It's really playing with fire imho to attack Iraq. I mean that region is waaaaaay to unstable! And didn't we had enough of activity in that region the last decades?

You can't solve violence with violence imho

mg src="http://mig.lathwood.co.uk/uploads/commie_smile.gif">mg src="http://mig.lathwood.co.uk/uploads/commie_smile.gif">mg src="http://mig.lathwood.co.uk/uploads/commie_smile.gif">

It really comes down to how many civilian casualties the US is willing to inflict in the urban warfare that is expected.
Will the US except high casualties or will they pound Bagdad to dust to minimize there casualties and suffer whatever comdemnation there is ?



[Edited on 17-1-2003 by mad scientist]

I respect your opinion and comment B, but I am left wondering what should be done regarding a murdering dictator, who refuses to disarm or negotiate?

Based on Saddamís latest rhetoric, he appears to be planning a house to house defence of his country. That may include hiding in houses where innocent civilians, including children are present. A cowardly choice in my opinion and demonstrates a total lack of concern for innocent lives being lost. The U.S. troops in the region have been training for that type of possible scenario for months now.

When Bin Ladenís group attacked the WTC, I doubted that he alone had the ability to make such a bold move without some type of high level Arab support. My mind immediately centred on Mr. Hussein and wondered if heíd found a willing puppet-group to do his dirty work for him.

I seriously doubt that anyone in the U.S. really wants this war and would much rather avoid any possible loss of life. But what is the alternative? Sit back, hoping for the best and wait until another terrorist attack happen? The terrorist groups certainly havenít made any announcements about disarming and leaving the U.S. in peace ñ in fact, just the opposite.

I hope Mr. Bush remains objective and wise in his decisions about this issue. I also hope that heís not transferring his own feelings around his fatherís decision (possibly humiliation or guilt) to halt the U.S. troops short of toppling Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War ñ and may be trying to vindicate that.

Personally I feel that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous person who would gladly use any and all means to destroy America, Israel and the entire free Western world ñ including Britain, France, Germany and Australia. Should Saddam still possess WMD, I have little doubt that he would use them against his enemies ñ including those within Iraq. Heís already proven his willingness to do that and any person that would lure his son-in-law back only to murder him is deranged and a menace to the world.

So in the final analysis: what should the free world do about terrorists and those regimes that fund and support them?

Food for thought,
Deep

Haven't we heard this before????

Oh yeah, it was some MOTHER OF ALL BATTLES thingy-ma-gig.

If we'll actually get statistics on how many Iraqi soldiers surrender to Wolf Blitzer....???

Saddam is an idiot.His back is against the wall.Of course he is going to talk tough.But he is talking tough to the wrong military.He has to know his time in power is short.I also expect him to run.I think a lot of his tough talk is just a cover,so he can get out of Iraq.I just hope the U.S has a cruise missle with his name on it.

Originally posted by B
It's really playing with fire imho to attack Iraq. I mean that region is waaaaaay to unstable! And didn't we had enough of activity in that region the last decades?

You can't solve violence with violence imho

1) Where did you heard that ? Of course violence is usefull against violence.

If I smash your face with my fist, what do you do ? Crying ? Running ? Speaking with me ? OR FIGHTING ?

Tell me, what do you do ?

2) By saying that violence is not the solution, you're admiting that Saddam is violent !

So, what's your solution ? Giving him money? Food ? wealth ? What ????

What is your solution ?

I wonder what will be your solution. Since many millenium, everybody knows that tyrans don't care about peace talking ( do you remember Hitler ? )

So, if we can't attack him, and can't speak with him, what's YOUR brightfull and wonderfull solution ? Wait and see may be ?

In la-la land one must not take on evil. One must appease them by giving them whatever they want. By attacking evil one becomes more evil than evil, got it?

I see. So, if we want to be the ultimate in good, we will allow them to totally destroy us. That, of course, would make them ultimate evil.
Wait a minute, if we allow them to destroy us, thereby letting them become hideously evil, that would mean we aided in creating evil. We cannot tolerate that. By using liberal logic, I have demonstrated why we must destroy kill Saddam.
Alrighty then, now that we are on the same sheet of music, let's push the button and get it done!

[Edited on 19-1-2003 by Thomas Crowne]

Originally posted by B


You can't solve violence with violence imho

actually it goes something like this. you can't negotiate with evil, you have to destroy it. all that appeasing evil does is make it think it can get away with more. it's like your 2 year old. you take him out to, say the mall. you say stay close, and a little later you see him sneaking a couple steps away. if you say nothing pretty soon you're gonna see him sneaking 10 steps away. still if you say nothing a little later you will see him 20 steps away. and again if you say nothing a little later your kids lost. so therfore you don't let your kid get more than 2 steps away. well my my friends sadam is about 20 steps away and it's time to go get him back and smack the hell out of him to teach him not to do that again.