Your thoughts about the USA bombing Iraq

  • Hey - turns out IRC is out and something a little more modern has taken it's place... A little thing called Discord!

    Join our community @ https://discord.gg/JuaSzXBZrk for a pick-up game, or just to rekindle with fellow community members.

Single bullet, single sniper rifle and take a pop at Sadam. I see bombing of countries absolutley pointless unless your main aim is to imobilise 10's of 1000's of civilians to make a political point. Yes executing Sadam would not stop the problem overnight, nor would it stop his followers and the such. But IMO it would be a good start to the problem, not chemical/biological/nuclear weapons which just result in massive loss of life and damaging the planet and country to make them hellholes.
 
Yeah, after watching the "we do not have any issues or problems with the peoples of Yugoslavia, just Slobodan Milosovich". Recently followed by "we do not have any issues or problems with the peoples of Afghanistan, just Osama Bin Laden who is living there, and the Taleban". Yet count the death toll in both these places, and it doesnt include any of those actual targets, but many of the civilians of those places. :nono:
 
I think when it came to the crunch he wouldnt use Chemical or Biological weapons. For starters he knows they would have little effect on the western armies and serve only to kill his men. It would justify the use of ANY retaliation. And the Americans have made it clear that if he uses chemical weapons they will use Tactical nuclear weapons, these are very clean and leave only 3% fallout, so the oils safe! He has a limited chance of survival if he doesnt use them, he is signing his own death warrant if he uses them.
 
Britain may call for Iraq to meet a deadline for the readmission of UN weapons inspectors to the country, the government said today.
The idea was put forward earlier this year by the House of Commons foreign affairs select committee and has won cautious backing from ministers in the official government response to the committee's report on terrorism, published today.

Ministers said that they were prepared to consider imposing a deadline for the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, to comply with UN security council resolutions on weapons inspections.

"Existing UN resolutions require immediate Iraqi compliance, including on weapons inspections. The government will nonetheless be giving further consideration to this recommendation," the official response said.

It also emphasised the need to tackle Iraq's arsenal of chemical and biological weapons and acknowledged that a post-Saddam Iraq would be a "better place", but stopped short of advocating a policy of "regime change" in Baghdad.

"The government's policy is to secure full implementation of the security council resolutions relating to Iraq. It is also the government's view that Iraq would be a better place without Saddam Hussein.

"As the prime minister has made clear, we are determined to deal with the threat posed by Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction."


source

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,782307,00.html

looks like we gonna get involed also
 
OPEC promised to increase oil production in case the usa attacked iraq.So this would not stop the USA from bombing iraq. Although bombing iraq was done before and did not prove very effective it might still be a way to destroy strategical targets.
I think the most important thing about attacking iraq is liberating iraq of an oppressor.
Saddam spends all his money on weapons and other useless things while the population is starving .
Although the people say they support him i can't really believe that.
People are scared of him and are afraid of punishments.

A sudden strike could prove usefull
Don't aim at destroying iraq or at killing saddam
The main objective should be removing the goverment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back