I really don't think the whole military action thing against iraq is going to be good...

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Hamburgerpimp
The Gassed Dog on CNN. From Whatreallyhappened.com:

"This is the purest war propaganda. One video of what may be Osama bin Laden plus a video of a dog being gassed which could have been created anywhere equals the US sinking to new lows trying to manufacture support for a war nobody but the oil companies want. This dog-video reminds me of Hill & Knowlton's much ballyhooed claim that Iraqi troops were stealing incubators from Kuwait hospitals and leaving premature babies to die on the floor. That was a hoax to sell a war. And until proven otherwise, the safest course is to assume this latest "shock video" is just another hoax by the public relations firms which grow rich and fat off of your tax dollars by lying to you for the US Government. Anonymous US officials have declared this to be "unquestionable" evidence that al Qaeda has chemical weapons. I find it very questionable. For one thing, compare the quality of the dog video with that of the famous Osama "confession" tape or even the most recent Osama tape. Why does a dog get much better video quality than the boss? Add to that the cuteness of the dog, as if intentionally selected by central casting to provoke the greatest feelings of sympathy in the viewer, instead of just grabbing any old mangy stray mongrel to use in such a test. "

i think they faked the moon landing too

 

[Hamburgerpimp]

It's a shame there are so few people who think independently.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i think they faked the moon landing too

I think they faked Bush's election, too.

 

[rbhawcroft]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: rbhawcrofthey we are doing this for profits, you are doing this for oil and prfits, so dont :disgust: me.

Speak for yourself. I'm not doing anything for oil profits. I think that would be a lame, immoral motive to start a war. If we had hard evidence that Hussein was directly connected to 9-11, or that he was behind other terrorist activities, or he was about to use weapons of mass destruction, there would be some justification for the risks taking of such action. As it is, Bush-Lite is way out on a political limb with no international support and disagreement from a large percentage of American conservative hawks, including Henry Kissinger and Dick Army.

why dont you reply to my comments? because they are correct?

No, it's because they are really stupid. :Q

why join an elite regiment if you dont want to fight? if you are a pussy and want to be a soldier you join some crap local one, you dont go for an elite or sf regiment, geekboy, do you?

Even those who join to fight don't join to die without a reason and an objective worth the sacrifice as well as some chance of success. That isn't bravery; it's suicidal stupidity.

like i sad the the 'err what if he uses nbc?' questions are just coming from the out of touch wannabee nannies, get out of the way and let the real men take charge.

As I said, we would be justified in taking action IF and WHEN Saddam poses that threat in real time. Until Bush-Lite has hard evidence of this, he looks like some blow hard warmonger desperately looking for political advantage. I don't think he has the brain power to see how lame and dangerous a game he's playing.

if there is an nbc attack it would hardly be that effective on trained and equiped troops, muchmore effective in a london subway station i think.

Think??? You??? You're joking, right?

hussein is a known theat, far from presenting no evidence there is a huge amout:he in a psychopathhe terrorises his own peoplehis rule was solidifed by uk and us and he was given a repreive in 91he continies to try and get nbc capabilitieshe tried to assassinate gb snr in kuwaithe was liked to mohammed al attahe was linked to the 93 wtc bombing by some academics working after the official investigation and trial of ramzi yusef had taken placehe is a treat to a world economic resouce - gulf oil, caspian oil and gas.he is an unfortuante influence if minor on the palestine conlflicthe prevents destabilising regime transformation in the surrounding coutries.so old man keep your misguided mouth shut on the issue until the real men have dealt with the problems and you get a chance to backbite.

Real man??? You??? You're still joking, right?

Real men know that muscle, alone, doesn't win wars. They use their brains to choose the time and place for their battles.Real men make sure they have just cause before they offer to put their lives on the line.Real men don't blow hard on juvenile testosterone, especially when it isn't their own blood that will be spilled.Since your profile says you're from the U.K, as far as I know, you're just some blowhard Limey twit who is all mouth and no balls. Obviously, you don't have anything to lose if OUR country starts shooting, so until you do, your opinion is meaningless. I believe it is YOU who should STFU... Asshole! :|

you dont seem to understand that the point of a standing army is to protect the interests of the civilians whenever they are threatened if wanted. its clear that hussein is a threat to us and uk and other western interests it just takes to balls to deal with him. i did arabic politics at uni, and i think the only solution is forcible removal.

so ball breath what is the best way to do that? well my jeuvinile arrogance would say put 15000 troops down, and send 50-75 over the border, use propaganda and secret links to get the normal iraqies to hand themselves over or be mown down, wipeout as much republic guard as possible, use the kurdish troops to do most of the combat (it is their country after all) with advisers from elite regiments, which probably means sas. in terms of urban combat, first you advise the general he is sealed off by and ring of armour, then you threaten to snip, rocket and iraqi troop them out. and tell them that th eaction she takes then will be weighted heavily in the retributions of the next governemt, it would be insane for him not to hand the city over, and use his troop to arrest any secret policy that were there.

you say there isnt extrensive evidence that hussein is a threat, you are talking out of yor ass. you are a reactionary loser and littleton. the guy doesnt and isnt interested in normal law, and you are advising effectively on either containment or sth like wait until the horses are bolted, or even more stupidly wiat until we KNOW he has a NUCLEAR weapon. you are a really dumb dumb dangerous fukk and beureaucratic myopic loser. its going to cost a few lives, but they are voluteers, its their JOB, and its necessary. also if you compare the cost to the cost of sf lives in drug enforcement

and other bs ops, then its not so bad. anyway if pussies like you are so worried about losses to non sf soldiers then they could always hire mercs, but the liberls would be cra pping themselves in 5 secs if that happened.

 

[AndrewR]

A war to dispose of Saddam will, unfortunately, be no Desert Storm walkover

Actually, it will probably be easier.

If they can't make a stronger case to the world community, let alone U.S. citizens, it leaves Georgie boy looking like a dictatorial war monger, acting on his own to commit acts of war without the Constitutionally mandated consent of Congress.

Curious. Last poll I remember reading about said about 70% of the American people supported the very notion of taking out Saddam. Who's in the minority? Further, I seem to remember a large portion of the world community was against taking direct military action against Iraq when Saddam invaded Kuwait, though most eventually came around to the idea. Was it wrong when first proposed?

If we had hard evidence that Hussein was directly connected to 9-11, or that he was behind other terrorist activities, or he was about to use weapons of mass destruction, there would be some justification for the risks taking of such action. As it is, Bush-Lite is way out on a political limb with no international support and disagreement from a large percentage of American conservative hawks, including Henry Kissinger and Dick Army.

So we wait until a VX attack is launched in NYC subways or a nuke is detonated in SF Bay? THEN we can take action? That's a brilliant plan.

Where is this "large percentage" of American hawks who are against an attack on Iraq? You cite Kissinger, who's latest pronouncements have been interesting if not completely misinformed, and an outgoing Representative who has frequently broken with the party line. Don't mention Scowcroft because his comments have been sorely twisted by the NY Times. Who else? Does TWO amount to a "large percentage"?

The list that's written in another post above gives a fair recitation of the reasons for taking out Saddam, despite the chaff and insults sprinkled around it [posted: 08/19/2002 8:34 PM]. Discount those reasons.

Oh, and BTW, if something does kickoff, there's the chance I could be there so I am not advocating placing other people's lives in line without considering the consequences.

 

[Zwingle]

Someone answer me a fair question.

Why can't Saddam have his own weapons to protect his country? I understand about why he shouldn't have chemical or biological weapons to a certain point, because the rest of the world doesn't, or isn't saying if they do. But why can't he have nukes? We have nukes, as do many other countries to protect themselves. Sure, the fvcker may be a little off his rocker or so the media leads us to believe, but he still has to protect his country, and if he wants nukes to do so, then he should have them. I don't follow or believe everything the media, or our gov't tells us.......they will tell us what they want us to believe, which is not always the truth. Remember, Castro used to a threat....look at him now......his people may love him, but his country is in shambles.