What Would You Do In This Situation

[cenimo]

OK, What Would You Do? [font="verdana, arial, helvetica"]

Let's say you are an Iraqi soldier in a chemical unit (a trick in itself as they "don't have" any chemical weapons - ahem!)...

Bush has already declared that anyone who uses chemical weapons will be tried as a war criminal....and if ordered to use them, and you refuse, Hussein might have you executed for refusing to obey orders in wartime...

So what would you do in their shoes? [/font]

 

[ifriit]

Given my morals, I wouldn't use them regardless of what Bush said. It also makes it exceedingly unlikely that I would be in that position in the first place.

Of what relevence is this question, however?

 

[Didymus]

i think Bush met the higher ups in the iraq army an not the soldiers who would only be carrying out orders.

 

[datan]

hm...
if using WMD gets you tried as a war criminal, why wasn't anyone tried over the use of two nuclear bombs on civilian cities???

 

[paulewog]

Go home and eat a cookie.

/me would probably try to get out of the whole situation, kinda like the Germanic Jewish Scientists...

 

[cenimo]

ifriit

Of what relevence is this question, however?

Oh, seeing that all day the news has been reporting a build up of chemical weapons being put into position and maybe being armed in the potential combat zone, I think it might be relevent



datan

nukes are not chemical or bilological


Didymous

OK, you're an Iraqi Captain or Major, you give the order to fire....

 

[strathyboy]

Today at 08:59 PM cenimo said this in Post #6

Oh, seeing that all day the news has been reporting a build up of chemical weapons being put into position and maybe being armed in the potential combat zone, I think it might be relevent

Given that a US invasion is inevitable, and likely within the next few days, it is no wonder Hussein is setting up weapons.

 

[cenimo]

as people here have stated, all these weapons he claimed not to have?
chemicals.... etc....

 

[datan]

Today at 08:59 PM cenimo said this in Post
datan

nukes are not chemical or bilological

no, my point was: if the US was allowed to use nukular weapons on civilian cities, as well as chemical weapons during war, what right does Bush have to decide that Iraq can't use hypothetical chemical weapons?

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Today at 03:20 PM datan said this in Post #4

hm...
if using WMD gets you tried as a war criminal, why wasn't anyone tried over the use of two nuclear bombs on civilian cities???

I agree that the targeting of civilians during wartime is one of the greatest evils going today. Lord knows war is bad enough. If the US is going to stand on higher ground, we need to immediately state in no uncertain terms that we will never bomb or target cities or civilian populations.
Having said that, let me address the two cities you bring up.
1. More people were killed in the firebombing of Dunkirk and Tokyo than in Hiroshima and Nakasaki. (sp???)
2. More people, civilians and military, would have died in a full invasion of the Japanize islands than in the bombing of these cities. As bad as this was. Lives were ultimately saved in doing this.
3. And most importantly.... don't bomb American soil (Pearl Harbor) and think you can get away with it.

 

[datan]

doesn't answer my question: IF the US can do it (use chemical and nuclear weapons), why can't other countries use it on US troops?

 

[Ryder]

Today at 04:28 PM datan said this in Post #11

doesn't answer my question: IF the US can do it (use chemical and nuclear weapons), why can't other countries use it on US troops?

You never discern method and motive.

The US used nuclear weapons to put an end to a war with a proven aggressive nation (starting early with manchuria) that would not surrender (kamakazis, fighting to the last man) and was dispicable in their conduct (of war, prisoners, policy, you name it).

Iraq invades neighbors, kills its own people, hates jews/supports anti-semetic activity, you name it.

You can't tell yourself why one nation can and another cannot be trusted with heavy weaponry?

And BTW, those nukes were necessary to end ww2, despite rumors to the contray, japan would have kept the war dragging on at the home islands for years... They still had soldiers, arms, manufacturing capability (albeit weak), fighter factories -these were dug-in mountains in old mines safe from bombing where german ram-jet propulsion manned suicide planes & non-suicidal high-altitude jet fighters were still manufactured in considerable numbers -the ram-jets could run on lawnmower grade fuel to boot! they had mini-submarines, and a fanatical will to fight, those nukes were necessary and in my opinion saved lives overall, quite different from Iraqs outlook & probable uses/responsibility level.

 

[paulewog]

Thid person countries are not supposed to have nuclear weapons. I'm not entirely sure how that works out but then again, I don't know who decides what a "war crime" is nor who punishes them.

Either way, a person like S. Hussein that resembles Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tong (sp? on his last name, I forgot what it is...), etc., in his ethics should not have nuclear weapons.

I think a lot happens in countries that we don't even know about - for example, we didn't really know about the holocaust until we invaded Germany. From what I hear, Iraq isn't the safest place for a Christian to live in

 

[datan]

I'm not asking why one country can be "trusted" and another can't.

I'm asking about the legitimacy of using them in the first place, since Bush wants a war crimes tribunal for Iraqis who use them.

If they're wrong, they're wrong.
What about Agent Orange. What's your explanation for why the US was "permitted" to use it?

 

[cenimo]

Dunkirk was a battle where the British took major losses, a ground battle

Dresden was firebombed....

 

[paulewog]

Agent Orange I can't comment on, honestly. I don't know mucjh about it.

I think we could also ask, why did we have to go there in the first place?

I don't think a weapon is bad in and of itself. Heh.

But what are we supposed to do? Sit around waiitng for someone to blow us up while we're hindered from taking pre-emptive actions to protect our own country, hindered from getting missile-defense systems, etc.... :

 

[chickenman]

didn't america refuse to let their troops be tried at the hague for war crimes?

seems a little hypocritical

 

[datan]

sh ... don't remind Bush. He doesn't need to be bothered by mere trivialities like this.

 

[paulewog]

I don't know, were they? First thing I've heard if it

 

[Alabare]

Today at 09:59 PM datan said this in Post #14

What about Agent Orange. What's your explanation for why the US was "permitted" to use it?

:o agent orange was NOT a weapon of mass destruction. it is a defoliant, ie like roundup for trees. When we used it we had no idea that it would cause all of the health problems that it did.
On the other hand Sadam has used nerve agents on his OWN PEOPLE.

It is a crime which is punishable by death for a Christian to prosletized a Muslim in Iraq.