Why A War Against Irak Is Wrong

Quote:

---

How is my avatar offensive? I see it as a remembrance of what was once there. If you think it is "offensive", obviously you don't realize the significance of the architecture of the buildings. my avatar is marveling at what was once a reality. I don't see how it could possibly be offensive, and i refuse to take it down.

---

It is not offensive for the reason you stated....

It is offensive due to the nature of this thread, in which it can be perceived as inflamatory....

If you were not so openly pro-war, then I would have seen it for the Tribute that you claim, as it is I see those towers and your words together.

I have read soo many threads where USA have Iraq and Al-Queda mixed up so that they cannot tell one from the other. This is the ONLY reason I find it offensive.... I do of course, appologise if this is not your intent.

j2k4, im posting from the UK, as you well know. This is probably the only subjet I get worked up over at the moment. If you dont know that USA sold chemicals to Iraq from 1988 onwards, I suggest you do a Google search for some news organisations....or read some of the threads, that have links to them.

Its not exactly classified information.

OMG!!!! This thread is becoming laughable. Look, make your point and then SHUT UP. THere's no reason to get so arsey with other board members because they dont agree with your point of view. I mean christ, saying his avatars offensive rat faced? Grow up. And everyone seriously, just dont lwer yourselves to these flamers level.

PS. Its nice to see some middle eastern opinion tho, dont usually get much in these types of threads....despite them being the ones who are going to be most affected.... <_<

Just for your record, here&#39;s a &#39;funny&#39; link : Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein

Ratface-
You&#39;re right, I had sussed where you hail from and I apologize.
As far as reading more (google search), believe me , I have, and my judgement and experience leads me to believe that some sources are dispensing propaganda-nothing more or less. I don&#39;t reject things out of hand, as a rule, but some things I just find to be unbelievable.
If you were here, you&#39;d know the press would have ferreted out ANY information like that if they thought it would have been problematic for Bush, Sr. Clinton was another story; he seemed to be more concerned with insuring that we were vulnerable in the FAR east, and the media kissed his ass.
Lets keep this subject open, eh?
Ketoprak-
Welcome back-the Palestinians have surely lost much, and (my opinion only), will probably continue to lose until Arafat, or whoever holds the reins, decides to make a good faith effort to bargain/negotiate a TRUE settlement. There is too much hot blood on both sides; too much reactionary thought. I don&#39;t want to sound naive on this, but if I knew nothing else about the situation, it would seem to me the side recruiting youngsters to give their lives by strapping explosives to their bodies for the glory of the cause has more reason to get to the bargaining table. Please don&#39;t insult my intelligence by trying to tell me these stories are propaganda, too.

j2k4

Do you think that state violence is better than terrorism? As far as I am concerned, I see no difference in the very case of the Israel-Palestin conflict. I guess if the Palestinians had a strong army with good weapons, as the Israelians do, they would use this army and not terrorism.

And about negociations, it seems to me that currently Sharon is the one who do not want to negociate. Sure Arafat is not a clean guy, but do you really think Arafat & the Palestinians will change their attitude if Israel keep humiliating them?

Quote:

---

Why we SHOULD go to war with Iraq

1) Saddam Hussein has gassed his own people. killed hundreds of thousands of his own people.
2) he was not democratically elected

---

1) The Americans killed hundreds of thousands of people in Japan when they nuked two cities&#39; worth of civilians off the face of the Earth. Should we go to war with them?
2) Neither was George W. Bush :P

Ketoprak-
No, I don&#39;t think ultimately there is ANY difference, but terrorists are not in the habit of seeking U.N. sanction, hence their intentions cannot be known in any other than the most vague terms (they&#39;re not as media-accessible). This is what makes them terrorists.
The Israeli/Palestine conflict is a case in point. The bombers are what most of us would define as terrorists, yet they would purport to represent all of the Palestinians. Insofar as Arafat occasionally says he has no control over them, and ALSO purports to speak for all Palestinians, we can only conclude there is some sort of dissension in the ranks of the Palestinians. Could this not be a reason for Sharon not to negotiate? He can only legitimately (?) sit down with Arafat. If I were Sharon, I would see this as an unsatisfactory option.
I don&#39;t want to give short shrift to the issue of "humiliation", but that, and "pride" are precise examples of what constitute the "hot blood" issue in my last post.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@13 March 2003 - 16:38
but terrorists are not in the habit of seeking U.N. sanction

---

Well it seems to me that it&#39;s precisely Israel (not the Palestinians) who don&#39;t comply with the numerous UN Security Council decisions regarding this conflict.

But, as this institution will probably lost any credibility in the next future thanks to the &#39;admirable&#39; diplomatic policy of GW Bush, this won&#39;t be a problem anymore :(

Quote:

---

Insofar as Arafat occasionally says he has no control over them, and ALSO purports to speak for all Palestinians

---

If you want democracy, the 1st thing you need is a State. Let the Palestinians have their state, and you will be able to help them build democratic institutions.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ketoprak@13 March 2003 - 16:54

If you want democracy, the 1st thing you need is a State. Let the Palestinians have their state, and you will be able to help them build democratic institutions.

---

Yes, but this leads to a debate about horses and carts, or chickens and eggs, which would serve no purpose other than to lead us back to the "hot blood" issue; if the Palestinians would forswear their current tactics and strategy (and could somehow make it stick, vis a vis the leadership question), in a unilateral fashion, and let it be known in no uncertain terms that it was doing this, world opinion would immediately weigh on the side of Israel doing the same. I&#39;m sorry to say this, but in this matter, Palestine has the credibility problem, not Israel, and THAT is what is making this conflict insolvable. I&#39;ll say this: A "Proud Warrior", no matter WHAT his stripe, is nothing more than an arrogant asshole-no offence to ANYBODY here intended.

Why go wo war when you can hug a tree&#33;&#33;&#33;

or avoid the problem and bury your head in the sand...

maybe the problem will go away....

all by itself...

KEEP DREAMING&#33;


Doing nothing is far worse.

ClubDiggler-
I just responded to your "newbie" post.
Re: this post-I know I&#39;m gonna get flamed for this, but the mideast also has a monopoly on sa-------never mind.
Oh, lighten up&#33;&#33; (In advance, of course).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamsey@13 March 2003 - 16:13
1) The Americans killed hundreds of thousands of people in Japan when they nuked two cities&#39; worth of civilians off the face of the Earth. Should we go to war with them?

---

The use of nuclear weapons was completely avoidable if Japan had just surrendered after they had been beaten down by the U.S.

The U.S. could not afford to keep on fighting Japan and Germany. Japan had also been on a course to rule the world, and they needed to be stopped.
THEY WERE WARNED MONTHS IN ADVANCE of the devastation that would occur if there was no surrender.

They weren&#39;t our own people.... it was in an effort to save our people.


And Ratface: My avatar is in no way related to this thread...

Just in advance I would like to say that I am neither for or aginist war.

It is my opinion that this goes far beyond George Bush and his capain in the early 90&#39;s. This is America trying to be liable for there actions. Yes theirs. It is the USA&#39;s fault Sadamm has the weapons, it was the early 80&#39;s he was at war with Iran and so were we. So we became quick friends. We gave them them resoucrces to build the weapons and we ingnored how they were used. Everything was goo untill kuwait was invaided, there wasa a more vested intrest in kuwait in oil. I can&#39;t rrecall at the moment, but trust me there was. So the us and allies went to war with Iraq. After the US had finished the war the weapons inspections came. They then stopped. Bill Clinton then HAd operation Desser Storm and he gave the same reasons bush is giving now to the worl to justify his attack. Anyway, then 911 happened, and since the US proably has been worried that if Iraq ever used the weapons against a undefended country or give them to terrorist ans they use them, the USA will be responsible. Why? because the USA gave Iraq the capibalites to make the weapons and we did nothing to stop them form using the weapons. IT is like you give a person a gun who says he wants to kill someone, you are going to be an accesory to murder. It is no diffrent only in this case we know that Iraq has used them before so what is to say they wont again.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by neevakee@14 March 2003 - 04:55
Just in advance I would like to say that I am neither for or aginist war.

It is my opinion that this goes far beyond George Bush and his capain in the early 90&#39;s. This is America trying to be liable for there actions. Yes theirs. It is the USA&#39;s fault Sadamm has the weapons, it was the early 80&#39;s he was at war with Iran and so were we. So we became quick friends. We gave them them resoucrces to build the weapons and we ingnored how they were used. Everything was goo untill kuwait was invaided, there wasa a more vested intrest in kuwait in oil. I can&#39;t rrecall at the moment, but trust me there was. So the us and allies went to war with Iraq. After the US had finished the war the weapons inspections came. They then stopped. Bill Clinton then HAd operation Desser Storm and he gave the same reasons bush is giving now to the worl to justify his attack. Anyway, then 911 happened, and since the US proably has been worried that if Iraq ever used the weapons against a undefended country or give them to terrorist ans they use them, the USA will be responsible. Why? because the USA gave Iraq the capibalites to make the weapons and we did nothing to stop them form using the weapons. IT is like you give a person a gun who says he wants to kill someone, you are going to be an accesory to murder. It is no diffrent only in this case we know that Iraq has used them before so what is to say they wont again.

---

thats an interesting view...

i haven&#39;t thought about it like that before..

And if it&#39;s a "mea Culpa" as I said earlier, WHAT&#39;S WRONG WITH THAT? Well recognized, Neevakee.

One other thing as i pointed out earlier, Clinton gave the same resons that Bush is giving now back in 1998 for dessert fox. Why is it diffrent this time? It shows how truley two faced the world is they will agree to one thing, but if some eles comes to power they disagree.

I haven&#39;t posted on here all day, but some people (????) have been gone even longer-is this thread finished?

I think so j2k4.

There is nothing we can say to change the minds of those with strong views on the issue, and those are mostly the people that post.

kAb, I did appologise to you earlier in the thread....its just I first saw the new avatar on this thread, as i explained.


Lets change the subject.....


.... didnt Australia and New Zealand get riled at each other over a game of cricket once?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@15 March 2003 - 04:52
I haven&#39;t posted on here all day, but some people (????) have been gone even longer-is this thread finished?

---

Some would have call that a &#39;blitzkrieg&#39;.

I hope the upcoming war will also be very fast.


:unsure:

@Ketopark:

Quote:

---

If you want democracy, the 1st thing you need is a State. Let the Palestinians have their state, and you will be able to help them build democratic institutions.

---

Now let&#39;s review every case where the Palestinians were supposed to have a state:

1936: The council under Lord Phil of Britain decided that there will be an Israeli and Palestinian state in the territory of Israel (which is now Israel and Jordan). The Israelis would get 4500 sq. km., the Palestinians would get ~110000 sq. km (notice the size difference) and the rest (cities like Jerusalem, Haifa, Nazareth, etc.) will stay international. The Palestinians declined the offer.

1939: The Woodhead council decided that there will be an Israeli and Palestinian state in the territory of Israel (which is now Israel and Jordan). The Israelis would get ~2000 sq.km. while the Palestinians get the rest (~112000 sq.km.). Both sides declined the offer.

1947: The UN decided that there will be an Israeli and Palestinian state in the territory of Israel (which is now only Israel, as Jordan was created then). The Israelis would get ~12000 sq. km. while the Palestinians would get ~3000 sq.km. (Israel now gets much more, but 3 million out of 4 of the Israeli Arabs were already citizens of Jordan). The Palestinians declined and as a result, they got zilch while the Israelis got their state on the promised territory, plus the territory that the Palestinians were supposed to get.

1948-1999: Haven&#39;t been following that period much, but i remember something about offering Palestine the west bank in the 90&#39;s and the PLO was formed in 1962.

1999: Israeli PM Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians the Gaza strip and the west Bank to make it a Palestinian state (thus giving up everything the Palestinians wanted except all of Jerusalem, although East Jerusalem was included in the offer). Arafat declined.

What can I say ? The Palestinians were given a lot, then less and less because of their own stubornness. It&#39;s evident that they want a state only under the conditions that all Jews are driven out of Israel. That won&#39;t happen and therefore the Palestinians will never get a state until they get a sane leader and stop terrorising people. They always simply make lame excuses (like religion, when they care nothing for Islam anyway, as was proven over time) to terrorise the Israelis. I can&#39;t beleive anyone can justify the Palestinians.

Quote:

---

I can&#39;t beleive anyone can justify the Palestinians.

---

This might be true, and the historical facts you remind us are true, but, as a Jew, I can add that nothing can justify the Israelians. People who suffered so much in the past from discrmination, terror and extermination should have built an exemplary state, which they did not. When they finally got a PM who really wanted peace, they killed him.

Nobody is right in this conflict. It needs impartiality, not the so obviously pro-Israel US diplomacy.

Rat Faced-
I believe this may be heating up again-
Ketoprak-ynhockey-
I would like to LEARN from your discourse; please mind manners?
I will reserve the right to interject as I see fit re: comments about the U.S.
Please, this kind of opportunity doesn&#39;t just drop out of the blue; you two are on opposite sides of the fence and are in an excellent position to make (NOT SCORE) points with anybody else who&#39;s here.

We&#39;re all seating here, talking about futilities... In the next few hours or days Mr Bush Jr will launch its attack. People will die for an unfair & illegal war, the UN will loose its credibility, the world will probably enter in an era of chaos... and nobody has posted to this thread or similar ones for more than 24h&#33;

I don&#39;t know what to think about it.

do you lot actually do anything apart from gossip about it like grannies? what are you going to do about it? fly over to iraq and moan to the mr soldier man to stop shooting at the other people with the big guns?

unless you suggest something practical we can all do i don&#39;t really care and you should stop posting about it, i makes me think

Well, let&#39;s kill Bush :D

Or replace the soldiers by grannies :D

Quote:

---

i don&#39;t really care and you should stop posting about it

---

Come on... there are a lot of lives at risk here - those of Iraqi civilians, the soldiers on both sides, and even civilians in Western countries who will be at risk from a terrorist backlash if Bush&#39;s axis of warmongering goes on with its plans.

That&#39;s something that everyone in the world should care about, regardless of their stance.

ynhockey and myself seem to be the only ones posting on this who are willing to take a serious look at the issue(s).
I believe that we think the same way about most of whats involved here.
I will. for this record (and it IS a record), state a few of my beliefs:
1) Many people seem to think the U.S., being the big, bad, take your pick:Mommy, Daddy, Cop, Superpower-wants to start a war for the off-hand reason that "we don&#39;t like Saddam", or, (George W.) " My daddy said to finish what he started, or, "My oil buddies want this".
Nothing could be further from the truth; anyone who would comment thus SHOULDN&#39;T BOTHER TO POST. My opinion only.

2) Many think we entertain the idea of war with no regard to loss of life, because "No matter what, we won&#39;t lose many people".
The U.S. has been in enough wars to know what it means to have people die in the effort; because of this, we&#39;ve improved our ability to protect our soldiers supremely well. So sue us..... To imply that we don&#39;t care or empathize about loss of life is incredibly offensive. Those who would disagree with our position regarding the value of life are cynics or merely jealous.

3) Hard as it may be, try to put yourselves in our shoes:
You are in a position to effect change.
You have suffered the single most outrageous act of terrorism ever to be perpetrated on human beings.
You have the wherewithal to respond, and you believe doing so will better the situation for everyone.
You believe removing Saddam will have extreme effect on the viability of terrorism.

Do you sit on your hands and do nothing? Worse: Do you sit on your hands and spout anti-war platitudes and anti-U.S. statements without once being creative enough to stray from the "Standardized and Official Catalogue of Anti-anything and Everything Rhetoric"?

And ketoprak: "Kill Bush"? I&#39;m surprised, even at you.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@15 March 2003 - 21:41
Rat Faced-
I believe this may be heating up again-
Ketoprak-ynhockey-
I would like to LEARN from your discourse; please mind manners?
I will reserve the right to interject as I see fit re: comments about the U.S.
Please, this kind of opportunity doesn&#39;t just drop out of the blue; you two are on opposite sides of the fence and are in an excellent position to make (NOT SCORE) points with anybody else who&#39;s here.

---

The trouble is there are no right or wrong answers...

Saddam is a bastard..we all agree with that.

Arafat is a Bastard...we all agree there.

And Sharron (sp?) is a Bastard....we can probably all agree there.


As to Israel/Palestinians...you cannot lay the blame totally in either corner.

Clinton laid the groundwork that created the Pallestinian Authority, and everything was working out...less violence/terrorism etc in the area. People could see light at the end of the tunnel...while both sides will probably never like each other, they were talking...things were happening.

Sharron gets elected and all of a sudden...the treaty that the USA (yes....the USA) had brokered is ripped up unilatraly by the Israeli&#39;s. Sharron is a war criminal, with a history of Human Rights abuse against Arabs in Jordan...and ripped up the treaty that had given the Pallestinians a homeland, so no wonder they are pissed at him.

Instead of going to the UN (which would be difficult, as they were not yet a recognised country) or to the International Community, they reverted to what they knew how to do.... ie Fight Back. This was the wrong thing to do, and gets them classified as terrorists again.

Sharron however doesnt really mind....as he hates Arabs with a passion. He doesnt mind sending in the army to wipe out a 100 pallestinians (many innocent) for every Israeli killed by a Terrorist. The big mistake for the USA is that there is now a Right Wing US government that refuses to condemn Israeli attrocieties....but does condemn Pallestinian.

They are actually as bad as each other....and the USA would gain respect if their Government treated the issue this way.


As to Saddam, i&#39;ve said before that there is no right/wrong answer to this either.

I am against the war, as i believe it is the greater of 2 evils....not because I take a &#39;moral highground&#39; over civilian casualties etc.

I dont like to see hypocracy from either camp........and that is all the pro-war faction seem to have. But the anti-war come out with crap too.


The Question that the Pro-war faction need to answer, to convert me is simple.

What happens AFTER?

The history of this area is 5000 years of waring factions, that HATE each other:

There are only 4 options I can see:

1/ Form a Democracy.

This is easier said than done. They hate each other with a passion.

If this is tried, then I will forcast a Civil War that will make the Balkans look like a Fight between skinheads in Brighton. It will include all the old favourites like Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide....with the added bonus of the Arabian Imagination with regards to ways of inflicting Pain, while keeping people alive as long as possible.


2/ Split the country into its component parts.

This will not happen. Iraq has the 2nd largest Oil Deposits in the world. There is no way that the International Community will allow the re-instatement of countries like Messopotamia etc...in order that they will be in continuous squabbling and fighting, with this resource at stake. Its like righting off the oilfields without trying......which at least you&#39;d be doing with option 1.

Added to this that some of the traditional countries are also located partly in neighbouring countries...eg part of Kurdish homeland is now part of Turkey.. This also decreases the internal security of these other countries. I cant see Turkey (as an example) handing over 15-20% of its land to keep the new Kurdish country happy.


3/ A US/UN Military Governer

yeh...right.

The Arab world would let this happen without a fight.

Or the UN for that matter.

If they did.....good luck. The UK tried to keep peace here that way.....didnt work then. How many bodybags would it take for the US to withdraw?

Wasnt that many in Samalia (mind there isnt oil in Somalia)


4/ Install another Bastard like Saddam.

Well......this seems to be the prefered US Government option, if we look over the last 60 years.

But......what about the arguments being used to attack in the first place? Why risk the lives of our soldiers to &#39;Liberate&#39; Iraq from one bastard, to give to another?



Until these questions are answered, and some actual reasons other than:

&#39;He has WMD&#39; (which were sold to him by the west in the first place, after he had demonstrated how big a bastard he is.......pretty hypocritical)

&#39;He has links with Al Quaeda&#39;.........which is such blatent crap its laughable

and

&#39;He supports Terrorists&#39; ....true, the PLO...like a lot of other Arabs and Arab States. But then the IRA gets most of its money from the USA, the UDF from the UK, ETA from ....... do i have to go on?



At the moment.....not attacking is the lesser of two evils.


Not attacking anyone, flaming anyone etc etc.

Everyone has their views, but please answer these questions.......unlike some in the anti-war lobby, im not a passifist, my mind can be changed........but not with any arguments i&#39;ve heard so far from anyone, either here, at the UN or in the Press.

Quote:

---

3) Hard as it may be, try to put yourselves in our shoes:
You are in a position to effect change.
You have suffered the single most outrageous act of terrorism ever to be perpetrated on human beings.
You have the wherewithal to respond, and you believe doing so will better the situation for everyone.
You believe removing Saddam will have extreme effect on the viability of terrorism.

---

Really, I don&#39;t think that&#39;s a good argument. I&#39;ve said that earlier. The simple fact that a second Gulf war was heavily discussed BEFORE the 11.9.01 attack should enough to validate my opinion.

I can understand the US sentiment regarding their situation after september 11, but I cannot understand why the US don&#39;t attack Pakistan or Saudi Arabia (not sure how you name this country), who have PROVEN links with international terrorism.

As for &#39;bettering the situation for everyone&#39;, it&#39;s a very risky bet, as it might as well increase the lack of comprehension of the South towards the North, and make this planet more insecure than it allready is, not talking of the decredibilization of the UN who, up to now, were to protect world security.

Quote:

---

1) Many people seem to think the U.S., being the big, bad

---

I can assure you that people here in France are very sorry of the serious deterioration of our links with your country. So do I. It has nothing to do with anti-americanism (which I agree, is a kind of rhetoric here - but still very superficial), but it&#39;s the moral stance of a country who care about justice and international law.

Quote:

---

And ketoprak: "Kill Bush"? I&#39;m surprised, even at you.

---

I think this sentence is as stupid as "bomb Iraq&#39; or &#39;kill Sadam&#39;. &#39;bomb Iraq&#39; is not the solution, so is &#39;kill Bush&#39;.

Ratfaced - I think you have a valid point about what happens after the war in iraq. I think the most probable outcome is for the beginnings of a fully democratic system be implemented, overseen by the UN. I do not think it likely that America will impose its own ally government and reap the obvious benefits (e.g. oil) as it has already been proposed by (i know at least) the British government, (and supported by various factions of the american govt) that all oil profits will be put back into iraq.

As to the reasons for going to war, personally it is more his FAILURE TO ACCOUNT for some 14000 tonnes of anthrax, scud missiles, and other illegal weapons; his countinued uncooperation with the international community (some 17 violations), his genocide of some 200,000 people, his continued violation of all human rights, etc. etc. etc.

I think that irrelevant of the fact we may have wrongly supported him in the past, that doesnt give a reason not to get rid of his genocidic tyrranic rule of iraq.

Quote:

---

2) Many think we entertain the idea of war with no regard to loss of life, because "No matter what, we won&#39;t lose many people".
The U.S. has been in enough wars to know what it means to have people die in the effort; because of this, we&#39;ve improved our ability to protect our soldiers supremely well. So sue us..... To imply that we don&#39;t care or empathize about loss of life is incredibly offensive. Those who would disagree with our position regarding the value of life are cynics or merely jealous.

---

Since ketoprak talked about the other two points let me respond some to this one.

It is certainly true that the US has improved its ability to protect it&#39;s soldiers. Unfortunately the way this is done has meant that more civilian casualties are on the ground. Bombing from planes up on high does decrease the chance of US casualties but increases the chance of civilian casualties. We may be shown the "precise accuracy" of the bombs used but this will always be a far greater risk to civilians. There is nothing wrong with wanting to protect your own soldiers but the US had to do this, as there would be minimal support from the US public for war in Irag if this was not the case.

So while it is a noble thing to protect your soldiers, in effect is has made it easier for the US to take military action with public support, and lead to increased civilian casualties.

So, since a war seems to be a fait accompli-
Maybe when it&#39;s over we can form the coalition that doesn&#39;t exist now to maximize the potential in the region. Therein may lie the milieu (boy-two uses of le francais already) in which the U.N. may prove it&#39;s worth.
I have one request: can we start getting interesting a little earlier in the day so I can respond to the latest (and best) posts I&#39;ve seen yet?

For now-prayers to and for all; it appears the dreaded event will soon be upon us.

We should definately go to war with iraq. Thoses damn middle easterns. Thy deserve to all burn in hell. Lets nuke there fuc*ing asses. To bad we can&#39;t nuke them since it would effect us too but oh well.

All u anti-war war ppl stfu. :angry: :angry:

Its going to happen...
Seems like Wednesday it will kick off
MY FECKIN BIRTHDAY &#33;&#33;&#33;

Quote:

---

a war seems to be a fait accompli

---

Quote:

---

Its going to happen...

---

Did anyone really have any doubt it would? :(

I hade a little hope that it would not come to war. Just saw Mr. Bush on telly, and he is determined.

Too bad.

Well, the inevitable is about to begin.

Keep our fingers crossed for smooth sailing from now on...

I wonder how they&#39;ll get Saddam. He has a bunker built by the Germans.
It is located 300 yards underground. It has its own air filtration system and supplies for
one year. I don&#39;t think there are bombs that can get to him without destrying the whole city.
They&#39;ll have to go in and take him out.

He&#39;s been busy

Well, most of you probably disagree, but I think the Iraqi citizens are welcoming a new form of
government or regime change.

I just hope there are minimum cassualties.

Peace thereafter....

saddam needs to die :angry:

lets get this damn war over with <_<

bring back our troops&#33; just bomb the shit out of saddam and send in the special-ops&#33;

we don&#39;t need a quarter of a million troops in iraq&#33; that is all i oppose&#33;

i support the war except for the quarter million in the gulf <_<

Bush is opening a huge can of worms.

I&#39;m glad I won&#39;t be around when it comes back to bite him.

:ninja:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Skillian@18 March 2003 - 02:12



Did anyone really have any doubt it would? :(

---

Doubt? No.

But I had hopes.

I hope we can do this with the barest minimum of casualties, civilian or otherwise. I hope also to be taken at my word in expressing this.

Gonna break my heart if this gets out of hand.

Again-prayers all around.