You must set the ad_network_ads.txt file to be writable (check file name as well).
What Do You Think About a War on Iraq? [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

PDA

View Full Version : What Do You Think About a War on Iraq?


Coco
09-08-2002, 12:01 PM
I don't really have a good feeling about it - and a lot of other countries don't agree with the U.S on this.

______________________

We can't change our past, but we can change the way we look at it - into something more positive

Gvac
09-08-2002, 12:13 PM
There is overwhelming evidence that Saddam Hussein is a major contributor to terrorist efforts around the globe, most notably Al Qaeda and the Palestinians.

Recent satellite photos also reveal he is frighteningly close to developing nuclear weapons.

Failure to act would be foolish, and possibly catastrophic. Screw our supposed "allies" in Europe; it's time we took a stand against these animals and lived up to the words President Bush spoke on September 14, 2001, which in essence were "You're either with us or against us."

<img src=http://home.ix.netcom.com/~camman/_uimages/animatedgvacsig.gif>

Another PanterA Masterpiece

BrooklynLiveCam
09-08-2002, 12:37 PM
Well, personally....being a Jew and having family in Israel, I think all Arabs should be killed. Though I know everyone will disagree and come down hard on me, it is just my opinion. I have been to Israel and have seen what goes on there with my own eyes. So I say yes....goto war with Iraq. But it wont be like it was in 91'. This time they we want to actually go onto the ground in Baghdad and completely wipe out the regime.

www.brooklynlivecam.com

TheKnicks23
09-08-2002, 12:45 PM
I think Bush is just trying to justify 9/11. It may be true they had something to do about it but hes not doing the right thing. After this happened people just wanted him to bomb somebody, beacuse by killing other inocent people he thinks hes justifying it. We'll end up starting WW3 with all this shit. Bombing all the middle eastern countries isn't the answer, I don't know what the answer is but thats not it. Hes going to get trigger happy and blow the shit out of everyone. Which proves hes an idiot.

<IMG SRC= "http://fezwatley.4t.com/images/FINALMGSSIG.gif">
<marquee>SMACKDOWN! Fan Since day 1</marquee>
<marquee>Mario Fan Since Day 1</marquee>

Yerdaddy
09-08-2002, 12:52 PM
GVAC, so what's the evidence then?

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/billyact.jpg" >
If I don't make you laugh, you don't know what felch means.

NewYorkDragons80
09-08-2002, 01:53 PM
We're going to go to war with Iraq. We have all the allies we need. Britain, Bahrain, and Qatar are plenty. We're going to win. Arabs can not win a conventional war. End of story.

"In war there is no substitute for victory."
-General Douglas MacArthur

"If gold should rust, what will iron do?"
-Geoffrey Chaucer

This message was edited by NewYorkDragons80 on 9-8-02 @ 5:56 PM

A.J.
09-08-2002, 03:10 PM
Bombing all the middle eastern countries isn't the answer, I don't know what the answer is but thats not it. Hes going to get trigger happy and blow the shit out of everyone. Which proves hes an idiot.


If Bush was a trigger-happy "idiot", the Middle East and Central Asia would have been annihilated on September 12, 2001.

Iraq, the Middle East and Central Asia are only part of the problem. There are al-Qaeda cells in the Phillippines, Indonesia, Africa, and the Balkans that need to be dealt with. These people are bound and determined to kill Americans overseas or at home. It's become a case of "kill or be killed".

<IMG SRC="http://nortonfan.com/shit/greatsig.jpg">
"Got to scrape that shit right off your shoes."

Farside
09-08-2002, 03:33 PM
And I say KILL those filthy pricks.

FMJeff
09-08-2002, 03:33 PM
If I was President and I had evidence of impending doom against my country I wouldn't be wasting my time trying to justify a war to the American people. I would just act. This is clearly posturing at its worst because if Bush has his way a lot of people will die and billions of dollars will be wasted.

The American people do not want this war. THAT's why he's doing this...he doesn't want this to be a public relations nightmare and he wants to be re-elected.

<center><img src="http://members.aol.com/sabanj666/ass.gif">
<br>
Stupid is as stupid does.</center>

TheGameHHH
09-08-2002, 03:52 PM
Let's just fuckin do it already.

IT'S TIME TO PLAY THE GAME-AHHH!

<IMG SRC="http://wwfallon.50megs.com/RFnetTheGameHHH2.jpg">
Thanks Fallon for the sig!
Co-Founder of the OddJob Fan Club

TheMojoPin
09-08-2002, 03:59 PM
Then go after the terrorists.

Saddam Hussein is just a public target to make everyone feel good over the "war on terror." He's a petty, greedy man who just wants to stay in power. He's not an extremist or a terrorist. He's not that stupid. The second he launches any kind of chemical or nuke attack, or harbors major terrorists willingling and openly, he would be shut down even faster than we're planning now. And he's too power-hungry to just give up his country like that. He's like Arafat, in that all he wants to do is stay in power, so he caters to the extremists by tossing out the standard "America is Satan" shitck without actually doing anything.

I'm sick of this horseshit. Do the right thing and take over Saudi Arabia.

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

Captain Rooster
09-08-2002, 04:47 PM
It's going to happen. We are not just rattling our sword. When the proof does hit the world...we hit within the next hour. Just watch.

<CENTER><img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/charliedontpost.jpg></center>
<CENTER>Tora Bora is a Sandbox: See Above</center>

Death Metal Moe
09-08-2002, 05:07 PM
I WANT TO SE SADDAM DEAD!

I back Bush in whatever he says.

If you don't think he'll come after EVERYONE he can if he gets big time weapons, you're just fooling yourself.

A man who would kill his own people by the thousands can't be allowed to gain power, or live for that matter.

<IMG SRC=http://unhallowed.com/sigs/deathfaction.gif>
www.unhallowed.com
<marquee>People's chioce: MOST VULGAR POSTER!! FUCK YEA!!</marquee>

Captain Rooster
09-08-2002, 05:32 PM
I think that Iraq will respond by trying to hit our troops with chemical weapons.

My gut feeling tells me that if Saddam gets a nuke, he will use it on us at his first possible chance. We cannot let that happen.

Israel hit Iraq's nuke plant in the late eighties and the strike was one of the best decisions that Israel has ever made.

I do not want innocent people killed because of a self-serving, egomaniacal dictator, but better them than my fellow Americans.

I do think Congress needs to be involved; not necessarily the rest of the world.


<CENTER><img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/charliedontpost.jpg></center>
<CENTER>Tora Bora is a Sandbox: See Above</center>

TheMojoPin
09-08-2002, 06:04 PM
Literally weeks before Iraq invaded Kuwait, Iraq offered full and unconditional UN and US-monitored inspections of their weapons of mass destruction under the sole condition that the U.S. put a halt to Israel's nuclear development. We refused. Oh well.

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

Yerdaddy
09-08-2002, 06:35 PM
Weapons inspectors were successful. By 1998 they had destroyed 90-95% of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction capabilities. At that point US domestic politics took over our policy towards Iraq. Clinton pulled the inspectors out and launched Desert Fox to distract from the impeachment. Bush has continued the policy of regime change and HAS MADE NO ATTEMPT TO GET INSPECTIONS RESTARTED despite their previous success. This is a politically driven war, which will undermine the actual war on terrorism and thus further jepardizes our security.

I challenge anyone to show me evidence that Saddam was involved in 9-11, or is a threat to the United States.

But if this thread is just going to be based on rhetoric, then here's mine: The actual war on terrorism is going to be long, slow and quiet, just like Bush said. But the American public will not be satisfied unless it gets to see shit blown up on TV. The Bush administration could be doing exactly what needs to be done to protect us from terrorists and he will recieve no political credit because Americans are too lazy to read terrorism reports and to judge the progress being made for themselves. They're content to listen to political rhetoric and ignore the more difficult work of scrutinizing the work of thier elected leaders. So the president needs to blow some shit up to make you happy. Iraq is perfect because he's replaced the Soviet Union as our boogey-man for over a decade now. All to satisfy a lazy public more bent on revenge than legitimate security. The costs to ourselves and the world will be immense. And we will have only ourselves to blame.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/billyact.jpg" >
If I don't make you laugh, you don't know what felch means.

Gvac
09-08-2002, 06:39 PM
Man, I'm sure glad some of you weren't around in 1941. You'd probably be saying "Well, the Japanese bombed us so we can go after them, but let's leave the poor Nazis out of this. Hitler ain't such a bad guy."

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/09/iraq-000918.htm

<img src=http://home.ix.netcom.com/~camman/_uimages/animatedgvacsig.gif>

Another PanterA Masterpiece


This message was edited by gvac on 9-8-02 @ 11:02 PM

Recyclerz
09-08-2002, 06:56 PM
Mojo Pin makes some good points. I would restructure them this way: <P>
Saddam is a scumbag but odds are he had nothing to do with 9/11. Bin laden is a messianic Islamist who wants to defeat western civilization starting with its leader, us. Saddam is a petty dictator who thought he could get away with something by taking back Kuwait. I think Bin laden and his ideas & followers are the bigger threat. As a pinko liberal I would love to see Saddam strangled by his own entrails for the war crimes he has committed. But if it distracts us from routing out bin laden and his ilk - it is a BIG mistake. <P>

You're only young once but you can be immature forever!

Yerdaddy
09-08-2002, 07:00 PM
If you want to compare Saddam to Hitler, you have to compare a post-war Hitler to a post-war Saddam. You have to suppose that Hitler didn't eatabullet.com and that the
Allies stopped short of Berlin and left Hitler contained and only a threat to ordinary Germans. Then, as a part of the terms of surrender, Hitler was forced to admit inspectors to dismantle his weapons of mass destruction, which they did 90-95% of, despite Hitler's attempt to hide them. But once they had nearly completed the job of disarmament, they are pulled out and the policy changed from disarming Iraq to removing the government, leaving no incentive for the now impudent Hitler to further comply with inspections. But at least you haven't lost your boogeyman to justify the rest of your self-interested foreign policy and make some cash for your friends in the oil business in the process. Then the Allies continue to state that Hitler is a threat, even though he is militarily insignificant and surrounded on all sides by Allied military. Then when China invades Korea, you go to war with North Korea, but you blame Hitler too so you can have at least one victory to satisfy a population that is not really paying attention anyway.

That's the comparison you have to make. And the comparison isn't worth much after all.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/billyact.jpg" >
If I don't make you laugh, you don't know what felch means.

Recyclerz
09-08-2002, 07:11 PM
GVAC
I think what we "liberals" are worried about is this analogy - Sure, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor but it is too difficult to find the Emperor so let's bomb China instead: They kinda look alike, it's a lot bigger target and they're sure to do something to piss us off sooner or later, so let's get it over with already.

You're only young once but you can be immature forever!

This message was edited by Recyclerz on 9-8-02 @ 11:12 PM

PamR&Ffan
09-08-2002, 09:31 PM
I'd like to see the evidence. This war wouldn't be against just Iraq but against all the arab league. Why is it important this week? Bush is speaking to the UN 9/12...why not last week, or next week? Why talk to Russia, China and France before making a case before us? If he didn't have weapons of mass distruction, we're sure giving him a reason to get them ready. And if the UN and the House say...you're right! What's our plan? This just seems to be being handled wrong. Just my opinion. <P>

SilentSpic
09-08-2002, 09:59 PM
Is this enough evidence?

Don't ever post something that long again.


<center><img src="http://www.silentspic.com/images/pimpinsig2.jpg">
</center>

This message was edited by FoundryMusicJeff on 9-11-02 @ 5:36 PM

Yerdaddy
09-08-2002, 10:47 PM
Is this enough evidence?
No. It's a justification for going after Al Quaeda, not whoever we don't like.

Let me make this clear to those who want to make the 9-11 attack a justification for every enemy, real or imagined: it's American soldiers who will have to do the killing. And it's American soldiers who will die for the cause we choose. If you think we owe our soldiers our thanks for puting thier lives on the line to protect our way of life, you're wrong. We owe it to them to take responsibility for what we send them off to die for. We owe it to them first to try NOT to risk their lives, and this administration has not done that. They have done nothing to pressure Saddam into accepting inspectors back in, (in fact he deliberately undermined attempts by the UN to get inspectors back in). It is pathetic that up to 250,000 soldiers will soon be risking their lives for us in Iraq, and we don't even have the courage to ask why? Empty rhetoric is not enough. Be prepared to add more names to the bottom of your list. And my challenge still stands.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/billyact.jpg" >
If I don't make you laugh, you don't know what felch means.

TheMojoPin
09-09-2002, 06:49 AM
Is this enough evidence?

No. Those are innocent people killed by SAUDI ARABIAN terroists working with AL QUAEDA. Where's Iraq in that equation? Oh, right, they're brown, too. It's all the same in the end, isn't it?

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

TheMojoPin
09-09-2002, 06:52 AM
Edmond Young, 22, Owings, Md. BTG Inc. Confirmed dead, Pentagon.

Oh, by the by, I knew this guy. That was a shitty, shitty thing to do.

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

NewYorkDragons80
09-09-2002, 02:05 PM
Yerdaddy, there was the alleged meeting between Iraqi and Taliban intelligence in Switzerland days before 9/11. Not proof yet, but a damn good lead.

"In war there is no substitute for victory."
-General Douglas MacArthur

"If gold should rust, what will iron do?"
-Geoffrey Chaucer

Jackie Sloan
09-09-2002, 02:20 PM
I don't agree with Bushs' approach with Iraq, it seems rhetorical and confusing. But one thing is for sure: If Saddscum gets the opportunity, he will Nuke Israel and the U.S. Will he be able to reach the U.S.? Probably not. He WILL be able to reach Israel, remember scud missiles? It also seems logical to me that he knew about 9-11, you can bet your ass he could not have been happier. Saddscum is a dangerous man, he's already proven what a murdering scumbag he is. Do not accept him or anyone in his camp as legitimate. If he could, he would do exactly what Al Qaeda does: kill as many JEWS AND AMERICANS AS POSSIBLE. He would kill every single one of us given the chance.

<img src="http://norraccm.freeservers.com/images/rnf_jackiesloan_01.gif"><br>
Ferrall is the man
Love the Ferrall

MudHoney...brilliant

Captain Rooster
09-09-2002, 03:47 PM
http://www.msnbc.com/news/802167.asp?0cb=-31b24124

Uh oh!

<CENTER><img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/charliedontpost.jpg></center>
<CENTER>Tora Bora is a Sandbox: See Above</center>

TheMojoPin
09-09-2002, 04:56 PM
So if they don't have it ALREADY...ah, fuck it. Let's just blunder into this and get the dying started. If I gotta go, I want it over fast.

The only way Saddam would be stupid enough to use a weapon of mass destruction openly aginst us is if we backed him into a corner. Rock on, Baby Bush.

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

Recyclerz
09-09-2002, 08:17 PM
http://http://www.msnbc.com/news/804513.asp <P>
And check out this one as well <P>

You're only young once but you can be immature forever!

Yerdaddy
09-09-2002, 10:30 PM
Link to the article, don't post it.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/billyact.jpg" >
If I don't make you laugh, you don't know what felch means.

This message was edited by FoundryMusicJeff on 9-11-02 @ 5:37 PM

Ryan the Great
09-09-2002, 10:46 PM
Christopher Joseph Blackwell, 42, Patterson, N.Y. firefighter, New York Fire Department Confirmed dead, World Trade Center.

that was my uncle

<IMG SRC="http://publish.hometown.aol.com/unseenriot/myhomepage/sheep.gif?mtbrand=AOL_US">
<marquee>I will not die! I will not kill! I will not be your slave! I will not fight your battles! I will not fight on your battlefields! I will not fight for your wealth! I am not a fighter! I am a human being! - Anti-flag</marquee>
peace-love-unity,
Ryan the Great

TheMojoPin
09-10-2002, 03:31 AM
It is impossible to know what precise mix of carrots and sticks will prompt the Iraqi leadership to permit the re-entry of inspectors

Now THAT'S kinky.

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

jimmyd
09-10-2002, 01:10 PM
This is the first time I've ever posted to this board. I can't believe some of the things I am reading here.

Why is it that some people will go out of their way to defend Saddam and blame President Bush? Is it just because Bush is a Republican? Many of you "liberals" will disagree with whatever a Republican does, and many "conservatives" will disagree with whatever a Democrat does. This a a very sad state of affairs when Americans will turn a blind eye to the truth just so that their "team" looks good.

Listen, I do NOT agree with everything that has been going on since 09/11/01. But, on the whole, I will support my government. And no, it is NOT blind support.

For all you defenders of Saddam and Iraq: you ask for evidence? Okay...how about genocide, theft, and tyranny?

Maybe these aren't specific threats against the U.S., but they are for the world, and thus the U.S. will be affected.

People say that the U.S. is a target because we always try to get involved where we don't belong. But the thing that angers me most is those same people always turn around and say that they want us to help them. Sound hypocritical? You bet it does. Arabs hate us because we are sided with Israel, period. They would love if we were their allies since the beginning.

And, President Clinton said in a 1998 speech that Saddam was a threat that needed to be dealt with sooner rather than later (paraphrasing). We all know that Saddam is a murdering dictator, and the Hitler comparison is not far off. If he had the power he would eliminate every Jew and American in the world.

I agree with the notion of how the American people do bother themselves with the facts. That is a real shame. But that is why President Bush is trying to rally the people, even if what he says isn't entirely true at times. Like when he says this is a fight for freedom and democracy...that isn't true. But that is exactly what people need to hear. That is what any politician would say.

And here is one of the most sadly comical things I have read on here about Iraq: "90-95% of their weapons were destroyed...they are no threat to the U.S." Can you see the blatant, ignorant contradiction there? If someone has even just 5 or 10% of the weapons they had, they are still WELL equipped to do major damage to the world. And remember, we are talking about weapons of mass destruction, which does NOT only mean nuclear weapons. Chemical and biological weapons are also weapons of mass destruction. And, (for those who need evidence) it is a FACT that Saddam has and already used these weapons before.

Iraq may be a distraction for the American people. Saddam may not be responsible (directly) for 09/11/01, but does that mean we should forget about him? Does that mean we should ignore him until he does become a threat to the world? While we wait he only gets stronger. And many of our own people are siding with him while our cities are still bloody from something that he was a part of, whether directly or indirectly.

Nobody wants war. But war was delcared on us. Period.

-James

Yerdaddy
09-10-2002, 01:14 PM
Recent satellite photos also reveal he is frighteningly close to developing nuclear weapons.
From the article that Rooster posted:
PRESIDENT MISSTATES `FACTS'
In his meeting with Blair, Bush cited a satellite photograph and a report by the U.N. atomic energy agency as evidence of Iraq's impending rearmament. However, in response to a report by NBC News, a senior administration official acknowledged Saturday night that the U.N. report drew no such conclusion, and a spokesman for the U.N. agency said the photograph had been misinterpreted.
Blair cited a newly released satellite photo of Iraq identifying new construction at several sites linked in the past to Baghdad's development of nuclear weapons. And both leaders mentioned a 1998 report by the U.N.-affiliated International Atomic Energy Agency that said Saddam could be six months away from developing nuclear weapons.
"I don't know what more evidence we need," Bush said, standing alongside Blair. "We owe it to future generations to deal with this problem."
In a joint appearance before the summit, the two leaders repeated their shared view that Saddam's ouster was the only way to stop Iraq's pursuit - and potential use - of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
"The policy of inaction is not a policy we can responsibly subscribe to," Blair said as he joined Bush in trying to rally reluctant allies to deal with Saddam, perhaps by military force.

IAEA: NUCLEAR ABILITY DESTROYED
Contrary to Bush's claim, however, the 1998 IAEA report did not say that Iraq was six months away from developing nuclear capability, NBC News' Robert Windrem reported Saturday.
Instead, Windrem reported, the Vienna, Austria-based agency said in 1998 that Iraq had been six to 24 months away from such capability before the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the U.N.-monitored weapons inspections that followed.
The war and the inspections destroyed much of Iraq's nuclear infrastructure and required Iraq to turn over its highly enriched uranium and plutonium, Windrem reported.
In a summary of its 1998 report, the IAEA said that "based on all credible information available to date ... the IAEA has found no indication of Iraq having achieved its program goal of producing nuclear weapons or of Iraq having retained a physical capability for the production of weapon-useable nuclear material or having clandestinely obtained such material."

WHITE HOUSE ADMITS ERROR
A senior White House official acknowledged Saturday night that the 1998 report did not say what Bush claimed. "What happened was, we formed our own conclusions based on the report," the official told NBC News' Norah O'Donnell.
Meanwhile, Mark Gwozdecky, a spokesman for the U.N. agency, disputed Bush's and Blair's assessment of the satellite photograph, which was first publicized Friday. Contrary to news service reports, there was no specific photo or building that aroused suspicions, he told Windrem.
The photograph in question was not U.N. intelligence imaging but simply a picture from a commercial satellite imaging company, Gwozdecky said. He said that the IAEA reviewed commercial satellite imagery regularly and that, from time to time, it noticed construction at sites it had previously examined.
Gwozdecky said the new construction indicated in the photograph was no surprise and that no conclusions were drawn from it. "There is not a single building we see," he said.

We have all the allies we need. Britain, Bahrain, and Qatar are plenty.
[url]<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2201390.stm">Iran and Bahrain Oppose Iraq Attack</a>
<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020827/wl_nm/iraq_qatar_attack_dc_1">Qatar Opposes U.S. Military Action Against Iraq</a>

Yerdaddy, there was the alleged meeting between Iraqi and Taliban intelligence in Switzerland days before 9/11. Not proof yet, but a damn good lead.
<a href="http://www.time.com/time/wor

travis151
09-10-2002, 01:30 PM
Nobody wants to be in a war not even G.W. Bush. But Iraq has been and or at least have been trying to build weopons of mass destruction. Testing them on their on people (kurds in Northern Iraq).Inocent people will die but its us or them don't fool yourself that we won't get bombed again maybe not as big as 9/11 but there will be suicide bombers funded by countries like Iraq. I don't want to live in a country were my children might fear that some angry arabs might bomb their school or playgrounds. Need any evidence read USA Today 9/10/2002.But you have your right to have your on opinion thats only in America. <P>

Captain Rooster
09-10-2002, 01:40 PM
My prediction: Bush speaks to the United Nations and presents our evidence in the open. Then we strike within the next 24 hours.



<CENTER><img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/charliedontpost.jpg></center>
<CENTER>Tora Bora is a Sandbox: See Above</center>

Yerdaddy
09-10-2002, 02:22 PM
I believe Rooster's prediction, but I hope that we use the build-up to force inspectors in. But I doubt it.

Rooster, I read the article you posted on the IISS report, and I read the summary of the report that was available. (The full report is either not available to the public or it's for sale somwhere on the IISS website.) There isn't any material in there that is different from other sources, the only difference was the analysis played down the sucesses of UNSCOM a bit, and played up the threat to Iraq's neighbors a bit. It's still nothing close to proving that Saddam is a threat to us. If Bush doesn't present something better tomorrow, and we go through with the invasion, we will have a serious credibility problem long into the future.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/billyact.jpg" >
If I don't make you laugh, you don't know what felch means.

Yerdaddy
09-10-2002, 02:25 PM
Jimmy,
Please don't assume this is a liberal/conservative thing. There are serious choices to be made. If we could get Saddam out and then go in and destroy his weapons without risk, I'd be all for it. But there are huge risks involved in an invasion, like the lives of thousands of US troops. Nobody is defending Saddam, nobody is advocating doing nothing, nobody is opposed to Bush because he's a Republican or a Freemason, or any other politcial reason. So take a deep breath, turn off your political ideological filters, and try reading the thread again without them.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/billyact.jpg" >
If I don't make you laugh, you don't know what felch means.

TheMojoPin
09-10-2002, 02:28 PM
For all you defenders of Saddam and Iraq: you ask for evidence? Okay...how about genocide, theft, and tyranny?

How about we go after those that are far more directly responsible for 9/11 FIRST, since that's the reason we got into this in the first place? Bush can make up for his dad's mistakes later...

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

ChickenHawk
09-10-2002, 06:08 PM
Bomb those worthless
fucks back to last week, or
for them, the Stone Age,
and turn Iraq into a parking
lot.


"I have to return some
videotapes..." -Patrick Bateman

FMJeff
09-10-2002, 07:08 PM
All i'm saying is I've never seen an administration put so much effort into justifying a war. Bush senior didn't hold conference after conference to make people feel good about attacking Iraq...and our motivations for entering that war were FARRRR less noble.

<center><img src="http://members.aol.com/sabanj666/ass.gif">
<br>
Stupid is as stupid does.</center>

HordeKing1
09-10-2002, 07:53 PM
The question to be answered is not whether we should attack Iraq - it's can we afford not to.

We know Iraq is close to developing nuclear bombs (thanks to the French). We know that they have biological and chemical weapons. We know that they have missles capable of delivering same. We know that some of their aircraft has been modified so as to make it effective dispersal methods for this type of warfare.

Again, can we afford not to attack? Or must we wait untill NY is nuked or 10,000 die in a chemical attack?

<img src="http://members.aol.com/rnfpantera/hking1">

PamR&Ffan
09-10-2002, 08:10 PM
Why go after Iraq now? I'm not saying we shouldn't...but this war wouldn't be like the gulf war. I'm asking, why now? Why not 3 months ago...why not 3 months from now. The war with Iraq seems to be staged during a time we're emotional. A war against Iraq is a war against the Arab League. They met last week and said so. We can beat them....but we're talking a full scale war and a lot of american deaths. To join this war the country has to be ready...are we? <P>

Recyclerz
09-10-2002, 09:30 PM
HK Saddam Hussein is evil, everyone is in agreement on that point. (I don't want to use terms like sociopath since that's your field & I have no expertise in it.) But what I'm seeing is the objective experts in the field of military analysis saying his reach is limited to the Persian Gulf region and that his ability to reach us in a military way is theoretical at this point. If they're right his neighbors should be the ones calling us to bring out his head on a pike. (Admittedly, I have no problem with the concept.)But his neighbors are the ones telling us to stay out. I can't see why we take on another fight when we've got one right in front of us with al-qaeda.<P> What I would love to see us doing instead is having Powell & Rumsfeld showing up in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan, etc. with some special forces (like the cops in an Abel Ferara movie) & saying "We're here to violate the human rights of your militant Islamists. Point 'em out & step aside."

You're only young once but you can be immature forever!

This message was edited by Recyclerz on 9-11-02 @ 1:32 AM

TheMojoPin
09-10-2002, 10:32 PM
Or must we wait untill NY is nuked or 10,000 die in a chemical attack?

China can't even nuke New York.

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

A.J.
09-11-2002, 05:22 AM
Link to the article, don't post it.


<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/pentsig.jpg">



This message was edited by FoundryMusicJeff on 9-11-02 @ 5:38 PM

jimmyd
09-11-2002, 11:52 AM
China can't even nuke New York.


We are not talking about ICBM's, we are talking about "suitcase" nukes that can level a city. And, by the way, there are many of these bombs unaccounted for.

A.J.
09-11-2002, 12:04 PM
For those of you who question Saudi Arabia: look -- they just want to be pals with us...

http://www.nationallampoon.com/modstyles/wwwaste/gifts/saudi_gifts.asp

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/pentsig.jpg">

Yerdaddy
09-11-2002, 12:42 PM
This OP/ED, (like most OP/EDs) stinks, and I don't like it.
Only by successfully going over to the offensive can the risk be diminished.

HENCE President Bush's determination to overthrow Saddam's regime in Iraq.
We go on the offensive against al-Qaeda by building relationships with security and intelligence agencies around the world. Including countries that previously we did not maintain relationships with because of concearns about human rights violations, fueling regional conflicts, lack of regional US "interests," etc. We have bought cooperation from India and Pakistan with US military equipment and training previously denied under US law to non-NATO nuclear powers. We have restored military cooperation and US participation in operations in the Philippines and South Asian nations, (esp. Georgia and Turkmenistan), which were previously lower in US prioritites. And most of all, we recieved the cooperation of countries across the world in tracking down al-Quaeda operatives, cutting off thier financing, limiting their movement, and eliminating thier hiding places. So while Keegan is trying to give the impression that the "War on Terrorism" is strictly in defensive mode, that idea defies logic. Like the president says: "we are GOING AFTER THEM." So, given that there is no credible link between Saddam and al-Quaeda, an invasion of Iraq cannot logically be claimed to be an offensive front on the war on terrorism.

Saddam is deeply anti-Western, if only because it is the western States, particularly America, which frustrate his ambition to become a regional warlord and leader of the Arab Middle East. He has undoubtedly financed terror in the past, finances and supports the Palestinian suicide bombers and covertly endorses terrorism as an anti-Western program.
The history of Saddam Hussein does not demonstrate anything intrinsically anti-Western about him. He recieved the aid and support from the West from the beginning Saddam's regime. His wealth comes from oil sales to the West. His weapons were all built with the aid of the West. His, and Israel's, nulcear program relied almost exclusively on the cooperation and equipment of the West. During the Iran/Iraq war, it was $500,000,000/year in food aid from the US that allowed him to spend the rest of his resources on the war. When he used chemical weapons against Iran in the war, HE RECIEVED NO PUNISHMENT FROM THE WEST. The US continued to supply battlefield intelligence and, in fact, doubled the food aid to Iraq to $1bil./year. When Saddam began the Anfal campaign to exterminate the Kurds in 1987, the US refused to punish him or even acknowledge it was happening while he was fighting Iran. Once the war ended and the chemical attack on Halabja gained international attention, the Reagan administration killed a bill in the House after passing the Senate that would have imposed (watered down) sanctions on Saddam for gassing the Kurds. By the time Saddam invaded Kuwait, he knew that he would not be opposed by the West, or at least would not be punished. He was wrong, of course, but nothing the West ever did led him to belive that he would not get away with it.

During the Gulf War Saddam deployed his chemical weapons for a retaliatory strike, only if the US marched on Baghdad, (according to the IISS in its press conference Monday to release its report on Iraqi WMD). He did not use them on US troops or Israel because he did not want to die. Since the Gulf War, Saddam has tried to continue his weapons programs, and tried, (unsuccessfully), to prevent inspectors from finding and destroying his weapons, he has tried to shoot down coalition planes flying over Iraq, he has funded some Palestinian terrorist groups and offered payment to families of suicide bombers in Palestine, while keepng most of them out of Iraq, and tightly restricting the ones who he lets in. Saddam has not attacked US Special Forces operating in the Northern Kurdish-controlled provinces. He has not launched SCUDs at US military bases just outside his borders. And he has a

NewYorkDragons80
09-11-2002, 12:46 PM
Hordeking, isn't it funny that France goes to such great lengths to convince us not to attack a country, then assists Iraq in nuclear capability?

"In war there is no substitute for victory."
-General Douglas MacArthur

"If gold should rust, what will iron do?"
-Geoffrey Chaucer

Yerdaddy
09-11-2002, 12:48 PM
isn't it funny that France goes to such great lengths to convince us not to attack a country, then assists Iraq in nuclear capability?Of course that was when Saddam was "good".

The funny part is how they were helping rivals Iraq and Israel build nuclear weapons at the same time. I guess they got paid enough that they don't need to worry about repeat business.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/billyact.jpg" >
If I don't make you laugh, you don't know what felch means.

A.J.
09-11-2002, 02:00 PM
Link to the article, don't post it.


Jeff -- Sorry about that. I posted the entire article because I received it as an e-mail so there was no link to post.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/pentsig.jpg">

FMJeff
09-11-2002, 02:01 PM
Again, can we afford not to attack? Or must we wait untill NY is nuked or 10,000 die in a chemical attack?


It would make no sense for him to attack this country. We hold no stragetic value and the response would flatten Iraq. He knows that.

People are less inclined to use nukes than you think, especially against this country. They know our finger is hovering over the button just as much as theirs.

Calm down about weapons and try to remain open minded. Saddam may be insane, or it may be media propaganda...who knows...

A lot of chefs are feeding you information, each with thier own perspective of available data. Don't buy in, make your own opinions and be sure whatever data you are looking at can be validated.

<center><img src="http://members.aol.com/sabanj666/ass.gif">
<br>
Stupid is as stupid does.</center>

TheMojoPin
09-11-2002, 03:07 PM
Saddam may be insane

That lets him off the hook on too many things. He's an evil, greedy, murderous, violent asshole.

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

TheMojoPin
09-11-2002, 03:09 PM
Of course that was when Saddam was "good".

Literally months before the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq was still somewhat considered our "ally." A good number of his Republican Guard were actually trained in a number of areas by the CIA to fight against Iran. Same with Osama and many Al Queda and Taliban members. I'm NOT passing judgement, it's just sadly ironic how these things can come around and bite us in the ass...and it's really not fair.

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

HordeKing1
09-11-2002, 08:52 PM
Hussein is not a rational person. He has demonstrated willingness to use chemical weapons (remember the scud missles?) He has hundreds of tons of various substances.

A satchel nuke could level NYC and since it would probably be dirty, it would kill most of the boroughs and the island and ct, and nj as well.

BTW, just so you can sleep better at night ;) in Sepptember 1971, the Chinese began production of the DF-5 ICBM. It had an opperational range of 10,000 to 12,000 kms which allowed it to threaten the western portions of the United States.

In 1983 the improved DF-5A went into production. The DF-5A has an effective range of over 13,000 km (and a significantly more accurate guidance system as well).

For more than 30 years China could nuke parts of the US. They can currently nuke every part. The main area where China is lacking is their navy. I don't believe they have nuclear subs due out until about 2010.

EDIT - I forgot to mention that China has about 25 or so of these missles that we know about (but they have many decoy silos so they could conceivably have many more). The scary thing is that each one of these ICBM's can be MIRVed with up to 6 warheads apiece. (MIRV = Multiple Independantly Launched Re-entry Vehicles = more atomic warheads which can independantly target sites).

<img src="http://members.aol.com/rnfpantera/hking1">

This message was edited by HordeKing1 on 9-12-02 @ 1:06 AM

Captain Rooster
09-12-2002, 02:37 AM
Bush speaks before the UN today. His power of persuasion will be tested.

It would make no sense for him to attack this country. We hold no stragetic value and the response would flatten Iraq. He knows that.



If he knows his reign is over - he may use all he has as a last measure.


<CENTER><img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/911Eagle.jpg></center>
<CENTER>Remember Our Fallen Brothers and Sisters</center>

TheMojoPin
09-12-2002, 11:49 AM
If he knows his reign is over - he may use all he has as a last measure.

Exactly, if we push him into a corner.

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

TheMojoPin
09-12-2002, 11:50 AM
China, Iraq and North Korea don't scare me at all...it's still Russia, with thousands of nukes around, undermanned and not properly maintained...

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

Recyclerz
09-12-2002, 08:37 PM
Slate has an interesting take on Bush's Iraq position - basically that he is playing "bad cop" to force Hussein to give in on meaningful inspections.
http://http://slate.msn.com/?id=2070843
It comes from a guy who is usually busting Bush's balls. I hope he's right about this one.

You're only young once but you can be immature forever!

Yerdaddy
09-12-2002, 10:19 PM
HK, you're right on the China missiles - they still only have about 24 DF-5s. You're way off on the satchel nukes - a "dirty nuke", unless it is packed with alot of explosives and thus very large, can only be used to disperse radiation, not to reach fission and level anything. Saddam is a matter of interpretation, but I think he's extrememly predictable. He's a power-hungry, pragmatic dictator, who's been around too long to be considered crazy. I think of him as Melony in Jackie Brown. "You can't trust Melanie. But you can always trust Melanie to be
Melanie." That's why Saddam's concealment mechanisms didn't mean shit to inspectors in the long-run. They had a team that just studied his methods and figured out where he moved shit. That's why Bush should start backing the inspectors, if only to give them a chance to find as much shit as possible before an invasion, because it would mean that much less chemical and bio he has to retaliate against our troops and to throw at Israel.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/billyact.jpg" >
If I don't make you laugh, you don't know what felch means.

NewYorkDragons80
09-13-2002, 12:07 PM
If I had the chance to do it over, I would have supported Iraq in their triumph over Iran again and again and again.

China lacks both a navy and an air force. 2010, as Hordeking mentioned, is their target year for developing a nuclear sub. This is the same year that they plan to have a plane with LIMITED stealth technology. Even if they hit their target year, it still would not be advanced as our stealth F-117A or B-2 which were both developed by the United States in the early 1980's (not to mention the rumors of American stealth helicopters and aquatic vessels.) While they claim to have thousands of planes in their inventory, most of these are antique biplanes, useless in modern air warfare. China is a whole 3 decades behind us in air power.

On the former Soviet Union and their nuclear capability, you have to realize the intensive procedures that go into the maintenance of any missile, let alone a nuclear missile. If maintenance is not kept up almost daily, the missile may be completely useless. I don't know whether the unstable governments of the former USSR have sophisticated militaries capable of keeping these missiles functional or not. It is even less likely that any Arab terrorist group would have this capability, but I wouldn't want to find out.

North Korea is an overrated power. They have nukes, but their most recent missile test conducted in 1997 could not have even reached Hawaii.

"In war there is no substitute for victory."
-General Douglas MacArthur

"If gold should rust, what will iron do?"
-Geoffrey Chaucer

This message was edited by NewYorkDragons80 on 9-13-02 @ 4:27 PM

TheMojoPin
09-13-2002, 01:09 PM
If maintenance is not kept up almost daily, the missile may be completely useless.

Oh, it's not a launch that gets me. It's all the stolen/sold/lost nuclear material...

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

NewYorkDragons80
09-14-2002, 05:10 AM
It goes for the warheads even more than the missiles themselves.

"In war there is no substitute for victory."
-General Douglas MacArthur

"If gold should rust, what will iron do?"
-Geoffrey Chaucer