We should not attack Iraq



  • Nice to see you two back.



  • Welcome back

    A President cannot just go start a war without permission. Especially an unprovoked war.

    Saddam will not, as i have said many times, be stupid. He wants to stay alive. He will only use his weapons if he is forced to. This means on our troops, and on Israel. Let the bastard die, he has cancer. Go and help where it matters.

    If you want a country that is a direct threat to the US, attack North Korea. They actually have a way of delivering their weapons of mass destruction.



  • After i read what horntet said, good to see ya back by the way, I can help but wonder if you ever described how your civil rights were being violated Yanny.



  • Saddam will not, as i have said many times, be stupid. He wants to stay alive. He will only use his weapons if he is forced to. 
    

    For Saddam, I’m not too sure of hissanity. After all, this was the same person who invaded Kuwait and gased/starved his own people. As for the possibility of nuclear weapons, this seems only that Saddam won’t use NBC’s. Chances are, Saddam will instead use his weapons as leverage to carry out his own acts. And by then, it will be too late. Imagine if the Israel’s hadn’t taken out Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981. Would the Allies be so lucky in the Persian Gulf?

    A President cannot just go start a war without permission.

    That’s why the President will not invade Iraq without asking for permission from Congress and make his case to the Allied Powers.



  • So TG, are you saying you are for it or against it? Because when I read your posts I get mixed feelings.



  • That’s because the President hasn’t even made his case to Congress. Time will tell.

    Broke 2600 😎



  • So when he makes His case to congress, what do you want to happen? I think that the U.S needs to give a reason for an attack. If Bush came on the tv on Sept. 10th and said, “we are starting a war on terrorism!” everyone would wonder what the hell he was talking about. Most of the other countries have went against the idea of attacking Saddam. Plus, he is a main leader where he is. It would be like Iraq comming over here and overthrowing our President.

    Congrats TG 😉



  • So when he makes His case to congress, what do you want to happen?

    Too early to tell. I would like our President to will give more peaceful alternatives. Saddam stepping down, enacting country reforms (both against terrorism and the government), humanitarian reforms, ect. - I don’t think we can much keep the Middle East it is. However, seeing as how Saddam has turned down offers to halt any invasion in exchange for the unrestrained movement of UN bomb inspectors in his country - the situation looks grim.

    I think that the U.S needs to give a reason for an attack.

    Of course the US needs to give a reason for an attack. Do you think
    we’ll just walk over there, hold Saddam at gunpoint, and give no particular reason for doing so?

    If Bush came on the tv on Sept. 10th and said, “we are starting a war on terrorism!”

    And if the war on Iraq coincided with the war on terrorism? Anyways, it’s a damn shame we had to have our buildings smashed before we did anything about it.

    Most of the other countries have went against the idea of attacking Saddam.

    Main reason is that much of this has been speculation, not even I know exactly what type of planned assualt this will be. However, I like to keep Saddam on his toes.

    It would be like Iraq comming over here and overthrowing our President.

    And yet we overthrew the Taliban?

    Congrats TG

    Thanks.



  • My civil rights have been violated by the Patriot act.

    I no longer have the right to a trial by jury if President Bush doesn’t want me to. I get a military tribunal.

    A search warent is no longer required to inspect my house. Now Bush has 1 million people doing it for him.

    This president has violated the Seperation of Church and State more often than JFK cheated on his wife.

    Who says Iraq can’t have Nuclear Weapons? 20 years from now half the world will have or be building nuclear weapons. Iraq is not that irresponsible. Saddam is not crazy, and he is very smart.

    He invaded Kuwait, not betting that we would retailiate. We did, his military was destroyed, but he still stayed in power didn’t he? Same with gasing the Kurds. He’s still there, he played his cards right.



  • 20 years from now half the world will have or be building nuclear weapons.

    Whoa. Where are you getting these stats from? I’m not sure there wouldn’t be enriched Uranium (under the current embargo) or money to field a nuclear weapons program for this to happen.

    Iraq is not that irresponsible. Saddam is not crazy, and he is very smart.

    If I was smart enough to be Saddam, I would use those nuclear weapons as incredible leverage to get things my way. Suddenly the whole world would have to bow down to me and let me do as I please.



  • Nuclear weapons used as deterrent is a great way to gain concessions.



  • A lot of people have been saying that no nation is asking us to come in and save them from Sadam, like they were back at the Gulf War. That is not true. The 4th world nation of the Kurds is pleading for us to save them from Sadam.

    But they aren’t anti-Israeli so the liberals don’t like them.

    Hi Disclaimer!



  • But they aren’t anti-Israeli so the liberals don’t like them.

    The support in the US for the Israeli is very high



  • It would not seem that way from the media or around here.



  • @yourbuttocks:

    A lot of people have been saying that no nation is asking us to come in and save them from Sadam, like they were back at the Gulf War. That is not true. The 4th world nation of the Kurds is pleading for us to save them from Sadam.

    But they aren’t anti-Israeli so the liberals don’t like them.

    Hi Disclaimer!

    Also back in 1990 Iraqi forces were bordering and poised to enter Saudi Arabia. This, i suspect, is the other “real reason” the US went into the Gulf - to support/build support by it’s “allies” in Saudi Arabia. This is the reason why the Saudi’s allowed the US to launch it’s attacks from there - it was for their own protection. Afterall, a good defense is a strong offense.



  • What do you think would happen if Saddam fired off his Nuclear, assuming he has them, weapons at say, Israel? He’d be blown straight to Allah. America? He’d be blown to Allah’s grandmother. He knows this. He won’t use them.



  • The thought of Saddam firing off a nuclear is bad enough as it is. What use is killing the soldier that lobs the grenade? Saddam knows this and it places him at an awfully good barginning position. Remember when the Soviet Union subjugated the Hungarians durinbg the Cold War? We were powerless to stop them because we knew the Soviets had nukes and they [Hungarians] weren’t worth it to risk nuclear annihilation over. Same goes with Iraq. Would you think twice if Saddam gave the terrorist a nuke to plant in your backyard?



  • My point is, he wont give anything to the terrorist in my back yard. Because, the second we find out, that Grenade lobber is going to get an airstrike up his ass.



  • As long as a no connection can be determined, all’s well for Saddam. Bsides, I’m not one to trust Saddam - he’ll use those nuclear weapons to rattle his saber.



  • @Yanny:

    My point is, he wont give anything to the terrorist in my back yard. Because, the second we find out, that Grenade lobber is going to get an airstrike up his ass.

    I HATE getting airstrikes up my ass!!! :evil: :evil: :evil:



  • @TG:

    As long as a no connection can be determined, all’s well for Saddam. Bsides, I’m not one to trust Saddam - he’ll use those nuclear weapons to rattle his saber.

    However, he still knows if he wants to rattle his saber, we’re gonna nuke his saber. If a nuke showed up in NYC, even if Saddam had nothing to do with it, he’d be the first dictator taken out.



  • So now we have to wait until he nukes us before we can retaliate?



  • In my opinion, I think it’s long overdue that America stops being so passive against these attacks on our freedom. Our political leadership needs to wake up and recognize that MANY people do not like us, or our way of life. They are willing to kill civialians to get their point across, as they’ve already proved.

    America needs to take the offensive against threats to our freedom! There is absolutely no reason to sit and wait until we get attacked again, to take action. Saddam is an IRRESPONSIBLE DICTATOR who possesses VERY POWERFUL and DEADLY weaponry. Such a person IS a threat to our safety (both directly and indirectly), regardless of what the liberals care to argue.

    Does anyone really want Saddam to stay in power, honestly? (Besides the terrorist regimes) Please, I think the bigger question is why he SHOULD stay in power…



  • Well D:S - i ask the same question of our leadership as well. At the same time, i would be very offended by another country agreeing with me and replacing our leader with one of their own choosing (particularly if it were a nation with religious, political and cultural ideology so very far apart from our own).
    Iraq is not attacking America’s freedom. Also there are many Europeans, Asians, Canadians, etc. who do not like America. This does not make these people threats to America, regardless of the potential weapons they possess.
    To follow your reasoning, why stop at Iraq? There are too many other nations with a grudge against the US and the ability to do something about it. Even Canada has many reasons to begrudge the US and we have excellent access to American political etc. venues . . . it would be well for the US to eliminate this potential threat North of the border. Also i believe that Cretien, Bush, and Muggabe are equally nutty and dictatorial as Saddam - maybe a little more intelligent, maybe less, but 2 out of 4 have similar ideologies which means that we’ll be safe . . . for a while. . . .



  • Iraq is not attacking America’s freedom. Also there are many Europeans, Asians, Canadians, etc. who do not like America. This does not make these people threats to America, regardless of the potential weapons they possess.

    Hmmm… and I wonder why? Tell me, why are we going after Iraq than the other countries that simply don’t like us? Could it be because Saddam harbors and contributes money and weapons to terrorist and extremist?

    To follow your reasoning, why stop at Iraq? There are too many other nations with a grudge against the US and the ability to do something about it. Even Canada has many reasons to begrudge the US and we have excellent access to American political etc. venues . . . it would be well for the US to eliminate this potential threat North of the border

    Yep, those Canadians are dastardly ones - invading other countries, publicly voicing the destruction of Israel, and starving and gassing their own people. That sounds about right. :roll:


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 12
  • 4
  • 22
  • 8
  • 446
  • 1
  • 58
  • 53
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

32
Online

14.0k
Users

34.4k
Topics

1.4m
Posts