posted on February 28, 2003 09:46:32 AM new
How horrible. The slippery slope that authorization of the use of non lethal gas will present are some frightening scenarios. How long will it be before Bush is gassing his own people? Already, according to the military literature available from the sunshine link, purposes not prohibited will be law enforcement including domestic riot control.
posted on February 28, 2003 10:08:25 AM new
junquemama,
There's a also a $ cost in the way we have been doing things, not to mention if he ever gets the Bomb.
---------------------------------------------
from your article....
"But as Wolfowitz reminded Congress, there may be a price tag associated with avoiding conflict.
"The possible cost of war in Iraq should be considered in the context of America's other international undertakings of recent years. We must remember that there is a cost of containment in both dollars as well as risk to our national security," Wolfowitz argued.
He added that the value of defeating Saddam has to be weighed in any discussion of war's cost."
posted on February 28, 2003 10:14:14 AM new
bones21,I'm trying to work that out in my head....My answer is the troops shouldnt have been deployed in the first place.
Bush does not back up, his ego" will be to our detriment.
posted on February 28, 2003 10:25:11 AM new
How is the use of incapacitating non-leathal gas in a conflict troubling ? It is humane ! Would you rather we shoot the person or use a non-leathal incapacitating gas on them ? How silly can you get ?
Non-leathal gas is used in every country to quell riots etc.
For those of you who are/were wringing your hands about how bad the war in Iraq will be, it is already being reported that Iraqi soldiers are voicing their intent to surrender before the conflict even starts.
posted on February 28, 2003 10:33:41 AM new
"My answer is the troops shouldnt have been deployed in the first place."
===================================================================================
OK, are you talking about the current buildup of troops, or the troops there before, during, and after the Gulf War?
Are you wanting a complete return of ALL U.S. troops from the area? And what about the consequential costs arising from that.
There would be a price to pay from NOT going to war. NO ONE really knows which price tag would ultimately be higher.
(And there would be MANY BENEFITS for the whole world and the Iraqi people to have the REGION stabilized.)
posted on February 28, 2003 10:40:20 AM new
Part of the down side of Saddam being de-throned is that France, Germany, and Russia will lose billions of dollars in contracts.
Not ot mention US intellegence operatives will be on the ground to let the world know and show evidence of all the UN embargoed material France and Germany have been selling Iraq.
posted on February 28, 2003 10:53:57 AM new
reamond you said:
How is the use of incapacitating non-leathal gas in a conflict troubling ? It is humane ! Would you rather we shoot the person or use a non-leathal incapacitating gas on them ? How silly can you get ?
Non-leathal gas is used in every country to quell riots etc.
For those of you who are/were wringing your hands about how bad the war in Iraq will be, it is already being reported that Iraqi soldiers are voicing their intent to surrender before the conflict even starts.
There was no need to call anyone silly,as you point out....
Iraqi soldiers are voicing their intent to surrender before the conflict even starts.
So indeed,there is no reason to use gas on anyone.And the gas,is not that non-leathal.
The same was said of those cannisters used in Waco,and yes,I know who was in office.
posted on February 28, 2003 11:01:58 AM new
reamond,you said:
Part of the down side of Saddam being de-throned is that France, Germany, and Russia will lose billions of dollars in contracts.
Why PEZZ off the rest of the world?..We need them,more then ever.
Not ot mention US intellegence operatives will be on the ground to let the world know and show evidence of all the UN embargoed material France and Germany have been selling Iraq.
posted on February 28, 2003 11:05:38 AM new
reamond:
"Part of the down side of Saddam being de-throned is that France, Germany, and Russia will lose billions of dollars in contracts.
Not to mention US intellegence operatives will be on the ground to let the world know and show evidence of all the UN embargoed material France and Germany have been selling Iraq."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're exactly right....there's no telling what we'll find. It's the $$$ lost and also probably a more than embarrassing scandal that they are trying to avoid. Basically they've been helping our enemy and are fixing to get caught.
posted on February 28, 2003 11:24:43 AM new
bones21,You said:
OK, are you talking about the current buildup of troops, or the troops there before, during, and after the Gulf War?
Mostly the current buildup,we have him in our hands just by throwing surprize inspections.And Saddam has a ego as well and does not want to lose face in front of the Arab world,by being called the part of the axis of evil.
Are you wanting a complete return of ALL U.S. troops from the area? And what about the consequential costs arising from that.
Take the losses at hand and get out,we face a cost of no return.Leave peace keepers,and station our aircraft carriers to steam in and out,we already have spyware in place.The inspection teams in and out would keep Sadam busy.
There would be a price to pay from NOT going to war. NO ONE really knows which price tag would ultimately be higher.
At what price would we win a war with Iraq?
Bush has already said the oil would not pay back the cost of war.Its not going to us.
(And there would be MANY BENEFITS for the whole world and the Iraqi people to have the REGION stabilized.)
And you know this how?The world is against the war with Iraq.The people of Iraq follow anyones rule,they have no choice,same can be said for the rest of the world.
Saddam is not talked to,he is talked at,he is ordered to jump thru hoops by our dictate,and no one but CBS went to hear his side of the storey.
This is the way I see it,and no blood was shed posting this message.See how easy that was?
posted on February 28, 2003 11:49:23 AM new
Hi junquemama,
I enjoy all the posts, it does help to see both sides, and occassionally I do have my views slightly altered (one way or the other).
I agree Saddam has an ego, but I don't think he cares a flip what his neighbors "think" about him. After all, he has been at war with Iran, occupied Kuwait, shot missiles inside Saudi Arabia, etc, etc.
I see where you are coming from, but I can't see it happening. It would not be in the U.S. long-term best interest to back down from this fight. I don't think I will be able to convince you, but if we back down from THIS bully, the others will be encouraged. Plus not to mention the de-moralization of our military. Our country would never be the same.
Benefits to Iraq and the World?
Well what benefits does Democracy bring?
A lot I think. Iraq and its people could be a shining example for the whole region and the world. I think we need to have some faith in our leadership (and ourselves) to do the right thing. It is not ALL about oil and Bush, it is also about a system of government that I heartily agree with. Oh, I guess we could pull out and let them keep living in a dictatorship if that's what you want.
posted on February 28, 2003 11:57:26 AM new
Where do people get that the US is acting against the wishes of the "whole" world ?
DO you think that France, Germany , Russia and China make up the "whole" world ?
They represent a fraction of Europe and Asia.
There will never be a resolution that every country in the world agrees with.
The only thing that may be disturbing is that France and Germany obviously have different interests than the rest of the industrialized world on the issue of Iraq. That doesn't make France and Germany right on the issue.
We have never had the support of Russia and China.
posted on February 28, 2003 12:17:10 PM new
bones21,You said:
occupied Kuwait There is a lot more to that storie.Something about land grabbing that belong to Iraq.I may be off on the area,but it was over land,I read it so long ago,cant remember the details off hand.
posted on February 28, 2003 12:26:58 PM new
Giving aid doesn't guarantee anything in the future. It doesn't make "friends". It creates immediate "interests" to compete with contrary interests.
We gave millions to Russia during WWII and after the war all it got us was 5 decades of cold war.
You folks can't be this naive about foreign affairs. But I suppose some are- that's why they follow geopolitical advice and positions from actors.
posted on February 28, 2003 12:28:21 PM new"The Sunshine Project and other nonprofits have warned since late 2001 that the "War on Terrorism" may result in the United States using prohibited biological and chemical armaments,thereby violating the same treaties it purports to defend."
+ Saddam violates Treaties, so we must attack Iraq!
- Bush violates Treaties, but that's OK because he's one of us?
posted on February 28, 2003 12:33:49 PM new
The problem that I have with this double-talk from Donald Rumsfeld - and it is double-talk, by the way, is that he keeps on stressing the term non-lethal. After the use of "non-lethal" gas in Moscow recently and the number of dead from that use of "non-lethal" gas, I have serious doubts about the 'non-lethality' if I may, of these so-called non-lethal weapons. In fact, rubber bullets are considered "non-lethal" and yet they can easily kill. Any Gas that can stop a person; i.e. make them immobile or unconscience, is hardly going to be without immense casulties, because that is too invasive! If it is so harmless, wouldn't your own doctor use it on you the next time that you have an in-office operation? Ask your doctor and see what she or he says! Ask yourself, for Crist's Sake and use common sense. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NON-LETHAL GAS!
posted on February 28, 2003 12:37:25 PM new
Gee Bor- you obviously have discovered a major scientific break through regarding non-leathal gas and should publish the results as soon as possible.
I think it should be published in the same Journal that published the reports of the thousands and millions of civilian dead in Afghanistan from the American bombings.
posted on February 28, 2003 12:39:11 PM new
Yes, Kuwait was part of Iraq throughout much of history. I am not sure of all the details regarding the British involvement, etc.
There are a lot of countries that "used to be" part of something else. The Romans had a rather large empire at one time. I guess we will always have wars over "old boundaries". Won't be long before Mexico is attacking Texas I guess!
Still if memory serves me, he did come down and occupy Kuwait, and much of the world (including the UN) didn't think that was right at the time.
[ edited by bones21 on Feb 28, 2003 12:53 PM ]
posted on February 28, 2003 12:58:44 PM new
REAMOND,You said:
Giving aid doesn't guarantee anything in the future. It doesn't make "friends". It creates immediate "interests" to compete with contrary interests.
Then I want my money back that is fixing to be sent to N. Korea,so they wont blow our silly butts up.And I want my money that is sent to Mexico,and the Philippines,and the rest of the long list.
We gave millions to Russia during WWII and after the war all it got us was 5 decades of cold war.
And we both sit with the big guns aimed at each other while the population trembled on both sides.It was politics,and very effective.
You folks can't be this naive about foreign affairs. But I suppose some are- that's why they follow geopolitical advice and positions from actors.
Theres that "THEY" word again.I dont follow anyone,that hasnt got nano transmitters fireing correctly.I would like to see someone with common sense to be in leadership,thats not asking much,and yet impossible.
And naive about foreign affairs? I wish to hell I was,I wouldnt be so disgusted about our history,....The true one.
....