|
US VS. Saddam (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| JohnSmith |
| quote: | Originally posted by ABTsportsline
oh, and JohnSmith its ABT, not ATB! ;) |
SORRY!! my mistake, wouldn't want to confuse you with atb!
i'd have edited the post but we can't. i also said:
| quote: |
and finally.. time magazine? well..
let's just say i respect your informed opinion as a soldier who has been there than time magazine.
|
What i meant to say was:
and finally.. time magazine? well.. :rolleyes:
let's just say i respect your informed opinion as a soldier who has been there a lot more than time magazine.
And one more thing, i agreee with arbiter on the nuke issue. yes it was horrible, but i believe that it needed to be done, and probably ended up saving lives by ending the war.
Regardless i still think ALL the worlds nuclear weapons should be destroyed or fired off into space or something, the world would be a better place without that amount of destructive power available.
and yes, i realized the hypocrisy in saying that using them was neccesary, but we should get rid of them.
the obvious argument is "what if we need them again"
well, honestly, there is only one super power who could ever be so powerful that it would needed to be stopped by nukes. and, since most of the nukes are possesed by that country, it would do no good anyway, and we would have a large scale nuclear conflagration possibly causing the extinction of life on this planet. |
|
|
| CortexBomb |
| quote: | Originally posted by JohnSmith
i'd like to know where cortex bomb had heard that actually.
|
As I prefaced the post with, sadly, I haven't and usually don't make a very good point of archiving articles that I read.
I know that the article in question was written some time ago though, not recently, and likely appeared in the TO Star since that's the publication that I read most regularly. Their on-line archive only go back 14 days though, so I've lost a lot of interesting articles (particularly some on the nuclear holocaust at Hiroshima and Nagasaki) to that.
And I *could* be mistaken, given what you guys are saying I'll certainly retract the existence of the article/statement until I can find some hint of it *somewhere*. I was just dead-on certain that for a brief window Saddam agreed to palace inspections, and then due to US comments, retracted his statement about a day later.
In any case, I've certainly said my bit in this debate already, and I agree with your statement that regardless, it's not an entirely reasonable demand for the US to make to have full access to the palaces. As you said, it's not as though the US would consent to something similar being done to the white house, and so forth.
This isn't to say that I don't understand the US rationale as well, but, again, you can only take paranoia and fear so far before they start to get ridiculous. I don't know if I consider the request to inspect the palaces in that realm yet, but I certainly consider some of the US definitions of "dual use technology" to be, so it makes me wary. |
|
|
| ABTsportsline |
Well let me "brief" you guys on some things you learn in the military and before you get deployed... (this is unclassified..)
there is something called LOAC which is Laws of Armed Conflict... they are rules that the UN and many many countries came to decide on back after WWII during the Geneva Convention... They are basically ROE - rules of engagement.
These rules encompass many areas, but to summarize, they basically say how medics are not to be attacked or shot at, POW's are to be treated fairly and given proper clothing and shelter/food, Chaplains are not to be treated as soldiers, etc...
One of the OTHER stipulations is that you are *not* to bomb or attack schools, churches, structures of cultural interest, etc... BUT, the stipulation to this clause is if you attempt to exploit these protectional laws, then you forfeit your protection under LOAC. For instance, if you arm your medics, and they fire at our soldiers, THEY become targets... if you place weapons in churches, then the churches are "fair game".
In short, EVERYONE is allowed certain protections under LOAC, and these are guaranteed safe-havens. However, when you breach this contract, you forfeit your protections.
We have pictures of Saddam storing weapons in Mosques and Hospitals. He armed his medics and religious figures back in desert storm. He violated LOAC. He forfeits his privileges.
Pretty straight forward, end of story. :)
-ABT- |
|
|
| 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- |
|
|
| JohnSmith |
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. |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
| 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 :p )
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. |
|
|
| JohnSmith |
| quote: | Originally posted by TranceGiant
That's the only "fact" that still lacks evidence..(proof? what word should be used :p )
|
*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. |
|
|
| trancedfarmer |
| 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 ?! |
|
|
| ABTsportsline |
| 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- |
|
|
| ABTsportsline |
| 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- |
|
|
| CortexBomb |
| 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? |
|
|
| 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- |
|
|
|
|
