The Iraq Thread

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Dec. 23 2002,17:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Dec. 23 2002,17:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And so capital punishment of murders, and rapists is "gassing and oppressing a minority?" Oh man and MY analogy is off??? lol<span id='postcolor'>

No it is the punishment against criminals.

Saddams gassing of the kurds was not because they were kurds but because they were rebelling. There was a lot of collateral damage yes, but that is a term that US is also accustomed to. Saddam was gassing revolutionaries: i.e criminals. This was not ethnic cleansing.

I contempt both Bush and Saddam for that since I am very much against a death penalty.<span id='postcolor'>

Ummm...guess you didn't read the humanitarian abuses PDF that was posted awhile ago.

During the Iran-Iraq War he DID gas the Kurds in an operation FOR "ethnic cleansing." And his continued oppression and cruel treatment of the Kurds is well documented.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Dec. 23 2002,22:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Dec. 23 2002,17:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Blind patriotism blind Bush hate....different sides of the same coin.<span id='postcolor'>

Look at it in absolute terms. Bush has killed far more civilians in Afganistan (collateral damage) then Saddam has in Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

How can you compare collateral damage to purposefully gassing a civilian population as a military action?

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Dec. 23 2002,17:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Dec. 23 2002,17:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Blind patriotism blind Bush hate....different sides of the same coin.<span id='postcolor'>

Look at it in absolute terms. Bush has killed far more civilians in Afganistan (collateral damage) then Saddam has in Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

Well lets take in account the people he killed in the decade long Iraq-Iran War....I think he has a comfortable lead.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Dec. 23 2002,11:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Dec. 23 2002,17:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Dec. 23 2002,16:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why? Because YOU haven't seen it? And ALL of the UN, including the chief inspector Blix (even France! ) has said that the report has large gaps and and leaves ALOT out. The IAEA even said that the section dealing with nuclear weapons was somewhat "lacking" and contained nothing new and large gaps.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually what Blix (and he is Swedish, not French) said was that it lacked any evidence. The 'gaps' part is a US interpretation. Blix latest move was to ask US for intelligence assistance saying - ok, if you are so sure that Iraq is developing WDMs - give us the location so that we can search it.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/12/23/sproject.irq.wmd/index.html<span id='postcolor'>

I didn't say Blix was French...I said even the French said that there were gaps and missing information.

I saw an interview with Blix, and the IAEA spokesman and they BOTH said there were gaps and missing information. THAT is when they said that any "intelligence" given by foreign countries is needed and wanted.<span id='postcolor'>

Alright, I don't know how come I am bringing this up, but the so called "gaps" were explained twice by Iraqi reps. on TV world wide. They destroyed their Chem. and other disputed weapons programs in 1990 - 1991 removing all evidence. Some factories were even asked to destroy all engineering/development logs by fromer inspection teams if not specifically by the U.S.

I believe most gaps are there and can not be truthfully filled by statements like "we hid everything in a palace" because the materials were completely destroyed.

(Is it Christmas yet? I don't know because I can't buy OFP GOTY copies here. )

[bn880 5]

0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 23 2002,120)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Dec. 23 2002,22:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Dec. 23 2002,17:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Blind patriotism blind Bush hate....different sides of the same coin.<span id='postcolor'>

Look at it in absolute terms. Bush has killed far more civilians in Afganistan (collateral damage) then Saddam has in Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

How can you compare collateral damage to purposefully gassing a civilian population as a military action?<span id='postcolor'>

Because the collateral damage is known to occur in advance, therefore it is done with intent. For instance, why do you think hostage situations are not handled by an airborne regiment, even though there are "evil doers" inside a building? Collateral damage.

If Putin sent in tanks to that theatre in Moscow, I would be calling him a murderor.

EDIT: That is my reasoning, and perhaps not Denoirs.

[Akira 0]

N. Korea removing UN seals and cameras

ECK!

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Dec. 23 2002,23:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Because the collateral damage is known to occur in advance, therefore it is done with intent. For instance, why do you think hostage situations are not handled by an airborne regiment, even though there are "evil doers" inside a building? Collateral damage.<span id='postcolor'>

There's a difference though. The military makes an attempt to reduce civilian casualties, Saddam tries to achive them.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 23 2002,19:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Dec. 23 2002,23:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Because the collateral damage is known to occur in advance, therefore it is done with intent. For instance, why do you think hostage situations are not handled by an airborne regiment, even though there are "evil doers" inside a building? Collateral damage.<span id='postcolor'>

There's a difference though.  The military makes an attempt to reduce civilian casualties, Saddam tries to achive them.<span id='postcolor'>

Do you really think that inent matters to the families killed? One human life is one human life no matter how it is taken. There is a difference between first degree and second degree murder, but it is murder all the same.

[FSPilot 0]

I understand that, but I'm talking about intent here. Saddam intended to kill civilians, the U.S. never has. Therefore you can't compare the two on that level.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 23 2002,13:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I understand that, but I'm talking about intent here. Saddam intended to kill civilians, the U.S. never has. Therefore you can't compare the two on that level.<span id='postcolor'>

The US never has? Okay, anyway, if you know there will be collateral damage and decide to proceed, then you intend on proceeding and killing civilians. BECAUSE YOU KNOW THEY WILL DIE. You will be making a trade off, just like Hussein made some sort of trade off in his mind.

I can't explain this any other way quickly.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Dec. 24 2002,01:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US never has?  Okay, anyway, if you know there will be collateral damage and decide to proceed, then you intend on proceeding and killing civilians.  BECAUSE YOU KNOW THEY WILL DIE.  You will be making a trade off, just like Hussein made some sort of trade off in his mind.

I can't explain this any other way quickly.<span id='postcolor'>

No! You don't intend to kill civilians! If we intended to kill civilians we wouldn't spend millions upon billions of dollars developing laser guided bombs! This is common sense! There's a difference between recklessly targetting civilians, and accidentally killing civilians while targetting a military objective.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 23 2002,15:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Dec. 24 2002,01:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US never has? Okay, anyway, if you know there will be collateral damage and decide to proceed, then you intend on proceeding and killing civilians. BECAUSE YOU KNOW THEY WILL DIE. You will be making a trade off, just like Hussein made some sort of trade off in his mind.

I can't explain this any other way quickly.<span id='postcolor'>

No! You don't intend to kill civilians! If we intended to kill civilians we wouldn't spend millions upon billions of dollars developing laser guided bombs! This is common sense! There's a difference between recklessly targetting civilians, and accidentally killing civilians while targetting a military objective.<span id='postcolor'>

No I don't think so, because you know you will kill civilians anyway, it's a calculated tradeoff. So what if you work on precision weapons, are you saying there are expected to be no civilian casualties?

Common sense... look who is talkig about common sense.

If you think there is an excuse to have a war like the one being planned vs Iraq, you lack all sorts of common sense. Civilians will be the casualties of yet another "for our interests" war.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 23 2002,15:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Dec. 24 2002,01:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US never has? Okay, anyway, if you know there will be collateral damage and decide to proceed, then you intend on proceeding and killing civilians. BECAUSE YOU KNOW THEY WILL DIE. You will be making a trade off, just like Hussein made some sort of trade off in his mind.

I can't explain this any other way quickly.<span id='postcolor'>

No! .....<span id='postcolor'>

By the No you mean never targeted civilians? Bullshit, Hiroshima, Nagasaki?

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Dec. 24 2002,02:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No I don't think so, because you know you will kill civilians anyway, it's a calculated tradeoff.  So what if you work on precision weapons, are you saying there are expected to be no civilian casualties?

Common sense... look who is talkig about common sense.  

If you think there is an excuse to have a war like the one being planned vs Iraq, you lack all sorts of common sense.  Civilians will be the casualties of yet another "for our interests" war.<span id='postcolor'>

We're trying to reduce the casualties.  That's the point.  Of course there will be civilian casualties, there always will be, nothing can be done to prevent them.  The point is that we are trying to stop them, he's trying to cause them.

And there's a perfectly good excuse for the war on Iraq, you just don't accept it.

And hiroshima and nagasaki didn't happen today, they happened over 50 years ago, things have changed.

[morbid 0]

Perhaps its cheaper to drop a single laser guided bomb onto a target than to drop a whole lot of unguided bombs in the area of the target in order to hit.

Taking into account not just the cost of the bombs but also the increased fuel load needed when carrying the larger load of unguided bombs, increased flight time due to heavier load and so on...

(I do not know if that is true, just a possible reason, after all once the initial research and prototyping has been done I suspect advanced weapons can be made reasonably cheaply in large quantities).

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 23 2002,23:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We're trying to reduce the casualties.  That's the point.  Of course there will be civilian casualties, there always will be, nothing can be done to prevent them.  The point is that we are trying to stop them, he's trying to cause them.<span id='postcolor'>

You are not trying to reduce civilian casulties when you go to war. If you choose not to make war, then you reduce civilian casulties.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And there's a perfectly good excuse for the war on Iraq, you just don't accept it.<span id='postcolor'>

The "I don't know what it is, but I'm sure Bush does" argument is not quite a convincing one.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

And hiroshima and nagasaki didn't happen today, they happened over 50 years ago, things have changed.

<span id='postcolor'>

Kosovo then. Third phase of "Allied Force" was the bombing of civilian infrastructure. TV-stations, police stations, fire departments, government buildings etc. Many civilian casulties. War crimes by any book.

The only excuse there was that the war was with good intentions. That can hardly be said for the upcoming iraq war.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (morbid @ Dec. 23 2002,17:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Perhaps its cheaper to drop a single laser guided bomb onto a target than to drop a whole lot of unguided bombs in the area of the target in order to hit.

Taking into account not just the cost of the bombs but also the increased fuel load needed when carrying the larger load of unguided bombs, increased flight time due to heavier load and so on...

(I do not know if that is true, just a possible reason, after all once the initial research and prototyping has been done I suspect advanced weapons can be made reasonably cheaply in large quantities).<span id='postcolor'>

That's true, precision/smart weapons are usually much better at achieving desired results than "conventional" unguided/dumb weapons. They are simply a better choice for some target that "must" be hit and destroyed... other than nuclear weapons of course (well mostly).

And you can't really use generic bombs to penetrate deep bunkers & hideouts.

Although guided weapons are fairly expensive in their own right.

[Frisbee 0]

Technically,couldn't you say 'go to war to prevent further civilian deaths' on the way there'd be casualties.

Because...isn't it always 'casualty of war' in full,or would a civilian killed between a gang and a swat team be a casualty too or an unfortunate civilian victim?

Sorry if I'm making people laugh here,but I was just wondering (english isn't my first language btw)

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (morbid @ Dec. 24 2002,04:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Perhaps its cheaper to drop a single laser guided bomb onto a target than to drop a whole lot of unguided bombs in the area of the target in order to hit.<span id='postcolor'>

Have you been reading what I've said?

The USAF spends millions of dollars developing these weapons, more money training pilots to use them too.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You are not trying to reduce civilian casulties when you go to war. If you choose not to make war, then you reduce civilian casulties.<span id='postcolor'>

How many civilian casualties would we get if saddam handed a nuclear device to some terrorist organisation?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The "I don't know what it is, but I'm sure Bush does" argument is not quite a convincing one.<span id='postcolor'>

I do know what it is, everyone does, but not everyone accepts it. I know it's about WMDs, and I trust my president, and my senate about the evidence to support that.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Kosovo then. Third phase of "Allied Force" was the bombing of civilian infrastructure. TV-stations, police stations, fire departments, government buildings etc. Many civilian casulties. War crimes by any book.<span id='postcolor'>

Source?

And the U.S. actually saved lives by nuking Japan. Think of how many Marines we'd of lost if we tried to invade the Japanese mainland, more than if we just nuked them I'll tell you that much.

[DarkLight 0]

(Ok, at first i didn't want to post this, but then i saw your post in the "my xmas gift to all" thread, and now i've decided to post it anyway )

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No...I suppose it is all about Bush<span id='postcolor'>

'Course it's all about Bush!  What did you think?  European folks not being US haters?  Come on!

[Jinef 2]

FSPilot

We are meant to die, when we join the forces we accept that we might get killed by the enemy whoever that might be. Civvilians like you do not sign a bit of paper saying 'it's my job to get killed', you expect to live your life and die due to natural causes. But when the USA dropped nuclear weapons in to civvilian population centres it was not killing soldiers who had accepted to die for their country, it was killing civvilians trying to make a life. You seem to think this is justified.

Would you be fine with the idea of dying because the other country does not have the courage or decency to fight your country conventionally? Or do you think that all our problems in this world should be solved with the biggest bomb possible?

(to make it easier for you - if you agree with this statement then your previous argument doesn't hold much water)

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 24 2002,00:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You are not trying to reduce civilian casulties when you go to war. If you choose not to make war, then you reduce civilian casulties.<span id='postcolor'>

How many civilian casualties would we get if saddam handed a nuclear device to some terrorist organisation?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The "I don't know what it is, but I'm sure Bush does" argument is not quite a convincing one.<span id='postcolor'>

I do know what it is, everyone does, but not everyone accepts it.  I know it's about WMDs, and I trust my president, and my senate about the evidence to support that.<span id='postcolor'>

You seem to miss the fact that no proof whatsoever has been presented. Saddam has not been linked in any way to terrorist organizations (even the US admits to that).

Now any rational person demands some form of explanation/proof before believeing something. That's why so many people (including many Americans) don't believe that Saddam is of any danger. Simple as that.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Kosovo then. Third phase of "Allied Force" was the bombing of civilian infrastructure. TV-stations, police stations, fire departments, government buildings etc. Many civilian casulties. War crimes by any book.<span id='postcolor'>

Source?

<span id='postcolor'>

Lol. Do you ever watch the news? This was an official phase of the operation. But ok. Here is the NATO press release: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr1999/n04231999_9904233.html

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And the U.S. actually saved lives by nuking Japan.  Think of how many Marines we'd of lost if we tried to invade the Japanese mainland, more than if we just nuked them I'll tell you that much.<span id='postcolor'>

Think of how many Japanese lives you would have saved by coming to a diplomatic solutions. I have been taught in school that the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were one of the worst war crimes comitted during ww2. Hearing somebody defending it is to me like hearing somebody defending the extermination of Jews.   Anyway, this is offtopic, lets stick to the topic.

Edit: Here are some more links on Kosovo, from different sources:

Hmm, that burning sky scraper reminds me of something...

http://www.counterpunch.org/dead.html

Civilian targets (take a look at Belgrade (Beograd) for instance). Note, some links from this page lead to pages with explicit images of victims of the bombing. Not for the senisitive viewer!

Not New York 2001, but Belgrade 1999. Not terrorists, but NATO bombs:

[red oct 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Dec. 24 2002,01:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">FSPilot

We are meant to die, when we join the forces we accept that we might get killed by the enemy whoever that might be. Civvilians like you do not sign a bit of paper saying 'it's my job to get killed', you expect to live your life and die due to natural causes. But when the USA dropped nuclear weapons in to civvilian population centres it was not killing soldiers who had accepted to die for their country, it was killing civvilians trying to make a life. You seem to think this is justified.

Would you be fine with the idea of dying because the other country does not have the courage or decency to fight your country conventionally? Or do you think that all our problems in this world should be solved with the biggest bomb possible?

(to make it easier for you - if you agree with this statement then your previous argument doesn't hold much water"<span id='postcolor'>

you have a point but i don't really think your in much of a position to be condeming us when your country was doing the same thing.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Air Marshall Arthur Harris

In World War II, Hitler’s ambition for expansionism seemed unstoppable. In the later part of 1940, in a bid to halt the advancing German armies and ensure the liberty of Great Britain, the British leaders decided to use strategic bombings to halt them. Air Marshall Arthur Harris, Chief of Bomber Command, felt that in the useof air power, bombers shouldnot be employed to providetactical air support for ground

forces. He felt that that would not stop Hitler, but that strategic bombings would. So began the bombing of German cities, where British bombers bombed Germany’s military installations and industrial plants. The objective then was to disrupt Hitler ’s operational bases and industrial capabilities to wage war. Although a directive was issued by Bomber Command to identify and aim only specified targets 6 , the bomber technology at that time lacked precision targeting. The British bombers could not reasonably aim at targets which were smaller than a fairly large city. Although the British tried to differentiate themselves from Hitler in that they had no desire to kill civilians, it was clear that the probability of doing so was extremely high. The plan was approved out of desperation and the British tried to protect their honour by believing a lie that civilian casualties would not be high.

As the situation deteriorated further with the German armies stillunstoppable, Harris felt that his objective to incapacitate the Germanarmies had failed and decided to change his strategy. This time, hedecided, he would bomb the population with the aim to cause the"destruction of civilian morale".7 This strategy, he hoped woulddemoralise the German leadership and break their will to fight.Although these indiscriminate bombings were roundly condemned,Winston Churchill nevertheless endorsed it. At the end of the war,this terror bombing resulted in some 300,000 Germans killed, mostlycivilians, and another 780,000 seriously injured. Here is a classic case where an aggressor state, Germany, wasthreatening the existence of a victim state, Britain. While the Britishhad just cause to go to war, its conduct had not been discriminate.Michael Walzer argued that given the evil of Nazism, and there beingno other way than to breach the principle of discrimination to ensurethe survival of the nation, he personally would also be in a dilemma.8Under such circumstances, he must accept the "burdens of criminality"if he was to give Britain a chance of survival. Though Harris did whathis leader felt was necessary and right at that point in time, and wasdescribed by historian Noble Frankland 9 as one who "will perhaps godown in history as a giant among the leaders of men", for "he gaveBomber Command the courage to surmount its ordeals...", he was not honoured after the war.10 Churchill understood that though theindiscriminate bombings were done out of necessity, it was neverthelessugly and a criminal activity, and once the imminent threat had passed,this action was deemed morally indefensible.<span id='postcolor'>

source

Edit: this link won't have as much spelling errors

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How many civilian casualties would we get if saddam handed a nuclear device to some terrorist organisation?

<span id='postcolor'>

How many civilian casualties would we get if US handed their biological weapons to some terrorist organisation?

You make me laugh here as the Anthrax delivered to US people was developed and made in U.S.A. What now ? Bomb Washington ? Don´t believe me ? Check public news sources and Pentagon report.

So where does he have his nukes ? You know ? You have proof ? You (and your admired government ) close your eyes towards North Korea. They have nukes, they have shutdown UN monitoring cameras and gained access to 8000 burnt nuke elements. Where is your war on terror ? Rumsfeld , the great speaker of war was VERY moderate today towards North Korea. Are you afraid to go with real enemies and start a war on suspicion and media crap ?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The USAF spends millions of dollars developing these weapons, more money training pilots to use them too.<span id='postcolor'>

So why dont they work properly ? I mean the bomblets you release in large extend have a high failure quote actually killing or hurting people loooong after your presence in a region. I doubt that the failure rate is a result of research but an option to doubleuse them as landmines. And yes I have seen them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I trust my president, and my senate about the evidence to support that.

<span id='postcolor'>

Sign up to army then. Go to war, feel it , smell it, hear it , dream of it. You have NO idea what it looks like in real life.

You dont even question your president in a bit. Ever wondered why he closed up all the papers of himself (governor time) and his daddies presidential time with the Patriot act ? You are blind man.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And the U.S. actually saved lives by nuking Japan. Think of how many Marines we'd of lost if we tried to invade the Japanese mainland, more than if we just nuked them I'll tell you that much. <span id='postcolor'>

This is patriotic dissled bullshit. You killed civilians and up till today the people suffer from genetic mutalitions resulting in crippled children and a lot of kids born dead. So this is ok ?

[Frisbee 0]

First prove saddam either has links with terrorist organisations and/or has nukes and then use that as a reason to attack him.

As you say your governement has proof and doesn't need to disclose it to take action,so in other words it can do whatever the hell it pleases.

'America abolishes courts and lets police sentence at will,the president and the senate have the results of a scientific study that proves that this would be better for everyone!Unfortunately this report cannot be disclosed to the public for reasons of national security.'

The way you're talking you sound like you'd approve of this,if I was an american I'd  better damn well have a GOOD reason for sending my father/son/brother/husband/uncle/wife/sister......to a war and have a high likelihood not to return.

You don't seem to think about that : 'they have their reasons,it's okay'