Major strike on Iraq

[Jah Warrior]

Here we go again:(

 

Just as I woke up this morning I flicked the news on. To my shock I saw mentions of a major strike on an Iraqi installation. Is this the pre-cursor to the imminent strike/invasion that we all know will happen? or has it already started I wonder. The western leaders in particular Bush and Blair are being very tight lipped at present.

 

Have any of you heard nay further information? I'm intrigued and frankly bloody worried about the consequences of any strike(s) on Iraq and what the knobk-on effect will be on the islamic world.

 

Get posting amigos

[ShockV1.89]

Tight-lipped leaders means there's more to come soon. Bush was stupid for announcing the invasion plans to begin with, and now he's shutting up.

 

It's about time this came.

 

ShockV1.89

[Jah Warrior]

I'm not sure,

 

I think that diplomatic solutions have not yet been fully explored and I'm not convinced that he is a danger (yet) to either the US or the mighty UK.

 

Any thought of war of any kind troubles me it is self defeating and ultimately there are no 'winners' in such a forray.

[Kstar__2]

i think the european leaders just showed their incompetence in this case:

 

first they are all like: no, we won't help u in your fight agains irak

and now they all join the US!

 

i don't think in is nececerely to strike irak, yet, i know that he has been doing really bad things, but as long as he stais there and is quet, no other fools will claim irak, becouse that is wat is going to happen, they will kick saddams ass, but than another dumbass come forward, and making that country a mess again

[Ratmjedi]

I say we just bomb the *hit out of them. He's had time to make more biological weapons and we all know he is not going to just give up or compromise. We had a oppurtunity to to take him out 10 years ago and we didn't. We all know he is a menace to the world and we need to take him out before he actually has time to use them.

[JrKASperov]

Well, this is the second phase of the US trying to take over the world, it isnt going to stop people, they just will continue.... And you may call me a fool, you may all me a total retard, but this was comming all along...

[txjeep]

US & RAF planes hit dozens of Iraqi air defense sites every year. They are usually radar SAM sites that lock onto planes patrolling the north & south no-fly zones, so we shoot at them. The difference here is that this site was not in a no-fly zone. The general consensus in the press (which is usually screwed up on most things) is that this is to clear the way for some speical forces to land and do a little scud hunting. There is a major propaganda campaign underway to confuse Saddam. President Bush has a lot of non-public support in the Middle East and the rest of the world. Most everyone wants to be rid of Saddam, they are just not saying so publically.

 

Iraq is a real threat to the entire free world. He has bio and chemical weapons and some nuclear devices. You will soon learn about this from Bush and Blair. As soon as Saddam can deliver these WMDs to the US, Israel, UK and anyone else he decides to hit, he will. If you don't think he was involved in the 9-11 attacks, you are naive. He will kill tens of thousands or more if left to his own devices. Bill Clinton should not have let him get away with kicking the weapons inspectors out back in 1998, but he was more concerned about getting blown by Monica and playing politics back home. That error gave Saddam four years to build up his bio, chemical, and nuclear weapons. Now we have to clean up that mess.

 

The lack of support Bush is getting from the European public confuses me. Maybe you guys have forgotten your history, but appeasement of aggressive dictators with big armies has proven to be a bad idea throughout history. Saddam is no different than Hitler was prior to WWII. Would the US & UK have been wrong to lobby for a German regime change back in 1938? History says no. However, like today, everyone was saying that Hitler should be left alone until he actually did something bad. Well, Hitler took Chechoslavakia and still he was left alone by the world because they thought he would be satisfied with that additional territory. He wasn't, and the rest is history. My grandfather died at 27 in France in the German push following Battle of the Bulge. The damage to my family caused by his death continues to this very day. In other words, my family and many others have been impacted directly because people were afraid to confront an obvious problem before it got out of control. I suggest you all wake up and smell reality. Saddam is much more dangerous than Hitler IMO because he has nonconventional weapons...and he can't wait to use them. He has to go, period, end of story.

[BlackDove]

Originally posted by txjeep

Iraq is a real threat to the entire free world.

 

[JrKASperov]

Originally posted by txjeep

Iraq is a real threat to the entire free world. He has bio and chemical weapons and some nuclear devices. You will soon learn about this from Bush and Blair. As soon as Saddam can deliver these WMDs to the US, Israel, UK and anyone else he decides to hit, he will. If you don't think he was involved in the 9-11 attacks, you are naive. He will kill tens of thousands or more if left to his own devices. Bill Clinton should not have let him get away with kicking the weapons inspectors out back in 1998, but he was more concerned about getting blown by Monica and playing politics back home. That error gave Saddam four years to build up his bio, chemical, and nuclear weapons. Now we have to clean up that mess.

 

The lack of support Bush is getting from the European public confuses me. Maybe you guys have forgotten your history, but appeasement of aggressive dictators with big armies has proven to be a bad idea throughout history. Saddam is no different than Hitler was prior to WWII. Would the US & UK have been wrong to lobby for a German regime change back in 1938? History says no. However, like today, everyone was saying that Hitler should be left alone until he actually did something bad. Well, Hitler took Chechoslavakia and still he was left alone by the world because they thought he would be satisfied with that additional territory. He wasn't, and the rest is history. My grandfather died at 27 in France in the German push following Battle of the Bulge. The damage to my family caused by his death continues to this very day. In other words, my family and many others have been impacted directly because people were afraid to confront an obvious problem before it got out of control. I suggest you all wake up and smell reality. Saddam is much more dangerous than Hitler IMO because he has nonconventional weapons...and he can't wait to use them. He has to go, period, end of story.

 

The same goes for the US buddy, and you let your grudge of your grandpa blind your objectivity, Saddam wont blast us with all kinds of weapons!! What would he gain?! Nothing except destruction of his own regime! He is NOT a fool I tell you! Neither should you take him for one, he would NOT do that, unless he would be attacked first. Frankly, the US can perform strikes without repression, so they are WAY more dangerous

 

take that for calling me naive!

 

Edit: I just read that Bush and Blair part, but why would we believe them?! They were vague about the proof of Osama too! There is absolutely no way to trust those two....

[OnlyOneCanoli]

I don't agree with 100% of your post, txjeep, but this really stuck out to me:

 

The lack of support Bush is getting from the European public confuses me. Maybe you guys have forgotten your history, but appeasement of aggressive dictators with big armies has proven to be a bad idea throughout history.

 

I could not have said it better myself. Unfortunately the precedent of protecting yourself ahead of time was not set at that point by Great Britain and France, so it's hard for the US to gain support for this campaign now.

 

As Americans and British, whether we like it or not, it is the duty of our governments to protect the free world. If we allow Saddam to have his special toys, countries near Saddam will be needlessly threatened. That shouldn't be allowed to happen. The difference between our governments having WMD's and him having them is that he can use them at his will, while we have rational leaders and checks to make sure they don't just authorize their use at any given time.

 

And while I'm not 100% sure I believe Hussein had involvement in 9/11, I will not deny that the man is a scumbag (putting it lightly, that) that needs to be dealt with before he does some more major damage.

[NerfYoda]

If Bush really wants to further piss off all the Arab countires in the region this would be a great way to do it. Saddam should be ousted, but we need the consent & respect of world leaders before we launch a major offensive.

[Agen]

The lack of support Bush is getting from the European public confuses me. Maybe you guys have forgotten your history, but appeasement of aggressive dictators with big armies has proven to be a bad idea throughout history.

 

 

I just read that Bush and Blair part, but why would we believe them?! They were vague about the proof of Osama too! There is absolutely no way to trust those two....

 

You both have good points but i still think war is self-defeating.

[Breton]

Firstly, I would like to tell you all that it is impossible to protect the free world, simply because there is no free world to protect.

I am tired of the US calling themselves a free country, simply because it is not free, total freedom includes no laws, and a comuntry that have no laws would not work, so there is no such thing as a free country.

 

Saddam is not a stupid man, it is only in US that the leader has IQ below average but still gets support.

 

Do not think that US is the best land in the world, as all other countries it has many flaws, and is no better than the rest of the world.

 

As JrKaSperov says, Bush does plan for world domination and plans to attack at least one country each year he unfortunatly is president. Bush have already showed that he gives the damn about civillians in other countries.

 

Now, some scientists says that it is possible that so many as 3000 afghanian civillians is killed by the US so far in the "war". If I am not mistaken it was the same number as died in WTC. So if the number is true, IT MAKES BUSH AND HIS FRIENDS NO BETTER THAN BIN LADEN AND COMPANY!!

 

txjeep, even though you grieve over your grandfather, I must tell that Iraq is not Germany, Saddam is not Hitler

 

Also more things that I want to say:

 

There is NO PROOF that Saddam has chemical weapons

 

There is NO PROOF that he will use them IF he have

 

An attack WILL harm civillians on both sides

 

Bush IS an idiot

 

 

 

The lack of support Bush is getting from the European public confuses me. Maybe you guys have forgotten your history, but appeasement of aggressive dictators with big armies has proven to be a bad idea throughout history.

 

Is is really lucky that most of Europe have kept most of its sane to not join US in attacking lands on random, someone give Bush C&C so that he can play war on his computer instead of playing it in the real world.

 

War is hell. Just ask anyone who fought in WW2 and you get that answer. But still, the US attacks when other diplomatic solutions will get peace, instead of war.

[Lunatic Jedi]

Well, have you noticed that the US economy is heavily dependent on war? I guess its just another example of how the US is led by warmongers, and that's an opinion from AN AMERICAN.

[ShockV1.89]

As JrKaSperov says, Bush does plan for world domination and plans to attack at least one country each year he unfortunatly is president. Bush have already showed that he gives the damn about civillians in other countries.

 

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

I wish I was psychic too....

[ShockV1.89]

Ok, now for a serious reply.

 

I am tired of the US calling themselves a free country, simply because it is not free, total freedom includes no laws, and a comuntry that have no laws would not work, so there is no such thing as a free country.

 

The words "It's a free country" realy just means that we enjoy basic freedoms that many other countries do not. Freedom of Speech, for example. God forbid a Chinese citizen criticizes the government. That's what we mean when we say that. If you're going to take it that literally, then you probably get in a lot of fights over misunderstandings...

 

Saddam is not a stupid man, it is only in US that the leader has IQ below average but still gets support.

 

Saddam is quite stupid. He believes he can fight off America, which, although it is not as powerful as many believe, is still many times stronger than Iraq. And I agree that Bush isnt bright either. He only got the election because Daddy-dearest was president. but he's so surrounded by advisors and commitees at this point that he couldnt really make that horrible a move even if he tried.

 

As JrKaSperov says, Bush does plan for world domination and plans to attack at least one country each year he unfortunatly is president.

 

I'm not quite sure how you've come to this conclusion. This happens to have been a rather turbulent term for a president, militarily. Saddam has nukes/bio/and chem weapons. He has shown, multiple times, to not be responsible enough to have those weapons. Normally we wouldnt mind all that much, but these things can affect other people than those Iraq targets. They're not exactly precision weapons. So that's why we attack him.

 

Then, Bin Laden flys some planes into the Twin Towers, knocks em down. We find out where he's located, and that the country is protecting him. But we cant have him getting away with it, and, as far as we're concerned, if you protect them, you're just as bad. Besides which, the Taliban regime was more repressive than anything. They were cheering in most citys when the Northern Alliance rolled into town.

 

 

Now, some scientists says that it is possible that so many as 3000 afghanian civillians is killed by the US so far in the "war". If I am not mistaken it was the same number as died in WTC. So if the number is true, IT MAKES BUSH AND HIS FRIENDS NO BETTER THAN BIN LADEN AND COMPANY!!

 

Thats terrible to hear. War is indeed hell, and this shows that nobody really wins. Only countries who lose more than the other. However...

For starters, in war, there are going to be civilian casualties. Thats just how war is. It happened in WW1, WW2, and just about every other war. However, civilians are never targeted. It's collateral damage. Bin Laden and company, however, deliberatley targeted civilians, and do so regularly.

 

As for him not having these weapons, check this out. http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9508/iraq/ekeus/8-20/

 

In addition, he used chemical weapons in the 1980s against Iran, and again in 1988 to put down a kurdish uprising.

 

In 1995, Husseins chief-of-bioweapons defected to the USA, and when he did, Iraq came out and admitted making bioweapons. (Anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum toxin)

 

So you see, he does have them. He may not have nukes yet, but a man willing to use chem weapons on his own people would have no qualms against using a nuke on someone else...like, saaaay, Britain?

 

An attack WILL harm civillians on both sides

 

Welcome to war. But if we let him sit and do what he wants, his attack WILL harm more civilians on ONE side, and it wont be his. (except for testing purposes...)

 

I think I've made my point.

 

ShockV1.89

[txjeep]

Originally posted by Lunatic Jedi

Well, have you noticed that the US economy is heavily dependent on war? I guess its just another example of how the US is led by warmongers, and that's an opinion from AN AMERICAN.

 

Not true, war causes deficits, which are not generally a good thing for a nation. US GDP is 2/3rds consumer spending, which is not war related. War usually makes consumers slow their spending, which hurts the economy. Gov't spending is a small piece of the $9 trillion economy, but that piece does surge during the buildup to a war, which generally helps lead the way to a recession after the war. Recession in the economy almost always follows a war. Check your history.

 

I was trying to leave this thread alone, but I can't take it any more. Warmongers? Who is the warmonger here? You think GW Bush is a warmonger? Is Saddam some kind of innocent victim here? He attacks his neighbors and tests chemical weapons on his own people. He sells his oil to build his military, his people starve to death (if he doesn't kill them first), he lives in luxury, he breeds smallpox & anthrax, he is building nuclear bombs. THAT is a warmonger. If you don't think there is any proof of his weaponry, just do a little web research for yourself. It is well documented. Maybe Osama is a victim of our warmongering? He and his monions kill innocent civilians on purpose. You tell me why it was wrong to kick Saddam out of Kuwait or send the Taliban packing? Would more dialogue have righted either situation? No. We gave them both plenty of chances to back off, but they did not. How about Germany and Japan in WWII? Would dialogue have stopped them? No. Did we start those fights? No, think Pearl Harbor, we were dragged into them. We were also protecting our friends, the French, the British, the innocent (think holocaust). Were we the war mongers when we came to Europe's rescue in the 40's or Kuwait in the 90's? In Osama's case , this war was brought to our doorstep. Were we wrong to go afer the Taliban and al quaida? We made a lot of Afghans pretty happy you know. I am getting a little bit tired of being criticized by the very people we have protected in the past, and worse, by other Americans.

 

It is NOT being a warmonger to retaliate against the those that attack us or our friends. It is NOT being a warmonger to try and capture/kill mass murderers of the innocent. It is NOT being a warmonger to prevent a rabid dog like Saddam from using WMDs against anyone he chooses. Have you seen the latest news about Lybia being only a year away from a deliverable nuclear weapon? They are reportedly working in tandem with North Korea, Iraq, and Egypt & Saudi Arabi (both our supposed allies) to create the first Arab nuclear bomb. What do you think some of those countries will do with it if they get it? Cleaning up this WMD mess is a dirty job, but as usual, we will do our best to lead the way to doing it. If people choose to ignore the threat and we fail...just think about the potential results. Kudos to Blair, who has been an unwavering friend and ally, despite the political damage.

[Breton]

txjeep it is obvious that you have not understood anything in our (anti-war peoples) posts. And I am not going to spend five hours of my life trying to explain it to you.

[JandoFett1842]

Lets bomb the **** out of Iraq!! I dont get what they are waiting for!! So-damn Insane is obviously building Nukes and/or Cemicle Weps!!! Bomb them!! Is that so hard to understand! One anti-bunker nuke could be the end of So-damn Insane!!! Kill him with a Special Forces team, bomb Bagdad, just kill that @hole and get a new guy who is nice to us in there!!!

[icefox98]

Some of you people are....hmm misinformed. Wow. The U.S. going to take over the world? I actually now hope we do and your country is the first. But that's IMPOSSIBLE, and I will not delve into the reasons why, for I have no ambition to explain things to morons.

 

Secondly. Look up Saddam. Please. Do you have any idea what kind of person he is? He's not Richard Simmons. In fact, quite the contrary. A complete madman in control of a country with zealots, and a lot of biological weapons, plus, nuclear araments. Hmmm.

 

Sperov - You sir, are the dumbest human being ever to be allowed near a keyboard. Back away from it now. I ACTUALLY have no ambition to explain to you why you are gravely mistaken...it's like I just don't care. That would take time to type it out, and probably, would not get through your thick dellusional head.

[Dale7007]

Let me clear it up for all of you who are saying "Lets BOMB IRAQ TO HELL!!!! LOL!!!"

 

Guess what, our allies are already turning their backs on us for planning an attack, if we nuked Iraq, our allies would hate us. The last thing we want is an all out war against the axis of evil with no help, we would suffer great consequences. We are trying to invade iraq with minimum casualties. If we bomb Iraq and kill everyone in it, we lose our allies.

[Darth Knight]

i freakin hate these threads about america becasue of people like JrKASperov

 

icefox i agree with yuo excpet about the "I actually now hope we do and your country is the first" that is crazy, ok JrKASperov is dumb but that is no reason to take a whole country becasue of a few dumb people but i agree with the rest of it

[Darth Knight]

Originally posted by Dale7007

Let me clear it up for all of you who are saying "Lets BOMB IRAQ TO HELL!!!! LOL!!!"

 

Guess what, our allies are already turning their backs on us for planning an attack, if we nuked Iraq, our allies would hate us. The last thing we want is an all out war against the axis of evil with no help, we would suffer great consequences. We are trying to invade iraq with minimum casualties. If we bomb Iraq and kill everyone in it, we lose our allies.

 

yeah i also agree with you too but i am pretty sure we wouldn't nuke them, because that would probaly hurt surrounding coutries

[Breton]

Originally posted by JandoFett1842

Lets bomb the **** out of Iraq!! I dont get what they are waiting for!! So-damn Insane is obviously building Nukes and/or Cemicle Weps!!! Bomb them!! Is that so hard to understand! One anti-bunker nuke could be the end of So-damn Insane!!! Kill him with a Special Forces team, bomb Bagdad, just kill that @hole and get a new guy who is nice to us in there!!!

 

Intelligence! We need intelligence in these forums!

 

US is not world dominating, and they will never be! You cannot bomb entire cities down to the ground with so little reason!

 

People like you makes me want to go to war on US, because YOU OBVIOUSLY DO NOT CARE ABOUT ANYONE OUTSIDE OF YOUR OWN COUNTRY AND HOPE THAT EVERYONE WHO ISN'T AMERICAN WILL DIE AND BURN IN HELL BECAUSE YOU CAN'T THINK A FOOT IN FRONT OF YOU!!!!!!!!

 

 

The U.S. going to take over the world? I actually now hope we do and your country is the first.

 

If all of the world became US under control of that idiot Bush, then I would flee to the moon

 

Secondly. Look up Saddam. Please. Do you have any idea what kind of person he is? He's not Richard Simmons. In fact, quite the contrary. A complete madman in control of a country with zealots, and a lot of biological weapons, plus, nuclear araments. Hmmm.

 

Prove it.

 

All I have to say on this is: Propaganda. And a lot of it. In your own country.

 

Sperov - You sir, are the dumbest human being ever to be allowed near a keyboard. Back away from it now. I ACTUALLY have no ambition to explain to you why you are gravely mistaken...it's like I just don't care. That would take time to type it out, and probably, would not get through your thick dellusional head.

 

Well, since you are obviously much dumber than Sperov, that means you can't be a human being, wich means that you must be something else, like a monkey or something.

 

US goverment=warlovers who does not care about anyone but their own good self.

[Darth Knight]

we can't have a thread with a good debate or what ever can we, we have to stoop to calling people monkeys and idiots

 

 

dude you are misinformed about the USA we don't LOVE war