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.

___________________
I live in a Trance, muzik is my XTC, is what makes you dream, feel all those phat feelings... that no other gives!

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.

NO

___________________
"A style that's impossible to define. Prog? Hardly. Tech house? Not boring enough. It's like trippy twisted acid house but deep and funky. See, I told you - impossible."

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

___________________

Download all my EuroHardTrance traxx & learn more about me ("Kompulsor"):
www.kompulsor.com

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.

___________________
Todays youth have desacrated music with the popification of all generes. FOR SHAME.

MUSIC GURU - 2002.

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.

___________________

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

___________________
FFM Überseetouristik Sorglos Service GmbH
Lässt mich träumen...
Essential selection Switzerland 2008

quote:

Frank-HH: Alles viel zu Geil hier! Overseas: Wir sind ja nicht zum Spass hier! Das höchste Gut im Leben ist Gesundheit und Liebe...

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.

quote:

Originally posted by intrinsic I second this.

What about the UN though?

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

___________________

"I expect to pass through life but once. If therefore, there be any kindness I can show, or any good thing I can do to any fellow being, let me do it now, and not defer or neglect it, as I shall not pass this way again."

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.

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