Viewing Thread:
"War is Definite"

Bush doesnt need a reason for war, you cant but wonder whether Hans Blix is paid by Bush to find something about Iraq that he could start his war over. And anyway, Bush could always find some little thing that he could exploit as a reason for war.
Today, it appears that Blix have found that Saddam Hussein has broken some UN law, and now Bush has a good reson for attacking.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/ [SPACE] meast/01/16/sproject.irq.wrap/
(delete space)

It is enevitable that the US will attack eventually, just look at the troop movements around the area, and that we will too, for worse in my opinion. America doesn't need our help and we are just making ourselves targets for terrorists by helping the US.

Whatever way you look at it, war is started by people too old to fight in wars.

There's really nothing in it for Saddam. Think about it; Bush wants oil, Saddam ants...American failure? So he gets exactly what he had before, at a huge expense to his economy, therefore people doubt him, etc...Americans have less to lose than the Iraqis, as Bush knows that he cannot lose American soil at all, and it is unlikely that they ever will.

Tphi wrote:

>what has he [Saddam Hussein] got to loose?

What has he got to gain? George Bush on the other hand, can benefit from an American controlled president in Iraq, and the oil there as well.

Lombardo wrote:
> I really doubt Saddam Hussein WOULD try and take on the West, he seems
> pretty much neutral at the moment.

I agree, all his talk of "we will rise up" etc. is just all talk. really, hes a big girls blouse and calls himself Henrietta at the weekends.

Seriously, he's mad enough to do anything, he knows hes going to loose, has killed his own people before, what has he got to loose?

Belldandy wrote:

> So, Saddam isn't a threat ? If I had asked anyne here, on September
> 10th, about Al Queda and Bin Laden, then I'd have got the same
> response. Was Iraq a threat to Kuwait the week before the invasion in
> 1990 ? No

Military action involves killing people, thus decisions of this magnitude should not be made on "what ifs," I really doubt Saddam Hussein WOULD try and take on the West, he seems pretty much neutral at the moment.

Lombardo wrote:
> In my opinion, the UN inspectors should make several more thorough
> checks for weapons of mass destructions, then carry out yearly checks.
> A war isn't really needed, Saddam Hussein is not threatening to invade
> or attack any countries, so there is not any need to remove him from
> power. Think about it, its logical. Killing soldiers and civilians
> needlessly is not the answer, Iraq has already allowed UN weapons
> inspectors in (this was Bush's primary reason for wanting to take
> military action) so as long as they let the weapons inpectors stay, no
> military action is required.

Okay, what happened earlier this week ? Hans Blix, live speech from Belgium, says Iraq is not giving proactive help, or being generally helpful whatsoever. That is hardly abiding by the resolution allowing the UN back in is it ? Nor did part of that same resolution say Iraq had the right to shadow the UN inspectors everywhere they went.

So, Saddam isn't a threat ? If I had asked anyne here, on September 10th, about Al Queda and Bin Laden, then I'd have got the same response. Was Iraq a threat to Kuwait the week before the invasion in 1990 ? No. In addition, under his regime political opponents are imprisoned, tortured, family members raped, made to disappear, executed, elections are not free or fair, Saddam diverts money for food to the military, he has a concealed weapons program, he regularly threatens the West and Israel...need I go on ? Sure, his is not the only regime that needs changing, but it's a good enough place to start. By the way, Iraq is not same situation as N.Korea - not that you have said it is, just wanted to point it out.

Killing ? The soldiers of Iraq's army have - those who survived - showed little compassion for the scores they killed and tortured and raped in Kuwait, and they know full well what will happen in a new Gulf Conflict. They'll lose, far worse than they did last time. In 1991 Allied pilots actually held fire on the "Highway Of Death" on retreating Iraqi's vehicles and troops who did not threaten them, those who did fire at them were destroyed. Iraq's army is Saddam's power, without force a dictator is weak. Sure, he had the Republican Guard, the "elite"....which we found out in 1991 equate to the standards of our own regular troops by and large.

Civilians - I've made my opinion on this clear, but I notice you avoid the question about Iraq's military moving into civilian areas ? Can you, or anyone else defend that when the Iraqi's main media card is the dangers of civilians dying ?

~~Belldandy~~

lalakersrule wrote:
> *sighs* maybe if someone tells people this for about the 1,000th time
> it may get through eventually.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it doesn't. I know, I've tried since the campaign in OCtober 2001, and we still went there to blow Afghanistan to bits in many peoples opinion on here.

*waits to be accused of telling people they are wrong and he is always right*

~~Belldandy~~

In my opinion, the UN inspectors should make several more thorough checks for weapons of mass destructions, then carry out yearly checks. A war isn't really needed, Saddam Hussein is not threatening to invade or attack any countries, so there is not any need to remove him from power. Think about it, its logical. Killing soldiers and civilians needlessly is not the answer, Iraq has already allowed UN weapons inspectors in (this was Bush's primary reason for wanting to take military action) so as long as they let the weapons inpectors stay, no military action is required.

*sighs* maybe if someone tells people this for about the 1,000th time it may get through eventually.

It was not a war on the country of Afghanistan or the people of Afghanistan it was a war on the Taliban who governed that country and so of course happened to live there. All the USA wanted was either the Taliban to hand Bin Laden over to them and all his cronies or at least tell them the whereabouts of Bin Laden and they'd have gone and got him themselves. They have no grudge against the people of Afghanistan. Every single life lost there is on the Talibans hands and not the Coalitions.

Now we have a similar scenario in Iraq. Everyone is crying about *this is a war on Iraq* ermmm no it's not it's actually a war on the regime in Iraq namely Saddam Husseins regime. Once again America and Britain (and whatever other countries decide to actually do something this time around) have no grudge against the Iraqi people they are only after Saddam hoping to topple him and bring in a democratic system which doesn't entail the usual *vote for the other guy and i'll get my soldiers to kill you and your family* system that's been in place since Saddams been around.

And contrary to popular Anti-American, Daily Al Qa'ida Mirror readers opinions, Americans don't want a war like anyone else, infact on Fox the other day they had a poll and there was quite a big vote against War in Iraq. Obviously they must have forgotten to put that in their paper amongst the usual *oooh we suddenly found 100 Americans conveniently standing outside our office and they couldn't point out where Iraq was on a map* i very much doubt 100 British people would do any better either.

Azul²°°³ wrote:
> Ah yes, the greatly feared "Wombat Bomb".
>
> Yes, it is launched and explodes above the target city, releasing
> hundreds and hundreds of hungry wombats, causing total havoc.
>
> Tis' feared by all.

*screams in terror*
i'm going to hide under my bed till all the wars stop, which will be never...