Bush warns Iraq, "We will use Nukes!"

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by peter2002, Dec 10, 2002.

  1. macrumors 6502

    On the eve of a war with Iraq, Bush slipped in a new policy statement that warns Iraq that the USA will use nuclear weapons, if attacked with bio weapons.


    If we do, millions of innocent people will be vaporized. Won't Bush and the USA be then guilty of mass murder and genocide? The very thing we are "supposedly" fighting against.

    It will be easy for Bush to do because he has already executed over 30 people while govenor of Texas. What's a few more million?

    Peter :confused:
  2. Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Ok peter2002 - lets try and get this right. Even though Bush is the President, it doesn't say anywhere in the article that he directly threatened Iraq with nukes.

    The warning, which underscored longstanding U.S. policy leaving open the use of nuclear weapons if needed, was contained in a statement of U.S. strategy against nuclear, chemical and biological weapons -- the first update since 1993.


    "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.

    the trategy report said

    That's not Bush. :rolleyes:

    However, don't get me wrong, I don't want to see nukes used here, nor do I think we should ever use them. Using Cold War tactics its all hoping that deterence will work in our favor. Its a power struggle of a different sort, but no less deadly.

    Just don't put your own spin on things to get a reaction - something which the media does enough as it is already.

  3. macrumors 604


    Ah so many images which to choice...?;)
    I think I pulled this off of some fourm (if it's this one you can say so later...)
    Ah All bush wants is
    1) revenge for Faher
    2) Oil - Black Gold, Texas 'T', Republican Campaign Money----Whoops I let that one slip out. ;)
    There are many other reasons but going in killing off Saddam aint gonna solve anything... Nothing!

    Attached Files:

  4. macrumors 6502

    Ok dukestreet, who do you think approves the use of nuclear weapons statement? GB's momma? No, Bush Jr. can only approve such an action. All this is just codeword if you gas us, we fry you.

  5. Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    I understand that, but its a matter of diplomacy and statemanship. Bush didn't give a press conference and then say he was going to nuke Iraq. Your title has Bush saying 'We will use Nukes!' - notice the parens and !

    That's what I was pointing to.

    D :D
  6. macrumors regular


    That was the funniest thing I've seen today. My sides hurt, I laughed so hard. Thank God for Photoshop.

  7. macrumors 68020


    I think this one...


    ...is quite funny myself :D
  8. macrumors 6502a


    Is anyone surprised by this. We have always used Nukes as a form of deterence, but what has happened now is we have set conditions for there use. Now there is no need for debate. This statement says, If you do this, we nuke you. If Saddam does this, I think the president will act with all out force. Our administration does not care about the people of Iraq, and the environmental consequences sound like voodoo to them. Remember, back in T4exas we got rid of the environment, and it made everyone a lot happier.
  9. macrumors 6502a


    Thank you MrMacman for posting that image. :eek: :D :eek: :D

    It's kind of creepy how dead on the imagery can be, funny, yet disturbing... Not that W and Condoleeza are having a fling or anything;)
  10. macrumors 601


    You know the only person that has posted anything with intellegence in this thread is Duke. You people just don't friggin get it do you. For the love of God, open your eye and see the stupidity of your statements.

    First peter, you are saying that Bush said that, and he did not. That is a strategy report, and they are issued to the executive branch of the government by no less than 10 different agencies in the government. Furthermore, what would you have us do if Saddam used a WMD against us, all hold hands and sing peace on earth? Lets see, you have a madman using chemical and biological weapons and you want us to send in more Americans so they can get toasted? Wait, where not supposed to be there. But wait, if he uses WMD's then is he not in violation of the UN resolutions? Would we not be justified in being there?

    Look, i don't like nukes anymore than the next Republican :), but you have to understand that nuclear retaliation is justified, and would be used.

    You don't have to have a slide ruler to figure that one out. For real, wake up and smell the roses people.
  11. macrumors 65816


    Real nice. The warmonger has spoken.

    So lets say we decide to use force against Iraq in the coming months or year. Subsequently, Iraq uses a chemical or biological weapon (mustard gas?? We know he has that and yet is not in violation of the UN doctrine.) on our troops (or allied troops).

    What do we do then? Admittedly, the action of using bio or chemical weapons is a VERY bad thing. But would that justify using nukes? Who would we nuke?? Would we drop one Baghdad to get Saddam? How many innocent people would that kill? How is that amount of collateral damage not considered terrorism?

    In other words, how can you justify ending millions of innocent people's lives as a consequence for a military action--no matter how horrible--against our troops. And especially when the military action against our troops was preceeded by a US military strike against Iraq. And ESPECIALLY if our action happened without the UN's approval. That has "warcrime" written all over it.

    I would argue that nuclear retaliation is NEVER justified and should never be used. Further, US action against Iraq is not justified. They pose no threat (from credible and public sources) to the US or its troops outside of the Mid-East as they have little to no means of delivery for any of their weapons to our soil. How are they our problem? I've been saying this from the beginning.

    And splitting hairs over who said what from the report is asinine. It is a policy approved and adopted by this administration, the head of whom is...Bush! Even if Bush didn't say it, he supports and endorses it. Period.

    Maybe YOU should open up your eyes and smell the roses of a more peaceful reality that are swaying silently below your olfactory senses. You hawks won't be happy until the world has bent to the US's will and serves our short-sighted and petty needs. I don't want to see a world in which that happens.

  12. macrumors 601


    would we use strategic nukes. No. Would we use tactical nukes. Yes. We do have justification to be there. Say they used VX gas, or something nice like Botulism? Would we then be justified to respond with overwhelming force? If we have go in and they use it then they had it. There is a threat because they are known to support terror against us and our allies.

    I love the smell of roses in the morning. They smell like a good debate with Taft ;)
  13. macrumors 68000


    I don't think Bush's statement really changed anything. WMD's include nukes, bio weapons, nerve gases, etc... The us wouldn't use nerve agents or biological weapons, so if we get hit with a WMD, we respond with one. Ours just happens to use uranium and plutonium and stuff like that instead of chemicals and viruses.

    You hit me in the face, I'll hit you in the face. You kick me in the nuts, I'll kick you in the nuts. You get a knife, I'll get a knife. You get a gun, I'll shoot first.
  14. macrumors 601


    mcrain you sound like a republican. ;)
  15. macrumors 68000


    Yeah. I'm a free thinker. I took that test about politics, and I came out right about where Ghandi was. Sure, I argue for a lot of social things, but I understand and respect opposing viewpoints, and often find that the arguments made by people I'd disagree with on other points are better than my own arguments.

    It is bothersome when someone absolutely believes everything they think is right without considering alternative viewpoints.

    I've listened to you talk about the military and national security, and I understand that while I think our current administration might be taking things a little too far, I don't necessarily disagree with everything they're doing.

    Oh, and when someone makes a bad argument, even on the side I agree with, I'll point it out. That's my job. Macrumors resident shark.
  16. macrumors P6


    President Bush is showing that he has balls, this will show the world and Saddam that he's serious.

    If the threat stops a conflagration, it will be well worth it.
  17. Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Ok, my original point on my first post was to point out that peter2002 was sensationalizing the security report by putting Bush's name and voice in it, something I personally hate.

    I don't think nukes would solve anything except make matters worse. Used as deterent (in this case I imagine) they are quite powerful, especially since Iraq and the rest of the world just *don't* know if Bush will say yes to a drop.

    This is playing out like a very high stakes poker game and we've just showed Iraq an Ace, but we haven't won or lost anything yet.

    Saddam is just sitting there worried, is he bluffing or not.


Share This Page