StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I have changed my mind, I now beleive we should attack Iraq,

what do you think?

We must stop the Thermo Nuklar Jihad. Riiiight, I wasn't convinced be the speech, but Iraq's ass up we have the military lets use it.

The fact that Iraq has fired on American and British pilots enforcing the No-Fly Zones more than 750 times in the past YEAR convinced me that something needs to be done. Perhaps we don't need to invade, though, or even commit military forces to the operation.

Master of Ossus wrote:or even commit military forces to the operation.

Huh?

Indeed, that was some fun things, and the factoid about THAT much unknow Chemical stores was news to me

Though I had to say the fact that got my most attention was the five square miles of "Presidential Compunds"

Soo
How many Olympic sized swiming pools is that?

No it was 12 square miles. Thats bigger than DC, or London.

hmm

I wonder how the various talking heads will spin it tommrow, I think I'll take tommrow off and cruise around check the AM for Rush and Co(They always carry the Speeches as does the AM radio station that hosts them, its where I go if I want some news of the Poly)

Besides I wanted to vist Saint Louis and its about that far away in driving time(Five hours or so)

I heard part of the speach, probably half, at work. Im still not convinced we need to go right now.

I hate it when presidents say "the <country name> people are not our enemies" If we bomb them, then yes they are!

Though I had to say the fact that got my most attention was the five square miles of "Presidential Compunds"

If a war starts, thatll turn into five square miles of craters.

I'd doubt it. If Saddam's got a lot of stuff going on in those palaces, the last thing we'd probably want to do is drop bombs on it.

We don't know how deep underground those things go, and it's unclear that bomb blasts would get everything stored in the palaces. We could wind up inadvertently destroying whatevers containing the biological and chemical weapons and cause their release. Maybe you target special forces operations on those sights, but I don't think you want to bomb them until you know a lot more about them.

Indeed, one of these things I was going to bring up(And yes its 12 Square miles I heard that today)

Another fun thing I caught on Shaw Hanity just a few moments ago, Bill Clintions 98 Speach about Iraq is nearly identical to Bush 2002 Speach


Rather funny considering Clinton is going all out to fight Bush saying over and over we should not be going to war

irishmick79 wrote:I'd doubt it. If Saddam's got a lot of stuff going on in those palaces, the last thing we'd probably want to do is drop bombs on it.

We don't know how deep underground those things go, and it's unclear that bomb blasts would get everything stored in the palaces. We could wind up inadvertently destroying whatevers containing the biological and chemical weapons and cause their release. Maybe you target special forces operations on those sights, but I don't think you want to bomb them until you know a lot more about them.

Oh, but there's nothing in those areas. Iraq has never developed any WoMD.

/bleeding heart liberal

Iraq is peaceful. Iraq will not attack. The Iraqi people do not deserve this. The Iraqi government does not deserve this. If we attack, we're evil. If we attack, thousands of innocents will die. If we attack, American soldiers will die. We shouldn't attack. Iraq is peaceful...

Fuck that shit. I say go for it. Saddam has been a thorn in the ass ever since the Gulf War. Fuck him.

I'm still not wholly convinced that attacking Iraq directly and militarily is the only solution, but the argument that the Iraqi people will be hurt by our attack is just stupid. They're already starving to death, for crying out loud. If, during our attack, some civilians happen to die, of course it's too bad, but their deaths might save a hundred thousand Iraqis from starvation!

And remember that in the Gulf War, the liberals were claiming that tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens had died, and then during the war in Afghanistan they were claiming that between 5 and 10 thousand Afghan civilians had been killed. They simply have no idea what a modern military operation is like. It is really just another example of how desperate liberals will avoid real life concerns in favor of their idealistic vision of the world.

Master of Ossus wrote:I'm still not wholly convinced that attacking Iraq directly and militarily is the only solution, but the argument that the Iraqi people will be hurt by our attack is just stupid. They're already starving to death, for crying out loud. If, during our attack, some civilians happen to die, of course it's too bad, but their deaths might save a hundred thousand Iraqis from starvation!

And remember that in the Gulf War, the liberals were claiming that tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens had died, and then during the war in Afghanistan they were claiming that between 5 and 10 thousand Afghan civilians had been killed. They simply have no idea what a modern military operation is like. It is really just another example of how desperate liberals will avoid real life concerns in favor of their idealistic vision of the world.

Indeed. Thats why we need Fundies, keep THe hippies inline until I kill them.

And remember that in the Gulf War, the liberals were claiming that tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens had died, and then during the war in Afghanistan they were claiming that between 5 and 10 thousand Afghan civilians had been killed. They simply have no idea what a modern military operation is like. It is really just another example of how desperate liberals will avoid real life concerns in favor of their idealistic vision of the world.

Why is it idealistic that we killed thousands of civilians? That seems downright morbid to me. I don't believe this is the best example for showing how liberals view the world as idealistic...I think gun control laws better fit it. Making it harder to legally purchase firearms=virtually no crime related to shootings.

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:

And remember that in the Gulf War, the liberals were claiming that tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens had died, and then during the war in Afghanistan they were claiming that between 5 and 10 thousand Afghan civilians had been killed. They simply have no idea what a modern military operation is like. It is really just another example of how desperate liberals will avoid real life concerns in favor of their idealistic vision of the world.

Why is it idealistic that we killed thousands of civilians? That seems downright morbid to me. I don't believe this is the best example for showing how liberals view the world as idealistic...I think gun control laws better fit it. Making it harder to legally purchase firearms=virtually no crime related to shootings.

Because the numbers where massivly inflated. However they used such to further there own agendas anyway.

Oh...errr.....nm, I take that back.

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:

And remember that in the Gulf War, the liberals were claiming that tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens had died, and then during the war in Afghanistan they were claiming that between 5 and 10 thousand Afghan civilians had been killed. They simply have no idea what a modern military operation is like. It is really just another example of how desperate liberals will avoid real life concerns in favor of their idealistic vision of the world.

Why is it idealistic that we killed thousands of civilians? That seems downright morbid to me. I don't believe this is the best example for showing how liberals view the world as idealistic...I think gun control laws better fit it. Making it harder to legally purchase firearms=virtually no crime related to shootings.

It is idealistic because of their silly thinking that war necessarily harms everyone involved in it. It is simply not realistic. There are always going to be some civilian casualties in war, but during the Gulf War the civilian casualties were smaller than nearly everyone predicted going into the war. Even Iraq now admits that the civilian casualties were "light."