Congressman: “Nuke Syria”

Look I really don't want to get into a fight over the legitimacy of nuclear weapons, I have stated my points and you have stated yours, I respect them. I am not in a fighting mood atm

[edit on 2-3-2005 by drfunk]

Ditto to that.
#adds line to avoid fine#

Originally posted by CazMedia
Vagabong

Is that a typo or an accusation?

the 3rd possibillity is that most of the intelligence gathered before the war pointed to nations believing the WMD threat was legit and took actions based on their unanimous UN resolution pretty much saying there was.
Once there we discovered the truth that Saddam was hiding all along but couldnt lose face for saying he DIDNT have any WMD's.
The weapons were either not there or have been moved to syria or other places.

Let me clarify what I said because I get the feeling that something isn't quite translating right.
The weapons were not in Iraq when we got there, that's a fact. There are two possibilities: 1. They hadn't been there for a while because Saddam had disarmed. 2. They were moved somewhere.
Sounds simple right. It's there or its not there. If its not there, then it either doesn't exist anymore or it went somewhere else.
I'm not claiming that that America went in knowing there were no WMDs. I was alluding to the common claim that we saw vehicle activity around storage sites, and thought weapons were being deployed when they were actually being evactuated, hence we would have discovered the minute we got there that the weapons were gone.

Now a congressman is claiming that the weapons are in Syria. Now we either have evidence of this or we don't. If we have evidence, there is a possibility (in my assessment a strong one) that we covered that evidence up before the election to quell the idea that another war could be coming soon. If we don't have evidence, he's basically talking out of his butt.

You'll be hard pressed to stick this to me as some sort of partisan blame game (especially after I pointed out that congressional democrats had bit their tongues about any intel on the matter that may exist too.). It's pretty clear that either Johnson is full of crap, or information has been mishandled in one or several of a few possible ways by our government, most likely for political reasons.

Syria can and has made plenty of trouble for itself, it wont take much from the USA to need to show to expose their support of terrorism.

Here comes the bait and switch. I thought we were talking about WMD.

Another mad Neo-Con that should do community service in Northern Ossetia.

well Dr.Funk, i have compassion for the victims, not for the killers, and in the case of nukes, we are all victims.
I think its pretty obvious my words come from the fact i am worried when people mention nukes like they were "just a bit stronger bombs". Theyre gonna turn the damned planet into a gas cloud, which i wouldnt feel comfortable living in.

well i dont belive in nuking anyone but i feel that our politians feel like they should make a bold statement as they did in wwll before we lose our superpower satus.

there is no a-bomb/h-bomb really used after ww2 well I think people don;t really get its effects anymore using it on syria or iran may well stop terrorist because then they see the effects and then we can get a cold war not real war for years.

I like to say the effect of scaring of enemies can only be sustained if they use it once in a couple of decades other wise the effect is gone people don't know what it does any more.

but to syria and iran they are better of using russian weapons which are used in that area for assasination of the leaders. sniper them to hell.

For all of those inclined to condem nukes because of environmental concerns....lets play,
NUCLEAR TRIVIA!

From 1948 to 1998, how many nuclear weapons have been detonated on the planet?
Answer: 2050...over 500 of these were atmospheric tests.
Well there must be tons of fallout pollution eh? where is it?
These facts are from www.brook.edu/fp/projects/nucwcost/tests.htmThere is a nifty chart that breaks down these nuke blast tests by country, and as you can guess the USA and the USSR lead the pack.

With over 500 nukes detonated at the surface or in the atmosphere (yes we've blown off a nuke in space) you'd think that this whole world would have mutants running around from all the radiation eh?


The use of a nuke is certantly a WMD that is indiscriminant in its lethality, and does cause localized environmental damage at the target area...including the spread of fallout into nearby areas...yet it seems that the effects are not as bad as many believe.
with an average 10 surface blasts a year for the past 5 decades...it seems the global environment is able to withstand this level of nuking.

SO, the use of a few tacticle nukes wont destroy the region or the world, only the local target. Yes some fallout will occur but so far +2000 blasts havnt tainted the globe yet.

Blobby questions nukes and diplomacy,

its like they are warning them in somany ways but not dam right out politicaly saying mess with us we nuke you to cinders, which i think they cant really say as its not very diplomatic is it??

Well, im not for making threats with nukes by waving them around diplomatically....i DO support a position where the USA states we would not use these weapons except as a deterrant or in a specific circumstance. The fact that this country spends billions on these weapons makes all that $$$ a waste if diplomatically we then say...were never going to use them. Just by saying, we reserve the right to use them means we are getting some of the value of having these weapons.
Remeber that war or use of a millitary action is the direct end result of diplomacy...diplomacy only works if there is some kind of downside for not complying to whatever diplomatic agreement you work out. Otherwise how do you enforce diplomatic agreements? War/Conflict is the end threat used in diplomacy. Diplomacy gets its barganing power thru the use of negative reinforcment as well as mutual agreement.

Dr Funk claims despite the previous definition and look at what was said in this case,

The intentional use of WMD's against a small nation like Syria which IS a national group would be genocide.

No it wouldnt, as by definition the user of a WMD would have to have a stated goal to erase all people of one persuasion. If the USA only used ONE or even TWO nukes against targets in Syria, which included "innocent" people within the blast range...this would be a use of a WMD, not genocide....
IF the use used multiple nukes and vaporized ALL targets in Syria, that would be genocide....
IF the USA stated as policy, we wont stop using conventional bombs untill all Syrians were dead...that would be genocide

The question of "innocence" is vauge...if you are not a member of the army, but you sew clothes, make food, supply medical aid, work in fuel depot, or do ANYTHING that provies support to your army, how innocent are you? Just because you didnt fire a bullet doenst mean your not contributing to the war effort.

The other basic point which most people find offensive is a millitary one....
As much as we'd like to take the high road and not cause non combatant deaths, part of defeating your enemy includes BREAKING THEIR WILL TO FIGHT. Knowing that if your army continues to resist that your enemy WILL nuke a place where "innocents" will also die is a VERY demoralizing idea to face....knowing that the cost of your governments actions will result in mass casualties for your people is not easy to stare down.
nuke Deterrance relies on the fact that someone's finger IS on the bombs trigger now. Taking your finger off the nuke trigger eliminates the threat, and only empowers your adversary.

DrFunk pleads with the wrong people,

Millions would die, without justice, regardless of whether they are innocent or not, men, women and children just because they are of Syrian descent and they reside in Syria.

THATS RIGHT! Thats exactly what im talking about....Syria, its leaders and its armed forces need to understand that THEY will decide if this happens to them based upon their actions. This wont happen just because they are Syrians...who cares WHO my enemy is...if your threatening this nation, our allies, regional stabillity, dealing with terrorists, or doing something thats going to arouse the millitary attentions of other nations, you need to be very aware that you could be picking a fight you will lose. Do i WANT to nuke you no, but dont think i wont if you give us the reason to.

DrFunk levels the play field here,

You American's may want to justify the use of nuclear weapons with differing opinions on definitions and by saying "they say death to america so it's okay for us to say death to islam" but by doing this you are just making yourself just as bad as those who call for your own death.

Isnt this just a fancy way of saying we're no better than they are as humans go? Im fine to admit that. We Americans arent really that different of better than Syrians, we just have more options and influence than they do. Trying to take the high road and showing restraint is just artificial ways to say, were better than you.

DrFunk loses his cool for a good reason,

I am sick of whingers on this board "islam is nothing but a religion of hate and evil" and post links to junk like free republic and other hatemonging websites that justify your pitiful hatred.

Now there are people that expouse hatred, but some of us just say, we have enemies that need to be dealt with.
BUT,
Dr Funk continues,

You do not reach out to your islamic brothers in tolerance and forgiveness of their sins but you all are the cheersquad to support the use of military force against muslim nations. You call for the reaching of the gun to combat their hatred instead of reaching for tolerance, brotherhood and understanding and constructing a better world for all our children.

Lets be clear on a few key things here.....
Tolerance implies that there are things that are intolerable.some point, we as a nation have to put our foot down and declare the things that are intolerable and then DO SOMETHING to ensure it doenst continue.
Tolorence has limits.
Who called for reaching for the gun first? Hasnt America been being threatened by islamic extremist for over 25 years now?
When was time up on turning the other cheek? I think 9-11 was the answer. Just look at the changing mid east now...iraq with elections, Lebanon protesting for more freedom, libya giving up its wmd program...it would seem that continuing the same do nothing policy in the mid east wasnt working and since the war things are changing. This is because millitary force was applied where previously it wasnt.

This whole "feel empathy for your victim" thing is too nice nice....it assumes that we arent already being made victims ourselves. We are victims of over 30 yrs of muslim extremist!! As a victim, Im not going to empathize much with those that are causing me to be a victim. Im going to look for ways to not allow myself to continue to be victimized.

Cazmedia you make me laugh. You know that it's a fact that nuclear testing stopped happening in the atmosphere and above ground in the US because of the potential effects of fallout on the population and the increasing availability of public knowledge on the effects of nuclear weapons. That's why we moved to underground testing and underwater testing, because it's much safer for the human population.

Why don't you go tell the people of Bikini Atoll how safe and environmentally friendly nuclear weapons tests were there?? Or how about the former residents of Chernobyl how safe it is to live there after the incident with the nuclear plant there.

"The population of islanders on Bikini slowly increased over the years until in June of 1975, during regular monitoring of Bikini, radiological tests discovered "higher levels of radioactivity than originally thought." U.S. Department of Interior officials stated that "Bikini appears to be hotter or questionable as to safety" and an additional report pointed out that some water wells on Bikini Island were also too contaminated with radioactivity for drinking. A couple of months later the AEC, on review of the scientists' data, decided that the local foods grown on Bikini Island, i.e., pandanus, breadfruit and coconut crabs, were also too radioactive for human consumption. Medical tests of urine samples from the 100 people living on Bikini detected the presence of low levels of plutonium 239 and 240. Robert Conard of Brookhaven Laboratories commented that these readings "are probably not radiologically significant.

In October of 1975, after contemplating these new, terrifying and confusing reports on the radiological condition of their atoll, the Bikinians filed a lawsuit in U.S. federal court demanding that a complete scientific survey of Bikini and the northern Marshalls be conducted. The lawsuit stated that the U.S. had used highly sophisticated and technical radiation detection equipment at Enewetak Atoll, but had refused to employ it at Bikini. The result of the lawsuit was to convince the U.S. to agree to conduct an aerial radiological survey of the northern Marshalls in December of 1975. Unfortunately, more than three years of bureaucratic squabbles between the U.S. Departments of State, Interior and Energy over costs and responsibility for the survey, delayed any action on its implementation. The Bikinians, unaware of the severity of the radiological danger, remained on their contaminated islands.

While waiting for the radiological survey to be conducted, further discoveries of these radiological dangers were made. In May of 1977 the level of radioactive strontium-90 in the well water on Bikini Island was found to exceed the U.S. maximum allowed limits. A month later a Department of Energy study stated that "All living patterns involving Bikini Island exceed Federal [radiation] guidelines for thirty year population doses." Later in the same year, a group of U.S. scientists, while on Bikini, recorded an 11-fold increase in the cesium-137 body burdens of the more than 100 people residing on the island. Alarmed by these numbers, the DOE told the people living on Bikini to eat only one coconut per day and began to ship in food for consumption."

Keep trying to paint nuclear weapons as "conventional weapons with a bit more blast" but that's not true. Nuclear weapons hurt the environment greatly, in a variety of effects from local to regional. Nuclear tests have only been done in a few sites, they are not equally spread out across the world. If you did open and atmospheric tests with ALL of those weapons at random points all around the world you would feel the environmental effects no worries.

"Wherever nuclear weapons testing has occurred for whatever reasons there have been environmental problems. Radioactivity has leaked into the environment from underground nuclear tests, large areas of land are uninhabitable as a result of atmospheric and underground nuclear testing, and indigenous people, their children and their children's children's health and livelihoods have been affected by nuclear weapons tests." - from greenpeace. I could dig up even more countless pages of information and pictures and sources and a few lawsuits to why and how nuclear weapons are so dangerous to the environment.

Oh I agree, the use of one or two nuclear weapon wouldn't be genocide if used properly and depending on yield it only depends on the location one would use these nuclear weapons and look at population densities and atmospheric currents and other environmental effects. But I thought he called for the 'nuking of Syria to smithereens' and was engaged in dialogue when he said 'let off one or two in an f-15 etc' at a group of supposed christians.

What I call for is common sense over the blindness that is caused by hatred and ignorance. What about all the anti-Syrian rhetoric spewing from christians mouths and from the mouths of the American right?? The only way this is going to stop is if we stop hating eachother and one side says "this is enough" and we try and work something out. This may seem only like idealism to you, but thats where the greatest changes start, is in ideas.

Who sided with the state of Israel? who sided with dictatorships like the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?? The United States of America! they didn't attack America for no reason, but it is a direct buildup of American foreign policy and interference in a region they declare holy. Who gave the weapons and traning and funding to the Jihad against communism in Afghanistan? the United States!

There are two sides to the story Cazmedia I really wish you could see this. You yourself feel your hands are clean and innocent because you have done nothing to these people, never met them, but it is what has been done in your name and how do you think the average syrian on the street feels? he would also wonder what he has done to deserve a barrage of nuclear weapons from America.

You are a victim of Islamic Extremism as they are as much of a victim of American Hegemony and American self-serving interests in the Middle East for the past 50 years.

Anyways I have had enough of this topic there's no convincing some of you god may be our judge's in the end. I'm not looking for a fight atm and I understand and respect your opinions, I just hope you can at least see where I am coming from.

thanks,
drfunk

[edit on 3-3-2005 by drfunk]

i say nuke, nuke, nuke. we have proof the terrorists, majority of insugents are dwelling in syria..LETS GET THEM.

DrFunk laughs at me here,

You know that it's a fact that nuclear testing stopped happening in the atmosphere and above ground in the US because of the potential effects of fallout on the population and the increasing availability of public knowledge on the effects of nuclear weapons.

Sure this is much of the reason we changed testing methods, but not the sole reason, nor was it done because of TANGIBLE effects but because of POTENTIAL effects....meaning while i agree environmentally nukes are polluters, we took preventative measures to reduce the POSSIBILLITY, not the actual occurance of problems associated with nuke testing.

Chernobyl is a very different kind of radioactive issue than one from a weapon detonation, similar, but not the same.

Ill agree with your cute little greenpeace cut and paste too, and use it as a reason humans shouldnt be living on a nuclear weapons test range like bikini atoll....DUH! No duh they are experiancing problems from this, they are living in the rad zone.

Again i do not say the USA should use nuke strikes in any but the last resort..
but,
since we've paid thru the nose for this power, we shouldnt just let it sit idle, meaning we should NEVER take that option off the diplomatic table.

political suicide.
I dont think any government rep. should openly state that another nation should be "nuked".

Originally posted by Veltro

Originally posted by jsobecky
For those crying foul, what do you say about bin Laden's supposed order to Zarqawi to hit targets inside the US? Do all the sanctions you are in favor of for Johnson apply to UBL also? A simple yes or no will do.

Err...last time I checked, Osama Bin Laden wasn't an elected U.S. Congressman so your argument is slightly off.

Makes no difference how he earns his bread. Tell me that if he got hold of a nuke that he wouldn't use it on us. Big difference is, we're here in the US where anyone can openly say what Johnson said, even if he knows it's political suicide.