Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

If I were Saddam, and faced with the prospect of a war I wouldn't be able to win, I'd be putting my military right next to the civilians, too. It's a great way to slow up the armies enough to get out of the country and seek asylum in North Korea. That and Scorched Earth.

Tell me something, panik; is being a naieve, obnoxious, braindead member of The Herd comfortable?

That has to be the first post that violates my Three Deadly Sins; Don't bullshit me, Don't insult my intellignece, Don't waste my time. Congratulations are in order.

At 3/4/03 01:13 PM, WadeFulp wrote: 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.

true BUT may i remind you wade that in kosovo those guided missiles where already that sophisticated but they still used "classical weapons" some of those in a new form. one of the bombtypes used in kosovo was a sort of crate bomb; when it hit the ground it bursted open in many smaller parts wich exploded again thus killing much more civilians. Plus "errare humanum est" (errors are human) there allways will be civilian victims.

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.

hey i don't deny that Saddam's regime has made several victims. but what you state is a feable excuse. ok maybe he has done such things but you're not gonna say that the american army doesn't kill civilians. any army kills civilians. that's what they are supposed to do. i can give you hundreds of examples. but i'll keep it with one right now. one of the worst errors in afghanistan. when there's a wedding party in that country ppl usually shoot in the air with their guns. well some crazy american soldiers thought those people where shooting on them and they found nothing better to do as bombing them to hell. not my idea of a happy wedding day.

At 3/8/03 02:00 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: If I were Saddam, and faced with the prospect of a war I wouldn't be able to win, I'd be putting my military right next to the civilians, too. It's a great way to slow up the armies enough to get out of the country and seek asylum in North Korea. That and Scorched Earth.

come on he won't go to north korea, because that will be the next country america will attack. (watch my words)
he'll cut off his moustache and he'll flee to a western country.

At 3/4/03 01:13 PM, WadeFulp wrote:

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.

Saddam recently placed military units right next to churches and civilian objects. What kind of a leader puts his people in harms way? He is furthering his own selfish goals in attempt to make someone else look like the murderer. If the US does start a war with Iraq and we target these military units, it is inevitable that we might hit a non-military unit nearby.... and that is what Saddam is hoping for.

At 3/9/03 09:50 AM, SolarisDX wrote: Saddam recently placed military units right next to churches and civilian objects. What kind of a leader puts his people in harms way? He is furthering his own selfish goals in attempt to make someone else look like the murderer. If the US does start a war with Iraq and we target these military units, it is inevitable that we might hit a non-military unit nearby.... and that is what Saddam is hoping for.

Well said. Of course Saddam wants to make us look like the bad guy. What's sad is that he seems to be succeeding. I'm so sick of hearing anti-war people talking about "what we're going to do to the poor people of Iraq", for two reasons:

1. Saddam is responsible for any civilian deaths, because if he truly cared about his people, he would do what it takes to avoid war and disarm.

2. I've said this before and may be starting to sound redundant, but once Saddam is gone, the Iraqi people will be MUCH better off.

At 3/9/03 09:40 AM, nimmer wrote:

At 3/8/03 02:00 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

come on he won't go to north korea, because that will be the next country america will attack. (watch my words)
he'll cut off his moustache and he'll flee to a western country.

Substitute "attack" for "bribe into submission" and you'll have the plan.

1. Saddam is responsible for any civilian deaths, because if he truly cared about his people, he would do what it takes to avoid war and disarm.

BANG! "Whoops, another child, oh well it's Saddam's fault!"

2. I've said this before and may be starting to sound redundant, but once Saddam is gone, the Iraqi people will be MUCH better off.

Like the Afghanis?

At 3/9/03 02:43 PM, Slizor wrote:

2. I've said this before and may be starting to sound redundant, but once Saddam is gone, the Iraqi people will be MUCH better off.

Like the Afghanis?

We seem to have forgotten about them since their novelty wore off. Last time I checked, their president was being targetted for assassination attempts, and the economy...wait...what economy? Yeah, Iraq is going to be a lot different. Sure.

You hear alot of people talk about this war being for oil but its not, certainly oil is a factor and we wouldnt be handling this in the way we are(not jsut yet anyway) if iraq's economy was cabbage based(you laugh but thats just about it for some countries). Plus this oil isnt really going to last much longer, it has maybe 20 to 40 years left and we certainly wouldnt be getting it for free, in fact we might be paying more considering how much it will take to rebuild iraq. Also people say that U.S. is a big bullie that says only we can have nuclear weapons which isnt true. We have been trying to eliminate all nuclear eapons in fact we recently eliminated either 2/3 or 1/3 of our nuclear arsenal(i cant quite remember how much it was). We tend not to mess around with countries that already have nukes even if in small supply, i.e. india and pakistan, but we certainly dont want anyone else to start having nuclear weapons. I think everyone will agree with that exept for the country trying to make the weapons, so its not like what were doing is unjustified or cruel. As for civilian casualties Saddam has used civilians as "shields" when it comes to bombings and even our own prisoners so we cant trust him for information on how many civilians died. I have a question too, does anyone know if we still have prisoners over there or did we get them all back?