If Saddam uses WOMD on attacking forces

colster

If Saddam uses biological or chemical weapons against the attacking US + UK forces will this change the opinions of anti-war people?

At the moment I'm still very skeptical about the justification for this war.
If however Saddam were to use these weapons the I think I would support the actions of Bush and Blair.


What do you think??

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say game on to him if he does. However, if he does, he's just proven to the world that he is indeed in breach of 1441.

America has stated in the past that the only time it would ,consider using Nukes, was for self-defense. Now this invasion is apparently for self-defense, so i suppose use of WMD's is allowed. If so, Saddam would have the right to use them against the invaders of his country. (Even though he's not allowed to have em in the 1st place)

Washout

If Saddam does indeed have such weapons and uses them then an invasion will have been justified BUT on the other side of the coin if he doesnt use them you will see one thing and one thing only.
The US/UK will put out propaganda saying they have "found" these weapons thus justifying their actions.

Either way its a lose/lose situation for saddam.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

With a bit of Luck Saddam has paid off North Korea to semi Invade Iraq… beginning with the firing of some fancy super long Range bombs at Iraq

They might be better off, invading the US since most of their mainstream forces are now focused on Iraq.

colster

Originally posted by Washout
If Saddam does indeed have such weapons and uses them then an invasion will have been justified BUT on the other side of the coin if he doesnt use them you will see one thing and one thing only.
The US/UK will put out propaganda saying they have "found" these weapons thus justifying their actions.

Either way its a lose/lose situation for saddam.

Washout, do you honestly believe that the US and UK are not going to have Hans Blix come back to re-establish his search for such weapons after the war has finished.
Do you really think that they will produce evidence without independent verification of that evidence. This independent verification will undoubtedly be the job of Hans Blix and his team

Mr.Applepie

Originally posted by colster
Washout, do you honestly believe that the US and UK are not going to have Hans Blix come back to re-establish his search for such weapons after the war has finished.
Do you really think that they will produce evidence without independent verification of that evidence. This independent verification will undoubtedly be the job of Hans Blix and his team

Well they are going to war without any proof that there are WOMD in iraq. All they have is very circumstancial evidence. So yes anything is possible when bush is in charge

Its funny the reason for invading has changed so much of the last year. In the beginning it was because he was supporting terrorism(anyone remember the war on terrorism?). Then they decided that suddam had WOMD and must be disarmed. Now its because suddam is a big meanie and wont let bush have any oil...i mean is evil and there must be regime change in iraq.

sceptre

Originally posted by colster
Washout, do you honestly believe that the US and UK are not going to have Hans Blix come back to re-establish his search for such weapons after the war has finished.
Do you really think that they will produce evidence without independent verification of that evidence. This independent verification will undoubtedly be the job of Hans Blix and his team

Ah, sarcasm. Love it.

(you are being sarcastic, aren't you?)

Washout

I dont want to be seen as condoning anything Saddam has ever done as I dont. But who exactly made the US judge jury and executioner in world affairs.
It is true that they are going to war but without the backing of the UN security council? thats wrong!

i agree Saddam has not being playing ball with the weapons inspectors but the weapons inspectors have been making progress. The last report Hans Blix made to the UN was a positive one but the US wont listen.

The cry has suddenly come from the US from "Give up your weapons saddam to run away".

All I can say is I hope that after this war Bush uses the same Passion and commitment to delivering peace to Israel/Palestine as he wishes to do in Iraq.

Robin Cook made a great point in his resignation speech last night. After 12 years why now? Why the sudden founded urgency. I am for the removal of terror but when its in an unjustified manner as a vast number of people around the world believe that it is unjustifed is wrong wrong wrong

jonno

IMO the US are completely wrong going ahead without UN approval. Maybe they will prove to the world that they are completely justified in invading Iraq and I hope that they do jusitify their actions in the end. Not for Bush's sake, because TBH I think he's a waster, but for the sake of destroying any treat from Iraq.

On the other hand if Saddem does use WOMD then I hope that the UN will then have the sence to eat their hats and back up the Bush/Blair invasion

Thanx 4 The Fish

I am not sure that any weapon that Saddam would use in a battle situation would be considered a WOMD. I remember reading a description of what a WOMD was in the indo and what they said is that it was a Weapon with long range capability which could deliver a Nuclear or Biological payload. Now I would not imagine that any weapon that is dropped on advancing troops could be considered a WOMD. But if he had them and the US attacked then they deserve whatever they get.

colster

Originally posted by sceptre
Ah, sarcasm. Love it.

(you are being sarcastic, aren't you?)

No, I'm not being sarcastic.
What would the US gain if they produced evidence without verification of siuch from Hans Blix.
I for one would not believe it. i think they know that the world would not believe so therefore I don't think they will produce some phony evidence for propaganda purposes.
If they don't find any WMD then they will say that sure wasn't getting rid of the tyrant Saddam our goal all along,

spoofer

I always wonder if people really stop and think about what they are saying.
How can anyone support Saddam????
Robin Cook is ok but if a minister in Iraq spoke out against Saddam, he would have been fired into a hole in the ground with a lead injection in the back of the head.
It seems to me that people in the 'Free' world don't appreciate that they can 'whinge' as much as they want without fearing for their lives.

Sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe in. Otherwise it won't last.

If Saddam did let loose on the world, it would be those lilly livered pinkos that would be first to ask why nothing had been done to stop him.

dahamsta

How can anyone support Saddam????

Who?

If Saddam did let loose on the world

How?

it would be those lilly livered pinkos

Good evening Mr. McCarthy.

adam

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by colster
i think they know that the world would not believe so therefore I don't think they will produce some phony evidence for propaganda purposes.

They don't seem to care what the world thinks about anything else, so I can't see why this would be any different.

colster

Originally posted by Frank_Grimes
They don't seem to care what the world thinks about anything else, so I can't see why this would be any different.

You're probably right. Anyway I would not believe it unless there was independent verification.

Mr.Applepie

Originally posted by colster
What would the US gain if they produced evidence without verification of such from Hans Blix.
....I don't think they will produce some phony evidence for propaganda purposes.

You wernt listening to colin powell's speech to the UN secruitity council a few weeks back were you?

Typedef

What do you think??

If the Iraqi regieme uses chemical or biological weapons, the current war is 'still' unjustified, because the war is taking place without a UN mandate and without a UN mandate the war is simply a flexing of military muscle by the United States for (n) reasons, without any kind of UN based support for such unilateral extraneous action.

The UN is supposed to help prevent war, not rubber stamp pax-Americana's desire to control Iraqi oil reserves and to usurp a regieme that pax-Americana helped to establish. The UN is also not a platform for the French to protect their own oil interests, nor is it a means for the French administration to seem adequately anti-American, so as to pander to French nationalism's sense of grandeur by being seen to stand up to the Americans.

The position of this war's exponents will shown to have had 'some' basis if the Iraqi regieme does use some of it's chemical and biological arsenal, an arsenal, the regieme has no doubt kept, so as to defend itself from the Americans, a bit of a catch 22 situation.

For me, I think Iraq might use chemical weapons in this war, but, I have to say, I think it quite likely a chemical or biological weapons 'strike' against pax-American forces could be staged, so as to vindicate the war. I firmly believe that random 'mass graves' will be uncovered or chemical/biological weapons strikes staged if the Iraqis don't oblige on that front, so as to make the war's motives justified after the fact.

In any case, the US and UK have no actual 'moral authority' in the sense that the 'West' at large armed and supported Saddam Hussein to begin with. Somehow, when Iraq was fighting Iran, Saddam Hussein, wasn't a dictator with weapons of mass destruction but, as soon as Iran was bested and Iraqi oil became a requisite contingent of growing Western economies, Saddam Hussein became the 'wrong' sort of dictator to hold weapons of mass destruction. In this light, it is interesting that Pakistan's dictator and North Korea's dictator (both of whom have access to Nuclear weapons) don't on the American sliding scale of culpability pose a threat to world security even though to quote George Bush, both men fall into the catagory of "Dictators with access to weapons of mass destruction".

Wake up, this is a war about oil, not perpitrated by countries, but, by the large business interests that control those countries, the countries in question (ostensibly the US and UK) are merely proxies to exponenciate growth of a particular bloc of a capitalist axis, namely pax-Americana.

No, I'm not a Communist, I try not to be any kind of ist if I can help it, this is simply what I honestly think the war is about and what the primary motivation behind said war is. The concept of the Nation State is dead, all a Nation does, is provide fodder for large business interests to fight to secure resources.

This is yet another "Great Game", being played not between Britian and Russia in Afghanistan (as is where the term was coined), but between the US (or pax Americana) and France (aka the Fledgling Federal European Union).
Personally I don't care which bloc secure's the oil, since this country will no doubt, kiss ass, to secure it's own economic interests in the post-war environment. I wish Western society was not simply the sum of it's business interest parts, but, unfortunately, it is.

Personally I'd like to see Saddam Hussein put on trial for war crimes and use of chemical weapons on civilians, then I'd like to see the politicains in the West, politicains like George Bush Senior and Rumsfield, put on trial for helping Hussein to acquire and use his chemical weapons, but, in reality, history is written by the victors. Some day, maybe human's will get past fighting like chips over resource (x), be that resource a source of food in some jungle or petroleum for motorcars, it's all a shade of grey at the end of day.

The pretence of moral fortitude must be kept up though, because without that, human society would descend into anarchy, so weapons of mass destruction will have to be uncovered 'somewhere' and trials made of Iraqi war criminals, because, after all, it's obvious that George Bush is a much better political hack to hold the button to Nuclear weapons, then Saddam Hussein, he is, after all, an American [*].

Either way this country will simply be a cog, in the machine of one bloc or the other.

Viva La Revolution.

[*] Any sarcasm in this post is incidental and should not be taken as any kind of an amorphous attempt at humour.

mike65

You'll be pleased to hear the French have issed a statement saying that if Saddam uses WMD they'll come on-side!

As Ari Fleisher said a little while ago on TV -"Thats interesting, and I hope it does'nt come to that"

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1084093,00.html

Mike.

Shinji

That's pretty much been the French position all along though, as it has been the position of the majority of anti-war people. Prove that Iraq has WMDs, and you can have your war.

Well, they haven't proved shit, and now that it's come to war the ONLY way it will ever be proved is if the WMDs are actually used. After the conflict is over, of course, they'll have all the time they need to fabricate all the evidence they need to prove that they were justified.

shotamoose

After this point, any find of WDM or their use by Iraq should not be interpreted as any kind of endorsement of the US/UK approach. What it will prove is that either (1) They had evidence all along about Iraq's WMD but did not want the inspectors to find them as that would remove the pretext for a war (this is supported to an extent by diplomats' reports that the Americans seemed dismayed by any progress Blix et al made), or (2) the inspections process should have been strengthened and given more time.

The only justification for the US/UK approach would have been if Saddam had clearly been proven to have WMD and was clearly threatening to use them. And if that was actually the case, they would probably not directly attack him.

Éomer of Rohan

I agree with almost everything Klaz said.

Think of it like this; If Saddam's Iraq was the foremost world power and had unbelievably powerful weapons at their disposal, both conventional and WMD and then decided that because Britain had some small capability to wage war he wanted to remove the existing administration from power. There is not one person here I think who would not justify the defence of Britain and ultimately Ireland, truth be told, using any means necessary - to protect our lives, our homes, our families from such an invasion; there is no difference with Iraq.

This war is unjustified and unsanctioned by the only international body to have the power to do so and if Saddam uses his weapons to kill British or American troops then so be it. He did not start this war.

Typedef

I have to disagree.

If Saddam uses chemical or biological weapons against the Americans and British, I hope he gets arrested and tourtured.

To be honest, I hope that happens anyway, since the man has 'already' used his weapons against civilians and clearly is a distateful character.

Problem is, it was the US & UK who allowed Saddam and even helped Saddam to deploy chemical weapons against Iran, so on a scale of moral fortitude, that makes the US & UK accessories to Saddam's war crimes.

It's strange, the people fighting for the US & UK, if assaulted with chemical and biological weapons, will be the one's who suffer, and it is those people, the brave, who believe in their countries, who should be protected, being for the most part, people who believe all the propaganda about nationalism and protecting your 'nation'. Funny, your nation, is quite prepaired to send you to fight for pax-Americana oil interests, but, I digress.

In effect, I don't hold American and British troops responsible, for the reprihensible actions of the politicians who run their countries and I don't hold Iraqi people or troops responsible for atrocities perpitrated by Saddam Hussein and his regieme.

That is why if chemical weapons are used against a group of ostensibly idealistic 18-22 year old British and American troops, on the say so of Saddam Hussein, I hope the pax-American axis, exacts revenge in their name.

If only, the demagouges and stealthy liars who helped arm Iraq in the Western governments of the world could be held to the same account.

If Saddam uses chemical or biological weapons against the Americans and British, I hope he gets arrested and tourtured

Arrested, yes, Tortured no. But i feel the same way if Bush should authorise the use of Nukes, or if he kills 2 thousand civilians by bombing Iraqi cities. Works both ways.

In effect, I don't hold American and British troops responsible, for the reprihensible actions of the politicians who run their countries and I don't hold Iraqi people or troops responsible for atrocities perpitrated by Saddam Hussein and his regieme

Both the chain of .command, and the troops that perform them, should be responsible. We all have the illusion of freedom, to make our own decisions. If they use chemical weapons, then they're responsible for their actions.

That is why if chemical weapons are used against a group of ostensibly idealistic 18-22 year old British and American troops, on the say so of Saddam Hussein, I hope the pax-American axis, exacts revenge in their name.

I disagree. In that case Iraq would have justification in bombing N.York, just because Iraqi cities are going to be bombed. Revenge has no place in a war.

If only, the demagouges and stealthy liars who helped arm Iraq in the Western governments of the world could be held to the same account

In which case, you'd see, both the French, and the US governments topple.

Typedef

Revenge has no place in a war.

Tell it to the Taliban.

Tell it to the Taliban

before or after sept 11? do u mean their act against america, or the american response?

Hobbes

Originally posted by klaz
before or after sept 11? do u mean their act against america, or the american response?

I take it he means Americas response because correct me if I'm wrong here (I didn't get the revised edition of history) but the Taleban had sweet **** all to do with sept 11 except to be dumb enough to have OBL in their country.

Typedef

What was the war in Afghanistan, if not a war of revenge.

Revanche, revanche, revanche, the first world war was fought, because that's what France wanted, for the humiliating defeat Prussia (a tiny German State) meted out to the French.

America wanted revenge for being attacked, the Afghani war was as much about exacting revenge and giving America a sense of security as it was anything else.

Ask yourself the question, why didn't the US simply asassinate Osama Bin Laden, why did it make a public spectacle of the Afghani war, and let Bin Laden slip away in the process?

Because it was a public display of military might and a desire to exact revenge that America wanted, not a quite execution of Osama Bin Laden, via some random CIA asassin.

The message is clear from the US, "move against us, and it means your entire country gets put on our hit list".... except of course if you happen to be from Saudi Arabia, like 15/19 of the September 11th bombers were.

See when Saudis bomb your cities, you invade Afghanistan.
Pretty logical.

Well, regardless i still believe that revenge has no place in war. If its applied there, mistakes are made. Also consider that once revenge is used, it just creates an endless fuel for conflict. The Americans revenge themselves for an attack, then the Taliban call for revenge in return.

When war is used as a tool, unemotionally then, its effective. Otherwise, it just generates more danger.

Tell it to the Taliban

On this point, should we tell it to America, since the planners of Sept 11 probably felt justified since, they were only going for revenge. (in their eyes)

spanner

i agree with what most of the guys said on the board, but i think everyone is getting a bit hung up on stuff like the americans giving sadam the weapons and critizing americas moral stance
fair eough the americans made a very big mistake giving arms
to sadam but thats no reason why they cant put a stop to him now

i would be the first to say that the americans have a arrogant foriegn policy but unlike the french they mean well

i think the arguement about the usa attacking iraq for oil is a red herring, look at sudan were the muslim northern government terrorises the christian south and does so with the proceeds of oil. however not from america who have embargoed them for their human rights violations but they sell the oil to the french who play themselves to be the moral protectors againist evil america, the french are just as bad as the americans if not worse

sadam has chemical weapons, we know this because 1000s of kurds are not with us today and we know that the chemical weapons are still unaccounted for. its only a matter of time before sadam will get stronger and the threat that he will align himself with extremists is also very real.

i understand that war should not be used lightly and the inspectors should be given time to do their job, but people need to understand that it has been 12 years and sadam for most of that had the inspectors have been banished from iraq. now suddenly when the threat of war comes he starts to disarm, he only understands force


i do understand that its terrible that the iraqi people will suffer but i do belive its going to be a quick war and this time two years from now the average iraqi will be much better off because say what you will when the americans and oil but the iraqi people will feel the benefits of the oil money, just look to saudi arabi as an example and iraqi (if the americans have there way) will have a secular government with the possablities endless for improvement of the average iraqi

spanner

i agree with what most of the guys said on the board, but i think everyone is getting a bit hung up on stuff like the americans giving sadam the weapons and critizing americas moral stance
fair eough the americans made a very big mistake giving arms
to sadam but thats no reason why they cant put a stop to him now

i would be the first to say that the americans have a arrogant foriegn policy but unlike the french they mean well

i think the arguement about the usa attacking iraq for oil is a red herring, look at sudan were the muslim northern government terrorises the christian south and does so with the proceeds of oil. however not from america who have embargoed them for their human rights violations but they sell the oil to the french who play themselves to be the moral protectors againist evil america, the french are just as bad as the americans if not worse

sadam has chemical weapons, we know this because 1000s of kurds are not with us today and we know that the chemical weapons are still unaccounted for. its only a matter of time before sadam will get stronger and the threat that he will align himself with extremists is also very real.

i understand that war should not be used lightly and the inspectors should be given time to do their job, but people need to understand that it has been 12 years and sadam for most of that had the inspectors have been banished from iraq. now suddenly when the threat of war comes he starts to disarm, he only understands force


i do understand that its terrible that the iraqi people will suffer but i do belive its going to be a quick war and this time two years from now the average iraqi will be much better off because say what you will when the americans and oil but the iraqi people will feel the benefits of the oil money, just look to saudi arabi as an example and iraqi (if the americans have there way) will have a secular government with the possablities endless for improvement of the average iraqi

dahamsta

before or after sept 11? do u mean their act against america, or the american response?

I'm sick of correcting silly things like this: The Taliban may have sponsored Al Queda, but they didn't carry out the WTC act of terrorism. If you're going to use flawed logic like this, you should extend it to include America itself as another perpetrator.

adam

dahamsta - i didn't mean that the Taliban had carried out Sept 11, but rather that sept 11 was the catalyst for all the things that are currently happening.

Hobbes

Originally posted by klaz
dahamsta - i didn't mean that the Taliban had carried out Sept 11, but rather that sept 11 was the catalyst for all the things that are currently happening.

I don't think it was. It's just another happening from an long running problem.

dahamsta

i didn't mean that the Taliban had carried out Sept 11

You said "their act" in a response to a quoted post about the Taliban.

adam

dahamsta

I don't think it was. It's just another happening from an long running problem.

Yes, the hawks in the Bush administration have been planning this war for years, and yes, they would have found a way to do it anyway, but I think he's right to say that the WTC was a catalyst. A handy one, but a catalyst nonetheless.

adam

bonkey

Originally posted by spanner
but i think everyone is getting a bit hung up on stuff like the americans giving sadam the weapons and critizing americas moral stance
fair eough the americans made a very big mistake giving arms
to sadam but thats no reason why they cant put a stop to him now

The issue is that the US are using the gas-attacks of over a decade ago as "proof" of the evilness of Saddam. OK - its a fair point, but its not the full story.

The fact still remains that the US are being very quiet about the reality that they continued to back Saddam after these attacks, including (I believe) continued support for his chemical weapons program.

It is one thing to supply arms to someone and then say its not your responsibility how they are used. It is another thing to see how they were used, continue to supply them, and then come back and condemn the way in which they were used because it suits a newer campaign.

Its all water under the bridge, though, and is really nothing more than part of the propaganda war.

At the end of the day, the US has probably changed its foreign policy stance and is not likely to go distributing WMDs to oppressive and aggressive regimes - at least not while there is no cold war to fight by proxy.

It also remains possible that Iraq too has changed its policy...and had no intention of using WMDs for anything other than defensive purposes (assuming it still has some) - but that doesnt matter, as Iraq is simply not permitted to have these weapons.

So....if they have them, and if they use them, does it make the war "just"? Well, its a tough one. It makes the war justifiable, but it still doesnt show that war (and the ensuing deaths) was the only way to remove these WMDs.....which is what most people based their objections on - that war was not the only option remaining.

Ask yourself this....if Blix had found these alleged WMDs, and had successfully removed them with Iraq's grudging consent, would that have been justification for war? If so, to what purpose?

Its a moot question. I accept that. This war is a reality, and barring something unlikely and unexpected (like a Chinese ultimatum to cease hostilities, backed with the complete cessation of Chinese/US trade until that happened), it will run its course.

Whether or not it is justified really doesnt matter now. What matters is how it is carried out, and how responsibly both sides act.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by klaz
I disagree. In that case Iraq would have justification in bombing N.York, just because Iraqi cities are going to be bombed. Revenge has no place in a war.

They could attack the New York Naval Yard (Queens) or a National Guard armoury, of course Iraqi ballistic missiles aren't all that accurate, so they might hit Manhattan instead.....

They could attack the New York Naval Yard (Queens) or a National Guard armoury, of course Iraqi ballistic missiles aren't all that accurate, so they might hit Manhattan instead.....

TBH, i was actually talking about the planting of devices throughout the city, through operatives.

I think America could come to regret this war, simply because they have never been on the receiving end of a war, within their own country. Should Saddam launch strikes within the US, they'll quickly realise what war is all about.

The Brigadier

Interesting point point. Today four missiles were fired against US installation in Kuwait. Two hit targets.

Saddam has denied firing them???

Well who did??

Oh sorry, it was me......... Saddam would not admit to getting out of bed in the morning. I think most people believe that he has ABC weapons. He is willing to use them on his own people, I feel he would have no qualms in using them on me, here and now..

When the push comes to the shove, George W is not going to strike, or support any strike against ME. Saddam will/would, in MY own best interests I would rather an innocent in Iraq was killed as oposed to me. I would rather some members of Iraq's Republican Guard were killed than any of my friends or family.

Adolf Hitler was cut from the same cloth, and if it was not for the actions of America & the UK during WWII, we would be speaking German.


Bomb Him......

Victor

Originally posted by James Melody
I think most people believe that he has ABC weapons.

Read my thread on propagands, the USA and Kuwait claimed they were scuds, Iraq said they didn't have any, the USA and Kuwait then changed their story.

Originally posted by James Melody
I think most people believe that he has ABC weapons.

/me throws a toddlers alphabet block at James, you mean NBC weapons.

dathi1

Bomb Him......

Unlike Hitler or Nazism or Communism we are now dealing with a new enemy...... GOD. Badder Meinhoff, Abu Nidal, Action Direct, Red Brigade, ETA, IRA etc.. all had their respective "isims" but when you say bomb him that takes on a whole new meaning in the Islamic world. When you have GOD wars reality becomes really blurred. Every bomb dropped by a Christian or Jewish Army anywhere in the Middle East creates 1000's of frustrated and angry people who are driven in to an ever-increasing circle of hate. Eventually this manifests itself in the form of September 11th etc and sometime somewhere in the not too distant future in heavy rain in down town traffic a taxi cab goes up with a mini N Bomb and people like you will say "bomb them more”! The psychology of war isn’t one of America’s strong points.