I can't help but sense irony and hypocracy.

http://news.yahoo.com/...;cat=us_armed_forces

Yeah, it seems pretty hypocritical, but the reason Iraq is being forced to get rid of it's weapons of mass destruction is because they were threatening innocent people with them. When they surrendered the Gulf War, it was part of their agreement to get rid of their weapons to stop being a threat to the world. If someone goes around running people over with their car, they might get their car taken away and end up being punished. That doesn't mean everyone gives up their cars.

Sean

Driving around in cars doesn't kill thousands :)

I hear ya. I just used it as an example. I often question what weapons the US has. The American people don't even know. I think if the tables were turned and the US was being forced to "confess" their weapons, they'd be pretty upset about it.

Can't we all just get along.

Sean

At the end of 1991 Gulf War, Iraq capitulated and accepted UN Resolution 687. Under those terms the international coalition ceased combat operations against Iraq.

The key element of 687 was that Iraq must give up all weapons of mass destruction (WMD). It was the defeated party, and those terms are what it agreed to. They were not optional.

The US again, as it did during the 1990/91 conflict, makes it perfectly clear to Iraqi commanders in the field that the use of WMD against allied forces or citizens will result in the harshest of reprisals.

Ironic, yes. Hypocritical - no.

...and furthermore, look why the permanent five members of the Security Council are who they are; the US, UK, France, China, and Russia.

Answer: They were the nuclear powers of the time.

It should also be noted that the two superpowers engaged in successive rounds of arms reductions through the 80s and 90s.

Those treaties continue with even further rounds of reduction being offered. That despite there being only one hyper power, and no superpower to fill the old Soviet void in any near term.

Have you read this.
http://www.sundayherald.com/27735

Bob

Actually you could read the entire document here:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/...AmericasDefenses.pdf

I love how Neil Mackay "uncovered" this secret document. Does that he mean he finally got around to reading it?

It's also 90 pages long. As it is a defense review, it mainly talks about capabilities the group believes must be central to the armed forces.



This is a particularly smarmy misquote. This refers to a military doctrine of the ability of the US armed forces to engage two theaters of conflict simultaneously, not a desire to do so. Yes that is viewed as a core mission by the think tank.

The full quote is as follows:

"LARGE WARS. Second, the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars and also to be able to respond to unanticipated contingencies in regions where it does not maintain forward-based forces. This resembles the "two-war" standard that has been the basis of U.S. force planning over the past decade. Yet this standard needs to be updated to account for new realities and potential new conflicts."

But I'm glad Neil Mackay is on the case, who knows what else he and the Sunday Herald might uncover next!

http://shadowy electromagnetic-burst weapons that can roast the innards of computers and radios.

Nice... Called EMP, it's been around for years...

---

Crapshoot70 (this isn't my real name)
--
I don't like anyone...but everyone LOVES me
--
AKA...The Post Pirate