a moral dilemma

Originally posted by SLY

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Iraq invaded Kuwait. The Iraqi army was driven out by an international coalition and ordered by the international community to disarm and [u]PROVE[/u] that it has disarmed. After OVER A DECADE LATER Saddam has proven NOTHING other than that he's still playing games with the arms inspectors.

Thats right ... If you removed Saddam a decade ago , no one would have opposed you cuz it was going to be a reaction to the Kuwait invasion.

But now after a decade , the point of removing Saddam from power has lost its good reasons ... Every thing is ok in Kuwait , Inspectors never found any hidden WMD in Iraq , Saddam and his regiem are contained by very strict sanctions & inspections that would never give him a chance to develope or manufacture WMDs.

A decade ago, virtually all of the Arab members of the coalition, especially the Saudis were opposed to invading Iraq. Continuing sanctions imposed when Iraq first invaded Kuwait and the inspections were chosen instead of an immediate invasion. Mostly in the hopes that the Kurds or Shi'ias would rise up against Saddam's government, and they did, but not successfully. The inspections process was a means to give Iraq a last chance to avoid a continuation of the war, but to avoid that continuation, Iraq was under obligation to PROVE, I repeat, PROVE that it has no more WMDs or WMD programs. The only thing Iraq has proven is that it isn't telling the truth, and more importantly, that it's trying to hide something. What is the logical conclusion of this? Why would Iraq disarm only to act like they haven't? Why on Earth would Iraq do that? It doesn't make sense to me. Why would Iraq (even since these last inspections have started) attempt to purchase key equipment for enriching Uranium if it had no nuclear weapons program?
And if you think that biological and chemical weapons can't be made in spite of the sanctions, you're sadly mistaken.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
The inspections process was a means to give Iraq a last chance to avoid a continuation of the war, but to avoid that continuation, Iraq was under obligation to PROVE, I repeat, PROVE that it has no more WMDs or WMD programs. The only thing Iraq has proven is that it isn't telling the truth, and more importantly, that it's trying to hide something. What is the logical conclusion of this? Why would Iraq disarm only to act like they haven't? Why on Earth would Iraq do that? It doesn't make sense to me. Why would Iraq (even since these last inspections have started) attempt to purchase key equipment for enriching Uranium if it had no nuclear weapons program?
And if you think that biological and chemical weapons can't be made in spite of the sanctions, you're sadly mistaken.

And how the hell would you like Iraq to prove they have no WMDs ? It's not logical dude , not at all !
Iraq claims they don't have WMDs , they let the inspectors go everywhere they please , they opened Presidential palaces for inspections ... What else would you like them to do ?!

What is more logical is : Why don't the U.S. prove (Solid Proves) that Iraq realy has WMDs , instead of claims about connections with Al Kaeda , not full co-operation with inspectors and other Bullsh*t the U.S. come up with time to time, before talking about war ??!!

It's simply as I said ... The U.S. government is completely determined to invade Iraq no matter what !

I know aiwass , but these proves need to be investigated by other counntries & the UN inspectors to decide wether they're real or bullsh*t .

The U.S. can't play the Judge , Jury , Attorney & the Cop at the same time everybody else is just watching !

Originally posted by SLY
And how the hell would you like Iraq to prove they have no WMDs ? It's not logical dude , not at all !
Iraq claims they don't have WMDs , they let the inspectors go everywhere they please , they opened Presidential palaces for inspections ... What else would you like them to do ?!

For a start, Iraq could volunteer information to the inspectors. In 65,000 pages of documentation submitted to the UN about their WMD programs, Iraq offered NO information that the inspectors didn't know four years ago. Not one new shred of information. BOTH of the head weapons inspectors say that Iraq has to do A LOT more to comply, and much of that relates to volunteering new information. Something the Iraqis simply aren't doing. Don't beleive me? Read the report. It's not difficult to find.
-Next, the Iraqis could account for their weapons stockpiles. As an example, Iraq admists to producing 8,500 liters of Anthrax (the UN inspection teams estimate it was actually 25,000 liters), but to date NOT ONE LITER HAS BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR. Not a single one. Nothing saying "it was destroyed at location X on day Y, and we destroyed it by method Z." Instead they just claim they don't have it any more.
-Third, Saddam could stop trying to import weapons materials such as equpiment to enrich Uranium or rocket engines with ranges that exceed the limits set by the UN. They've been cought doing both in the past three months.
-Fourth, the UN inspectors still aren't being allowed to use U2 spy planes to perform reconosance. This leaves the inspectors stuck inspecting locations they knew about four years ago, but no way to scout for new sites. This is one many ways in which the Iraqi government is impeeding the inspectors ability to find new information.
-Finally, all indications say that the Iraqis are trying to play shell games with their weapons (again), moving their materials out of sites before inspectors show up, then moving them back after they're sure it's safe to move them back. Colin Powell released just yesterday intercepted communications that basicly boil down to Iraqi officers calling their subordinants to remind them that the inspecters are coming and making sure that EVERYTHING IS HIDDEN. But they must mean the snack foods, right? They wouldn't want the UN inspectors mooching any donuts, now would they? And the commander ordering his troops to stop mentioning chemical and biological weapons in electronic transmissions "because they're listening" was really talking about his Playboy subscription, right?

I'm leaving out a ton of very easily obtainable information and it doesn't come from just American intelligence resourses either. It's cross referencable and Iraqi diplomats still insist it's all lies. And yet people still defend them.

It's simply as I said ... The U.S. government is completely determined to invade Iraq no matter what !

Almost right - the US government is completely determined to see Saddam Hussein disarmed NOW, and if he doesn't comply with the UN now he will be invaded. The Bush administration is dead set in seeing this issue put to rest as soon as possible, and by military means if neccesary. Unfortunately, Saddam Hussein is completely determined to to hold onto his WMDs and WMD programs (or completely incompitant). That sadly means that compromise will be only found in blood (maybe even mine), but in the long run, taking action now will probably save a lot more lives than it costs.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Next, the Iraqis could account for their weapons stockpiles. As an example, Iraq admists to producing 8,500 liters of Anthrax (the UN inspection teams estimate it was actually 25,000 liters), but to date NOT ONE LITER HAS BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR. Not a single one. Nothing saying "it was destroyed at location X on day Y, and we destroyed it by method Z." Instead they just claim they don't have it any more.
-Third, Saddam could stop trying to import weapons materials such as equpiment to enrich Uranium or rocket engines with ranges that exceed the limits set by the UN. They've been cought doing both in the past three months.
-Fourth, the UN inspectors still aren't being allowed to use U2 spy planes to perform reconosance. This leaves the inspectors stuck inspecting locations they knew about four years ago, but no way to scout for new sites. This is one many ways in which the Iraqi government is impeeding the inspectors ability to find new information.

For the Uranium thing , where do you think Saddam can hide nuclear weapons out of sight ? In his pants ?!
Don't you know that the inspectors are measuring nuclear radiation everywhere in Iraq , in streets , villages , etc. ... They also leave a fixed apparatus for that reason just to make sure that inspected areas could never be used for hiding these stuff in the future.

And for the spy planes ... Does the U.S. realy need spy planes ? What about Spy Satelites , I hear they're very sophisticated these days to the extent that it can catch a car number with very clear details ... Or is it just american propaganda?
If it's true, why don't the U.S. just scan the hell out of Iraq , trace sites that could be suspected for hiding WMDs , and give inspectors some maps so that they find real proves & evidence instead these crappy speaches in the media all the time.

And about moving stuff from sites and getting them back after being inspected , it's realy rediculous ... Each site has been inspected over and over and all the visits should not be expected by the Iraqies ... I'm sure the inspectors were taught how to be unexpected... So how could the Iraqies be so sure that one site is more secure and secret than others to hide their stuff in ?

As a matter of fact , every inch inside Iraq is could be the inspectors next target ... And I'm sure that Iraq realy knows what could be the consequences of finding hidden WMDs , so they'd better not be hiding something.

And till the U.S. or the inspectors find some real hidden WMDs inside Iraq , the U.S. should never attack.

Originally posted by SLY
For the Uranium thing , where do you think Saddam can hide nuclear weapons out of sight ? In his pants ?!

The Manhatten Project, the US program that produced the first nuclear bombs was under the bleachers in a sports arena. Any underground facility could suffice.

Don't you know that the inspectors are measuring nuclear radiation everywhere in Iraq , in streets , villages , etc. ... They also leave a fixed apparatus for that reason just to make sure that inspected areas could never be used for hiding these stuff in the future.

Simple slabs of lead can sheild radiation quite effectively and make such measures meaningless.

And for the spy planes ... Does the U.S. realy need spy planes ? What about Spy Satelites , I hear they're very sophisticated these days to the extent that it can catch a car number with very clear details ... Or is it just american propaganda?

Satalites have fixed orbits (meaning they can only be over specific targets for short times and at regular intervals), and aren't too dificult to track making it very easy to hide things from them. Spy planes on the other hand can linger over targets and change direction at will making it possible the pilot to follow hunches. A satalite can do none of that, and don't you hold information the US produces suspect anyway?

And about moving stuff from sites and getting them back after being inspected , it's realy rediculous ... Each site has been inspected over and over and all the visits should not be expected by the Iraqies ... I'm sure the inspectors were taught how to be unexpected... So how could the Iraqies be so sure that one site is more secure and secret than others to hide their stuff in?

The Iraqi intelligence service is not inept. Transmissions can be intercepted, bugs can be planted, people can be corrupted, and there is evidence that the Iraqis have been trying to do all of the above to the best of their abilities.

As a matter of fact , every inch inside Iraq is could be the inspectors next target

Iraq is a large country, and large countries make effective hiding places. Not a single SCUD missle launcher was confirmed to have been destroyed in the entire Gulf War despite the best efforts of coalition forces, does that mean they never existed?

And I'm sure that Iraq realy knows what could be the consequences of finding hidden WMDs , so they'd better not be hiding something.

Well, until now the "consequenses" have been the UN asking Iraq to disarm again, and by the way, 45,000 more civilians get to starve this year because the sanctions are contingent on weapons inspections proving something. Obviously, not Saddam's idea of "harsh." From a psychological perspective, the man is not going to give in, ever because he considers it discraceful.

And till the U.S. or the inspectors find some real hidden WMDs inside Iraq , the U.S. should never attack.

If they don't have the weapons, why are they telling blatant lies about things we can confirm?

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Simple slabs of lead can sheild radiation quite effectively and make such measures meaningless.

Measures are never going to be meaningless , no matter how much lead you use for shielding there will always be a significant reading difference in the measurements.

And for the Mahatten project , that was more than half a century ago beside it was the first nuke in history ... No one could have guessed what it was.
But now , you can easily measure any site's radiation for nuclear activity confirmation.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
If they don't have the weapons, why are they telling blatant lies about things we can confirm?

And why doesn't the U.S. wait for the inspectors to find WMD's inside Iraq (if there's any) before attack ?

Originally posted by SLY
[B]

Originally posted by Raskolnikov Simple slabs of lead can sheild radiation quite effectively and make such measures meaningless.

Measures are never going to be meaningless , no matter how much lead you use for shielding there will always be a significant reading difference in the measurements.

Not with sufficent (and decidedly crude) sheilding. A moderately sheilded pool of water is enough to make any radio emission negligable, and quite easily less than the natural background radiation of a given area.

And for the Mahatten project , that was more than half a century ago beside it was the first nuke in history ... No one could have guessed what it was.
But now , you can easily measure any site's radiation for nuclear activity confirmation.

We knew the Germans were trying to build the bomb, they knew that we were trying as well. That was no secret to anybody. The point is that such instalations aren't difficult to hide, especially now that the equipment neccessary has become smaller and more efficient and since there is little guesswork about how to make a nuclear bomb. It's purely a matter of having enough fissable material and some shaped charges to collaps that material. In fact, the shaped charges don't even need to be tested with Uranium or Plutonium making testing very easy to hide.

Originally posted by SLY

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
If they don't have the weapons, why are they telling blatant lies about things we can confirm?

And why doesn't the U.S. wait for the inspectors to find WMD's inside Iraq (if there's any) before attack ?

Because the more time that goes by, the more deaths on both sides. If one has to fight, fight to win.

Answer me this, Iraq is allowed no nuclear programs of any kind, but it still employs nuclear scientists. What gives?
Iraq is even today attempting to import high-grade aluminum cylinders (usualy used in centerfuges for enriching Uranium), but claims they're for conventional rockets... even though they're not allowed those rockets anyway. Why?

[Edited by Raskolnikov on 02-06-2003 at 07:58 PM]

Originally posted by Raskolnikov

Originally posted by SLY
[B]

Originally posted by Raskolnikov Simple slabs of lead can sheild radiation quite effectively and make such measures meaningless.

Measures are never going to be meaningless , no matter how much lead you use for shielding there will always be a significant reading difference in the measurements.

Not with sufficent (and decidedly crude) sheilding. A moderately sheilded pool of water is enough to make any radio emission negligable, and quite easily less than the natural background radiation of a given area.

And for the Mahatten project , that was more than half a century ago beside it was the first nuke in history ... No one could have guessed what it was.
But now , you can easily measure any site's radiation for nuclear activity confirmation.

We knew the Germans were trying to build the bomb, they knew that we were trying as well. That was no secret to anybody. The point is that such instalations aren't difficult to hide, especially now that the equipment neccessary has become smaller and more efficient and since there is little guesswork about how to make a nuclear bomb. It's purely a matter of having enough fissable material and some shaped charges to collaps that material. In fact, the shaped charges don't even need to be tested with Uranium or Plutonium making testing very easy to hide.

I know your point, Nukes can be easily hidden ... I didn't say no, but with such inspections it's impossible to hide such things cuz excess shielding and stuff like that could be very noticeable.

Originally posted by SLY
[QUOTE]I know your point, Nukes can be easily hidden ... I didn't say no, but with such inspections it's impossible to hide such things cuz excess shielding and stuff like that could be very noticeable.

It could easily fit within a single truck on an average old shipping pallete, material, shielding and all.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov

Originally posted by SLY

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
If they don't have the weapons, why are they telling blatant lies about things we can confirm?

And why doesn't the U.S. wait for the inspectors to find WMD's inside Iraq (if there's any) before attack ?

Because the more time that goes by, the more deaths on both sides. If one has to fight, fight to win.

Answer me this, Iraq is allowed no nuclear programs of any kind, but it still employs nuclear scientists. What gives?
Iraq is even today attempting to import high-grade aluminum cylinders (usualy used in centerfuges for enriching Uranium), but claims they're for conventional rockets... even though they're not allowed those rockets anyway. Why?

[Edited by Raskolnikov on 02-06-2003 at 07:58 PM]

Both sides ? what both sides ? From what I know is that only Iraqies are dying , and mostly of cancer ... Do you know why ?
Cancer rates have increased significantly in Iraq after the war , also since the war ended lots of mutated kids have been born , what is so specialy related that & was used in this war , huh?
Depleted Uranium !
So, it's not the sanctions mainly, it was moslty due to American weapons ... BTW , I'm dead sure that Iraq can feed their own people regardless of the sanctions , at least more than Sumalia , Sudan and a lot of other places in the world specialy in Africa.


What do you want them to do with nuke scientists then ? Kill them so they don't get blame for developing nukes , or give them to the U.S. so that the U.S. (Iraq's main enemy now) benifit from them?
Nuclear scientists job isn't just developing nukes ... They teach in colleges and so , it's very normal for any non-nuclear country to have nuclear scientists without being accused for developing nukes.
Sorry , but it's a very silly question !


Who said they aren't allowed to have conventional rockets ?? According to the sanctions , Rockets should not exceed a given limit (2 or 3 hundreds as I can remember, not sure though).

Originally posted by Raskolnikov

Originally posted by SLY
[QUOTE]I know your point, Nukes can be easily hidden ... I didn't say no, but with such inspections it's impossible to hide such things cuz excess shielding and stuff like that could be very noticeable.

It could easily fit within a single truck on an average old shipping pallete, material, shielding and all.

Ok , but that's only where they can hide these weapons and still be in danger of getting caught by the inspectors.

Where can they produce such weapons , in trucks ?!

Ok.. letz try it the other way round.. if any given country would claim that the US has biological and nuclear weapons, and they ask them to disarm and burn it all on a big pile infront of the international public... would the US do so?

When i say i´m pretty sure that there are lots of top secret laboratories that experiment with such things in the US, and i send inspectors and they come back to me saying they didnt find anything but they are sure that the US is hiding something because they weren´t able to walk into every facility without beein accompanied by US guards.. its very easy to find tonns of reasons to justify if you want to start a war

you cannot only go to one country and say "disarm or die because we want it that way" - the whole world would have to do so and in return the whole world would have to disarm either. no more weapons on this planet - that would be the final solution. and such a solution can ALSO BE BROUGHT APART WITHOUT WAR! Saddam wont live forever.

[Edited by Azrael on 02-07-2003 at 12:29 AM]

Originally posted by Azrael
Ok.. letz try it the other way round.. if any given country would claim that the US has biological and nuclear weapons, and they ask them to disarm and burn it all on a big pile infront of the international public... would the US do so?...

[u]Saddam Hussein signed an agreement with the UN[/u], promising to disarm, as a condition of ending the Gulf War!

The US has nuclear weapons! :eek: Now there's a shocking piece of news. They've had 'em for almost 60 years. How many have they actually dropped on anybody? Unless I've missed some important news, I think the tally stands at a grand total of [u]2[/u].

Almost 60 years ago. As a reluctantly adopted, desperate measure to quickly end a war in which millions had died, and was likely to kill another 1 1/2 million if concluded by conventional warfare.

Do you suppose that Iraq's numbers would not be very different when Saddam reaches his goal of nuclear capability?

I mean after he blows Israel off the map (and the neighboring countries with it), do you really believe he would say "Yeah, that's all I wanted to do. I can retire now."???

The truth is that noone of us has enough insight to the plans of any given gouvernment to say something for sure. you can never be sure that the gouvernment is telling you the truth - infact you can be almost sure that it is not telling the (full) truth. Truth is what you make people believe in.
In a world where almost everyone is influenced (i´m not saying controlled - but its very close to that) by mass media, you can never be sure that what you hear is true. If tomorrows newspaper tels you something happened somewhere on the other side of the world you have to believe it, because you have no means of checking it other than going there an checking it on your own.
Regarding this fact it is always interresting how people blindly follow someone without spending a thought on wheather it is good or not - and not only that - they do defend him - sometimes even with their lives.
I just remind you of WW2 - tonns of people where folowing Hitler and BELIEVED in him though he was only abusing everybody.
And one thing is for sure - NO war is good - for no reason AT ALL. There is ALWAYS a peacefull way. I cannot understand ANYONE who says "we have to make war for i think its the best solution". are you the one who dies there? do you want to die there for some president who is sitting in his comfortable big house and never gets in touch with the war in person? Die for something that you cannot be sure if it is justified? Can you ask this of anybody else? your fiend? your father? would you send your son into war? would you say the war was good and right when he does not return?

i think in this discussion we are forgetting what war is about! It is senseless killing an dying - young people killing other young people - they do not know eachother - they might have become big friends if they met ina pub instead of on the battlefield. Now how sick is that?
No person has the right to send someone to war and expecting him to die for his interrests.
Have you ever seen someone beeing hit by a granade in REAL LIFE? i am sure you would change your mind when you spent only one day in a real war.

Originally posted by Lordathestrings
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Azrael
The US has nuclear weapons! :eek: Now there's a shocking piece of news. They've had 'em for almost 60 years. How many have they actually dropped on anybody? Unless I've missed some important news, I think the tally stands at a grand total of [u]2[/u].

And? 2? 2000? where is the difference? are we now counting who has dropped more nuclear bombs to determine who is more evil? do you think bomb attacks by iraq are more cruel than bomb attacks by the US? i wish you would stand there in the aftermath and see the impact after the US drops a bomb.

Originally posted by Lordathestrings
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Azrael

Almost 60 years ago. As a reluctantly adopted, desperate measure to quickly end a war in which millions had died, and was likely to kill another 1 1/2 million if concluded by conventional warfare.

You cannot say how the war would have turned out without the bombs. infact nobody - not even the inventors had an idea of the impact that a nuclear bomb has. Hiroshima and Nagasaki where EXPERIMENTS. The US was lucky to find a big ammount of uranium on a german U-Boat and so they said "lets try it" - very cool - and now you say "we only dropped 2" as if that wasnt enough.

Originally posted by Azrael ...I just remind you of WW2 - tonns of people where folowing Hitler and BELIEVED in him though he was only abusing everybody.
And one thing is for sure - NO war is good - for no reason AT ALL. There is ALWAYS a peacefull way. I cannot understand ANYONE who says "we have to make war for i think its the best solution". are you the one who dies there?...

You have blown huge holes in your own argument here, without any need for me to explain further!

Originally posted by Azrael And? 2? 2000? where is the difference? are we now counting who has dropped more nuclear bombs to determine who is more evil? do you think bomb attacks by iraq are more cruel than bomb attacks by the US? i wish you would stand there in the aftermath and see the impact after the US drops a bomb.

Documentaton of the aftermath of those bombings is widely available as a matter of public record. You don't have to actually hit your own hand with a hammer to know that it would hurt!

Yes, a first-strike nuclear bomb attack by Saddam Hussein [u]is[/u] more cruel than the American bombing of Japan. And there is such a huge difference between America's use of these weapons as a last resort in a war that had been raging for years, and Saddam Husein's intent to use them as a first-strike offensive weapon!

Please don't bother to tell me that you believe he doesn't intend to use them as the opening move in the destruction of Israel. I recognise that you are determined to ignore facts that do not support the conclusion you have decided to reach.

Especially in light of the evidence Colin Powell presented to the UN, it becomes obvious that anyone who clings to the belief that this situation can be peacefully resolved, or that nothing needs to be done, is in such an acute state of denial as to be beyond reason. The UN in general, and France and Germany in particular, have become irrelevant. They have no credibility, no moral suasion, no gravitas, no right to claim anything but narrow self-interest.

Originally posted by Azrael You cannot say how the war would have turned out without the bombs. infact nobody - not even the inventors had an idea of the impact that a nuclear bomb has. Hiroshima and Nagasaki where EXPERIMENTS. The US was lucky to find a big ammount of uranium on a german U-Boat and so they said "lets try it" - very cool - and now you say "we only dropped 2" as if that wasnt enough.

In fact there was testing done in the Nevada desert before the "Fat Man" bomb was assembled. Before Hiroshima, damage and casualty projections were sufficiently frightening that it was only given the go-ahead because the projections of casualties for island-by-island conventional warfare, culminating in a full-scale invasion of Japan, were even more frightening. The US cabinet, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were all looking for some less drastic means of ending the war. Options like bombing a small, uninhabited, island were regretfully put aside because of the realization that the Japanese population was in such a fanatical mental state that nothing short of the vaporization of at least two major population centres would be sufficient to get the Japanese to admit defeat. I have had some long and detailed discussions with veterans from both sides of the war in the Pacific, and one of the things they all agree on is that, without the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, the war would have lasted a lot longer, and resulted in a lot more deaths.

... And what's this "we" bullsh!t??? I am not an American.

[Edited by Lordathestrings on 02-07-2003 at 04:46 AM]