So does this argument work both ways? (read details)?

Rek T

Actually the secnario would work like this.
We bomb Iraqs main harbor taking out it's Naval capability.
Iraq responds by declaring war on us and attacking Britian as it is are main ally.
Iraq fights a 2 sided war for at least 6-10 years, with losses in the hundreds of thousands. Then to gain a tactical advantage Iraq attacks Guam, Hawaii, and Alaska. After several months of fighting they have losses in this area upwards of the 20-30 thousand range. America has losses in the 40-100 thousand range. As Iraq gets closer to Attacking Mainland America president Bush arms every American citzen and orders them to fight to the death. Iraq is almost finished attacking Britan but has sacrificed 100's of thousands of lives. It also realizes that it will split Britan with Iran who will eventually force them out and declare it a muslim country. Iraq wants America and Britain to remain free so it most keep Iran from attacking America with it. So it unleashes a horribly devstating weapon and kills 200,000 thousand people in Topeka Kansas. Nevermind that nearly 500,000 are burning to death from the extensive carpet bombing in New York. After 3 days Iraq sends a plane to drop another weapon and bombs Syracuse New York. America surrenders. Iraq sends the nearly 500,00 thousand troops it had ten miles off the coast home. Saving lives. After 10 years America becomes an industrial super power, 50 years it is a Super power with Iraq as it's strongest ally.

beardog4314

No, the politics have changed since WWII. Back then, we had the only atomic bomb. Now, everybody's got one, so setting off a nuke against a nuclear power leaves you open to retaliation. I'll bet Iraq would have looked really pretty as the new Glass Sea, in your scenario.

spelling nazi

I'm eating a calzone with green olives and ham for lunch and it is heavenly!!!!!!

john_galt0

Your scenario does not hold water.

The United States did not lose a war to Iraq and then sign a treaty agreeing to certain terms which the US then violated repeatedly.
The United States was not warned by the UN on 14 different occassions to stand down on weapons development.
The United States did not throw out UN weapons inspectors.
The United States did not repeatedly try to shoot down Iraq jets going about their legal business in the no-fly zones.
Iraq (in your scenario) attacked civilians and not the command structure of the US.

So as I said, your scenario does not hold water.

Wayne G

Great question. Leaving out all the facts about not following the terms of his surrender in the first Gulf War (which is a lot of facts), but nevertheless, putting that aside, the answer would clearly be a subjective one.

Being that every country works by the same thought process and we are all equal in that regard, not only are we not wrong in doing it, but our government has the moral responsibility to do it to protect us. Just as their government should protect them. Thank God we got the better weapons and intelligence and capabilities. Unfortunately, the world has been like this since the beginning of time.

floatingbloatedcorpse

This would have made the Iraq War far easier to execute for the US.

Edit to add:

To answer your question, yes, Saddam's hypothetical nuking of the US would be justifiable and the US would be at fault for not perceiving this threat and not enacting countermeasures to prevent its occurrence.

h h

You Stated "so, do you still think the reasons are logical?"
--------------------------------------...

No they are not logical due to the fact that your premises are not true, therefore your argument is not valid or sound.

I could explain it to you but you know why your premises are not true. An argument is valid when the conclusion cannot be false when the premises are true.

An argument cannot be sound unless it is first valid.

Your premises are not true therefore your argument cannot be valid first and foremost, and definitely cannot be sound.

You wanted logical scrutiny there you have it, your logic is flawed, invalid, untrue, and unsound.
--------------------------------------...
You asked "Imagine this scenario: shortly after the American led invasion of Iraq Saddam and his government were able to detonate a nuke in a major American city killing more than 100,000 people. Would the following facts in this scenario be convincing to you that this was a justifiable action by the Iraqi government? Why or why not?"

My Answer: Is the major American city being attacked for its military value or simply to kill civilians? I would not consider this a justifiable action on behalf of the Iraqi forces, why not detonate a nuclear device against the invading enemy?

This scenario is all based on premises that are not true.

This so called "comparative analysis" looks suspiciously like political rhetoric based on an agenda that is not based in logical reasoning. You may attempt to hide behind it but those who us who know better can pick you out of the crowd very easily.
--------------------------------------...
You asked "Does this sound like familiar rhetoric used to defend any of America's actions during wartime in the past?"

My Answer: Yes it most certainly does sound like the familiar rhetoric used to defend America's actions in wartime. YOU HAVE ENGINEERED A LOGICALLY FALSE ARGUEMENT SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT PURPOSE.
--------------------------------------...
You stated "this is not "my" logic. this is the justifications of OTHERS applied to a different scenario

this is easy to understand, no?"

My Answer: Yes I can understand, however you donâ€™t seem to understand that this is your logic since you are making an argument. Your argument however is invalid and unsound because it is based on untrue premises.

Hypothetical situations are good for Hollywood, not logic.

Your analogy of "familiar rhetoric" implies deception, ulterior motives, or maybe the fiendish plot of Dr. Fu Man Chu or something I donâ€™t know. However in the real world, your logical analysis simply is not the case.

Had you used true premises to make your argument then maybe it would be valid. It is not valid to me, therefore it is unsound.
--------------------------------------...
You stated "h.h. i see you removed your question "if my aunt had balls, would that make her my uncle"

good call. that makes you look childish."

My answer: My sense of humor often overpowers my academic side. Apologies..
--------------------------------------...
You stated "ok hh i see where you stand. so i guess the civilian targets that America has bombed in the past (Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki) ALL had "military and tactical" value, thereby not making them "terrorist" action. i disagree, and if you want to talk about *illogical* and untrue, then THATS a good one for you right there"

My Answer: Thats exactly why those targets were attacked. You really need to research those targets aside from just looking at casualty counts. Those were military targets attacked with the technology they had available at the time. There were no "precision-guided" weapons in WW2. It was messy. If finding the truth is something you wish to do then go look up the reasons for attacking those three targets on your own, I am not going to do the research for you and then list them. Call it laziness....However the fact remains that I am right, and you sir are wrong. They were military targets attacked with the crude weapons they had available at the time, therefore a large number of collateral damage was inflicted. That does not negate the need to attack the military targets indicated. Had the members of the Armed Forces involved moved those targets out of population centers then the collateral damage would have lessened. This movement of high priority targets into populated areas is a very familiar tactic employed by those who oppose the US in any conflict. The US likes to be the good guys, the enemy in almost every conflict invariably uses that to their advantage. Why do current militia groups in Iraq use religious buildings to house, train, and equip insurgents? It is the same priciple but on a smaller scale.
Look up why those targets were attacked, you obviously do not know.
--------------------------------------...
You stated "hh, you are DEAD wrong
Dresden was a city with a booming textile industry. it had NO MILITARY value. THERE WERE NO MILITARY FORTIFICATIONS, BASES, ETC IN DRESDEN.
please get your history straight guys instead of just ASSUMING that everything that America does militarily is for a military objective"

My Answer: I have been studying military history for about 25 years now. Dead wrong on this subject is not likely....

Dresden was bombed in conjunction with the Soviet offensive to limit the Germans ability to switch back and forth between the UK/US and the Soviet lines.

Put Plainly Dresden was bombed due to its location not what the city produced. Bombing Dresden limited German Army movement here is why "The Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) had come to the conclusion that the Germans could reinforce their eastern front with up to 42 divisions (half a million men) from other fronts and that, if the Soviet advance could be helped by hindering that movement, it could shorten the war. "

The city was bombed due to strategic location in that it was a major cross roads used in the interior lines of the German Army. The bombing although regrettable was designed to shorten the war and LIMIT ENEMY MILITARY MOVEMENT, NOT KILL CIVILIANS. Did civilians die during this attack? Yes many did, but the intention of the attack was to limit the movement of the German Army.

Once again they had to attempt to do so with the technology at the time, therefore it was messy.

You are the one who is DEAD WRONG. BTW the British not the Americans are the ones who ordered Operation Thunderclap...which is the operation that included the attack on Dresden..So although American planes were used it was under British command and it was their operation.

Do I really need to list why Nagasaki, and Hiroshima were attacked? I can tell you right now before I even go there I can promise that I will prove your supposition wrong.

oscarsix5

How about this counter argument - Any nation or group of nations that is capable of launching such an attack and does manage to nuke an American city, please be prepared to become the worlds largest series of giant glass covered glow-in-the-dark parking lots.

This isn't a threat or a mere promise, we will paid the bearer on demand

justagrandma

You mean like Pearl Harbor?
It sounds more like cobbled history, one time, one thing doesn't carry all the facts.
You can't just assume from one or two facts all the same outcomes flow.
That's sloppy thinking.
And I'm against the Iraqi war and the endless lies of why we went in.

Toots

No...because they came at us first...
I don't like war...I think the leaders of each country should battle each OTHER....like a boxing match for world leaders...that way: almost no money is spent, no needless deaths for either side, no killing of innocent civilians and wiping out of cities, towns and villages...
Let's face it, America is larger, has more power and more at it's disposal that a lot of these countries. At least our "leader" doesn't run and hide...like some...not facing his opponents in battle of either words or deeds...the mere fact that my leader was in "hiding" would be enough to make me question his authority and values...I could not support a man who could not stand up for what he believes in...
I cannot believe some people will back a man that they aren't even sure is alive or dead...
That's just weird...to me...
All, IMHO, of course...

Yogi

6 of one half a dozen of another.

jplynch82

this is genius

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: