OK Nuke Iraq ?

Nolan Dalla

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 7, 2000
1,201
2
0
Washington, DC/Las Vegas, NV
Here's an interesting article by a fellow named Dale Jonmes, who outines the case AGAINST an invasoin/attack better than I:

In 1952, the CIA helped to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran and placed the Shah on the Peacock throne. For the next 26 years, the Shah ruled the nation with an iron hand while at the same time plundering the oil revenues of his nation.

When the Shah was overthrown in the late ?70s, Americans were incredulous over the fact that Iranians were showing so much resentment toward the US. Americans by and large never understood the capture of the US embassy and American Citizens during the Iranian revolution.

During the chaotic moments after the Iranian revolution, Saddam Hussein tried to take advantage of an unstable situation by launching an attack on Iran in an effort to gain control of the Shatt al Arab waterway. The Iranians stopped the invasion and pushed the Iraqi's back into their own territory.

With Saddam in a precarious situation, the US came to his defense with secret intelligence of Iranian positions and weaponry. We also gave Hussein a couple of billion in Agricultural grants (our government was not allowed to sell Iraq weapons) which allowed him to take money he would need to buy food and instead use it to buy weapons, mostly from France.

At the same time Saddam was using poison gas on Iranian soldiers, violating Geneva Convention rules. In July of 1988, Saddam gassed his own Kurdish minority in Iraq. On a Friday July, 15,000 Kurds were killed in Iraq by poison gas, 5,000 alone in the city of Halabja. Five times as many people were killed in that poison gas attack as were killed at the WTC in New York. Did we care?

Some time later, back in Washington, Senator George Mitchell led a delegation of Republican and Democrat legislators to the White House to meet with the President, then George W. Bush?s father. In the meeting Mitchell laid out Saddam?s sins and told President Bush that tough sanctions needed to be placed on Iraq. According to Mitchell, Bush told them, "Saddam is still a man we can do business with."

In the summer of 1989, Saddam Hussein called in the American ambassador April Gillespie to inform her of his intentions of taking action against Kuwait, who he claimed was stealing Iraqi oil by using drilling techniques that entered Iraqi oil fields. Saddam was also upset because he believed the Kuwait was helping to hold down the price of oil which was causing cash-strapped Iraq to believe it should take action against it's neighbor. A tape of the meeting between Saddam and our ambassador was aired in the U.S on 60 Minutes. It shows our ambassador intimating to Saddam that the US would have no interest punishing him if he were to capture the oil fields near the border. Of course the Iraqi leader captured the whole country but the incompetence of our ambassador and her words to Saddam helped give birth to Desert Storm.

We know that Arabs have been watching Al Jezeera TV (The Arabic CNN) throughout their world. They see children starving and dying from disease every day. They watch Palestinian homes bulldozed and citizens dying from what they consider Israeli hegemony. During the last war they watched a routed Iraqi force being annihilated by US Aircraft. On CNN, a military expert tells the interviewer, "It's a turkey shoot!"

Imagine young Arabs throughout the Middle East with their TV's tuned to CNN (There was no Al Jezeera during Desert Storm) watching this spectacle. Do you suppose that any of this helped in the recruitment of young Islamic extremists?

Now were about to take unprovoked action believing that we can stem the tide of terrorism by being tough. The present President Bush and many of his advisors believe that the unrest in the Middle East can be contained without destabilizing the area. I don't! That is why I don't support this action.

If you saw CBS News on Thursday, September 12, 2002, you saw a disturbing piece. CBS interviewed four Special Forces soldiers who said that Afghanistan is beginning to disintegrate. A captain said Afghanistan is turning into another Viet Nam. He said that when they first came the people adored them. Now the people throw stones at them. American soldiers in Afghanistan have been under increasing attack, as the situation seems to be deteriorating. Now we want to double our fun by invading Iraq?
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,527
220
63
Bowling Green Ky
Chances of nukes less than remote. Got lots faulting and mistakes pointed out but don't see many solutions.

Nollan: Couple of questions
On world war 3 potential, Who do you think would engage whom?
----and how many hours would it last?

On your statement "
And I DON'T trust my government nor do I trust the media, nor do I trust the so-called "intelligence community" (what a joke) to make wise, prudent judgment based on long term thinking and the national interest. "

I am inclined to agree but then just who is qualified and who do we delegate to make these decision?

Just curious!
 

hellah10

WOOFJUICE
Forum Member
Oct 24, 2001
7,958
0
0
45
Toledo
DOGS THAT BARK said:
And I DON'T trust my government nor do I trust the media, nor do I trust the so-called "intelligence community" (what a joke) to make wise, prudent judgment based on long term thinking and the national interest. "

The media is the worse thing to listen too. They lie there ass off and only tell the story that the american public want to hear. You never hear whats really going on there. And the Gov sucks...its all corrupt.

People are so worried about whats going on over there...do they not care about whats going on here?? Hell what did the US do in Operation Desert Storm....? Nothing. I think there was only 600 fatalities...and 10s of thousands of them with that one sickness...Orange something, I forget the name. Ask anybody thats in the Army and they will tell you they did jack shit back in 91. Unless you were a tanker or a pilot.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Nolan thankyou for bringing up the correct issues of the war of 91.
Many young folks here never new the truth about how the Ambassador and Bush senior our Pres at the time. Well did a good job of screwing things up. In fact lot of the young folks here were lucky if they were more then 10/11 years old at the time.
This war talk here that backs Bush no mater right or wrong. Well I can tell somewhat the guys that never served in any of our military forces. I dont have the flare for this war after serving my country a long time ago. Anyone thinks it's neat. Well if your over 17.5 go join. Call me the first time you chit your pants and tell me how neat it is to get ready or be in a war. If We go to war. As a Amercian I have to stand up for my country. But I want the real truth on the table. Our media is such a sucker for what the boys in DC feed them you cant tell who is lieing the most. Americans for the most part are toughtful peace seeking people. Our Leaders should remember that. War never seems to be the answer. We better all pray N Korea does not start one soon. We lost over 45000 guys there once before. I want to see the proof of why we are doing what we must. Kennedy showed us the pitcures we new why we were going to war with Cuba and Russia had it came to that. The American peole get the truth the real truth they can understand. What you said about 1991 Nolan is very true. The american people figured it out when they got the real truth. And did something about it. They thru Bush out of office. Lets see if Junior is smarter then dad.
 
B

Billy

Guest
S-Love............A Strategic Nuclear Strike.........so you think you can
NUKE a specific area and there will be NO FALLOUT DOWNWIND
via Sadia, Israel, ETC...........OIL.........OIL......WHAT MAKES THIS
COUNTRY RUN.........you think we can do whatever the fawk we
want and the rest of the world will lay down and say OK........
there is no such thing as a strategic nuclear strike THESE DAYS....
IF WE spent half the $$$$$$ on an alternative fuel to totally
make OIL absolute as we do FIGHTING MOSLIMS WITH OIL.......
our problem would be solved within a decade...........but what
the fawk do I know............:cool:
 
S

S-Love

Guest
Billy- might I suggest you do a little research into the US development of low-yield nuclear weapons (mini-nukes), and then decide whether Iraq wouldn't be a prime target for the use of these.

The Bush nuclear doctrine is not one of containment or deterrence, so no one should be shocked if nukes are used in the next conflict. The current line is if WoMD are used against the US or its forces, but that theshold may wane depending on how the war plays out.
 

Nolan Dalla

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 7, 2000
1,201
2
0
Washington, DC/Las Vegas, NV
Nolan: Couple of questions
On world war 3 potential, Who do you think would engage whom?
----and how many hours would it last?


*** In my statement about starting "WW3" I do not mean to infer an a nuclear exchange would happen, ala USA-USSR. Rather, there would be a great divide between East and West, between Christians/Jews and Muslims that would create flash points all over the world and put many millions of lives in danger. The remaifications of our insane current political and economic policies in the Middle East will ultimately be MORE acts of terrorism on an increasingly more devastating scale. We are talking poison gas, biological weapons, perhaps even a nuclear device. US authorities may be able to stop these threats at the border for a time, but inevitably one or more of these terrorists is going to break through and create havoc again. If we invade a soverireng Middle East nation, you can turn ahead the timetable on these attacks and get ready for a swarm of incidents -- which could seriously jepardize this country's economy. The fallout from 9-11 has devastated the economy of this nation (bankrupt airlines, NYC in financial crisis, the budget surplus GONE and now in the red). Another incident like 9-11 could spin this country into a Depression. We are talking dangerous times. And most of this stems from having our asses in places where we DON'T belong, supporting corrupt regimes in the Middle East and giving military and economic assistance to Israel, which crushes the Palestinians. If the US invades Iraq (without just cause -- I have still not seen any evidence to justify an invasion), riots wil break out in many Middle East nations and you may even seen some regimes being toppled. If Pakistan falls to the fundamentalists (170 million people and nuclear weapons), you are looking at BIG trouble. Pakistan could then become a haven for AL QUEDA and there;s not a godddamn thing we could do about it. Iraw could very well be the spark that lights this fuse -- and I'm worried about it. This doesn't even begin to deal with the larger questions such as -- how do we occupy Iraq? Are we prepared to spend the next decade occupying a Middle East nation? And imagine the consequences of that -- American forces right smack in the heart of the Middle East. The region would absolutely explode in anger.


On your statement "
And I DON'T trust my government nor do I trust the media, nor do I trust the so-called "intelligence community" (what a joke) to make wise, prudent judgment based on long term thinking and the national interest. "

I am inclined to agree but then just who is qualified and who do we delegate to make these decision?

***Good question. Regretfully, I do not have proper alternatives to channel my anger and sentiment. "Our" point of view has absolutely NO voice in Washington, no voice in the mainstream press, and is generally ignored by the flag-waving public. We are stuck with a bumbling President who is collared by the religious right and has his lips pressed against Israel's ass. Our leadership is linked to corrupt oil interests which have exploited foreign nations for years. Nothing will change tuntil more peopel are educated and we begin to ask ourselves -- WHY IS THE GREATEST COUNTRY ON EARTH HATED AROUND THE WORLD BY SO MANY PEOPLE. Look at our policies in the Middle East, and there you will find the answer.

PS-- By the way, I want to thank you again for turning me on toe Halftime Betting. :)


Nolan
 

hellah10

WOOFJUICE
Forum Member
Oct 24, 2001
7,958
0
0
45
Toledo
I believe Bin Laden had a 3 step plan on bringin down the US

1. Backbone of Economy
2. Transportation (like bridges and stuff)
3. Have Oil prices so high that the US wouldnt buy it

From a muslims point of view - majority of us dont like whats going on. The Bin Laden shit...and Saddam going crazy. But we still think the US should not be involved....because Saddam is the least of the problem. His son is worse...trust me. If the US hits on a nutreal middle east country (lebanon for example..) then expect 9/11 type of things to happen again here. Economy will be hurting...and Bin Laden will be laughing....so this whole Nuke stuff is not a good idea...and attacking Saudi Arabia and all these countries ppl are bringing up...would be a bad idea too. On top of that...Saudi is a US Ally and the US has many military bases there....so I dont understand why ppl are being ignorant with the Saudi topic
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,527
220
63
Bowling Green Ky
Thanks Nolan: As always I enjoy reading your views and find them enlightening. I do however have a hard time sympathizing with the Palestinians who intentionally target planes,innocent women and children and yes even sporting events :)
I also think that U.S. being hated all over the world is somewhat misleading. If you had said hated all over the world by same fundumentalists I would agree as it is basically one element that is spread throughout many countries that is responsible for this hate and also responsible for 90% of all terrorist acts committed in decades. Western culture has made advancements
in many countries of late,China inparticular.
I am in agreement that religion should play no part in politics. It is amazing the atrocities(spl) that have occurred thru the centuries in the name of religion.

Your welcome on the book. IE turned me onto it several years back. You have done well in implementing it and congrats on nice year. I never miss reading your writeups and while not in complete agreement on all issues have great admiration for your writing skills and wit and would like to give you a bigs thumbs up for sharing them with us.
 

Nolan Dalla

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 7, 2000
1,201
2
0
Washington, DC/Las Vegas, NV
It's certainly fair to disagree, DogsThatBark. I respect and admire your views (and most others here) and appreciate that you care enough about some of these worldly issues to have given thought to them and pose constructive comments and criticisms. Any day of the week, I'll shake the man of the hand of someone I DISAGREE with who TAKES A STAND and STANDS FOR HIS BELIEFS (as you do) over a mndless zombie going through life in a daze (90 percent of America).

Question authority.

Nolan Dalla
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Nolan not sure if it's 90%. I can agree on 75%. And what is real sad. They believe anything that little old tupe in front of them says. When you look deep Nolan. Most of this all got stated in 1946.
 
S

S-Love

Guest
you've got to love the opinions of the Libertarian (or is it Lunatic Fringe) Party
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
73
Boston
And it is just that reason djv that the Clint Eastwood, cowboy, tough talking, tin soldier of the sixties, President of ours is so dangerous. He bombed Afganastan for no real apparent reason. By the time he got around to it Al-Qeada and the Taliban leaders were long gone. He has made 9/11 his own political agender and the scarey part is that he has a lot of people thinking that anyone who dares question him is somehow less of an American.
We should be using our resources tracking down Al-Qaeda and those bastards that were behind 9/11 not catering to Bush's oil baron friends.
 

Stewy

Registered User
Forum Member
Jan 8, 2002
995
0
0
46
Kansas City, Missouri
You guys want to blame Bush Sr. for not finsihing the job in 1991. The fact is that Bush Sr. had his hands tied, All the crybaby Liberals and the United Nations wanted to impose sanctions. THey all wined and cried not to invade Iraq once they were driven from Kuwait. In Fact, Liberal Bitch Madelline Allbright openly critisized Bush Sr. two years ago for not finishing the job in Iraq. How funny is it that she was on the record in 1991 of saying that imposing UN Sanctions and not invading was the only way to go and that the war between Bush and Saddam was getting to personal.

I seen some moronic comment that we should have never been involved their in the first place. Well for you information, if we did nothing about the Kuwaiti invasion then Saddam would have marched straight into Saudi Arabia who basically has no military and a mad man would have control of about 70 percent of the worlds oil and we would have a scenrio boiling worse then WW2.

You guys want to call this an oil driven war. Well if that's the case why don't you go buy a bike or a horse. You pay the price of gas that this region of the world dictates. The Iraqi people will be the first to benefit from the Oil. Our history of conquering countries out of necessity will prove that the people of that country in every single war has been better off for it.

You complain that Al Qaeda is on the back burner. Well for you informatoin we just assasinated 5 of the top leaders in Al Qaeda and capture one of the top members in Yemen. Our military is actively training troops in the Phillipines and African countries. Al Qaeda no longer has a base for operations, they are mostly on the run and looking to blend in with the crowd.

You complain that because of our mid east policies the muslims around the world hate us. Well, you only hear the voice of the Radical minority that is in charge. You don't hear the voice of the oppressed people throughout the muslim nations. I respect your hollywood liberal dream world opinions but maybe you should get a better grasp on reality.
 

ChrryBlstr

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 11, 2002
7,407
54
48
Hoosier country
it is....always has been....and always will be about ONE thing....MONEY!!!

there is no easy solution....although it would be so much easier to just switch over to a new energy source....and in doing so....extracate america from the middle east....BUT....it just won't happen because of all the billions/trillions of dollars all these multi-national oil companies have at stake....which in turn influences the car manufacturers....a tremendous chunk of the U.S. economy....PLUS....even more anti-US sentiment in the muslim world if this did in fact take place!!!

in essence....all these bigwigs dictate how the world turns and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it!!!

FM radio was invented shortly after AM radio was introduced....BUT....because of the millions spent by the companies in AM....FM was not phased in until several years later....just one example of how corporations dictate our lives!!!

imagine if a new energy source was in fact brought in....the middle east would be screwed....they have absolutely NOTHING significant other than oil to offer....and all the money they have made from this resource has either been horded by the ruling parties or spent on weaponry....hardly any has been put back to better their countries....there is no marked improvement in their societies....hell....the saudis are so goddamn lazy....that instead of educating themselves with all their riches....they bring in foreigners to do all their work for them....what would happen to those dicks if there was no oil....back to poverty....AND....a definite backlash against us evil westerners....the end of the world as we know it!!!

i just can't see anything changing in the near future....due to the existing political and economic factors....we're screwed!!!

oh, well....rock & roll....matters....deal with it.....*L*

:)
 

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
i always hear all this crap about not finding a new energy source becauseof the oil companies..........

why don't computer companies stop computers from improving?

why don't farmers confront seed technology?

this is a stupid argument.......

if anyone could find a better energy souce, they would......just think of the $$$ that could be made.....

but folks, there isn't one right now.....and right now, it would be a wild goose chase to find one......innovation doesn't happen at whim.......if it does, why aren't you doing it?

unfortunately Gray Davis and others think that innovation can be forced.......they think they can legislate it.......his attitude kind of reminds me of what the reds were doing in the 50's and 60's in the space and arms race.....but hey, last i checked, Mr. Davis was a red..........
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Doc one thing the Fed used to do years ago. They would help by doing some research. Or much like they award contract for miltary equipment. They would help a company with some funds if the idea had good merit to it. With the just drill for oil ideas we are not getting this effort. It's for our kids and grand kids not for us. But we sure need a better push on it then it's getting. Some of the new hybred cars are at least a start. Some of the new efficeint gas furnace for peoples homes is another. Higher miles per gallon engines are possiable. I come from the 50s when I got my drivers permit. We got about 12 miles to the gallon then. We were told back then 20/22 miles to the gallon would never happen. So it coming we just have to push harder for it our selfs. We have to let the govenment know we want more action. It's to easy to say lets just keep drilling.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top