescreen designed to conceal who the real proliferators of WMD are. Which states, for example assisted Israel to develop nuclear weapons - France and the US? What role did Pakistan and China play in helping North Korea build its nuclear stockpile? Why can't we read the list of European, Asian and US companies which proliferated WMD technologies to Iraq? Instead of imaginary scenarios asking 'what if Iraq acquires nuclear weapons in five years and what if it passes them on to terrorist organisations?," why not more sensible questions about which rogue states (most of whom are members of the so called 'war against terrorism') are already responsible for the proliferation of WMD?

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

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)


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.

What happens if terrorists acquire nuclear weapons?

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
1. That Terrirots don't have WMD because they don't need them

2. That they are not trying to overthrow the regim but establish their own

While that may be true in some cases, Need I remind you that Hamas's stated goal is the Anniation of the Jewish state and the Jewish people....
I can find half a hundred examples that don't fit this principle and I can find half a hundred that due

Ulitmalty it is flawed as a Terriost is defined not by what he belives, But what he does to achive it

3. That a Nation state won't sponser Terriosm and they most do it entirely on thier own
(I think we can look to the former Soviet Union if you want to know how BS that is)
4. Terriosts can not manatian lengthy Pressure on any Country

Funny there has been one to six Sucided Bombers per Week for the past six years(Exculding the odd break-out of peace for a month or so at a time)

The US wants to democratise Iraq

There is no serious US interest in a democratic transition in Iraq, because this could ultimately encourage the Shi'ite majority in the country to pursue a closer relationship with 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

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

Furthermore this is a point after, not realy a aurgment for war though I can see why Burchill inculded it. If in the sake of thorughness if nothing else

What is the status of pre-emptive strikes in international law?

There is a regime of international law, binding on all states, based on the UN Charter, UN Security Council resolutions and World Court decisions.

Just wanted to point out that the US is not a Memeber of the World Court, our Consitution forbids us from ever becoming one

Burchil makes excellent points and does his reasurch well, He goes on at length about it but not much is said aside from the fact a Unanimous Security Concuil Vote is nessary to Prem-emtpy strike Iraq

And thats it, The rest is disscusion of Interal Aussy Politicis rather than Acutal reasons to or not to go to war

Bored, I'll answear your questions later because I have to run

Hameru wrote:Does anyone have an "official" source that detailed Kuwait drilling into Iraqi oil wells?

There are none. Those and other claims made by the Iraqis as to why they had a right to invade Kuwait are unfounded.