Yes to getting our shit together [at the CIA and NSA], so we don't *need* all out war to solve these sorts of problems. Don't use a division when an unannounced (and unacknowledged) SEAL team could suffice. IOW, I'd vote a hearty YES to covert strikes of varying kinds and degrees.
At this point everyone would know who struck anyway, but next time around (in another country) they won't. Why we announcd the thing in the Phillipines is beyond me. "Hey bad guys - get rrready, here we come!" The media should be completely left out of it until the mission is over.
heck, i don't know...perhaps i should change my answer from no to yes...what the hell do i care, i don't live in baghdad and, at 41, i am too old to be enlisted....hell, war in iraq, war in korea, war in iran, war in just about any place other than central new mexico and parts of maryland and pennsylvania and southern california where i have family, should be fine with me i guess...i have daughters, not sons, so i don't have that fear holding me back....heck yeah, now that i think about it some more, weeee haaa, lets go to war baby...take out some arabs, get their (our) oil flowing again...win win baby....g
I dont think you people really understand Sadaam Hussein.
His only goal is to dominate the Middle East for his life similar to Hitlers goals {except the ethnic clensing}. I mean his nation could PROSPER if he gave a **** about his people but NO he spends his money on biologic and chemical weapons, we know he has tons.
When he gets nukes he will take over other Arab Nations and just dominate with all of his money from oil. Then we have no oil.
Please think things through and see farther than some casualties. And dont give us that crap about the economy because that is bullshit, you know what happened to the economy when 9/11 happened?
<strong>heck, i don't know...perhaps i should change my answer from no to yes...what the hell do i care, i don't live in baghdad and, at 41, i am too old to be enlisted....hell, war in iraq, war in korea, war in iran, war in just about any place other than central new mexico and parts of maryland and pennsylvania and southern california where i have family, should be fine with me i guess...i have daughters, not sons, so i don't have that fear holding me back....heck yeah, now that i think about it some more, weeee haaa, lets go to war baby...take out some arabs, get their (our) oil flowing again...win win baby....g</strong><hr></blockquote>
thats like saying i dont give, theyre not my kids being killed. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
shag...saddam doesn't have nucs and will not get them....israel will not let that happen...just like they bombed his nuclear power plant many years ago...north korea has nukes and does not control asia, pakistan has nukes and does not rule the arab world...israel owns nukes and doesn't control the middle east....russia has lots of nukes and can't control chechnya....saddam is cornered and isolated and has no power..if it will help his people i am all in favor of one shot to his melon...i am not happy with war on baghdad (the kill his people to help his people is a hard sell for me)...but if it is a UN action, so be it...if it is a US action, i say hit the streets and march...and hit the voting booths next november...g
Yes to getting our shit together [at the CIA and NSA], so we don't *need* all out war to solve these sorts of problems. Don't use a division when an unannounced (and unacknowledged) SEAL team could suffice. IOW, I'd vote a hearty YES to covert strikes of varying kinds and degrees.
At this point everyone would know who struck anyway, but next time around (in another country) they won't. Why we announcd the thing in the Phillipines is beyond me. "Hey bad guys - get rrready, here we come!" The media should be completely left out of it until the mission is over.
iraq had nothing to do with 9/11...the economy will get better when we have open trade with all countries and our government becomes an open government (and if we can ever figure out an viable energy source other than oil that isn't as scary as fusion)...
the economy will stay bad if we have multiple terrorist attacks....iraq has never committed a terrorist attack against the United States...sure saddam is a bad man and a bad leader and is hurting his people...and if it will stop war and save thousands of lives, shoot him and be done with it....but starting a war to kill one man is lunacy....g
Comments
I mean, no.
This is very hard to understand, apparently.
<strong>
This is very hard to understand, apparently.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Was that a "yes" or a "no"?
I say no.
<strong>Hey Hassan. Perhaps we should send our old army on a peacekeeping mission?</strong><hr></blockquote>
ATTAAAAAAAAACK!
Gently.
Yes to getting our shit together [at the CIA and NSA], so we don't *need* all out war to solve these sorts of problems. Don't use a division when an unannounced (and unacknowledged) SEAL team could suffice. IOW, I'd vote a hearty YES to covert strikes of varying kinds and degrees.
At this point everyone would know who struck anyway, but next time around (in another country) they won't. Why we announcd the thing in the Phillipines is beyond me. "Hey bad guys - get rrready, here we come!" The media should be completely left out of it until the mission is over.
[ 02-25-2003: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
I dont think you people really understand Sadaam Hussein.
His only goal is to dominate the Middle East for his life similar to Hitlers goals {except the ethnic clensing}. I mean his nation could PROSPER if he gave a **** about his people but NO he spends his money on biologic and chemical weapons, we know he has tons.
When he gets nukes he will take over other Arab Nations and just dominate with all of his money from oil. Then we have no oil.
Please think things through and see farther than some casualties. And dont give us that crap about the economy because that is bullshit, you know what happened to the economy when 9/11 happened?
<strong>heck, i don't know...perhaps i should change my answer from no to yes...what the hell do i care, i don't live in baghdad and, at 41, i am too old to be enlisted....hell, war in iraq, war in korea, war in iran, war in just about any place other than central new mexico and parts of maryland and pennsylvania and southern california where i have family, should be fine with me i guess...i have daughters, not sons, so i don't have that fear holding me back....heck yeah, now that i think about it some more, weeee haaa, lets go to war baby...take out some arabs, get their (our) oil flowing again...win win baby....g</strong><hr></blockquote>
thats like saying i dont give, theyre not my kids being killed. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[ 02-25-2003: Message edited by: shaguar ]</p>
and yes my last post was facetious...g
<strong>No to war.
Yes to getting our shit together [at the CIA and NSA], so we don't *need* all out war to solve these sorts of problems. Don't use a division when an unannounced (and unacknowledged) SEAL team could suffice. IOW, I'd vote a hearty YES to covert strikes of varying kinds and degrees.
At this point everyone would know who struck anyway, but next time around (in another country) they won't. Why we announcd the thing in the Phillipines is beyond me. "Hey bad guys - get rrready, here we come!" The media should be completely left out of it until the mission is over.
[ 02-25-2003: Message edited by: Moogs ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
In case you were not aware assassinating a leader is against our law.
why is killing one person against the law, yet bombing a country is not??
we bombed Muammar Qadhafi's palace in lybia trying to kill him but only got is 16 month old daughter and a bunch of civilians....
if we bomb baghdad it is to try and kill saddam...so why is bombing ok and one accurate shot is not??
g
[ 02-25-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
the economy will stay bad if we have multiple terrorist attacks....iraq has never committed a terrorist attack against the United States...sure saddam is a bad man and a bad leader and is hurting his people...and if it will stop war and save thousands of lives, shoot him and be done with it....but starting a war to kill one man is lunacy....g