Guest Firaas Posted March 19, 2003 Report Share Posted March 19, 2003 British and US warplanes are attacking Iraqi weapons systems in the southern "no fly" zone, the Ministry of Defence says. I think it's the closest we're going to get to war before the 0100 GMT deadline. What's everyone's opinion on going to war against Iraq now that it's quite definitely inevitable? I used to be strongly against it, but the way Saddam's dealt with the USA/UN on the situation has changed my mind - although I'd rather we didn't go to war, if we do, I'd agree with it, solely on the basis that an absolute minimum number of civilians are affected. Stuff that has changed my mind about Saddam includes a story in the paper recently about Saddam kitting out his best soldiers in American uniforms, and ordering them to kill their own people once the first bullet has been shot, presumably to then blame the USA of being reckless... Saddam's response to requests for proof on disarmament and the weapons inspectors views that the threat of force was a major factor in getting Iraq to cooperate shows that voluntary cooperation was never on the agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vector Posted March 19, 2003 Report Share Posted March 19, 2003 I think Saddam is a big fat liar :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChrisJM Posted March 19, 2003 Report Share Posted March 19, 2003 :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:I probably wont be going to america for easter :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest procalli Posted March 19, 2003 Report Share Posted March 19, 2003 I think Saddam is a big fat liar :) Jesus, I hope I dont get bombed when I tell a porky. ps I dont think this war is neccessary or right. It will only create more sep 11. Better fill my car up soon though ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest skimask Posted March 19, 2003 Report Share Posted March 19, 2003 Saddam's a liar, but so is Bush, I dont hear about 'coalitions' against America...ditto Britain. It's so easy to say you agree with the war when you think about grainy black and white pictures of 'smart' bombs. Maybe you'd change your minds if you saw pictures of babies torn apart by a 'wayward' missile or saw images of kids born with deformities because of the radioactive depleted uranium shells used in the last gulf war. Maybe you wouldn't grin at the prospect of war if you could imagine the 500,000 Iraqis, mostly infants, who have died since 1991 because of sanctions on basic medication (needed to treat cancers caused by the depleted uranium shells). Who knows :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Firaas Posted March 19, 2003 Report Share Posted March 19, 2003 Maybe you wouldn't grin at the prospect of war if you could imagine the 500,000 Iraqis, mostly infants, who have died since 1991 because of sanctions on basic medication (needed to treat cancers caused by the depleted uranium shells). Who knows :) Yeah but Iraqis live in fear every day of being targeted by their brutal dictator. You only need to look at the picture that I have in front of me of a mother cradling her baby after they both died during the Halabja poison attack in 1988, which killed 5,000 and injured 10,000 of Saddam's OWN people to know what a mad person he is. People are still being affected by this today - serious deseases and cancer is very high in Halabja, as are birth defects. If Iraqis don't receive protection from their own leader, who's there to protect them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChrisL Posted March 19, 2003 Report Share Posted March 19, 2003 A couple of days ago, he was quoted as saying that "there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq". I for one believe him (although there probably are now that he's ready for war) What do I mean? I believe he shipped it all out of Iraq to one of his "friends" for storage while the UN were checking him out. Either way though, he's a dodgy F**KER and needs to be stopped now! I say bomb his ass to hell and let him be the devil's bitch, Southpark-style :twisted: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Emad Posted March 20, 2003 Report Share Posted March 20, 2003 Yeah, but Firaas, it was Rumsfeld who sold him the chemical weapons and said it was ok for him to use them.. Still a bastard, but there have been worse, much worse.. I just think he's a retard who'll probably pop the mortal coil in a few years.. Oh well, expensive missiles will be winging their way to help him along, doubtless doing a bit of collateral damage on the way. Probably just beta tests - Microsoft Smartmissile 2002? :) Shock and awe. Apparently thats what they'll do.. You don't need weapons of mass destruction these days.. You need easily deployable weapons of medium/small scale destruction targetted correctly.. And ChrisL - wasn't the whole problem that the Devil was Saddam's bitch? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Firaas Posted March 20, 2003 Report Share Posted March 20, 2003 War was officially launched at 0234 GMT this morning. US President George W Bush has launched war on Baghdad, vowing to "disarm Iraq and to free its people". Mr Bush delivered a live television address shortly after explosions rocked the Iraqi capital at 0534 local time (0234 GMT), signalling the start of the US-led campaign to topple Saddam Hussein. US military sources have told the BBC that five key members of the Iraqi regime, including Saddam Hussein, were targeted in the first attacks. It is not known whether the targets were hit and what damage might have been caused. Hours later, Iraqi television broadcast what it said was a live television address by Saddam Hussein, who called on the Iraqi people to resist the attacks. "I don't need to remind you what you should do to defend our country," the speaker said. "Let the unbelievers go to hell... you will be victorious, Iraqi people," he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest skimask Posted March 20, 2003 Report Share Posted March 20, 2003 I see what you're saying Firaas. Rather than wait for their brutal dictator to kill / torture the Iraqi people, we should just go and bomb the hell out of them all, thus ending their misery in one swoop. I get it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Firaas Posted March 20, 2003 Report Share Posted March 20, 2003 I see what you're saying Firaas. Rather than wait for their brutal dictator to kill / torture the Iraqi people, we should just go and bomb the hell out of them all, thus ending their misery in one swoop. I get it now. If America wanted to kill civilians, why the hell would they use £1million cruise missiles for precision? It'd be easier for them just to carpetbomb the whole of Baghdad - but that'd be reckless, and they're appreciating it and acting upon public opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Emad Posted March 20, 2003 Report Share Posted March 20, 2003 £1 million cruise missiles are good for the arms sector Firaas :) Come on - look at the precision bombing in Afghanistan. Smart bombs, yeah right.. Plus lets not forget the good old human shields and the like that will appear soon enough. Oh, and loook at the demographic of the Iraqi army - mainly conscript, going from 14 years old up? Never mind, they're combatants.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest skimask Posted March 20, 2003 Report Share Posted March 20, 2003 never mind, he's seen the videos of how the 'smart' bombs 'always' hit their targets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vector Posted March 20, 2003 Report Share Posted March 20, 2003 They abut as acurate as me speling :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Firaas Posted March 20, 2003 Report Share Posted March 20, 2003 never mind, he's seen the videos of how the 'smart' bombs 'always' hit their targets How accurate they are in reality is almost irrelevant - their investment in missiles which are some of the most accurate shows the effort the US is putting into attempting to minimise casualties. There are casualties in any and every war, but the outcome will be better for all than Iraq's situation at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vector Posted March 20, 2003 Report Share Posted March 20, 2003 I'm sure that this war will turn Iraq into a better country with a better leader. :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Syvwlch Posted March 20, 2003 Report Share Posted March 20, 2003 I'm sure that this war will turn Iraq into a better country with a better leader. :wink: Not so sure about what'll do to the USA or the western world, tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vector Posted March 20, 2003 Report Share Posted March 20, 2003 I'm meant to be going to the USA on April 12th :? Not so sure i want to go now :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest superkingdave Posted March 20, 2003 Report Share Posted March 20, 2003 :evil: well first of all instead of mr rumsfeld i believe we should be thanking the french and in particular everyones favorite peacenik mr chirac for the majority of saddams wmd s hell if the french had their way iraq would have been nuclear by the end of the eighties. oh and ski mask there is two billion of unspent funds which is meant for aid to the iraqis but saddam wont let them have it... he is waiting for a chance to funnel it into weapons programs like he has done with billions more of the oil for food program. and i say to you all, if bush and blair are so bad wouldnt you like to go and spend a year or so in iraq im sure there will be no shortage of iraqis wanting to swap... oh just dont complain about saddam whilst your there... unlike bush and blair he wont accept criticism and you will lose your tongue if not your life. i nor most if not all of you can not begin to understand what life is like without freedom but i just hope we dont become a nation that ranks peace higher than freedom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Syvwlch Posted March 20, 2003 Report Share Posted March 20, 2003 Come, come... What you say about life in Irak is true... of many nations on the face of the globe, including some who already have nuclear weapons. America has just created a precedent for unsanctioned intervention of a superpower in a sovereign state, and no matter how valid the reasons, this will have ramifications that will take decades to work out. The instability of the world has just increased, the chance of nasty conflicts AND of terrorist acts has increased, not decreased, and all just to kill a dictator in the terminal phases of cancer, in a country ruined and surrounded by hate-filled neighbours. I fail to see how this is good for me, for you, and for our fellow human beings... no matter how wrong we French were to sell him nuclear power plants, the germans chemical and armement plants, and the UK some factories as well, and the USA some bio-weapons and the helicopters to use chemical weapons on the battle field... when we thought he was our bulwark against Iran! Well, we were all wrong about where the threat of islamic terror would come from.... Saudi Arabian petro-dollars! Wait a minute... Those are the guys we're "defending" today from the threat of the weapons we sold Saddam to kill the Iranians? Who just happen to be from a different version of Islam? Doesn't sound QUITE so simple now, does it? More like a very dumb move we'll live with for a couple decades? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest paulmottley Posted March 20, 2003 Report Share Posted March 20, 2003 Well I'm off to Florida on the 23rd of next month, I'm still going and nothing will change my mind about that. We may have 'smart bombs' that can hit a target 10cm across, what people must remember that the blast from that bomb will not only a very large hole but also impact the area around for at least a hundred feet or more. The people of Iraq don't want Sadam any more but they don't want him taken from power in this way. I'm fully behind our forces out there. They are following orders. Just remember they have famlies too, they are somebodies son or daughter/father or mother/brother or sister. Lets hope they all come back... War is a shite all round, but now it's happened lets show our support to the people out there brave enough to do the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Ron - No Longer a Mem Posted March 20, 2003 Report Share Posted March 20, 2003 "Well I'm off to Florida on the 23rd of next month, I'm still going and nothing will change my mind about that. " While you're there - if you're anywhere near Orlando - you might bump into the ex-Mossad agent who helped kidnap Mordechai Vanunu, Cindy Hanin Bentor (curently going under the name Cheryl Ben Tov). She and her husband run a timeshare business there. Who is Vanunu? The guy who blew the whistle on ISRAEL's nuclear program. He was tempted away to Rome (The Israelis didn't think they'd get away with a kidnap in London) and put on trial in a closed court back in Israel - he got 18 years, most of which has been spent in solitary confinement.; he's due for release next year. Last month's parole hearing decided that he should stay inside because if released his (18 years out of date!) information might lead the USA to turn to Israel after Iraq. (Well, they had to have SOME excuse!) Vanunu's revelations came as a bombshell - the Israeli bomb factory had been "inspected" by US officials... who failed to realise that besides what they were shown, there were a further 6 floors, hidden underground. Isn't that the kind of thing GW was referring to when he complained that he was "tired of the lies and deceit"? Given that the IDF are a law unto themselves and that a broad streak of fundamentalist lunacy runs through Israeli politics - combined with a stockpile of 200+ nukes (including Neutron bombs) cruise missiles and submarines - AND an active biogical and chemical weapons development program, Israel looks a FAR greater threat to "world peace" than Saddam. Hell, most of their political leaders of the last 50 years have been "reformed terrorists", and they show NO sign of interest in the niceties of international law. (Like "kidnapping AUstralian citizens from Italy is NOT NICE.) Saddam has 17 UN resolutions against him.... whereas the USA has vetoed 35 resolutions critical of Israel - more than twice as many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now