The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Question:- should we goto war with iraq?
answer one :- YES
answer two :- No
Answer three :- where is the monkey? (whitehouse)
(please note i know there are shades of yessness and noness but if we go in that direction it will be boring)
Anyway. I say Yes
Id like to see reasons for no though. every day its more people whining on about how bad war with iraq qould be. Well in my opinion if war removed saddam then its pretty good.
So anti war people post reasons NOT to goto war.
And for once (this is adressed to various people. you know who you are) lets keep this thread on topic. this is vaguallr serious (except the bit involving the monkey)
answer one :- YES
answer two :- No
Answer three :- where is the monkey? (whitehouse)
(please note i know there are shades of yessness and noness but if we go in that direction it will be boring)
Anyway. I say Yes
Id like to see reasons for no though. every day its more people whining on about how bad war with iraq qould be. Well in my opinion if war removed saddam then its pretty good.
So anti war people post reasons NOT to goto war.
And for once (this is adressed to various people. you know who you are) lets keep this thread on topic. this is vaguallr serious (except the bit involving the monkey)
Page:
I must say though it'll be interesting to see what happens when the move begins to give Palestinians their own state, which Israel has already agreed to. that could be why it is also vital for Saddam to be removed so that there will no longer be a barrier (theoretically speaking) between Iraq and Israel after their 10 year war in the 1980's. This would then undoubtably help bring a greater sense of peace to the area.
If I had money to throw away, I'd probably give some to the Palestinians as well.
I don't see why it's evil or wrong to give money who were forcibly removed from their own country for no good reason in an age of supposed civilisation.
I don't see why it's evil or wrong to give money who were forcibly removed from their own country for no good reason in an age of supposed civilisation.
No one is saying they would be large scale attacks but it was never conclusively proven who started the athrax attacks during the boming of Afganistan.
But if Saddam was likely to be killed, why whould he care if he DID kill that many people in an Anthrax attack, if there is a war he's likely going to be caught or killed anyway.
As he's proven by paying large sums of monies to the families of Muslim extremists who die in the suicide bomings against Israel and the future state of Palestine, he doesn't care who, or how many people die.
But if Saddam was likely to be killed, why whould he care if he DID kill that many people in an Anthrax attack, if there is a war he's likely going to be caught or killed anyway.
As he's proven by paying large sums of monies to the families of Muslim extremists who die in the suicide bomings against Israel and the future state of Palestine, he doesn't care who, or how many people die.
I'm saying that they've never done anything like that because they know what the outcome will be.
Links prove Iraqi involvement in Anthrax attack which kills 250,000 US citizens.
15 minutes later......
35 nuclear warheads slam into Iraq like the second coming of the Devil incarnate and anything resembling life in the entire country is sent to paradise.
Yes, I can see why Saddam will move into terrorist attacks.
Links prove Iraqi involvement in Anthrax attack which kills 250,000 US citizens.
15 minutes later......
35 nuclear warheads slam into Iraq like the second coming of the Devil incarnate and anything resembling life in the entire country is sent to paradise.
Yes, I can see why Saddam will move into terrorist attacks.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Ah, of course. I forgot that Iraq had a history of terrorist attacks
> against the oppressive West.
>
> No wait...
Ah so your saying, because there never has been any Iraqi terrorist attacks, there won't be any.
Best argument yet!
> Ah, of course. I forgot that Iraq had a history of terrorist attacks
> against the oppressive West.
>
> No wait...
Ah so your saying, because there never has been any Iraqi terrorist attacks, there won't be any.
Best argument yet!
Ah, of course. I forgot that Iraq had a history of terrorist attacks against the oppressive West.
No wait...
No wait...
Time to prepare for a chemical attack on America/UK by bringing in anthrax or a similar substance. We sure as hell have given them enough time! There could be people in several countires with the mission that should a war start against Iraq, then unleash an attack as it'll be one of the last things they'll think if!
Time to prepare?
For what?
The US military budget is 300 times that of Iraq. We could give them 30 years to prepare, and they'd be found wanting.
For what?
The US military budget is 300 times that of Iraq. We could give them 30 years to prepare, and they'd be found wanting.
cipro wrote:
> Half the country.
Including, that Claire Short Labour MP...the sooner it starts the better as we're just giving him time to prepare!
Have you heard that he's ordered trenches to be built around Baghdad so if a war starts he'll fill them with oil and burn it as so to mess up the heat seeking missles that will be used in the second phase of bombing!
> Half the country.
Including, that Claire Short Labour MP...the sooner it starts the better as we're just giving him time to prepare!
Have you heard that he's ordered trenches to be built around Baghdad so if a war starts he'll fill them with oil and burn it as so to mess up the heat seeking missles that will be used in the second phase of bombing!
The problem stems from everyone having facts and nobody having the truth.
Page: