The US, The UN and Iraq

Tantor, I've got news for you. I worked with nuclear weapons when I served in the US Air Force back in the late fifties. We had enough nukes to destory this world ten times over. I'm sure our inventory of nuclear weapons have been decreased, but we now have much improved bombs. I'm not afraid of Saddam in the least. c.i.

Happy to see an admission that the war is over oil because if the administration doesn't actually get the goods on Saddam for making a nuke or hiding any WDM's, it's not going to look too good.
For their sake, it better turn out to be true.

Wow---I'm not the lone voice in the wilderness anymore. I like your style and ability Tantor. I would always want you on my side.

You must have been in the USAF!!!!!!!!

Tantor

If mere utility is the basis for US intervention, then be honest about that. Drop the moral outrage at Sadaam as justification.

Pure nonsense. The US military had enough to cover its targets and we weren't sure that all of our nukes would detonate for various technical reasons. The targeted areas were only a tiny fraction of the Earth's surface. We did not cover the Earth ten times over as you so preposterously claim. This is liberal myth.

I was nuclear qualified as a navigator on F-4Es. My authority rests on that.

The size and power of nuclear bombs peaked in the 1950s when we had some really giant ones. They were big because our guidance systems for delivering them were relatively inaccurate. They have steadily decreased in size and power as computer technology and other technical advances have increased our accuracy. For many targets, a nuke is no longer necessary because we can place a conventional warhead precisely on the target.

Tantor

The war isn't over oil. Oil is merely an aggravating factor.

The war is over Saddam acquiring a nuke. With a nuke, his regime becomes untouchable for practical purposes. With a nuke he can take over Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. That's unacceptable. There are no happy scenarios if Saddam has a nuke.

Tantor

The way you began the paragraph, it reads that we are better off fighting over something rather than nothing. In other words, the nothing is the supposition that Sadaam has nuclear weapons or the facility to make them. The something, then, is oil.

Roger and Blatham

I would take credit but Craven first posted this link in the first couple of page of this very thread.

Blatham

I can't answer for Tantor but with me it was never about "JUST" moral outrage---that's for politicians to use to stir up the public.

It is mostly about the overall mid-east strategy for peace and stability and it is about oil but in the way Tantor explained. But more to the point Saddam is the most revered Muslim (besides UBL)in the world today not because he is a good Muslim but because he has been defiant to the US. He and UBL give them hope---what happens when you take away hope? You could say---well we just create more recruits for suicide bombers. That will happen anyway due to the hatred being taught by all the militant clerics around the world----there is nothing we can do about that for the next 40 years. What we might be able to do is break their spirit. Now I know this sounds terribly cruel and now Hitler couldn't break the spirit of the English and on and on. But if they see UBL on the run and don't really know if he is dead or alive, and then they see Saddam in shackles it certainly won't hamper our cause. Then If--and I say If because it's certainly no sure thing---If they see all of Iraq free from oppression and starting to come alive again and happy to see the coalition forces there, then there is some hope for peace and stability in the Middle East.

Sorry to butt in here Tantor and you probably will have already answered this better in the mean time.

That's because conservatives have jobs they need to go to and don't have time nor inclination to demonstrate. We see it as pointless. Liberals, on the other hand, who have no work to occupy them, are fond of protests against nearly everything. They see it as party time.

And really, most of these protests are organized by Marxists on a shoestring. You can put a protest together for a few hundred bucks and gather a crowd of witless teenagers to support you if you are in a campus town. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that these demonstrations have America's best interests in mind since they are so fond of burning the flag at each one.

We don't need the permission of the world to defend ourselves. Removing evil dictators who actively try to kill our people and reject the UN is the moral high ground.

As for fighting wars alone, who do you think won the Gulf War? Our Arab allies? None of our allies has the technology nor competence to help us fight a modern war. They are just there for window dressing. They are horse holders, not war fighters.

Tantor

No, the war is over Saddam's imminent acquisition of nukes. He would not be a significant threat otherwise. We would not be moving to invade Iraq were it not for the nukes.

We already know he has the knowledge to make a nuke. The director of his nuke program has told us they had a functional nuke except for the fuel before the Gulf War. We know he had the facilities to make nukes before the Gulf War. We know that he has been ordering equipment used to make nukes in recent years. We know he can hide his programs successfully.

We should not wait around for a mega-Sep 11, courtesy of Iraq, nor should we give Iraq a free hand to conquer its neighbors. It would have exactly that if it had nukes.

Tantor

Moral outrage at Saddam's evil is a justification for going to war. It just isn't a decisive justification. It alone is not enough to go to war. However, when America and its interests are threatened it is one more reason to throw on the pile of reasons to take over Iraq.

Tantor

Why is this unacceptable? I have my own thoughts on this, but I'd be curious to hear why you feel this is unacceptable, and to who it is unacceptable.

Tantor is busy with the moral outrage that liberals don't work, only conservatives work.

I noticed that. I've got to tell a lot of people they should be quitting their jobs.

Bigotry has many faces.

Nuclear warfare is unacceptable to most of us, Beth. As a weapon of aggression to achieve another nation's oilfields, it is even less acceptable. So this is unacceptable to me, if not anyone else. It's also not a bad tool of extortion.

i have to admit i am sitting here in a bit of shock

College kids don't work---especially liberal college kids because the dads are liberal college professors-------Just kidding.............

Just trying to lighten this us some.

ehBeth

I am a bit surprised you asked that question----you imply to me that you would find it acceptable for Saddam to take over Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. It that really what you meant or what?

I'm more interested in why it matters to Americans who takes over who in another part of the world, than in the nuclear aspect of it, Roger.

It's always interesting to learn more about how others think and that aspect of American thinking has always been a curiosity to me.

I've read lots of 'spin' on the topic, learning how individual Americans think is different. Some seem to follow the 'spin' one direction or another, others really seem to have thought things through independently.

perception, your comment about college students is interesting. Here they are often considered among the most conservative thinkers. The 3 more conservative parties in Canada rely heavily on their university memberships.