I can't believe I'm saying this...

by Gig 16 Replies latest social current

• 

  Gig

  I hope that Saddam uses his hidden WMD's. I hope even more that they're used ineffectively and no one gets hurt, contaminated, or killed. But I try and imagine this guy facing the loss of it all, his own country and life included, why wouldn't he make the biggest mess he can before departure? A blaze of chemical and biological glory. Again, I hope he does so it's clear to the world the U.S. did the right thing. I'm afraid of what will happen if he's eliminated and there are no WMD's found. But if used or found, I'm sure Bush's speechwriters will hide "We told you so" at least as well as the WTS can hide their real agenda.

  Even better obviously would be the unused WMD's are discovered and exposed after the war, it's just not a likely scenario. Saddam's dumb but he's not stupid.
• 

  gitasatsangha

  I hope that Saddam uses his hidden WMD's

  I have a nephew over there, probably close enough to see Iraq right now. I have friends living in Kuwait who don't have enough cash to get out. I hope you can realize just how stupid a statement you made at some point. This is war, not some idle game of ideas.
• 

  onacruse

  On tonight's news (3/18), the public broadcasting station interviewed 3 military analysts. One pointed out that for the past several weeks Iraq has been deploying missiles to the southern area, missiles with warheads that are useless for anything other than delivery of chemical agents. Gita, I hope that your family and friends escape without harm, and along with Gig:

  I hope even more that they're used ineffectively and no one gets hurt, contaminated, or killed.

  But like you say, Gita:

  This is war, not some idle game of ideas.

  When Iraq's cache is discovered (hopefully before being disastrously used), the world will be reminded of that bitter reality of military conflict: no weapon has ever been developed that hasn't been manufactured, and no weapon that's been manufactured fails to be used.

  Craig
• 

  unclebruce

  sounds like your emotions over ran your reasoning Gig.

  I think you're missing the point here - Saddam is a despotic piece of shit. His hero is Stalin. Few of us hoping for calm would say otherwise. Why the might of America has turned its attention to crucifiing this particular piece of crud is obvious. (if the yanky media was more truthfull, or even vaugely truthful and as much time was spent on reasoned dialogue as spin-doctoring, the world wouldn't be as up in arms about all this - In US Aircraft Carrier Australia there was practicly no discussion about the need for this war, it's objectives etc... and the missgiving and resentment toward the Bush administration won't quickly fade - people just aren't as stupid as Bush, Blair, Howard and co think.

  Don't kid yourself folks - take this from someone who's been inside the sanctum - behind closed doors the politicians from the main party machines despise you, you're just dumb turd to be scraped off after each election (and this kinda talk was from the conservative party)

  mother u.n.: "no you can't hit stalin"

  boy george: "but he started it!"

  mother u.n.: "that's no excuse"

  stalin insane: "no i didn't"

  boy george: "it was a pre-emptive strike!"

  mother u.n: "two wrongs don't make a right"

  boy george: "whatabout three wrongs then?"

  ... and with that ..baby george throws a tantrum and tips all his toys on smirking stalins head in an effort to steal his precious baby oil.

  ===

  I have a friend with close ties to what's happening on the ground over there - Australian (combat) Commandos are penetrating Iraq as we speak.

  so we now i have little alternative but to sit back and hope the peace loving people of Iraq really gain something from this.

  unclebruce

  ps: can someone please tell me how to colour the font here? (i can make things red is all)
• 

  Gig

  Git, obviously I touched a nerve. Just as obviously I recognize the hazard that would/will come if those WMD's are used. I'm not so ignorant that you can correctly say I'm just toying with ideas and don't know jack about the horrors of war. Why do you think my subject line read as it did...meaning you'd have to read ALL of what I said before you reacted to the first sentence.

  Think for just a moment what the exposure of those WMD would do. Even terrorists would have to say, "Oh man, that hurts." The rest of the world could and would then be UNITED. Justice is established, peace and stability are reaffirmed. It would rid the U.S. of the infidel image...no, not completely but what else would accomplish as much?

  I honestly do sympathize with you and your nephew, along with every other individual, whether us or them, in the line of fire. Re-read, you'll probably agree with my first two choices. Sorry my third offended you so, but I'll not admit to being stupid...at least in this case. IMHO your response was emotional, but I understand. I don't have any relatives over there.

  Bruce, any of this making sense to you? I certainly do understand Saddam's character, that's why I expect the WMD's to be used. This is military for us, it's wholly political for him.
• 

  rocketman

  The better thing would be for the WMD to simply be found. Finding them would prove the same point - that Iraq possessed the stuff in violation of UN resolutions. I'd hate to see the stuff actually used.
• 

  dedalus

  Translation of Gig's post:

  I'd rather see tons of senseless death than be wrong.

  Nice.

  Dedalus
• 

  Gig

  Dedalus, is that really what I said? The answer is no, and I'd appreciate it if you'd not suggest that I get all giddy about the impressive war machine that the US has. It's all about justice. I don't like the fact that the US diverted from the UN and am afraid of the coming consequenses for it. Again I point out that the actual use of WMD's was my third choice, mentioned first because it's the most likely. Rocketman is right, just finding them is plenty good enough. He agrees with what I said originally. If Saddam uses them it only proves, beyond being the liar we believed, that he really was just that outrageous. It's not necessary, I for one already know he's crazy.

  The message behind my original post, which apparently was poorly worded, is that if Saddam doesn't have WMD's, the US is going to be a far more desirable (and justifiable?) target. From France, all through the UN, and right down to the terrorists. The end of all this will be nowhere to be found. If on the other hand Saddam exposes himself, well you know.

  For all of you who think I'm in any way endorsing Saddam's success, well you're just plain wrong. I'm looking forward to peace established, and the greater good for us all. Tell me how you think that unity can best be accomplished, and most quickly in this situation? If WMD's are used, done. The entire international community rallies behind the US, PREVENTING the unknown level of turmoil that would result if no WMD's are found.

  Read it again, first choice...unused WMD's exposed afterwards(I used the word "obviously"...second...WMD's are used ineffectively(I used the words "even more")...and lastly...Saddam's uses them. Don't try to make that my first choice.
• 

  gitasatsangha

  Think for just a moment what the exposure of those WMD would do. Even terrorists would have to say, "Oh man, that hurts."

  WMD's sometimes achieve their goal, sometimes they don't. The nuclear hits on Japan in 1945 were very effective. The price for victory of course will be debated for hundreds of years. Iraq's use of gas warfare in the war with Iran on the other hand didn't not allow his army to beat Iran.

  Personally, I think tactical nukes might/should have been used at Tora Bora. Not because of their fear factor but because they do their job better then the conventional munitions that were used. I am against war. It should always be the last alternative, but once war is engaged, I am for using any and all means however brutal to achieve victory at the least expense to my own countrymen's lives.

  Use of any WMD, however, probably wont scare terrorists into some sort of submission. At best if would cause them to alter their strategy a great deal.
• 

  dedalus

  Let's see, let's see ... maybe I read it all too quickly, Gig.

  I hope that Saddam uses his hidden WMD's.

  Pretty straightforward statement. Not much room for "interpretation." You can see where I would be suspicious, but I think you were being intentionally provocative, so you can't blame me yet.

  I hope even more that they're used ineffectively and no one gets hurt, contaminated, or killed.

  Well, that's nice too. Of course, even if someone does get killed, you are still hoping he uses them, right? Sure, it would be better if no one got killed, but if a bunch of people do get killed, it'd still be something you hope for. Yeah?

  But I try and imagine this guy facing the loss of it all, his own country and life included, why wouldn't he make the biggest mess he can before departure? A blaze of chemical and biological glory.

  Well, maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. Is this why you hope he uses his weapons of mass distruction? If not, what's the point? You're post isn't talking about what might or might not happen, but about what you hope will happen. And you hope he uses his weapons.

  Again, I hope he does so it's clear to the world the U.S. did the right thing.

  And there you go. Why do you hope he uses the weapons? So the grand ol' U.S. won't come out of this with egg on its face. Of course, it's be nice if the weapons were detonated in a harmless way, but if that doesn't happen, you still "hope Saddam uses his WMDs." I don't think I was that far off base. Your second explanation seemed like a bit of backtracking.

  I'm afraid of what will happen if he's eliminated and there are no WMD's found. But if used or found, I'm sure Bush's speechwriters will hide "We told you so" at least as well as the WTS can hide their real agenda.

  Well, whatever. This makes it sound like you're less than a Bush supporter, but your initial assertion seemed, on first read, dumbfoundingly ill-reasoned. But I digress. Maybe it was just poor wording. Maybe I'm just too cantakerous for my age. Maybe the secretary brewed decaf this morning by mistake. Whatever.

  My take on this is, justification after the fact doesn't excuse recklessly gambling on presumptions. It's analogous to racial profiling: pull over enough drivers of a certain race, and sure, you'll find something wrong. But that doesn't mean it was ever "right" to pull them over in the first place. Justice, a word used too casually, is trickier than most people suppose.

  Of course, I'm also the guy who said that arguments from analogy were bad ideas, so what the hell do I know, right?

  Dedalus