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.

hmm, read my post on the nigerian cruelty thingy first :p:

america has become afraid of extremist moslims (maybe rightly so), and the laws the extremist abide... they are looking for reasons to "clean" the countries that abide to these rules.. sofar they couldn't find any for Iran, they did for afghanistan and "cleaned" it...

they had a reason to attack iraq back then, but where afraid of the consequences... Saddam hussein isn't the worst man that could be in the seat of leader of Iraq, there are (sorry to say) worse extremist out there that would have loved to take his place...

that is the main (and prolly only) reason that they didn't kill or capture Hussein in the first place, they where afraid who might take his place...

Now they are still not happy with the way Hussein is leading the country, and are getting more and more convinced that they could put a more "USA friendly" man as a leader...

but now they lost a motive to attack them...

it's become a moral issue... people and children are brought up with things that in our society would look weird, but more importantly, look (very) cruel... is it anyone's job to say "what you are doing is cruel and immoral and we are going to stop that".. maybe, maybe not..

the thing is that america is starting to feel the effects of these "different" society's cause children are brought up with the idea to hate america... and sometimes for very good reasons and totally america's fault allthough they wouldn't admit it..

the point is, when do you intervene and when not..

i think bush will intervene because he thinks it threatens the american society...

weird experience typing this, i "hated" America (read Bush) before i typed this but i'm starting to see their point as well now..
 
there is a very simple reason against the USA bombing Iraq no matter how much we the greater good think its a worthy cause
its against international law

as a coalition we would be breaking the very laws we
set up to protect countrys from atack from others.

the socialist alliance and Co have solicitors ready to go the second it happens.

now as to all the facts, i dont have what laws would be broken ect but thats whats going to happen.
 
Is it still against the law if America have indisputable evidence Irag are preparing an attack on them?

not arguing the point, just asking as Im not sure :)
 
thing is, even tho you could assume (rather easily i would spose) that iraq has something to do with bio/chem/nuclear weapons in large or small part, proving it would probably be damn near impossible, as even if you get weapons inspectors in or whatnot, its not like the Iraqis are going to a) let you see the sensitive areas b) not clean up assuming they are doing anything dirty
 
how can they say iraq is going to atack them ?

thay could invade every country on the planet and say well we thought they were goingto attack us!
 
did i not just say proving anything would be difficult? :confused:

well, i'm not trying to start anything, but would you feel comfortable with someone who has a distaste for you (iraq isn't exactly too thrilled with the US, after the gulf war, and when we still fly air patrols over them, not saying its right or wrong, just saying i'm thinking they don't like the US), most likely has chemical weapons, has proven he can and will use them (he did on his own people, well, northern people, thats the way he put down that revolution afaik :\), this while you have already had anthrax put in your mail system (a lady died from my state, and a mail sorting facility in a city in my state), right after you have a major terrorist attack on you, by people who may or may not talk with the iraqi's (quite unlikely, but no one knows really).

again, i'm not saying this is right or wrong, i'm just giving you a bit of perspective as to why someone might be a bit jumpy. whether its actually some americans feeling jumpy, or whether is dubbya trying to flex his muscles, i honestly wouldn't be able to tell you. i don't feel too comfortable with the current president, and especially his administration, as they're just about all conservatives, and there are a few head hancho's including the VP and Secretary of State who were in his fathers administration.
 
Steve, dont forget that if Bush decided to bomb Iraq, Blair will be right behind him offering UK troops for target practice again. :rolleyes:
 
hm... i just hope that the UN will resist the pressure of the US and at least disapprove an invasion of the iraq by the US
but that wont happen because US can veto everything LOL UN=useless nations ffs
but imo it should go even further than that just disapprove such actions
would be nice if no other country supported the US in case of an attack also
 
LR im not saying im supporting iraq but it sets a frigtening precident that anyone who The US UK feel threatend by (this includes Russia, China, cuba, etc that they go in and close them down isreal has seen fit to do what they have to the palistinians with US backing for years and now post sept 11 its helping wage the war on terrorism .

anyway thats the farthest fetched and i know that the countrys have deffence and the people to wage war
but thats what it boils down to that yesterdays enemy was Taliban
todays is Iraq tomorrow where ?

it will be the US Empire.
 
i'm just not quite sure if i really see that as happening. i realize that it would be extremely easy looking from the outside in that all americans must be war hungry, blood thirsty, greedy imperialists. saying 'it was the taliban, now iraq' isn't what i would say. i would stay moer along the lines of taking advantage of a situation to get back at an enemy sort of. the US and iraq have not been friendly. i remember in the past few years, going back to the late 90's there was every so often a high tension time between the US and Iraq where bombers would go on raids, and there was even the thought of going in.

the iraq-us thing really isn't new at all. the taliban came directly from the 9/11 attacks.

politicians are thickheaded.. all of them are. ours just apparently have the resources to prove their stupidity :\. and again, i re-emphasize the fact i do not like the current administration in office in washington. woulda rather even had Gore in office. at least i like lieberman :/
 
Last edited:
geez I thought this was all over after Hulk Hogan beat Sgt. Slaughter at Summer slam '91 :\

guess not
 
Originally posted by Ajax
no your not thur

Big question is why the fuck didnt they finsh the job last time ?
Click to expand...

It costs too much to have all them troops stationed there probably and the uspublic was prolly against it

Originally posted by MrMercenary

Anyone think that the USA might conjure up this evidence, in order to get the backing of other countries?
Click to expand...

There is a lot of evidence of them having checmical weapons and biological weapons in the past and pretty obvious they are building more now. Hell every other country who ever could, has.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/796540.asp?0dm=C26FN
click on left the conflict with iraq bit then the pulldown menu unscom and iraq
 
Do people think the Americans should limit the type of weapons they use in Iraq, should they decide to attack? I assume most people would consider the nuclear option, even in tactical form (5Kton or less) a no no? I feel that everything should be open to use given the appropriate circumstances, except the larger Nukes. Too messy :(, dont want to pollute all that oil afterall!
 
uhm.. i don't think that was even a consideration to use nuclear weapons.. the only thing i think that would be remotely nuclear would be uranium tipped tank shells
 
Or maybe Thermobaric, yeah i know its not nuclear, but sheesh do they go with a whooooooooosh! In the 91 action the Americans dropped some 15000lb Daisy Cutters the SAS reported them as the possible use of Tactical nuclear weapons!
 
Just a couple points.

The first conflict with Iraq was the first true TV war. After the coalition started to kill them on that road, can't remember the name of it, on live TV, puplic opinion forced them to stop. That is why he is still in power.

Iraq will not openly use weapons of mass destruction, they know that we beat them once and we can do it again. It's been proven that Iraq suports terrorist. One of the planers of the 9/11 attacks was seen visiting an inteligent agent from Iraq. They also pay $20,000 to the family of suicide bombers that kill people. What we NEED to prevent is Iraq giving these weapons to terrorist.

The only true way to remove this capibility from them is to send in the military. To do this we would need to bomb them until they give up. If we didn't do it this way and if they knew they had no chance with our military marching in, they would use chemical weapons on them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back