TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- USA x IRAQ
Pages (2): [1] 2 »


Posted by Furel on Jan-10-2003 11:42:

USA x IRAQ

Should George Bush attack Sadam Hussein?


Posted by Fundamental on Jan-10-2003 13:07:

No


Posted by decode on Jan-10-2003 13:32:

Yes but not yet.


Posted by 3jaz on Jan-10-2003 13:59:

quote:
Originally posted by DJ Fundamental
No


i second that


Posted by Blik on Jan-10-2003 14:57:

this one needs to be edited I think

I think that the US is allowed to bomb IF they have weapons of mass destruction. Otherwise a definate NO-NO


Posted by SugarShack on Jan-10-2003 15:46:

I dont give a damn!!


Posted by Furel on Jan-10-2003 16:13:

I think they should only go into war if Hussein failures to accept the UNO inspectors. Cause I think that if he send those inspectors home or do let them do their job, is because hes hidding something. But so far, what I have heard is that he is cooperating with UNO soldiers.


Posted by AcidAngel on Jan-10-2003 16:55:

Nope!


Posted by Coup on Jan-10-2003 21:17:

lol this argument aint gona happen in my forum!


Posted by DrUg_Tit0 on Jan-10-2003 22:33:

If Saddam has WOMD, and if he refuses to destroy them, and if the UN agrees, then yes.
Otherwise, no.


Posted by Yoepus on Jan-10-2003 23:32:

I don't see how anyone can disagree with "bombing Saddam's ass". I think the world would be a better place without "Saddam's ass", and a lot less dirty and smelly.


Posted by IronDragon on Jan-11-2003 00:10:

If WOMD are found (and not destroyed immediately) or Iraq blatantly attempts to compromise the weapons inspections (which any reasonabe person would surmise is tantamount to admitting they have WOMD) then yes.

Otherwise no


Posted by Izzy on Jan-11-2003 03:12:

yep, sooner the better. surprising huh?


Posted by LiquidXtrance on Jan-11-2003 05:24:

quote:
Originally posted by Izzy
yep, sooner the better. surprising huh?


LoL , thats because Israelies, if the USA bombs IRAQ and overthrows Saddam, will in some way, help the israelies, but thats not the way it should be . I say NO , first because they arent a threat to the USA, if they do have weapons, then let the ONU deal with it. Theres no proof of Saddam and Bin Ladin helping each other . N. Korea is a bigger threat , but since N. Korea has no OIL the USA is giving them Flowers while punching IRAQ, even though ( not yet proving THOUGH ON IRAQ ) that they , if in case IRAQ has weapons, have Nuclear Bombs and/or chemical.


Posted by Arbiter on Jan-11-2003 07:02:

Yes, provided that the United States devotes sufficient resources over a long period of time following the war such that a stable democractic society may be established in place of tyrrany. Over a long enough timeline, it is the greatest good for the people of Iraq and indeed of all the world.

WOMD are unnecessary for there to be sufficient moral justification for the removal of Hussein from power, and, most frequently, seem to serve as nothing more than a straw man for those opposed to the war to attack.


Posted by fastmp3 on Jan-11-2003 16:57:

NO


Posted by Eugene on Jan-11-2003 17:58:

first find Iraq in the atlas, then bomb it
j/k


Posted by Mental Exodus on Jan-12-2003 20:35:

Be Cool!

Well as far as i know This guy Saddam is a rather nasty facist. ( this could just be U.S. propoganda getting to me like its supposed to) but ive heard some things about how he runns his counrty and it aint all that great. Although it might be necesary in that part of tha world to keep order it doesnt fly with western policies. SOOO i think that tha idea of overthrowing Saddam and his gang is justified by tha U.S. inorder to establish a form of government other than Despotism. So a bombing or two might be in order.


Posted by King_Mack on Jan-12-2003 21:49:

Rasta

so far the UN has found no reason for the US to bomb. So my answer would be no. By all means, if there is a threat found in Iraq..then there is no other answer but to overthrow saddam. But, just because the US has a hunch from their *already shaky* intelligence should not give an excuse to bomb.


Posted by lotadeus on Jan-12-2003 22:53:

hmm

this is my opinion, and u know the words from the lord of the rings movie!
And u know whats happened after the third part...
greetz Lotadeus


Posted by intrinsic on Jan-13-2003 03:21:

quote:
Originally posted by Blik
this one needs to be edited I think

I think that the US is allowed to bomb IF they have weapons of mass destruction. Otherwise a definate NO-NO


I second this.


Posted by Fundamental on Jan-13-2003 13:28:

quote:
Originally posted by intrinsic
I second this.


What about the UN though?

If they say no, then it should mean no....


Posted by Arbiter on Jan-13-2003 15:40:

quote:
Originally posted by DJ Fundamental
What about the UN though?

If they say no, then it should mean no....


Please refer to the thread on the UN. The UN has done nothing to earn respect, hence it ought not to be given.


Posted by Dj GReddy on Jan-13-2003 22:14:

Only if the inspectors find evidence of weapons of mass destruction and only if the attack is done in a multilateral way.


Posted by Verona^My on Jan-23-2003 03:14:

if they invoke the draft, then no


Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.