The war is about to start

[cokee]

sigh ..

 

[Kid Kool]

Originally posted by cokee
sigh ..

Its about time.

 

[Cash Is King]

Originally posted by kidkool


Its about time.

I second that!!

 

[DrWho]

Originally posted by WebHold



I second that!!

:weird:

 

[CoolHost.com]

Sure as heck is ... not that I'm totally against it, but may God bless us all, now and in the future!

 

[Cash Is King]

It is all about regime change and stabilizing the region. Kuwait and even Afghanistan have made substantial improvements in their societies and country thanks to the UN and the United States.

The UN however is not a powerful enough body to agree accross the board with the Iraq situation. The US will now drive in place what is right with our allies and most world views.

 

[Kid Kool]

I hope its over quickly and that Saddam will join the Taliban in the dustbin of history.

The Iraqi's are no doubt wondering what took us so long. They were expecting us 10 years ago.

Better late than never!

 

[CoolHost.com]

Fair enough ... but what of North Korea?? Libya? Syria?

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by CoolHost.com
Fair enough ... but what of North Korea?? Libya? Syria?

You left out France!

 

[Cash Is King]

Originally posted by CoolHost.com
Fair enough ... but what of North Korea?? Libya? Syria?

And Iran

 

[Kid Kool]

Originally posted by CoolHost.com
Fair enough ... but what of North Korea?? Libya? Syria?

Well in the case of Iraq we had a cease fire agreement with them in 1991 which they have violated for 12 years...so its time to "resume firing". It's not just a case of war with a random dictator.

With respect to North Korea, I'm sure we'd love to take out their nuclear reactor, but we have to be sensitive to South Korea since millions of people would die in a war on the Korean peninsula.

Libya and Syria don't really amount to a hill of beans.

 

[Cash Is King]

If I am not mistaken, we also have to be careful with South Korea because they have Nukes.

 

[Kid Kool]

See men shredded, then say you don't back war

By Ann Clwyd
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-614607,00.html


“There was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped into it and we were again made to watch. Sometimes they went in head first and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this. Their remains would be placed in plastic bags and we were told they would be used as fish food . . . on one occasion, I saw Qusay [President Saddam Hussein’s youngest son] personally supervise these murders.”

This is one of the many witness statements that were taken by researchers from Indict — the organisation I chair — to provide evidence for legal cases against specific Iraqi individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. This account was taken in the past two weeks.

Another witness told us about practices of the security services towards women: “Women were suspended by their hair as their families watched; men were forced to watch as their wives were raped . . . women were suspended by their legs while they were menstruating until their periods were over, a procedure designed to cause humiliation.”

The accounts Indict has heard over the past six years are disgusting and horrifying. Our task is not merely passively to record what we are told but to challenge it as well, so that the evidence we produce is of the highest quality. All witnesses swear that their statements are true and sign them.

For these humanitarian reasons alone, it is essential to liberate the people of Iraq from the regime of Saddam. The 17 UN resolutions passed since 1991 on Iraq include Resolution 688, which calls for an end to repression of Iraqi civilians. It has been ignored. Torture, execution and ethnic-cleansing are everyday life in Saddam’s Iraq.

Were it not for the no-fly zones in the south and north of Iraq — which some people still claim are illegal — the Kurds and the Shia would no doubt still be attacked by Iraqi helicopter gunships.


For more than 20 years, senior Iraqi officials have committed genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. This list includes far more than the gassing of 5,000 in Halabja and other villages in 1988. It includes serial war crimes during the Iran-Iraq war; the genocidal Anfal campaign against the Iraqi Kurds in 1987-88; the invasion of Kuwait and the killing of more than 1,000 Kuwaiti civilians; the violent suppression, which I witnessed, of the 1991 Kurdish uprising that led to 30,000 or more civilian deaths; the draining of the Southern Marshes during the 1990s, which ethnically cleansed thousands of Shias; and the summary executions of thousands of political opponents.

Many Iraqis wonder why the world applauded the military intervention that eventually rescued the Cambodians from Pol Pot and the Ugandans from Idi Amin when these took place without UN help. They ask why the world has ignored the crimes against them?

All these crimes have been recorded in detail by the UN, the US, Kuwaiti, British, Iranian and other Governments and groups such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty and Indict. Yet the Security Council has failed to set up a war crimes tribunal on Iraq because of opposition from France, China and Russia. As a result, no Iraqi official has ever been indicted for some of the worst crimes of the 20th century. I have said incessantly that I would have preferred such a tribunal to war. But the time for offering Saddam incentives and more time is over.

I do not have a monopoly on wisdom or morality. But I know one thing. This evil, fascist regime must come to an end. With or without the help of the Security Council, and with or without the backing of the Labour Party in the House of Commons tonight.

 

[peter]

kid: omg I have to laugh at you.

"see Americans die and you won't hate war."

now, if you were to guess, how many people would die on a iraqi:american ratio, what will your guess be?

Let's see.

 

[Kid Kool]

Originally posted by icehole
kid: omg I have to laugh at you.

"see Americans die and you won't hate war."

now, if you were to guess, how many people would die on a iraqi:american ratio, what will your guess be?

Let's see.

icehole: the real question is... How many Iraqi's would die in the war vs how many are killed by Saddam Hussein in the event of non-war?



washingtonpost.com

Deadlier Than War


By Walter Russell Mead

Wednesday, March 12, 2003; Page A21



Those who still oppose war in Iraq think containment is an alternative -- a middle way between all-out war and letting Saddam Hussein out of his box.

They are wrong.

Sanctions are inevitably the cornerstone of containment, and in Iraq, sanctions kill.

In this case, containment is not an alternative to war. Containment is war: a slow, grinding war in which the only certainty is that hundreds of thousands of civilians will die.

The Gulf War killed somewhere between 21,000 and 35,000 Iraqis, of whom between 1,000 and 5,000 were civilians.

Based on Iraqi government figures, UNICEF estimates that containment kills roughly 5,000 Iraqi babies (children under 5 years of age) every month, or 60,000 per year. Other estimates are lower, but by any reasonable estimate containment kills about as many people every year as the Gulf War -- and almost all the victims of containment are civilian, and two-thirds are children under 5.

Each year of containment is a new Gulf War.

Saddam Hussein is 65; containing him for another 10 years condemns at least another 360,000 Iraqis to death. Of these, 240,000 will be children under 5.

Those are the low-end estimates. Believe UNICEF and 10 more years kills 600,000 Iraqi babies and altogether almost 1 million Iraqis.

Ever since U.N.-mandated sanctions took effect, Iraqi propaganda has blamed the United States for deliberately murdering Iraqi babies to further U.S. foreign policy goals.

Wrong.

The sanctions exist only because Saddam Hussein has refused for 12 years to honor the terms of a cease-fire he himself signed. In any case, the United Nations and the United States allow Iraq to sell enough oil each month to meet the basic needs of Iraqi civilians. Hussein diverts these resources. Hussein murders the babies.

But containment enables the slaughter. Containment kills.

The slaughter of innocents is the worst cost of containment, but it is not the only cost of containment.

Containment allows Saddam Hussein to control the political climate of the Middle East. If it serves his interest to provoke a crisis, he can shoot at U.S. planes. He can mobilize his troops near Kuwait. He can support terrorists and destabilize his neighbors. The United States must respond to these provocations.

Worse, containment forces the United States to keep large conventional forces in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the region. That costs much more than money.

The existence of al Qaeda, and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, are part of the price the United States has paid to contain Saddam Hussein.

The link is clear and direct. Since 1991 the United States has had forces in Saudi Arabia. Those forces are there for one purpose only: to defend the kingdom (and its neighbors) from Iraqi attack. If Saddam Hussein had either fallen from power in 1991 or fulfilled the terms of his cease-fire agreement and disarmed, U.S. forces would have left Saudi Arabia.

But Iraqi defiance forced the United States to stay, and one consequence was dire and direct. Osama bin Laden founded al Qaeda because U.S. forces stayed in Saudi Arabia.

This is the link between Saddam Hussein's defiance of international law and the events of Sept. 11; it is clear and compelling. No Iraqi violations, no Sept. 11.

So that is our cost.

And what have we bought?

We've bought the right of a dictator to suppress his own people, disturb the peace of the region and make the world darker and more dangerous for the American people.

We've bought the continuing presence of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia, causing a profound religious offense to a billion Muslims around the world, and accelerating the alarming drift of Saudi religious and political leaders toward ever more extreme forms of anti-Americanism.

What we can't buy is protection from Hussein's development of weapons of mass destruction. Too many companies and too many states will sell him anything he wants, and Russia and France will continue to sabotage any inspections and sanctions regime.

Morally, politically, financially, containing Iraq is one of the costliest failures in the history of American foreign policy. Containment can be tweaked -- made a little less murderous, a little less dangerous, a little less futile -- but the basic equations don't change. Containing Hussein delivers civilians into the hands of a murderous psychopath, destabilizes the whole Middle East and foments anti-American terror -- with no end in sight.

This is disaster, not policy.

It is time for a change.

 

[peter]

links will do.

 

[Sharpy]

Well if SH is such a great threat and has all these weapons of mass destruction, I guess we will see them first hand on CNN's reality war coverage.

 

[Cash Is King]

Originally posted by Sharpy
Well if SH is such a great threat and has all these weapons of mass destruction, I guess we will see them first hand on CNN's reality war coverage.

Sharpy

I feel like maybe you still do not understand. See my thread towards the middle. Weapons of mass destruction is only one factor.

 

[beatz]

So, if Saddam should leave the country within 48 hours - what ridiculous reason would the US then claim to have to still invade Iraq?

Btw i believe there can be no more dangerous threat to the world than a president who thinks of himself as "chosen by god to fight the evil" - Bush is a crazy dangerous maniac.

Just as fanatic as the ones he wants to fight.

As far as the shredder goes - no justification or anything, but be assured the CIA uses all kinds of torture since ages.

As far as "mass destruction weapons" goes - Everything Iraq (maybe) has the US has as well..so who is to decide who is allowed to have them and who not?

Last but not least : The most dangerous weapons ( including Anthrax) were sold to Saddam by - the US.

This war is a lie.

 

[TopNames.com]

Beatz...WTF is your problem?

Your Anti-American stance is very obvious. The funny thing is I do not hate the Iraqi people...but you hate Americans.

Don't forget you thought Anthrax was an "invention" the other day and you did not realize it occurs in nature.

BTW, France also sold anthrax to Iraq...get your frickin' facts straight. Did you read Saddam did admit to having weapons of mass destruction yesterday, but he "got rid of them"...