Iraq strike 'would open hell's gates'

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WhoCares @ Sep. 10 2002,13:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Sep. 10 2002,13:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Sep. 10 2002,14<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If the US could come up with a good enough reason, I would have no problem with Hussien been taken down.<span id='postcolor'>

Food for thought.<span id='postcolor'>

As long as they can't get rid of all the 'could, would, seems to, problably, if, eventually, ...' - I think, I have never seen a more wage article of propaganda then this!<span id='postcolor'>

The point is, if he had nuclear boms it would be too late, they would be in the hands of a man calling for revenge against American lives:revenge He could give them to anyone. The thing we did learn from september 11th is that terrorism is powerful.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Sep. 10 2002,14:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yet another 'Iraq has WMD!' article.

Hey, America has 20,000 nuclear weapons stockpiled and could make more, they could wipe out the world a few time over! Russia could do the same! All the other mini nuclear superpowers could do damage too! If Iraq was in Americas good books, they would be helping him make the things!

As soon as he starts saying 'I plan to nuke everything I can', then we get afraid. And Im sure someone is going to find some article quoted Hussien as saying that, so show me <!--emo&<span id='postcolor'>

I see you're not serious. First you say that if there's proof that Iraq has actual WMD capabilities, you can understand the US stance.

When I present an article, you synically dismiss it and go blabbering about the US weapons stockpile.

[CosmicCastaway 0]

Have a look here:

http://www.salon.com/politics/comics/2002/08/08/corrections/index.html

He's actually done quite a few satirical takes on world politics, but this particular one seems relevant to the current conversation.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CosmicCastaway @ Sep. 10 2002,15:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Have a look here:

http://www.salon.com/politics/comics/2002/08/08/corrections/index.html

He's actually done quite a few satirical takes on world politics, but this particular one seems relevant to the current conversation.  <span id='postcolor'>

Cute. Now let's be realistic. Saddam is a horribly cruel and sadistic dictator who has shown that he's willing to attack other countries unprovoked with long range missiles and with poison (Kurds and Iranians).

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Sep. 10 2002,14:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CosmicCastaway @ Sep. 10 2002,150)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Have a look here:

http://www.salon.com/politics/comics/2002/08/08/corrections/index.html

He's actually done quite a few satirical takes on world politics, but this particular one seems relevant to the current conversation.  <span id='postcolor'>

Cute. Now let's be realistic. Saddam is a horribly cruel and sadistic dictator who has shown that he's willing to attack other countries unprovoked with long range missiles and with poison (Kurds and Iranians).<span id='postcolor'>

Also that he has no qualms supporting terrorist groups like Hamas. Terrorism is how the nuclear weapons will be used when they are developed. Why jepodise the safety of the world?

[WhoCares 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 10 2002,13:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The point is, if he had nuclear boms it would be too late, they would be in the hands of a man calling for revenge against American lives:revenge He could give them to anyone. The thing we did learn from september 11th is that terrorism is powerful.<span id='postcolor'>

Why should he wait to have nukes?

If giving away WMDs would be in his serious interrest, why didn't he give chemical weapons to terrorists??? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Left unhindered, it "seems likely that the current Iraqi regime will eventually achieve its objectives,"<span id='postcolor'> If he said 'The current Iraqi regime will achieve its objectives', that would be a statement, but so

Left unhindered - there are still the sanctions, so they are not left unhindered

it seems likely - not even then it is sure but likely

eventually - even less then likely

And the whole article is written in this style.

If these are the 'evidences' their decision to begin war will be based on...

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 10 2002,15:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also that he has no qualms supporting terrorist groups like Hamas.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, similarly, so do Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. Yet none of them (yet) have actually gone ahead and done what Iraq has done so far.

Furthermore, after being (supposedly) defeated in the Gulf War, he's just continuing WMD R&D, albeit in a much more secretive way.

The US's biggest mistake was not finishing off the job 10 years ago. They were naive to rely on Saddam loosing power and support and on relying on the UN stay the line and prevent further weapons development.

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WhoCares @ Sep. 10 2002,14:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 10 2002,13:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The point is, if he had nuclear boms it would be too late, they would be in the hands of a man calling for revenge against American lives:revenge He could give them to anyone. The thing we did learn from september 11th is that terrorism is powerful.<span id='postcolor'>

Why should he wait to have nukes?

If giving away WMDs would be in his serious interrest, why didn't he give chemical weapons to terrorists???<span id='postcolor'>

We don't know that he hasn't. Or what he has as he has expelled the UN arms inspectors, either they go back in with the full support of the UN or action will have to be taken. We can't have a dangerous country acting as a weapons factory unchecked. Saddam hates America, Israel and we can assume Britain, remind you of anyone? And we know what he is capable of.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 10 2002,15:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saddam hates America, Israel and we can assume Britain<span id='postcolor'>

........... Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, etc., etc.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

Lets be innovative, lets throw out all this invasion crap. If all the Iraqi people hate him and yearn for his downful like you all seem to believe, then it is easy. We send in the British SAS, drop right on top of his palice and kill him. As soon as we have killed him, every single Iraqi will throw down their arms and imbrace all western countires and will sell oil to American companies at very low prices

Whoops! I wouldnt be this easy, we damn.......

You see, they love him enough that they will shoot you if you try and kill him. Maybe once he was dead they would stop loving him, but you have to kill him first. Once you start bombing, he just has to go and hide in a bunker.

I want him dead, but I DO NOT want a typical American 'lets blow up everything that moves' strategy. This is not Anti-Americanism, I do not respect any country who suses this tactic. I do not think that we should have to see a low list of dead on both side, wither they be soldier or civilian. Im sure the Pentagon will be happy to redesign their strategy and send off the Kurds to do their bidding as with the Northen Alliance in Afghanistan.

[Supah 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 10 2002,14:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Sep. 10 2002,14:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CosmicCastaway @ Sep. 10 2002,15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Have a look here:

http://www.salon.com/politics/comics/2002/08/08/corrections/index.html

He's actually done quite a few satirical takes on world politics, but this particular one seems relevant to the current conversation.  <!--emo&<span id='postcolor'>

Cute. Now let's be realistic. Saddam is a horribly cruel and sadistic dictator who has shown that he's willing to attack other countries unprovoked with long range missiles and with poison (Kurds and Iranians).<span id='postcolor'>

Also that he has no qualms supporting terrorist groups like Hamas. Terrorism is how the nuclear weapons will be used when they are developed. Why jepodise the safety of the world?<span id='postcolor'>

True, especially since he lacks a strategic delivery platform (missiles or bomber). It would have to be terrorist. Mb hidden in a cargoship. I saw a report on tv about the Miami Port Authority .... they are checking ships these days for radiation levels. But should foreign entities involve themselves in the political workings of another country? Just because WE desire a diffirent iraqi regime doesnt make it right to make it so. I have yet to see compelling evidence on saddams capability of delivering his WMD's over long ranges. And lacking strong evidence of him handing them over to terrorists ..... again, very iffy. Attacking him without proof would be like jailing people "just in case...". Besides i doubt he would hand al quada WMD's, knowing how "faithfull and upright" those people are, one false move in their eyes and the mushroom cloud could be over baghdad instead of new york ..... i think saddam knows this too. How many times hasnt training insurgents, secret services and guerilla's by the CIA turned on the US? Saddam maybe evil but to stay in power for this long, even after a crushing defeat at the hands of his sworn enemies, he isnt stupid, believe me .......

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Sep. 10 2002,14:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lets be innovative, lets throw out all this invasion crap. If all the Iraqi people hate him and yearn for his downful like you all seem to believe, then it is easy. We send in the British SAS, drop right on top of his palice and kill him. As soon as we have killed him, every single Iraqi will throw down their arms and imbrace all western countires and will sell oil to American companies at very low prices

Whoops! I wouldnt be this easy, we damn.......

You see, they love him enough that they will shoot you if you try and kill him. Maybe once he was dead they would stop loving him, but you have to kill him first. Once you start bombing, he just has to go and hide in a bunker.

I want him dead, but I DO NOT want a typical American 'lets blow up everything that moves' strategy. This is not Anti-Americanism, I do not respect any country who suses this tactic. I do not think that we should have to see a low list of dead on both side, wither they be soldier or civilian. Im sure the Pentagon will be happy to redesign their strategy and send off the Kurds to do their bidding as with the Northen Alliance in Afghanistan.<span id='postcolor'>

That is reasonable, but do you deny he is dangerous? Do you think he should be left unchecked?

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (supah @ Sep. 10 2002,14:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 10 2002,14:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Sep. 10 2002,14:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CosmicCastaway @ Sep. 10 2002,15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Have a look here:

http://www.salon.com/politics/comics/2002/08/08/corrections/index.html

He's actually done quite a few satirical takes on world politics, but this particular one seems relevant to the current conversation.  <!--emo&<span id='postcolor'>

Cute. Now let's be realistic. Saddam is a horribly cruel and sadistic dictator who has shown that he's willing to attack other countries unprovoked with long range missiles and with poison (Kurds and Iranians).<span id='postcolor'>

Also that he has no qualms supporting terrorist groups like Hamas. Terrorism is how the nuclear weapons will be used when they are developed. Why jepodise the safety of the world?<span id='postcolor'>

True, especially since he lacks a strategic delivery platform (missiles or bomber). It would have to be terrorist. Mb hidden in a cargoship. I saw a report on tv about the Miami Port Authority .... they are checking ships these days for radiation levels. But should foreign entities involve themselves in the political workings of another country? Just because WE desire a diffirent iraqi regime doesnt make it right to make it so. I have yet to see compelling evidence on saddams capability of delivering his WMD's over long ranges. And lacking strong evidence of him handing them over to terrorists ..... again, very iffy. Attacking him without proof would be like jailing people "just in case...". Besides i doubt he would hand al quada WMD's, knowing how "faithfull and upright" those people are, one false move in their eyes and the mushroom cloud could be over baghdad instead of new york ..... i think saddam knows this too. How many times hasnt training insurgents, secret services and guerilla's by the CIA turned on the US? Saddam maybe evil but to stay in power for this long, even after a crushing defeat at the hands of his sworn enemies, he isnt stupid, believe me .......<span id='postcolor'>

No he isn't stupid, but neither was Hitler. Should we appease him in the same way?

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (supah @ Sep. 10 2002,15:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">True, especially since he lacks a strategic delivery platform (missiles or bomber). It would have to be terrorist.<span id='postcolor'>

It is said that he most probably has at least a dozen launchable scuds left.

[Longinius 1]

"We don't know that he hasn't. Or what he has as he has expelled the UN arms inspectors, either they go back in with the full support of the UN or action will have to be taken. We can't have a dangerous country acting as a weapons factory unchecked. Saddam hates America, Israel and we can assume Britain, remind you of anyone? And we know what he is capable of."

Well, dont you find it the least bit interesting that the weapons inspectors that have actually been to Iraq says that there currently is slim to no threat in regards to WMD? No nuclear capability and low Bio and Chem danger.

Further more, I saw newsfootage yesterday from a site where  our good man Blair claimed new buildings had been errected for the production of nuclear WMD's. The site was just a big pile of rubble, a former nuclear plant destroyed during the last war.

I doubt Iraq is the big threat they are made out to be. And if the US wants to deal with potential big threats maybe they should just nuke China now instead of wait for a possible conflict...

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 10 2002,22:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Sep. 10 2002,14:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lets be innovative, lets throw out all this invasion crap. If all the Iraqi people hate him and yearn for his downful like you all seem to believe, then it is easy. We send in the British SAS, drop right on top of his palice and kill him. As soon as we have killed him, every single Iraqi will throw down their arms and imbrace all western countires and will sell oil to American companies at very low prices

Whoops! I wouldnt be this easy, we damn.......

You see, they love him enough that they will shoot you if you try and kill him. Maybe once he was dead they would stop loving him, but you have to kill him first. Once you start bombing, he just has to go and hide in a bunker.

I want him dead, but I DO NOT want a typical American 'lets blow up everything that moves' strategy. This is not Anti-Americanism, I do not respect any country who suses this tactic. I do not think that we should have to see a low list of dead on both side, wither they be soldier or civilian. Im sure the Pentagon will be happy to redesign their strategy and send off the Kurds to do their bidding as with the Northen Alliance in Afghanistan.<span id='postcolor'>

That is reasonable, but do you deny he is dangerous? Do you think he should be left unchecked?<span id='postcolor'>

As I said, I have nothing agaisnt him been eliminated, but America should maybe look in their own backyard too. Hussien is a petty Dictator who thribes on the terror of his people and should be eliminated with haste, but not with an invasion preceeded with weeks of heavy bombing. Thats why I said be innovative, come up with a diffrent method. *attacking with WMD is not an option*

There are plenty of bad leaders though, and they are not all just Middle East dictators, they infect the world over under all kinds of goverments. Mugabe......... .......Democratic*cough*Rebublic of Zimbabwe*cough*

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Sep. 10 2002,14:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 10 2002,22:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Sep. 10 2002,14:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lets be innovative, lets throw out all this invasion crap. If all the Iraqi people hate him and yearn for his downful like you all seem to believe, then it is easy. We send in the British SAS, drop right on top of his palice and kill him. As soon as we have killed him, every single Iraqi will throw down their arms and imbrace all western countires and will sell oil to American companies at very low prices

Whoops! I wouldnt be this easy, we damn.......

You see, they love him enough that they will shoot you if you try and kill him. Maybe once he was dead they would stop loving him, but you have to kill him first. Once you start bombing, he just has to go and hide in a bunker.

I want him dead, but I DO NOT want a typical American 'lets blow up everything that moves' strategy. This is not Anti-Americanism, I do not respect any country who suses this tactic. I do not think that we should have to see a low list of dead on both side, wither they be soldier or civilian. Im sure the Pentagon will be happy to redesign their strategy and send off the Kurds to do their bidding as with the Northen Alliance in Afghanistan.<span id='postcolor'>

That is reasonable, but do you deny he is dangerous? Do you think he should be left unchecked?<span id='postcolor'>

As I said, I have nothing agaisnt him been eliminated, but America should maybe look in their own backyard too. Hussien is a petty Dictator who thribes on the terror of his people and should be eliminated with haste, but not with an invasion preceeded with weeks of heavy bombing. Thats why I said be innovative, come up with a diffrent method. *attacking with WMD is not an option*

There are plenty of bad leaders though, and they are not all just Middle East dictators, they infect the world over under all kinds of goverments. Mugabe......... .......Democratic*cough*Rebublic of Zimbabwe*cough*<span id='postcolor'>

Mugabe isn't threatening the peace of the world. Saddam hussein is going to get more dangerous with the passage of time. No hope of his deposition from within Iraq either, he has an entire army dedicated to his protection.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

Its all about Assisnation. Find out when he is going for a drive cross country, and have a few F-18\A's there to gret him along with a few Maverik Missiles Kind of what happens in the book 'Killbox' by some ex-air force guy. We need a way of taking him down as quickly and with as little casaulties as possible.

[WhoCares 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Sep. 10 2002,15:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Its all about Assisnation. Find out when he is going for a drive cross country, and have a few F-18\A's there to gret him along with a few Maverik Missiles Kind of what happens in the book 'Killbox' by some ex-air force guy. We need a way of taking him down as quickly and with as little casaulties as possible.<span id='postcolor'>

Killing him will solve nothing! (check my comment about this on page 5 or 6)

[Col. Kurtz 0]

Its not like we are trying to restore peace, AntiChrist shall suceed him. At least if we kill him and take over the goverment, then we will know everything he is getting up to.

[CosmicCastaway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Sep. 10 2002,15:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">At least if we kill him and take over the goverment, then we will know everything he is getting up to.<span id='postcolor'>

Not much, he'd be dead.

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Sep. 09 2002,16:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">At least if we kill him and take over the goverment, then we will know everything he is getting up to.<span id='postcolor'>

Perhaps he'll nuke you to pieces, then you'll know what he was up to too!

What you said doesn't make sense.......

ANyway, you can't take over a goverment just like that, what if Iraq would attack the US and take over their goverment because they suspect the US from having missiles....

That's just total bullshit...

Killing Sadam will only make stuff worse, you'll make him a hero and countless people will want to die for him...

I said this before and i'll say it again, this world sux, just a bunch of assholes that have no better solution than "NUKE THEM ALL", and who don't give a fuck about nature. Well fuck them all, i'm getting pretty damn sick of all these extremely dumb world leaders.

Bah!!!!!!!!

[Pukko 0]

Just a little OT remark...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And maybe we can all join like in Starship Troopers.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Sep. 10 2002,10:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But I assume that sarcasm is best the way right now to describe the general motion of people waiting for the US to bash Iraq ............ I am still convinced that my "Starship Troopers Generation" comment adequate portrayed it!<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe you are aware of this, and thereby this was your point. But I thought it would'nt hurt to make clear:

A while ago I watched Staship troopers on DVD. Its not a serious movie in it self, but can clearly be, and have in large extent been, misunderstood.

That movie is 100% sarcasm over western ideologies in general, and US policies in particular.

Except for the movie, the DVD included more than one hour of comments from the makers of the film (a duch guy and a US I think), and those comments were not shy, probably makes many 'pro-US-policies' people break the disk in rage... We quitted listening to those comments after an hour or so I think, due to other things. But just not imagine that that movie is serious about its approach........

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

You mean you gonna smoke him out of his caves?

[Die Alive 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Sep. 10 2002,10:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Killing Sadam will only make stuff worse, you'll make him a hero and countless people will want to die for him...<span id='postcolor'>

If you win the hearts and minds of the people after you kill Sadam, then there wont be the rebellion. So after he's ousted, the US builds McDonnalds, Taco Bells, Starbucks, Gap, Megaplexes, build a Disney Land, you, keep the people happy. After they see how much fun all these things are, they won't give a shit what happened to their last leader.

A happy and entertained population is a peaceful population

-=Die Alive=-