Will Iraq use Chemical weapons?

Will Iraq use chemical weapons?

  • Yes but not very Effectively

    Votes: 8 66.7%

  • Yes, Somewhat Effectively

    Votes: 3 25.0%

  • Yes, Very Effectively

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No (either because it has none or because it chooses not to)

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • Total voters
    12
Didn't say that at all, oli. I just said the possibillity was a deeper concern to me than what Iraq does.
 
:confuse3: Solution? I just said that its a possibillity that concerns me. Why aren't you asking for a solution to the other possibillity? Am I being told that I was out of line?
 
No, and relax.

I don't have a solution either, other than to try and take out their support base. I was hoping you did. Jeez.
 
The advantage of terrorist attacks is that there is NO solution short of giving up all freedom and rights. You can fight it forever but given the nature of it, 1 terrorist dies to several of 'the enemy'. Its a poor mans most effective way to wage war against a super power.
 
if Saddam has wmd i say he'll use them, and that would make some countries join the war (even the french said they would).
 
Its a poor mans most effective way to wage war against a super power
Click to expand...
Think about that Squig. It's actually not true. If say, the Palestinians acted like Ghandi the world would be overwhelmingly for them. Passive resistance is far more effective(imo).
 
The situation is nowhere close to the same. Its not like we count on them to show up to work so they can't strike etc etc This is a war and the opponents are half a world apart.
 
So tell me then that if hundreds of Palestinians began going on hunger strikes while tens of thousands held massive peace rallies it wouldn't get the worlds attention and even sway people like ME.:D
I don't think it really matters. When people strive for things in a peaceful loving manner the world takes notice. They hurt themselves more than anyone by acting in such a fashion.
 
I was speaking in terms of Iraq/US. I do think some peaceful protest would serve the palistinians better. And I would say the same of Israel. They have both taken it to an absurd level with no sign of sanity prevailing...
 
If saddam has them, they'll be used. The remaing question is, does he have them? Intel reports today say he's sending chem shells to the southern line & has okayed their use.

As far as the other, Squiggy, I agree with OSLI's take. It sounds like you're saying since there might be another attack on our soil, don't do anything. After 12 years, somebody has to do something before there is another attack on our soil.
 
I am not saying do nothing. How many times do we have to go around that circle? Saddam was fading fast from internal dissent. Bush stood up and said we were going after the TERRORISTS and we would make NO DISTINCTION between them and those that harbored them. The only reason I feel he went to Iraq is because WE WANT TO PICK THE NEW REGIME. Otherwise, without distiction, WE WOULD BE BLOWING THE FUCKOUT OF SAUDI ARABIA. They would be the target he spoke of. And fuck the politics. If they are the proper target then crush their fucking Mecca and let them come at us. At least we wouldnn't look like a bunch of fucking hypocrits.
 
Has it occured that taking Iraq may be the first step in taking care of the Saudis? A little freedom goes an awfully long way & once the Iraqi people are free, dissent could speead to it's neighbors who suddenly realize they like it.
 
anyone else think we may go after the saudis when we finish business in iraq? after all, we wont need the miltary bases in saudi if we have control of iraq.
 
If thats what you need to believe then please do. It was Saudi men, Saudi money, and American arrogance that brought down the WTC. Everyone wants to think I'm a peacenik. Cute lable. The fact is, I'm pissed that those guilty of that atrocity are getting their asses kissed instead of kicked.
 
Squiggy said:
I'm pissed that those guilty of that atrocity are getting their asses kissed instead of kicked.
Click to expand...

As am I. Look at it this way. Iraq is freed. Within months, Iran falls (which it's ready to do). Now, we've got Afghanistan, Iran & Iraq on the side of freedom (afghan is questionable, still). How long before Qatar, AE, Kuwait, and all those other small tinpot countries get pressured to loosen up? Saudi, on paper, is an ally. If we go after them directly it causes far more problems than Iraq has & it will fuck with the worlds oil supply. Also, if we blow the shit out of mecca, every muslim in the world become our enemy. If we have a hand in spreading some form of freedom, it's contagious & sooner or later it speads into SA.
 
Your playing politics. That wasn't supposed to happen underr the Anti Terrorism proclaimation. You could use that bullshit to start anywhere you want but it doesn't do the job that needs to be done. If you're so worried about your gas prices that you're willing to let them slide, WE FAIL.
 
Politics is the game of the world. Saudi doesn't officially support terrorism. They will fall, just not as quickly as would be desirable. We don't want every muslim on the rampage unless we ARE restaring teh crusades.
 
So you can connect your 'dots' to Iraq easier than you can connect the dots to SA? Thats just insane....:disgust2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top