OK, let me get this straight

[D2Kvirus]

The US told Iraq that if they wouldn't disarm all their nukes, they would be bombed to shit. So, can you explain to me;

1. Yesterday, US bombers dropped their payload in one of the No Fly Zones of Iraq, killing seven civilians, which they attempted to justify by saying they "looked like infantry." Sort of how a tractor carrying refugees in Kosovo "looked like a tank."

2. Gordon Brown has today changed the UK Budget so that there is more spending on defence, so that we are prepared in the event of war.

If there's any Republican piglet that has a remotely sensible, or mature, answer to this, I can't wait to hear it. Otherwise, I'll just assume the agenda wasn't about Iraq having 20,000 nukes less than the US, and having several million cubic gallons more. Or maybe your Dictator President is just making your country a Police State.

[WadeFulp]

At 3/4/03 12:32 PM, D2KVirus wrote: The US told Iraq that if they wouldn't disarm all their nukes, they would be bombed to shit.

Let's just stop this foolishness right here. The US never told Iraq that if they didn't disarm all their nukes they would be bombed to shit.

For one we never said Iraq had nukes. We said they are trying to make them. The UN (that's the world) wants Saddam to disarm by destroying his weapons of mass destruction (anthrax, vx gas, etc). If Saddam does not comply he will be disarmed by force, but it doesn't mean they will be bombed to shit. We can fly in guided missiles and pick which window pane we want to fly it through. That's how accurate they are now.

If civilians were killed they were most likely killed by Saddam and put in place to look like we killed them. He did this in the Gulf war, and he will do it again. Saddam is an evil person and will do whatever he can to make anyone who tries to stop him look evil in the world's eyes.

[Ted-Easton]

The US originally said "disarm, or face the consequences(military action)".

NOW, the US has said that "even if Iraq disarms, we will fight for a regime change."

So no matter what, the US is going to take Saddam out of power in Iraq. Even if Saddam opens every gate and hauls out every blasting cap in Iraq, the US will not let him stay in power.

A bit of a surprise change in plans?

[bumcheekcity]

Lets stop this. Saddam is a nasty piece of work. So is George Bush.

Saddam probably does have chemical and biological weapons, but why will he disarm if the US will attack him anyway? Theres no point in that. He's not stupid.

He was as good as told to fight the Iran/Iraq war and we gave him weapons and political support for the battle.

And finally, if we do fire a weapon, we will fire it at the largest power installation in Iraq. This will have the effect of crippling their defense and military systems. Unfortunately, the hospitals and schools will also not have power. Civilians will die, but not directly.

Lets face it, telling a country how to rule is Dictatorship. The US at the moment is bribing, threatening and blackmailing the UN Security Council to vote for them.

The world is bent and you know it as well as I do.

[JMHX]

Well, it's going to come down to war either way, so I say Saddam should line his weapons on the streets and get rid of that cursed Hans Blix with a VX to the forehead.

[IndecentXposure]

At 3/4/03 12:32 PM, D2KVirus wrote: The US told Iraq that if they wouldn't disarm all their nukes, they would be bombed to shit. So, can you explain to me;

1. Yesterday, US bombers dropped their payload in one of the No Fly Zones of Iraq, killing seven civilians, which they attempted to justify by saying they "looked like infantry." Sort of how a tractor carrying refugees in Kosovo "looked like a tank."

2. Gordon Brown has today changed the UK Budget so that there is more spending on defence, so that we are prepared in the event of war.

If there's any Republican piglet that has a remotely sensible, or mature, answer to this, I can't wait to hear it. Otherwise, I'll just assume the agenda wasn't about Iraq having 20,000 nukes less than the US, and having several million cubic gallons more. Or maybe your Dictator President is just making your country a Police State.

You are falling under Saddams spell.Sure Their are going to be 1000's maybe even hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths......according to Iraq. One, the numbers will be highly exagerated, just like in Afghanastan and two, the majority of civilain deaths that will be confirmed will most likely have been killed by Saddam. Like Wade said, the U.S has never said that Iraq has nukes and they certainly have never said even if they disarm we will still get rid of Saddam ...even though we would. I dont know where your getting your information...but its probably from your left wing liberal hippy media. Don't forget its not only U.S fighter jets that are bombing sites, its also British to ..we're in this together, the war IS inevitable, we all might as well look at the positive ..which is Saddam will be gone in a short amount of time, the Iraqi people will be liberated.............and oil prices will go down.

[Nightshadeplus]

What bothers me is that even though the US government is running at a deficit, Dubya is buying out countries left to right like an auction on Ebay. This war (and yes I believe that there WILL be a war sadly) is going to be paid by the next 5 generations.

[JMHX]

At 3/4/03 07:41 PM, Nightshadeplus wrote: What bothers me is that even though the US government is running at a deficit, Dubya is buying out countries left to right like an auction on Ebay. This war (and yes I believe that there WILL be a war sadly) is going to be paid by the next 5 generations.

Yep. Open your checkbooks, because there's going to be a lot of zeroes involved in this one. But HEY, Oil will go down a few dollars a barrel! Good for...Exxon...

[TheEvilOne]

At 3/4/03 12:32 PM, D2KVirus wrote: The US told Iraq that if they wouldn't disarm all their nukes, they would be bombed to shit. So, can you explain to me;

1. Yesterday, US bombers dropped their payload in one of the No Fly Zones of Iraq, killing seven civilians, which they attempted to justify by saying they "looked like infantry." Sort of how a tractor carrying refugees in Kosovo "looked like a tank."

Dude, accidents happen. We don't intentionally kill civilians. If you remember, when we accidentaly bombed Canadian troops in Afghanistan, the pilots involved were disciplined. Do you doubt that we will do the same here?

2. Gordon Brown has today changed the UK Budget so that there is more spending on defence, so that we are prepared in the event of war.

This is a bad thing?

[WadeFulp]

At 3/4/03 07:41 PM, Nightshadeplus wrote: What bothers me is that even though the US government is running at a deficit, Dubya is buying out countries left to right like an auction on Ebay. This war (and yes I believe that there WILL be a war sadly) is going to be paid by the next 5 generations.

Iraq has all the money and resources they need to rebuild once Saddam is gone so we shouldnt' have to worry about that expense. Also the more support we have from other countries, and when we do go in there will be even more countries going in with us, and they will help share the cost.

The thing to keep in mind though is Saddam has to be delt with. So it's either now, 5 years from now, 20 years from now, etc. The longer we wait the more expensive it will be, and the more messy it will be. So I say let's get it over with ASAP before he really does have nukes, more biological weapons, etc.

If we don't go in, in 10 years instead of our future generations being broke, they could be dead.

The USA has entered many wars, and we have made it through them just fine. Wars usually help the economy.

Once Saddam is gone, and now with the arrests of some major Al Quada operatives, and Al Quada being seriously f'ed up, investors will start to regain confidence and the economy will turn around.

You can't bake a cake without breaking some eggs.

[JMHX]

What irks me is the fact that Saddam Hussein will probably (note: I am not sure of the exact percentage chance) detonate some sort of chemical weapon in his "Urban Warfare-Scorched Earth 2003" plan. To some extent I feel sorry for those soldiers that are about to go running in there, guns blazing.

Oh well, that's what they signed up for.

[thenark]

Fucking A, I Think Anyone Who Is Pro War Needs To Stop And Think, Lets Say Some Big Strong Country Was Breathing Down Your Neck, And It Says It Can Have Weapons Of Mass Destruction But You Cant (Not To Mention It Hasnt Even Been Established That Iraq HAS Any Weapons Of Mass Destruction)How Would You Feel? I Mean Basically Bush And Powell Have Said No Matter What The UN Says, We're Still Coming To Kick Your Ass. Yet Somehow, Some Of You Cowboys Out There Think Its Unreasonable For Iraq To Defend Their Own Country, And Its Just For The Oil. And After The War In Iraq, What Next? Are You Gonna Topple The Evil Totalitarian Government Of Canada To Get Their Soft Wood Lumber And Salmon?

[TheEvilOne]

At 3/5/03 12:21 AM, thenark wrote: Blah Blah Blah Blah

Do you know how hard it is to read messages where every word is capitalized?

I am only going to tell you this once. It was the UN, and not the US, who issued the order for Saddam to disarm. This isn't a case of a big bully nation telling a small, innocent nation that it can't keep weapons to defend itself. This is a case of the entire world telling a ruthless dictator that he can't use weapons to threaten his neighbors.

Maybe you should stop to think.

[TheEvilOne]

And about this "war for oil" crap: honestly, if it were just about oil, don't you think we would have attacked them already, instead of trying to go through the UN?

[agent66]

I just want the killing to begin. Kill 'em all. Get some get some get some. I hate the human race. Fuck you all.

[Nightshadeplus]

At 3/4/03 10:02 PM, WadeFulp wrote: Iraq has all the money and resources they need to rebuild once Saddam is gone so we shouldnt' have to worry about that expense. Also the more support we have from other countries, and when we do go in there will be even more countries going in with us, and they will help share the cost.

I just hope we don't forget about Iraq once Saddam is ousted. Ten years ago, the US stopped their support for Afghanistan after the Soviets caved in and that led to the Taliban regime over time. Mistakes like that doesn't need to be made twice.

The thing to keep in mind though is Saddam has to be delt with. So it's either now, 5 years from now, 20 years from now, etc. The longer we wait the more expensive it will be, and the more messy it will be. So I say let's get it over with ASAP before he really does have nukes, more biological weapons, etc.

So do you think that regime change is absolutely necessary for this case or just complete disarmament?

Once Saddam is gone, and now with the arrests of some major Al Quada operatives, and Al Quada being seriously f'ed up, investors will start to regain confidence and the economy will turn around.

Well, here's hoping for the best...

[JMHX]

At 3/5/03 01:36 AM, agent66 wrote: I just want the killing to begin. Kill 'em all. Get some get some get some. I hate the human race. Fuck you all.

This is banter that should get you dragged from your home at night and beat with truncheons.

[D2Kvirus]

At 3/4/03 09:48 PM, TheEvilOne wrote:
Dude, accidents happen. We don't intentionally kill civilians. If you remember, when we accidentaly bombed Canadian troops in Afghanistan, the pilots involved were disciplined. Do you doubt that we will do the same here?

I don't recall any discipline being taken against pilots when those that were killed weren't allies. Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Kosovo - did they get an apology? No, what they got was a list of excuses, and what makes this different? "Accidents happen" is a, frankly, pitiful excuse. Maybe a little intelligence, both military and literally, might see a sudden downturn of incidents such as a penicilin factory in Sudan getting bombed in '98, because it "looked like a bomb factory." Have ou noticed a pattern, and did you notice any disciplinary action on that crew? No? How strange and unexpected...

2. Gordon Brown has today changed the UK Budget so that there is more spending on defence, so that we are prepared in the event of war.

This is a bad thing?

Considering the UK has a faltering health service, transport infastructure and employment rate for a few quick statistics, I think it can be said that the money could've been better spent. Several million of our population would back me up on it, too. After all, what's in it for us to be thrown into Iraq at the whim of Bush, since Blair doesn't have the backbone to question his American Masters (same with Clinton), if we're underarmed, and most likely to form Operation Human Shield anyway?

[Grinwald]

Blah blah blah. We don't target civilians. I guess if you want to trust the man who has gone on record as actually using nerve gas AGAINST civilians over your own country, that's fine. At least George Bush hasn't dumped VX over Pittsburgh.

Grow up, people. Stop empowering Saddam. This isn't about oil, this is about keeping the UN relevant. If it isn't going to enforce its own mandates, then what purpose does it even have?

[PreacherJ]

At 3/5/03 11:52 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

At 3/5/03 01:36 AM, agent66 wrote: I just want the killing to begin. Kill 'em all. Get some get some get some. I hate the human race. Fuck you all.

This is banter that should get you dragged from your home at night and beat with truncheons.

AH HA HA HA HA! For those of you who have no idea what the fuck a "truncheon" is, it's a billy club.

Word.

[TheEvilOne]

At 3/5/03 01:02 PM, D2KVirus wrote: Considering the UK has a faltering health service, transport infastructure and employment rate for a few quick statistics, I think it can be said that the money could've been better spent. Several million of our population would back me up on it, too. After all, what's in it for us to be thrown into Iraq at the whim of Bush, since Blair doesn't have the backbone to question his American Masters (same with Clinton), if we're underarmed, and most likely to form Operation Human Shield anyway?

Well, I'm not going to pretend to know what is going on in the world of British politics. I just figured that an increase in defense spending couldn't hurt, especially in a time of war. If you guys think the money would be better spent, that's fine. It'll probably be the US that foots most of the bill for the war anyway.

[Slizor]

Blah blah blah. We don't target civilians. I guess if you want to trust the man who has gone on record as actually using nerve gas AGAINST civilians over your own country, that's fine. At least George Bush hasn't dumped VX over Pittsburgh.

When was this?

Grow up, people. Stop empowering Saddam. This isn't about oil, this is about keeping the UN relevant. If it isn't going to enforce its own mandates, then what purpose does it even have?

It is enforcing its own mandates, that's why the UN inspectors are there.

[RandomFreak]

At 3/4/03 12:32 PM, D2KVirus wrote: The US told Iraq that if they wouldn't disarm all their nukes, they would be bombed to shit. So, can you explain to me;

1. Yesterday, US bombers dropped their payload in one of the No Fly Zones of Iraq, killing seven civilians, which they attempted to justify by saying they "looked like infantry." Sort of how a tractor carrying refugees in Kosovo "looked like a tank."

2. Gordon Brown has today changed the UK Budget so that there is more spending on defence, so that we are prepared in the event of war.

If there's any Republican piglet that has a remotely sensible, or mature, answer to this, I can't wait to hear it. Otherwise, I'll just assume the agenda wasn't about Iraq having 20,000 nukes less than the US, and having several million cubic gallons more. Or maybe your Dictator President is just making your country a Police State.

Ok first off, Iraq doesn't have nukes, they have chemical and biological weapons. North Korea is the country we're worried about having nukes.

Second the problem seems to be that Saddam has enough brains to seem like he's cooperating at some extent whereas Bush doesn't have the brains to not just plow in head long and make the US look like the biggest bully on the planet.

[RandomFreak]

I should clarify I don't think Saddam is fully cooperating but he is in small pieces which is enough to make others think war isn't needed and makes us the bad guy.

[JMHX]

At 3/6/03 08:51 AM, RandomFreak wrote: I should clarify I don't think Saddam is fully cooperating but he is in small pieces which is enough to make others think war isn't needed and makes us the bad guy.

This is the genius of Saddam Hussein's plan. Even I, the "Blind Anti-War Rallyist" can see what's going on here. Waiting until the last minute to do the minimum to get by...sounds like...school!

[D2Kvirus]

At 3/6/03 08:05 AM, TheEvilOne wrote:

At 3/5/03 01:02 PM, D2KVirus wrote: Considering the UK has a faltering health service, transport infastructure and employment rate for a few quick statistics, I think it can be said that the money could've been better spent. Several million of our population would back me up on it, too. After all, what's in it for us to be thrown into Iraq at the whim of Bush, since Blair doesn't have the backbone to question his American Masters (same with Clinton), if we're underarmed, and most likely to form Operation Human Shield anyway?

Well, I'm not going to pretend to know what is going on in the world of British politics. I just figured that an increase in defense spending couldn't hurt, especially in a time of war. If you guys think the money would be better spent, that's fine. It'll probably be the US that foots most of the bill for the war anyway.

What war? I don't recall anything like this for the Gulf, or Kosovo, so why suddenly throw cash away to appease Bush? True, if we don't he'd probably realise we have nukes and come gunning for us, but a little parity should be in order.

And if the US does foot the bill, good. They drag everyone into this mess, so should pay to get everybody out of it. Of course, if Bush gets voted out, like most incompetant politicians do, you have to pity the poor sod that has to clean everything up for the first two years of their Presidency.

[TomFlump]

MY THEORY: War sucks. Saddam sucks more. Altho nobody likes going to war, this time it is inevitable. Saddam is a jerk that needs to be dealt with. He will NOT go away. Ignoring him will only make things worse.

[panik]

God your lame, why dont you stop being so nieve and watch the news once and a while. Here are some things you probably dont know because you live in some carebear fantasy land: 1) Iraq does have chemical and bio weapons 2) Iraq has been commiting Genocide of the Kurdish people in norther Iraq 3)Oil they have it we need it if you dont think we dont then you can forget about asking your daddy for a car i fact why dont you just stop driving all together 4) Iraq did play a part in terriost activities not only on 911 but across the globe. 5)They would not hesitate about putting a gun to your head and shooting. Wake up smell the coffee dont be lame think before you speak and get informed.

P.S. Do you actually think they would just do what their told, leave us alone and not be a threat to the world (not only the US but England as well) if we just stood by and did not do anything at all. you dumbass. You lucky that you actually have a prime minister who has enough vision and courage to go against the view of the population to stand up and help rid the world of this threat.

[RoboTripper]

At 3/7/03 02:07 PM, panik wrote: God your lame, why dont you stop being so nieve and watch the news once and a while. Here are some things you probably dont know because you live in some carebear fantasy land: 1) Iraq does have chemical and bio weapons 2) Iraq has been commiting Genocide of the Kurdish people in norther Iraq 3)Oil they have it we need it if you dont think we dont then you can forget about asking your daddy for a car i fact why dont you just stop driving all together 4) Iraq did play a part in terriost activities not only on 911 but across the globe. 5)They would not hesitate about putting a gun to your head and shooting. Wake up smell the coffee dont be lame think before you speak and get informed.

Who are you talking to? The originator of this thread? Anyways:
1) Yeah, who doesn't?
2) Nobody cared about the Kurds until it was time to villify Iraq. Why didn't anybody care? Because it was insignificant compared to other countries human rights violations, including some of our allies (which Iraq once was)
3) Well, if you want to just go over there and take what you want by force without regard for harmony and diplomacy, you give up the right to act surprised and outraged when something like 9-11 happens.
4) That's just your guess. It's not based on any evidence. Just because Iraqi's are Arabs doesn't mean they're terrorists.
5) No, they probably wouldn't. But attacking them isn't going to change this, it'll just make it worse. The Arab world doesn't just arbitrarily hate us for no reason, there is definitely give-and-take going on.

P.S. Do you actually think they would just do what their told, leave us alone and not be a threat to the world (not only the US but England as well) if we just stood by and did not do anything at all. you dumbass. You lucky that you actually have a prime minister who has enough vision and courage to go against the view of the population to stand up and help rid the world of this threat.

Nobody is leaving Iraq alone. Right now at this moment they are being disarmed quite effectively by the UN. They have been complying with UN inspectors demands and are becoming more cooperative and forthcoming every day. And as far as being a threat to the world, they really haven't shown that.

[Commander-K25]

About the civilian casualty figure that will be bandied around if this does come to war, (which it seems as if it will, now), one must pay attention to the source. I expect it will be similar to the first Gulf War where Saddam proclaimed these exorbitant civilian casualty rates and the international press hung around Bagdhad and lapped it up, reporting Hussein's every quip as incontrovertible truth. If Saddam says that we blew up a school with 1000 kids inside, it must be true, right?

I'm not saying there will be zero civilian casualties, fore they are unavoidable in any major campaign. I'm saying that one should show severly scrutinize such exaggerted figures.

Another thing to consider is that Saddam has quite a track record of placing military personnel and equipment in residential areas thus creating risks to civilians in the first place.