Does anyone agree with me? I mean this guy has so much confidence that he will defeat the US. The damn inspectors haven't found anything yet but everyone knows this guy has weapons of mass destruction because otherwise he wouldn't have so much confidence it defeating the US. I'd like to know everyone else's views on this. I think the US should not make the first move however be on alert. I live near the capital and i hope they would not nuke it or else i'd be dead along with a few million others. But my point is that no one would have that much confidence unless he has something up his sleeve...

WHY CAN'T EVERYONE JUST GET ALONG?

quote:

Originally posted by XxremedyxX I think the US should not make the first move however be on alert.

Unfortunately, the tricky thing about inconventional weapons and war of such proportions is that the first move could prove to be the most fatal, especially in Saddam's case, if he has Nuclear/Biological/Chemical weapons yet unfound by the US, the moment the war starts he will probably use them to target the US and/or allies such as Israel and the UK , thus immediately thousands of civillians killed. And I'm very sorry to say but Wahington is probably a key target for Sadam

___________________
Check My Music

Of course its a key target because its the capital and home of the President. But that airspace has so much guard he wouldn't be able to get close to the White House itself.

By instituting pointless weapons inspections, under the guise of diplomacy, the United States has already violated one of the key principles of The Art of War, namely to strike quickly and without warning.

The more you think about weapons inspections, the less they make sense. If they are an example of a diplomatic alternative to war, then in theory we are engaged in diplomacy with Iraq. But fundamental to diplomatic relations of any kind is trust, and we do not trust Iraq (nor should we) and they do not trust us (nor should they). Therefore, diplomacy itself cannot exist, and what we are able to see is the weapons inspections for what they are: a charade designed to create the pretense of an attempt at diplomacy, to placate the short-sighted Humanist majority.

Think about what weapons inspections really entail: Iraq is 169,235 square miles. If Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, they could theoretically be anywhere in that area (or possibly even outside of it). He knew weapons inspectors were on their way. If he did have such weapons, and the inspectors found them, it could only have been by monumental incompetence on his part. I do not like Saddam Hussein, but I do not think him to be a fool. There is no way we would ever find them. It is ludicrous to even try.

I would not read too much into his confidence - recall the confidence of the Taliban. But I do expect that he has strengthened his arsenal and prepared strategems in the time that we have given him by conducting these pointless inspections, and the ultimate result of this pseudo-diplomacy will be that far more lives will likely be lost.

Once again, Humanism has shot itself in the foot by refusing to make a sacrifice up front, with the natural result being that an even greater sacrifice will be called for later. I suspect this deficiency is a result of the fact that Humanism, fundamentally, is more of an emotional doctrine than a rational one. The sick irony of anti-war Humanism is that it will end up costing more of the very lives it purports to want to save. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Do you allow me to sign my name under your post?

I'm still wondering who's dumber: The people who expect any result from that little diplomacy show staged by the London-Washington Axis and don't realize that they won't be able to change their minds anyway...or bush and blair (and their UN allies) who really think that this show (inspections, resolutions, "this is your last chance" statements) will bring them any further to gaining more support for their war.
Actually that's a contradiction...do u go into war in order to maintain popularity or in order to gain popularity or do u simply fight for what u think is right? If the US and Blair were convinced that they fight for a justified cause they wouldn't have given a fuck about the majority's opnion. That's the problem of politics i guess: your own principles vs. the greed for power (stayin in power that is).

For me there's just one big dilemma when thinking about this upcoming war: It's a preemptive strike with vague justification but also with a feeling that "it can ony improve things" (since we agree that saddam and his regime is "a problem" to say it with donald's word; also our common sense tell us that we should't wait till the very moment when the madman has the weapon in his hands). It's a thin line however, because it might open doors for other preemtive,perhaps offensive wars with even less "justification". It's really like in law; imagine some trial in the future in which the defendant( f.e. india invades pakistan) refers to this war as a legitimation....
Kinda problematic...argh

___________________
"Those are my principles, if you don't like them... well, I have others.”

Iraq has no ability to attack washington, that much is clear. maybe they have *some* chemical or biological weapons left over from when they were declared to be 90% to 95% eliminated. maybe they have even made more.

BUT, this is highly unlikely, given the careful monitoring by the US, the constant bombings in the north and south, and the economic sanctions that bar any materials that could even concievably have chance of being turned into a weapon (for example, canola oil).

nuclear weapons are even less likely, due to the radiation they give off, and the constant monitoring from space of iraq.

even IF they have such weapons, they most certainly do not have a delivery system capable of reaching america, not by a long shot.

do you recall the gulf war? when saddamn used old SCUD missles, that were accurate to within about 10 miles or so? and america blasted them out of the sky with Patriots? america was able to defend itself from within miles of the launching sites, do you think they would not be able to if the missile had to come over the pacific, even assuming saddamn had that sort of range or accuracy, which he didn't even 10 years ago when his military was 10 times stronger?

and now, when americas military is stronger, faster, and more on alert than ever? please, you have more chance of being hit by lighting underground than you do of being hit by a missle from iraq.

bowling for columbine was right, americans do live in a country driven by fear. you have nothing to fear from saddamn besides high oil prices, and to believe anything else is naive.

as for the issue of inspections being useless.. well, i will get to that later.

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith Iraq has no ability to attack washington, that much is clear. ... even IF they have such weapons, they most certainly do not have a delivery system capable of reaching america, not by a long shot.

it does not take a genious to think of the multiple ways iraq as a nation could target washington right now. you dont need missles or long range aircraft, all it takes is an exploding 'dirty' breifcase or emptying a vail of certain materials in key places. maybe he is so confident because he has agents ready to go within a calls notice? this is all speculation but one should not ignore all future possibilites when making a desicion

quote:

maybe they have *some* chemical or biological weapons left over from when they were declared to be 90% to 95% eliminated. maybe they have even made more.

maybe. we dont know, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt consider that what if he does and what if he doesnt possibilities

quote:

when saddamn used old SCUD missles, that were accurate to within about 10 miles or so? and america blasted them out of the sky with Patriots? america was able to defend itself from within miles of the launching sites, do you think they would not be able to if the missile had to come over the pacific, even assuming saddamn had that sort of range or accuracy, which he didn't even 10 years ago when his military was 10 times stronger?

69 SCUDs were launced agianst israel, not all were shot down (i dont have the exact stat) and one hit tel-aviv killing 3. however you are correct in saying that americas technology in anti missle defense has improved while iraq's missle technology has stayed stagnant.

quote:

you have nothing to fear from saddamn besides high oil prices, and to believe anything else is naive.

i disagree there is much to fear from saddam, other then oil, if not for the sheer fact that he is an in-stability to the region.

quote:

as for the issue of inspections being useless.. well, i will get to that later.

they pretty much are, nothing really to add

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy 69 SCUDs were launced agianst israel, not all were shot down (i dont have the exact stat) and one hit tel-aviv killing 3.

you mean 39 scuds, 1 dead, 4 others died because they suffocated in their gaz masks (badly worn masks), scores from heart attacks and stress.




and to answer this thread, Saddam looks very confident, because basically he has too... ever seen a head of state panicking before or even during war??

This guy's days are counted, either he suicide before they take his palaces, he get caught before doing so and then shipped to the puppet show (international court) or he goes to exile to some country like uzbakistan (yeah i just made that country up).

To my utter disbelief, Bush is in favor of exile, I mean after all his hype about Saddam being evil, and head of terrorism, the US could just let him go and die old. This has an advantage for the US, because later on they could say that he sponsors terrorism from his flat and bla bla bla and what not... the art of creating ennemies.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

anyone who thinks that after a decade of failed 'diplomatic' efforts that 'diplomacy' will suddenly avert war is obviously tugging their chain

___________________
c o n : f u s e d

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith Iraq has no ability to attack washington, that much is clear.

quote:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ar_suicide_dc_1 BERLIN (Reuters) - Iraq will launch thousands of suicide attackers against American troops if the United States invades, Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan told German magazine Der Spiegel on Saturday. "We are looking forward to the time when they have finished with air bombardments and send in ground troops against us. They will come up against very hard resistance everywhere," Ramadan told the weekly magazine. "We do not have long-range rockets or bomber squadrons, but we will deploy thousands of suicide attackers... martyrs. These are our new weapons and they will not just be used in Iraq," he said. Ramadan said the United States would be confronted with a "sea of opposition" in the Middle East, particularly in places like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia where U.S. troops were stationed. "The Arab people will stand by the Iraqi people in the battle for its independence and freedom. It will be a conflagration in the entire region," he said. "It will be worse for them than ever before." Ramadan said talk of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and Iraqi other leaders going into exile was ridiculous. He said Iraq would cooperate fully with United Nations (news - web sites) weapons inspectors. The United States accuses Iraq of amassing weapons of mass destruction and says it will disarm the country by force if necessary.

notice my bolded line.... and true this only applies to IF the US attacks iraq, though the mear threat of something like that means he does pose a direct threat on america

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

well, of course what i meant is that he has no missiles capable of reaching america, not that he was not a threat at all, sorry that wasn't clear.

nobody can ever stop the threat of suicide bombers i suppose. then again, the people and bombs will have to come from the US, i can't imagine a guy from iraq getting through customs right now. in fact, i can't see anybody of middle eastern descent getting through without a thoughouh strip search.

you should take two things into consideration. One, the US, UK, and UN have so mistreated the iraqis that they are willing to strap bombs to themselves just to prove their point. who's fault is this? if the US would get out of the middle east this problem would go away.

don't you see that the US is playing into the hands of the arabs beautifully here? they want to initiate a war of the east Vs the west, that's why they are calling on other arabs.

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith well, of course what i meant is that he has no missiles capable of reaching america, not that he was not a threat at all, sorry that wasn't clear.

no actually i knew what you meant, sorry for taking it out of context, i just wanted to remind people that yes indeed iraq can and in a way already does pose a direct threat on the US

quote:

then again, the people and bombs will have to come from the US, i can't imagine a guy from iraq getting through customs right now. in fact, i can't see anybody of middle eastern descent getting through without a thoughouh strip search.

:/ i wish that were the case

quote:

One, the US, UK, and UN have so mistreated the iraqis that they are willing to strap bombs to themselves just to prove their point. who's fault is this?

i dont have a problem with suicide bombers as a military tool, its when they intentionally target innocent civilian populations that it becomes a flagrant crime, and if that does happen there is no one to blame but the side who is doing it.

quote:

if the US would get out of the middle east this problem would go away.

i disagree, i can only look at israel to prove that point, israel had occupied a 10 mile southern buffer zone in lebanon, the hizbollah attacked israel for this continuously year after year. when barak came to power he thought just as you do "if israel were to get out of south lebanon this problem would go away. in early summer 2000 israel withdrew from the 'occupied terroitory'. to this day we are still targeted in israel proper by fire coming from southern lebanon.

i dont belive this problem is cause by the US but rather a fundamential issue between that of extreme islamic culture and the western world.

quote:

don't you see that the US is playing into the hands of the arabs beautifully here? they want to initiate a war of the east Vs the west, that's why they are calling on other arabs.

that proves my above thoery.

quote:

ahlamalek: you mean 39 scuds, 1 dead, 4 others died because they suffocated in their gaz masks (badly worn masks), scores from heart attacks and stress.

i think you are right, i checked, cnn said 39 scuds hit israel http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast...iraq/index.html
i still belive three were killed in one of the attacks
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V110/N60/war1.60n.html
though i dont know how reliable that site is... i couldnt find any others

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.