Arguing with antiwar

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-02-04 02:40pm

Oh I will doc

Bush & Blair (and the rest) should just be honest and admit that they are going into Iraq because they don't like Saddam. They want to knock him from power & sieze his oil fields.

As I may point out if we wanted Oil we got it
In Kuwait
We already have troops there, If we wanted to take thier oil... Who could stop us?
China? They can't move troops in
Russia? Defending themsleves from China

This whole WMD bullshit is just embarassing...

I see you've been taken in so lets explain agian

In 1994, '95, '96 alot of Chemical and Bilogical Weapons were discovered by Inspectors, The Insecptors said round them up and we want to come back and watch you destroy them
However they never DID destroy them, Infact in a few cases They came back to find all the equipment missing and the Iraq's would say it was destroyed, not where, by who or with what just saying "Oh its gone" or similar

Anyway we keep a record of all the things they where supposed to destroy or where on tap to be destroyed in 98 when they kicked all the Inspectors out
Now Saddam Denies having WHAT WE KNOW HE HAS
Its not bullshit its pretty damn concrete but its idiot newies who can't get through their head what it means when you phyiscal SEE 20 tons of Athrax, come back the next day is not their anymore and they deny having it

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-02-04 02:44pm

Comedy

HA! We have all your Comady Stars and Canada's as well!

Sarcasm

You can't get more Sacatistic than Scott Addms

Music!

We have all your Musics Stars and everyone elses as well!
Inculding the remains of your former Music stars!

Food

HA! We have the Iron Chief!

Understatement

We are the birth place of hippyism, I don't think you can top that

Not one but two Woodstalks as well

Film

We got all your directors and producers

Having a culture that isn't almost solelydependent on shopping

Ha! More you shop, the Better the Ecnomey, the better everyone is, Thats a advntage thank you very much!

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-02-04 02:45pm

Anyway we keep a record of all the things they where supposed to destroy or where on tap to be destroyed in 98 when they kicked all the Inspectors out
Now Saddam Denies having WHAT WE KNOW HE HAS
Its not bullshit its pretty damn concrete but its idiot newies who can't get through their head what it means when you phyiscal SEE 20 tons of Athrax, come back the next day is not their anymore and they deny having it

GODAMNIT!!! THANK YOU BEAN. I am so fucking sick and tired of hearing this people bitch and moan "Where's the evidence, where's the evidence." Datschel sitting there with a straight face and telling us after the State of the Union that he did not see enough compelling evidence to fully agree with the war. He's looking for JFK Cuban Missile Crisis evidence...I have the distinct feeling that if we did have U2 pictures of the stockpiles it still would not be enough for him.

In any event I wait patiently for tomorrow when Colin Powell unleashes the evidence which includes audio tapes of the Iraqi intelliegnec people talking about obstructing the inspectors.

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2003-02-04 02:49pm

I want to see the US smacking down Iraq.
And then I want to see them lay the smackdown on North Korea. And Somalia. etc.

DocHorror · Post by **DocHorror** » 2003-02-04 02:53pm

I see you've been taken in so lets explain agian

I have not been taken in to anything...

I do realise that Saddam probably DOES have weapons of mass destruction. Im not that much of a donkey. Yet

We already have troops there, If we wanted to take thier oil... Who could stop us?

Ah yes, but my view is that the WMD are being used as an excuse to go in and effectively seize the country, put in a pro-US government and have free unfetted access to their oil fields. Teh benefit of doing it with an excuse is that the whole world wont jump down your throat for a needless act of aggression - which invading Iraq without an excuse would be.

DocHorror · Post by **DocHorror** » 2003-02-04 02:56pm

I might also direct you here...

Washington Post

An interesting article - though Im not going to throw it at you as evidence that the US is wrong or right...

Like I said above, ultimately I don't really care...

War is war...it happens...

ClaysGhost · Post by **ClaysGhost** » 2003-02-04 03:10pm

Mr Bean wrote: The Reasons I provided are very simple, lets see if you can remeber them all this time
1. Saddam has started wars of conquest before and has repeatly in the past demosrated a want and will to conquer the Middle East

Yes. Many other countries have started wars of conquest too, some of them with US support, most not. Are we to assume that the US will go after the others, too?

2. Saddam has show himself not to be trustworthy in various ways from treaty breaking to breaking his word

If you think that Saddam is the only leader who does this, you are somewhat mistaken. The USA itself has broken treaties when it is in the country's interest to do so, as you can find out very trivially. What matters is that the other parties in the treaty have the will and ability to punish the breach; this is not true for the treaties broken by most other governments.

3. According to the 91 Treaty if he fails to fufill any part of his end of the bargien his position is forfit and he is to be removed by force

Yes.

4. Saddam has demostrated the ability to fool Weapons Inspectors on a regular basies

Just out of interest, how do you know this? Do you have some channel of information besides the weapon inspectors? The weapon inspectors found plenty of chemical and biological weapons as I understand it, just no nukes. I would regard nukes as the hardest of the three to conceal.

5. Saddam had weapons in '94 '95 '96 that where ordered destroyed, they never where and when we came back in 2002 they denied having.

Yes. Iraq has large amounts of chemical and biological weapons that they shouldn't have, according to the WI report.

6. Saddam also has been aquring new weapons since he kicked out the Inspectors in 98 that he deines having despite the fact that France, NK and Co admit having sold to him

I'm surprised that NK could bear to part with any weapons. But I'd also be surprised if he wasn't buying from someone.

7. Saddam is a crimal by his own admission have killed numors people BY HIS OWN HAND in the late 80s early 90s

Yes. I hope no one is arguing that the man is not a shit. I imagine that if the expressed purpose for the war is to remove shits from power, the next country in line will be Saudia Arabia. After all, it's right next door to Iraq - very convenient for the armed forces. Or perhaps the House of Saud is useful enough to be left where they are, despite their human rights record.

8. Saddam has funneled money to various orginzations inculding HAMAS and has given money to the famailys of Sucided Bombers for "Thier Glorius Sacrifice"

Yes. Last time I checked, the UK was also a centre for terrorist funding, so you'd better take them out too.

9. Has repeatly used his own people in testing how Lethal certian Chemical and Biological weapons where incudling the Gas of the Kurds all those years ago

Iranians too. I believe the USA was on the other side at that point.

Let see if you can keep all those facts in mind this time around instead of just picking one and ignoring the rest

I like all your facts. Amazingly, I do have a point. Whilst it might be morally desirable to remove Saddam, past actions make this an extremely dubious and ill-supported position for us to take. If there's anything that recent history teaches, it's that adopting a moral foreign policy is a silly idea. A moral foreign policy only works if the foreigners are moral (sorry, couldn't resist that). Anyway, I would be happy with the argument that Saddam has defied the US, which is a precedent that it is not in the interest of the US or her allies to permit to continue. Hence invasion. I think that's the only credible reason for invasion. The oilfields don't cut it - it would take years, probably a decade, to get the Iraqi oilfields back up to decent production levels (starving people aren't usually too bothered about maintainance of equipment for export industries), and the war will cause some economic disruption, so I don't believe the economic arguments for war put forward as reasons by some of the peace lot. I don't believe the oppression and moral right arguments put forward by some of the war lot, either, as you probably guessed from the above.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-02-04 03:41pm

Yes. Many other countries have started wars of conquest too, some of them with US support, most not. Are we to assume that the US will go after the others, too?

Lets say it togther now "Saddam has started wars of Conquest" Not "Iraq has started wars of Conquest"
This is a Dictatorship we are talking about not a Democracy, Leaders change every few years in most places we supported, Not Iraq, He's still in charge and will be until death, HE, not the Iraq people started those wars remeber

If you think that Saddam is the only leader who does this, you are somewhat mistaken. The USA itself has broken treaties when it is in the country's interest to do so, as you can find out very trivially. What matters is that the other parties in the treaty have the will and ability to punish the breach; this is not true for the treaties broken by most other governments.

Acutal I'd love to hear your examples of Treatys the US has broken with any countrys that exist today

Just out of interest, how do you know this? Do you have some channel of information besides the weapon inspectors? The weapon inspectors found plenty of chemical and biological weapons as I understand it, just no nukes. I would regard nukes as the hardest of the three to conceal.

Do you not recall the events of the 90's? He fooled them on a regular basies, they found alot of stuff, but not as much as he could have made
Or a better example
Say Chemical Factor X could have produced 10,000 Galons of Anthrax if it was worked only nine hours each day, and roughly 25,000 if it was working 24/7

Now then the Inspectors find 500 Galons of Anthrax in one location, Destroy it and then can't find anything else, Now you might say so what? Well the fact is thats every single Iraq Factor where the Inspectors found FAR less than they could have produced and even of what they found not all of it was destroyed before they where kicked out in 98

I'm surprised that NK could bear to part with any weapons. But I'd also be surprised if he wasn't buying from someone.

A Blueprint is much easier to sell than a complete Missle
Also according to latest reports I might add he had Chinese Engineers building him new Bunkers between 1998-2000

Yes. Last time I checked, the UK was also a centre for terrorist funding, so you'd better take them out too.

Last time I checked the House of Commons did not have its budget divided between, Social Programs, Defense, And funding of Islamic Jihad unlike Iraq
Your confusing the fact that PEOPLE of a Nation supporting Terriosm and the NATION ITSELF supporting it

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-02-04 04:01pm

Right here. When did Saddam "punch" the U.S.?

Then you might have noticed the war the US had with Iraq a few years ago. And you might have noticed the cease fire treaty that Saddam has been trying to dance around for a decade. The mofo has been trying a rope a dope on the US and international comunity for twelve years.

I gave a solution in a previous post.

Must have missed it, but I'll go back and reread.

Your point? The U.S. can nuke anybody right now

Why does it always have to go back to nuking? I have never said that we should nuke em.

What the U.S. can do is different then what it should do. I never said the U.S. can't attack Iraq.

You said:

If the U.S. has issues with Iraq's compliance with *UN* resolution, then the U.S. should make its case to the UN. If the U.S. is not acting unilaterally, and if Mr. Bush's case is solid, then he will be able to convince the UN to act.

You want the UN to act not the US. You may not have said "can't" but you imply that the US shouldn't and that the UN should take care of the situation.

What does it say? That I am not an American?

I have no idea where you live and quite frankly, I am tired of this stupid argument of American/UnAmerican or patriotic/unpatriotic on both sides.

Over all, you still can't conceed to the point that the US has worked through the UN and international opinion. All of your points hinge on the dellusion that the UN and the international comunity do not support the US. We HAVE the UN resolution (in fact we have a couple) and the support of a shit load of Europe, support of Russia and a most of the neigbors of Iraq. You seem to want a unaminous decision by every single mofo in the world including Saddam.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2003-02-04 04:30pm

Darth Wong wrote:In the past, the US has gleefully adopted the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosophy and befriended dictators, butchers, etc. Saddam was one of them. Have they learned their lesson? Maybe, maybe not. They are strengthening ties with Libya as we speak, because Libya is willing to help them against other enemies. Maybe they don't learn from their own mistakes.

I'm ambivalent on war with Iraq:
The moral justifications about how his mistreats his people ring hollow in light of the fact that places like Rwanda are ignored.

The WMD argument is dicey; he might have some, he might not, but it's not the strongest basis for an invasion, and the world has quite a few radical, dangerous nations with nukes already, so why the panic?

The "he's been shooting at our planes" argument is not all that powerful either; those planes are overflying his country, he may not have the legal right to shoot at them because of the treaty he signed at gunpoint, but it's not as heinous as some make it sound. To hear some talk, he's been lobbing Scuds into Iowa.

And finally, appealing to treaty stipulations is a descent into legalism as a justification for war, which is no stronger.
However, while each reason is individually weak, they do add up, so I find the war in Iraq understandable, even if it's not exactly something to cheer wildly about.

I don't think they add up at all. He's shooting at our planes because we wanted him to shoot at our planes, or we wouldn't have been flying over his airspace after making threatening speeches. We may not be as good as our friends the Israelis at goading someone into action and making it seem like they're the bad guy, but I think that's exactly what happened in this case. Every reason to go to war was deliberately invented or created by the Ministry of Peace (Bush, Rumsfeld, et al)

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2003-02-04 04:30pm

Look i'm no politician, i only ever worked for one. Bean can put it more eloquently than I, but i see it like this. Saddam is laughing his ass off at you people. You know what happens in his country if ppl disagree so publically with his stance? They die in horrible ways.

He signed a treaty that treaty is binding. He's not allowed any Weapons of Mass Destruction. He's still got them. He's not allowed to take pot shots at army planes patroling the No FLy Zone. He tries to shoot down planes regularily.

The fact of the matter is Saddam has tried to be one of the big boys and in the end he isn't.

Malecoda · Post by **Malecoda** » 2003-02-04 04:45pm

We could just assassinate him and put ourselves in power. Personally, I think we should. We don't need to make things worse for the people; they are not all his minions. Bean said himself, "It's Saddam, not Iraq" then take care of Saddam, and Iraq will follow. We don't need a war. What a stupid thing to send your kids off to. Here:

Plant a McDonald's just inside the border. They're doomed from then on.

It's wonderfully gray.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-02-04 04:57pm

The problem with assinating him is short of Tac Nuking Iraq we can't be sure we got him

He has over fifty bunkers to hide in and nearly as many Doubles, We simply don't HAVE that many Bunker Busting weapons to kill him off, Nevermind half of his protective Bunkers are underneath children's hospitals....
He has not appeared in Public since 1991 basicly

Julhelm · Post by **Julhelm** » 2003-02-04 05:00pm

I wasted a good pick-up on this very discussion saturday night.

Malecoda · Post by **Malecoda** » 2003-02-04 05:16pm

Mr Bean wrote:The problem with assinating him is short of Tac Nuking Iraq we can't be sure we got him

He has over fifty bunkers to hide in and nearly as many Doubles, We simply don't HAVE that many Bunker Busting weapons to kill him off, Nevermind half of his protective Bunkers are underneath children's hospitals....
He has not appeared in Public since 1991 basicly

Oh yeah. We better just go in and bomb downtown then. Those poor people are really suffering, I can't think of a better cheerer-upper than a 2000-lb bomb. Whaddaya say?

Is this the only answer to my repeated inquiry as to why we can't do something other than wage war? We never had a problem installing puppets before. It's just an excuse to keep up the military spending and distract us from Bush's other policies. I'm all in favor of taking them over bec we'd definitely be in a kickass position, but what abt this whole "all-out war" thing? Not necessary, no matter what our goals--want democracy? Depose Saddam. Want to liberate people from tyranny? Depose Saddam. Want the oil? Depose Saddam. Want the land for a base? Depose Saddam. Look, even if he has a thousand body doubles, that doesn't mean we can't drive him from power. We don't need to assassinate him to do that. I repeat, this would be a stupid, stupid thing to send your kids off to. It's almost an insult to what we've become. I am so sick of America defining itself by our enemies. Somebody FUCKING ANSWER ME, I've said it a dozen times, FOR WHAT REASON would you wage war on this population? That gets ignored, you little warmongering freaks. You don't understand anything. You just want a war and you use the same thin pretexts Bush is using. Automatons!

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-02-04 05:22pm

FOR WHAT REASON would you wage war on this population? That gets ignored, you little warmongering freaks. You don't understand anything. You just want a war and you use the same thin pretexts Bush is using. Automatons!

How do you purpose we do it then Captian Brillant?
Starve them? The people of Iraq will die first
Bomb them? They are station in down-town suberbs and in Hospitals and other Public works, Even if we say fuck it and bomb it we will have Destroyed Iraq Throughy, Without Water, nor food or shelter the Iraq people will quickly die before we can get Aid workers in there

We don't wage War on the Popluas, The problem you fail to relise is there is no clean war of simply taking out Saddam and his Loyal Army without killing off the popluas
UNLESS you put the grunts on the ground and engage them militarely as even the Bravest Iraq forces won't die for no reason, if they have a face to surrender to they will just as they did before

Malecoda · Post by **Malecoda** » 2003-02-04 05:24pm

I get SO SICK of the Iraqi Minutemen defeating my F-15s Eagles!

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-02-04 05:28pm

[quote]I get SO SICK of the Iraqi Minutemen defeating my F-15s Eagles![/qutoe]
Your F-15s can niether take land nor hold it, Nor can they give food to the hungrey nor can troops surrender Figher Plane who are holed up in a Children's Hosptial, Your F-15 can't then transport those prisoners of war to a holding location nor can it watch over them

Malecoda · Post by **Malecoda** » 2003-02-04 05:41pm

Mr Bean wrote:
FOR WHAT REASON would you wage war on this population? That gets ignored, you little warmongering freaks. You don't understand anything. You just want a war and you use the same thin pretexts Bush is using. Automatons!
How do you purpose we do it then Captian Brillant?
Starve them? The people of Iraq will die first
Bomb them? They are station in down-town suberbs and in Hospitals and other Public works, Even if we say fuck it and bomb it we will have Destroyed Iraq Throughy, Without Water, nor food or shelter the Iraq people will quickly die before we can get Aid workers in there

We don't wage War on the Popluas, The problem you fail to relise is there is no clean war of simply taking out Saddam and his Loyal Army without killing off the popluas.

Thanks, finally an answer. LEt me see now... why would "starving them" occur to you? That won't do it. Hmmm, bombing? That seems to be the very thing I'm arguing against. Again, it wouldn't get Saddam--you already showed you knew he had bunkers and lookalikes. I'm saying, "we've had puppet governments in the past" and you are still ignoring that. In Central America, we planted a corporation and special forces to foment rebellion and provide revenue, and replaced their leaders with our own. We made sure Iraq (Saddam) was pro-American and used him to fight Iran, after the Shah deposed our guy. We don't need to do the very things you suggest--I say they're starving ("they've had an embargo..."), and you say "Oh gee, Captain Brilliant, maybe we should starve them; I say we shouldn't slaughter them wholesale and you come back "Oh gee Captain Brilliant, would you have us bomb them instead?"

For fuck's sake, it's not that difficult to decipher. They are not evil (the rest of you: silence). They've done nothing to us, except when they were our allies (Stark) or when we attacked them first (you lot: silence). I say, they don't hate us, you say... nothing. All you seem to come up with is, "Oh, they broke the terms of the treaty, we should take military action that the treaty makes legal". Guess what? Before nukes, we had an arms race with Japan and England over battleships. Japan broke that treaty--we all did--over and over--but we didn't attack them, even though we could (or should) have. In today's navy, if a ship fails to answer a challenge and reply, the challenger has the legal right to attack--but they don't. That's bec we don't have hair triggers. It's because we're civilized. WE're not barbarians. We have precedent for targeting a specific person if they do us wrong (Yamamoto, among others). But come on, where's your compassion. Do any of you hate the Iraqi people, or predict that they're gg to fly over and nuke us on their way to world conquest? I've stated that they as a people don't want the war, and they're concerned more abt their own skins than they are against "rising up" and making an example out of us. And you all: "Oh, but they have warheads" Fuckin' A, people. Where do you come from?

Now, that out of the way, I say fine if you point out that fighting the actual ARMY is gg to entail civilian deaths. THAT'S MY GODDAMN POINT!

You say: We don't wage War on the Popluas, The problem you fail to relise is there is no clean war of simply taking out Saddam and his Loyal Army without killing off the popluas.

So don't start! JESUS!

I don't dispute that, which is EXACTLY why I'm arguing against this stupid war-- I DO dispute this wholesale rushing off to war thing. I DO think we can depose Saddam. Clearly we'd need special forces to train and arm the populace. Maybe that would just lead to another Shah of Iran case, so we'd need to build the nation. We'd need to do that in the event of a war, too.

I don't know why people have such a hard time with "this is where the oil is" thing. It's not rocket science. If we gave such a shit as we pretend, I'll repeat it again, we'd have been working hard on Africa and a hundred other trouble spots as well. Yet, for some reason, they go neglected. HMM!

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-02-04 05:48pm

Now, that out of the way, I say fine if you point out that fighting the actual ARMY is gg to entail civilian deaths. I don't dispute that. I DO dispute this wholesale rushing off to war thing. I DO think we can depose Saddam.

Rushing off to war?
We've had the fucking Resoluting for a year and a half now! We've had the second one for over five months now! HOW FUCKING SLOWER DO YOU WANT TO GO?

Clearly we'd need special forces to train and arm the populace. Maybe that would just lead to another Shah of Iran case, so we'd need to build the nation. We'd need to do that in the event of a war, too.

Been tried before, He gassed them all

Exuse me Captian Brillant but where can we find the fokes overthrow him with? He excutes people on a whim and his secruity police as worse than anything the KGB ever did, His Loyal Guard can kill the poplas in under a week thanks to the fact they are station in and around vital public buildings(Like the Water supply.... this is not Vietnam, this is not Germany, Its the middle of the @%@% desert If the water is poisioned or otherwise removed people will die and quickly)

Name me one group we have to work with that we could arm and set him up and then succesfuly overthrow him
And manage to do it in under ten years?

Julhelm · Post by **Julhelm** » 2003-02-04 06:07pm

Saddam himself is the problem.
Remove Saddam.
Problem solved.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2003-02-04 06:09pm

Julhelm wrote:Saddam himself is the problem.
Remove Saddam.
Problem solved.

And what would happen in that power vacuum?
You'd probably get a civil war pretty soon, and Iran doing some "corrections" to its border...

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-02-04 06:10pm

Mr Bean wrote: 1. Saddam has started wars of conquest before and has repeatly in the past demosrated a want and will to conquer the Middle East
2. Saddam has show himself not to be trustworthy in various ways from treaty breaking to breaking his word
3. According to the 91 Treaty if he fails to fufill any part of his end of the bargien his position is forfit and he is to be removed by force
4. Saddam has demostrated the ability to fool Weapons Inspectors on a regular basies
5. Saddam had weapons in '94 '95 '96 that where ordered destroyed, they never where and when we came back in 2002 they denied having.
6. Saddam also has been aquring new weapons since he kicked out the Inspectors in 98 that he deines having despite the fact that France, NK and Co admit having sold to him
7. Saddam is a crimal by his own admission have killed numors people BY HIS OWN HAND in the late 80s early 90s
8. Saddam has funneled money to various orginzations inculding HAMAS and has given money to the famailys of Sucided Bombers for "Thier Glorius Sacrifice"
9. Has repeatly used his own people in testing how Lethal certian Chemical and Biological weapons where incudling the Gas of the Kurds all those years ago

Let see if you can keep all those facts in mind this time around instead of just picking one and ignoring the rest

Ok I will answer every single one in one fell swoop:

You have provided me with 9 facts. You have not linked any of these to the judgement that the U.S. must act without UN approval and invade Iraq. Following every single one of your points I can offer an alternate judgement.

Now I can retype this 9 times, but if you could have could simply re-read your post and place "therefore, the UN should take action and force Saddam to disarm through forced inspections, conducted by many teams, who are informed and backed by military force."

Alternately, someone might add the judgement that "therefore Saddam should be assassinated by bullet or bomb"

There are any number of alternate judgements. The U.S. made a very similar list for Rwanda and decided to lobby the UN to do nothing.

Malecoda · Post by **Malecoda** » 2003-02-04 06:12pm

Mr Bean wrote:
Now, that out of the way, I say fine if you point out that fighting the actual ARMY is gg to entail civilian deaths. I don't dispute that. I DO dispute this wholesale rushing off to war thing. I DO think we can depose Saddam.
Rushing off to war?
We've had the fucking Resoluting for a year and a half now! We've had the second one for over five months now! HOW FUCKING SLOWER DO YOU WANT TO GO?

ZERO miles per hour. We don't need all-out warfare.

Clearly we'd need special forces to train and arm the populace. Maybe that would just lead to another Shah of Iran case, so we'd need to build the nation. We'd need to do that in the event of a war, too.

Been tried before, He gassed them all

[/quote] So? Wouldn't it be better if he gassed them before he gassed us (cold but true for us)? And then, wouldn't that be an ideal case for war? We'd have no problems getting support then. Or would we? I dunno. Maybe itWhat do you mean name a group, if there's nobody willing to fight then gee I guess we'll just have to do it ourselves. At least you said something cogent. I've been begging for that. No-one else has been making me think especially hard.

Exuse me Captian Brillant but where can we find the fokes overthrow him with?

From the population, just like anywhere else we've meddled in.

He excutes people on a whim and his secruity police as worse than anything the KGB ever did, His Loyal Guard can kill the poplas in under a week thanks to the fact they are station in and around vital public buildings(Like the Water supply.... this is not Vietnam, this is not Germany, Its the middle of the @%@% desert If the water is poisioned or otherwise removed people will die and quickly)

Oops. You forgot to depose him first.

why the 10-year timeline anyway? Who gives a shit? I think if we're honest, we'd see something worth fighting for. I don't think we need any pretenses at all. He's not democratic, and he's got a lot of oil. Just depose him. We did that with Iran, and we didn't need to fight them at ALL (until they killed Mossadegh, then we used Saddam as our attack dog).

I think if you support this war so much, you should go enlist. I don't know why you have such a hard on for taking it to these people, who are totally innocent as far as we are concerned. You're saying "We have to fight them bec the Royal Guard could poison the water" and "if we fight them, the Royal Guard could poison the water" So what if Saddam has WMD and lies abt it? Then kill him and his family. If you think we can't do that, you're blind and crazy.

Better yet, let's not concern ourselves with them at all.

Julhelm · Post by **Julhelm** » 2003-02-04 06:16pm

Dahak wrote:
Julhelm wrote:Saddam himself is the problem.
Remove Saddam.
Problem solved.
And what would happen in that power vacuum?
You'd probably get a civil war pretty soon, and Iran doing some "corrections" to its border...

I thought it goes without saying that the power doing the "removing" also secures power so there can be no vacuum.