I think that the people at his command will have a better judgement that Hussein in his bed... dying, i´m sure that he personally doesn´t have a magic button that launch a nuclear attack.
Phillip: Yes, nuclear weapons are great. They're wonderful. How can I say that? I can say that, because they prevent wars. I couldn't care less what their actual potential for destroying the world is, the fact is that they've saved more lives than any other weapon in history. Look at the recent almost-war between Pakistan and India. Do you think the US would have sent Powell in there to look for a solution, if it wasn't for nuclear weapons?
Yes, I see what you're saying in that nuclear weapons stop war, in so far as the threat of their use being a deterrent. I just hope that it never falls into the wrong hands. If I remember right, of the hundred and twenty seven suitcase bombs created by the KGB, only 48 have been reclaimed. I guess I'm concerned, with how big a threat the nuclear black market is, that these world massecring devices will fall into the wrong hands.
Originally posted by Ghost
I hope you're right. God, I hope you're right.
I hope your right. But Hussein's top people are supposdly completely loyal to him (yes there have been exceptions, but for the most part they are loyal). If he gives a command, they will follow it. add in the chance to kill some infidals and get back at the US for kicking their ass in the Gulf War, it might equal a chance too good to pass up. as for the personal magic button, it would be in character for Saddam TOO have that magic button. Dictators traditionally are distrustful of the people around them, even if they are truly loyal, and like to have personal control of everything. something like that isn't unlikely.
Aries, Saddam Hussein's people are completely loyal to him in the same way that Stalin's people were completely loyal to him - that is, they are scared to death by him. They know that if they disobey, he'll have them killed, and they know that their comrades won't hesitate to kill them if Stalin asks them to.
But this isn't the kind of loyalty that leads you to kill yourself for your leader. When Stalin had a stroke, his closest associates stood there and watched him die. Why? Because if they tried to help him, and he still died, his successor would kill them for being disloyal.
Oh, and as for not missing an opportunity to "kill some infidels". Bush is far more religious than any member of the Iraqi government. And I'm not implying that Bush is a religious extremist - quite the opposite, in fact.
T8H3X11
I agree with most of you that this the same policy as before. What's kinda of weird is that it links back to the A-bomb which my grandfather worked on(he worked for Westinghouse, and also had a part in the camera that went to the moon).
Your father was part of the Manhatten Project? What exactly did he do?
Grandfather, I mean.
I'll admit, with somebody like Bin Laden, it's difficult to know what the hell he would do (but not with Saddam - he is a more conventional leader, and he would not do it, because he has an interest in remaining in power). But even this is not because he is irrational, but simply because he has managed to so far conceal his real behaviour beneath tonnes of rhethoric. Nonetheless, remember, it's tempting to think that those people - the others are less rational than we are. But guess what, they think the same of us .
Perhaps 'irrational' is the wrong word to use, then. A better way to put it is that they have an entirely different values system than us. While Hussein may not be too keen on indiscriminately firing off WMDs at other nations (he's got two sons waiting in the wings, and little to indicate that he doesn't want one of the two amoral degenerates taking over when he dies), that doesn't necessarily hold true for the regional fanatics, some of whom think that martyrdom for them and their neighbors (particularly their neighbors) is an awfully great way to go so long as it inconveniences the Great Satan.
That attitude, couple with all of the conflicting interests (i.e. the corruption, religious fanaticism, etc...) make me extremely worried about the ability of nearly any nation in the region to safeguard its supply of nuclear weapons. Israel is the sole exception, but that's largely because there's little reason to believe that a group of militant Jewish 'freedom fighters' (i.e. terrorists - and yes, Jewish terrorists do exist) are going to attempt to bribe, borrow, or steal their way into the (never officially disclosed) Israeli nuclear arsenal.
they ain't got to be religious to kill us and then claim they killed infidels
I just heard on the news that Iraq has issued a statement stating that they have the capability to inflict large numbers of causalities to any invading army.
Being that they don't weapons of mass destruction, they must plan on using fowl whores or something. ::sarcasm::
If Saddam does or doesn't have Weapons Of Mass Destruction, he's still allowed to have an army, dimbulb.
Who thinks that America is going to invade no matter what?
RFBurns
Originally posted by Happy
Ya, they said basically the same thing 12 years ago prior to Desert Storm.
But, they can test that again if they wish. We will just sit back and watch it all on tv at home, while thousands of Iraqi troops surrender to our Predator reconnisance aircraft.
I don't. Bush is looking REAL iffy to get support from the Republican party for the next election...
However, I won't be surprised that America would perpetuate a false reason to start the war.
Yeah, it's like the link to the Taliban didn't seem to work, the Un inspectors have been allowed in, the 12,000 page weapons report (forgot the actual name of it) has been handed in, so they're trying to have intelligence pinpointing World Massecring Devices and claims of a falsified report as the basis of a war on Iraq. I probably wouldn't say that America would launch a war on false pretences, but I do feel that Bush sees Iraq and Saddam Hussain as guilty until proven innocent.
Originally posted by LeHah
I think it comes back to the cold truth that no country is perfect. No country is anywhere near perfect. By the way, who was President when those incidents took place?
we should have gone all the way. the world was bitching about leaving Saddam in, and now when we are about to go correct the problem, the world starts bitching about taking him out, asking what will happen to the region if Saddam is gone. personally, i say go in, kick the shit out of Iraq, use their oil to pay for the war, boost the economy, and give money to the families of any US casualties. after we are through, leave the fucking place and let those people decide what will happen to their fucking country. if they start another war, hell, we'll just go and do the same thing again.
I remember roughly when the Maine blew up (right after the Turn of the Century), but I can't remember who was president. I think that was just before Taft. Or maybe Taft was president at the time. My blind spot in the presidents extends pretty much from Johnson to Wilson (wouldn't be so bad if I could remember who's missing between TR and Wilson - maybe McKinley?).
And I think Gulf of Tonkin was mid-60's, so it would have been the other Johnson.