The war maybe over. Well, maybe not. :) However, they are saying we hit a bunch of Iraqi leaders with a surgical strike of cruise missiles. So what if Saddam and the other leaders are toast? Will people take to the streets and cheer as we roll in? :)
Iraq war over.
4,249 Views | 80 Replies
At 3/19/03 10:10 PM, WadeFulp wrote: The war maybe over. Well, maybe not. :) However, they are saying we hit a bunch of Iraqi leaders with a surgical strike of cruise missiles. So what if Saddam and the other leaders are toast? Will people take to the streets and cheer as we roll in? :)
i doubt EVERYONE in iraq would like to see saddam gone imean he obviously has to have some supportors?
damn i really wanna watch three kings right now that movie is great
don't be trash people
At 3/19/03 10:10 PM, WadeFulp wrote: The war maybe over. Well, maybe not. :) However, they are saying we hit a bunch of Iraqi leaders with a surgical strike of cruise missiles. So what if Saddam and the other leaders are toast? Will people take to the streets and cheer as we roll in? :)
i think that saddam have some people that like he... But some of them don´t know that the war started... In fact, they don´t know that they are in a war... Saddam controls(past now) TV...
BBS HERO! O RLY?
He's probably safe in his luxury underground bunker toasting as all those dodgy minister guys he was gonna kill anyway get blown away..
OR his charred coorpse is found later today and people take pictures of it in ammusing poses..
You are the only one that can have so many topics at the same time about the same topic...
I hope they didn't kill him. I think we should capture him and torture him. And then interogate him.
That was quick.
I was expecting complete carnage. Maybe we can expect some skirmishes from the locals when they roll in, thats when things will get ugly...
BUTTON...BUTTON...WHOS GOT THE BUTTON...WHAT IT'S OVER...OH SHIT
Yes but south park is on so this is the first I've heard of it.
saddam is very sneaky sire he mite of had one of his clones get blown up
Did... did he just say that they entered the conflict *reluctantly*?
At 3/19/03 10:17 PM, Grencia wrote: Yes but south park is on so this is the first I've heard of it.
I know, I just finished watching it and I got on my computer and I hear that they've already striked Iraq. It's crazy I tell you, CRAZY!
At 3/19/03 10:19 PM, Dark_Sk8er_Grrrl wrote:At 3/19/03 10:17 PM, Grencia wrote: Yes but south park is on so this is the first I've heard of it.I know, I just finished watching it and I got on my computer and I hear that they've already striked Iraq. It's crazy I tell you, CRAZY!
........err....DSG.....crazy you say?.....
i've heard that women and children were arming up, so they could be civilian sheilds to the iraqi soldiers when we roll in. judging from the 17 soldiers who have aready surrendered and the coverage in the north, the women and children are probably gona sell their weapons for some good money and buy themselves an airplane ticket out of iraq
At 3/19/03 10:22 PM, malforpresident wrote: i've heard that women and children were arming up, so they could be civilian sheilds to the iraqi soldiers when we roll in. judging from the 17 soldiers who have aready surrendered and the coverage in the north, the women and children are probably gona sell their weapons for some good money and buy themselves an airplane ticket out of iraq
Probably be the smartest thing they ever do. But I know that not everyone in Iraq wanted Saddam gone. He did have supporters. In my opinion, he was really the only thing holding Iraq together all these years. That's probably the reason he hasn't been taken out already. There are all sorts of different Ethnic groups of people in Iraq, and it pretty much takes a power-hungry, psychotic dictator-type leader to keep them under thumb. I am ashamed to say that all of this could've been avoided if it hadn't been for the actions of one British man back in the early 1900's...
Can anyone tell me who that would be?
At 3/19/03 10:16 PM, wafflemeister wrote: How could they possibly know where to hit?
Never under estimate the US military. We have special ops in Iraq spying on them. We have high altitude spy plans, satellites, etc.
we had the stealth bomb in 1942....i wonder what we have now were going to learn about in 2045.
At 3/19/03 10:36 PM, WadeFulp wrote:At 3/19/03 10:16 PM, wafflemeister wrote: How could they possibly know where to hit?Never under estimate the US military. We have special ops in Iraq spying on them. We have high altitude spy plans, satellites, etc.
you know all tht stuff that they do on that game red alert that is what our military does.
At 3/19/03 10:35 PM, sparky64 wrote:
(snip)
I am ashamed to say that all of this could've been avoided if it hadn't been for the actions of one British man back in the early 1900's...
Can anyone tell me who that would be?
Uhhh.. no, not offhand.
Please, enlighten us. Was this during WWI?
gfox // wi/ht?#9 // defunct PentaList (final update: 3/15/2008) // Cyberdevil's HexaList!
a long, long time ago: 60000 b/p (#2) // 36000 blams (#3) // 24000 saves (#1)
At 3/19/03 10:22 PM, Dark_Sk8er_Grrrl wrote: I guess so.. I just don't like the fact that we're moving so quickly into war. Why can't Bush be diplomatic? Discussing the probelms may be the answer but yea whatever.
unfortunately, the world we live in is a "shoot (or in this case bomb) first, not even talk later!" mentality.
anyway, War is bad. no matter the cause. there is always another way, they are just a little hard to get to.
and no matter who you are, you have no right to take anybody's life. not one, not because the so called religion says so, but because of morals every person should have.
stop war.
"Blood will have blood" - Shakespeare
I think it would have pissed off the world even more, but wouldn't they have had a 100% guaranteed kill of Saddam if they attacked without 48 hour warning? I guess that would be bad since a lot more people would be left in the city.
At 3/19/03 10:43 PM, NemoX wrote: anyway, War is bad. no matter the cause. there is always another way, they are just a little hard to get to.
and no matter who you are, you have no right to take anybody's life. not one, not because the so called religion says so, but because of morals every person should have.
stop war.
"Blood will have blood" - Shakespeare
Alright Mr. Smarty Pants, how would you propose we remove Saddam without force? Knock on his door and tell him he's being naughty? Call him on the phone over and over until he gives up? Cut off all supplies to his country and starve all his innocent civilians to death? What!??
its about damn time. im so goddamn sick of all these hippies like "war is not cool my friends. Bush is a corrupt idiot!" all the hippies keep saying that innocent people dont need to die, but think about this: would the people of Iraq be better off if we DIDNT attack? they would be tortured and killed by Saddam himself. so its either a few civilians die in an accident, or Saddam tortures and kills thousands. u tell me which is worse.
At 3/19/03 10:43 PM, gfoxcook wrote:At 3/19/03 10:35 PM, sparky64 wrote:(snip)
I am ashamed to say that all of this could've been avoided if it hadn't been for the actions of one British man back in the early 1900's...Uhhh.. no, not offhand.
Can anyone tell me who that would be?
Please, enlighten us. Was this during WWI?
Dang, I figured we'd have an answer by now.
It was actually during and after WWI. Around 1918. There was a movie about his life. Does the actor Peter O'Toole ring a bell?
At 3/19/03 10:44 PM, wafflemeister wrote: I think it would have pissed off the world even more, but wouldn't they have had a 100% guaranteed kill of Saddam if they attacked without 48 hour warning? I guess that would be bad since a lot more people would be left in the city.
Oh no, there's still plenty of people left in the city. They're just not on the roads cause they're hiding indoors.
In fact, they blocked all the routes to and from the city to keep the civilians in, so it'll be more difficult for us.
gfox // wi/ht?#9 // defunct PentaList (final update: 3/15/2008) // Cyberdevil's HexaList!
a long, long time ago: 60000 b/p (#2) // 36000 blams (#3) // 24000 saves (#1)
Honestly i think Women is the start of all wars. Except for this one.
At 3/19/03 10:46 PM, FrankTheTank wrote: its about damn time. im so goddamn sick of all these hippies like "war is not cool my friends. Bush is a corrupt idiot!" all the hippies keep saying that innocent people dont need to die, but think about this: would the people of Iraq be better off if we DIDNT attack? they would be tortured and killed by Saddam himself. so its either a few civilians die in an accident, or Saddam tortures and kills thousands. u tell me which is worse.
Hmmm yet it is alright for the US to go against the UN to attack Iraq, yet I do recall in the 80's The US fully supported Saddam even when they had full knowledge of the fact he was killing his own people.
