FthrJACK Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 You guys hear about the war heads they found in iraq?apparently they found a stash of chemical weapon warheads.. so far none contained anything but they are well stored and packaged up, ready for use. They werent declared either.i doubt they will go to war jus over that, but if they find when the warheads where last filled and it was AFTER the gulf war, or if they find a warhead which still has chemical substance in it then....i wouldnt be in iraq if i where sadam!what you guys think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XPerties Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 in the states the president made comments last night on CNN that we need to find the actuall chemicals. He has once again said "There is no negotiating, you will leave iraq" refering to sadam.I just hope that when (oh were going to war sooner or later) that when we do we do it right this time and stop playing games. Weve wasted to much resources and money not only from the USA but from british and other friendly nations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crispy Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 There will be a war no matter what the Iraqis do! ... And if a couple of burned out warheads is the best reason they can come up with, then so be it! - Bomb em' Bushman says!I think Bush is making a huge mistake by attacking Iraq. 1. Many lives will be lost and 2. I think he will be unsuccesfull! ... Yes, I do! ... They're totally underestimating the power of Saddam ... ... Think about it. Why would Saddam even risk a war with the US if he did'n stand a chance of winning? ... But could that mean that he has a secret weapon somewhere? .... Yes! indeed it could ... So I won't be suprised if the US gets nuked sometime in the near future (And of course Iraq too) ... My opinion ... Dislike it if you wish ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FthrJACK Posted January 17, 2003 Author Share Posted January 17, 2003 Spot the odd one out:1) Clippy2) John Major3) Michael Portillo4) sadam insanesee if you can do it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HashDump Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 Crispy,Saddam is a ruthless tyrant who has no common sense. You ask why would he risk war with the US? because he's disillusioned in thinking that he can win. It's the same rhetoric that Saddam displayed the first time when the United States kicked his arse out of Kuwait. When a ruler doesn't hesitate to kill thousands of his own country men, in my opinion, qualifies one as a tyrant.However, I will ride the fence post as to if we should go to war with him. (Just not sure of Bush's true intentions yet) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XPerties Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 There will be a war no matter what the Iraqis do! ... And if a couple of burned out warheads is the best reason they can come up with, then so be it! - Bomb em' Bushman says!I think Bush is making a huge mistake by attacking Iraq. 1. Many lives will be lost and 2. I think he will be unsuccessfully! ... Yes, I do! ... They're totally underestimating the power of Saddam ... ... Think about it. Why would Saddam even risk a war with the US if he did'n stand a chance of winning? ... But could that mean that he has a secret weapon somewhere? .... Yes! indeed it could ... So I won't be suprised if the US gets nuked sometime in the near future (And of course Iraq too) ... My opinion ... Dislike it if you wish ...err...many lives will be lost. Are we forgetting Sept 11th? Do you not understand that has been linked to sadam as well? Unsuccesfull....Keep in mind the USA military is the largest in the world. He has not a chance in hell. Plain and simple he thinks with his hand and not with his mind. He doesn't understand the full force of what hes against and believe religion is his entire back up as his beliefs are others will follow. How can you justify a possible winning when his own country doesn't back him up. but yet the USA has several country's back them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crispy Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 Crispy,Saddam is a ruthless tyrant who has no common sense. You ask why would he risk war with the US? because he's disillusioned in thinking that he can win. It's the same rhetoric that Saddam displayed the first time when the United States kicked his arse out of Kuwait. When a ruler doesn't hesitate to kill thousands of his own country men, in my opinion, qualifies one as a tyrant.However, I will ride the fence post as to if we should go to war with him. (Just not sure of Bush's true intentions yet)My point is ... He is more dangerous than he looks! and indeed very ruthless! So do not underestimate him!But lets see what happens ... I hope I won't be right in my first post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FthrJACK Posted January 17, 2003 Author Share Posted January 17, 2003 Xperties, Iraq is a secular state, and therefore has no official religion. Sadam himself has no religion, but has been in recent years starting to use it to gain more support from other Arab nations and from fanatics such as Bin laden.Sadam likes his women and drink too much to follow such a strict faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinker Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 No matter what the U.S.A. does we get ridiculed. If we are proactive then we are trying to run the world, if we are passive we are uncaring to the problems of the world. If what we do is incorrect in the eyes of the world no matter what we do, then we have no choice but to do what is right for the U.S.A...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FthrJACK Posted January 17, 2003 Author Share Posted January 17, 2003 True that tink, very true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xper Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 All this is not about Saddam. Its about oil and its about USA arogancy.Saddam will be defeated, but who's next? What about how G. Bush won election? What about Enron? etc, etc.All this war fever is only good for him.I can do what I want, but others must do also what I want.(Bush) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crispy Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 All this war fever is only good for him.Yes ... Some say that he hired the CIA to destroy the World Trade Center, just so that he could begin his "anti terror campaígn" ... I find that a little hard to belive, cause its a simply little bit tooooo risky! If he got busted i mean ...Anyway, try reading this ... they tells a few truths about the almighty Bush: George W Bush Jr. - The dark side and http://www.bushwatch.net/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zipp51 Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 I believe that the Japanese will be the first to tell us that atomic weapons are a horror that matches or exceeds the Holocaust.Since that sad moment in history with the help of the United states Japan has been revitalized and if you have noticed throughout the time that has elapsed the U.S. has advocated to have treaties and stop proliferation.The U.S.has taken the position of governing nuclear weapons simply because of it's own experience of employing such weapons,and to keep tyrant's like Hitler,Idi Amin,Gadafi,Sadaam Husein,Bin Laden(did I forget anyone?)from obtaining them and deploying them.It's not an easy task to do and man do we get a lot of flack for even trying.Is North Korea not dangerous now?One city hit will kill not thousands but millions and just with passenger jets tyrants can kill thousands as a message not to meddle with them."If you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything"I agree with Xperties that it should be done right once and for all.Let's send the terrorists a message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSNwar Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 The past conflict between NATO and Iraq was "not" originally about oil. It was about a country (Kuwait) that was attacked by another country (Irag) for the oil. Kuwait requested assistance from NATO. NATO took many months trying to convence Iraq to leave Kuwait. During those months NATO assembled their military forces to enforce the NATO doctorine. When NATO decided to utilize their NATO forces they called upon the USA to lead. We all know what happened next. NATO forced the Iraq Army out of Kuwait and marched into Irag. NATO stopped the incursion before the invasion entered a civilian population. NATO pulled back and made some rules. The rules basically say: Do not cross this line. Do not throw rocks across the line. Do not assemble weapons of mass destruction in accordance with NATO manifesto. Iraq responded by saying "Ok."Later, NATO discovered Iraq was assembling weapons of mass destruction and intended to target three countries. USA, Saudi Arabia, and England. NATO yelled foul! Siest and decist. Iraq responded by bombing a NATO Barracks within Saudi Arabia killing US Soldiers, The Queens Soldiers, and Sauia Arabian Soldiers to include civilians. NATO responded by yelling foul! Iraq continued to assemble weapons of mass destruction.Sept 11 was upon us. We asked NATO to stand with us as we stood with NATO and dispell Iraq and Pakistan. NATO said you may have Pakistan. We took Pakistan and learned that Iraq was also behind Sept 11 and possibly harboring SH. Then USA and England requested that NATO move on Iraq. NATO responded with a firm NO! Not before NATO confirms that Iraq and SH would not utilize undiscovered weapons of mass destruction on the world.So we wait. We assemble. We prepare. We grow hungry. We grow thirsty. We hear things move in the night. We hear 9/11 victims in our sleep. We watch our borders. We live in fear. We kiss our children goodbye in the mornings hopeing we will see them again at the end of the day.Are you next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xper Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 The past conflict between NATO and Iraq was "not" originally about oil. It was about a country (Kuwait) that was attacked by another country (Irag) for the oil.What USA have to do with Kuwait?No, it was not about olie. It was coz USA love Kuwait. Oh, why USA didn't do anything in Srebrenica, Omarska (Bosnia) etc.Well, Bosnia doesn't have olie or some strategic teritory.Saddam should be removed. Thats fact. He is crazy dictator.But i'm afraid what will be next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now