Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/10/2002 9:25:07 PM EDT
[url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=578&ncid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20021211/ts_nm/bush_security_dc[/url]
But the warning emphasizes and makes explicit for other countries a private warning Bush's father, former President George Bush, made in a letter to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) on the eve of the first Gulf War (news - web sites). In that letter, the United States threatened the "severest consequences" if Iraq were to use chemical or biological weapons against the United States, destroy Kuwaiti oil fields or participate in terrorism. "It was clear in terms of the message that we would respond with all of our options. ... The Iraqis have told us that they interpreted that letter as meaning the United States would use nuclear weapons, and it was a powerful deterrent," the official said.
View Quote
This new statment is directed to WHOMEVER not just Iraq. Includes North Korea, Iran, even AlQaida and whoever happens to be hiding them right now. Also covers attacks against both the US and us troops and civilians overseas. Not clear though if it also applies to a attack against Israel...
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 9:51:13 PM EDT
Oh, so in other words, were sitting on the brink of WWIII.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 9:55:28 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 9:58:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By trickshot: Oh, so in other words, were sitting on the brink of WWIII.
View Quote
If that's the case....Let's roll....
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 9:59:20 PM EDT
Outstanding! If nukes are going to fly, lets incenerate Mecca, Medina as well as other Muslim Cities. And while we are at it, lets turn Korea and China into a radioactive crater. Lets nail these bast$ds before they get strong enough to annihilate is in the future.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 10:09:30 PM EDT
Man, if I was a terrorist, I'd lead "bread crumbs" from a country I didn't like. Such as, if I was an Iran terrorist, I'd lead the US to believe that Iraq let it fly. Now, if the response requires a commission to find out who's gonna get the magic mushroom, I'll be in the corner looking at my watch. But if a scud full of crud lands on our porch, and they're given a green light to retaliate, the future looks bright. I HOPE that piece of garbage Sadam bases the launchers in Bagdad and they test out the experation date on a ICBM sitting in South Dakota. One that looks like a Saturn V rocket! Break their backs with instant sunrise instead of this polical bullshit parade. Orwell put it (paraphrased), "If someone plans to put a bomb in your mother's house, put one in his mother's house first." Never send a man to do a neutrons job, end this war the way the last great war was ended. Sheer terror of complete and total destruction. -Steve
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 10:16:00 PM EDT
umm ... duh. the policy for the united states is to retaliate WMD for WMD. since we don't use chemical or biological weapons, that leaves nukes. the policy has been in effect for a while. i dunno how long, but it's certainly not news.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 10:16:31 PM EDT
Bush Sr. didn't do anything when Saddam destroyed Kuwaiti oil fields, so is it safe to assume Bush Jr. will? It looks like Bush Sr. reneged on at least two promises.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 11:49:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/11/2002 1:22:01 AM EDT by Sharkman629]
[b]Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.):[/b] This doctrine has been in effect since the 50's. This applies to foreign states and is almost impossible to impose upon terrorist groups that acquire weapons of mass destruction, and use them [u]independently[/u] against the United States or its NATO allies. However if we find that such an attack was either funded or sponsored by a [u]sovereign foreign state[/u], the chances of a counterattack upon that country greatly increase. No U.S. Commander in Chief will respond with NBC weapons without 100% proof of another state's malicious intent. If he/she did, they would be placing the U.S. at an even greater risk by attacking the country that the terrorist group happened to operate out of, if that country's government had no knowledge of or involvement with such an attack. Yes we have responded against states that sponsor terrorism with actions like the Libya air raid in 1986 and others, but these incidents have never involved nuclear weapons. A good hypothetical situation that this discussion would apply to can be found in Tom Clancy's novel "The Sum of All Fears" (Forget the movie and read the book). And by the way, we do retain chemical and biological capability. Across the border in Indiana, there is a VX gas depot not far from where I live in Ohio. As long as the NBC threat is present, the U.S. government will retain the ability to respond to each type of threat. In any case, let us always be prepared to respond and vigilant enough to prevent. When it comes to NBC, remember the former Strategic Air Command's motto: "Peace is Our Profession." But as soon as that "peace" has been compromised by another country's actions, not the actions of [u]independently[/u] operating groups of terror, our response will be grave and swift. Do you really think we would launch ICBM's at Russia and risk World War III if a small faction of terrorists in Russia detonated a low-yield nuclear device in New York City, and did so when the Russian government had no involvement? EDITED FOR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 12:17:49 AM EDT
LET IT SNOW LET IT SNOW LET IT SNOW !!!!!! (nukes, that is)
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 12:35:30 AM EDT
That is some serious speculation.
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 4:53:18 AM EDT
Sweet. Send a goddamn bomb instead of an American kid. Hooah!
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 5:26:24 AM EDT
^ | Excellent idea. Did you happen to read the DU's comments about that Spectre video? "like shooting fish in a barrel" or seomthing totally moronic like that. On another note, I'm sure i could find a way to consider two airliners to be WMDs....
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 10:05:32 AM EDT
Actually there was no explicit threat in our plans to counter WMD attacks. Bush Sr. sent that letter to Saddam, but there was nothing official saying what we would do in other situations with other countries. Its just that media publicity of the Bush position has led to the assumption by the public-and apparently by everyone else including the terrorists-that it WAS a perminant position. Scary thing is, even AL GORE claims to support this concept.
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 10:08:20 AM EDT
in case you didn't see the other thread.... [img]http://www.nypost.com/images/front121102.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 10:13:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/11/2002 10:15:32 AM EDT by velocity]
I honestly don't see the need to use em, I'd rather see a few dozen daisy cutters dropped... you know it's cooler to see a few dozen of those then on or two nukes go off, that's my opinion anyway. But I wonder what other countries think of this and what they would do if it happened. But I'm lucky, I don't have to make these kinds of decisions.
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 10:24:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By trickshot: Oh, so in other words, were sitting on the brink of WWIII.
View Quote
It will be the shortest war in history. It will be followed by 50 years of world peace.
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 10:31:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By mattja: Bush Sr. didn't do anything when Saddam destroyed Kuwaiti oil fields, so is it safe to assume Bush Jr. will? It looks like Bush Sr. reneged on at least two promises.
View Quote
[b]BINGO!![/b] I REALLY don't think Bush Jr. has the will to use nukes against gas, anthrax, smallpox, dirty nukes, etc. Nope, It's NOT gonna happen. Bush is afraid of the Russia/China/EU/UN backlash - that's why Hussein is STILL in power.
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 10:44:52 AM EDT
Yeah, but all they ^ are gonna do is blather on, they don't really have all that much power as compared to the US. GWB needs to realize this and do something the next time there's a problem.
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 10:51:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By stevenb: the future looks bright.
View Quote
Chuckle... Scott
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 10:51:33 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 11:15:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Sharkman629: And by the way, we do retain chemical and biological capability. Across the border in Indiana, there is a VX gas depot not far from where I live in Ohio.
View Quote
My apologies. I was informed that we only kept nuke, and was apparently wrong.
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 9:50:14 PM EDT
[b]voilsb[/b]There is absolutely no need to apologize for anything. I didn't wish to sound like that at all, and I'm sorry you felt the need to apologize.
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 10:11:19 PM EDT
<<<<<<
Link Posted: 12/12/2002 11:20:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Sharkman629: [b]voilsb[/b]There is absolutely no need to apologize for anything. I didn't wish to sound like that at all, and I'm sorry you felt the need to apologize.
View Quote
Haha. I apologized for propogating misinformation. A simple search showed that you were indeed correct, and that the Umatilla Plant here in Oregon also stocks VX and sarin. I just should have done some fact-checking instead of blindly believing "we don't do that" just because it sounded more humane and "good-guy" like. No harm done, though, and I never felt like I was being scolded. Thanks for the tip, too. It's good to be better informed.
Link Posted: 12/12/2002 12:44:22 PM EDT
We are supposedly in the process of destroying our chemical weapons stockpiles. We built huge high tech incinerators one in Utah somewhere and one on Johnson Atoll. But the Clintonistias didn't always run them and they are frequently shut down by the courts as one legal battle after another is brought by the eco-terrorists. So we still have a backlog. I don't know if any of the agents are still in a useable form, or if all the shells have been dismantled and just the chemicals are stored.
Top Top