And if it’s not a state-sponsored/directed terrorist group, nobody would have to worry about me tossing nuclear warheads around.

Good…now all you have to do is raise billions and get yourself elected!!!

We haven’t used nuclear weapons since 1945. That doesn’t mean we don’t have any more of them. Plus, Saddam didn’t use them in 1991 either, when he most definitely DID have them. Why didn’t he use them then either? Plus, when we were outside Baghdad, he might have considered that he’d potentially be gassing himself as well.

WMD? GAS? he prob figured out that in ’91 it wouldnt be much use against well prepared ,well trained combat troops .

Anyway…( more conspiracy theories!!) maybe just maybe he knew his old pal’s Rumsfeld, Chaney and Bush the older wouldnt oust him completely…just turf him out of Kuwait?…..Why did they stop in ’91 by the way??

doubt if there was any such asssurance with Baby Bush’s expedition….

and i doubt if he would give two tinker’s damns abpout gassing his own people in those last desperate days as the Yanks raced up the road to Bagdad!!!

originally posted by Sauron;

“Did I make a claim or imply that there was (is) “a direct link with Saddam Hussains regime and the terrorist acts of 9/11 ????”

I do not believe GWB has ever claimed there was a direct or operational link between Saddam and the 9/11 attack. On the other hand, some un-named offical could have said it and Democrates in the U.S. sometime phrase remarks that imply that he did. “

Well actually….

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/29/hayes.911/

http://www.nndb.com/people/290/000023221/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html…and especially the section;

“While not explicitly declaring Iraqi culpability in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, administration officials did, at various times, imply a link. In late 2001, Cheney said it was “pretty well confirmed” that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. Later, Cheney called Iraq the “geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.”

Bush, in 2003, said “the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001.”

Not necessarily. If Syria, for example, conducted a WMD attack on New York City, and I nuked Damascus, I’d bet that others might think twice about doing the same thing. It’s not Mutually Assured Destruction so much as it is Assured Destruction: conduct a WMD attack on me, and you’re destruction is assured, and bring on the next guy in line.

again assuming that;

1.You are dealing with a Government…and a government with the normal moral codes of civilisied society.

2. You arnt dealing with a ” terrorist ” organisation that doesnt have or need a fixed base…

I wonder what would Orwell think of the ” War on Terror ” ? I presume it would mean a whole new version of ” Politics and the english language ” !!!!!

Back to the topic as it was intended, 5 years on and things have only gotten worst in my opinion, hatred among differenct countries and religions have only increased, thousands of innocents Americans lost thier lives and thousands more have lost thier lives directly or indirectly…. Sept 11 should not be seen as the start of the conflict, but the reasons that led to it should be seen as those and this is where Bush has made a mistake. The reasons that led to Sept 11 still exist but are now more stronger, violent and extreme, no wonder people hate Bush even after he hase brought “freedom” “justice” and “hope” …Lol…Bush talks like Darth Vader…

Well said, most doctors try to treat the cause of the disease not the effect …but then Bush is back in the dark ages of Scarification and leeches!!!

I knew for certain that when Saddam did not use WMD when America was at Baghdad’s doorstep, that he definitely did not have any. If he didn’t use them then, when, pray, was he ever going to use them??

Damn good point!! how come no reply???

Actually Phrozenflame, the British governemnt had already held a series of round table conferences (1930-32) on Indian independence, and whilst the idea was resisted by certain voluable elements within the establishment (Churchill being notable) many politicians had already accepted it as inevitable. Whilst some sought to restrict Indian independence to Dominion status.

As Gandhi observed a couple of hundred thousand British soldiers could not control hundreds of millions of Indians if the Indians did not cooperate, once this simple logic was recognised by both sides it was only a matter of time before Indian/Pakistani inependence followed.

Steve.

Surely it was as much to do with the fact that the once ” invincable ” European empires had taken a beating from the Japanese thus destroying the image of empires on which the sun would never set ? Think it could be said the French found that out in Indo china?

Mind you , i agree ,that it is doubtfull if The Netherlands,France, Belguim et all COULD have afforded the re taking of their empires even if the will had been there.

So you’d incinerate the entire population of, say, Damascus (3.5 million human beings) in response to a terrorist act that you deemed to be instigated by the Syrian government?

Fine.

What do you do for an encore if there’s another, bigger, terrorist attack in response?

good point , well made…

IF MAD worked …fine…. deterrance is ok…if it didnt work use these magical space weapons to target the bad guys…that would really put their brown stuff on overload !!!

Dont forget that MAD would be useless after the first deployment of nukes….all you would have had then was an uncontrollable escalation..and billions of deaths..

and i must be getting tired forgive any typos!

Fight fire with fire. In this case, literally. You want to attack my civillians? Fine. Just bear in mind that I have the ability to remove all of yours.

Bit of an overreaction dont you think? Mass murder or genocide would be a good description…fine if you are fighting a country you can strike preferably surgically taking out specific targets ..but wiping out a city ? millions of people? sounds a bit like Isreali thinking …eye for an eye…

or is a case that America is going to allow the terrorist’s to set the moral standard?

America sinking to the moral levels of mindless bloodthirsty terrorists?