+- CDIH (https://www.cdih.net/cdih)
+-- Forum: The Smoke Room (https://www.cdih.net/cdih/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: The Faggy Artistic Forum (https://www.cdih.net/cdih/forumdisplay.php?fid=18)
+--- Thread: Should We Go To War With Iraq? - Time To Choose. (/showthread.php?tid=5462)
- Keyser Soze - 03-05-2003
We have had all sorts of incarnations of this topic, but the question has not been posed point blank. Should we try to resolve our differences democratically or do we need to invade and use force?
The time has come to choose.
I feel that we must go to war with Iraq to protect ourselves from terrorism. I believe that the Iraqi goverment wants to supply terrorists with weapons of all kinds to wreck havoc on America and our allies. For this reason, I feel that we must show our willingness to fight back with force.
Edited By Keyser Soze on 1046897208
- Teenweek - 03-05-2003
Yes we should. Saddam is a threat, North Korea is a threat, Al Queada will always be a threat. Colin Powell spelled it out to the UN about Iraq. Isn't it amazing that every now and than Iraq finds another weapon of mass destruction even though they said they never had any. The time is now.
- JimmyBlueEyes - 03-06-2003
What I can't understand is why all these countries are against us bitchslapping Iraq. I am against it because I think our country has lost sight of what we're fighting for. How it went from nail Bin Laden to nail Hussein. Don't get me wrong I support our troops 100%. We've obviously proven this guy is full of shit about WMDs but no one seems to really care aside from us. I dunno it's a confusing mess to me.
- Keyser Soze - 03-06-2003
Why do you have to bitch slap only one madman at a time?
- JimmyBlueEyes - 03-06-2003
Like I said, I'm really mixed on this one.
- GonzoStyle - 03-06-2003
This has been hashed and rehashed over and over. I say enough talkin, when you come to shoot, shoot, don't talk. Enough of these fuckin mutant wastes of flesh whose lives are so empty and worthless that they have the time to stand around holding eachothers hands. For what? some fuckin "innocent" sand niggers gonna die? So what, like this is fuckin breaking news, yes innocent people die during wars, such are the casualties. These so called religious mental midgets, god this and jesus saves and let the lord handle it. Your fuckin church has never had a problem with bloodshed, especially since more blood has been shed in the name of christ.
Enough talk, get to it, blitzkreig that son of a bitch so bad that it will scare the shit out of every other country. Take down saddam in like 2 or 3 weeks and that will fuckin show them. We wouldn't have these problems if Hitler was around.
All these war protesters, I hope if god forbid an attack happens here that they are the only ones to go. Like they are breaking fuckin news. Like these Truth.com people, The tobacco companies lie? OMG stop the presses, cigarettes cause people to die, holy shit I am overfuckinwhelmed.
- Buttmunch - 03-06-2003
Look to history.
If we had stopped Hitler before he bombed Pearl Harbor, we could have avoided WWII.
- Keyser Soze - 03-06-2003
Hitler bombed Pearl Harbor? I thought it was the nips???
- GonzoStyle - 03-06-2003
forget it, he's rolling.
- 2 tired 2 give N F - 03-06-2003
I Get what BM is sayin though...If we had bitch slapped Hitler at the beginning when he was sinking our ships in the Atlantic the Japanese wouldn't have ever attacked us at Pearl Harbor...
If we don't stop Sadam now...who's to say he won't attack us...or one of his allies for that matter...
- Keyser Soze - 03-07-2003
I still think N.Korea is our most pressing threat.
- crx girl - 03-07-2003
ok, so i'm not the biggest follower of all this stuff. but when exactly was saddam linked to the wtc attacks? i don't doubt that saddam is trouble and needs to be stopped, but why does the government insist on blaming him for 9/11? i just feel like gw is trying to pull a fast one on us.
- Buttmunch - 03-07-2003
Well, let me put it this way.
Kill them all, let Allah sort them out.
- Is Don on the phone? - 03-07-2003
Quote:but when exactly was saddam linked to the wtc attacks? i don't doubt that saddam is trouble and needs to be stopped, but why does the government insist on blaming him for 9/11?
Now that's the funny part; the government never really linked the two, and the war would not be about 9/11. Its about preventing the next attack, not avenging the dead from the attacks.
Of course, there was that meeting between Mohammed Atta and a known Iraqi intelligence agent prior to the attacks, but no one can nail that one down, so we can't put enough stock in it to call it evidence. And there is that training facility with the mock-up of a commercial airliner, apparently utilized by Iraqi intelligence to train small bands of jihadis on the finer points of taking an aircraft over with small bladed weapons, but THAT certainly does not positively link them to 9/11. Nor does the financial support to the homicide bombers of Palestine, while it links them to terrorism in general, it does not link them to 9/11 directly.
Do you really think Saadam will disarm on his own? He's had 12 years to disarm by himself, and he's done nothing but lie and cheat and connive his way around the U.N. You cannot negotiate with a liar, he will not keep his side of the bargain, no matter how many resolutions the U. N. passes.
And speaking of negotiating with liars, don't get me started on North Korea. Clinton gives 'em a sweetheart deal, and yet they still have their program intact. And people are STILL starving, and only have electricity for two hours a day (hence the lack of postings from Pyongyang on the ol' CDIH board).
And let's not forget Iran, and the line item in it's annual budget to support islamic terrorism worldwide.
We declared war not just on Al Quadea, but on terrorism. Do we really mean it, or are we just paying lip service to it as we have for the past 15-20 years, before it was tangible to us?
- crx girl - 03-07-2003
Quote:We declared war not just on Al Quadea, but on terrorism.but that's the thing, if they declared war on all terrorism, why are they really only planning to declare war on saddam? and if it's because they supported al quada and the like, didn't the us give funding to bin laden? shouldn't they declare war on everyone?
again, i'm not dissagreeing with attacking saddam, i'm just questioning the singling out of him and the way they keep spinning it. if someone had never known anything about the attacks before now and the al quaeda links, by watching the news now they would think saddam had directly orchestrated the attacks. i dunno, it just bothers me that they seem to be doing that...
- Keyser Soze - 03-07-2003
asking him to disarm is just a nice way to say, we are going to buy some time while we ask the rest of the free world if we can bomb the fuck out of you.
- GonzoStyle - 03-07-2003
The point of tying Saddam to 9-11 is to satisfy these bumbling fuckin mental midgets who wanna know why we are going to war. Like there is nothing else saddam has ever done that warrants this, the mans done enough shit.
It's like if they tried to pin a DWI charge on dahmer, like he didn't do enough.
These people are uneducated twits who should be beaten to death with sledge hammers. Their big comeback is "this is all about oil". Yet if you ask them to explain how, they can't, they don't bother looking into the facts, they are worrying about fuckin iraquis over there. Hey shit happens in war, ask the famlies of the 3,000 who died on 9-11.
The bottom line is that a crazed dictator who has gassed, tortured and murdered his own people. A man who tried to assassinate the first president bush, a manical madman has in his possesion chemical agents, missiles and other weapons. He doesn't have a right to have those weapons, yes we have them and other countries have them but we are not a threat to countries that don't threaten us first. He's had 12 years to disarm, what else are we supposed to do? Yes he hasn't attacked us yet, YET. Should we wait till he does?
This is like when a battred wife goes to the cops, they can't do nothing serious to the guy. That is until he kills her.
So let's wait and see maybe saddam will change and become a super groovy guy who wishes the world peace love and happiness.
Yes N. Korea is also a thread, I doubt the pentagon hasn't researched this and worried about it. But are we to just say, well N. Korea is a threat, lets just give up and do nothing at all.
N. koreas time will come, yet all the people who are complaining now that we are doing nothing with N. Korea will be protesting any action against them when the times comes. Americans for the most part are fickle, uneducated bastards with short term memories.
The same people who are begging for Guiliani to come back, yet forget how much they were booing him out of office.
- Is Don on the phone? - 03-07-2003
The policy for North Korea (for now) is to pressure China to run with the ball. This serves two purposes, one to show our "trust" in the Chineese to take care of affairs of mutual concern, and to ensure that if we do eventually hit them, we don't need to worry about the PLA coming over the border to aid North Korea (as they did in the Korean War).
And Trish, they are not going to stop with Saadam, he's just the flavor of the month. Look for more action in the Philippines (Gonzo, comment?), and the next big nulcear standoff in Iran. We'll be doing this for years...
- Keyser Soze - 03-07-2003
I just heard that the human shields from America were brought to power plants to cover. Seems like these peace loving folks aren't willing to risk their lives for power plants and their cause is losing steam. What the fuck did they think they would be used for? To lay on top of Iraqi's to protect them? Fucking dolts.
- LyricalGomez - 03-07-2003
Quote:Almost all of the first British "human shields" to go to Iraq were on their way home Saturday after deciding that their much-heralded task was now too dangerous.
Two red double-decker buses slipped quietly out of Baghdad on the long journey back to Britain, carrying most of the 11 protesters with them.
Nine out of the original 11 activists decided to pull out after being given an ultimatum by Iraqi officials Friday to station themselves at targets likely to be bombed in a war or leave the country. Two left immediately by taxi and six others boarded the buses Saturday night, bound initially for Syria.
The Iraqi warning follows frustration among Saddam Hussein's officials that only about 65 of the volunteers had so far agreed to take up positions at the oil refineries, power plants and water-purification sites selected by their hosts.
It heightened fears among some peace activists that they could be stationed at noncivilian sites. Protesters who moved into the power station in south Baghdad last weekend were dismayed to find it stood next to an army base and the road south to Basra.