A question for those against war in Iraq

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-02-17 05:47am

I'm only for war with UN backing and general backing from the public. It's funny how the UN is listened to when it suits the US though.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-02-17 05:53am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:I'm only for war with UN backing and general backing from the public. It's funny how the UN is listened to when it suits the US though.

Yeah, of course then the UN is a fine upstanding representative of world opinion

, who's moral authority all must respect

I love hypocracy, dont you?

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-02-17 05:56am

1. More weapon inspectors: 12 years of this no results

Excuse me? 90-95% of his WMD destroyed, the other 5% tagged for destruction (like the few old mustard gas shells 'found' right where the inspectors left them four years ago) or past its use-by date, thanks very much. And you can't exactly develop WMD with inspectors nosing around your country, let alone hope to deploy them.

2. UN troops: Kosovo nuf said

Kosovo was a NATO operation. You may mean Bosnia.

Thunderfire · Post by **Thunderfire** » 2003-02-17 05:56am

They should have finished the job in 91. The middle east might
go up in flames. This will not be good for the global economy.
Sudan & other countries in the region are a bigger threat than
iraq.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2003-02-17 06:32am

i´m not against a war if the un backs it up. i´m not against a war if any real proof is found that iraq has nukes.
i think that more inspecting inspectors would work.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-02-17 07:04am

salm wrote:i´m not against a war if the un backs it up. i´m not against a war if any real proof is found that iraq has nukes.
i think that more inspecting inspectors would work.

They won't work. You could have ten times as many inspectors and it would't work. A few dozen, or a few hundred outsiders are simply not going to find these things in such large country where the government is not cooperating, and people with the key information are going to be afraid their own government will punish them or their families if they cooperate.

And in any case, it was never the inspectors' job to verify that Saddam had no WMDs, it was their job to find out whether or not Iraq was complying in the disarmament it agreed to undertake. They already found that out, and they concluded that Iraq is not. Their job is thus completed. Why then do we need more inspectors, or more time?

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-02-17 07:27am

Perinquus wrote:
And in any case, it was never the inspectors' job to verify that Saddam had no WMDs, it was their job to find out whether or not Iraq was complying in the disarmament it agreed to undertake. They already found that out, and they concluded that Iraq is not. Their job is thus completed. Why then do we need more inspectors, or more time?

When did Hans Blix say that?

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-02-17 07:58am

Excuse me? 90-95% of his WMD destroyed, the other 5% tagged for destruction (like the few old mustard gas shells 'found' right where the inspectors left them four years ago) or past its use-by date, thanks very much. And you can't exactly develop WMD with inspectors nosing around your country, let alone hope to deploy them.

90%-95%? Realy? Then why did the sum total of all materials discovered and destroyed only add up to 42% of what he could have made? What about the Ninty seven bunkers and compounds the inspectors never visted? Don't forget those famous Presidential Palacies with enough room to store enough Bio Weapons to cover half the East Coast

How can you say they destroyed so much when only 70% of Sites where visted and inversaly, only 57% of possible storage space was visted?
Nevermind what he could have produced between 97-2002 when he was RECIVING NEW PARTS from France, China, and North Korea? (Possibly Pakastan as well)

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-02-17 08:12am

Vympel wrote:
Perinquus wrote:
And in any case, it was never the inspectors' job to verify that Saddam had no WMDs, it was their job to find out whether or not Iraq was complying in the disarmament it agreed to undertake. They already found that out, and they concluded that Iraq is not. Their job is thus completed. Why then do we need more inspectors, or more time?
When did Hans Blix say that?

He reported in his first briefing to the security council, in January, that Iraq had failed to explain a discrepancy of of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons.

He also reported that Iraq produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided no convincing evidence for its destruction. Blix reported that there are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date, and is now unaccounted for. Iraq has witheld evidence on the numbers of scud missiles expended in the Gulf War and the numbers that remained after. Iraq has produced missiles with a greater range than they are allowed to have, under the peace treaty that ended the Gulf War, and stated: "These missiles might well represent prima facie cases of proscribed systems." Iraq has also recently imported chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and guidance and control system, and they were illegally brought into Iraq; that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions.

Blix also said there was considerable evidence that Iraq was witholding documents to account for various weapon systems and components. The Iraqi's say they have turned over all available relevant documents, and any others were destroyed or lost. But then 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the lacing enrichment of uranium, was found in the home of an Iraqi scientist. This discovery supports a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. Blix believes that: "we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes."

The job of the inspectors is not, and never has been to discover hidden weapons (read the relevant security council resolution). Their job has always been to monitor Iraqi compliance with the resolutions it agreed to as part of the peace settlement, and Blix himself, certainly no war hawk, has stated that it appears Iraq is still trying to conceal information and withhold evidence.

In short, Iraq is not complying. The inspectors were sent to do a job. They did it already. It's time to move on to the next step.

SimBob · Post by **SimBob** » 2003-02-17 09:51am

Why not get the Iraqi's to overthrow Saddam? Incite a revolt, and get the revolutionaries to replace him with a dictator?

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-02-17 10:29am

Mr Bean wrote: 90%-95%? Realy? Then why did the sum total of all materials discovered and destroyed only add up to 42% of what he could have made?

"Could have" made? Operative words: could have. Note that the operative word is not: did make.

What about the Ninty seven bunkers and compounds the inspectors never visted? Don't forget those famous Presidential Palacies with enough room to store enough Bio Weapons to cover half the East Coast

And of course, you know for a fact that these 97 bunkers and compounds are filled to the brim with WMD.

How can you say they destroyed so much when only 70% of Sites where visted and inversaly, only 57% of possible storage space was visted?

I don't say. The inspectors who were there say. And I would like to know the source for your claims.

Nevermind what he could have produced between 97-2002 when he was RECIVING NEW PARTS from France, China, and North Korea? (Possibly Pakastan as well)

Inspectors weren't there for that period- I was discussing the effectivness of inspections and the erroneous claim that 12 years had 'nothing to show for it'.

Their job has always been to monitor Iraqi compliance with the resolutions it agreed to as part of the peace settlement, and Blix himself, certainly no war hawk, has stated that it appears Iraq is still trying to conceal information and withhold evidence.

His last report was hardly what the US wanted. Most reports put it at 'glass is half full-half empty' tone. The full text is freely available on the net- Blix emphasises UNMOVIC's expanding capabilities etc. and is getting more Iraqi cooperation, e.g. on the issue of spy planes. Quite frankly, the urgency and impetus for a head long rush to war just isn't there, IMO.

In short, Iraq is not complying. The inspectors were sent to do a job. They did it already. It's time to move on to the next step.

Sure, go to war, if you hang your hat on UN legality.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-02-17 10:47am

"Could have" made? Operative words: could have. Note that the operative word is not: did make.

For him to have made so little he would have had to operate his plants on a Four day a week, Eight Hour a day Secdual, Know of any reason why he would? Its not because he lacked raw materials, He had enough to be working 24/7, Can you think of any reason why a Dictator bent on dominating the Middle East Oil Reserves would make so little?

And of course, you know for a fact that these 97 bunkers and compounds are filled to the brim with WMD.

Of course not, But we don't know what the hell IS in them, And if you have enough storage space to store roughly enough Material to gas a few hundred square miles of land and represtend more than 30% of Saddam's Bunker Complexes and WAS NEVER SEARCHED
Now then considering that 30% of the avaible storage space(This is just counting sites we know about BTW) was never looked through, How can you make any realistic claims that "we got 90-95%" hmmm? Thats the point, don't twist my words, I never said them were filled to the brim or any such bullshit, don't spin my words

I don't say. The inspectors who were there say. And I would like to know the source for your claims.

CIA Declassfied 96 and 98 Intellgence Briefs that CNN Hosted during the start of this thing, I also have the hard-covers aviable though I'll try and find a location online agian(As I did the last time when somone here claimed all their bio and chemical weapons would be useless because they would have degreeded by now but I linked that part of the Study showing that there a subset of Chemical and Bio Weapons which DONT degreed(At least in the timeframe we are talking about, five to ten years not the two hundred plus they fall apart in)

In the mean time I'd love to hear your source on the 90-95% number

Inspectors weren't there for that period- I was discussing the effectivness of inspections and the erroneous claim that 12 years had 'nothing to show for it'.

I never supported that claim however may I point out that the Blix report covered the fact that newly manufiacted WMD's specificly VX Nerve Gas had been manufatured after 95 and was found by the Inspectors in late 96 to point out the fact Saddam had still been producing WMD's during the time the Inspectors where inside Iraq.

His last report was hardly what the US wanted. Most reports put it at 'glass is half full-half empty' tone. The full text is freely available on the net- Blix emphasises UNMOVIC's expanding capabilities etc. and is getting more Iraqi cooperation, e.g. on the issue of spy planes. Quite frankly, the urgency and impetus for a head long rush to war just isn't there, IMO.

Vympel how in Wong's name do you consider a two year wait(With just now a four month long build up of Forces in the area)
"A head-long rush to war"
When does it NOT become a head-long rush? Five UN resoulties? Eight Resoulties from Congress? When is it no longer head-long? You want head-long, Look at Kosovo, Less than two months after it started we where there, FIVE YEARS after the Iraq situation started and we are still not there

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-02-17 11:03am

Mr Bean wrote: For him to have made so little he would have had to operate his plants on a Four day a week, Eight Hour a day Secdual, Know of any reason why he would? Its not because he lacked raw materials, He had enough to be working 24/7, Can you think of any reason why a Dictator bent on dominating the Middle East Oil Reserves would make so little?

Perhaps because he had enough? This is argument from ignorance speculation.

Of course not, But we don't know what the hell IS in them, And if you have enough storage space to store roughly enough Material to gas a few hundred square miles of land and represtend more than 30% of Saddam's Bunker Complexes and WAS NEVER SEARCHED

Again, argument from ignorance. They could stock regular vanilla munitions, stuff stolen from Kuwait, underground themeparks, buggered if I know really. The inspectors have been looking over the palaces now that they're back in Iraq. Inspectors didn't necessarily have to go to every single possible place. They used a variety of surveillance/ quasi-espionage techniques in their searches. They didn't go from house to house. They followed their nose and did research.

Now then considering that 30% of the avaible storage space(This is just counting sites we know about BTW) was never looked through, How can you make any realistic claims that "we got 90-95%" hmmm? Thats the point, don't twist my words, I never said them were filled to the brim or any such bullshit, don't spin my words

I didn't make the claims. Inspectors did. Specifically Scott Ritter.

CIA Declassfied 96 and 98 Intellgence Briefs that CNN Hosted during the start of this thing, I also have the hard-covers aviable though I'll try and find a location online agian(As I did the last time when somone here claimed all their bio and chemical weapons would be useless because they would have degreeded by now but I linked that part of the Study showing that there a subset of Chemical and Bio Weapons which DONT degreed(At least in the timeframe we are talking about, five to ten years not the two hundred plus they fall apart in)

Fine, I'll wait for the links. Regardless, the percentage figures aren't helpful. How does the CIA define 'sites' and 'possible storage space'? Powell got up before the UN and called a rebel TV camp in Northern Iraq a WMD factory. The rebels brought in reporters and showed em around. It was like they said.

I never supported that claim however may I point out that the Blix report covered the fact that newly manufiacted WMD's specificly VX Nerve Gas had been manufatured after 95 and was found by the Inspectors in late 96 to point out the fact Saddam had still been producing WMD's during the time the Inspectors where inside Iraq.

Where does it say that?

Vympel how in Wong's name do you consider a two year wait(With just now a four month long build up of Forces in the area)
"A head-long rush to war"
When does it NOT become a head-long rush? Five UN resoulties? Eight Resoulties from Congress? When is it no longer head-long? You want head-long, Look at Kosovo, Less than two months after it started we where there, FIVE YEARS after the Iraq situation started and we are still not there

I define head-long rush as an ill-considered attack on a country that poses no threat, rather than an issue of time, especially when there are other, less lethal to civilian methods we can do to marginalize this brutal little tinpot asshole- including beefed up inspections.

Your two-year wait comment also includes the implicit assumption that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Bush government wet dreams aside, it didn't. The two are completely unconnected.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-02-17 11:50am

personally, I dont care if he has wmds or not. dont care if he was involved with 9/11. Im more concerned with the fact that he's a genocidal maniac who has expansionist dreams. he's used nerve gas, and targeted his own people, and started two wars that led to the deaths of a million people. unprovoked, the only intent to gain territory. he is acting like hitler, targeting his populace with death and grabbing as much territory as possible.

the man violates the human rights of his citizens, and plans to do it to more. why are we waiting?

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-02-17 12:32pm

Enforcer Talen wrote:personally, I dont care if he has wmds or not. dont care if he was involved with 9/11. Im more concerned with the fact that he's a genocidal maniac who has expansionist dreams.

Saddam is a maniac for sure and might indeed have expansionist dreams, but neither serves as a justification for an invasion of Iraq. Besides Saddam doesn't really have the muscle to fulfill his dreams.

he's used nerve gas, and targeted his own people, and started two wars that led to the deaths of a million people. unprovoked, the only intent to gain territory.

Yep, Saddam did all that...while he was a buddy of the U.S. U.S. did nothing tangible in 87 when Saddam gassed he's own people. Why is it such a big deal now?

"When Saddam gassed he's people in the 80' we couldn't really do anything, I mean he was our ally in the fight against communism and all that, but now a decade and a half after the fact we just have to punish him for the crimes he comitted while he was our ally. Never mind the incredibly hypocricy of this type of reasoning"
-- America on Iraq, 2001-2003

he is acting like hitler, targeting his populace with death and grabbing as much territory as possible.

What was that law called that states that Hitler will eventualy be metioned in every thread if the thread runs long enough?
What territories has Saddam grabbed since the Gulf War?

the man violates the human rights of his citizens, and plans to do it to more. why are we waiting?

Are you going to invade every country that violates it's citizen human rights? If not, why is Iraq so special?

BTW what amazes me is how rarely the casualties of the invasion of Iraq are mentioned in arquments about Iraq.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-02-17 01:47pm

Are you going to invade every country that violates it's citizen human rights? If not, why is Iraq so special

yes, I think that is a good idea.

The_Nice_Guy · Post by **The_Nice_Guy** » 2003-02-17 02:25pm

Saddam is a maniac for sure and might indeed have expansionist dreams, but neither serves as a justification for an invasion of Iraq. Besides Saddam doesn't really have the muscle to fulfill his dreams.

Well, the question is not whether he has nukes, but when he's going to have them. And what are his strategic goals,and how the nukes can help him achieve them?

In terms of blackmailing the US directly, not much. But he can use his new found nuclear power to threaten the various Middle East powers and take over their oilfields(a bit hard to believe, actually).

But more importantly, if he really wants to hurt the US, he can just turn over a nuke over to the fundies. As much as they hate him, they hate the US more.

Yep, Saddam did all that...while he was a buddy of the U.S. U.S. did nothing tangible in 87 when Saddam gassed he's own people. Why is it such a big deal now?

Yes, hypocrisy of the highest order. That said, the US created this mess, it should clean it up. Nobody else is going to do it.

What was that law called that states that Hitler will eventualy be metioned in every thread if the thread runs long enough?
What territories has Saddam grabbed since the Gulf War?

Godwin's Law.

As for territories, well, I wouldn't say he would be able to grab even more land iof he had nukes, but it does raises the stakes. Remember, there're a lot of oilfields in that region. I dunno how a nuclear strike might affect them, and I don't want to find out.

Are you going to invade every country that violates it's citizen human rights? If not, why is Iraq so special

Actually, I think it's a good idea too. An idealistic dream though.

The Nice Guy

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-02-17 02:32pm

Vympel wrote: Sure, go to war, if you hang your hat on UN legality.

Given that the UN has just put Iraq, yes that's right Iraq, in charge of an upcoming disarmament conference, with Iran as co-chair, and has also recently seen Libya elected by member nations 33 to 3, to chair the UN Commission on Human Rights (if that isn't a sick joke I don't what is), I would consider the UN's imprimatur to be of dubious moral value, to say the least.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-02-17 04:21pm

Tragic wrote:The U.S has laws about assassinating world leaders. So thats out of th question. And from what i hear he has a few doubles of himself. So we won't know if we killed the right one.

I don't think it's an actual law but an executive decree. I think it started with Ford but I may be wrong. Any of the presidents since then could have reversed or ignored his decree but having it on the books and adhereing to it is good for "business". By actually sticking to this it gives our country some moral clout. Plus, I think we hope that by not assassinating other coutries' leaders they wouldn't wack ours.

ReinnResauq · Post by **ReinnResauq** » 2003-02-17 05:05pm

My solution; do nothing. Saddam should not be such a priority. He's no more of a threat to the world or the US than Timothy McVeigh's doppleganger. Yeah, he's got weapons, but everyone knows that if he uses one, we'll destroy his entire country. Russia's threats of nuclear weaponry we had to take seriously because we knew they had the number and power to really hurt us (and we could do the same to them), but Iraq lacks the infrastructure to create enough weapons, lacks the materials to make enough of them dangerous, lacks the technological capacity to make sure they hit the right spots, and lacks the raw size to spread things out. He detonates one biological weapon, kills a couple million people in a city like New York (a lot, but really nothing in a country of 300 million spread out like we are), we respond by detonating one nuke above Baghdad and that's the end of him. He knows that, everyone knows that.

In short, Iraq hasn't been a threat since we handed his ass to him a decade ago, it isn't a threat now, and we need to concentrate on the fact that our economy is going to hell in a handbasket.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-02-17 06:50pm

First to Vympel
Its not an aurgment of ignorance given two simple facts
1. He had enough Material to Produce that much WMD, based mearly on imports we tracked
2. That Material was never found, as was any Weapons it could have been used to build
Its a case of trying to find C
A+B=C, But you can't find C anywhere
But you can't Find A or B either
Understand where the line of reasoning I'm pushing is coming from Vympel?

I didn't make the claims. Inspectors did. Specifically Scott Ritter.

Inspectors? Or INSPECTOR? Nevermind the fact that Ritter has switched sides on the issue quite abit, Both in first saying in 97 That Iraq still had WMD, Then in 2000 Saying that Saddam had no WMD, that we got them all in 97, Then saying "we probably got most of them" and after that last statment has not been heard of since then as he is currently untoucable by the Press because he refuses to talk about his Pedophile case(He tried to meet a 13 Girl who was acutal a Brit Policewoman, he was arrested then, He did it agian and was caught agian by another Police Group and this time he was charged) He refuses to talk about it so he's not on the air anymore but his last statment was a "We probably got most of them"

Your two-year wait comment also includes the implicit assumption that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Bush government wet dreams aside, it didn't. The two are completely unconnected.

Wait a second here, Lets do abit of math,
Two Years ago eh? When would that be? Why 2/17/01 would it not? Before 9/11 Captian Brillant, The first day Bush came in office he said he would clean up the Mess Clinton had left behind in Iraq, I'm not claming any connection to 9/11 at all, Your twist my words agian and badly at that

To the rest of you may I point out

1. Cut off the Flow of Oil from the Middle East and you fuck up the world Economey somthing series, Great Depression series and it won't be a short thing, prehaps as long as five to ten years of serious economic damage
2. Saddam has pursed WMD since he first took control of the Contry, That much is certian
3. With Nuclear weapons not only is he polticaly untoucable but Economicly as well, If the Oil Heads in Quatar/SA/Kuwait and Co were destroyed by Nuclear Attacks, Then the entire Reigion would plunge into economic resession of the worst sort as rebuilding Oil fields will take quite some years

Given that fact its similar, Econimcly to letting the Crazy old man live right next to the town water supply, If he decides to take a dumb in the town water, well everyone's gonna be sick for awhile

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-02-17 07:00pm

ReinnResauq, First if we get tagged with even 1 bio weapon and "a million or so New Yorkers die" we won't just drop 1 nuke, Iraq will be the world largest mirror. Question: What will it take then for you to want to do something? If I here "we need more time" my heads going to come off..

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-02-17 07:02pm

Stormbringer wrote:Since so many people here are against war against Iraq, I have a question for you. What should be done? This is serious question. It's all well and good to say the US should not go to war but what can be done to remove Saddam Hussien and end the problems with Iraq that's short of war? It's not enough to be against something but there has to be a viable alternative.

My recommendation is a concerted black-ops campaign against the government of Iraq (I.E. Saddam and key cronies), using SOCOM, the CIA, and other appropriate three-letter agencies. Emplace a shadow government that will take the place of Saddam's government once he expires.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-02-17 10:53pm

Mr Bean wrote:First to Vympel
Its not an aurgment of ignorance given two simple facts
1. He had enough Material to Produce that much WMD, based mearly on imports we tracked
2. That Material was never found, as was any Weapons it could have been used to build
Its a case of trying to find C
A+B=C, But you can't find C anywhere
But you can't Find A or B either
Understand where the line of reasoning I'm pushing is coming from Vympel?

What about dual use material?

Inspectors? Or INSPECTOR? Nevermind the fact that Ritter has switched sides on the issue quite abit, Both in first saying in 97 That Iraq still had WMD, Then in 2000 Saying that Saddam had no WMD,

Part of the bullshit smear campaign that's been perpetrated against his since he started speaking out. I've read everything he's said, at no point did he contradict himself.

that we got them all in 97, Then saying "we probably got most of them" and after that last statment has not been heard of since then as he is currently untoucable by the Press because he refuses to talk about his Pedophile case

(He tried to meet a 13 Girl who was acutal a Brit Policewoman, he was arrested then, He did it agian and was caught agian by another Police Group and this time he was charged) He refuses to talk about it so he's not on the air anymore but his last statment was a "We probably got most of them"

Bullshit- check your facts. That was one of the sleaziest, most obvious hatchet jobs I've ever seen:

" a smearing so foul that it makes the Clinton crowd look like a bunch of amateurs. The news that he may have been arrested, in June 2001, as the result of an internet sex sting, in which an undercover cop posing as a sixteen-year-old girl lured him into "sex chat" over the internet, came to light in a very strange way. A local newspaper, the Daily Gazette, of Schenectady, New York, was first to pick up the dirt, which apparently came to light when an assistant district attorney was fired for settling the case and not informing the D.A. According to the Gazette:

"Police and prosecutors have declined to discuss the case, which involved at least one class B misdemeanor, because it was adjourned in contemplation of dismissal and ordered sealed by a Colonie Town Court justice. The Daily Gazette's request for access to the arrest report was denied by the Colonie town attorney's office, which ruled disclosure was barred under the state Freedom of Information Law."

So the police just happened to conduct a "sex sting" operation against the one man who had exposed the lies of our war-mad rulers from the inside. On the eve of war, as hundreds of thousands protest in the streets, this staunch Republican and solid family man who has become one of the War Party's most formidable enemies is suddenly "exposed" as a child molester.

Since the court records have been sealed, and the case was merely "adjourned in contemplation of dismissal," the authorities will say nothing, at least in public. The entrapment was apparently so transparent, so obviously the clumsiest sort of Cointelpro-style operation badly bungled by our newly-empowered political police, that the charges were dropped to the legal equivalent of a traffic ticket. Could it be that the records were sealed not to protect Ritter, but to protect whomever tried to set him up?"

And of course- it's a quite transparent ad hominem attack. Not unlike a previous smear attempt on another weapons inspector who was 'outed' as a member of a sadomasochistic 'advocacy' group. In the end, that inspector was so embarassed by the invasion into his private life (like that has jack shit to do with his job as an inspecotr) that he withdrew. At the same time, Hans Blix was being attacked for being 'too soft'. Seeing a pattern here?

Wait a second here, Lets do abit of math,
Two Years ago eh? When would that be? Why 2/17/01 would it not? Before 9/11 Captian Brillant, The first day Bush came in office he said he would clean up the Mess Clinton had left behind in Iraq, I'm not claming any connection to 9/11 at all, Your twist my words agian and badly at that

Gee, sorry I didn't tally up the math exactly

Get real. The only time Bush started going on about Iraq was after 9/11- this is not a controversial fact.

To the rest of you may I point out

1. Cut off the Flow of Oil from the Middle East and you fuck up the world Economey somthing series, Great Depression series and it won't be a short thing, prehaps as long as five to ten years of serious economic damage

And he'll do this? What's he got to gain from fucking up the world economy?

2. Saddam has pursed WMD since he first took control of the Contry, That much is certian

As have other countries, including military dictatorship Pakistan filled with Islamic fundies. Why don't you go after them?

3. With Nuclear weapons not only is he polticaly untoucable but Economicly as well, If the Oil Heads in Quatar/SA/Kuwait and Co were destroyed by Nuclear Attacks, Then the entire Reigion would plunge into economic resession of the worst sort as rebuilding Oil fields will take quite some years

And he'll do this? Why? It's possible that invaders from Mars could take over the planet, should we invade Mars?

Given that fact its similar, Econimcly to letting the Crazy old man live right next to the town water supply, If he decides to take a dumb in the town water, well everyone's gonna be sick for awhile

Just because a threat is possible doesn't mean that it's remotely probable.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-02-17 10:57pm

Tragic wrote:The U.S has laws about assassinating world leaders. So thats out of th question. And from what i hear he has a few doubles of himself. So we won't know if we killed the right one.

If he was in his military uniform, as he usually is, then there would be nothing wrong with it, since, technically, we are already at a state of conflict with Iraq and he would be a part of the uniformed military.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

A question for those against war in Iraq

Re: A question for those against war in Iraq