I agree - this thread has gone from a half-informed report of some speculation among media types on CNN, to talking about assassinating the president and removing him from power because he’s insane.
You guys are just WAY over the top on this. Time to tone the rhetoric down a few notches.
Nothing. Speculative inference is the job of the PC police. Would you have Johnny wait until there’s a president you don’t approve of to ask his question ?
No, dear, that’s the Declaration of Independence.
And I think “by any means necessary” is derieved from a quote of Malcolm X in reference to self-defense. I don’t recall the phrase from the DoI, but it has been a few years since I last read it.
Perhaps you need a refresher. Please re-read both the Declaration and the Constitution at your convenience.
Let’s not forget that the goal is to remove Saddam from power, with minimum civilian life and structure damage necessary. The US is going to have to rebuild the cities destroyed anyway, so using nuclear weapons doesn’t make sense if we are not attacked with WMD’s first.
Once upon a time, there was a fact-driven forum called General Questions. Today it is known as IMHO, the Sequel.
I am only going to say this once in such a direct manner. Tough talk with the willingness to use such weapons works. Reagan brought down the soviet union with such talk “the bombing starts in 5 minutes”. This is the only talk oppressive rulers understand.
IIRC Bush said (basically), if Iraq uses NBC’s (Nuke, Bio, Chem) we will turn them 2000 degrees. This puts the burden on Iraq to fight ‘fairly’.
I think there is a possibility that you are thinking of the Declaration of Independence (it is too late for me to check for sure).
Teddy said it best “Speak softly and carry a big stick.”
Not so.
Whether Saddam will use CBN weapons on US troops is independent of whether the US will use them. Suppose Saddam does use them, this does not force any US actions whatsoever.
So Bush is probably just rattling his sabre. He knows Saddam watches CNN, and wants to send him a message.
As to the specific questions, this is what I gather: The American people have little or no power to remove a President who goes against their will. A President can be removed from office if the Vice President and majority of the cabinet ministers agree that the President is unable to properly perform his duties. A “war criminal” is only a war criminal if he’s on the losing side.
Wasn’t that a joke? He was goofing around and didn’t know the mic. was live?
Except his antecedent isn’t speaking softly.
quote from k2dave,
IIRC Bush said (basically), if Iraq uses NBC’s (Nuke, Bio, Chem) we will turn them 2000 degrees. This puts the burden on Iraq to fight ‘fairly’.
If Iraq has any NBCs/WMD a surefire way of getting Saddam to use them is to invade the country.
You’re probably right about the tough talk though
[Yosemite Sam]
I speak LOUD and carry a BIGGER stick!
[/Yosemite Sam]
Iraq could win, too. However, I was wondering what that meant?
That’s just silly…like we’re going to use weapons of mass destruction on a country that we are accusing of harboring the same.
Come to think of it, didn’t it come out that the military had drawn up a few nuclear first strike plans against Iraq the last time around? I seem to remember seeing an article that mentioned Normal Schwartzkopf alluding to a plan someone had written up for using a nuke to take out Iraqi communications with an electromagnetic pulse (Ok, maybe I’m confusing that with a plan called Light Switch in a Tom Clancey novel, which also was mentioned as an example of an idea kicked around that never happened). Does anyone else remember anything about plans for nuclear weapons in Desert Storm?
From what I understand (I’m a film/US History major with a minor in PoliSci), we discuss using nuclear arms as a further method of detouring other nations (in this case Iraq) from considering using nukes. There are two reasons I’ve learned for a nation to announce it has nukes. One is as a detourent (so no one else farks with them, lest they get The Bomb™), reason #2 is so that they get aid money from various countries/organizations (::coughcough::US and UN::coughcough). The only reason someone would likely hide a nuke is incase they plan to use it.
Now I doubt we (the United States) would use a nuclear device (sounds so much nicer than nuclear bomb) as a first strike, but we haven’t ruled it out. American precident for dealing with nukes is to never rule out using them, and always keep the concept of a pre-emptive first strike alive. If we honestly found a credible reason, like the Cuban Missile Crisis, we would Strike First (infact I’m pretty sure Kennedy said he’d nuke Cuba, and didn’t Ike threaten to nuke China and North Korea during the Korean war?).
Now personally I believe what Dubya’s doing is playing up the cowboy image that’s been drawn for him. Much like Reagan pretended to be a senile old man to lower people’s expetations of him I believe Dubya is playing up the rowdy cowboy image so people realize he’s serious about this. While I seriously doubt he’d Dr. Strangelove Iraq back to the Bronze Age, I do know that he (Bush) is faaar more aware of the media image of him that he lets on. So why not, if the media’s portraying him as a gung-ho cowboy…why not play up the part? Especially if it helps his clout, as people fear the “reckless cowboy Bush” or something similar.
And for whoever said it…about Reagan not knowing the microphone was live when he said “I have signed a bill outlawing Russia forever. The bombing will begin in five minutes”, supposedly that wasn’t the first time our 40th President said something along those lines. Reagan liked to mess with the press, again playing up an image they created of him, so he had some fun. See kids, isn’t American History great? 
There IS a constitutional, legal alternative for congress to follow. However, it’s just about as extreme as impeachment, and probably less likely.
Generically, it’s called “the power of the purse”. Congress can cut off all money toward funding the military in particular endeavors. The problem is, all the nuclear toys are already purchased, and there are plenty of them already moved into close proximity (presumably in naval carriers’ weapons lockers).
Bush could probably nuke Iraq without expending an additional penny.
So the only way I can see the power of the purse applying is if Congress essentially defunds all military personnel with the access or ability to deliver the weapons.
And they would impeach Bush before doing this, and nobody’s talking about impeachment.
Source: http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030131-27320419.htm
Well, potential use of nuclear weapons against Iraq, including any other potential enemy, is now on the table.