wilhelm,

I understand the context of invasion which you referred to, but I don’t perceive your statement in answer to SOC (quotation in previous post) as having anything to do with a potential counter-invasion sceneario. We’re talking about events which have actually taken place since World War II. Is it your opinion that the U.S. has employed nuclear weapons against live targets in foreign theatres of operations after Nagasaki? Smaller, tactical employments which I don’t know about or something like that?

Viper :confused: I said that somebody like Saddam would have used WMD’s in defense of Baghdad if he had them. Particularly as he had used them before in less threatening circumstances to himself, and that he knew he would probably face a war crimes/crimes against humanity charge. The reference to SOC was based on my opinion that if faced with a catastrophic invasion, to preserve it’s survival the US admin would most likely use WMD’s. I haven’t the slightest clue what you are babbeling on about that the US has used WMD’s post Hiroshima. Everybody knows they have not. It’s called an example :confused: Do you grasp this now? The context was that if he didn’t use WMD’s then, he didn’t have them. Get it?

:confused:

Was your statement (second quote) a response to the upper statement or not?

Yes.

[PHP]Employment of nuclear weapons against live targets (tests excluded) after the events of World War II? What have I missed? [/PHP]

Viper, I was quoting in context of what the US would do if faced with an invasion of their country, and that they would employ WMD as a last resort to stave off a catastrophic collapse. Sort of explains why Saddam didn’t have WMD’s as he would have done the same when the US was at the gates of Baghdad.

Sort of back on topic, is it really possible to defend against a future 9-11? The destructive medium might not be aeroplanes next time. It all seems so reactionary. Perhaps we should take a long term view of things and introduce loads of cash, rock ‘n roll, and pornography to their kids.. :diablo:

Originally Posted by wilhelm
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??

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.

As I said, 9-11 was horrible. RIP.

Very true Sean, but my point is that Saddam was presented as a dangerously deranged lunatic hell-bent on aquiring WMD’s and using them on the US and the UK as soon as possible. Who will forget Blair’s “45 min” lie? This was the premise at which the US and UK went to war. Hence my statement that if this lunatic had WMD’s , and yet STILL did not use them when his outhouse came tumbling down around him, when exactly was he ever going to use them? He knew he would face victors justice/war criminal charges so he had nothing to lose. He didn’t have any WMD’s. Your statement about the US having nukes yet not using them is false. Yes, 9/11 was terrible. But it did not constitute a destructive invasion or barbarians being at the gates of Washington. In that scenario, I absolutely gaurantee that the US would use WMD’s to defend itself from collapse. You yourself said that you would do so if you were in charge. 😎 See my point?

Saddam was a secular dictator that allowed religious minorities in Iraq. He allowed liquor stores. Businessmen from Saudi Arabia would spend dirty weekends in Baghdad soaking up the vices that were not available to them in SA. Yes, he played lip service to islam every now and then, but Osama ‘n friends called him an infidel for good reason. I look on him as a small time Hitler or Stalin. But here’s the problem… He persecuted islamic fundamentalists as they were a threat to his power. The Iraq war had therefore nothing to do with the “wart’n error”. It has been a massive blunder and has put the fight against islamic fundamentalist terror back by years or decades even.

I am against anyone telling my wife and I how to dress and think. If my wife wants to wear the sexy red number on our anniversary dinner, I do not need a primitive bearded religious zealot threatening us. Thus islamic fundamentalism was and is the most pressing problem, and the post 9-11 reaction in Iraq was flawed at best, criminal at worst. It has taken resources away from the real fight against terror. Start with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

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??

Avgas, what is a leftie? Is that somebody/anybody who doesn’t agree with you? Is this a type of insult where you come from? Are these people left handed? Are they people? Is a chip something you gamble with? Or something you eat? Please explain as I’m very interested in understanding the nuances of different cultures.

Sept 11 was wrong. RIP to the victims. Bombing is also wrong.

Avgas? I’m trying to understand. :confused:

Avgas, what is a leftie? Is that somebody/anybody who doesn’t agree with you? Is this a type of insult where you come from? Are these people left handed? Are they people? Is a chip something you gamble with? Or something you eat? Please explain as I’m very interested in understanding the nuances of different cultures.

Sept 11 was wrong. RIP to the victims. Bombing is also wrong.

Wow.. thanks Mpacha. The nose is indeed enlarged. Was there a plan to increase fuel load to compensate for the higher thrust engine?