Chemical Weapon Warheads found in Iraq

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...

This could give Bush the political capital to invade Iraq.

Thoughts?

I just read it over at MSNBC. I say it is time to invade. I do think Sadam may choose exile though and step down which would avoid the war. I wouldn''t mind seeing us take action before Sadam has a chance to slip away.

I think is Saddam left the Israeli''s would kill him.

I vote: invade

I vote invade every day but it seems that this pansy-ass continent where I seem to be living in will not comply. Well I guess I wouldn''t want to see my nation farking up an operation like back in Srebrenica ''95 (although we did down a MiG in Kosovo). Yay! I''m so proud to be a European.

"Ulairi" wrote:

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...

This could give Bush the political capital to invade Iraq.

Thoughts?

US CIA operatives, posing as UN inspectors, planted the evidence!!

isnt this the equivalent of a white racist cop ''finding'' cocaine on some black inner city teenager in the 60''s?

"phragged" wrote:

isnt this the equivalent of a white racist cop ''finding'' cocaine on some black inner city teenager in the 60''s?

You''re not making any sense. It sounds as if you''re saying the Americans put these weapons in Iraq which didn''t happen. We most likely told them were to find the weapons.

It sounds as if you''re saying the Americans put these weapons in Iraq which didn''t happen.

It could have, I''ve seen the agency

But seriously you cant tell me it doesnt seem fishy. Bush wants to invade iraq. Bush prepares for war. Bush finds evidence which will conveniently allow him to attack.

Just becaues we''re the USA, doesnt mean we can go kick the crap out of whoever we want.

Saddam is going, one way or another. I don''t think people really understand that the invasion was decided on already, probably based on evidence we haven''t seen yet (but we sure as HELL better see).

You can bet there are contingency plans for North Korea being looked over as well, it''s probably just a matter of keeping them busy while we get them into place.

Pax Americana isn''t perfect, but I''d rather advocate that than what seems to be the European POV, which if it''s not affecting us directly, do nothing and hope for the best.

Somehow I think history has taught us that tends not to work very well for those who hold their breathe.

Just becaues we''re the USA, doesnt mean we can go kick the crap out of whoever we want.

...the other side of that coin may be that just because you''re a jerkass running a nation in the middle east doesn''t mean that you''re not accountable to the rest of the world.

...the other side of that coin may be that just because you''re a jerkass running a nation in the middle east doesn''t mean that you''re not accountable to the rest of the world.

I agree
And monkey(can I call you that as long as there arent any other simians around?) if there is evidence that we arent seeing, that would make this whole situation sound a little less contrived. So lets hope we see some.

Monkey or VM is fine

And I''m pretty certain there will more additional evidence outside of what was discovered today.

Pax Americana isn''t perfect, but I''d rather advocate that than what seems to be the European POV, which if it''s not affecting us directly, do nothing and hope for the best.

VM: I agree. I''m European and all I see on the news is that most european nations don''t want any part of a war and those that do are facing a lot of public pressure not to attack. Mind you I hope we see more evidence than we''re currently seeing

The only reason I hope for more evidence to appear is because it would alleviate tensions. To me it is no question that Saddam is guilty of [insert very evil things like shark based lasers here]

The board is set, the pieces are moving.
We come to it at last...
The great battle of our time. -Gandalf

I would highly recommend to anyone at all interested in what''s going on with Iraq, read Kenneth M. Pollack''s The Threatening Storm. Really lays out the case for invading.

The board is set, the pieces are moving.
We come to it at last...
The great battle of our time. -Gandalf

Its funny that you mention it, I''ve been into apocalyptic stuff for quite some time now and there are enough ways in which this could end in something bad. Even though it seems very farfetched it is actually possible to apply it here.

there are enough ways in which this could end in something bad. Even though it seems very farfetched it is actually possible to apply it here.

Yeah, especially with ""Dear"" leader Kim Jong-il sabre rattling in North Korea as well.

"kegboy" wrote:
there are enough ways in which this could end in something bad. Even though it seems very farfetched it is actually possible to apply it here.

Yeah, especially with ""Dear"" leader Kim Jong-il sabre rattling in North Korea as well.

The problem isn''t so much actually beating North Korea. It''s acutally two-fold:

1.) South Korea. Lots of civillians there that would die.
2.) China. This is their sphere of influence and they don''t want us on their turf anymore than we would want them in say, Mexico. Anyone who knows history will remember the ""mini-war"" we had with the Chinese when we had all but eliminated the North Koreans.

Sticky, very sticky.

But seriously you cant tell me it doesnt seem fishy. Bush wants to invade iraq. Bush prepares for war. Bush finds evidence which will conveniently allow him to attack.

If you saw video of Saddam wheeling a cart load of weapons grade plutonium into his missile factory you''d probably have said Bush pointed a gun at him and made him do it or it was a fake video released by the CIA or something.

if there is evidence that we arent seeing, that would make this whole situation sound a little less contrived. So lets hope we see some.

You were saying? What good is it gonna do if it''s gonna seem fishy?

Back to my above analogy, if you find a small amount of cocaine on some kid and beat the crap out of the ''drug dealer''(the aforementioned ratially opressed youth for you slow people) and thats all the evidence you have, its fishy....
If you find a small amount of cocaine and then find a warehouse full and then beat the sh*t out of him, then thats not so fishy.

See more evidence = less fishiness

If finding these warheads is the sole reason we invade Iraq then yes I think we''re in the wrong, If we find a whole country full of ''WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION'' then sure take Saddam out.

Heres a quote from a news headline from Fark
""Rumsfeld: The fact that scientists have found nothing means Iraq is being uncooperative. In other news, Rumsfeld is a batsh*t crazy warmonger""
(Not really proving anything, just I cant believe I''m the only person that thinks you have to have good justification to go to war with another country......)

and this because it was funny
""Al Qaeda raising money for their next cowardly assault on the U.S. by running a camel wash service""

""Al Qaeda raising money for their next cowardly assault on the U.S. by running a camel wash service""

What they need is a bake sale. Somehow I doubt they''ve got teenage girls on street corners next to Camel Water Stations wearing bikinis that make their parents weep, holding signs that say ''Wash Your Camel and Help Fight The Infidel!''

If true, and I have to wonder, it might give us some idea of ridiculous Al Qaeda has become. In a way, that''s even scarier.

- Elysium

Here are some questions for those of you who feel that the U.S. should invade Iraq (even though it seems to be a forgone conclusion).

First, assuming that we successfully overthrow the current regime, what should the U.S. do next? Do we leave the country and allow the Iraqis to sort things out? Do we stay and rebuild a new government (aka nation building)? If we build a new government, what kind of government is it? I know a majority of people believe we would simply implement a democratic government, but keep in mind two things. First, Iraq is made up of numerous ethnic groups, which pretty much hate each other. How does a Democracy solve that? Second, a Democracy''s goal is to have the will of the people carried out by the government. Right now the majority of Iraqis hate the United States (because the current regime has redirected the pain and suffering caused by UN resolutions at the U.S. instead of the regime). We obviously don''t want a Democratic government that hates the U.S. do we?

How much money should the U.S. spend on rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure? As much as it takes? Keep in mind current deficit projections are at 200-300 Billion, not including the cost of the war.

Finally, what price in human lives is acceptable? To make this question easier, just ignore the Iraqi casualties. How many American casualties is acceptable to you? 10? 100? 1000? As many as it takes to get the job done?

This is going to be a different war than the first Gulf War. We''re not driving an army out of a country. We''re trying to eliminate a regime. That is a significant distinction.

Yes, it will be different. But I would say we will lose a very tiny amount of men/women. That is acceptable to me to protect our way of living. My cousin is over there right now and he will die to protect me so I sure as hell will support him.

Why are you so confident that we will only lose a tiny amount of people? This will not be an open desert campaign like last war. In that war we had a distinct advantage. Our M1 tanks simply outranged the T-72s that the Iraqis fielded. In any open campaign against almost any nation we will be victorious.

This war, however, will be fought in the streets of Bagdad. Our soldiers are the best on earth, but their advantages are greatly dimished in street fighting. You can''t win urban combat with tanks, it takes soldiers on the ground fighting their way street to street. The last time this occured was in Mogadishu, where our best soldiers (special forces) suffered numerous casualties. This time it won''t be special forces, and we will be going against trained (although not nearly as well as our soldiers) instead of a rag tag armed civilians.

So you state that a tiny amount of casualties is acceptable. What do we do when there are more than a tiny amount?

You state that your cousin is protecting you. From what? No one has answered the question as to whether Saddam would overtly attack the U.S. (they merely state that he will because he''s a bad man). He''s a survivor. The only way an attack on the U.S. would be of benefit to him is if he can claim responsibility for it. And if he claims responsibility it will bring the full force of the U.S. down on him. So why would he do it? It would mean his destruction.

I am not a pacifist. However, I believe the U.S. militry should only be used when the terms of the Weinberger (ak Powell) doctrine are met:

Weinberger said that six tests should be met before US forces are committed to combat abroad.
Is a vital US interest at stake?
Will we commit sufficient resources to win?
Are the objectives clearly defined?
Will we sustain the commitment?
Is there reasonable expectation that the public and Congress will support the operation?
Have we exhausted our other options?

We have not met these tests. And failure to meet these test can lead to disaster.

i know that the american army is the perhaps the best army in the world, but why are american soldiers the best in the world?

phyrz:
I misspoke.

I am personally a big fan of Steven Ambrose'' belief that the best soldiers in the world are the product of democracy. The best demonstration of this was WW2, where the common belief was that the German soldiers were superior to anything the allies had. In the end however we simply outfought them. The ability of soldiers of democracy to think on the run, make decisions and take action without senior commanders consent was decisive.

And in following that belief any soldier of a democratic nation (include Australia ) will be superior to that of any totalitarian regime.

Thanks for calling me on that.

The state of the military always reflects the state of society as a whole. Consequently, yes, America has the best soldiers in the world.

Taking out what I put. I am not going to get in a debate about this. I am here to talk about other things.

phragged wrote:

I agree
And monkey(can I call you that as long as there arent any other simians around?) if there is evidence that we arent seeing, that would make this whole situation sound a little less contrived. So lets hope we see some.

Meanwhile, almost two years later...

Singlebarrel's post also brings some ponderable thoughts to light, especially when its now much easier to look back on the whole situation. Looking at old threads helps put perspective on these things. How many of the six tests did we pass? One?

This belongs in P&C.