wade said:
The government is already starting to quell the voices of dissent. It will only increase until the people take a stand.
I wish the government would indeed quell this four year old caniption fit and actually live up to your assertations, just to prove you right.
I have no such hope. I think that in the current world this step should not be necessary. When a country has a revolution we (the international community) should step in and help them to restructure their country fairly, including wealth and land reform where appropriate.
Wishfull thinking about the almighty international community is a leftist fantasy.
Only when the international community fails to do this, and instead supports and sustains the status quo in such a nation does communism make sense.
Communism doesn't make sense, period. The international community always failed to do a damn thing.
But communism is a risky thing - it too easily turns totalitarian.
It always turns to totalitarianism, period.
This is exactly what is done during in the USA periods of total war (Civil War, WWII).
Hogwash. A 40% tax rate, is not communism. A working US democracy, guaranteeing private ownership, is not communism.
Again, look at Vietnam. Vietnam is an example of Communism headed toward democracy. If the system works right, the proletariat have control of the leadership.
If the tyrant in control of a comminist state says he speaks for the proletariat, why would we believe him, huh?
The totalitarian communist party leadership always controls from the top down, in every case. The proletariat are extinct after communism makes them equal, remember?
The leadership is selected to pursue the best interests of the people, and when the society is ready for it, the best interest is democracy and capitalism.
That kind of claim makes me want to blow chunks.
The dear leader is being so benevolent by acting in the 'best interests of the people' and you buy this line in a heartbeat, don't ya?
The US intelligence was unable to track Saddam's location over time. But there were occassions when it was known to a high degree of certainty.
Specifically that would be ... ?
Given no immeadiate external threats, he was almost certain to preside over a meeting of the Baath party congress - his ego demanded it.
As if like Saddam cares what his congress thinks? C'mon! A poser speech to his 'Congress' is definately a job for one of his doubles. Congress was a puppet of Saddam and knew damn well they were.
But, even if Saddam somehow escaped, with the Baath party gone, the Rep. Gaurd gone, Saddam's palaces gone, and his sons dead, Saddam's days in Iraq would be over anyway.
There you go with nuetron bombs an pinpoint intelligence all
all of the regime again.
And if you amazingly succeed despite all odds, how could you expect something better, let alone something remotely democratic?
Of course not. But neither is pre-emptive unilateral war. No matter what course we followed it was going to be unpopular. But a neutron bomb attack cutting off the head of the tyrant would have been over and done with 2 years ago, and the world would forget that all too quickly. An extended invasion with all its implications and secondary consequences gets burned into the minds of everyone over time.
Nuking Iraq isn't more effective or more popular. It's just silly.
How could you possibly stand there and tell us you'd be happy with Bush after he nuked and murdered thousands to get at Saddam, and that something good would have come from the regime after it was 'purged' and left alone to stabilized from the lower echelon of the corrupt regime.
No, you'd be pissed as hell about it. We know your type.
I dissagree. Within 3 months of 9/11 I am confident Americans would have had no problems with this at all. Even within a year it probably would have been acceptable.
Why don't you start a poll and we'll see how acceptable it was to all of us here, if you want to speak for Americans. I wonder how many think casually tossing a few nukes out just to get Saddam would serve any eventual goal or help world opinion on the US overall. I'd oppose it, based on principle and on effectiveness.
There is no "war for oil" implication with a neutron bomb attack. There is no political implications either, beyond "piss us off and your neck will meet the axe".
There is no 'war for oil' implication, no free Iraqi oil.
Four blocks just happens to be the size quoted in the mini-neutron bomb literature I read. It does not go into sufficent depth for me to know if smaller areas of effect could be impimented. I believe from what I've read that the size could indeed be made smaller, and the size relationship given of a baseball sized weapon taking out a four city block area was just an example (of what terrorists might have).
If they have it they'd use it.
However, the kill zone has to be large enough to take out a small stadium (the Iraqi congress hall) and the entourage area around it, since Saddam would not always be within the hall itself.
Why should he? WTF did Saddam ever care for the Congress? Apparently you have timetables or something.
So while 4 city blocks seems reasonable to me, if a smaller bomb could not be built, this would be acceptable. Ideally something tailored to take out just the desired area (the congressional hall and supporting strurctures) would be preferred.
Neat. But irrelevent.
The advantage to the US is that it takes out Saddam (and the rest of the Baathist regime) and forces a restructuring of the Iraqi government without requiring an invasion or occupation. It saves the USA a trillion dollars and several thousand lives too.
You took a dab of international intrigue and a smatter of wishfull thinking to use nukes to 'decapitate' the regime. Saddam is GONE and what-ifs and should-haves by now are moot, who cares? And the one hand you make pains to point out 'international law' and on the other propose the proper solution would have been to use nukes in a casual was and that would somehow satisfy every party concerned.
That's ridiculous.
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: 
