We should not attack Iraq

Deviant:Scripter - it is clear that the US “administration” is doing all that is noble to rebuild Afghanistan. Ask 10 US citizens if the over 750 million dollar price tag the President wants is OK with them. This is the point I’m making. Do US taxpayers like to nonchalantly hand over their hard earned money to foreign countries? Add on the cost of the military campaign. Double this amount for Iraq. Just in aid over 1.5 billion US taxpayer money to someone else! If you answer a quick “yes”, I’s say you don’t financially support yourself, let alone a family. This is what is important to the US people overall. Ask your family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc., etc. If you don’t believe this your kidding yourself. Ask those same ten US citizens how many of them think that this money could be used better to help AMERICANS! Noble help to foreign countries is one thing; food on the table is quite more on their minds.

I’ll say again (like in my post before last) that this is not my personal opinion. This is merely an observation made talking to family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc. here in New England. Ask people in your own part of America. I really don’t think you’ll find much variation. Do mothers, wifes, and children want their sons, husbands, and fathers in harm’s way again? I doubt it.

As for the Gulf War, we will not be liberating an invaded country this time. We will be the aggressor this time regardless of the motives behind it. If you think the Iraqi’s will just surrender their homes to us without a fight - your dreaming.

I remember Desert Storm quite well. I was in the US Navy at that time…

@Field:

Deviant:Scripter - it is clear that the US “administration” is doing all that is noble to rebuild Afghanistan. Ask 10 US citizens if the over 750 million dollar price tag the President wants is OK with them. This is the point I’m making. Do US taxpayers like to nonchalantly hand over their hard earned money to foreign countries? Add on the cost of the military campaign. Double this amount for Iraq. Just in aid over 1.5 billion US taxpayer money to someone else! If you answer a quick “yes”, I’s say you don’t financially support yourself, let alone a family. This is what is important to the US people overall. Ask your family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc., etc. If you don’t believe this your kidding yourself. Ask those same ten US citizens how many of them think that this money could be used better to help AMERICANS! Noble help to foreign countries is one thing; food on the table is quite more on their minds.

I’ll say again (like in my post before last) that this is not my personal opinion. This is merely an observation made talking to family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc. here in New England. Ask people in your own part of America. I really don’t think you’ll find much variation. Do mothers, wifes, and children want their sons, husbands, and fathers in harm’s way again? I doubt it.

As for the Gulf War, we will not be liberating an invaded country this time. We will be the aggressor this time regardless of the motives behind it. If you think the Iraqi’s will just surrender their homes to us without a fight - your dreaming.

I remember Desert Storm quite well. I was in the US Navy at that time…

Field Marshal - Your argument has no basis. The United States of America spends billions to finance humainitarian aid in countries all over the world. Do you think American’s want to give humanitarian aid to anyone? That’s really beyond the point. See, you are trying to seperate two things that are one in the same. You make the correlation between spending money and helping Americans. By spending money to finance a military campaign against a threatening nation IS helping Americans.

Yes, clearly we are going to be the aggressor in the campaign against Iraq. But you especially (being a military serviceman) should realize that our objectives ARE NOT to take over the Iraqi citizens’ homes. What the hell kind of sense does that make? Our attack is not against the civilians, IT IS AGAINST SADDAM.

@Deviant:Scripter:

@Field:

Deviant:Scripter - it is clear that the US “administration” is doing all that is noble to rebuild Afghanistan. Ask 10 US citizens if the over 750 million dollar price tag the President wants is OK with them. This is the point I’m making. Do US taxpayers like to nonchalantly hand over their hard earned money to foreign countries? Add on the cost of the military campaign. Double this amount for Iraq. Just in aid over 1.5 billion US taxpayer money to someone else! If you answer a quick “yes”, I’s say you don’t financially support yourself, let alone a family. This is what is important to the US people overall. Ask your family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc., etc. If you don’t believe this your kidding yourself. Ask those same ten US citizens how many of them think that this money could be used better to help AMERICANS! Noble help to foreign countries is one thing; food on the table is quite more on their minds.

I’ll say again (like in my post before last) that this is not my personal opinion. This is merely an observation made talking to family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc. here in New England. Ask people in your own part of America. I really don’t think you’ll find much variation. Do mothers, wifes, and children want their sons, husbands, and fathers in harm’s way again? I doubt it.

As for the Gulf War, we will not be liberating an invaded country this time. We will be the aggressor this time regardless of the motives behind it. If you think the Iraqi’s will just surrender their homes to us without a fight - your dreaming.

I remember Desert Storm quite well. I was in the US Navy at that time…

Field Marshal - Your argument has no basis. The United States of America spends billions to finance humainitarian aid in countries all over the world. Do you think American’s want to give humanitarian aid to anyone? That’s really beyond the point. See, you are trying to seperate two things that are one in the same. You make the correlation between spending money and helping Americans. By spending money to finance a military campaign against a threatening nation IS helping Americans.

Yes, clearly we are going to be the aggressor in the campaign against Iraq. But you especially (being a military serviceman) should realize that our objectives ARE NOT to take over the Iraqi citizens’ homes. What the hell kind of sense does that make? Our attack is not against the civilians, IT IS AGAINST SADDAM.

however that is not the way that Saddam’s people will view it.
Imagine the European nations rising up against President Bush - invading Washington D.C. (after taking out every military and pseudo-military base on the way, never mind the hospitals, churches, neighbourhoods, media and police/fire stations that fall to “collateral damage”). Naturally the Americans will stand by and watch this, even those who supported George Bush (never mind those who supported Al Gore) no?
Now elevate GB in the eyes of the nation to an “intelligent, fatherly figure who wants American’s best interests” and reduce the invaders to “those godless infidels who wish only to ruin America, kill her children, rape its land and resources”. You really think that America will understand that this is not really the case and that the only target is GB?

Moses - from Western Washington Fellowship of Reconcilliation -
Late 1940s - after WWII British power begins to wane and America steps in. George Kennan, U.S. State Department stated in 1948," The US has about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming, and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford the luxury of altruism and world benefaction. We should cease to talk about such vague and unreal objectives as human rights, the raising of living standards and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."

1972-Iraq announces the nationalization of oil. Pres. Nixon plots with Shah to arm Iraqui Kurds. Iraq placed on list of nations supporting terrorism

1975-Iraq Vice-president Saddam Hussein and Shah reach agreement ceding control of Shatt-al-Arab waterway to Iran. Kurdish aid abruptly stopped. Concerning the Kurds who were left in the lurch, Henry Kissinger said , " Covert operations should not be confused with missionary work".

1979-Shah is overthrown. National Security adviser Brzezinski publicly encouraged Iraq to attack Iran to take back the Shatt-al-Arab waterway - which the U.S had forced Iraq to cede to Iran four years earlier.

1980-“Carter Doctrine” states U.S. will intervene militarily to protect U.S. access to oil. Iraq invades Iran at U.S. urging.

1982-Iraq removed from terrorist nation list

1984-U.S restores full diplomatic relations with Iraq. Pres. Reagan authorizes intelligence sharing with Iraq. At same time U.S. begins sharing intelligence and selling weapons to Iran.

1985-Oliver North tells Iran that U.S. will help Iran overthrow Saddam Hussein

1986-U.S increases aid to Iraq

1987-Norman Schwartzkopf Jr. Named head of CENT-COM. U.S bombs Iranian oil platforms.

1988-Cease fire signed between Iran and Iraq. Center for Strategic and International Studies begins 2 year study predicting outcome of war between U.S and Iraq. Saddam Hussein announces $40 billion plan to peacefully rebuild Iraq.

1989-War Plan 1002 originally conceived to counter Soviet threat is adjusted to name Iraq as main threat in region. Plan renamed 1002-90.

January 1990 - CENT-COM stages computer games testing 1002-90. U.S. War College report states that “Baghdad should not be expected to deliberately provoke military confrontations with anyone. Its best interests now and in immediate future are served by peace”.

February 1990-Schwartzkopf tells congress of need to increase U.S. military presence in Gulf region

May 1990 - At Arab summit Saddam accuses Gulf states of waging economic war against Iraq. The Iraq economy has been devastated by the war. Iraq had borrowed billions to wage war against Iran. Price of oil was down because Gulf states were dumping oil on world market. Kuwait was slant drilling with American equipment into Iraqi oilfields. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia at behest of U.S. demanded immediate repayment of loans to Iraq.

July 1990 – Saddam accuses Kuwait of conspiring to destroy Iraq economy. Iraq troops mass on Iraq border

August 2, 1990 -Iraq invades Kuwait.

I mean this is the kind of BS that i was talking about. There is more . . . . And when i mention the interference in the middle east . . . well, you know that American activities in Iran, Israel, Egypt, Syria, etc. all affect Iraq. In the American civil war - British aid to the south must in some way have affected the north - nearly to a position of destabilizing the future of the country.
Also wrt Kuwait - although i believe that it was rude (maybe even monstrous) for Iraq to invade - they did have reasons for doing so (i.e. Kuwait was accused of stealing Iraqi oil). Now i’m not going to justify any of the evil things that the Iraqi regime has committed, however between British and then American interference in the middle east, they have done much to create this “monster”.
Also please try to be realistic. Nearly any military action in Iraq WILL result in the deaths of many thousands of innocent Iraqis. I have no doubt that FM is correct in his assessment.

Thank you cystic crypt, I will now take this time to dissect your post on how US regular “beats” Iraq like a dog.

Late 1940s: Pretty weak opening statement that really doesn’t add much to your argument on Iraq. I’m not even sure why it’s even here, except to show George Kennan’s wishes for US to remain dominant.
1972: “Plotting” is a very different action than carrying out a “beating.” So far this is not a direct act of US “beating” Iraq.
1975: Poor Kurds
1979: Again, encouragement is far different “beating.”
1980: Seems so far American has less than “beaten” Iraq at anything except with the incentive and encouragement to go to war.
1982: Right…
1984: Any involvement of troops by the US? Again, selling weapons and intelligence sharing (to both sides) constitutes neutrality.
1985: More “plotting” without definitive action yet?
1986-1989: Alls quiet on the American front…
1990: Iraq invades Kuwait – Big Dog “beating” up on Little Dog?

So far from what you’ve given me, I can draw no direct involvements of US “beating” Iraq (save indirect involvements as arming Kurds, war encouragement, and loan repayments. For the word “regularly,” these attempts seem sporadic at best. I know well about Kuwait’s alleged attempts at “slant-drilling,” but it is no reason to invade Iraq to invade – at least not yet without allowing compromise and mediation. Funny how you lower your deaths of Iraqi civilians from millions (your post 05 Aug 2002 05:52) to thousands (07 Aug 2002 05:49). Very interesting when comparing who’s being “realistic.” At any point, I did not revel what I think my estimates of civilian causalities will be given the Invasion of Iraq.

No, FM is right. Iraq will be a terrible bloodbath, unless the US manages to somehow introduce some finesse into its plans.

True. However, Pentagon experts are still working on the Iraqi Scenario to make it as efficient, quick, and streamlined (minimal deaths of Iraqi civilians as possible). What you see today that has been “leaked out” (very limited when judging the scope of things) might not be true tomorrow and so forth. From what I’ve seen on the plans, America planners do not want to turn Iraq into a house-to-house bloodbath anymore than it needs be.

I don’t think it will be worse than Vietnam and i don’t think America will loose this time, the land is not as hostile and they will send (i wish !) professional soldier.

Ha, that’s what you think. Leave it to the pacifist to end a war before its truly over.

Oh geez, where do I even start? First of all, yes, America does care immensely about the future of Afganhistan. We do want to see a stable democracy put into place before we leave. That’s why American troops are spending so much time (and our lives) protecting Hamid Karza so that he can establish some control of the warlords of the country.

I have to agree with the Specter here. Just because it isn’t the flavor of the month on the news, doesn’t mean America has stopped trying or doing anything. We are just as committed to improving the lives of Afghans and providing them with stable leadership as we are of trying to rid them of Al-Qaeda.

BTW: I will not be able to respond as much as possible since at the moment, my Internet Connection is not agreeing with me :evil: . I apologize for any delays in advance.

I understand what you’re saying Crypt, and I think there’s a word for that: propaganda.

@izcoder:

Yanni, so now we can only attack terrorists if they attack us first? What the hell kinda sense does that make?

Two reasons:
(1) Because they are no terrorists before they attack …. you cannot punish a crime not yet done.
(2) If you have punished a crime once, you don’t punish it twice.

If you fail on one of the two, then you are the criminal, the villain, the terrorist.

@TG:

So far from what you’ve given me, I can draw no direct involvements of US “beating” Iraq (save indirect involvements as arming Kurds, war encouragement, and loan repayments. For the word “regularly,” these attempts seem sporadic at best. I know well about Kuwait’s alleged attempts at “slant-drilling,” but it is no reason to invade Iraq to invade – at least not yet without allowing compromise and mediation. Funny how you lower your deaths of Iraqi civilians from millions (your post 05 Aug 2002 05:52) to thousands (07 Aug 2002 05:49). Very interesting when comparing who’s being “realistic.” At any point, I did not revel what I think my estimates of civilian causalities will be given the Invasion of Iraq.

I am thinking that you believe my use of the term “beat the dog” was inappropriate. It’s not like America regularly bombed Iraq prior to '90, however it’s actions were fairly arbitrary and “muddling”. Perhaps i should have used a more appropriate metaphor, however i can’t think of a better way than to demonstrate that perhaps America had a hand in creating this “monster” that is Iraq.

Deviant:Scripter: I understand what you’re saying Crypt, and I think there’s a word for that: propaganda

Well of course. America uses propaganda, Iraq uses propaganda both on their people, and ultimately on each other’s people. Controlling the morale of the people is all important here, and if Saddam has control, then Iraq will be ugly.
oh - and when i said it will be as ugly as Vietnam - i meant that not so much from American’s perspective - i think that her soldiers would be killed in many numbers, but the attack would be much better co-ordinated, and likely run by people who know what they’re doing. No no, i think that the slaughter of Iraqis will be greater.
And i agree with F_alk (yet again . . . this is troubling. . . ).

That is exactly the point. US citizens don’t see the long term advantages US administrations give the country when they give foreign nations aid. All they know is un-godly amounts of taxpayer money is leaving the US quick. You agreed with me. Americans also don’t mind paying to bomb the Hell out of “enemy” nations. Back to my original point, that’s where most citizens would see it end.

You can bet that besides the US Pentagon, Saddam has also planned long and hard for an invasion. He will make it very difficult for us NOT to hit civilians. Weapons and munitions hidden in schools, hospitals, and homes. I don’t see airstrikes on those. Do you think he has learned nothing from Desert Storm? Fighting will not be in the desert wastes. He’ll have his soldiers in the cities fighting house to house in and around civilians. The locals will hide and protect their soldiers. Saddam has had a long time to prepare.

Picture it. Your marine platoon coming up on Bagdad. Snipers from buildings. People everywhere. Due to this, no air or artillery support. Fighting house to house, street to street. Casualties rising. Your buddy is dead. Days go by mostly under fire. All of a sudden, you see a 13 year old kid stick a gun in your face…

A little dramatic I agree, but a very possible scenario. Do US citizen’s have the stomach for it?

Saddam will make us look as bad as he can. Without UN or Allied support it won’t take much. CC is right. The Iraqi people won’t care why we’re there. All they’ll see is US soldiers with weapons. They’ll put 2 and 2 together. Who are they going to trust, Saddam or the invaders - be realistic. This is the war Saddam will fight. His terf, his rules. We are at a serious disadvantage. The Pentagon had better come up with something good. This is why the Gulf War ended the way and when it did. We need some opposition group to gain support to take over after any invasion. Considering we haven’t attacked Iraq proper yet after all this time, shows we don’t have it…

however it’s actions were fairly arbitrary and "muddling

Fair enough, I’ll accept this.

however i can’t think of a better way than to demonstrate that perhaps America had a hand in creating this “monster” that is Iraq.

There is no doubt that America’s actions in the Middle East were not exactly “outward looking.” However, before we jump to any conclusions, there are other factors to consider like Arab Nationalism, the Cold War, and Israel.

but the attack would be much better co-ordinated, and likely run by people who know what they’re doing.

I discussed about this later. So far only broad plans have been leaked from the Pentagon. Don’t expect any significant details until at least Fall/Winter.

Two reasons:
(1) Because they are no terrorists before they attack …. you cannot punish a crime not yet done.
(2) If you have punished a crime once, you don’t punish it twice.

This is too much of a generalization, you know that.

Americans also don’t mind paying to bomb the Hell out of “enemy” nations.

Actually I do care. Bombs do not come cheap.

US citizens don’t see the long term advantages US administrations give the country when they give foreign nations aid.

Be happy then that US citizens don’t run our foreign policy and administration. Americans tend to lose interest too quickly and want to “change the channel,” though I am happy that those in the White House do not follow this pattern.

Considering we haven’t attacked Iraq proper yet after all this time, shows we don’t have it…

Two words: Clinton Administration

@F_alk:

Two reasons:
(1) Because they are no terrorists before they attack …. you cannot punish a crime not yet done.
(2) If you have punished a crime once, you don’t punish it twice.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but hasn’t Saddam already broken UN Sanctions that were set at the end of Desert Storm? That should be reason enough for punishment.

I think many people are forgetting that by America “taking out” Saddam, we are making it safer for everybody, not just Americans. Saddam has bombed his own civilians, what’s to stop him from doing it to them and others?….America.

@Field:

A little dramatic I agree, but a very possible scenario. Do US citizen’s have the stomach for it?

I think it’s beyond the point whether US citizen’s have a stomache for it. Sure, Bush will have to gain the approval of the American people (to a certain extent) but beyond that, the people who really need the stomache for it are the soldiers that will be fighting there.

BTW, that was Deviant:Scripter ^^

The US will not be afraid to bomb civilian shields. It just won’t make the news.

LOL. That was a good one Yanny my man. To think that the Media wont cover civilian deaths is to think that the sky isnt blue. If an Iraq civilian gets a hangnail from U.S. bombing CNN will have 24 hour coverage for a week.

And to think that the U.S. Military holds no regard for civilian life is appauling. Did i spell appauling right?

@Yanny:

Marshal, your wrong on 1 point. The US will not be afraid to bomb civilian shields. It just won’t make the news.

“Could of, Would of, Should of”, you cannot fight a war on that. Should we go to war with China because they might be a threat in 20 years? Should we of gone to a nuclear war with Russia in the 1950s and 60s? Should we bomb Canada because a potential alliance with Mexico could be a problem?

You can’t compare this to World War II. We are not at war. We were not attacked by a nation, we were attacked by a group of people. They do not represent their nation.

Saddam is not a stupid man. He is not mad like Hitler was. He will not provoke us in any way. He won’t send a canister of small pox to LA, because he knows he’ll be dead in 6 months if he does. But, if US tanks are on the border of Bagdad, he will use those weapons as a last resort.

Let me remind you, we’ve killed far far more American Indians than Iraq has killed Kurds. Hell, we’ve unleashed dogs on peaceful protesters, while spraying them with fire houses, and denying them rights, 30 years ago.

The Gulf War was provoked. Iraq invaded Kuwait. The Korean war was provoked, North Korea invaded South Korea. The Vietnam war was provoked, the Vietcong attacked. I don’t see Iraqi tanks in Kuwait again.

Americans don’t think. All you care about are your stock prices. Think about other people. Think about the death, destruction, starvation, and the consequences of your actions. I do not consider you Americans if you don’t stop and think. We should not just believe what our Goverment tells us. Today its Iraq, tomorrow its Syria, then Saudi Arabia, then Iran, then North Korea, then China. We will be forever locked in an endless war, with Geoge Bush leading it all.

Yanny, Saddam was the one who sent Anthrax to the United States and Canada, what is stopping him from sending somethign deadlier? Also, he threatened the Untied States. You cna compare him to Emperor Hirohito of Japan, they are somewhat similar, the only difference being that Hirohito was sane and actually cared about the well being of his people. Saddam will stop at nothing to achieve his dream of the Iraqi flag waving across the entire Middle East. He has to be stopped before he becomes stronger.

The Vaunted US military will not tell the Media when it killed civilians, it won’t hold a press conference like when they take out a key bridge, or a high ranking Iraqi. Like Vietnam.

How can we be so sure about this? Without confirmation by the US military – the recording of civilian causalities would be rendered null. Also the US military does not hold “press conferences” for taking out a military bunker or supply – why hold one for taking out a bridge? However, for a high-ranking Iraqi, I’m sure this would at least be mentioned by the US Government. I’m not exactly sure where Vietnam coincides with your statement, as was the most widely covered of all wars with

The US will not be afraid to bomb civilian shields. It just won’t make the news.

The media is libertarian, they’ll report anything like that given the chance.

”Could of, Would of, Should of", you cannot fight a war on that.

The problem is that the “could of” has already happened. Of course when things that “should of” happened do occur, it would’ve already been too late.

You can’t compare this to World War II. We are not at war. We were not attacked by a nation, we were attacked by a group of people. They do not represent their nation.

No, this is much deadlier. It would be fine if these terrorist were simple outcast with a grudge against the world. Instead there are countries that largely finance their operation and provide them with shelter.

He won’t send a canister of small pox to LA, because he knows he’ll be dead in 6 months if he does.

No, but he might be able to get one of his terrorist supporters to. And by the time we find out where it originated from, it will of already been too late. Small canisters of BCs are not that easy to trace.

Let me remind you, we’ve killed far far more American Indians than Iraq has killed Kurds. Hell, we’ve unleashed dogs on peaceful protesters, while spraying them with fire houses, and denying them rights, 30 years ago.

What is this trying to prove? We made mistakes, so it’s okay to allow other people to make mistakes too? We admitted what we did was wrong (or at least I do), the problem with Saddam is that he won’t admit it. In fact, he takes pleasure and relishes it.

Americans don’t think. All you care about are your stock prices. Think about other people. Think about the death, destruction, starvation, and the consequences of your actions.

So why do we even intervene around the rest of the world at all? Again, people (not just Americans) care more about their own well being than they do of others. I would be worried too to see my entire life-savings flushed down the toilet.

I do not consider you Americans if you don’t stop and think.

Behold! The American generation raised by Talk Show Host and Pop Culture without a care in the world! I fear it to be true.

Ok, this situation with Iraq reminds me of the same situation during World War II. I hear the main argument against attacking Saddam right now is “lack of proof.” Does anyone remember back in WWII, when we heard bits and pieces of a so-called “holocaust” and that the German army was exterminating Jews? We hesitated because America didn’t actually have “proof” that the Jews were being exterminated, and it’s the same situation now. How long do we have to wait until it’s too late?

@Jazz:

If an Iraq civilian gets a hangnail from U.S. bombing CNN will have 24 hour coverage for a week.

(Laughing my ass off!) :lol: :lol:

@TG:

The problem is that the “could of” has already happened. Of course when things that “should of” happened do occur, it would’ve already been too late.

Perfectly said. :wink:

@Yanni:

He will not provoke us in any way.

You’re probably right in one aspect. He will not provoke us directly. But on the same token…he doesn’t have to. Why would he provoke us directly? He can fund terrorist organizations and hand off chemical and biological weapons to them, all while keeping his hands clean of American evidence!

Oh yanny, yanny, yanny. I find it quaint that you think there are secrets now adays. You cannot keep civilian deaths a secret. If 3 civilians are killed by bomb, Sadam will say we Bombed a school house killing 20.

If we have to clear out a city (it wont happen, but lets just say for arguments sake) and and the Republican Guard using the human shields they sport get 50 civilians killed. Well Sadam will say that we murdered 300 in cold blood. and CNN will carry that news for weeks, and when it turns out to be a lie, CNN wont wisper a word of it. Like Jennine, we all heard that like 325 people were murder by IDF. And it turned out to be like 50, most of whom just were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

would the American people really care if 2 people or 200 were killed? Would they believe the numbers? And if they did would the numbers mean anything to them?
Or would the typical “gung-ho” American attitude of “let’s kick some a**!” prevail?
i’m guessing that a dead child held up in front of the camera would have a lot more impact than that child’s parents, grandparents, village, etc. bombed and mentioned as a by-line.

Sorry, hate to post twice in a row, but I saw this article and found it interesting.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992654

It talks about a weapon that we might use in Iraq. It fries electronics, think of it as the weapon from the Bond movie “Golden Eye”, just without the nuke.