Missed!!!!

[Dig-the-Man]

Too bad the Americans missed Saddam and killed some Jordanian woman instead. Oh well, maybe next time eh?

By the way... who are the people (preferably regulars) that are opposed to this war other than D2K?

[Commander-K25]

At 3/20/03 03:37 PM, Dig_the_Man wrote: Too bad the Americans missed Saddam and killed some Jordanian woman instead. Oh well, maybe next time eh?

By the way... who are the people (preferably regulars) that are opposed to this war other than D2K?

What uninformed dross.

[mysecondstar]

amen.

[RoboTripper]

I'm opposed. But regarding the missile attack targeting Saddam, since when did the U.S. start trying to assassinate foreign leaders? I thought that was a no-no.

[Commander-K25]

At 3/20/03 04:48 PM, DenkSmoker wrote: I'm opposed. But regarding the missile attack targeting Saddam, since when did the U.S. start trying to assassinate foreign leaders? I thought that was a no-no.

Peace-time assassinations, yes. This is a war and Saddam is the leader of the Iraqi military. He is most CERTAINLY a viable target.

[PreacherJ]

Nobody should be supportive of war, ever. Nobody wants their children to march off to die in the support of ideals.

I understand the necessity in such practices to secure my safety and way of life, but I just wish everybody standing around in the desert shooting at each other wasn't the only way to resolve it.

[RoboTripper]

At 3/20/03 05:17 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

Peace-time assassinations, yes. This is a war and Saddam is the leader of the Iraqi military. He is most CERTAINLY a viable target.

Really? I thought it applied during all times - the U.S. used to condemn Israel for targeting leaders of the Palestines and that was a wartime scenario. I looked it up and I guess it was rescinded because Osama could be considered exempt under the order (signed by Ford 25 yrs ago) and that would prevent us from targeting him with our special forces.

I think it's a bad precedent. Saddam is technically the head of the Iraq military, but isn't he a figurehead like the U.S. president? You could make a case that a leader of just about any country is in ultimate control of that country's military. Not that it'd be a real shame if Saddam got it or anything, but it does set a precedent - I guess Bush can't really complain about Saddam's attempt to assassinate his dad anymore.

[MuscleHed]

Sorry, I clicker clear before send. Like I was saying:

I don’t think anyone really wants to go to war, but there are times when a war must be fought to protect the country I wish everybody standing around in the desert shooting at each other wasn't the only way to resolve it either, but Saddem was being playing games, and we can’t just sit there and wait till America’s die! You may say “So American live are more important then others?” In a word, YES. To the American Government, the safety of America’s should be their top priority! It should be the same it every country, the top priority of any nation should be the health and happiness of their Citizens.

[Jimsween]

It isnt known yet if they killed Saddam or not because it is entirely possible, although unlikely, that he is dead and as for the Jordanian woman, what was she doing in Iraq right before a war was going to start? I think she was asking for it...

[panik]

Does'nt this me an that bush him self is a target for attack himself? he is the Comander and Chief. And if we kill Saddam is that it is the Iraq army going to just stop?

[mysecondstar]

At 3/20/03 06:00 PM, panik wrote: Does'nt this me an that bush him self is a target for attack himself? he is the Comander and Chief. And if we kill Saddam is that it is the Iraq army going to just stop?

that is what the US is betting on. if you cut off the head of the snake, the rest of the snake dies.

most, if not all, of the Iraqi military is under the gun of saddam hussein. if you remove saddam, the military won't have to fear that if they gave up they would die.

[TheloniousMONK]

At 3/20/03 05:38 PM, DenkSmoker wrote:

At 3/20/03 05:17 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

Peace-time assassinations, yes. This is a war and Saddam is the leader of the Iraqi military. He is most CERTAINLY a viable target.

Really? I thought it applied during all times - the U.S. used to condemn Israel for targeting leaders of the Palestines and that was a wartime scenario. I looked it up and I guess it was rescinded because Osama could be considered exempt under the order (signed by Ford 25 yrs ago) and that would prevent us from targeting him with our special forces.

International law states that political leaders are exempt from any protections EXCEPT for torture. But then again... who cares?

[House-Of-Leaves]

1. I believe that Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator, and that instead of leaving his country and saving lives all over the world (including his own), he decided to stay and call down the thunder.

2. That doesn't make it right in my mind. This war is illegal. It is against the United States Constitution, and against UN Security Council mandate.

I don't think it's the issue of whether or not killing Saddam is legal or not that gets me. If he's dead, then the people are free to choose another leader, and hopefull history won't repeat itself.

I do not think Bush should have taken it upon himself to strike first. I do not agree with this war. I think it would have been much more cost effective to send in snipers. Shoot Saddam. Game over.

(DISCLAIMER: Yes, that is oversimplified. I just don't have the inclination to write EVERYTHING I believe in one thread. It's time consuming, and silly. Also...cost effective, meaning, lives first, then money. Innocents are dying, and are going to die.)

[D2Kvirus]

At 3/20/03 05:22 PM, PreacherJ wrote: Nobody should be supportive of war, ever. Nobody wants their children to march off to die in the support of ideals.

Especially members of Congress (Sen. Johnson of South Dakota withstanding). Come to think of it, Euan Blair is old enough to join the Army, so ship him out there too. Even better, Bush and Blair themselves are just about in the age limit to join, send all the bastards out there to see what effect their soapboxing really has.

[EvilBread]

Noone WANTS a war, noone. War is just something you have to do from time to time to keep the wackos out of our world, as sad as that may seem...it is the truth...

[NEMESiSZ]

Yeah, war never accomplished anything, if you don't count stopping Hitler.

[swayside]

At 3/22/03 04:32 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Yeah, war never accomplished anything, if you don't count stopping Hitler.

stopping hitler, communism, facism, naziism, slavery...

[NEMESiSZ]

Yeah, I know.

Has anyone else heard about this single "Jordanian Woman?" Or is it an SNL joke taken as fact, which is commonplace on these boards?

[Taors]

I don't want to see Saddam killed in this war, I want him captured and tried in a world court, and spending the rest of his life in a tiny cell. To me, that's a worse punishment than dying. If he was killed in war, or executed, he would be a martyr to his supporters.

[NEMESiSZ]

Dead people don't make very good supporters.

[bumcheekcity]

im against the war. i think its about oil and i don't believe George Bush cares what happens to the Iraqui people. on the funny side, hes dug himself into a huge hole. he can't get out of it now.

[NEMESiSZ]

At 3/22/03 06:45 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: im against the war. i think its about oil and i don't believe George Bush cares what happens to the Iraqui people. on the funny side, hes dug himself into a huge hole. he can't get out of it now.

Yeah, that decisive victory and minimal civ casualties really make him look bad.

[swayside]

At 3/22/03 06:45 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: im against the war. i think its about oil and i don't believe George Bush cares what happens to the Iraqui people.

it's obvious that you don't care enough about the iraqi people to spell their nationality correctly.