Registered: Sep 2000
Location: The Bottom of the Toyem Pole
Posts: 9453

Wait, now the reason we are going after Saddam is because he has WMD? Talk about moving the goalposts.

This poll isn't useful for anything except determining how many people are willing to base their beliefs on nothing more than fearmongering. Fact is, no one knows what Saddam Hussein has, and the beliefs of Asylum patrons or the American public are indicative of nothing. A majority of Americans believe that God created humanity and deny evolution too, but that doesn't make it so. It's so confusing to me why we bang our wardrums so loudly in response to a nation whose capabilities are unknown while we are in the process of determining those capabilities, but we have casual-at-best attitudes towards countries with well established production and ownership of WMD.

So what about all the other nations that have them? To suggest that the presence of WMD in the geographical boundaries of Iraq is the reason we are going to invade is the biggest piece of moosedung I've heard yet! It's a convienient argument that is difficult to mount opposition to, and thus our government has finally latched onto that as the reason. Shame on anyone who accepts that at face value.

WMD in and of itself is not the reason we are going into Iraq. Remember all the talk about "regime change?" That is what this about. It's about invading a country and knocking off its leader to install a government that we like more; nothing more, nothing less. Everything else is just icing that gets smothered on your toungue to distract you from the distaste of the truth of what we are suggesting.

If WMD is such a problem, why didn't Bush come into office, or better yet campaign on the issue of Removing WMD from The EvilDoers?! If this is our excuse, are we going to apply it to everyone else who has them? What criteria do we use to determine that certain governments can obtain, develop, and retain WMD while others warrant invasion and regime change?

Oh, I see. Possession of WMD isn't *actually* the reason, its that Saddam is such an evil person and might use them against the United States. Does anyone seriously believe that Saddam's military has the ability to strike the United States? He isn't a threat to us.

But wait, you say, he might give these weapons to terrorists who would use them against us! Yes, that is a possibility, but its not very likely (unless he is attacked by us). Saddam knows that we are gunning for him and that an attack on us sponsored by him would give him less than a week to live. If there is one thing that is dependable about Saddam Hussein, its his self-preservation interests. I don't think that he would risk getting caught giving WMD to terrorists. In addition, I think that he would be just as worried that domestic (Iraqi) opposition to his regime would use them against him. He prefers to keep a tight grip on WMD, for his and only his use.

Of course, if we go in and knock him off, now that control is relaxed and any stores of weapons, production materials, and knowledge stores are free to filter out on the black market. Removing Saddam Hussein in a war is more likely to increase terrorists' access to his WMD for use against the US than having him in power. So if reducing the likelihood of a WMD attack against the US is the goal, taking Saddam's head isn't the best way to do it.

The way I understand it, the argument is that the US gov't's responsibility is to reduce the liklihood of attacks on the US. Fact is that Russia's nuclear material is a much greater threat and is more likely to be obtained by terrorists than Saddam could ever provide. Any weapons or weapon making ability that Saddam has is useless to him right now with inspectors in country. Inspectors may not be able to find everything, but they can keep Saddam from building anything.

And BioChem weapons really aren't that much of a threat anyway. Yes, they are nasty, but they are very very difficult to employ on the battlefield. Conventional explosives or a dirty bomb are much more deadly and much more likely, yet we focus on biochem, weapons that have a low probability of use against us to start with and are comparitively no more deadly than TNT.

Many bioagent attacks just make people sick. Medical technology prevents most deaths. Look at the anthrax attacks: How many millions were exposed and 5 died. Sarin attacks on a crowded Tokyo subway killed 12 (crowded, cramped, poor ventilated area). A suicide bomber would have killed many more. Saddam killed 5000 in the gassing of the Kurds, but that was via multiple warhead attacks delivered by waves of jet bombers. That isn't going to happen with terrorists.

The real threats to American security come from convential exposives, not WMD, especially Iraq's WMD. The war with Iraq isn't about making the world safe from WMD. Don't be fooled by this. The war with Iraq is a well-intentioned effort by the US to feel productive in doing something about 9/11. There are lots of undercurrents (distraction from difficulty in destroying Al Qaida, distraction from domestic problems, oil, personal politics) that I think do play a part, but none of them are the prime reasons. I think that the US gov't really truly does believe that Saddam is a threat, but I also think that this is an erroneous belief.

Invading Iraq may remove Saddam from power, but it won't do anything to solve our problems. Saddam Hussein and his WMD potential are relatively very minor threats the the health, security, and future prosperity of the United States and its allies. Not only does the this suggest that the our efforts would be better spent addressing major threats, but highlights the cost of the additional threats that military action are likely to spawn (high possibility of the war blowing out of control, increased anti-West sentiment, loosening of controls of WMD knowledge and material, etc.)

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

My reasons for attacking him are securing the economic and strategic interests of the UK.

Last edited by philjit on 02-20-2003 at 02:41 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 10178

the US you mean, limey

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

bugger off. We are securing our interest by using a proxy army. Did I say 'using'? I meant 'allied with'

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16671

Text Of President Clinton's Address to the Nation on the Bombing of Iraq
President Bill Clinton
December 16, 1998

Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish. Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the cease-fire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down. Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region.

The U.N. Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance. Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the U.N.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then, at the last possible moment, that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the U.N. that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate. I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing U.N. resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the U.N. weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to U.N. Secretary General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing. In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars:

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though U.N. resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program. It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions. Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment. Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament. In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham. Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance. And so we had to act and act now. Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program, we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons. Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East. That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions.

But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses. So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people. First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens. The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.

Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully. Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction.

If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so. In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace. Tonight, the United States is doing just that.

May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families.

And may God bless America.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

taste the fucking rainbow

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16671

Iraqi 'terror ships' at sea
By Patrick McGowan, Evening Standard
19 February 2003
Three huge cargo ships feared to be carrying Iraqi weapons of mass destruction are being tracked around the world by British and American intelligence.

The vessels, which have been at sea for three months, are believed to be carrying weapons smuggled out through Syria or Jordan.

They are all refusing frequent requests to provide details of their cargo or destination and officials are worried that the vessels are maintaining radio silence in clear contravention of maritime law, which states all ships should be in constant communication.

Despite grave suspicions of what is on board, Britain and the US are afraid to order interception by naval ships because of fears the crews would scuttle the vessels, each between 35,000 and 40,000 tonnes. If they are carrying chemical, biological or nuclear weapons this could cause catastrophic environmental damage.

The vessels have called briefly at a handful of Arab countries, including Yemen, but they have been resupplied at sea with food, fuel and water by other ships. All three were chartered by a shipping agent based in Egypt and are understood to be sailing under three different flags of convenience.

The discovery of weapons of mass destruction would be a huge boost to George Bush and Tony Blair and would represent the "smoking gun" they need to justify invading Iraq. However, environmental concerns are preventing boarding of the vessels, whose positions are provided by satellite 24 hours a day.

They set sail just a few days after UN inspector Hans Blix returned with his team to Iraq to search for Saddam's weapons arsenal.

Iraq is effectively blockaded by US and Royal Navy ships patrolling the Gulf and the three vessels are not thought to have set sail from there.

A shipping industry source said: "These ships have maintained radio silence for long periods and for a considerable time they have been steaming round in everdecreasing circles.

"If Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction then a very large part of its capability could be afloat on the high seas right now."

In the build-up to possible war in Iraq, meanwhile, another huge wave of British troops flew out to the Gulf today.

About 1,000 members of 16 Air Assault Brigade, including paratroopers, infantry and support units, left RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on three overnight flights.

The troops, who are mainly from the 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment, based in Colchester, are among the last expected to be deployed to the Gulf region.

A group of 180 soldiers were the last to leave at just after 6am today when they boarded a passenger charter jet before heading off to a secret location.

They will join around 40,000 other British military personnel who have been sent to the Gulf over the last few weeks in preparation for a possible conflict to disarm Iraq.


http://www.thisislondon.com/news/ar...ning%20Standard

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

taste the fucking rainbow

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16671

The first article destroys a couple of popular mantras.

first that any of this is new or a war for oil or anything bush is saying hasn’t been said by others.

also, Blair is certainly not Bush's "lap" dog and has felt the way he does for a while...before Bush was president.

As well as knocks down some of nutes reasoning.
Reasoning I have also…confronted but I’m tired of repeating myself…no one is listening apparently. Maybe they will listen to one of my least favorite people instead.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

taste the fucking rainbow

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: In a Blue, Blue State
Posts: 12544

(from a Katie Couric interview on Feb. 11th)

IS WAR INEVITABLE?

Couric: “Let me ask you about Iraq. Is war inevitable?”

Former President Bill Clinton: “No, but Saddam Hussein’s going to have to disarm. I mean if he wants to avoid war, he’s going to have to disarm. What I hope will happen is that we’ll let the process play out enough to maximize our international support. I’d really like to see the whole UN with us. And I think there’s a chance that they will be. I thought Secretary Powell gave the best part of his presentation, which I thought was quite effective, as he always is, was showing those pictures of the trucks taking stuff out the back door before the inspectors would get in the front door. Because that raised the prospect that Mr. Blix and his group, who are very vigorous, wouldn’t get to do the job we hired them to do. And then of course, those transcripts were pretty, pretty condemning, too.”

Couric: “And yet, many of the allies, or some of the allies, are unmoved — France still having issues, Russia now, Germany, Belgium, with France and Germany having problems with NATO giving military supplies to Turkey. How critical is this allied support? Is it a cause for concern? Or do you think ultimately, they will come around?”

Former President Bill Clinton: “I think they will come around if they believe that we gave the whole inspection, and the UN process a fair chance. They all know he’s a murderer, a liar, and a thug. They would all like it if he was gone. That’s not what’s going on here. Here’s what’s going on. They don’t want to look like they were railroaded into going by the UN. And they had the feeling that we went to the UN, but we didn’t really mean it. But we’ve always just wanted to go to war. So, we need to look like we’re determined, but not eager to go to war.”

Couric: “But if the United States waits too long, will it look as if this country’s trying to win a popularity contest… and abrogating its leadership role?”

Former President Bill Clinton: “No. First of all, we’re the strongest military in the world. And he’s weaker than he was during the Gulf War. So, as long as we’re determined to see that he’s disarmed, and even if we have to have a conflict — you can always kill somebody next week as well as this week. But you can’t bring him back to life. And I think that the patience that has been shown so far is good.”

Couric: “Do you think the U.S. should wait for a second Security Council Resolution authorizing force?”

Former President Bill Clinton: “As a matter of international law, I don’t think we have to.”

Couric: “Do you think the U.S. should wait politically?”

Former President Bill Clinton: “I don’t think the president needs another Security Council Resolution, as a matter of international law. I think politically, if he could get it, it would be great. For the simple reason that, if we had to go without another UN resolution — if we had to go and European powers or Russia or China are vocally opposed to this, then there will always be the suggestion that this was, in effect, a pre-emptive strike. I know the administration has said pre-emptive strikes may be justified in some places. But we’ve never done that. And democratic powers normally wait to get hit before they hit. On the other hand, if it is the UN, carrying out the UN mandate, and we’re doing this because for 12 years he has defied the UN mandate to disarm, that is not a pre-emptive strike. It’s a police action designed to protect the world from chemical and biological weapons. I want the UN and the international community to be stronger and more united when it’s over than when we started.”

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16671

nice post bill.

I have the impression a lot of people have their fingers in their ears and are doing the "lalalalalaI cant hear you lalalalalala" bit.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

taste the fucking rainbow

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2001
Location: Van Diemen's Land.
Posts: 3607

quote:

---

Originally posted by euphorbia
nice post bill.

I have the impression a lot of people have their fingers in their ears and are doing the "lalalalalaI cant hear you lalalalalala" bit.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: The Bottom of the Toyem Pole
Posts: 9453

phorbie, you haven't addressed many of my concerns, at least not that I've seen.

Do you notice the difference between one president sending in some planes to destroy some sites and punish someone into following the rules and another invading the country, killing the leader, and setting up a new government?

Have you noticed that there isn't much of a game plan for what to do after? Do you disagree that if we pull out right away, we lose for fucking things up and not cleaning up the mess, but if we stick around and build up a government, the odds are very high that it wouldnt' have much legitimacy by that very fact?

Have you considered the costs to the security of the USA by releasing Saddam's grip on his weapons, thus allowing them to seep onto the black market?

Have you failed to recognize that Saddam has not been able to threaten anyone for the last 12 years, in spite of his retained technology? Do you refuse to acknowledge that the inspections for the first 8 years were successful? Are you aware that Saddam has no capability to attack Israel right now? Do you really think that Saddam poses a threat to your safety in Virginia?

Do you realize that I am not a fan or a defender of Saddam Hussein? Did you know that I think getting rid of him is a great idea, but that I don't see how this current plan of action is going to make things better.

You mentioned in a thread that someone was guilty of seeing things in the most positive way but that we should be thinking in more of a worst-case scenario. Funny that you say that because as far as I can see, you and the Bush team are taking a pretty rosy view about what is going to be the outcome of an invasion. I've considered what I can and tried to imagine a worst-case, a most-likely, and a best case scenario. My realistic determination, based on my meager understanding of history and related incidents in the pasts, lead me to conclude that the best-case scenario is highly unlikely, the worst-case scenario is mildy likely, and the most-likely scenario isn't really the result that we want.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35561

Disappointingly, I agree with Clinton.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2001
Location: ........
Posts: 14954

About the weapons inspector palava in the days of Clinton.

It is being bandied about that Hussein kicked the weapon inspectors out way back when, when actually they left because the US were about to start throwing cluster bombs about.

There was also talk of CIA spies who had infiltrated the inspection teams and that was why Hussein was less than willing to be co-operative.

quote:

---

With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16671

Ill have to do this quickly, forgive neatness

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nutrimentia
[B]

Do you notice the difference between one president sending in some planes to destroy some sites and punish someone into following the rules and another invading the country, killing the leader, and setting up a new government?

---

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

taste the fucking rainbow

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16671

like i said, im sure they are considering everything:

Pentagon Leaning Against Use Of E-Bomb Against Iraq
Thu Feb 20 2003 10:16:46 ET

The U.S. military has developed a weapon that can permanently disable electrical and telecommunications systems and has debated the possibility of using it in any military assault against Baghdad, the WALL STREET JOURNAL reported on Thursday.

MORE

The new weapon -- known as the 'e-bomb,' for the high-velocity electromagnetic pulses it discharges -- hasn't yet been tested in battle. But some midlevel Air Force commanders have said that using such a weapon, which was long in development but veiled in secrecy, would give the U.S. a decisive initial advantage in a war with Iraq.

Top Pentagon and military-service officials are leaning against using the e-bomb, though.

They are concerned its use could alienate the Iraqi populace by crippling Baghdad's phone and electrical systems and, hence, the city's hospital and emergency-services infrastructure.

Developing...

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

taste the fucking rainbow

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35561

quote:

---

Originally posted by euphorbia
The new weapon -- known as the 'e-bomb,' for the high-velocity electromagnetic pulses it discharges

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: The Bottom of the Toyem Pole
Posts: 9453

quote:

---

Originally posted by euphorbia
Do you understand everything has failed?

Failed at what? Getting Saddam out of power, yes, but containment has succeeded. Saddam's power and capabilities are miniscule compared to what he had, and he is incapable of developing a force that he can use to accomplish his aims. He has been reduced to hiding what little bit he retains. While that isn't an optimal situation, it sure beats warfare and the associated problems it brings.


... surgical strikes haven?t been constructive enough

Fault the US military operations planners for this one. I'd be interested to see what targets an aggressive Bush would select for surgical striking. Too bad he hasn't even tried that.

, sanctions are a gross joke and unjust because saddam is suffering none,

Totally agreed. Sanctions are ineffective and should be lifted. Under the Food-for-Oil program, Iraq actually has the ability to produce more oil than it did prior to the Kuwaiti invasion.

the UN demands are being shit on, he trains and funds hamas and Palestinian liberation front openly even though there are multiple UN resolutions telling him he cant...doesn?t even try to fucking hide it...I can go on...


The Israeli attacks on Palestine aren't very subtle either. I mention that not to shift focus and blame but to point out that this type of bad behavior isn't uncommon and certainly isn't