Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Saddam Hussein To Instigate Regional War  
User currently offlineTwaneedsnohelp From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3750 times:

This is why the US and UK need to destroy the Iraqi dictator:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-373053,00.html

Why can apologize for this? Why can gleefully celebrate a Swiss embassy after reading this? Who can deride a US embargo after reading this?

This argument is finnished. Goodbye.

TNNH

89 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSAS23 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3606 times:

Russell, given that the US has desperately been trying to get UN approval of its planned invasion, don't you think that if this information was kosher then they would have presented it to the Security Council? Instead, the report is full of "suspected", "believed" and "could". Nothing definite or proven at all.

User currently offlineLeezyjet From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 4042 posts, RR: 53
Reply 2, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3598 times:

The guy has pretty much kept himself to himself for the last few years, so why not just leave it at that, He'll be dead soon anyway, isn't he in his 70's now ??. He's also agreed to hold talks again with the UN weapons inspectors, the guy ain't stoopid, he knows the US are serious and would kick his a$$ from here to eternity.

Personally tho', I think that they should concentrate on the real reason that Saddam and Osama hate the US/West and make Israel withdraw from the occupied territories, that's what most of their anger is about, I'm sure that would have much more of an effect than blasting Iraq from here to kingdom come, as doing that is only going to incite other Moslem nations to join with him, and before you know it WW3 will kick off.

Just my 2p worth.



"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
User currently offlineKROC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3583 times:

"Real" reason Saddamn and Osama hate the U.S.

SAS, defending anything against the U.S. and Israel.

Face it, no matter what, Saddamn is a menace. Because he has "kept to himself" (which is a load of garbage) the last few years means he not funding and arming Palestinian terrorists? Please. His dirty work could get done, and best of all for him, he wouldn't even have to do it. Just pay for it to be done. Time to make Iraq a parking lot.


User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 4, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3681 times:

He has been trying to start a regional wide war in that area since 1991.


"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8188 posts, RR: 54
Reply 5, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3569 times:

All he's interested in is survival. He isn't going to start a regional war. In what way is the fact that he has kept to himself "garbage"? I don't recall Iraq invading anywhere lately. Why would you want to make Iraq a parking lot? And kill tens of millions of innocent Iraqis? KROC, you sound like Hitler or worse. Keep your unpleasant attitudes quiet.


fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineSAS23 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3544 times:

The only reason that Dubya wants to go after Saddam is because Saddam tried to have his old man assassinated. Personal conflicts should not interfere with affairs of state!

The Americans, with all the resources of the CIA (plus those of the Mossad via their Israeli allies) at their disposal, have not been able to put any conclusive proof in front of the UN Security Council that Saddam is indeed developing any weapons of mass destruction.

The problem is that without a UN Resolution in place giving them a mandate to invade Iraq, the Americans will be reduced to the same position as Al Qu'aida or Iraq when it invaded Kuwait ... that of an aggressor invading another sovereign state without cause; a state guilty of international terrorism against Iraqi civilians. Right now, the Americans still occupy a small amount of moral high ground (though that is being rapidly eroded with their illegal detention of foreign nationals in Camp X Ray) - but an escapade like this would destroy all credibility they have, especially in the Middle East.

Of course, Israel is very keen for the Americans to go in and finish off Saddam, thereby destabilising the region and hoping that the Iranians will turn their attentions on Iraq and away from them.

KROC - the US government is arming and funding (to the tune of US$6.7 billion last year) Israeli state terrorism against Palestinian civilians. Is it any wonder at all that in many militant Islamic eyes, the United States or "Great Satan" is held to blame for the woes of their Muslim brothers in Palestine?


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 7, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3534 times:

"Wag the dog" will be on ZDF TV in an hour.

Coincidence? Or just a sarcastic commentary?

It seems nothing short of a major invasion could save Dubja from his personal corporate quagmire.

Maybe someone should check Dubya´s weapons of mass distraction, while we´re at it...  Wink/being sarcastic


User currently offlineCyril B From France, joined Jun 2001, 396 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3532 times:

Saddam is not, in my opinion, a direct menace to the world. But the US want to replace him, so they try to prove to their allies that Saddam has already the possibility to use mass destruction weapons.

This kind of strategy is not new: in 1956, France, the UK and Israel simulated an attack from the egyptians to justify their invasion of the Sinaï desert and their occupation Suez.



User currently onlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3516 times:

"illegal detention of foreign nationals "

First we have every right to hold them until the War/ hostilities end, that's in the Geneva convention.

And second they are not US citizens, they are not in the US. Thus they are not protected under the US Constitution, they are on a US Military installation outside the US. They are being detained as enemy combatants, in human conditions.

If you want to cry for them , knock yourself out pal.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13252 posts, RR: 77
Reply 10, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3495 times:

The argument isn't about if Saddam is a bad guy, and that the world would be a better place without him. That's self-evident.
Trouble is, you can think of plenty of leaders the world would be a better place without, plenty of them if not allies, are certainly not enemies either, rather they are trading partners, like that homicidal bunch in China.
Iraq's tragedy is that it should be an advanced nation, Ba'ath Party rule since the 1960's, and worse Saddam's Stalin-esque rule since 1979, has retarded the nation.
Most Iraqis just want what most people want, so the idea of turning them 'into a carpark' is pretty sick.
And before some of you get off on some kind of John Wayne/Rambo trip, just think how US public opinion will change if the body bags coming home reaches 3 figures fairly quickly.
Now that would not be a concern if there was proof that Saddam had a hand in Sept 11th, if he had, he'd be gone by now, whatever it took.
An attack would have real legitimacy, the rest of NATO, the EU, all would back it.
But there is no proof, despite some pretty lame attempts by some in the Bush administration last year to point the finger.
If the British Prime Minister, virtually impregnable at home, wants to risk destroying his career like some latter-day Anthony Eden, (the last PM to go into a military adventure without clear majority public support), that's his lookout.
However, if evidence that Saddam is really a clear and present danger can be presented, and it's accepted by bodies such as the UN, (or at least general Western allies in the UN) and EU, then I'll stand corrected.
Some cobbled together half-truths and rumours to satisfy the seemingly compliant US mainstream media won't do.
I wonder if the military planners in the Pentagon, who have the unenviable task of planning some kind of action that has a good chance of working, without turning the region into a chemical/biological battleground, with mass civilian deaths, potential heavy US casualties, potentially disastrous political fall-out, economic dangers from mid-east instability and much more besides, are quite as gung-ho as the civilians in the administration and parts of the media?




User currently offlineKROC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3494 times:

Cedarjet. KROC, you sound like Hitler or worse. Keep your unpleasant attitudes quiet

I am sounding like Hitler? LMAO.

In what way is the fact that he has kept to himself "garbage"? I don't recall Iraq invading anywhere lately. Why would you want to make Iraq a parking lot? And kill tens of millions of innocent Iraqis?

Do you think because the BBC or CNN hasn't said anything, that Saddam is just "surviving"? As for Killing innocent Iraqi's. Let me rephase. The Parking Lot scenario in to an educated person obviously an unrealistic goal, and is said more out of frustration with the situation. Let me say this though, if Saddam is so innocent and "trying to survive", why is he arming Palestinian terrorists with weapons to use against the U.S.? Answer that one hotrod. How about a little Darwinism for you. Survival Of The Fittest. If he plans on attacking the U.S. in any manor, we should stop him first.

Oh, and SAS, you can mention all you want about the U.S. arming and funding Israel. You can even call them a terrorist state (to which I will chuckle), but until you admit that Palestine is a haven for terrorist groups, and that Saddam is supporting them with his money, your point will go nowhere to anyone with a rational though in there head.


User currently offlineCyril B From France, joined Jun 2001, 396 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3493 times:

Good post GDB.
Like Chirac and Schroeder said last week, a military operation against Irak must recieve support from the UN.
And before the planning of such a giant and very risky operation, the US must show evidences that Saddam is a serious danger for the stability of the middle east, to justify an invasion of Iraq.
You can't invade a country as you want. In the international law, only defensive war is accepted. The 1990-1991 conflict was a defensive one. This time its not the case.

If the US are not able to gain a clear support from the UN and from their allies, there is a risk to see a developping kind of solidarity from other arab countries towards Irak, who would have a role of victim. Then, the end of such a general conflict would perhaps be dramatic.


User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 19
Reply 13, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3487 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I am slightly confused, some are saying the US needs a UN mandate before any strike against Iraq, whereas only today i read an article in the newspapaper where the writer says that US doesn't need any official UN backing.

So does it or not?



In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offlineCyril B From France, joined Jun 2001, 396 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3486 times:

The US doesn't need any UN backing to strike Iraq, but it would be far better if they could have one. Otherwise, it could be considered by some countries as an aggression.


User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 19
Reply 15, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3479 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

OK, let's imagine the US does strike Iraq, Saddam Hussain is almost toppled and he knows it, and that moment he decides to have the final say and launches some of the WMD/biological/chemical weapons that he probably has at either the US or Israel as a counter strike resulting in mass casualties, then what happens?



In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offlineKROC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3477 times:

If the U.S. wants to attack Iraq, they will. The thing is, they will do so with the support of allied nations and with probable cause. Remember, we are nothing but a bunch of keyboard politicians and generals, and nothing is as cut and dry as we would like to think it is.

User currently offlineCyril B From France, joined Jun 2001, 396 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3473 times:

A terrible death toll...


User currently offlineCyril B From France, joined Jun 2001, 396 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3472 times:

I hope you're right KROC..

User currently offlineKROC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3468 times:

Cyril B. I'm being totally serious. It is very easy for me, you, and others to sit back and judge things. We might know about 10 percent of any given issue just because. America is also not the big bully we are portrayed to be. any American military action will have probably cause, if not justifiable proof. And for the record, loss of life on any side is terrible, but when we know Saddam is funding Palestinian terrorists for strikes against the U.S., then it becomes a matter of we need to get them, before they get us. It's a situation where nobody can possibly win.

User currently offlineCyril B From France, joined Jun 2001, 396 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3462 times:

I'm serious KROC. A war is always something serious.
From a personnal point of view, I think it would be a good thing te remove Saddam, 'cause Iraq and perhaps the middle east would be in a better shape without him.

But a war in this part of the world, its like an "elephant in a glass store", and the US needs to be very careful.



User currently offlineSAS23 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3457 times:

Here in the UK, the government has been presented with a legal opinion that its position would be legally untenable should it participate in any attack on Iraq without a legitimate mandate from the UN Security Council; or if Iraq attacked a country with which the UK has a defence pact (such as Oman, the UAE or Bahrain).

Given that, and given the increasing opposition from most Britons to any attack, Tony Blair is currently trying to do a fast U turn on his earlier position; as evidenced by his recent talks with King Abdullah of Jordan.

KROC - what Palestinian attacks against the US? Can you point to any evidence that this has happened? Sure, Iraq has allegedly paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers US$10,000 a pop; but that's an Israeli problem and not an American one. Don't confuse the issues, dear boy!

It is clear that on the current lack of any justification or evidence presented by the US, any attack would be not just wholly illegal but would alienate further the Arab world against the US; and provide clear evidence of the US acting unilaterally as a global bully-boy.


User currently offlineKROC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3453 times:

Cyril B. But a war in this part of the world, its like an "elephant in a glass store", and the US needs to be very careful

Do you think that any country takes the possibility of war lightly? Many people make it out like the U.S. just acts on impulse when it comes to war. Believe me, any action the U.S. 'might' take will have been thought over, planned, and discussed with allied nations. And I am dead positive the U.S. knows the worst case consequences to middle eastern actions.

SAS. I am referring to the reports that Saddam has helped fund Al-Quada as well as the fact he could be funding Palestinian terrorists for actions against Israel and the U.S. If that can be confirmed, that is when I say "get him, before he gets us".


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 23, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3432 times:

Both Iran and Saudi Arabia have just declared that they are firmly opposed to an attack on Iraq.

Chancellor Schröder has repeated his September 11th statement: The USA have our full solidarity, but we´ll not take part in any "adventures".

Without a clear political strategy with regards to the middle east, Germany will not participate in a war against Iraq. Nor would it lend support of any kind to such an undertaking under these circumstances.

With Israel/Palestine burning violently (and with the Bush administration basically leaving the problem to Ariel Sharon´s "capable" hands), opening yet another front right next door is probably the stupidest thing imaginable.

Bush has really succeeded in wrecking most of the "coalition against terrorism", that much is certain.


User currently onlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3450 times:

The US has the right under international law to go into "hot persuit" of enemies which have struck at us and may do so again.

The Stated US policy in the days after 9-11 is to not distinguish from the terrorists and the countries/regimes/organizations that harbor or give aide to them.

A direct connection between Iraq and 9-11 might be hard (for a reason), Iraqi intelligence was directly tied to Ramsey Yussef and the terrorists who bombed the WTC in 1993. Later Ramsey Yusef was captured in the Philipines attempting to blow up simualtaniously many US airliners over the Pacific (Mode of operation sound fimiliar) .

And those terrorists from 1993 have direct links to Al Qaeda and UBL.

So a direct link from UBL to Sadam might be hard to prove (for a reason), however they both hangout with the same people.

Czech Republic's intelligence agency monitored last Summer a meeting between the Iraqi Intelligence leader and Mohamed Atta in Prague, this information is from the Czechs not the CIA.

So draw your on conclusions, there's no direct evidence. But there's a hell of alot of supporting evidence, if it quacks like a duck...

UBL and his network like Ramsey Yusef before him are just hired thugs, they needed training, support, and experience you can't get in the Afghanistan desert.

I believe the US has enough evidence to point to Sadam Hussein as being heavily involved in the 9-11 attacks.

Sadam Hussein and UBL have the same goals, drive the US out of Saudi Arabia.

All this Israeli -Palestinian stuff is just a distraction. And it's been working, Sadam tried to get Israel to react the way they are now back in '91 when he was lobbing Scud missles into Tel Aviv hoping to drag Israel into the war to distract the moderate Arab States from supporting the US led campaign.

They failed in ' 91, they're doing a better job today that's for sure.




Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
25 Eg777er : We can debate the justification for attacking Iraq for almost ever. Personally, I think there are more pressing troubles in the Middle East which woul
26 Post contains links SAS23 : Eg777er is spot on: there are indeed many more pressing issues in the region - Tony Blair has said to Bush that he wants the Israeli/Palestinian issue
27 Klaus : There´s a growing suspicion that Bush is just trying to mask his failures in several areas (among them their shrugging off of the Israel/Palestine co
28 Go Canada! : Well this hasnt surprised me one bit, saddam is an menance to the world. Arguements to counteract any plan to remove him such as, 'oh well he hasnt st
29 SAS23 : Go Canada! - most of what you said is perfectly true. Saddam is bad news - especially for his own people. However, the problem is that would his remov
30 Go Canada! : Perhaps you could read Forsyth's "the fist of god" then? Saddams removal will improve things,not only on a regional basis but an international one. Sa
31 Leezyjet : Saddam is funding the Palestinians to fight the Israeli's who are funded by the US. That's what it's all about. If the US stopped helping to arm the I
32 Artsyman : Tom Clancy wrote a great book about this scenario. Perhaps you should read it as it seems to be coming eerily true! What is the book called ?, I usual
33 Go Canada! : "If this war on terrorism was a genuine war on terrorism, then why have the US not invaded Northern Ireland to stop terrorism there ??? or Invaded Nor
34 GDB : I think there would be a lot more support for action if Bush reigned-in Sharon. It's do-able, threaten to cut the cash and weapons, no more almost unc
35 Go Canada! : there needs to be peace for both palestinian and israeli but this shouldnt stop us removing saddam
36 G-KIRAN : The USA can go it alone as they have the capability to do it.It can be said that they only want other nations to join in so that it appeasrs that it i
37 Leezyjet : Imagine if the UK reponded to terrorist attacks by the IRA, by sending in helicopter gunships and fighter a/c to bomb Belfast.....there would be uproa
38 SAS23 : Don't forget that the majority of funding for the IRA came from the USA!!
39 Go Canada! : sas23, it didnt, a significant proportion did, but not the majority.The ira often funded their attacks through crimial activities.
40 STT757 : Folks this whole Al Qaeda and Sadam are just trying to help the Palestiinians is a bunch of shit. Al Qaeda could care less about them. Is Israel the r
41 GDB : That may be true, but it's not how those in the mid East see it, and the US is proposing to fight in their neck of the woods, not downtown USA. Reigni
42 Post contains images SAS23 : Hmmm, so STT757 did some 2,000 Brits (including citizens of Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK) die on 9/11 then? And as for your claim that Al
43 Leezyjet : The initial underlying problem is the USA's funding of the Israeli's, thats why Saddam and Osama are p!$$ed, but they also do not actually like each o
44 STT757 : I am going to lecture you, Im personally effected. Many residents from my town , including a poor guy from the literally around the corner from me was
45 Go Canada! : no sas, no sas, no sas.wrong again. for all bin ladens talk did you see al-queda attack israel??? no...why? because 1)he wouldnt dare 2) as normal wit
46 Post contains links and images SAS23 : Go Canada - so Jordan isn't an Arab state then? More on the Israeli weapons of mass destruction here: http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/02.03/0331st
47 Go Canada! : i made a response but somehow its not on here so ill post again, i assure all it wasnt rude in the slightest. there is a difference between iraq and i
48 Alpha 1 : SAS23, a rhetorical question for you: what if it is proved that Saddam is trying to instigate regional warfare with the use of biological or chemical
49 SAS23 : Alpha 1 - I have absolutely no problem at all with Saddam being taken out. The problem I do have is that if we in the West are trying to maintain the
50 Post contains links Eg777er : Just to add a bit more fuel to the metaphorical fire, it seems that one of Britain's highest ranking soldiers has spoken out: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/
51 L-188 : Sure, Iraq has allegedly paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers US$10,000 a pop; but that's an Israeli problem and not an American one. Don'
52 SAS23 : L188 - and I am sure that the Palestinian families of those killed by Israeli weapons supplied and paid for by the United States would agree that it's
53 ILOVEA340 : Rather than start attacking more countries now the USA truely needs to look at the reasons as to why there is hostility towards it. I for one have got
54 Post contains images Cfalk : ILOVEA340, The U.S. is the world's most powerful nation, both economically and militarily. It is so because of it's strong capitalist system, which is
55 Alpha 1 : Since you're so smart, Alpha 1 - answer this. Who, exactly, should take over when Saddam is deposed? See, there's the difference between you and me, S
56 Go Canada! : SAS23, yet again your twist and distort. THERE IS NO confusion regarding iraq finacing suicide bombers. Sky news have proof that iraq has been financi
57 Alpha 1 : Oh, no, go Canada, it's worse than appeasement. On one hand, SAS23, the new Minister of Propoganda, Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics, wants the world
58 Srbmod : The problem is that Dubya's daddy didn't want to piss off Russia, so the Coalition brokered a cease fire (not a surrender) with Iraq after they were f
59 Post contains links and images SAS23 : Big difference, Alpha 1, is that the Israelis are currently going around killing Palestinians and the Palestinians are doing the same to the Israelis.
60 STT757 : "Saddam, on the other hand, isn't currently using any WMDs or invading anyone at all." Charles Manson didn't kill anyone personally, he had his Hippie
61 Alpha 1 : The problem is that Dubya's daddy didn't want to piss off Russia, so the Coalition brokered a cease fire (not a surrender) with Iraq after they were f
62 SAS23 : STT757, don't you think that if there was the slightest proof ... even circumstantial evidence - that Saddam was involved with 9/11 the Americans woul
63 Alpha 1 : Wrong! Dead Wrong. Russia wasn't the problem-it was the Arab members of the coalition, my friend. After looking at my statement here, I think I need t
64 SAS23 : Alpha 1 - wrong again. If the US-led Coalition pushed on to Baghdad, it would have been operating outside the UN remit, which was simply to remove the
65 Srbmod : Why all of a sudden has Iraq changed it's mind? Is it because they know that the U.S. is ready to take action against them? I mean for years, they wer
66 Ryanb741 : Srbmod - they are saying they will let the inspectors in to try to gain the moral advantage. If the allies attack when Iraq has said it will let in ar
67 STT757 : The US doesn't have proof, yet that we know of because Sadam is smart enough not to put a return address on this kind of operation. In fact he put a f
68 GDB : Despite the unpleasant nature of the Saudi regime (which the west didn't give a flying one about until recently), implying that because most of the Se
69 STT757 : I didn't say that the Saudi Gov't had anything to with the hijackers, but some people (UBL ,Sadam) would like the US to feel betrayed by the Kingdon's
70 Alpha 1 : If the US-led Coalition pushed on to Baghdad, it would have been operating outside the UN remit, which was simply to remove the Iraqis out of Kuwait.
71 Cfalk : "taking hostage a U.S. Congressional Delegation" I can hear the American crowds dancing in the streets at that news. Oh please let Ted Kennedy be one
72 SAS23 : Alpha 1, I suspect that the primary reason the Arab League didn't want an extension to the 'remove Iraq from Kuwait' mandate to include 'remove Saddam
73 EmiratesLover : I find this very hard to believe. It is ironic that while most of the countries in the region desperately do not want war, America is still pushing fo
74 FDXmech : It is ironic that while most of the countries in the region desperately do not want war, America is still pushing for it.The other reality is that non
75 Donder10 : You think the Saudi royal family don't want to maintain the status quo?
76 FDXmech : Hypothetical question. If in September 1939 the British and French mounted a successful counteroffensive and liberated Poland, would WW2 be over?
77 Alpha 1 : If in September 1939 the British and French mounted a successful counteroffensive and liberated Poland, would WW2 be over? Go one or two steps before
78 Post contains images SAS23 : The problem though, Alpha 1, is that if we regard ourselves as global policemen, then we must seen to be acting within the law rather than holding our
79 Post contains links SAS23 : Tony Blair has assured senior colleagues that war against Iraq is "a long way off", Whitehall sources said yesterday as Britain distanced itself from
80 Go Canada! : "I can hear the American crowds dancing in the streets at that news. Oh please let Ted Kennedy be one of them!" If hillary was part of it, id open the
81 Heavymetal : Saddam, the 'Mother of all Windbags'.
82 SAS23 : Go Canada! - more wishful thinking on your part, I'm afraid. The majority of Britons - over 60% - are opposed to participation in any attack on Iraq;
83 NWA742 : I just have to point some things out here: Why am I not surprised that SAS23 is against any attack on the terrorist-supporting Saddam Hussein? HMMMMMM
84 Alpha 1 : SAS23, you and I are on opposite ends on most everything, including Saddam Hussein and his band of murdering men. But I'm going to surprise you here-a
85 Post contains images NWA742 : I agree completely with Alpha 1. There's no need to invade Iraq just to overthrow Saddam. The US is not interested in anyone in Iraq other than Hussei
86 Post contains images Alpha 1 : Alpha 1, there is a problem with what you said though. If we were to assasinate Saddam, people in our military would be fighting over who would get to
87 Post contains images SAS23 : Alpha 1 - we're in agreement on this one! Hang on .... is that crashing noise I hear the sound of the sky falling around me?!? Oh, and look ... there'
88 Post contains links and images SAS23 : This editorial from today's Daily Telegraph shows how little support there is in the UK for an attack on Iraq. British voters have little liking or re
89 Go Canada! : sas23, wishful thinking on your part, britain would take part in any military action...which hasnt happened yet...because there isnt any concrete plan
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
UAE Says Saddam Agreed To Exile Before War posted Sun Oct 30 2005 06:19:55 by 102IAHexpress
Saddam Hussein To Make Statement To Kuwaiti People posted Sat Dec 7 2002 13:51:52 by BizJets
Saddam Hussein Bribed Chirac To Oppose The War posted Wed Jan 28 2004 23:14:52 by MD-90
Saddam Hussein: Letter To The American People posted Mon Aug 21 2006 02:30:13 by NWDC10
Your Birthday Message To Saddam Hussein posted Mon Apr 28 2003 15:20:11 by RayPettit
Journalist Opposed To Russia's Chechen War Killed posted Mon Oct 9 2006 05:33:48 by N229NW
Welcome Back To The Cold War.... posted Sat Aug 5 2006 09:53:48 by Beaucaire
Is Saddam Hussein Getting A Fair Trial? posted Mon Jul 24 2006 18:48:43 by Dc10s4ever
Saddam, Osama Offer Apologies For War posted Sat May 27 2006 18:08:32 by Mrmeangenes
Man Jailed For Plot To Kill Iraq War Hero posted Fri Jan 27 2006 02:20:22 by Jetjack74