Alliedassault - View Single Post - Iraq's Saddam Says He Is Unmoved by U.S. Threats

BallisticWookie · 08-08-2002, 09:43 PM

[quote="Low spark":c432e]Sorry to rain on the parade, I don't like Saddam, but I don't think the US can really justify invading Iraq. The logic of "he may have or may be devoloping weapon of mass destruction" just doesn't fly. Should we invade China first, they are a bigger threat than Iraq. Mabye we should invade Russia, to make sure all their nukes and biological weopons are destroyed. Just because Cheney and Pappa Bush have a personal vendetta, is no reason to start a war. The reasoning I'm hearing from Washington, says to me, someone ought to invade the US and replace Cheney/Bush because they have access to nukes and bio weopons. I strongly suggest that people step back and think it through. War is wrong, and killing innocent people because you want to prove you have a bigger dick than someone else is stupid.

I know that you all think I'm wrong, but somebody has to speak out against this kind of thing, I am an American, I and I am proud of what Amerca stands for, I don't want to see America become a state that uses its military to "remove" whomever, they don't happen to like at the time, from power.[/quote:c432e]

You seem to have missed the point entirely. Yes, war is a terrible thing, I have no problem saying this as it is true. But does Saddam need to be removed from power ? Your goddamn right he does. Look at his track record, the guy is a prick, he's a not a fucking cuddly teddy bear. He used kids as human shields in the Gulf War, does that deserve a bullet to the head ? I think so.

Where the hell did you get this "kill innocent people" shit from ?? We never said we wanted innocent people killed. I, personally, want Saddam and his regime ended. He has the power the means and the equipment to launch nuclear, biological and chemical weapons on any country he wants. Do you not think that is a serious problem ?? He wont comply with Weapons Inspectors, he never has and you would have him stay in power, a man who tested chemical weapons on prisoners of war and civilians alike, a man who used children as shields, a man who uses fear to control his population ??

Yes Bush and Cheney have nuclear weapons at their disposal, but they are not fuckheaded enough to use them on a population which would spur on a possible WW3. I dont think they have a personal vendetta, why do you think that ? Saddam supports terrorism, he funds it, and so does Saudi Arabia, Saddam has some of the most deadliest weapons this world has ever seen. THAT seems like reason enough to take him from power. But if you want a madman to stay in power over their who could launch a biological (anthrax, ebola) chemical (sarin, Hydrogen cyanide) or nuclear (I dont think I need to point out the devatation of this weapon) then fine by me, but you and the rest of the "no war in Iraq" people be the first I point the blame on when Saddam does finally start launching weapons indiscriminately.

	(#30)
BallisticWookie is Offline Senior Member Posts: 4,202 Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Queensland, Australia	08-08-2002, 09:43 PM [quote="Low spark":c432e]Sorry to rain on the parade, I don't like Saddam, but I don't think the US can really justify invading Iraq. The logic of "he may have or may be devoloping weapon of mass destruction" just doesn't fly. Should we invade China first, they are a bigger threat than Iraq. Mabye we should invade Russia, to make sure all their nukes and biological weopons are destroyed. Just because Cheney and Pappa Bush have a personal vendetta, is no reason to start a war. The reasoning I'm hearing from Washington, says to me, someone ought to invade the US and replace Cheney/Bush because they have access to nukes and bio weopons. I strongly suggest that people step back and think it through. War is wrong, and killing innocent people because you want to prove you have a bigger dick than someone else is stupid. I know that you all think I'm wrong, but somebody has to speak out against this kind of thing, I am an American, I and I am proud of what Amerca stands for, I don't want to see America become a state that uses its military to "remove" whomever, they don't happen to like at the time, from power.[/quote:c432e] You seem to have missed the point entirely. Yes, war is a terrible thing, I have no problem saying this as it is true. But does Saddam need to be removed from power ? Your goddamn right he does. Look at his track record, the guy is a prick, he's a not a fucking cuddly teddy bear. He used kids as human shields in the Gulf War, does that deserve a bullet to the head ? I think so. Where the hell did you get this "kill innocent people" shit from ?? We never said we wanted innocent people killed. I, personally, want Saddam and his regime ended. He has the power the means and the equipment to launch nuclear, biological and chemical weapons on any country he wants. Do you not think that is a serious problem ?? He wont comply with Weapons Inspectors, he never has and you would have him stay in power, a man who tested chemical weapons on prisoners of war and civilians alike, a man who used children as shields, a man who uses fear to control his population ?? Yes Bush and Cheney have nuclear weapons at their disposal, but they are not fuckheaded enough to use them on a population which would spur on a possible WW3. I dont think they have a personal vendetta, why do you think that ? Saddam supports terrorism, he funds it, and so does Saudi Arabia, Saddam has some of the most deadliest weapons this world has ever seen. THAT seems like reason enough to take him from power. But if you want a madman to stay in power over their who could launch a biological (anthrax, ebola) chemical (sarin, Hydrogen cyanide) or nuclear (I dont think I need to point out the devatation of this weapon) then fine by me, but you and the rest of the "no war in Iraq" people be the first I point the blame on when Saddam does finally start launching weapons indiscriminately.