From heros to zeros!

[SaintNuclear]

Originally posted by Ineluke

Ineluke, don\'t you think that is ridiculous? That the US by far the most powerfull nation feels threatened by a backward country like Iraq?

This is a joke right? Any country with WMD\'s is a monsterous threat to any country in the world. No matter how small that country may be.

Iraq\'s WMDs were from the early 1980\'s, and weren\'t stored in the appropriate conditions (no, I can\'t give you a link -_-).
Even if their rockets and launchers wouldn\'t be rusty, their biological and chemical warheads couldn\'t harm a butterfly (unless you smack it with one) for over ten years now.

Even if their (20 years old) launchers can launch (20 years old) missiles to a distance of over 600,000km (it\'s not accurate, but that\'s more or less the distance between the US and Iraq), the (20 years old) rusty rockets would fall apart before they reach their destination.

Even if the warheads are fine, and the missiles and launchers are fine, and they can actually reach the US, they probebly won\'t hit anything.
Hell, back in the Gulf War, only one SCUD actually landed on Israel soil. No, it wasn\'t because the Patriots took them down, most of the Patriots actually hit buildings and stuff. Besides this one SCUD that fell on a building and killed a man (indirect hit), all of them fell to the sea.

If they couldn\'t aim right 10 years ago for a less-than-medium distance, how the hell are they supposed to hit when their equipment is all rusty and is far from capable of launching inter continental missiles?!


And even if from some reason one of their missiles actually reaches a few tens of kms from the US, they\'ll launch ~20 brand new Patriots (these ones should actually blow the missile up, not like the Gulf War ones) just to make sure it\'s safe.


--------

Originally posted by Ineluke

Okay finally (this text is becoming too long) lets assume there were wmds. You as a dictator would sell them. I if i was Saddam would place most of them in the area of baghdad (or a region easily defendable with many people) then threaten the US that any invasion means that the wmds are used on the iraqees. The US might have get their on time, however if they wouldn\'t THAT really reflects negative to Bush. If the population might revolt because of it, make the threat at the latest moment.

Um yeah but whos gonna detonate somthing like that knowing they will die?

Ask the Palastinians and Al Qaeda.


-------

Originally posted by Monketh
Oh, and with Middle-East peace, what do ya think we\'ve been trying to do for years, eh? They seem to be getting closer, not to mention the Israeli justification of the fence is good. Suicide bombing rates have actually decreased.

I\'m not sure about the whole apartheid wall thing.
It sounded good in theory. I remmember watching the news and they explained how there\'ll be guard towers every N kms, and security cams, and all these things.
Looking at some pics of this wall thing, it\'s pretty pathetic. Little kids climb it and for fun, there are tens of ways to pass it. There aren\'t even barbed wires on the top of it.
Guard posts? Hardly. Security cams? None.
The building rate is as slow as a a snail running marathon, and the plans of where it passes change every other day, making it longer, more complicated, and alot more expensive.



Besides, netting the Middle East with apartheids won\'t do any good.
Ever noticed people on a hot day? Everyone are cranky, and pissed off.
That\'s the problem of the Middle East.

How do we solve it? We\'ll build two HUGE air conditioners to cool the place a little! And then there will be no war, everyone will live in peace!
Imagine that, an Israeli, Palastinian, Iraqi, Kurd, and Iranian, all eating a breakfast while telling dirty jokes as the breeze from the air conditioners blow in their hair...

Donate to the Air Conditioners for the Middle East Fund (ACMEF) now!

[kbilik]

Originally posted by SaintNuclear
[Even if their rockets and launchers wouldn\'t be rusty, their biological and chemical warheads couldn\'t harm a butterfly (unless you smack it with one) for over ten years now.

This is incorrect. It is true that chemical weapons last a fairly short time in their activated form. What you fail to realize is that a chemical warhead contains a mix of chemicals that are only compounded together when the missile is activated and launched. The chemical precursors for the Sarin nerve toxin and VX, for example can last many decades without losing their effectiveness.

I also remember pre-war reports of Iraq building the illegal Al-Samoud missiles. Of course they were in the process of dismantling them after the UN caught them in the act - but this showed that Iraq was indeed capable of building new medium range ballistic missiles.

[SaintNuclear]

Originally posted by kbilik

Originally posted by SaintNuclear
[Even if their rockets and launchers wouldn\'t be rusty, their biological and chemical warheads couldn\'t harm a butterfly (unless you smack it with one) for over ten years now.

This is incorrect. It is true that chemical weapons last a fairly short time in their activated form. What you fail to realize is that a chemical warhead contains a mix of chemicals that are only compounded together when the missile is activated and launched. The chemical precursors for the Sarin nerve toxin and VX, for example can last many decades without losing their effectiveness.

Ah, didn\'t know that. I always thought it\'s live Sarin inside the warheads.
But still, wouldn\'t these chemicals degrade in time?

I also remember pre-war reports of Iraq building the illegal Al-Samoud missiles. Of course they were in the process of dismantling them after the UN caught them in the act - but this showed that Iraq was indeed capable of building new medium range ballistic missiles.

100 - 150km. This still doesn\'t pose a threat to the US...

Let me just remind you that in the 80\'s they tried to build a nuclear bombs facility, wich Israel\'s air force destroyed.
This was much more dangerous than a medium range ballistic missile, and was over with without any need to invade into the country together with a few more countries.
They asked no one, they just sent the planes, destroyed it, came back - mission accomplished. Short and simple.
Right, we shouldn\'t have done this because this and that. But the US shouldn\'t have invaded to Iraq either.

If there was a problem with a certain factory that makes missiles, they wouldn\'t have invaded like they did. It\'s careless. It\'s sending your own people to the death while you can solve it with alot less casualties.

[kbilik]

Originally posted by SaintNuclear
Ah, didn\'t know that. I always thought it\'s live Sarin inside the warheads.
But still, wouldn\'t these chemicals degrade in time?

Yes but not at a rapid rate. They would still remain effective today if made during the 80\'s.

Originally posted by SaintNuclear
100 - 150km. This still doesn\'t pose a threat to the US...

Let me just remind you that in the 80\'s they tried to build a nuclear bombs facility, wich Israel\'s air force destroyed.
This was much more dangerous than a medium range ballistic missile, and was over with without any need to invade into the country together with a few more countries.
They asked no one, they just sent the planes, destroyed it, came back - mission accomplished. Short and simple.
Right, we shouldn\'t have done this because this and that. But the US shouldn\'t have invaded to Iraq either.

If there was a problem with a certain factory that makes missiles, they wouldn\'t have invaded like they did. It\'s careless. It\'s sending your own people to the death while you can solve it with alot less casualties.

Very true. It would not have threatened the US directly - but it put Saudi Arabia and Israel at risk. Not to mention US airbases enforcing the UN imposed \"no-fly zone\". The real danger was not from missiles, but the chemical warheads themselves (as the one that detonated two weeks ago). The fear was that these warheads would be shipped into the US and detonated in a major populated area. Goes back to the Saddam giving terrorists WMD stuff.

Sure Saddam was secular and in no way liked by Al-Quida or vice versa - but Hamas sure didnt mind when he paid for suicide bombing operations.

[Ineluke]

Originally posted by kbilik

Very true. It would not have threatened the US directly - but it put Saudi Arabia and Israel at risk. Not to mention US airbases enforcing the UN imposed \"no-fly zone\". The real danger was not from missiles, but the chemical warheads themselves (as the one that detonated two weeks ago). The fear was that these warheads would be shipped into the US and detonated in a major populated area. Goes back to the Saddam giving terrorists WMD stuff.

Sure Saddam was secular and in no way liked by Al-Quida or vice versa - but Hamas sure didnt mind when he paid for suicide bombing operations.

This is exactly what I was going to reply. Let me also add that as far as The whole \"who would detonate a nuke knowing they would die\" I was a bit pressed for time so I didn\'t get to flesh that out the way I wanted to.
So let me rephrase that...
Who would detonate a nuke knowing they would die and kill thousands of innocent countrymen thus barring their entrance from heaven for eternity?

[kbilik]

Originally posted by Ineluke
So let me rephrase that...
Who would detonate a nuke knowing they would die and kill thousands of innocent countrymen thus barring their entrance from heaven for eternity?

This is rational, but the terrorists aren\'t. That argument didn\'t prevent them from blowing themselves up in Shia shrines in Iraq (killing one of the top clerics) or in Turkey where they targeted the Synagogues but actually killed far more of their countrymen. These people are erratic and their tactics are hard to predict.

[SaintNuclear]

Originally posted by kbilik

Originally posted by Ineluke
So let me rephrase that...
Who would detonate a nuke knowing they would die and kill thousands of innocent countrymen thus barring their entrance from heaven for eternity?

This is rational, but the terrorists aren\'t. That argument didn\'t prevent them from blowing themselves up in Shia shrines in Iraq (killing one of the top clerics) or in Turkey where they targeted the Synagogues but actually killed far more of their countrymen. These people are erratic and their tactics are hard to predict.

Terrorists are rational, actually. The diffrence between a terrorist and a non-terrorist is that a terrorist will do anything for his goal (sometimes dying too).

But right, saying that a terrorist won\'t do an act just because we think it don\'t make sense is wrong.


And let\'s go of the Muslim extremists for a moment:
What about all those apocaliptic cults? They wouldn\'t mind contaminating masses of land to tens of thousands of years.

[kbilik]

Originally posted by SaintNuclear
And let\'s go of the Muslim extremists for a moment:
What about all those apocaliptic cults? They wouldn\'t mind contaminating masses of land to tens of thousands of years.

This is true but these cults are not state sponsored nor do they have a global network with financers who own nearly a billion dollars (Bin Laden\'s fortune). Cults have caused damage - like in Japan where they released poison gas in the subway. But the threat is no where near the level of Al-Quida (9/11 US attack, Madrid train bombing, twin US embassy bombings in 1998, USS Cole bombing, etc).

Just because there are other threats out there doesn\'t mean we have to turn a blind eye to this even bigger one.

[TheTaintedSoul]

Monketh thanks for responding, it seems we agree for the most on that matter.

Ineluke, generally this is what i gather of your opinion from your posts so far:
Iraq probably had wmds, these would have been a threat to Israel, Saudi Arabie and other countries in the vicinity.
That the wmds haven\'t been found is likely cause they have been sold/transported to another country.

Is this correct? I want to know if i understand someones view correctly, thats why i ask.

I do appreciate your post and am enjoying this discussion. i look forward to your reply.

Thats mutual. Its interesting to directly discuss this with someone from america. Im glad we can disuss this respectfully without going into flaming. Here is something for you to disagree with

Originally posted by Ineluke

Ineluke, don\'t you think that is ridiculous? That the US by far the most powerfull nation feels threatened by a backward country like Iraq?

This is a joke right? Any country with WMD\'s is a monsterous threat to any country in the world. No matter how small that country may be.

Since you already went further on this ill admit a country like Iraq with wmds is a threat to its neighbours.

Ties between Saddam and Osama bin laden were very unlikely (they more likely could drink each others blood).

This is besides the point since we didn\'t go in because of Bin Laden

And i very much doubt the existence of WMDs in Iraq, Saddam knew that if they were found he would get in a very bad situation.

Which is the very reason that he would have gotten rid of them in the first place

Erm, i dont really understand, thats what im suggesting, that he got rid of most of the wmds or at least stopped producing them.

The only two prossible reasons for him to have wmds is defence (attacking a neigbour country failed before i don\'t think saddam is so stupid to try again knowing US responds) and revenge on the US. As a coward Saddam i don\'t think hed take the risk.
I admit there was a possibility Saddam wanted to have WMD\'s but for reasons listed above i doubt it.

You are making some very broad assumptions here.
1) Saddam is a coward
You can\'t possible know if he is a coward or not.
2)He could only have WMD\'s for defence.
Why could he only have them for defence? Even if he knows how the US responds that doesn\'t mean he won\'t do it anyway. Or that he even cares about the respose of the US.

True im making assumptions.
1) That Saddam is a coward is however not entirely my own. He is a paranoid person afraid of losing his power, fearing to be betrayed by his own. Much like Stalin in fact. Even his own sons didn\'t always know where he went to or was. There were multiple convoys going in different directions. Not that he had it all wrong, assination attempts have been made on his life.
2) Saddam cared only for having power (think thats an assumption i can easily make). When he attacked Kuwait to gain power he expected the US to do nothing. Now if he attacked a country he knows the US responds. Why does he care? Well that is easy, does/did he stand a chance against the US army? No Saddam knew his regime is doomed when he attacks another country. And being in power is more important to him than anything except his life perhaps.

Then again, i do admit, im not a psychologist, i heard vaguely Saddam has a narcistic character meaning he is the kind of person to make the same mistake over and over again. But then again i doubt if he really would be so dumb and foolish to attack a country and defy the US.

Secondly, most of the \'proof\' the US provided for the existense of WMD\'s has later turned out to be incorrect or exegerated. The speech given before the UN was a laughter (sorry if that sounds rude but it was). In one document a sentence like \"Iraq might be able to deploy wmd\'s for defensive purpose\" was altered by changing defensive into aggresive. a 100% turn of meaning.

\"A sentence like\"? Don\'t put itin quotations if you are unsure whether or not it is the exact sentence. Also I am not aware of this document if you could provide a link...

Okay you\'re right i shouldnt put it in \"\'s but i wanted to clearly seperate that sentence. Unfortunately i don\'t have a link or source. Most of my information comes from the media here. However the meaning of the sentence was like the one i wrote, as well as the change. It was an example of the numerous documents where alterations have been made. Making them reflecting in a more negative and sometimes unrealistic way of the wmds in Iraq.
However this is no new news to you. There is/was an investigation concerning this going on in the US.

Considering the amount of people and work involved i doubt the watchfull eye of the US on Iraq hadn\'t noticed any shipments or gathered proof thereof. Actually the argumen the wmd\'s are in a different country seems to me as a very weak one.

You have to realize that we were busy with the war on terrorism (which by the way was near Iraq relativly but had nothing real to do with it). We had our resources occupied by that situation and you also have to realize that Saddam had the resources of an entire nation with no one to answer to in order to cover it up.

How did the USA get the \'proof\' Powell showed at the UN? Some of that were new weren\'t they? Apparently the US watched Iraq closely. Also the US stated to know of locations of wmds. Therefore id think they would have seen transportation of those wmds and have proof thereof.

 Its used to not having to admit the US was wrong and started the war based on at least one wrong assumption.

Do you honestly think that we are so corrupt that we cover every mistake we make up? I really cant comment more on this until I see this document you speak of.

I don\'t accuse the US of covering up stuff (at least that was not my intention with my point). Im saying the argument of wmds are in other countries is lame. How i see it is: Your country didn\'t want to admit they were wrong (would have been to embarresing and damaging to their reputation) so it was said Syria had the wmds. Later they acknowledged that the information of wmds on which the war was based was overrated and wrong.

And placing wmds in Iraq is i think so obvious even the most naive would understand they were placed there. And aren\'t american wmds easily to pick out from those of other countries?

Again we aren\'t talking about Joe Shmoe from the street. this is the president of the USA. With the resources of the US it would have been no problem whatsoever. We could have made a bunch of crappy nukes to put there.

It would have been easy, thats for certain alright. However other countries (like france) in such a case would want the UN to take a close look at the wmds. And such a complex technology i think has specific technology that \'tells\' what country produced the wmd.

Okay finally (this text is becoming too long) lets assume there were wmds. You as a dictator would sell them. I if i was Saddam would place most of them in the area of baghdad (or a region easily defendable with many people) then threaten the US that any invasion means that the wmds are used on the iraqees. The US might have get their on time, however if they wouldn\'t THAT really reflects negative to Bush. If the population might revolt because of it, make the threat at the latest moment.

Um yeah but who would detonate a nuke knowing they would die and kill thousands of innocent countrymen thus barring their entrance from heaven for eternity?And if he did it remotly how long do you think he would last? He wouldn\'t have a country anymore and the remaining people would kill him.

After at least a decade of indoctrination Saddam was likely to have at least some very loyal followers. And to be certain, kidnap their children and wives. threaten to kill them if nothing happens and loyaltie is assured.
As a last resort it might work, Saddam could only threaten the US, if they back off nothing happens he is still in power. Otherwise he would lose his regime anyway.

Another thing, in short im saying the US should lighten up, there is no real danger to its existence. Terrorism might take some lives in the US and Europe however its nothing compared with death tolls by crime. Terrorists also might not need a country to provide wmds, aren\'t there mobile nuclear weapons (in suitcases) missing?

See my first response.
Also we didn\'t go into Iraq because we thought that they were giving them to terrorists we went in because we thought they may use them on us.
As far as the crime rate comment goes so what are we just supposed to let the terrorists kill americans because \"America will not cease to exist\" That seems a bit simple minded.

Okay, we agree that the war on Iraq had little to do with terrorists connection of Saddam. But it was used by the US as one of the reasons to attack Iraq.

About the crime rate: Although we terrorism is besides the point with iraq, im trying to put things into perspective. I dont want America or Europe to do nothing about terrorism. Instead of using violence the source of terrorism should be removed by improving the state people are in.
However it seems that after 9/11 terrorism is considered by most as the worst problem, people have become really afraid of something that kills considerably less people than common murderers do.
How often has there been warnings of possible terrorism activities in the US since 9/11? And how often did something occur? How often was there really something planned and how often was it false alarm?

I intended to post a clear view of how i see the war on Iraq (and afghanistan). This will have to come later im afraid but this is enough to argue on i think .

[kbilik]

Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
About the crime rate: I dont want America or Europe to do nothing about terrorism. Instead of using violence the source of terrorism should be removed by improving the state people are in. However it seems that after 9/11 terrorism is considered by most as the worst problem, people have become really afraid of something that kills considerably less people than common murderers do.
How often has there been warnings of possible terrorism activities in the US since 9/11? And how often did something occur? How often was there really something planned and how often was it false alarm?

An attack like 9/11 did not only kill 3000 people (which is an act of mass murder I recall) - but how can you compare this to a crime? Does a crime target the financial infrastructure of one of the important places for the world economy (This alone cost the US and world economy more than hundreds of billions of dollars)? Does crime target the military nerve center of the US - the Pentagon - where the chaos may have led to a kneejerk retaliatory strike?

You have a good idea - improve society and conditions around the world. Now propose a solution to deal with it. One that will:

1. Work
2. Make everyone see the alternative as foolish and harmful to humankind
3. Outline a way to contain terrorism and its attacks that could destabilize the world (comparing it to crime is comparing apples to oranges).

[Taldor]

I have a request: could everyone fill in their location, please? This could make it easier to see some posts in the right perspective. thx.

[TheTaintedSoul]

Originally posted by kbilik
An attack like 9/11 did not only kill 3000 people (which is an act of mass murder I recall) - but how can you compare this to a crime? Does a crime target the financial infrastructure of one of the important places for the world economy (This alone cost the US and world economy more than hundreds of billions of dollars)? Does crime target the military nerve center of the US - the Pentagon - where the chaos may have led to a kneejerk retaliatory strike?

You have a good idea - improve society and conditions around the world. Now propose a solution to deal with it. One that will:

1. Work
2. Make everyone see the alternative as foolish and harmful to humankind
3. Outline a way to contain terrorism and its attacks that could destabilize the world (comparing it to crime is comparing apples to oranges).

Sorry i really don\'t care about the financiel losses. All i care about is the cost in human lifes. The comparison is to put things into perspective. Yes it was mass slaughter. But how many people have been killed on average each year because of terrorism in America the last decade?
What is the average death toll because of murderers in the US? Much more.
Terrorism is not to be ignored however it isn\'t the worst problem we face today. We shouldn\'t concentrate mostly on terrorism forgetting other more important problems.

How to improve society? Naturally there is no way that works 100% and progress is slow. I dont claim to be smart/wise enough to provide the exact solution. I do think there is a better way than fighting war on nations.

Shortly what i would do is the following. Its my humble view on the matters and quickly put down.
Put the money spent on war in Iraq and afghanistan in the wellbeing of people in undeveloped countries. Encouraging education, economy, etc. In a countrie with a well educated middle class democracy will form easier and is more stable. With democracy a country is more stable and flourishes more (Saintnuclear probably disagrees). In such a countrie the situation has changed for the better and people are less easily influenced by fundamentalists.
So simple said give give more money to backward countries, encourage education and development. Yes this means the elite puts a large part in their pocket but its the part that gets to the population that matters.

And the west should stop supporting dicatorial governments like that of Saudi Arabia which isnt that much better than that of Iraq was. In general the west should live worldwide by the standards they claim to have.
And the international community should become more of a democracy instead of the USA influencing the world the way they see fit. Here i think the UN is important. Slightly naive perhaps i look out to a world where an invasion of one country by another will cause the others to helpt that country.

I have an example of the way people in third world countries can be helped. Im not really certain of the way the system was but both the USA and European union help their farmers by limiting import (raising import prices). This creates the weird situation where the farmers in Africa producing food much cheaper cant sell their food in Europe and the USA. In fact food is imported in africa making the food produced there worthless.
Europe and USA can really directly help those people make a living by removing those artificial restrictions. Both have been to arrogant and selfish until now. The problem they face of course are farmers. If Europe & USA would not only consider their own interests but those of the world as well the situation could be much better for those farmers.

[TheTaintedSoul]

Originally posted by Taldor
I have a request: could everyone fill in their location, please? This could make it easier to see some posts in the right perspective. thx.

Does that matter? Without knowing the location of someone the use of stereotypes (Americans are arrogant and ignorant, Europeans are sissys and naive) is less likely.

[tygerwilde]

Americans are arrogant and ignorant

I agree with this statement, and I\'m american....

what does that make me???

perhaps king of the retards???

[kbilik]

Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul

Sorry i really don\'t care about the financiel losses. All i care about is the cost in human lifes. The comparison is to put things into perspective. Yes it was mass slaughter. But how many people have been killed on average each year because of terrorism in America the last decade?
What is the average death toll because of murderers in the US? Much more.
Terrorism is not to be ignored however it isn\'t the worst problem we face today. We shouldn\'t concentrate mostly on terrorism forgetting other more important problems.

I guess a couple hundred billion dollars plus loss of life doesn\'t mean much to you? Great, with the world going deeper in poverty expect to see more extremists and fighting over resources. Get real - the effect of such an attack not only has an immediate impact, but it will funnel more money into the war machine that you want to stop.

Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
Shortly what i would do is the following. Its my humble view on the matters and quickly put down.
Put the money spent on war in Iraq and afghanistan in the wellbeing of people in undeveloped countries. Encouraging education, economy, etc. In a countrie with a well educated middle class democracy will form easier and is more stable. With democracy a country is more stable and flourishes more (Saintnuclear probably disagrees). In such a countrie the situation has changed for the better and people are less easily influenced by fundamentalists.
So simple said give give more money to backward countries, encourage education and development. Yes this means the elite puts a large part in their pocket but its the part that gets to the population that matters.

Great, but where does the money come from? From the hundreds of billions that went down the drain after these attacks? What happens when we leave Iraq and Afghanistan prematurely - do you worry about extremist governments taking the reign because the job is not done to completion? In this case it would be counter-productive.

Not only will you further destabilize the region, you will further put the world in poverty as the extremist governments divert oil funds from the world economy and finance extremist organizations (further fueling this war).

Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
And the west should stop supporting dicatorial governments like that of Saudi Arabia which isnt that much better than that of Iraq was. In general the west should live worldwide by the standards they claim to have.
And the international community should become more of a democracy instead of the USA influencing the world the way they see fit. Here i think the UN is important. Slightly naive perhaps i look out to a world where an invasion of one country by another will cause the others to helpt that country.

I agree with you here about the west stop funding these regimes (oh and don\'t single out the west, ok?). Too bad the cold war made that a habit. Instead of direct confrontation, the superpowers like the USSR and US poured money into these regional wars and warlords. Good at that time, but definately bad when the same warlords turned there backs to attack.