Powell on Iraq

[Mad Mike]

Code now you have stooped to lies. To post somthing that I never said and atribute it to a quote by me is pathetic.

There are a million responses to my toung in cheek comment that would have garnered a chuckle from me. Making up sh!t is not one of them. I suppose I should not be suprised though, nothing you have said yet has any basis in reality.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Art

Code,

Seriously dude, you appear to be off in never-never land here. We're not talking about going into Iraq to protect Israel. We're not talking about going into Iraq to protect the region. We're not talking about going into Iraq to protect Iraqis. We're talking about going into Iraq to protect ourselves. If you seriously don't get that, then shut the hell up now, because that type of ignorance can not be supported by anything other than a seriously twisted individual who has decided to ignore the totality of reality and simply spew forth leftist rhetoric seemingly given him by the Hollywood left. It is unimaginable to people to see someone talking like you're talking here as if you simply haven't been awake during the whole debate and you simply clicked on now.

Art, I've lost all respect for you. To say that we are going to war with Iraq to protect ourselves... you've got to be kidding. There is no way in hell a scud missle is going to hit the US from Iraq. There is no way that Iraq is going to invade the US. Read some of the other right wing posts.... Do you really think that Iraq is building up WMD to use ONLY on their own people? No.. they would likely use them agains Isreal or another country in the middle east.

The United States is NOT at risk from an invasion or missle strike from Iraq. If we were attacked in some way, it would be a terrorist attack done out of cowardice, not from Iraq.

To say I'm twisted because I value american lives more than Iraqi lives.. what gives? Every argument that you get into is based on the fact that you think your opinion is fact. You believe that no one else can be right in any matter.

Sorry, but I can at least recognise that my opinion is just that, it's an opinion.

You can reply if you like, but I will Ignore you from here on out...

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Mad Mike

Code now you have stooped to lies. To post somthing that I never said and atribute it to a quote by me is pathetic.

There are a million responses to my toung in cheek comment that would have garnered a chuckle from me. Making up sh!t is not one of them. I suppose I should not be suprised though, nothing you have said yet has any basis in reality.

My point was to show that I can do the same or worse than you are doing. You choose to take only part of what I say and put it in quotes... that's really cute.

I give up. Consider your self ignored as well.

[redman]

Originally posted by codeorama

Mad Mike, I don't want US citizens dieing because of some dumb a$$es who choose of their own free will to support Saddam. Why should our troops die for their sorry a$$es? I am not in the military, but I have family that is, I know that they didn't sign up to defend Iraqui citizens, they signed up to defend the United States.

If they don't know by now that there is a very very strong chance that there is going to be war, than they are freakin stupid.

P.S. I'm glad that you are god and you can judge everone else...

Are you in the military Mad Mike? Are you risking your life? Are you sending your son or daughter overseas to fight someone else's war? If not, than shut the hell up.

Code,

with due respect to you, you're oversimplifying this problem. First of all, Hussein is not a democratically elected leader. He's a ruthless, bloodthirsty, autorcratic tyrant. Even suggesting that someone else should lead Iraq can lead to one's killing there, as evidenced by a true story from the Iran-Iraq War: A respected government minister was summarily and immediately executed upon simply suggesting that Saddam step down from power (and only temporarily) as a symbolic gesture to Khomenei to bring about peace between Iran and Iraq. His body was shipped in pieces to his wife when she personally pled with Saddam to "return him to me". Even the people within Saddam's own camp are more and more distrusted, and live just about as much under his thumb as do the commoners.

Second, to deny that the implications of Saddam's regime and WMD's do not extend outside of the borders of Iraq (by claiming "we're fighting their war!") is tantamount to simply burying one's head in the proverbial sand. Those weapons, while they've of course been used on Iraqi's, are developed as tools of Saddam's ruthless and sadistic foreign policy. He wants to dominate the region, and he sees WMD's as a legitimately used tool to bring about that end. And every month that passes, not only does he have more such weapons, but he also have improved means of delivering them farther and farther away.

This is what this is about. If you're not on board with it despite, fine. But please don't ignore or alter the facts in order to make your point.

[Art]

Code,

I am absolutely floored by you. You think we're worried about a scud missile you complete friggen idiot? We don't care about a conventional missile. We don't care about the entire Iraqi Navy. We don't give a rat's *** about the whole Iraqi Army. We aren't worried about an invasion you twit. What the hell is wrong with you?

We're worried about two Iraqi citizens, with the support and funding of the government, smuggling in a chemical, biological or nuclear agent into this nation and impacting hundreds of thousands of people. Are you seriously so twisted an individual that you've MISSED THE ENTIRE CHANGE IN THE FABRIC OF WHAT WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT AS A NATION?

Do we keep talking about weapons of mass destruction as code for, "We're scared silly of Iraq invading us." Or, do you think the worry over Iraq having weapons of mass destruction is how they might use it, or how they might allow others to use it?

We're not debating a difference of opinion Code. We're enlightening the fact that you are not even tangentially touching the world of the living with your comments here. It's not an OPINION that we're worried about Iraq because of what they might do with weapons of mass destruction. It's fact. When the President alludes to 9-11 with a chemical, or biological or nuclear agent, do you just fall asleep and then wake up and think he said, "We're scared the Iraqis might send a scud towards Israel?"

You should NEVER speak with the total lack of awareness you are showing here. EVER. It's a terrible indictment on what the hell you are as a person -- blind and blissfully uneducated as to the topic -- that would allow you to COMPLETELY MISS THE EFFING POINT. That's all on you.

Take your own advice. Ignore me. But, do not speak again with the continued inability to even offer some mild comprehension that NOTHING you said even hints at capturing anything anyone is talking about. You are, with the most lunatic fringe of the left, the only people in the world to totally ignore what the actual issue is while making up reasons to be against it on issues no one else is even considering.

But, if it makes you feel better, I too am not for war in the slightest with Iraq over worries of them invading us. In fact, I will assassinate the President the MOMENT he says, "We're afraid of Iraq's ability to project military power onto our shores and to harm our people." See, we completely agree. Now, come out of the rabbit hole and join is on Earth please.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by redman

Code,

with due respect to you, you're oversimplifying this problem. First of all, Hussein is not a democratically elected leader. He's a ruthless, bloodthirsty, autorcratic tyrant. Even suggesting that someone else should lead Iraq can lead to one's killing there, as evidenced by a true story from the Iran-Iraq War: A respected government minister was summarily and immediately executed upon simply suggesting that Saddam step down from power (and only temporarily) as a symbolic gesture to Khomenei to bring about peace between Iran and Iraq. His body was shipped in pieces to his wife when she personally pled with Saddam to "return him to me". Even the people within Saddam's own camp are more and more distrusted, and live just about as much under his thumb as do the commoners.

Second, to deny that the implications of Saddam's regime and WMD's do not extend outside of the borders of Iraq (by claiming "we're fighting their war!") is tantamount to simply burying one's head in the proverbial sand. Those weapons, while they've of course been used on Iraqi's, are developed as tools of Saddam's ruthless and sadistic foreign policy. He wants to dominate the region, and he sees WMD's as a legitimately used tool to bring about that end. And every month that passes, not only does he have more such weapons, but he also have improved means of delivering them farther and farther away.

This is what this is about. If you're not on board with it despite, fine. But please don't ignore or alter the facts in order to make your point.

Just to clarify, I am NOT saying that we should not go to war with Iraq. My ONLY point is that we should use air strikes as much as possible to save the lives of american troops. I have been called twisted and immoral because of this view. Based on other threads, it has already been pointed out that in Somolia, the civilians were used as human sheilds and it has also been pointed out that Saddam wants this war to go into the streets so that the civilians are in the way. My point is this... If I knew that my city or state was about to be bombed, I would leave... Saddam does not have enough troops to guard every border.. If he did that, this would be a very quick war. If those people are too stupid to stay there, I have no pity for them. The point has also been brought up that Saddam only allows them to know certain things... what about the millions of flyers that have been dropped... these people know what is about to happen.

I'm not saying kill them for the sake of killing... I'm saying do what ever it takes to save american lives...

[Mad Mike]

Code also ignores the very real threat that Sadam would happily hand a nuke to Al Qaeda who could then slip it onto a cargo ship and into NY harbor if he could. I guess those americans should simply move out of NY.

Powell has shown an Al Qaeda connection and as was said at the beginning of the war on terrorism "any nation that knowingly harbors terrorist will be considered terrorist themselves."

People who argue that Sadam and Iraq would not work with Al Qaeda are fools. As the saying goes, "the enemy of my enemy is my freind". Sadam would have no problem kissing up to and using Al Qaeda to attack us, then dumping them when he had no further use for them. Recently Sadam said in a speach that Iraq would prevail against the US "with the will of God". A figure of speach that is chillingly reminicent of Bin Ladens statements. Al Qaeda has said that the WTC attacks were in part a response to US troops in Saudi Arabia during the last gulf war. Do you realy think these people would not put aside their differences to get to us?

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Art

Code,

I am absolutely floored by you. You think we're worried about a scud missile you complete friggen idiot? We don't care about a conventional missile. We don't care about the entire Iraqi Navy. We don't give a rat's *** about the whole Iraqi Army. We aren't worried about an invasion you twit. What the hell is wrong with you?

We're worried about two Iraqi citizens, with the support and funding of the government, smuggling in a chemical, biological or nuclear agent into this nation and impacting hundreds of thousands of people. Are you seriously so twisted an individual that you've MISSED THE ENTIRE CHANGE IN THE FABRIC OF WHAT WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT AS A NATION?

Do we keep talking about weapons of mass destruction as code for, "We're scared silly of Iraq invading us." Or, do you think the worry over Iraq having weapons of mass destruction is how they might use it, or how they might allow others to use it?

Don't misrepresent me and make it seem like I'm against US action... After seeing Powell's speech, I'm for US action, but I'm not for a US invasion which would put American Troops at a huge risk.

We're not debating a difference of opinion Code. We're enlightening the fact that you are not even tangentially touching the world of the living with your comments here. It's not an OPINION that we're worried about Iraq because of what they might do with weapons of mass destruction. It's fact. When the President alludes to 9-11 with a chemical, or biological or nuclear agent, do you just fall asleep and then wake up and think he said, "We're scared the Iraqis might send a scud towards Israel?"

You should NEVER speak with the total lack of awareness you are showing here. EVER. It's a terrible indictment on what the hell you are as a person -- blind and blissfully uneducated as to the topic -- that would allow you to COMPLETELY MISS THE EFFING POINT. That's all on you.

Take your own advice. Ignore me. But, do not speak again with the continued inability to even offer some mild comprehension that NOTHING you said even hints at capturing anything anyone is talking about. You are, with the most lunatic fringe of the left, the only people in the world to totally ignore what the actual issue is while making up reasons to be against it on issues no one else is even considering.

But, if it makes you feel better, I too am not for war in the slightest with Iraq over worries of them invading us. In fact, I will assassinate the President the MOMENT he says, "We're afraid of Iraq's ability to project military power onto our shores and to harm our people." See, we completely agree. Now, come out of the rabbit hole and join is on Earth please.

How convienient... you are a moderator... I'm not allowed to ignore you...:doh:

You bring up 2 Iraqi citizens... what if those terrorists happen to be Iranian citizens or Isreali citizens that moved to Iraq and share their beliefs? That's where you are missing the EFFING point... A terrorist attack and an attack from another nation are two different things. I doubt very seriously that we will even know who is responsible when the next attack takes place. If we go to war with Iraq, does that make it more or less likely that there will be another terrorist attack in the US? Answer that one Art. If we remove Saddam, does that mean that we are safe from Terror? Does it? No it doesn't.

Don't misrepresent me, I am not against action vs. Iraq now after seeing Powell's speech, I am however against an Invasion that would put US troops in real danger. Being put into a situation where they have to decide who is the enemy and who isn't. Having civilians in the way.

[Art]

Code....

"How convienient... you are a moderator... I'm not allowed to ignore you... "

Then don't say you are. And being the moderator has NOTHING to do with it, Code. I only ban people for lying, or occasionally for being tone deaf. I will probably NEVER ban someone for stupidity, or even the type of harmful rhetoric that when spoken actually will end up hurting more Americans and damaging us as a people more than that person realizes. Here, for example, I find you to be a dangerous person. You are clearly not able to let yourself see what the issue is. You've created this fantasy that makes your view somehow acceptable. It's precisely that view that will get more Americans killed. But, it's also that view that makes people wonder if we're too stupid to live anyway.

"You bring up 2 Iraqi citizens... what if those terrorists happen to be Iranian citizens or Isreali citizens that moved to Iraq and share their beliefs? That's where you are missing the EFFING point... A terrorist attack and an attack from another nation are two different things. I doubt very seriously that we will even know who is responsible when the next attack takes place. If we go to war with Iraq, does that make it more or less likely that there will be another terrorist attack in the US? Answer that one Art. If we remove Saddam, does that mean that we are safe from Terror? Does it? No it doesn't."

Code, removing Saddam does not mean we are in the slightest bit free from terrorist attack. It does, however, mean, we are free from a biological attack sponsored by the government of Iraq. The only way to "end" terrorism is to destroy the entire region and then, because people will be upset about that, everyone else. We're never going to be free from terrorism. We CAN be free from Saddam using weapons of mass destruction he's been desperately attempting to create against us.

And, as I've discussed with someone else on this board, if we bomb them and destroy one dangerous material that could harm us, that's one less thing that could. As the numbers of things that could harm us are destroyed, that makes the world a little better and safer tomorrow than it is today. It's just a pity you don't know that.

[dchogs]

code code code,

you are way off base. saddam/iraq has WMD. terrorists want some WMD. saddam/iraq doesn't like the USA. terrorists frequently target the USA. powell proved today that iraq is an integral cog in the wheel of terrorism. we are going to war to stop the WMD that sadam/iraq has from going to terrorists. it isn't an israel thing. it isn't a thing about any other country. sure they will benefit from our action, but it isn't the driving force behind our/the UN's decision to go to war.

as to the civilian thing, sure civilians are going to be killed in any measures that we take, but the purposeful killing of all civilians by carpet bombing the country is a hideous thought that puts you on a level with other sick bastages that have enbraced widespread destruction of races of people.

and it may be your opinion, albeit a very misguided one. just don't act righteous and shocked when people here attempt to shine a light on your ignorance.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Art

Code....

"How convienient... you are a moderator... I'm not allowed to ignore you... "

Then don't say you are. And being the moderator has NOTHING to do with it, Code. I only ban people for lying, or occasionally for being tone deaf. I will probably NEVER ban someone for stupidity, or even the type of harmful rhetoric that when spoken actually will end up hurting more Americans and damaging us as a people more than that person realizes. Here, for example, I find you to be a dangerous person. You are clearly not able to let yourself see what the issue is. You've created this fantasy that makes your view somehow acceptable. It's precisely that view that will get more Americans killed. But, it's also that view that makes people wonder if we're too stupid to live anyway.

"You bring up 2 Iraqi citizens... what if those terrorists happen to be Iranian citizens or Isreali citizens that moved to Iraq and share their beliefs? That's where you are missing the EFFING point... A terrorist attack and an attack from another nation are two different things. I doubt very seriously that we will even know who is responsible when the next attack takes place. If we go to war with Iraq, does that make it more or less likely that there will be another terrorist attack in the US? Answer that one Art. If we remove Saddam, does that mean that we are safe from Terror? Does it? No it doesn't."

Code, removing Saddam does not mean we are in the slightest bit free from terrorist attack. It does, however, mean, we are free from a biological attack sponsored by the government of Iraq. The only way to "end" terrorism is to destroy the entire region and then, because people will be upset about that, everyone else. We're never going to be free from terrorism. We CAN be free from Saddam using weapons of mass destruction he's been desperately attempting to create against us.

And, as I've discussed with someone else on this board, if we bomb them and destroy one dangerous material that could harm us, that's one less thing that could. As the numbers of things that could harm us are destroyed, that makes the world a little better and safer tomorrow than it is today. It's just a pity you don't know that.

Art, Removing Saddam will NOT remove the threat of a chemical or nuclear terrorist attack... Wake up.... There are Russian scientists out there, Nightline ran a story a month ago showing former soviet scientists selling shoes at a flea market.. you mean to tell me they wouldn't jump at the opportunity to make tons of money... Evidently, our government is worried about it, there is tons upon tons of Antharx burried near the Aural sea that is still potent. Animals have carried the disease into villages. The potential for these terrorist threats will not cease with the removal of Saddam.

Again, I am not against Saddam's removal, I am against putting Iraqi citizens lives ahead of US citizens.

[Mad Mike]

I am however against an Invasion that would put US troops in real danger.

In the entire history of warfare, no war has ever been won without putting troops on the ground. Don't even bring up Japan In WWII unless you are stupid enough to suggest we nuke Iraq without provocation. In the last gulf war we bombed the holy living crap out of the Iraqi army and they did not budge untill we sent troops in on the ground.

Is it too much to ask that you have some sense of reality? Of course we will use air power to do as much as possible to reduce US casualtys in a ground assault. But when all is said and done we must use ground forces to finish the job. THAT is reality, and reality does not care if you like it or not.

[Kilmer17]

Just because there is another threat does not mean we should ignore this one.

Got to start somewhere.

[Art]

Again, Code, who said removing Saddam would remove the threat of a chemical or nuclear attack? That threat would remain. We'll have to take out the threat again as it is displayed as such. So, once again, I'm fully alert and awake and you continue to be only mildly engaged with reality at the moment.

So, once you figure out that no one in the world is saying the threat of such an attack will disappear with the removal of Saddam, perhaps you'll realize that some of the threat will disappear, and if I have a 5 percent chance of being so hurt today and a 4 percent change of being so hurt tomorrow, then I'm that much closer to totally removing the threat.

So, please, now that you are at least beating around the bush as to what the whole thing with Iraq is about, come the rest of the way and recognize that it's not about ending every threat of such import from the possibility of harming us. It's about removing the biggest existing threat and working down from there.

[Mad Mike]

Removing Saddam will NOT remove the threat of a chemical or nuclear terrorist attack

No, It will not. But it will REDUCE the posibility and the most likely source of those weapons. I guess in your "logic" that is not good enough and you would rather let that threat remain. :shootinth

[@DCGoldPants]

Not only removing him, but his sons and his complete Governement. Nobody should be allowed to be in a position of power from the group that is there now.

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by Art

Again, Code, who said removing Saddam would remove the threat of a chemical or nuclear attack? That threat would remain. We'll have to take out the threat again as it is displayed as such. So, once again, I'm fully alert and awake and you continue to be only mildly engaged with reality at the moment.

So, once you figure out that no one in the world is saying the threat of such an attack will disappear with the removal of Saddam, perhaps you'll realize that some of the threat will disappear, and if I have a 5 percent chance of being so hurt today and a 4 percent change of being so hurt tomorrow, then I'm that much closer to totally removing the threat.

So, please, now that you are at least beating around the bush as to what the whole thing with Iraq is about, come the rest of the way and recognize that it's not about ending every threat of such import from the possibility of harming us. It's about removing the biggest existing threat and working down from there.

OK, I guess I can preserve what remains of my sanity and go clean the garage for awhile. Art seems to have this well in hand. :laugh:

[redman]

Originally posted by codeorama

Just to clarify, I am NOT saying that we should not go to war with Iraq. My ONLY point is that we should use air strikes as much as possible to save the lives of american troops. I have been called twisted and immoral because of this view. Based on other threads, it has already been pointed out that in Somolia, the civilians were used as human sheilds and it has also been pointed out that Saddam wants this war to go into the streets so that the civilians are in the way. My point is this... If I knew that my city or state was about to be bombed, I would leave... Saddam does not have enough troops to guard every border.. If he did that, this would be a very quick war. If those people are too stupid to stay there, I have no pity for them. The point has also been brought up that Saddam only allows them to know certain things... what about the millions of flyers that have been dropped... these people know what is about to happen.

I'm not saying kill them for the sake of killing... I'm saying do what ever it takes to save american lives...

Then I REALLY don't understand your argument. You seem to want a war where no lives are lost. That's not the way it works unfortunately, so as long as we're not causing the war through our own intransigence (which we're not, Iraq is), then you have to accept that.

Now, with that assumption in mind we have a couple of things going for us. First, we have the best trained, organized and equipped military in the world. That brings about a quicker rather than slower resolution to conflicts and saves lives.

Ask the And second, I defy you to identify other country in the world that takes more pains than we do to spare innocent human life if there is any conceivable way to do that even during war. We do this even to the detriment of our own soldiers!

So again, I don't understand your protest here, unless it all just arises out of vocalizing concern over your relatives in the armed services, in which case I'd say that we're all with you in that.

[Sarge]

Code,

You're out there, buddy. If there was a way to win this thing without putting troops on the ground, I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Trust me, we are going to bomb them until it hurts. Were gonna put them in the dark the first night and fry all their electronic sh!t to boot. But to kill saddam and his crazy assed sons, we're gonna have to go get them. Once he and his buddies are gone, that is one less a$$hole that can use the resources of a nation state to cook up and disperse WMD to terrorist a$$holes. Does it reduce our chance of getting hit by WMD? You bet. Does it eliminate the chance altogether? No. In fact, I look for somebody that is already here to do something with WMD as soon as we start pounding Iraq. Maybe that is what it will finally take for all the lefties in country to shut the hell up and quit worrying about violating terrorist rights by rounding them up and kicking them the hell out of here, or having them disappear outright. It's gonna be a hell of a price to pay, but people, even since Sept 11th, have yet to wake up to what really needs to be done to to eliminate this threat. Damn, put me in charge of things for six months or so. I'll take care of the problem.

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by Air Sarge

Code,

You're out there, buddy. If there was a way to win this thing without putting troops on the ground, I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Trust me, we are going to bomb them until it hurts. Were gonna put them in the dark the first night and fry all their electronic sh!t to boot. But to kill saddam and his crazy assed sons, we're gonna have to go get them. Once he and his buddies are gone, that is one less a$$hole that can use the resources of a nation state to cook up and disperse WMD to terrorist a$$holes. Does it reduce our chance of getting hit by WMD? You bet. Does it eliminate the chance altogether? No. In fact, I look for somebody that is already here to do something with WMD as soon as we start pounding Iraq. Maybe that is what it will finally take for all the lefties in country to shut the hell up and quit worrying about violating terrorist rights by rounding them up and kicking them the hell out of here, or having them disappear outright. It's gonna be a hell of a price to pay, but people, even since Sept 11th, have yet to wake up to what really needs to be done to to eliminate this threat. Damn, put me in charge of things for six months or so. I'll take care of the problem.

You have my vote.

[NavyDave]

D@mn dude there is being blissfully ignorant , naive and blatantly stupid.

I wont point out how many times you are wrong code but lets just say on this subject that remaining silent, you wont be perceived as being stupid.

You just cant drop bombs everyone knows you need ground forces and even thou air force types will try to say thats what happen when we were fightin milosevic that is inaccurate since we utilized local anti milosevic forces on the ground.

[BG]

Other than those that are complete pacifists, I am having some difficulty understanding the reason behind opposing a war against Iraq. I fully undrstand that this could ignite a bigger flame in the Middle East

--bring it on. We need to kill/scatter and destroy terrorist networks and any organizations associated with them. If this brings them out GOOD.

Other countries are starting to show they're oppsition to us while our backs are turned dealing with what is at hand...

---If you've ever tried that against your big brother or someone bigger than you, you probobly found out the hard way that you got your *** handed to you in a way that you never dreamed of...

By the way, France should be next

The evidence isn't there

---no, you just choose to ignore it because like any human being, you do not want to see anyone hurt by going to war-- well--people have already been hurt.

This isn't like going into Vietnam. There is no draft so those who go to war willingly volunteer to fight. If there was a draft, I would be more than willing to serve my country. I am actually not proud of the fact that I passed up on the opportunity to join the military, and now it's too late.

Don't fool yourself by believing there are alterior motives that we are trying to accomplish, and that these motives would put our troops in jeopardy.

My only wish is that we'd have this already done and finished by now.........

[codeorama]

This is my last word on this topic. Obviously, some of you have not read my entire comments to understand the points I'm trying to make.

1. A ground campaign is likely to occur. My personal opinion put the value of US troops ahead of the lives of Iraqi citizens.

2. Because of this value, I believe that if this war is going to occur, the US should bomb Iraq heavily. Heavily enough to TRY to ensure that OUR troops suffer as few casualties as possible.

3. IF Iraqi citizens happen to be killed, so be it. I did not intend for my comments to imply that we should go in a slaughter every living person in Iraq.

4. Terrorist attacks and attacks by a nation are 2 different things. If 2 ramdom Americans get pissed off at France and decide to blow up the French Embassy, is that a US attack on France? NO, obviously not. Art wants to automatically connect the two. It doesn't always work that way. Saddam can be ousted, but the WMD will STILL be out there. It doesn't matter if Saddam is dead or alive, there is another nut waiting to bring the chemical weapons to the US.

That is what I have been saying. Based on some of your responses, some of you have taken my posts literally to the letter. I have been agitated because it seem like no one understands that American Soldiers will die... Americans...

Saddam is a nut, there is no doubt that he needs to be removed.

I was against war period until Powell's speech. Now, I have accepted the fact that something must be done, Though I'd prefer that we have allies on our side. Hopefully, that will take care of itself.

Nowhere in my posts has it said that we should purposefully slaughter everyone. They know it's coming, they can leave or be

[Art]

Code....

"This is my last word on this topic. Obviously, some of you have not read my entire comments to understand the points I'm trying to make."

We've read what you've said. It's what you've said that leaves something short.

"1. A ground campaign is likely to occur. My personal opinion put the value of US troops ahead of the lives of Iraqi citizens."

We all agree that we should put the lives of US troops ahead of Iraqi citizens. That doesn't alter the necessity of potentially having to have troops on the ground. So, this is inane and meaningless in the extreme.

"2. Because of this value, I believe that if this war is going to occur, the US should bomb Iraq heavily. Heavily enough to TRY to ensure that OUR troops suffer as few casualties as possible."

Fabulous. Then you've outlined the plan we engaged in during the first Gulf War and put it on paper for this one and your thoughts are precisely what everyone has been rumoring we will be doing for some time, so, since we're already planning on doing that, cheer up.

"3. IF Iraqi citizens happen to be killed, so be it. I did not intend for my comments to imply that we should go in a slaughter every living person in Iraq."

Woo hoo. So far nothing you've said is anything different than any sane, rational person would say and believe. Too bad none of this was what you said earlier.

"4. Terrorist attacks and attacks by a nation are 2 different things. If 2 ramdom Americans get pissed off at France and decide to blow up the French Embassy, is that a US attack on France? NO, obviously not. Art wants to automatically connect the two. It doesn't always work that way. Saddam can be ousted, but the WMD will STILL be out there. It doesn't matter if Saddam is dead or alive, there is another nut waiting to bring the chemical weapons to the US."

Art doesn't want to automatically connect the two you moron. Art wants Code to recognize that the rationale behind any military action in Iraq is to prevent an attack on Americans that is sponsored by the Iraqi government and their weapons of mass destruction. If two Americans got pissed off at France and decided to blow up the French Embassy, we'd probably have a parade for them. But, the French aren't worried about our sponsorship of such activities. The same can't be said of Iraq and their sponsorship of such activities and the greater harm that can come from their continued unwillingness to live by the terms of their surrender.

As for the OTHER nut waiting to bring the chemical weapons into the U.S., then, we'll have to address him later when he is revealed as Iraq is. We'll have to go through this all again when he turns up. Until then, we have what's in front of us, while keeping our eyes peeled for what's around us.

"That is what I have been saying."

This is utter cr@p boy and you know it.

Where was any of the above sentiment when you wrote, "I am not for war over someone else's problems, but if the decision is made and we have the support of our allies, then fine." Here you seem to say it's not our problem. Now, you recognize it is our problem. Funny. Though I'm glad you woke up too late in the thread, it strikes me as odd you have distanced yourself from your own ideology without even saying sorry.

Where was any of the above sentiment when you wrote, "Mad Mike, I don't want US citizens dieing because of some dumb a$$es who choose of their own free will to support Saddam. Why should our troops die for their sorry a$$es?" Here, again, you are against war. Here again, you indicate we have no real dog in this fight.

Or here, "To protect our allies? Doesn't Isreal have a decent military? Is the US responsible to fight everyone else's battles?" Where's the awareness here, Code? Where's anything you said above in this thread here?

What about here, "To say that we are going to war with Iraq to protect ourselves... you've got to be kidding. " Seems you still aren't even talking about what the rest of the world is talking about here. This is about your seventh post in this thread. What's going on? Where's anything you were talking about above here so far?

Still not here, "There is no way in hell a scud missle is going to hit the US from Iraq. There is no way that Iraq is going to invade the US. Read some of the other right wing posts.... Do you really think that Iraq is building up WMD to use ONLY on their own people? No.. they would likely use them agains Isreal or another country in the middle east. The United States is NOT at risk from an invasion or missle strike from Iraq. If we were attacked in some way, it would be a terrorist attack done out of cowardice, not from Iraq." See, here you don't see the point. You still show no awareness of the issue. You still show no appreciation regarding your lack of knowledge on the topic. Everything you led your "last" post with is great. None of that was seen in this thread until you just started getting shelled for the lunacy you were spreading.

Here, at the top of the third page and about your eighth comment in the topic you wrote in a passing way what you really meant during the previous posts, "Just to clarify, I am NOT saying that we should not go to war with Iraq. My ONLY point is that we should use air strikes as much as possible to save the lives of american troops." Great. Here's the first sign you are maybe saying what you are saying here.

It wasn't until even AFTER this point did you even seem aware there were weapons of mass destruction even as a topic of worry here. So, don't try to come off like you are crusader for the lives of Americans. You clearly came off that you had no idea what the hell's been happening the last six months and only by reading what has been happening did you start to alter your position. Bad form Code.

"Based on some of your responses, some of you have taken my posts literally to the letter. I have been agitated because it seem like no one understands that American Soldiers will die...Americans..."

We understand the reality of the situation Code. We understand the necessity of the situation as well. Do you?

"Saddam is a nut, there is no doubt that he needs to be removed. I was against war period until Powell's speech."

And after his speech you wrote how we shouldn't be fighting a war to protect our allies with no mention of our own self-interest here.

"Now, I have accepted the fact that something must be done,"

When did you accept this? You heard Powell and still said you didn't recognize the dangers we faced. Precisely when did you come to the realization that you were being stupid? Was it before you were told you were, or after?

"Though I'd prefer that we have allies on our side."

Good thing we have dozens of allies on our side. Woo hoo. We're fulfilling everything you want. YES.

"Hopefully, that will take care of itself."

It already has. Where've you been?

"Nowhere in my posts has it said that we should purposefully slaughter everyone. They know it's coming, they can leave or be"

Actually, yes, you did. You wrote, "But blow the hell out of them, don't send in troops to die, blow away all of Iraq, civilians and all, if they haven't been smart enough to leave by now, then they deserve to go see Allah sooner than later." And, hey, I'm all for it. Unfortunately there aren't enough bombs to kill all the people. So, we need guns and bullets from our guys on the ground to send all of Iraq to Allah like you have proposed.

[Tarhog]

It is hard for me to read some of the military/Iraq threads of late. Just as I try damn hard to refrain from commenting or chiming on in some of the more intricate/knowledge-based football discussions (why? because I have a fan's basic knowledge nothing more and I defer to those who have been lifelong students and/or active participants in the game), some of you guys really ought to use similiar discretion.

I could convince 99.9% of the dissenters here of the need to take Hussein and his stockpiles out with a simple demonstration. A drop of nerve agent smaller than the nail on your pinky is enough to send your entire body into uncontrollable spasms, and kill you in less than 2 minutes (Raid insecticide is an extremely weakened version of nerve agent - suggest you watch that ****roach closely the next time you use it on one). Hussein has TONS of nerve agent. This is not in doubt. We KNOW this. Now imagine a shipping container entering New York harbor filled with sarin or another nerve agent and a chicken-$hit bomb ala Oklahoma City. You could easily kill thousands and create a terrorist nightmare. Or put it in cropdusters and spray some elementary schools for a change of pace.

That is the danger, and its just the tip of the iceberg. Hussein isn't a threat to us with missiles, conventional weapons, etc.. Art is right on. Its the nexus (to use Powell-speak) of terrorism and these types of weapons (whether it be nerve agent, ricin, anthrax, or other agents) that is scary. The analogy of 2 crazy Americans attacking France is silly. The difference is clear. A couple of individuals don't have the resources to produce these types of weapons. Countries like Iraq and N. Korea do, and that is why we must and will be in Iraq in a month.

Again, some of you with no military or NBC knowledge ought to use your discretion and keep an open mind. I wish you could see an agent like nerve or mustard gas at work (as I have) and you'd be humming a different tune.