Bush may use nuclear weapon on Iraq!

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Unfortunately, Moonbeam's quoting method makes it too hard to read his posts. My eyes are too squinty and blurry.

 

[hevnsnt]

Originally posted by: NFS4
Someone set us up the bomb

damnit, I was going to say that

 

[Oric]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

So you're saying that if Iraq used a WMD tomorrow and killed a large chunk of our troops in the Gulf you wouldn't be upset? You would be fine with the fact that all those Americans died?

No I'm saying don't invade Iraq then you don't have to worry about a large chunk of our troops being exposed to WMD. Maybe you're new to the forum or just plain slow. You would be hard pressed to find any post of mine where advocate aggression against another. Saddam and the US are never going to be friends. But we could be real friends to real democracy growing in Iran. We could tell the Kurds to Cry Freedom . . . granted we would have to speak softly b/c our ally, Turkey, has a tendency to gas Kurds when they get uppity. We could become a real force for peace between Israel and Palestine instead of a rubber stamp for Sharon imperialism. Regardless, the death of any person is unfortunate but I have less compassion for aggressors than defenders. I fully support US troops but I definitely oppose the current course of civilian leadership.

When did Turkey gas Kurds ?

Is this the general foreign affairs knowledge level in US ?

Saddam gaased Kurds in Halepje in 1990 ... In US Gulf Operation in 1991 we had 500,000 Iraqi Kurds getting refuge in Turkey. If we were to gas them, they would have fled for Iran or Syria right ?

By the way I don't want to see Nukes exploding in South of my border. I have that right .. Right ?

 

[Moonbeam]

Judgment, I read your thoughtful post and disagree with it. I believe your major thesis is that we have to stop a madman on his way to acquire terrible weapons of mass distruction because, without a conscience, he will use them to kill anybody encluding civilians. Your argument has its appeal because it is life preserving, you see it as a way to protect your own life and the citizens of your country. It's underlying premise is that we are better than they are so it's better they die than we die because we are good, with conscience, and they are bad, without conscience. This is a most profound and pernecious illusion that infects humanity everywhere. We were supposed, I've heard tell, that we learned everything we needed to know about morality in kindergarten. Here's how I see your thinking. Bill and Bob are building a sand castle and Robert bomes along and stomps on it. Bill looks at Roger, looks at his sand castle and imagines what is going to happen when Roger acquires nuclear weapons. He and Bob form a coalition and, using a large rock, crush his head when he's napping, thereby saving the world from a horrible tragedy. To make a long story short eventually only Bob is left alive to play in the sandbox because he has forseen the possibility that any other human on the planet might actually be a threat. Some would argue, were there any left to do so, that the wrong person got his head smashed.

We are the only country that has actually used nuclear weapons and we used them on civilians. We have experimented and used gas chemical and boilogical weapons on our own people. We are the ones who are about to illegally change the rules of legitimate warfare out of personal fear. The moment we attack Iraq because they are potentially evil according to our judgment alone we invite the rest of the world to use any means at their disposal to do the same to us. We become the enemy the moment we immitate them.

You cannot kill people because you think they are going to kill you. That is anarchy. It is evil itself. It is how the Debble subverts every saint. It is what religion is for, to prevent personal paranoia and irrational self interest from becomming murder. Nobody ever kills anybody that does not in their eyes diserve to die. Insanity is thinking that people deserve to die, that my life is better and their life must end.

You worry that Iraq is building weapons of mass distruction in secret. You should worry about the millions of them we have and are building in openly and in secret. How does any madman in history get his power. He gets it through fear and the excitation of blood lust to preserve the good.

If you are absolutly sure you are entitled to kill Saddam, you are just like him, a believer, a man of religion, a person of faith. You will fight a religious war, a war of opinion.

So while you make a wonderful case as to why Saddam is bad, the same case can be made against us. It just depends on what you focus on and what you call bad. We learned in kindergarten that self defense is not preemptive killing. Preemptive killing is the tool of evil to work it's charm. There is no more appealing logic that he had to die because he was going to kill me. And how do you know that. Well, a well a, well a.... I just know it. You just know it? For those without introspection of a rather profound kind, all we ever know is what we would do if the roles were reversed. We fear Saddam because we see in him our own insanity. We were given law so we wouldn't act out our insanity. Thou shalt not kill. Premptive killing is killing. Even Bush's Methodist bishop knows that, no? Isn't Bush is going to hell? Fear is the mind killer.

And besides it's not about WMD or oil. It's about a new American imperialism. It will be much better for the world. We are right and we have the might. You think that's an accident? We are the people of God.

This poor sick world.

If you look deep you will see that everything you believe is a lie. When all is said and done, when you have emptied your glass and drained away your last illusion you will see there is only love.

"Father forgive them for they know not what they do"

We are in a race and fanaticism is our goal, but fanaticism, of course, disguised as the good.

 

[Judgement]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Judgment, I read your thoughtful post and disagree with it. I believe your major thesis is that we have to stop a madman on his way to acquire terrible weapons of mass distruction because, without a conscience, he will use them to kill anybody encluding civilians. Your argument has its appeal because it is life preserving, you see it as a way to protect your own life and the citizens of your country. It's underlying premise is that we are better than they are so it's better they die than we die because we are good, with conscience, and they are bad, without conscience. This is a most profound and pernecious illusion that infects humanity everywhere. We were supposed, I've heard tell, that we learned everything we needed to know about morality in kindergarten. Here's how I see your thinking. Bill and Bob are building a sand castle and Robert bomes along and stomps on it. Bill looks at Roger, looks at his sand castle and imagines what is going to happen when Roger acquires nuclear weapons. He and Bob form a coalition and, using a large rock, crush his head when he's napping, thereby saving the world from a horrible tragedy. To make a long story short eventually only Bob is left alive to play in the sandbox because he has forseen the possibility that any other human on the planet might actually be a threat. Some would argue, were there any left to do so, that the wrong person got his head smashed.

We are the only country that has actually used nuclear weapons and we used them on civilians. We have experimented and used gas chemical and boilogical weapons on our own people. We are the ones who are about to illegally change the rules of legitimate warfare out of personal fear. The moment we attack Iraq because they are potentially evil according to our judgment alone we invite the rest of the world to use any means at their disposal to do the same to us. We become the enemy the moment we immitate them.

You cannot kill people because you think they are going to kill you. That is anarchy. It is evil itself. It is how the Debble subverts every saint. It is what religion is for, to prevent personal paranoia and irrational self interest from becomming murder. Nobody ever kills anybody that does not in their eyes diserve to die. Insanity is thinking that people deserve to die, that my life is better and their life must end.

You worry that Iraq is building weapons of mass distruction in secret. You should worry about the millions of them we have and are building in openly and in secret. How does any madman in history get his power. He gets it through fear and the excitation of blood lust to preserve the good.

If you are absolutly sure you are entitled to kill Saddam, you are just like him, a believer, a man of religion, a person of faith. You will fight a religious war, a war of opinion.

So while you make a wonderful case as to why Saddam is bad, the same case can be made against us. It just depends on what you focus on and what you call bad. We learned in kindergarten that self defense is not preemptive killing. Preemptive killing is the tool of evil to work it's charm. There is no more appealing logic that he had to die because he was going to kill me. And how do you know that. Well, a well a, well a.... I just know it. You just know it? For those without introspection of a rather profound kind, all we ever know is what we would do if the roles were reversed. We fear Saddam because we see in him our own insanity. We were given law so we wouldn't act out our insanity. Thou shalt not kill. Premptive killing is killing. Even Bush's Methodist bishop knows that, no? Isn't Bush is going to hell? Fear is the mind killer.

And besides it's not about WMD or oil. It's about a new American imperialism. It will be much better for the world. We are right and we have the might. You think that's an accident? We are the people of God.

This poor sick world.

If you look deep you will see that everything you believe is a lie. When all is said and done, when you have emptied your glass and drained away your last illusion you will see there is only love.

"Father forgive them for they know not what they do"

We are in a race and fanaticism is our goal, but fanaticism, of course, disguised as the good.

While I recognize your opinon, I cannot help but disagree when it comes to your points about taking action before they do. Any country would be doing itself a diservice if it ignored blatant information regarding its own safety, and didn't take action to prevent it because we had not been attacked yet. Under your premise, if we find supplies to make a bomb in a terrorists home, we should not arrest them because he has not taken any action against us. You cannot compare attacking someone because they have crushed your sand castle to attacking someone because they have weapons of mass destruction, will not hesitate to use them, and have no conscious. Its not as if this is Saddam's first chance at peace. He has been ordered to disarm his weapons for the last 12 years! If he wanted peace, and had no intent on attacking innocent people with them he would have disarmed by now. Instead he has done nothing but hide his arsenal, while continueing to increase its size. Whenever the UN inspectors get close to finding something, he kicks them out... moves his weapons, and then invites them back while he trys to negotiate the sanctions which were placed on him by the UN. He continues to break the rules the UN has decided on, and the UN continues to let him do it. The US and UK have tried to go through the UN to peacefully contain him, but the UN is letting Saddam push them around. Saddam has had no reason to fear attack because the US and UK have not acted because the UN told them not to, but at the same time Saddam can do whatever he wants because the UN does not enforce any of the rules. How long must the US and UK play stupid while the UN decides the future of their citizens, but takes no actions? Cannot it be denied that if any attack was to take place the US and UK would be the primary targets?

Imagine you are a student (US or UK) at a school and you know one of the other students (Iraq) hates you and is trying to find a gun to come in and kill you, so you tell the teacher (UN). The teacher (UN) asks the other student (Iraq) if any of this is true, and he firmly denies looking for any weapon to kill anyone. The teacher searches the other students (Iraq) locker and finds a gun, and demands they get rid of it. The other student (Iraq) kicks the teacher out of their locker, then claims they got rid of the gun on their own while the teacher was gone. Now you (US/UK) have proof that the other student (Iraq) has hidden the gun somewhere else, and may be trying to give a gun to the new student (Al-Qaeda) to use against you (US/UK). While this is happening the teacher (UN) has spent the last 12 years looking for the gun but has been unable to find it because the other student (Iraq) is being deceptive and continues to only let the teacher (UN) look where they will allow them to. You (US/UK) now decide you've had enough. The new student (Al-Qaeda) has already attacked you (US/UK) once, and you're still sore from it. You (US/UK) can no longer let the idiot teacher decide your fate, you must take it into your own hands.

To me this is the situation at hand, and still any action by the US or UK is being criticized, which boggles my mind. You mention preemptive killing and how its the wrong thing to do. Iraq wouldn't be invaded with the intention to kill them all. The US/UK aren't trying to kill any of them, they just want to get rid of their ability to kill US/UK citizens, or stop them from giving the ability to kill the US/UK to others (terrorists). If Saddam had been compliant, which he hasn't been for the last 12 years, then we wouldn't be in this situation. Some people seem to be ignoring these facts. We didn't just show up and demand for him to get rid of the weapons... this has been going on for over a decade. He continues to break the rules the UN had decided on, and is doing this unchecked without punishment. If any other countries on the UN (particularly France and Germany) were potential targets he would have been invaded years ago. It seems to be an acceptable thing to not take action if its US/UK citizens at risk, the French and Germans could care less then. They will still do all in their power in UN votes to delay the US/UK from protecting itself while they play dumb to Saddam's games. I restate it because its important people know this... the UN had created rules, Saddam has been breaking them, and the UN has done nothing about it. Saddam just wants to continue negotiations, do you know why? He knows the UN will do nothing but negotiate forever, or at least until Saddam takes any drastic offensive actions, and while they negotiate he can do whatever he wants unchecked. It gives him time to build an arsenal until the countries of the UN get fed up with negotiations.

You mention the same case could be made against the US or UK. How could you even think this? Do you honestly believe the US would use weapons of mass destruction in citizens? Would we give the weapons to terrorists to do the dirty work for us because then it would be nearly impossible to trace it back to us? Would we use those weapons in any initial attack, instead of an attack in response to a similar attack? Even then it would be strictly on military targets, which is more then anyone could ever claim about Saddam's targets...

 

[Moonbeam]

Judgment, just look at how right you are.

If you look deep you will see that everything you believe is a lie. When all is said and done, when you have emptied your glass and drained away your last illusion you will see there is only love.


I see little point in giving you a blow by blow analysis as to what's wrong with your argument. I am almost sure the errors will remine invisible even if displayed. I gave you a view into a different understanding, I didn't expect you would be able to dismiss a lifetime of dreams in a momnet.

It would be so much easier to explain if we could pull out all the children we are about to kill and you could read your post to them and then kill them by hand. I know they would understand.

 

[Judgement]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Judgment, just look at how right you are.

If you look deep you will see that everything you believe is a lie. When all is said and done, when you have emptied your glass and drained away your last illusion you will see there is only love.


I see little point in giving you a blow by blow analysis as to what's wrong with your argument. I am almost sure the errors will remine invisible even if displayed. I gave you a view into a different understanding, I didn't expect you would be able to dismiss a lifetime of dreams in a momnet.

It would be so much easier to explain if we could pull out all the children we are about to kill and you could read your post to them and then kill them by hand. I know they would understand.

You're views are distorted and are missing pertinent facts. All the children we are about to kill, you make it sound as if we would be invading Iraq with intent to kill children. On the other hand you find it easy to overlook the hundreds of children who died, or the thousands that lost parents on 9/11 because we failed to act preemptively? How about the fact that Saddam would not hesitate to target US/UK children, because to him they are valid targets? Wasn't it also Saddam who filled his bases with children and women to stop us from attacking them? To me this means that to him they are expendable and their lives mean nothing, but he knows to civilized people they cannot be killed. It is unfortunate that in any war some bystanders may be killed. Whether they are from our nations or Iraq does not matter... a life is a life, what does matter is that if Saddam is allowed to run rampant, unchecked and unchallenged, the number of lives lost will be drastically higher then could be lost from a UN invasion into Iraq. Those losses would also be almost completely military in nature... which means it is grown men who know the dangers they have allowed themselves to be exposed to and yet fight for our protection anyway, as opposed to the other way in which it would be innocent lives lost, lives of people who wanted nothing to do with the war.

It would be easier if being nice and leaving Saddam alone would solve the problems, but all that does is leave the world blind sided by their naive hope that Saddam shares even an inkling of the same ideals and morals as the rest of us.

 

[Tiger]

Bush may use nuclear weapon on Iraq!

Bullshite!!
More mindless yammering scare tactics from the coward left.:disgust:

 

[Jmman]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Judgment, just look at how right you are.

If you look deep you will see that everything you believe is a lie. When all is said and done, when you have emptied your glass and drained away your last illusion you will see there is only love.

Oh Lord, I have seen the light.......

 

[Moonbeam]

Jmman, that's not The Light. That's a flashlight you swallowed.

Clearly the cowards are on the right, Tiger. They can't take the fear, the certainty that everybody is just like them. We kill to make whatever it is we kill stop making us feel what we are afraid to feel.

 

[MrPALCO]

The United States will soon lead a coalition to disarm Iraq and oust the Saddam regime. The USA is the worlds Sovereign Government and keeper of Justice and Good.


President Bush is correct in warning any and all entities that may choose to attempt to hinder that operation by use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction.


The USA will turn Iraq into a smoldering nuclear wasteland if our people harmed in this manner.

That, is a very good thing.

 

[Rockhound]

As usual this post comes from someone who has gone off the deep end and believes everything they hear, read, etc. Of course it is an option, but highly unlikely. There are so many different ways we can inflict huge damage and suffering on Iraq WITHOUT using nukes. If they do decide to use WMD's, the U.S. military is not going to hold anything back except for nukes. They will kill all Iraqi military on sight. They are not going to care at that point. All the more power to them I say. But the use of nukes is all speculation. The first George Bush gave an interview after the Persian Gulf War where he unequivocaly stated that there was absolutely no scenario under which he would have used nukes. So what makes you think they will this time? Its all talk right now. And if this scares them (the Iraqi's) into not using WMD's, then why not do it? Use some logic people....

 

[MrPALCO]

The United States must create an image in the mind of potential attackers, a hideous and awful killing field of intense desolation. This will aid in keeping these enemies in check.

If they call the hand of the United States, we must deliver on the threat and show all involved the foolishness of attacking the United States.

Enemy death on a huge scale will be the result.

 

[Rockhound]

Moonbeam,

Let me ask you this...Knowing what you know today and throughout history, would killing Hitler have been the right thing to do before World War II?? Saving how many millions of lives in the process by simply going after one guy? Or for that matter, preemptively striking Japan's naval fleet BEFORE they struck Pearl Harbor...again saving how many thousands of lives on BOTH sides! Or killing 19 terrorists that you knew could possibly carry out the worst terrorist attack on the U.S. in order to save 3000 American lives and prevent all the pain and suffering which occured afterward? The list can go on and on. You have to look back on history when you view our current situation, something many, many people simply fail to do. History teaches us a lot. But once something has happened it is history and it is too late, i.e. a nuclear bomb being detonated in Los Angeles. Too late sir to take any action after the fact. Its already done. Think of how many people would die in this event and tell me you are ok with this. Tell this entire board that you are ok if potentially their family members may be killed and that all we had to do to prevent it was going after one guy.

Also, the same case cannot be made against us as we are making against Hussein, because nowhere in history has the U.S. gassed its own people, used WMD's against anybody else in the world except for Japan which ultimately ended the war - which is indisputable. Do you know what the casualty estimates were if the US was to invade Japan at the time??? They were talking somewhere in the neighborhood of 500,000 to 1 million - ON OUR SIDE!!! And you would be ok with that? Of course we have nukes, chem and bio weapons, but we don't use them. Unlike other countries - Iraq.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
you will see there is only love.

freud didn't think so

 

[wyvrn]

Propaganda at best.

Originally posted by: her209
Be afraid. Be very afraid.

 

[Judgement]

Originally posted by: Rockhound
Moonbeam,

Let me ask you this...Knowing what you know today and throughout history, would killing Hitler have been the right thing to do before World War II?? Saving how many millions of lives in the process by simply going after one guy? Or for that matter, preemptively striking Japan's naval fleet BEFORE they struck Pearl Harbor...again saving how many thousands of lives on BOTH sides! Or killing 19 terrorists that you knew could possibly carry out the worst terrorist attack on the U.S. in order to save 3000 American lives and prevent all the pain and suffering which occured afterward? The list can go on and on. You have to look back on history when you view our current situation, something many, many people simply fail to do. History teaches us a lot. But once something has happened it is history and it is too late, i.e. a nuclear bomb being detonated in Los Angeles. Too late sir to take any action after the fact. Its already done. Think of how many people would die in this event and tell me you are ok with this. Tell this entire board that you are ok if potentially their family members may be killed and that all we had to do to prevent it was going after one guy.

Also, the same case cannot be made against us as we are making against Hussein, because nowhere in history has the U.S. gassed its own people, used WMD's against anybody else in the world except for Japan which ultimately ended the war - which is indisputable. Do you know what the casualty estimates were if the US was to invade Japan at the time??? They were talking somewhere in the neighborhood of 500,000 to 1 million - ON OUR SIDE!!! And you would be ok with that? Of course we have nukes, chem and bio weapons, but we don't use them. Unlike other countries - Iraq.

Nothing but agreement from me here, it is impossible to compare the US, UK, any country from Europe... even N. Korea for that matter with Iraq when it comes to the dangers of them having possession of WMD. Sure the US and UK may have them, but does that mean any other country has to fear those weapons being used on themselves by the US or UK? The answer is blatantly, no... they have no reason to worry. When Saddam has them on the other hand...

 

[nick1985]

GO BUSH!

 

[Jmman]

I love the liberal propaganda that some members here like to regurgitate. The funny thing is that the great hero of the libs, Bill Clinton, was the one who changed our nuclear policy in the first place. Where was the liberal outrage when Clinton pondered using nukes on Iraq in 1998??

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Jmman
I love the liberal propoganda that some members here like to regurgitate. The funny thing is that the great hero of the libs, Bill Clinton, was the one who changed our nuclear policy in the first place. Where was the liberal outrage when Clinton pondered using nukes on Iraq in 1998??

How soon they forget.

 

[Rockhound]

Originally posted by: Jmman
I love the liberal propoganda that some members here like to regurgitate. The funny thing is that the great hero of the libs, Bill Clinton, was the one who changed our nuclear policy in the first place. Where was the liberal outrage when Clinton pondered using nukes on Iraq in 1998??

Yes, lets hear it from all the liberals. Are you out there Moonbeam? Where were you back then?

 

[Jmman]

Here is a little quote "The U.S. is even throwing around talk of using nuclear weapons against Iraq. New York Newsday reported on Feb. 1 that a top-secret directive--signed by Clinton last November--discusses the possible use of atomic bombs against Iraq and other "rogue states." According to Newsday, U.S. contingency plans include so-called "mini-nukes" designed to destroy underground bunkers made with reinforced concrete. They have less than one-tenth of the explosive power of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. But they are as much as 500 times more powerful than the largest non-nuclear warheads--and emit dangerous radiation."

This quote is from 1998.


I am deafened by the silence of the liberal ignorance......(That sounds like some of the "doublespeak" that Moonie uses on a regular basis.....)

 

[Jmman]

Damn, I guess the lib's don't want to play.......

 

[Rockhound]

Originally posted by: Jmman
Damn, I guess the lib's don't want to play.......

You got that right Jmman. They never do. Once you put them down, they back off, except for the masochists. They just can't back anything up. They can't. Its like a mind block or something.

 

[Judgement]

Originally posted by: Rockhound

Originally posted by: Jmman
Damn, I guess the lib's don't want to play.......

You got that right Jmman. They never do. Once you put them down, they back off, except for the masochists. They just can't back anything up. They can't. Its like a mind block or something.

lol