[riri]

I did hear James Baker say that he did tell the Iraqi's this in a meetng preceding the start of the Gulf War. Then he was asked if he thought we would really resort to that. He sort of chuckled and said he didn't really know if that would be the response. Which, I think was an error. He should have held the line and said "Abslutely"-even if the answer was "I don't know"

My question is-would Saddam ultimately gain if we did "nuke" Baghdad? Ofcourse, the rest of the world would be up in arms. And we would be the only country to ever use nuclear weapons-twice. (Not saying I don't think that should be our response-just predicting world opinion)

[SerpentDove]

Hopefully, hotter heads will prevail.

[smith288]

Russia would be pee o'd and go after us. You know...Magog and all.

[RightWhale]

we would be the only country to ever use nuclear weapons-twice

There is much discussion of why we can have nukes and other heavy military equipment, and Russia and China, even France and India can have them, but Iraq cannot, especially considering that we are the only country to have ever used them.

I think we have to consider not the possession or use of them, but the circumstances. We haven't threatened our neighbors with these weapons. We won't use them in that way. neither will the other countries. But Iraq will.

Just as with a person having personal firearms, almost everyone is responsible in the possession of such weapons. But the isolated person who uses his firearms or other weapons in an aggressive manner will find the community moves to disarm him. Such is the case with Iraq.

[OldFriend]

Uh, about world opinion..........ptui

[stylin19a]

Actually, James Baker gave Iraq a lot to think about. This is from an interview with David Gergan:

JAMES BAKER: It was a calculated ambiguity on purpose, and what I actually said was, "If you use weapons of mass destruction against our forces, the American people will demand vengeance, and we have the means to exact it. That is not a threat, Minister, it is a promise."