Iraq again

If Iraq launches a weapon of mass destruction, probably against Israel and our forces, should we ret

  • Yes

    Votes: 11 100.0%

  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Unsure, probably yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Unsure, probably no

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Unsure / does not know / don't care

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    11
Jeslek

Jeslek

Banned
Answer the poll. This is scary. If they launch a WMD against the USA, we will get pissed and might not retaliate in the same manner. However if they do that against Israel the middle east is going to be a quiet place for a long time.
 
i said unsure probly yes since it would show Sadam not screw with us. but on the other hand as i have stated on this site many times im concerned with the idea that america would bomb something and take innocent civilians. i dont like sadam but i dont want us to attack those not involved and without just cause.
 
he does not have the capacity to attack us soil with wmd, if he attacks troops then retaliation against iraqi troops [or military targets] should be the result.

if he attacks israel then it could make things really complicated. if israel retaliates then the region could become highly unstable. also, the likelihood is that an attack on israel will undoubtedly be against civillian targets. even so, retaliation should be against military only otherwise we reduce ourselves to the level of an evil dictator.

more pertinent i beleive is what will happen in the post-hussein iraq, how it is run, organised and left to the people of iraq. without a long-term plan that takes this into account military actions may have no long-term benefit.
 
Hm, I will never attack civilians unless they are aiding soldiers. Human shields won't work on me either. I feel sorry for those people, but every was has casualties, and better them than my family.
 
human shields are one of the most pathetic ways of acting in conflict. iraq did it in the gulf war and it was deplorable, the action can never be justified. just because israel is an ally to the west does not make its own use of human shields any less deplorable and yet no-one seems willing to criticise them.
 
They are not using their own people as human shields like Saddam, they are using the enemy. That is a valid battle strategy and I don't see any problem with it. Let the enemy shoot himself, it save us the trouble later on.
 
incorrect, saddam hussein used uk nationals and other foreigners in the gulf war, as human shields placed at strategic sites [his own palaces included]. effectively these people are used as hostages against their will.

and it is not a valid battle strategy, if memory serves [and i could be wrong] it is in contravention of the geneva conventions on war.
 
ris said:
incorrect, saddam hussein used uk nationals and other foreigners in the gulf war, as human shields placed at strategic sites [his own palaces included]. effectively these people are used as hostages against their will.

and it is not a valid battle strategy, if memory serves [and i could be wrong] it is in contravention of the geneva conventions on war.
Click to expand...
Hm, well, I didn't know about the foreign nationals thing. So he is using them as hostages right? Oh and, no one cares about the Geneva conventions of war. War is war, not some polite way of saying you disagree with someone. I don't have much experience in this, but I'm not sure if I won't use an enemy to shield myself. I'm pretty sure I will if I have to.
 
the use of non-combatant civilians to do the work of soldiers or protect military targets is morally repugnant.
 
ris said:
the use of non-combatant civilians to do the work of soldiers or protect military targets is morally repugnant.
Click to expand...
Well yes, unless it is to save your own people's lives. I'd go to great lengths to insure the safety of my family, friends, and country. But I'm talking out of the air here, I don't have experience and I don't know how it is out there.
 
ris said:
the use of non-combatant civilians to do the work of soldiers or protect military targets is morally repugnant.
Click to expand...

It's also against the Geneva convention to use POW's as shields or forced labor. Not to say that it doesn't happen, but there you are...
 
BTW...As for the WMD question, I say that if Saddam uses a WMD of any sort, we give him what he wants...nukes. Make an example to the rest of the world. (The reason he didn't use WMD's in the last war is because the UK stated, clearly and succinctly, that if Saddam used chemical/biological weapons that they would nuke him back to the stone age...)
 
Gato_Solo said:
BTW...As for the WMD question, I say that if Saddam uses a WMD of any sort, we give him what he wants...nukes. Make an example to the rest of the world. (The reason he didn't use WMD's in the last war is because the UK stated, clearly and succinctly, that if Saddam used chemical/biological weapons that they would nuke him back to the stone age...)
Click to expand...
:headbang:
 
The most powerful WMD the US can unleash is wave after wave of dickhead tourists to sterelize all known culture and leave behind many Starbucks and McDonalds in their dusty wake.
 
Barney ?!?

Now I'm damn sure that had got to be against the Geneva Convention.
 
Ok, well to answer the question, Yes. If they try to use a WMD against us or an allie of ours, we have to retaliate, and I don't think Bush would have to think about it for long. However, we should not use a Nuke. To start that again will set us back 50 years in our evolutionary process. I like to think we learned that lesson once.
 
Just use a neutron bomb. It will kill everything alive in a certain radius without harming buildings and stuff. And the fallout is minute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top