[cameltoe]

after much thought i have come to the conclusion that what america is doing now is just paying for the mistakes they made during the 40's and 50's. i mean you cant take another peoples country and just give it to someone else who lived there long ass time ago. jews fuked the world..

with this said now im neutral, on one side the dethroning of sadam is neccesarry but i dont think a full invasion is needed, a simple assasination couldve been just as effective.also i dont like war cuz it always has reprucussions many years after its done, this might turn into another korea or vietnam..

[Muff Diver]

[img]http://www.infinityforums.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=29187[/img][/img]

Originally Posted by cameltoe

after much thought i have come to the conclusion that what america is doing now is just paying for the mistakes they made during the 40's and 50's. i mean you cant take another peoples country and just give it to someone else who lived there long ass time ago. jews fuked the world..

with this said now im neutral, on one side the dethroning of sadam is neccesarry but i dont think a full invasion is needed, a simple assasination couldve been just as effective.also i dont like war cuz it always has reprucussions many years after its done, this might turn into another korea or vietnam..

Simple assassination?? Saddam has 9 people that he has made look exactly like him with plastic surgery, and he moves around in mobile facilities alot, it is not a "simple" thing

[White Rabbit]

Originally Posted by cameltoe

after much thought i have come to the conclusion that what america is doing now is just paying for the mistakes they made during the 40's and 50's. i mean you cant take another peoples country and just give it to someone else who lived there long ass time ago. jews fuked the world..

with this said now im neutral, on one side the dethroning of sadam is neccesarry but i dont think a full invasion is needed, a simple assasination couldve been just as effective.also i dont like war cuz it always has reprucussions many years after its done, this might turn into another korea or vietnam..

simple assassination of sadaam. ok he'll be dead, who takes over
the answer: one of his sons uday or qusay, just as evil as sadaam. Uday is responsible for the torture of shot down piolets of the gulf war

[Tool-back]

First of all, I don't think we are allowed to assassinate foreign leader, but I'm not sure.

Secondly, killing Saddam would hcange nothing in Iraq. More than likely one of his sons would take over, who are equally evil...if not more.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 07,00.html

[cameltoe]

so why doesnt sadam just retire and give the leadership position to one of his sons.. wont that be complying with what bush has been saying

[1080jibber]

i think the cause of the war is from what they didnt do in the 1990's, when Sr.Bush, didnt help the people and the rebbles of iraq to take over iraq and get saddam out of power,

after reading alot of info, im kind of going toward the "lets go to war" side

u mean rebels?

[CaP bUsTa]

Originally Posted by cameltoe

so why doesnt sadam just retire and give the leadership position to one of his sons.. wont that be complying with what bush has been saying

No Bush wants Saddam and his entire regime to live in exile, not just Saddam. Too bad Saddam is too blind to know that that was the "easy" way. Now the hard way is gonna hurt, bad.

[Bazooka_Joe]

Originally Posted by Fallout

Simple assassination?? Saddam has 9 people that he has made look exactly like him with plastic surgery, and he moves around in mobile facilities alot, it is not a "simple" thing

12, actually.

I mean, Saddam's loaded man. All he would need to do is move out, build that underground shelter somewhere else, and he can live and retire happy. Is that so damn bad?

[Old Reliable]

it is impossible to assasinate Saddam, who happens to live in Baghdad, in hostile territory. think about it, that would be like trying to assasinate Hitler in 1942

[pest]

Assasignations of foreign leaders is illegal. And Bush, considering his popularity world wide, does NOT want to set that precedent.

[Bazooka_Joe]

Originally Posted by pest

Assasignations of foreign leaders is illegal. And Bush, considering his popularity world wide, does NOT want to set that precedent.

Yep, against the Geneva Conventions laws, and NATO rights, we cannot assasinate a political power, or officers of a foreign military. But, that dosen't mean we cannot hire a bounty hunter or a freelance worker. evil:

[Arkan]

Ok, you asked for it so here's my thoughts.

To assassinate Saddam would be the wrong thing to do....it's against all kinds of laws....so the easiest thing to do is declare war. During a time of war, leaders of military control CAN be killed. This leaves Saddam unprotected. Ok, now with that out of the way, American/British forces aren't gonna annihilate Iraq and kill all it's citizens.....They are just gonna crush the Regieme and liberate Iraq so to speak. They'll keep a presence until a stable government can be established. That way, the threat of supported terrorism from Iraq is eliminated and now Iraq can become a productive country that will ease tension in that region. Iraq can become a rich and powerful nation with it's resources......we just need a rational government controlling it.

[Miscguy]

[quote:74ea6]I mean, Saddam's loaded man. All he would need to do is move out, build that underground shelter somewhere else, and he can live and retire happy. Is that so damn bad?[/quote:74ea6]

Can anyone else say bunker buster?