|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 30, 2003 18:02:24 GMT -5
Care to list another country which could concievably cause the entire world to grind to a halt by counquering two of it's neighbours (and that has a chance of actually beating the neighbour - Mexico doesn't count as it would likely never be able to conquer the US). Later Theoretically: Israel, India, Pakistan. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 30, 2003 18:25:26 GMT -5
All nuclear powers. Like North Korea except too caught up in hating/being hated by their neighbours to really be a threat to the world. Pakistan and India have the strategic importance of Thunder Bay. Israel is kept more or less on a tight leash by the western powers (Israel requires Western intervention to survive)
Next, all are covered under MAD - though someone should've stepped in a couple years ago and stopped Pakistan and India from becoming nuclear powers (Israel became a Nuclear power some time ago - though someone should've stopped them too).
Finaly, in the case of India and Pakistan - yeah, maybe one could take down the other, but do you think that China would just stand there if one became a threat?
Later,
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 30, 2003 18:37:47 GMT -5
All nuclear powers. Like North Korea except too caught up in hating/being hated by their neighbours to really be a threat to the world. Pakistan and India have the strategic importance of Thunder Bay. Israel is kept more or less on a tight leash by the western powers (Israel requires Western intervention to survive) Next, all are covered under MAD - though someone should've stepped in a couple years ago and stopped Pakistan and India from becoming nuclear powers (Israel became a Nuclear power some time ago - though someone should've stopped them too). Finaly, in the case of India and Pakistan - yeah, maybe one could take down the other, but do you think that China would just stand there if one became a threat? Later, Any of the three I mentioned are quite capable of sucking bigger fish into the vortex should they put a foot wrong, or mistake the imagined safety of their "remoteness" as a guarantee of "protection" in pursuing conflict. After all look what happened to Afghanistan (twice). Er, Iraq. MAD is quite the appropriate acronym, and sometimes people get madder than mad. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 30, 2003 22:57:16 GMT -5
So are you telling me you expect India to lob a nuke into Bejing or the Kashmir? Or for Israel to drop a bomb on Cario? No. It'll never happen. Why? Because other countries would step in. Because other countries can step in. You don't have that ability in Iraq. Saddam listens to no one but Saddam. He has no strong political ally to lean on him to ensure that he does not do something stupid. There is no way to twist his arm to keep him in adherance to MAD.
Or maybe Saddam isn't really all that we've made him out to be. After all, the western media is just demonizing him to to make it look like the US is doing justice. Uday isn't a serial rapist. They're all just one big happy family over there in the middle east.
Later
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 30, 2003 23:58:45 GMT -5
So are you telling me you expect India to lob a nuke into Bejing or the Kashmir? Or for Israel to drop a bomb on Cario? No. It'll never happen. Why? Because other countries would step in. Because other countries can step in. You don't have that ability in Iraq. Saddam listens to no one but Saddam. He has no strong political ally to lean on him to ensure that he does not do something stupid. There is no way to twist his arm to keep him in adherance to MAD. Or maybe Saddam isn't really all that we've made him out to be. After all, the western media is just demonizing him to to make it look like the US is doing justice. Uday isn't a serial rapist. They're all just one big happy family over there in the middle east. Later Do you really think Saddam would use nukes against his neighbours with the US and UN breathing down his neck? He may be crazy but is he that stupid? |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 31, 2003 0:37:06 GMT -5
Do you really think Saddam would use nukes against his neighbours with the US and UN breathing down his neck? He may be crazy but is he that stupid? Yes - just as I believe that he will use WMD's at some point in this war (despite the fact that it will turn global opinion against him and assure his downfall). Why? Because he is, as you said, crazy. But not slobbering, drooling crazy. He's delusional. He believes he is the descendant of Mohammed. He feels he has been ordained to create a united Palestine across the middle east (this has been documented in several books I have read, though I can't for the life of me remember which ones). He's of the same personality that Hitler was. Take back the rhine. Take the sudenland. Rebuild Anchluss. Rearm the nation. No one would stop him. The world was too frightened of the spectre of the first world war. No one would stop him. But Britain drew the line at Poland, and against the will of many, went to war. The same could be said at this juncture, except that this time around we're not giving Saddam a chance to do what Hitler did. Later |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 31, 2003 4:20:47 GMT -5
Nice speculation, TNG, but a little short on evidence, (which is what you keep saying about my posts...).
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 31, 2003 7:20:47 GMT -5
So are you telling me you expect India to lob a nuke into Bejing or the Kashmir? Or for Israel to drop a bomb on Cario? No. It'll never happen. Why? Because other countries would step in. Because other countries can step in. You don't have that ability in Iraq. Saddam listens to no one but Saddam. He has no strong political ally to lean on him to ensure that he does not do something stupid. There is no way to twist his arm to keep him in adherance to MAD. Or maybe Saddam isn't really all that we've made him out to be. After all, the western media is just demonizing him to to make it look like the US is doing justice. Uday isn't a serial rapist. They're all just one big happy family over there in the middle east. Later As I understood the original question it asked for possible, not probable examples of countries who have WMD, who *could*, by employing them, "bring the world to a grinding halt". You framed your question with the words "could conceivably". I answered by suggesting, "theoretically". Nowhere did I say "they will" or "are likely to". In fact any country that possesses WMD falls into the *possible* category. Human behaviour demands that assumption be made. Of course sometimes a single pistol shot is enough to get the ball rolling. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 5, 2003 18:17:48 GMT -5
The alliance's position has always been clear: Saddam is a brutal oppressor and sponsor of terrorism who seeks (and admits to having had) WMD. He did not comply with UN resolutions and must be face serious consequences. The unarguably self-interested France, Germany, and Russia succeeded in abating pressure applied by the US to the point where it was not effective. War became necessary. The Axis of Appeasement (which includes some HabsRus posters and all anti-Iraq-war protesters around the globe) is united by but a thread: their opposition to this war. Thread? Yes, thread. Stay tuned for the continuation (I need sleep now...badly) of Higgledy-Piggledy ProtestersThis is where I became confused, Spoozy. I remember Bush admitting that Hussein was a brutal dictator, but I also remember him saying that the platform for this war was based on Iraq's non-complience to disarm. However, I found it odd that when Iraq complied with every demand, Bush found another demand for them. Nothing could be enough. If Iraq complied, Bush found another reason. Then, I remember the coalition, Blair, Bush, et al, focusing on the tyrant Hussein. This is where I became confused. Why change the focus of the platform? Don't get me wrong, Spoozy, I support the action and I would have supported Canada's involvement. But, I just didn't like the way this conflict developed that's all. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Apr 8, 2003 16:51:25 GMT -5
However, I found it odd that when Iraq complied with every demand, Bush found another demand for them. Therein lies your problem. You have misinformation. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 8, 2003 18:34:07 GMT -5
I'm not too sure as to what problem you preceive me to have, Spozzy. But, remember that the onus of proof is on the accuser. I'll also ask you to remember that you are making judgements from behind the security of your PC keyboard. This is something I try not to do mono-a-mono as I'm not face to face with the other poster. Thanks.
All of this was documented in the media.
First, Bush demands that Hussein disarms. Hussein is hesitant; the othe Arab nations earge him to comply; finally he starts the process.
Second, Bush demands that the UN weapons inspectors get into Iraq in force. They do, they find nothing, and Bush reiterates; disarm or else.
Third, Iraq complies with every demand made by Bush. Not good enough ... disarm.
"We don't have any more of the weapons that Bush claims we have," Not good enough ... something else.
The point here is that it didn't matter what the Baath Party said, Bush was going in so long as Hussein remained in power.
However, to date the coalition has found nothing with regards to weapons of mass destruction, which was the original platform on which Bush based his offensive. Yes, he always maintained that Hussein is a threat to the region, but this was always secondary to the "disarming" platform.
As for not having WMD themselves, yes, the Americans have them. I just found a story on CNN about two weeks ago that showed the photograph of a 21 KT conventional bomb being detonated in Arizona (I think it was Arizona). To put that into perspective, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was a nuclear bomb, but only the equivilent of 20 KT.
Last night I went to the CNN site again and found some information on what the Iraqis claimed to have had. It was broken down by type, ie. Sarin, Tabun, and quatities that the Iraqis supposedly have. The problem is the Iraqis haven't reported to the UN that they have destroyed these materials. They've had twelve years to do so.
Let me reiterate, though, I do support the action in Iraq if for no other reason than to see a ruthless dictator and his regime go down. I honestly believe that Hussein is a threat to the region and a threat to his own people. His government openly pays $25K to families whose offspring willingly blow themselves up as suicide bombers. He gases his own people and he has little control over his sons who are themselves, out of control. That and his inabilities to comply with any of the UN resolutions over the past twelve years is good enough for me.
I also believe that Canada should have offered political support as well. Our troops deployed with the coalition to Afghanistan. They had "I love New York" written on the back of their Light Armoured Vehicles (LAVs) as they disembarked the aircraft. Canadian commandos participated in Special Ops operations and handed over several high-ranking al-Qaeda officials over to the Americans. That caused a stir in our parliament, but I don't know who the Canucks were supposed to hand them over to; the Pakistanis? And now The Royal Canadian Regiment is preparing to redeploy on Canada's behalf into Afghanistan to assume a large number of responsibilities from the Americans again. Why? So, these troops can be freed up for future operations.
Iran, North Korea, or elsewhere? Hard to say. But the point is, even though Canada didn't offer political support, it did assume a military support role albeit limited. And it continues to give military support to the American cause today. However, little attention is given to that.
As for the WMD, the coalition hasn't found a single one as yet. I hope they find what they're looking for. Anything less will be an international PR disaster.
That's my take on this whole thing Spozzy.
Oh, and I sincerely apologize for getting your handle wrong, but rest assured that I won't be walking on egg shells for fear of ticking you off. Unless you're touting a 21 KT bomb that is.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Apr 11, 2003 21:37:36 GMT -5
First, Bush demands that Hussein disarms. Hussein is hesitant; the othe Arab nations earge him to comply; finally he starts the process. Are you of the opinion that Hussein started the 'process' of complying because other Arabs urged him to? Umm..no, this isn't true. For example, on the 27th of January Hans Blix reported to the UN Security Council that, in violation of 1994 orders by the inspectors, Iraq had increased the diameter of its Al Samoud missiles. Again, no. How familiar are you with resolution 1441? There are a lot of demands there made by the entire UN Security Council. Bush's one demand was that Iraq meet these demands, fully, and Iraq certainly did not. Excerpt from 1441: "false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution ... shall constitute further material breach." Hans Blix to Security Council: Iraq hasn't accounted for 20k liters of anthrax, 1.5 tons of VX nerve gas, biological growth media, Scud missiles Iraq is not allowed to possess, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 13, 2003 9:24:47 GMT -5
Are you of the opinion that Hussein started the 'process' of complying because other Arabs urged him to? Hey, there's plenty of journalistic material to verify that the surrounding Arab states erged him to start complying. While I don't believe the process was started here, it was a concern of the other Arab nations for sure. Only the UN Security Council can order in the inspectors, quite right. However, while Bush didn't directly order those arms inspectors into Iraq, they were there mainly because of Bush's initiatives and actions. The UN acted to try and divert a war. Why I can't imagine, Bush told them from the onset that he would go in with or without them. I know this as well, Spozzy. It seems we have similar views. I cited Iraq's failure to account for the commodities you listed in another post. However, I also cited the UN Security Council's failure to effectively follow up on any of it's resolutions not only on this board, but in an Ottawa newspaper as well. Resolution 1441 was only one in a series of many resolutions delivered by the UN. The only difference between 1441 and the others, was that the Security Council was given ample time to follow up on the others. They failed to do so in every instance and there's no reason to believe the they would have followed up on 1441; the French conflict of interest being only one of the problems. However, I still believe that Bush was going to go whether the Iraqi's had passed or not. That was my whole point. Yes, Bush put demands on the table and Iraq complied. Bush then said, "... open up your palaces..." The Iraqi's did and then Bush says, "... Hussein, get out of Iraq or ..." Then Colin Powell (or one of his aids, I'm not quite sure) says, "... if Hussein leaves Iraq, we'll find him ..." (or words to that affect) Leaving that part of the situation aside, has the US found any weapons of mass destruction? No. Not one. The argument that they found protective suits and masks as well as, instructional manuals on how chemical agents are deployed is week. I just finished twenty-three years service with the Canadian Army (regular component). One of my secondary duties was preparing soldiers for what to do in defence of Nuclear Biological and Chemical (NBC) attack. It included training in a CS-gas environment while using the NBC protective ensambles at least once a year and an extensive theory portion on how chemical and biological agents are deployed on the battlefield or in an urban setting. Does Canada have any of these kinds of weapons? No. We don't. But, we do train for it. The finding of these materials doesn't prove a darn thing. Now, coming full circle on you Spozzy, I honestly believe the only way the coalition is going to find any of these weapons will be to dig up half the country or search the country of Syria. Are either scenarios viable? No, not at this point anyway. I remember Bush on Septemper 13, 1991. He was sitting in front of a camera, in casual clothes. After being asked to clarify one of his points, Bush said very plainly, "... what I'm saying is, if you're wearing a uniform, you get ready to go ..." Whe whole point is that Bush was going to go in one way or the other. To think otherwise would be to ignore media reporting all together. Honestly, I don't think I have a problem (as you pointed out earlier) any more than you do, my friend. In fact, we're on line over quite a few points, the main one being support for the war effort. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 13, 2003 9:59:19 GMT -5
Dis, are you sure we do not have the B in NBC? I think that you may be surprised. We may not have weaponized it but I am certain that some research was going on out on the prairies.
As far as WMD's, a few tons can be hidden pretty easily. There is NO WAY Saddam got rid of all the WMD's he worked so hard to acquire. You know the old story about the scorpion and the frog, same thing for Saddam.
I am willing to take side bets that Saddam is hiding and hoping to pop out in a month or so after the creates as much misery as possible for his people. Again, the nature of the beast.
He has been consistent to his action for 25 years and to believe that he is going to change now is somewhat naive from the anti-war side.
Wait and see.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 13, 2003 13:49:39 GMT -5
Dis, are you sure we do not have the B in NBC? I think that you may be surprised. We may not have weaponized it but I am certain that some research was going on out on the prairies. Yes, quite so, but as I sent to you in PM, it is the "C" that is used albeit for training purposes. And it wouldn't take much to hide them, or even transport them to Syria if using the cover of darkness. However, as much as I agree with you, the onus is on the coalition to prove this. They need talkers ... lots and lots of talkers (AKA rats) Like Bin Laden, if Hussein is still alive, he'll have to resort to the same cowardly, gutless means of fighting, that the terrorists they endorse do. From luxury to the mud pit. You know yourself that most of the anti-war protesters are basically sheep. I was called out as part of an auxillery security force in order to beef up security once at NDHQ. They called us in very early in the morning and gave us a briefing. The probability of a demonstration outside NDHQ was very high. However, they also pointed out that there will be professional protesters sprinkled among the main body. These are people who are paid by who-knows-who to learn the agenda and protest. They don't necessarily believe in the cause but will fight for it because they are being paid to. However, interestingly enough, you can accurately predict when they will be protesting. They never miss any meals or breaks. So, the professional protester works the same hours as any normal boob. Heck, we were even shown photos and given names of the professionals. There weren't too many of them, just enough to show the remaining sheep how to do it. Now, if Hussein and/or Bin Laden want to expose their whereabouts, fine. I'm sure the country they do it from will be the object of the next coalition strike and seeing how terrorism is involved, Canada should be there. Well, then again ... baahhhhhh, bahhhhh ... Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 13, 2003 14:18:37 GMT -5
Yes, quite so, but as I sent to you in PM, it is the "C" that is used albeit for training purposes.
You know our N can be done in a year itf required. The C is NOT as effective as people thingk. What scares me is the B. No, what frightens me is the B. Enough said for a publice forum.
And it wouldn't take much to hide them, or even transport them to Syria if using the cover of darkness. However, as much as I agree with you, the onus is on the coalition to proove this. They need talkers ... lots and lots of talkers (AKA rats)
2 tons in the back of a pickup truck. THAT's why they are going to be VERY HARD to find.
Like Bin Laden, if Hussein is still alive, he'll have to resort to the same cowardly, gutless means of fighting, that the terrorists they endorse do. From luxury to the mud pit.
Nothing better then gutless school yard bullies who NEVER show up for the firht when the odds are against them.
Now, if Hussein and/or Bin Laden want to expose their whereabouts, fine. I'm sure the country they do it from will be the object of the next coalition strike and seeing how terrorism is involved, Canada should be there. Well, then again ... baahhhhhh, bahhhhh ...
When Cretin develops the guts to do the right thing, I will race to Kingston and we will celebrate. Don't hold your breadth waiting for it to happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 13, 2003 17:16:03 GMT -5
Do we really need an excuse to celebrate? If you're in town, the door is open.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by 24andcounting on Apr 20, 2003 22:53:30 GMT -5
Oh - the last point. Can you find for me one war supporter who has said that they're in this war for the oil? Or for that matter, any evidence to support your theory besides "other war protestors are saying this, therefore it must be true?". I've been waiting for some time now for someone to back up the 'blood for oil' theory. Guess we got the proof we needed, didn't we? Haliburton has a nice fat contract, the US is preparing to hand out more contracts to it's preferred list of oil companies that have ties to the administration. Didn't need the war to prove it, I'm afraid, we "doves" knew all along. |
|
