Nukes back in business

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The United States, which has built up forces in the region and held exercises in case of war against Iraq, issued a statement outlining its strategy against nuclear, chemical and biological weapons — the first update since 1993.

WashPost: U.S. strategy includes ‘all options’

The document said deterring attacks with the threat of “overwhelming force†was an essential element in protecting the United States and its allies from weapons of mass destruction, also known as WMD.

 

“The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force — including through resort to all our options — to the use of WMD against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies,†the strategy report said.

<span id='postcolor'>

great  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> If the U.N. arms monitors working in Iraq ultimately report full Iraqi cooperation with the disarmament demands, U.N. resolutions call for the Security Council to consider lifting economic sanctions imposed on Iraq after it invaded Kuwait in 1990. If, on the other hand, Iraq is found in noncompliance, the council may consider military action against Iraq.

President Bush has threatened military action in that case even without U.N. authority.<span id='postcolor'>

ILLEGAL ! Who is he ? God ?  

source: http://www.msnbc.com/news/842500.asp?vts=121120020710&cp1=1

[bn880 5]

Yes, I know...

I think people, especially Americans need to beat the drums of peace, to counter the drums of war from Washington, and planning another Hiroshima is beyond what I expected from the "man" in office.

[Akira 0]

WTF???

“The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force — including through resort to all our options — to the use of WMD against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies,†the strategy report said.

This is NOTHING new and has been policy since nukes and WMDs came into being. This has been the policy since the Cold War and the days of detente.

Where is the news in this??

[mr. Duck 0]

My god, you are quite patriotic ain't you?

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (mr. Duck @ Dec. 11 2002,17:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My god, you are quite patriotic ain't you?<span id='postcolor'>

Patriotic has nothing to do with it. US policy has ALWAYS been to use said weapons against any enemy that uses those weapons against US or Allied troops, cities, or installations.

Its called Detente and/or MAD.

Its NOTHING new.

As far as the attacking Iraq without a UN mandate....you'll notice I didn't comment on that since I don't think we should attack without the UN approval.

[nolips71 0]

and guess who will go running in after them..... tony blair in his maraurding BAe 146

[NavyEEL 0]

yeah you're right, what are we thinking? we should just sit back and wait like the UN wants to and let iraq and terrorist organizations overrun us before we even *think* about attacking. heaven forbid we should go on the offensive for once and eliminate the threat before it becomes a problem...

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Dec. 11 2002,17:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yeah you're right, what are we thinking? we should just sit back and wait like the UN wants to and let iraq and terrorist organizations overrun us before we even *think* about attacking. heaven forbid we should go on the offensive for once and eliminate the threat before it becomes a problem...<span id='postcolor'>

Too many people here would call that "illegal" or any number of things.

Plus the problems of international diplomacy will raise quite a problem.

Too many people have forgotten the lessons of 1938.

[NurEinMensch 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Dec. 11 2002,17:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yeah you're right, what are we thinking?  we should just sit back and wait like the UN wants to and let iraq and terrorist organizations overrun us before we even *think* about attacking.  heaven forbid we should go on the offensive for once and eliminate the threat before it becomes a problem...<span id='postcolor'>

I only hear about US wanting to invade iraq, never the other way around.

Who is going to overrun whom?

[CosmicCastaway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Dec. 11 2002,17:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yeah you're right, what are we thinking?  we should just sit back and wait like the UN wants to and let iraq and terrorist organizations overrun us before we even *think* about attacking.  heaven forbid we should go on the offensive for once and eliminate the threat before it becomes a problem...<span id='postcolor'>

That would be opening a huge old can of worms. (Figuratively speaking) I've noticed this sort of issue has been discussed quite a lot before, so I won't go into it. But attacking a nation because of something they might do, is most definately 'not cricket'.

Happy festive season to all by the way.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NurEinMensch @ Dec. 11 2002,18:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Dec. 11 2002,17:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yeah you're right, what are we thinking? we should just sit back and wait like the UN wants to and let iraq and terrorist organizations overrun us before we even *think* about attacking. heaven forbid we should go on the offensive for once and eliminate the threat before it becomes a problem...<span id='postcolor'>

I only hear about US wanting to invade iraq, never the other way around.

Who is going to overrun whom?<span id='postcolor'>

Thats the tricky question and one who's answer is usually filled with blustery rhetoric no matter the side.

My personal take on it is the inherent willingness of Saddam to cause aggression by his invasion of Kuwait and starting of the devestating Iran-Iraq War.

Yes the US may have supported him at the time, but it was either him or Khomeni. Who is the logical choice to support?

Yes Bin Laden was supported by the US. It was neccessary to counter Soviet expansion for their "southern buffer." Course Bin Laden didn't mind being supported by the US at the time either. Hypocrisy on all sides really.

Saddam has also shown his willingness to use WDMs on a number of occassions. That is a threat, just like his destabilization policy of the region.

That is why a UN mandate with international support is needed to go in and oust him. Any further destabilization would be devestating in my view.

Also the alleged Al Queda-Iraq link, but I have seen nothing about this. If it comes to light it is true then that will change things immensely. If not...just another boogieman rumor.

[BaronVonRed 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Dec. 11 2002,16:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The United States, which has built up forces in the region and held exercises in case of war against Iraq, issued a statement outlining its strategy against nuclear, chemical and biological weapons — the first update since 1993.

WashPost: U.S. strategy includes ‘all options’

The document said deterring attacks with the threat of “overwhelming force†was an essential element in protecting the United States and its allies from weapons of mass destruction, also known as WMD.

“The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force — including through resort to all our options — to the use of WMD against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies,†the strategy report said.

<span id='postcolor'>

great

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> If the U.N. arms monitors working in Iraq ultimately report full Iraqi cooperation with the disarmament demands, U.N. resolutions call for the Security Council to consider lifting economic sanctions imposed on Iraq after it invaded Kuwait in 1990. If, on the other hand, Iraq is found in noncompliance, the council may consider military action against Iraq.

President Bush has threatened military action in that case even without U.N. authority.<span id='postcolor'>

ILLEGAL ! Who is he ? God ?

source: http://www.msnbc.com/news/842500.asp?vts=121120020710&cp1=1<span id='postcolor'>

Aside from continued US bashing, what exactly is the point here? We got 'em, and if you eff with us, we will use them. That is the general motivation behind any country possessing nukes. I have a gun in my house and I will use it to defend my house, what's the big deal? Should I put out a sign on my front door stating that I have a gun but that I promise I won't use it even if you break in and rape my wife? Should the US just throw away it's nukes, or promise to never use them? Uhhhhhh, sure.

[ralphwiggum 6]

i agree with Akira that this no no new news ( )

US, just like anyother country, has ability to carry out such attack, and we NEVER said we will abstain from using IF NEEDED.

i think ppl are over reacting to Bush's strategy of rattling saber although he won't take it out.

[Akira 0]

In fact I remember having a debate about this not so long ago. This summer I believe. Someone brought up the exact same thing and it progressed just like this thread.

[Balschoiw 0]

The point is that the last time it was mentioned in congress was before start of Desert Storm. My concerns are that any use of WDM´s (or assumed ones) from any side (US used doubtable substances during Desert Storm) can be put on Irak´s back and give US the authorization to nuke Irak. To bring this on the table right now may be saber rattling, but it is pretty displaced and certainly not necessary at the moment as Irak is already aware of the war danger. Do you think they don´t know about the massive troop assembly at their borders ?

The most important part of the message off course is that Bush will attack Irak even if he has no UN mandate. As you all know reports can be read in different ways. Tubes can be used for building reactors or for oil drilling for example. Who judges for what they are used ? This should be in UN´s hands as Blix already said. The US reaction to this know is to split from UN common sense and go a lone way. This is not the way policy should take and definately not the way wars can be started.

Yes it is illegal. It´s not only my opinion it is written law.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have a gun in my house and I will use it to defend my house, what's the big deal?<span id='postcolor'>

If you compare global scenarios to your home situation you are pretty blind. It does not mean that US has to be attacked within their boundaries, but whereever they are on this planet. Furthermore the phrase

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">our forces abroad, and friends and allies<span id='postcolor'>

is very flexible, isnt it Mr Double Account ?

[FSPilot 0]

Balschoiw, you've been at this forum for almost a year now.  You should know not to start these blatantly anti-U.S. threads.  The trick is to start one about something the U.S. has done in the past, and then watch as it develops into an anti-U.S. thread in a few pages.

This should be closed.

edit - if the U.S. were attacked by any form of a WMD, I would be behind a similar response.  Why?  Because we have the right to defend ourselves like anybody else.

[ralphwiggum 6]

although he registered long time ago, he has only recently begin to participate in such talks. so he is a newbie to certain extent

as i said earlier, US never faded away from saying that it will use if necessary. now my guess is that Bush is just making another empty threat just to act tough.

[Necromancer- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 11 2002,19:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">edit - if the U.S. were attacked by any form of a WMD, I would be behind a similar response.  Why?  Because we have the right to defend ourselves like anybody else.<span id='postcolor'>

YEah well, trouble is.

What if the US gets nuked by Al Qaida terrorist using nuke cases?

"missing Russian nuke cases"

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Balschoiw, you've been at this forum for almost a year now.  You should know not to start these blatantly anti-U.S. threads. <span id='postcolor'>

You´re not right FS Pilot. I am here for mor ethan 1 year. This is my secand account as I lost pass and username for my first one  

And I really can´t help if the headlines are filled with US news these days. I think they are worth discussing and I think they are in fact important as we are ALL going through some serious changes in world policy right now. If you tell that I do US flaming you are quite wrong. I do participate in a lot of threads that are not US related and to point the finger at me is not the right way to discuss I guess. You maybe want to check ME section of forum. I guess I am rather active there also. The offtopic section is meant to discuss actual things and this is what is done. I guess if any of the moderators thinks that I am not suitable for the forum he will tell me.

I am worried about current developements right now, as I am an active trooper and I intend to have some kids someday. So freedom of speech and the possiblity to speak out what I think and have a discussion in a civilized way is not bashing is it ?

Do you think I am sitting here all day long to think about new conspiracy things or how to make your day a hard one ? Seriously not. It is no wonder that opposition to US even within this forum is high as curretn surveys show that nearly 75 percent of the world population do so at the moment. This is no fashion thing, but people are definately concerned about what´s happening at the moment.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Necromancer- @ Dec. 11 2002,19:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 11 2002,19:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">edit - if the U.S. were attacked by any form of a WMD, I would be behind a similar response. Why? Because we have the right to defend ourselves like anybody else.<span id='postcolor'>

YEah well, trouble is.

What if the US gets nuked by Al Qaida terrorist using nuke cases?

"missing Russian nuke cases"<span id='postcolor'>

That is not in relation to the current Iraq thread.

If Iraq uses WDMs against troops or Allies, that is what is on the table. If Al Queda does it that is something different entirely. You think the US would just start lobbing nukes at countries?

What ever the fear or hatred of US, that is not what will happen.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Dec. 11 2002,19:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is no wonder that opposition to US even within this forum is high as curretn surveys show that nearly 75 percent of the world population do so at the moment.<span id='postcolor'>

if you are talking about CNN.com vting thing, i give little credit to such polling. i've seen internet polls get manipulated so easily.

but there is definitely growing anti-Us sentiments around the world. yet they don't mind visiting US to see Disneyland. very perplexing

[Balschoiw 0]

No I am talking about the "Global attitude survey". It is done every year for ages now. I still dont have the source as it was released this week, but I will post the link if I get my hands on it.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Dec. 11 2002,19:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The point is that the last time it was mentioned in congress was before start of Desert Storm. My concerns are that any use of WDM´s (or assumed ones) from any side (US used doubtable substances during Desert Storm) can be put on Irak´s back and give US the authorization to nuke Irak. To bring this on the table right now may be saber rattling, but it is pretty displaced and certainly not necessary at the moment as Irak is already aware of the war danger. Do you think they don´t know about the massive troop assembly at their borders ?

The most important part of the message off course is that Bush will attack Irak even if he has no UN mandate. As you all know reports can be read in different ways. Tubes can be used for building reactors or for oil drilling for example. Who judges for what they are used ? This should be in UN´s hands as Blix already said. The US reaction to this know is to split from UN common sense and go a lone way. This is not the way policy should take and definately not the way wars can be started.

Yes it is illegal. It´s not only my opinion it is written law.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have a gun in my house and I will use it to defend my house, what's the big deal?<span id='postcolor'>

If you compare global scenarios to your home situation you are pretty blind. It does not mean that US has to be attacked within their boundaries, but whereever they are on this planet. Furthermore the phrase

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">our forces abroad, and friends and allies<span id='postcolor'>

is very flexible, isnt it Mr Double Account ?<span id='postcolor'>

Naturally it would be mentioned before an assault on a dictator that has a history of using WDMs. He needs to know that if he opens that bottled genie there are consequences for it. So I still don't see the "news" in this. As I said...that has been US policy for OVER 50 years. It was good enough for you when the Soviet State was around.

And there are no grey areas about WDMs. There is a standard definition accepted by most of the world. So there will be no "assumed" WDM use. It is pretty obvious when they are used and can't be hidden.

And I already said I agree that we can't attack without UN and International support. And the UN made the list and DOES judge what is banned imports into Iraq. The US usually raises a fuss but that is what the Security Council and more importantly Russia is there for. As counter-balance and to cool an angered US war machine.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Dec. 11 2002,20:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No I am talking about the "Global attitude survey". It is done every year for ages now. I still dont have the source as it was released this week, but I will post the link if I get my hands on it.<span id='postcolor'>

http://people-press.org/reports/files/report165topline.pdf (200-some kbites and 77 pages! )

[BaronVonRed 0]

EDIT:

Balschoiw:

/EDIT

Too bad you had to bring this up:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

is very flexible, isnt it Mr Double Account ?

<span id='postcolor'>

I have never had a double account. While some of the moderators here are fine upstanding participants, very knowledgable in OFP, political, and other topics, others of them know very little about IP routing. Any two people who post from behind a half way decent firewall or router will post with the same IP address.

I posted a short lesson in a seperate thread that explained this, but it was quickly locked down with a sarcastic remark (reposted below).

The other guy was MrCoffee.He actually sent me an email thinking *I* had done something, but I replied explaining the duplicate IP posting. I actually met him later on deck. He was very disappointed and had taken the game back.

No one here is intimidated by you, in fact, I find your blatant and frequent attacks on the US amusing, but you have flamed me specifically on several occasions and THAT I am getting tired of. I even sent you a email several weeks ago entitled "White Flag" to which you didn't have the round ones to reply.

If you are interested in how duplicate IP's might appear on this board, here is the message I had posted:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Anyone inside of a NAT router will share the same external IP address. Network Address Translation (NAT) provides a mechanism for a privately addressed network to access registered networks, such as the Internet, without requiring a registered subnet address. This eliminates the need for host renumbering and allows the same IP address range to be used in multiple intranets.

This is where NAT(RFC 1631) comes in. Network Address Translation allows a single device, such as a router, to act as an agent between the Internet (or "public network") and a local (or "private") network. This means that only a single, unique IP address is required to represent an entire group of computers.

With NAT, the privately addressed network (designated as ‘inside’) continues to use its existing private or obsolete addresses. These addresses are converted into legal addresses before packets are forwarded onto the registered network (designated as ‘outside’). The translation is fully compatible with standard routing functionality and features. NAT is required only on the router connecting the inside network to the outside domain.

<span id='postcolor'>

There are 200+ users behind my firewall. I hope no more of them ever try to post here.

As far as this:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

our forces abroad, and friends and allies

<span id='postcolor'>

What are you talking about? I never said that.