iblis wrote:i believe that mafiaman covered the assassination angle well enough on the old board. in a nutshell, if you kill a world leader by assassination, you're going to give them ideas that might lead to you getting knocked off, next.

Holy Crap!
Somebody remembered! I wish that post wouldn't have gotten on a locked thread and could still be seen.

OK, I'm getting up on my soapbox here.
I both agree and disagree with the pro- and anti- war stances. I believe there is more going on right now than we know or are going to know for years to come. The truth will point to itself. It always does.

I would like to see more discussion on this. More intelligent debate on this subject. A forum where each can speak their mind in a polite and convincing manner like this one demands that we try and puzzle out some kind of an answer to what is going on in the world around us before we are presented an answer in the history texts years from now. I do not think that it is beyond our collective capabilities to keep a dialogue on the subject going without getting the thread locked or edited.

So lets talk about it.

Amen. These threads always start out fascinating and devolve from there- it would be nice to see a discussion about it instead of a flame war.

mafiaman wrote:Holy Crap!
Somebody remembered! I wish that post wouldn't have gotten on a locked thread and could still be seen.

as a matter of fact, i paraphrased you on this matter on kuroshin not too long ago. i'd have asked for a direct quote, but couldn't find it.

OK, I'm getting up on my soapbox here.
I both agree and disagree with the pro- and anti- war stances. I believe there is more going on right now than we know or are going to know for years to come. The truth will point to itself. It always does.

I would like to see more discussion on this. More intelligent debate on this subject. A forum where each can speak their mind in a polite and convincing manner like this one demands that we try and puzzle out some kind of an answer to what is going on in the world around us before we are presented an answer in the history texts years from now. I do not think that it is beyond our collective capabilities to keep a dialogue on the subject going without getting the thread locked or edited.

So lets talk about it.

amen to that. i firmly believe that it's possible for everyone to oppose, or agree with someone else's opinions without the discussion degenerating to a level that begs for moderation / admin intervention.

in a way, we're writing history right now. i did a search on google not long ago for old BBS threads. 'lo and behold, i found archives of myself posting all kinds of crap, ala FIDOnet.

nostalgia ensued. these were posts from '96 and earlier. i'd had no idea that the information i'd disseminated would outlive the board that it originally occured on, but i found myself quite glad for no good reason at all that it still had a place in history.

as far as i know, this board isn't indexed by standards-abiding spiders, due to resource constraints. but it's something to think about.

I've always felt certain aspects of war are good. There are certain things that we have as civilians, that we can thank our military for. Things such as Kevlar, Gortex, the GPS system, and lets not forget all those wonderful boots. Oh, and NASA. If it wasn't for WWII,
Von Braun and his top 500 scientist would have never came to the US. Granted the space race started over one nation wanting to be better than another, however this leads us to see a side of our nature we don't like to see. This being, the need to dominate. No matter what level of nature you look at it's there. Always has been and always will be.

oh, and the internet. we can thank DARPA for that one.

that's right. DARPA. not al gore.

EvilVegan wrote:I got four words for you. . . Ass ass in ate.

No need for a war to kill one to ten psycho despots. No need for bombs. No need for guns. Just a ninja. Or Steven Tyler.

We're blatantly trying to kill the fucker, and I don't know anyone who would be opposed to assassinating the fucker as opposed to sending our guys over there to get shot and killing their guys who aren't the real enemy. I'm anti-war just because its like crushing a gnat with a steam roller. I'm also anti killing, but I'm anti a lot of things and I think if you're going to be an asshole at least do it efficiently and rationally.

North Korea is the real threat and we're ignoring it in favor of these backwards ass bogeymen who can't do shit to us unless we send people over there. Iraq = Short range chemical and biological weapons. North Korea = LONG RANGE NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Plus North Korea TOLD us they were going to revoke the non-aggression pact.

Bush is an idiot.

Thank u! I couldn't agree with u more... xcept 4 th' Stephen Tyler thing

I'm in agreement with Mafiaman on this, it would be nice to be able to discuss current events in an informed forum without worrying about one-liners like, "I just won't argue with idiocy." Thanks, girls, but next time try to back up your statement with some facts.

Someone earlier put forth the idea of walling off the Middle East and letting them take care of themselves. That would be really entertaining, I think, because the Israelis would probably start overthrowing Arab governments left and right until all of Asia Minor was covered with a big Star of David. Hee.

Hrm. This is sort of random, but does anyone here have strong feelings either way toward the Israeli/Palestinian issue? It's a pretty potent matter of debate worldwide, and the history of the conflict is actually quite fascinating [to me].

Personally, I feel the Israelis are completely in the right controlling and policing the Palestinian Territories, considering these areas were used as springboards for attack time and time again throughout the Arab/Israeli wars. Hell, it's been over fifty years since World War II and we still heavily occupy Germany. In my opinion, anyone who reads deeply into the subject shouldn't be able to help but feel deep sympathy for what the Israelis have suffered, horrified at the brutality and hatred of the Arabs. Munich. Entebbe. And now with the Al-Aqsa Intifedah, no one is safe.

Golda Meir once said, "[The fighting between us] will never end until the Arabs learn to love their children more than they hate the Jews." That about sums up my position.

Back to Iraq and North Korea, I think North Korea should serve as an excellent example of why we need to attack Iraq now, -before- they become a nuclear power and try to bully us as North Korea is doing now. Kim Jong-Il's turn at the executioner's block will come soon enough. Bush is right to focus all his attentions on one and then the other, I think.

And does anyone else think Kim Jong-Il looks like a pygmy?

I have very strong opinions concerning the Israel/Palestine issue; however, I refuse to get into political or religious discussions. Learned that lesson well when I managed a bar. My opinions have nothing to do with my nationality(for those who are now thinking: oh,yea, we know what your opinions are going to be.).

Oh, yeah, people were talking about assassination, too. Well, folks, unfortunately assassination is illegal. We can't target political or military leaders of any kind except in cases of open, armed conflict. There are a lot of good reasons for this, one of the best being what was outlined in this forum earlier, that everyone with rifles would engage in it and there would be chaos.

Also there is the fact that it simply doesn't work. Let's say a CIA agent plants a bomb in Saddam's cellphone and it rips off his nappy head. What happens next? Well, the Ba'th regime is still firmly entrenched in Baghdad, so a successor simply steps forward, almost definitely Saddam's younger son Qusay, who in my opinion is more intelligent and devious than his father.

And maybe it doesn't end there. Say the older son, Uday, or maybe even a circle of ambitious generals want power instead. Now we're looking at a civil war, and I assure you that in such a case the Iraqi people are the ones who would suffer. There would likely be pogroms the likes of which we haven't seen since the massacres in Kosovo.

Then what do we do? Attack anyway? I can guarantee you both sides would unite against an American aggressor, and now not only are we back where we started but now we have a heap of dead civilians to add to the mix. Their blood would be on our head.

No, the best way to do this isn't through sanctions or inspections or assassination or police actions or whatever. The best way is the quickest; strike them hard and fast from three directions, knock out their infrastructure in the first week and isolate the remaining pockets of defense. Iraq will be easy. It really doesn't matter whether we get Saddam or not, he'll never win popular support for a successful revolt.

Or I could be wrong. But if you think I am, all I ask is that you tell me why.

Deucalion wrote:Oh, yeah, people were talking about assassination, too. Well, folks, unfortunately assassination is illegal.

Yes. We know that assasination is illegal. But so is oral sex and sodomy and that isn't stopping anyone!

Buttercup wrote:

Deucalion wrote:Oh, yeah, people were talking about assassination, too. Well, folks, unfortunately assassination is illegal.

Yes. We know that assasination is illegal. But so is oral sex and sodomy and that isn't stopping anyone!

thankfully, oral sex and sodomy aren't punishable by death.

iblis wrote:i believe that mafiaman covered the assassination angle well enough on the old board. in a nutshell, if you kill a world leader by assassination, you're going to give them ideas that might lead to you getting knocked off, next.

bush knows this. he's a moron, yeah, but he does at least have basic survival instincts.

"they couldn't get through the U.S. secret service!", you might say. sure, fine. whatever. and a few years ago, we didn't think someone could fly an airplane full of people into a major building, or hell, our the pentagon for that matter.

confident. cocky. lazy. dead.

just my $0.02.

But wait......I like this idea. While it is true that Bush, idiot that he is, is not so stupid as to act in such a dangerous (to him) endeavor, it does not mean that the idea lacks merit.

You just have to play the blame game.

Have Saddam assasinated in a very public, brutal and ugly way ( Say, by Rush Limbau in the bedroom with the dull hatchet, a la CLUE) and then leave an orgy of evidence pointing at the real target that you want killed (in this case the B-man). Thus you get a two-fer.

.....and everybody wins....well almost.

LadyIvanna wrote:I have very strong opinions concerning the Israel/Palestine issue; however, I refuse to get into political or religious discussions. Learned that lesson well when I managed a bar. My opinions have nothing to do with my nationality(for those who are now thinking: oh,yea, we know what your opinions are going to be.).

Actually, we do not know what your opinions are. For anyone to claim that they know what your opinion, or anyone else's, is before it is given is the height of arrogance (or a sign of telepathy, but I digress). Yes, the issues discussed are going to be emotionally charged and that could easily cause things to boil over, but we are trying to create a space where we can discuss these issues in an adult manner. We must take some risk if we are to gain anything, even if it is just the small amount of pride in being able to talk about these things without invoking insults and petty bickering.

LadyIvanna, I would like to hear your opinion if you are willing to share it.

Buttercup wrote:

Deucalion wrote:Oh, yeah, people were talking about assassination, too. Well, folks, unfortunately assassination is illegal.

Yes. We know that assasination is illegal. But so is oral sex and sodomy and that isn't stopping anyone!

OK, eradication of Saddam Hussein. How should America do it?

Currently we are being very public and trying to involve the world in this particular escapade. It is as much a political maneuver as it is the discrediting of a known enemy as it is the killing of a nation's leader. Looking at how our government is proceeding in this, I would have to speculate that the goal is not just to damage Iraq's capability to build and deploy weapons as it is to destroy Iraq's ability to have Saddam Hussein as a leader. The current course of action is being played upon the world stage in such a manner that Saddam's credibility as a leader of a nation is being destroyed first, then the investments that other nations have made in Iraq in exchange for trade concessions will be, I believe, "accidently" destroyed as part of the collateral damage of a war, then the weapons of mass destruction that he is reported to be harboring will be found (either by one being used deliberately or by its accidental release) and we will have the "smoking gun" needed to convict him in a world court for war crimes like what has been done to Slobodan Milosevich. This could very well be a set up for the creation of an example for the world to see, a parable on the world stage. The cautionary tale of "What happens if you are someone who opposes the US" or "What happens if you are a misbehaving Dictator"

Now, assassination. It has to be done in such a manner that the USA is not implicated in any way, shape, or form. Using a population that is fanatically religious and hates Saddam Hussein's guts would be the best route in this case. Like, I dunno, the ethnic Kurds? Hmmm, aren't we already providing them with weapons and training? But wait, that would implicate us. So it is probably some other group that we do not know of yet.

Deucalion wrote:Oh, yeah, people were talking about assassination, too. Well, folks, unfortunately assassination is illegal.

The only reason there haven't been any big public American backed assassinations is because we don't want to start advirtising that is ok. Cause if we do it what's gonna stop someone from doing it to us? Nothing. We (as a nation) have had lots and lots of tense political times that could have been remedied by assassinations.

Look at Pre WWI eastern Europe, and Post WWI Germany. Where an assassination or attempted assassination was just a political tool. That caused totaly and complete chaos for years. Until this total right wing whaco got a bunch of thugs and started beating up other political parties. He staged an attempted assassination and a filed coup, only to get a slap on the wrist and some light jail time with lots and lots of privlidges.

Now don't get me wrong, I'll all for taking out Saddam before this gets into a real shooting war. Kill the head and the body will wither. I also am afraid of him using chemical & bio weapons, he has them and he has used them. So again kill the head...

"I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. Its the only way to be sure."
-Ripley from Aliens

Its a nice thought, but also impractical for several reasons.

First, the political fallout. We would have assured our place in the history books as the only nation to have used nuclear weapons twice in two different wars. This would make us look like the Supreme Bad Guys to the entire planet. In fact, should this route be taken without appropriate provocation to justify "turning the entire area into radioactive glass" then I have no doubt that the rest of the nations of the world would unite against us because they do not want to be the next potntial target.

Second, loss of resources. Iraq is wealthy due to its large oil reserves. Those petroleum resources are going to become important for our own use in time and it would serve us better to remove the current regime and install a more "pliable" one to allow the USA access to that oil. You see, its awefully hard to drill through radioactive glass and extract the oil. Fused silicon does not act kindly to the drill bits on well heads. Not to mention the expense of working in a radioactive environment.

Third, loss of human resources. The severe damage done to the Iraqi people will create an absence of population, either due to blast death, radioactive fallout death, infrastructure collapse death, or just plain refugee diaspora. If there is nobody there to drill or support the drilling, how do we recover the oil? Moving more people into the area as workers or support will cost more than return value of the oil.

I am not going to address whether any of this is right or wrong. I do not believe that morality will come into play here. Only practicality and the ethics of nations.

celticsmith wrote:You just have to play the blame game.

Have Saddam assasinated in a very public, brutal and ugly way ( Say, by Rush Limbau in the bedroom with the dull hatchet, a la CLUE) and then leave an orgy of evidence pointing at the real target that you want killed (in this case the B-man).

evidence being a giant belt buckle, a ten gallon hat, and a box of donuts?

mafiaman wrote:"I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. Its the only way to be sure."
-Ripley from Aliens

Its a nice thought, but also impractical for several reasons.

What about a business like 'hostile takeover,' territorilization, state hood, and bang East Texas.

Now to be serious:

What do we (again as a nation) do if he used chemical or bio weapons against us?

Or what about radioactive weapons? Not an atomic/nuclear bomb but a dirty bomb jacketed in irratated materials that he at least had.

His us of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) would in no doubt call for action.

For me, well I don't think nuking is an option as you (MafiaMan) pointed out becasue of the resources (again East Texas). But we do have some 'theatre scale' atomic weapons that have a "nominal yield" at least according to what I've read/seen about them. But then again the political ramifications are hugest.

So, I guess we cross that bridge when we get there.

I believe that the likelihood of either a pre-emptive assassination or any sort of nuclear exchange are minimal, the only exception being if Iraq deploys part of their aging germ arsenal against us.

Someone suggested earlier that the best recourse for assassination would be to make it public and brutal and try to point the finger elsewhere. I severely doubt the world could be convinced that anyone but the USA [or the Mossad] were responsible for an untimely demise of Hussein if it happens any time soon. Indeed, if Bush decided to take such a risk, he would be best advised in my opinion to use some sort of poison which could make it appear as though Saddam died of natural causes, one which could not be traced. I'm sure they exist. But even if it were successful, another member of the Ba'th regime would still take power, and if it were one of his sons, they'd likely have quite the score to settle with the United States. Nothing is solved.

As for a nuclear conflict, I'm positive that the USA will do absolutely everything in its power to avoid being forced to empty its nuclear silos. The nice people in the Executive staff are fully aware of their status as the world's greatest nuclear power and the only one ever to release atomic weapons, and I'm sure they aren't eager to make themselves look even worse in the eyes of our allies and neutrals. And Mafiaman was right when he pointed out that deploying them defeats the purpose of an invasion; we want to get our hands on Saddam's resources as well as disarm him. Let's not forget that Russia isn't too far away from Iraq, a lot of radiation would likely blow their way, and the old Soviet hardliners might still perceive any American nuclear assault on the Eastern Hemisphere an attack against them and their world status. They do a lot of business with Iraq. I know, it isn't as likely as it was fifteen years ago, but I definitely believe it is still a possibility.

But here's my question for those on the board, one I myself would be hard-pressed to answer with certainty. Let's say our troops swoop into Iraq, and Saddam releases tactical rockets against our heavy formations, rockets carrying germ bombs and chemical weapons. How do you believe America would respond, were our Patriot batteries to prove ineffective? It's a frighteningly possible scenario.

Wow. CreapyRob posted that, like, thirty seconds before me. Clearly the question of the day.