60% of Americans Support Nuking Iraq

[aaglo]

Would the americans nuke Iraqi troops or Iraqi cities?

[monkspider]

Sig worthy material Keppy.
You're absolutely right of course. It's a wonder we have managed to maintain the stranglehold on the world as long as we have. We have been going against the grain, bombing whatever countries that don't agree with us, and forcing our will on all, by whatever means necessary. And now there are those who wonder what the noble and phianthropic United States has done to deserve such troubles as we have recently encountered?
All great empires eventually collapse once their decadence reaches a critical mass. We, as a country, live only for ourselves. We are indifferent to the troubles of others. We live in an intense materialism absolutely unmatched by any country in history. We are warmongering and murderous. We plunder various poor countries for whatever is not tied down, and we rape the environment for all it's worth. The most basic laws of karma dictate that we have great deal of retribution headed our way. The only way we can stop this is by encouraging and practising peace, and learning to care for the plight of our fellow man.

[Spiffor]

Monkspider :
While I strongly dislike America for its imperialism (not to be confused with Americans, who seem to be mostly good people), it is probably the 'best' superpower the world ever knew, and probably will know. Sure, the US are imperialistic, egoistic, warmongering and murederous, but all superpowers were or will be so. I think however the US are slightly more considerate than the average superpower would be. With the available technology, any superpower could have done true genocides by dozens in the latest years (by 'true genocide', I mean the deliberate attempt to terminate a whole population, not bombing several hundreds of civilians in order to terrorize an enemy). The US didn't for now.

However, I agree the Bush administration shows even more greed and stupidity than previous administrations. If the absurd warmong promoted by the Hawks continue, the US superpowerness will collapse in a very few decades. Since the US will be completely corrupt and decadent by this time, it will be good news.

[Barley]

aaglo & monkspider are spot on.

Im not anti American but there is clearly a problem with the bully boy, self interest and unilateral position the USA seems to continue to take. I remember watching the TV news programs after 9/11 and Americans were starting to ask themselves why so many of the people of this world hate them? There is even much resentment here in the UK and we are perhaps your closest allie.

These questions seem to have drifted out of the 'ball park' and whatever you achieve with the wart on terrorism / war on Irag you are not addressing the courses of this hatred and it is inevitable that sometime in the near future it wont be planes crashing into buildings but a nuke in LA or NY.

Take a step back and try and realise you are a fortunate country and have no mandate for policing this planet and dictating your ideals/self interest to the rest of the world, then you might get some respect from people of other cultures if you support them instead of draing the blood then chucking away the carcase.

Nuf said.

[MrWhereItsAt]

How much do you ( Americans, most often) know about Iraq? How much do you (Iraqis, if there are any here) really know about the US? How many from "the other side" do you know at all? I just wish that every country and every person was as cosmopolitan as me and my country. We aren't the ideal nation, and we haven't a perfect record re human rights, but we figured it out soon enough.

Could you really support killing thousands of people in the way this thread suggests? If so I hope you are prepared to die yourself for whatever cause you say you'd die for. And if you are, I hope you have sought psychological counselling, because dying for an idea, wasting your potential, is a helluvan idea. Be careful, because for every one of you that thinks this way, there is another that thinks the same way about YOU and your country. If you ARE prepared, I pity you. Dying for a cause is the worst way I can think of to die. Make yourself count by proving you are YOU, an individual. Sure you are an Iraqi, an American, an Aussie, an Israeli, a Brazilian, a Spaniard, a Kenyan, a Muslim, a Christian or whatever, but so effing what? Does this say you dictate the way that other cultures live their lives? I bloody hope not.

Why is your perspective any greater than that of countless others on the "other side"? Just think on my words carefully here. Do you have any greater need to live than they do? What makes you so special?

I should really put this in my sig: let's just get on with it. Iraq is not a problem: the leadership may be, but what does nuking Iraq do? Kill the leader? Hell no. It reduces the military capacity of a country, if you're lucky. Otherwise all it does is kill. What? All it does is KILL. WHAT?! You heard me.

I sincerely hope I'm "preaching to the converted" here, because it seems so obvious: don't nuke; if there's one person responsible for any aggression from Iraq, it's the leader. Do we penalise everyone because of the leadership of one man? You damn skippy we don't!

Just keep that in mind. Saddam is one thing, Iraq and Iraqis are another.

[lightblue]

I don't chemical weapons would warrant a nuclear response. A biological attack might be different, depending on what kind it is. Imagine Saddam using weaponised, infectious smallpox in a medium range ballistic missile and send it crashing into Tel Aviv or Ankara. The casualty rate could be as least as high as if he'd use a medium size nuclear warhead, and unless immediate quarantine of the area is arranged could spread like wildfire all over the world seeing as hardly anyone is protected anymore.

In that case if i were Sharon I would retaliate with full force against Iraq, and i expect the US would let him do it.

[Combat Ingrid]

"You killed my innocent civilians, now I have the right to kill yours"

[aahz_capone]

I agree with MrWhereItsAt, and not only because he has a cool avatar.

but really, 60%, so what? 60% of Americans are obese so that tells you a lot.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

I should go of and live in a desolate village in Croatian mountains... 60% of Americans are even more crazy than I thought onew can be ... a few percent ok... you get crazy people everywhere, but 60%.

[Arrian]

That 60% figure wasn't the only info in the articles Dan posted. It was a loaded question: if they gas our troops, should we nuke 'em? True, that 60% answered yes is still disturbing.

But the new survey also found that 58 percent of those interviewed would like to see President Bush present more evidence explaining why the United States should use military force to topple the Iraqi leader, up from 50 percent in September. And while most Americans view Iraq as a major threat, fewer than half said it poses an immediate danger to this country.

That finding and others suggest that Bush may be moving faster toward war than the public would prefer. At the time Americans are becoming more certain that war will break out, the survey found they also are growing more wary of the president and his motives for pressing to move quickly with military force against Iraq.

More than half -- 54 percent -- feared that Bush will act too quickly to use force, while 40 percent worried that he won't move quickly enough. And an even larger majority -- 58 percent -- opposed taking military action against Iraq without the support of the United Nations.

---------------------

12/15/02 - Summary Table (NET ALL RESPONDENTS)

Favor Oppose No opinion
a. Having U.S. forces take military
action against Iraq, even if U.S.
allies oppose such action 42 52 6

b. Having U.S. forces take military
action against Iraq, even if the
United Nations opposes such action 37 58 5

c. A major U.S. bombing campaign
against Iraqi military targets 50 45 5

d. A U.S. invasion of Iraq with
ground troops 45 50 5

e. (IF FAVOR INVASION) A U.S. invasion
of Iraq with ground troops, even if
it means a significant number of U.S.
military casualties 30 63 6

Those were taken from both links Dan offered.

But those figures don't matter, do they? Nawww, let's just label Americans as bloodthirsty savages instead.

-Arrian

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Blood thirsty savages?

Well the poll shows. Look at it just two that are the furthest from the middle ground, if it means a significant number of US casualties- 30 % for and -63% opposed-. If they use WOMD against your troops not WOMD agains NY city or other civilians (hey they are defending after all) nuke them. 60% for and 37% against.

What do you get from the two together.

That americans not only -don't care about- huge amount of civilians killed NO MATER HOW - nuke them hey, they can't nuke us back as the USSR could. But as well, if there will be a significant amount of your SOLDIERS lost - we shouldn't get involved.

So is Iraq trully a threat to them if they don't want to sacrifice soldier lives in order to get rid of the threat? NO. - that is ~ 60%

If it means that -their- invading soldiers are killed in mass number - well nuke the basterds. again 60%, not because they are a theat to you but they were simply defending, anyway they could from, your invasion.


Let's see: What does it show you - 60% of Americans have simply no regard for lives of other civilians (other than their own) whatsoever.

Now if that is not disturbing show of arrogance I have no idea what is.

For the rest of the questions one that should be morally clear like

b. Having U.S. forces take military
action against Iraq, even if the
United Nations opposes such action 37 58 5

still 37% of that poll shows disregard to anyone else (well are you the strongest or not? - mentality). That should be disturbing as well, as that number should be in single digits for any civilized nation. (hoping for a longer peace in the world, and maybe we can get along at least with our allies) Of coure these guys know as "we can beat anyone by force" it is either our way or no way, not a long term peace perspective you have to admit.

Barbaric - not really- more like - modern egocentric brainwashed consumers.

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by Arrian
That 60% figure wasn't the only info in the articles Dan posted. It was a loaded question: if they gas our troops, should we nuke 'em? True, that 60% answered yes is still disturbing

How true, what were the other 40% thinking.....

As for responding with chemical weapons, we don't have any (or at least we CLAIM that we do not) since we signed the treaty with the USSR in 1972. Same for biological weapons, so our ONLY alternative is a nuke. Admittedly these would most likely be WD-80 warheads from cruise missles (a 'tactical" warhead) not an ICBM. While less destructive than an ICBM, they are far more powerful than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs dropped in 1945.

So the question is if our troops are attacked by WMD's we will

a) nuke them
b) do nothing

Hell of a decision ain't it?

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by DanS
...if Iraq uses chemical or biological weapons against our troops.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Dec17.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...data121802.htm

OUR WORDS ARE BACKED WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!

Oh well. Note the if part.

[lightblue]

Well the other option would be to use conventional weaponry, like they are most likely to do in any case. Using nukes of any kind would result in a severe frosting of relations with China and Russia, as well as the surrounding countries who might have to contend with fallout.

I do not believe that the US would use nuclear weaponry in a first strike attack, even if as a response to using other kinds of WMD. Israel is a different story though. If Iraq attacks Israel with WMD, SHaron will use all means at his disposal and that includes nuclear weapons.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber


How true, what were the other 40% thinking.....

As for responding with chemical weapons, we don't have any (or at least we CLAIM that we do not) since we signed the treaty with the USSR in 1972. Same for biological weapons, so our ONLY alternative is a nuke. Admittedly these would most likely be WD-80 warheads from cruise missles (a 'tactical" warhead) not an ICBM. While less destructive than an ICBM, they are far more powerful than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs dropped in 1945.

So the question is if our troops are attacked by WMD's we will

a) nuke them
b) do nothing

Hell of a decision ain't it?

You should win within a week, so you should hold back and then try all the leaders for war crimes( and I mean all of them, don't let some go like happened in Japan)

[SlowwHand]

You mean, don't let Iraq happen all over again, Stinger.

[TheStinger]

I was actually talking about what should happen if Iraq uesd WMD's.

It won't be like last time anyway as if there is a war it will be specifiacly to get Saddam.

Of course we wouldn't have this problem if we had got him last time

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber


How true, what were the other 40% thinking.....

As for responding with chemical weapons, we don't have any (or at least we CLAIM that we do not) since we signed the treaty with the USSR in 1972. Same for biological weapons, so our ONLY alternative is a nuke. Admittedly these would most likely be WD-80 warheads from cruise missles (a 'tactical" warhead) not an ICBM. While less destructive than an ICBM, they are far more powerful than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs dropped in 1945.

So the question is if our troops are attacked by WMD's we will

a) nuke them
b) do nothing

Hell of a decision ain't it?

Well who do you nuke?

The ground troops or the city if it is war in the city for example?
b) do noting - that means defeat them using conventional means - shouldn't be to hard for you, or is 1000 of your soldiers worth 100 000 Iraqi civilians, sounds like Nazi tactics to me.

[SlowwHand]

You guys.
I'll kiss your collective asses if the U.S. nukes Iraq.
Get a grip.

[TheStinger]

I don't think they will either, I was just responding to the thread.

[SlowwHand]

I didn't mean you, Stinger.
You're not prone to wild-eyed panic.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

I hope that you are right Sloww... but I mean how can people defend those tactics? And isn't it at least disturbing that majority of US population is ready to support it?

Now there is something to think about...

[SlowwHand]

Nuking Iraq is the epitome of a "dollar chasing a dime".

[Guynemer]

Folks, I (gasp) agree with Sloww here. No way in hell are we going to nuke Iraq, whether or not they use bio/chem weapons.

However, I think Sloww missed the bigger point on the thread, one I also agree with--it is disturbing and abhorrent that 60% of the public would favor using nukes in such a situation. It does not paint a pretty picture of Americans.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I didn't mean you, Stinger.
You're not prone to wild-eyed panic.

You should watch an old UK sitcom called Dads Army, it had a character called coroproal Jones who shouted Don't Panic at evreything. He also had the very un PC phrase abiyt the fuxxy wuzzies not liking it up em(he is talking about bayonets)

[SlowwHand]

I'm not a big believer in statistics, is why.
Statistics can be made to reflect any point you want them to make.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I'm not a big believer in statistics, is why.
Statistics can be made to reflect any point you want them to make.

And I agree with you, however this is not scientific to believe

this at least tries to show the "american" opinion.... now if Saddam has made the poll the results would be understandable. Ok... he would probaly have 100% of Americans want to nuke Baghdad.

[TheStinger]

100% of Iraqi dictators with mustaches would say they didn't think the US should nuke Iraq(at least not whilst he is there)

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I find this poll dubious as well. If WMD were used on American soil against American cities and civilians this poll may be valid, but I seriously doubt the stastics implied here as well.

[aahz_capone]

Why should we care that the public think nuking cities is a good strategic move if they gas (prepared) troops? The average American has little or no grasp of militray or diplomatic affairs.

"Nor should we listen to those who say "The voice of the poeple is the voice of God," for the turbulance of the mob is always close to insanity" - Alcuin