TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- US VS. Saddam
Pages (5): « 1 2 3 4 [5]

Well.. thanks for the facts ABT, we appreciate that.

Still, i don't think that the US should be engaging in any sort of "research" or production of chemical or biological weapons at all.

these weapons are excruciatingly cruel, and should not be allowed by any country for any reason, whether in warfare, or simply intimidation.

and nuclear weapons, should be eliminated simply for their massive destructive power. dying at ground zero from a nuclear explosion would be probably one of the best and easiest ways to die, however, outside that area, dying of the subsequent radiation sickness would be a horrible way to go.

as for LOAC, and ROE.. well, I agree with them. However, the US manages to twist rules in it's favor frequently.

For example, in guantanamo bay, the US was able to capture Taliban fighters, and NOT class them as POWs, and thus not give them their geneva convention rights.

The reasoning was that they were not soldiers but.. "Battlefield Detainees"

As far as i can tell the reasoning is that if your army is too poor to afford proper uniforms, then they deserve no rights under the geneva convention.

A short opinion piece on guantanmo bay:
http://www.counterpunch.org/pow1.html

A rather long legal description of this case:
http://www.campxray.net/04.15.02%20...o%20Dismiss.PDF

Some information on Cuba
http://www.msnbc.com/modules/new_ba.../cuba.asp?cp1=1

As for saddamn holding weapons in mosques and hospitals, that is horrible, reprehensible.

something clearly needs to be done. However, when a hospital holds 100 sick and dying people, and a stockpile of weapons in the basement, i don't think the solution is to bomb the hospital from a B52, but rather to go in with ground forces, save as much innocent life as possible, and confiscate the weapons.

Sure, some people will die, including some american forces, because ground action is very risky.

However, i think that is the fair way to do an operation of this sort, and anything else is cowardly, and cannot justifiably be called "avoiding civillian casualties"

you may say he's "forfeited his priveledges" and legally, it may hold. but morally, that is no justification for bombing a hospital to elminate a weapons stockpile.

quote:

Originally posted by ABTsportsline ...oh and to add another fact (also unclassified...) : Iraq has enough chemical weapons (anthrax in particular) to kill every single man, woman, and child on this planet. FACT

That's the only "fact" that still lacks evidence..(proof? what word should be used )
Everybody tends to agree on the rest (except for Saddam's plans to gain a-bombs, pretty obvious but also lacks..evidence)
But for me the question of if Saddam has/wants/or doesnt want A-bombs isn't the decisive factor. Saddam is an irrational tyrant who kills whimisically, him possessing WOMD (weapons of mass destruction)would just add to the dangerous situation already existing. Oh and he officially pays for Palestinian Terrorism.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceGiant That's the only "fact" that still lacks evidence..(proof? what word should be used )

*Nods*

Nope, unproven. Scott Ritter claims to have irradicate 90-95% of saddamns chemical and biological weapons.

That is unproven as well, it is only an estimate.

What we do know, is that his capabilities have been seriously degraded with production facilities and large amounts of chemical and biological weapons destroyed, his ability to obtain equipment has been seriously limited, and his activities have been closely monitored.

we know he had these agents back in 1992. However, one thing to consider is the shelf life of these products.

I'm not sure exactly which chemicals expire at which lengths of time offhand, but i read a report saying that if any chemical or biological weapons remain from 1992, then they are useless goop by now.

quote:

Originally posted by ABTsportsline ...oh and to add another fact (also unclassified...) : Iraq has enough chemical weapons (anthrax in particular) to kill every single man, woman, and child on this planet. FACT The worst part about anthrax is you cannot see it, cannot smell it, cannot feel it. The spores are almost invisible, especially if dispersed into the atmosphere by a missle, and it only requires a handful of spores to kill you within the week. And you'll never even know you're gonna die. FACT also forgot to mention, that under LOAC, NO use of chemical or biological weapons is permitted. It allows traditional bombing, traditional guns and ammo, but any type of slow or painful death is considered excrutiatingly cruel and unnecessary. Splatter-bullets are not allowed, nor is chemical or biological warfare. FACT We, although having some chemicals and biologicals, use them strictly for research and not for an "edge" in warfare. Saddam on the other hand has proven his use of them and production of them, and frequently relied on them during the Iran/Iraq conflict, even sometimes on his own people. FACT well, thats all for now -ABT-

interesting.... in the last ten years the U.S. has bombed schools, hospitals, mosques... they ussually say it was an accident, if they even comment on it at all... wtf is up with that ?!

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith *Nods* Nope, unproven. Scott Ritter claims to have irradicate 90-95% of saddamns chemical and biological weapons. That is unproven as well, it is only an estimate. What we do know, is that his capabilities have been seriously degraded with production facilities and large amounts of chemical and biological weapons destroyed, his ability to obtain equipment has been seriously limited, and his activities have been closely monitored. we know he had these agents back in 1992. However, one thing to consider is the shelf life of these products. I'm not sure exactly which chemicals expire at which lengths of time offhand, but i read a report saying that if any chemical or biological weapons remain from 1992, then they are useless goop by now.

actually that is incorrect, shelf life on some chemical weapons is damn near forever. Like anthrax, for instance - there is no expiration, which makes it extremely difficult to get rid of it.

And as for Saddam having enough chem/bio warfare to kill every person on this planet, it is proven but i hope you understand i cant give you access to the official DoD site. I haven't been to these places myself (they are in the heart of iraq), but have seen videos of these grounds, which had several armed guards walking around in HazMat suits around miles and miles (as far as the eye can see) of stored canisters of this stuff - and that was just one production facility.

As far as the hospitals with people and weapons in them, its quite hard to stage a "rescue" operation from a hospital in the middle of an enemy's stronghold - you could send 100 of your soldiers in there and they'd die, period dot! The US does not bomb every hospital and mosque, so don't be alarmed.... and however cruel saddam may be at storing weapons in hospitals and the like, usually he vacates them from patients, so its not an all-the-time thing that innocents get killed.

As far as tranced farmers question about the hospitals, etc in afghanistan, we can blame intelligence for that. We also learned our lesson from that. We relied heavily on afghani-intelligence b/c of their familiarity with the country (obviously). problem was, we didn't realize that there were hundreds of different warlords vying for control of the country once the taliban was overthrown, so we were getting false intelligence FROM their people! Again, i work in Intel. and i have seen these reports myself. Its unfortunate, and granted, the US should not have simply gone off word from some groups, but there was a lot more involved, and a lot of good intelligence offered to us first to earn our "trust" with bombings.

And, again, the US carries the brunt of the verbal assaults from news crews around the world, b/c seriously, would you be that upset about it if their own people caused the bombings? No, however your attention would be drawn if the USA had anything to do with it.

Again, back to the easily-adopted "Blame the US"-isms going on around here...

-ABT-

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith Still, i don't think that the US should be engaging in any sort of "research" or production of chemical or biological weapons at all.

actually, if you can believe it, the USA does positive research on these BECAUSE of people like Saddam. It was through this research that the US developed a vaccine for Anthrax (finally FDA approved), and we all had to get this vaccination before getting deployed. Problem is, its expensive and painful and there is no way you can vaccinate your entire country.

We also have developed either vaccines or treatments for Agent Orange, Mustard Gas, VX-2, Methalphaline Gas, and Oxy-Phlorogen gases. These are the bulk of current chem/bio warfare used today, and because of our research on them we have developed these.

Remember the US does not use or condone the use of chemical or biological weapons. And the only reason we have nukes is to regulate, so to speak, and protect the world from the axis powers. The USA will not randomly go out and nuke a country (in case you haven't noticed), but other countries will, and they either are developing, or HAVE the technology for nuclear weapons. The only thing that can keep a nuclear country in check is a larger nuclear country - hence our situation. We do not use them, and would seriously hesitate to ever use them. The are more of a "deterrence" than for defensive action.

Cheers
-ABT-

quote:

Originally posted by ABTsportsline We do not use them, and would seriously hesitate to ever use them. The are more of a "deterrence" than for defensive action.

What's your reaction to the leaked memo from the pentagon earlier this year that was talking about the creation of smaller payload tactical nukes for surgical strikes, not excluding the possibility of *pre-emptive* action?

Not exactly deterrence there eh?

ok now you are just being a smartass...

again, for deterrence... just because we are developing doesn't mean we will use them for pre-emptive action. That is your assumation. We have had nukes for awhile, didn't use them in the korean war, didn't use them in vietnam, did we? Didn't use them in granada, didn't use them in desert storm. In fact the only time we have used Nukes in the last 30 years was in the making of Independence Day (the movie), when the guys in houston launched one at the big thing hovering over the city! Ok, a joke...

Anyway, we have many different kind of nukes - bombs that are strictly meant to be dropped, ICBM's (intercontinental ballistic missiles), which are self-launched and maintain their own pattern, and these newer ones that are small and self-sufficient that require almost no "crew" to operate. Again, defense measures. Most of them are on our shores and are meant for deterrence - haven't launched any recently have we? (rhetorical question - we haven't).
If the enemy knows you carry a big stick, they will hesitate to use their smaller stick.

-ABT-

quote:

Originally posted by ABTsportsline actually that is incorrect, shelf life on some chemical weapons is damn near forever. Like anthrax, for instance - there is no expiration, which makes it extremely difficult to get rid of it. And as for Saddam having enough chem/bio warfare to kill every person on this planet, it is proven but i hope you understand i cant give you access to the official DoD site. I haven't been to these places myself (they are in the heart of iraq), but have seen videos of these grounds, which had several armed guards walking around in HazMat suits around miles and miles (as far as the eye can see) of stored canisters of this stuff - and that was just one production facility. As far as the hospitals with people and weapons in them, its quite hard to stage a "rescue" operation from a hospital in the middle of an enemy's stronghold - you could send 100 of your soldiers in there and they'd die, period dot! The US does not bomb every hospital and mosque, so don't be alarmed.... and however cruel saddam may be at storing weapons in hospitals and the like, usually he vacates them from patients, so its not an all-the-time thing that innocents get killed. As far as tranced farmers question about the hospitals, etc in afghanistan, we can blame intelligence for that. We also learned our lesson from that. We relied heavily on afghani-intelligence b/c of their familiarity with the country (obviously). problem was, we didn't realize that there were hundreds of different warlords vying for control of the country once the taliban was overthrown, so we were getting false intelligence FROM their people! Again, i work in Intel. and i have seen these reports myself. Its unfortunate, and granted, the US should not have simply gone off word from some groups, but there was a lot more involved, and a lot of good intelligence offered to us first to earn our "trust" with bombings. And, again, the US carries the brunt of the verbal assaults from news crews around the world, b/c seriously, would you be that upset about it if their own people caused the bombings? No, however your attention would be drawn if the USA had anything to do with it. Again, back to the easily-adopted "Blame the US"-isms going on around here... -ABT-

im not talking about aghanistan... in iraq during the last ten years many civilian housing units, hospitals, businesses and non militrary targets have been hit... so many examples its mindboggling... and tonight, i will go into some archives and share some of this later... its hard to say that their choice of using missles fired from the sky is better than other forms of combat, cause either way people get injured or perish, but the amount of "mistakes" that they made and the amount of human beings that died is saddening.... there is a good deal of information on all of this out their... its heart-breaking to read about human beings being dealt with in such a way.. and for what... i have read stories and heard lectures by professors that have caused me to cry. i used to be much more socially conscious than i am now, but what i gained from all of my studies was not a hatred for the U.S. (even though i enjoy joking about it sometimes) but a frustraition with its actions towards others. in reality i have no reason to spam the United staets, its just another player in the game, and not the worst either. but i feel responsible to dictate my objection to continued offensives into a country that doesnt know whats coming... with no electronic communications in rural communities, mistakes happening, people unexpectedly dying, losing crops, losing their business, losing their water source... it blows me away... i dont think that iraq should be dealt with using violence... but, i also recognise that our world is addicted to violence, it sponsors growth and progress in many ways... economically, physically, even mentally...

i once read a book by one of my favorite authors, Thomas Merton, a Trappist Monk from Kentucky... It was a collection of essays on Non-Violence called The Non-Violent Alternative . It was published in the face of the Vietnam and "Cold war and discusses many of the issues we are discussing here.. check it out... he does not consider himself a pacifist, and that is what you will find most interesting about his veiws...

quote:

Originally posted by ABTsportsline ok now you are just being a smartass... again, for deterrence... just because we are developing doesn't mean we will use them for pre-emptive action. That is your assumation. We have had nukes for awhile, didn't use them in the korean war, didn't use them in vietnam, did we? Didn't use them in granada, didn't use them in desert storm. In fact the only time we have used Nukes in the last 30 years was in the making of Independence Day (the movie), when the guys in houston launched one at the big thing hovering over the city! Ok, a joke... Anyway, we have many different kind of nukes - bombs that are strictly meant to be dropped, ICBM's (intercontinental ballistic missiles), which are self-launched and maintain their own pattern, and these newer ones that are small and self-sufficient that require almost no "crew" to operate. Again, defense measures. Most of them are on our shores and are meant for deterrence - haven't launched any recently have we? (rhetorical question - we haven't). If the enemy knows you carry a big stick, they will hesitate to use their smaller stick. -ABT-

its depressing to see that kind of non-sense being posted

quote:

Originally posted by trancedfarmer its depressing to see that kind of non-sense being posted

ok how is that non-sense?
what makes you think that if the USA deleted all of its nukes tomorrow, that the soviet union, korea, china, iraq, et al would not all use their nukes the following day to attack whoever they damn well pleased?

I'd be willing to swear on my mothers grave that if we did get rid of all of ours, we would be the victims and you'd be praying to allah right now. Or speaking russian.

By your logic, policemen should not have guns then, right? why use guns to prevent crime? because sometimes you need to carry a bigger stick!

and remember, the enemy is always doing research and having advances in technology and warfare, and its up to us to stay ahead of them in that department, so they never have the edge. sounds stupid, but its the only way that works.

nothing makes me think that other nuclear armed countries wouldnt try that... but whats the point of having them anyway... everyones gonna die either way so fuck that.... they dont need nuclear weapons.. they only threaten the safety of people around the world and here in america

quote:

Originally posted by ABTsportsline ok how is that non-sense? what makes you think that if the USA deleted all of its nukes tomorrow, that the soviet union, korea, china, iraq, et al would not all use their nukes the following day to attack whoever they damn well pleased?

Do you really think its all because of USA and its nuclear power that these countries you listed wont invade/attack who ever they want? In my point of view there's no need to have enemies anymore. We live in a globalized world and most of the countries are very unwilling to start any wars. From this list I exclude Iraq and israel. When you say USA is global protector I and most of the other non-usa citizens see it as needless interfering. I think USA has made "alliances" too easily. Like who gave afganistan its weapons, same goes for Iraq. USA rushes to every conflict with too much rush. Thats why its probably the only western country which is hated so badly.

quote:

I'd be willing to swear on my mothers grave that if we did get rid of all of ours, we would be the victims and you'd be praying to allah right now. Or speaking russian. [/quote} Russia tried to invade Finland in ww2, it failed. Finnish losses in that war: ~30 000, russian ~350 000 I think and hope that those ridiculous wars belongs to the past. Globalization is the key for this to happen. Now we know whats behind borders and wont accept riculous reasons for starting a war (this is only for western countries, I wouldn't bet on middle east ones). [quote] By your logic, policemen should not have guns then, right? why use guns to prevent crime? because sometimes you need to carry a bigger stick! and remember, the enemy is always doing research and having advances in technology and warfare, and its up to us to stay ahead of them in that department, so they never have the edge. sounds stupid, but its the only way that works.

I agree with you in some of your points. Our countries must research and create cures for biological and chemical weapons, as long as there is countries developing those for attacking purposes. Same goes for nuclear weapons, better that 10 countries haves than just one. If those countries are stable ones. nukes would be too big power advantage for just one country to have. Terrorist strikes are made against USA because of its politics, not because terrorists are evil or the just want to strike someone. Its the truth. USA should change its politics, because its the rational one in the game. You can't negotiate with fundamentalists, they are now fighting their holy war and dying for their beliefs (because they are going to have was it 99 virgins in heaven for dying for beliefs) though one reseacher said that "99" ment grain not virgins and he got death threats because of that

I think USA is afraid of the enemies it has made and expecially the ones with mass destruction weapons and want to harm the making of those in any way they can. Don't you see that these weapons and terrorism is the only way they can harm USA? Their military can't stand a chance against US military.

damn my english skills.

quote:

Originally posted by Tuikkari Do you really think its all because of USA and its nuclear power that these countries you listed wont invade/attack who ever they want? In my point of view there's no need to have enemies anymore. We live in a globalized world and most of the countries are very unwilling to start any wars. From this list I exclude Iraq and israel. When you say USA is global protector I and most of the other non-usa citizens see it as needless interfering. I think USA has made "alliances" too easily. Like who gave afganistan its weapons, same goes for Iraq. USA rushes to every conflict with too much rush. Thats why its probably the only western country which is hated so badly.

what do you suppose we do..sit on our buts and watch the rest of the world destroy themselves..im sure we'd get flamed for that too..its a catch 22 for the americans..thats the truth...and yes imo i think its better to act on prevention then to see what MIGHT happen..then the question arises on what side to take..ahh this is where americans are always wrong..it doesnt matter who we try to help because the other side will hate us more..

quote:

Originally posted by Tuikkari I think USA is afraid of the enemies it has made and expecially the ones with mass destruction weapons and want to harm the making of those in any way they can. Don't you see that these weapons and terrorism is the only way they can harm USA? Their military can't stand a chance against US military. damn my english skills.

I think your english skills are just fine Tuikkari. A few small problems, but overall i understood your entire post. In fact you write better than a lot of people whom english is their first language!

by the way, i agree with you.

quote:

Originally posted by ABTsportsline ok now you are just being a smartass...

I'm failing to see how that was a smart-ass comment to make, it's a legitimite concern and point IMHO... :shrug:

quote:

again, for deterrence... just because we are developing doesn't mean we will use them for pre-emptive action. That is your assumation.

The only point I was making was that in stories circulating about said "mini-nukes" plans for *pre-emptive* use were supposedly outlined.

And to me, even outlining something like that shows a flagrant disregard for ethics IMHO.

quote:

Most of them are on our shores and are meant for deterrence - haven't launched any recently have we? (rhetorical question - we haven't). If the enemy knows you carry a big stick, they will hesitate to use their smaller stick. -ABT-

I agree that complete disarming isn't a realistic scenario right now, but how do smaller nukes equal a bigger stick? And do you need deterrence on the scale that currently exists?

I read a nice book that came out in the 80's called "With Enough Shovels: Reagen, Bush, and Nuclear War" recently that talked about how the policy of deterrence, as it's existed since then, is absolutely ridiculous. Even during the Cold War the US would come up with a weapon, then a counter to it, and then a counter to that. The arms race spiralled out of control from that paranoia.

With no other super powers in town anymore I think the concept of further escalation is more ridiculous than ever.

Right now the number one issue facing the States is terrorism, and nuclear weapons (or any other weapons) aren't exactly effective methods of warding it off; so why do we still have enough bombs to blow up the world 500 times over? And why are we developing further nuclear capacity?

I'm just failing to follow the concept here...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.