Are We All Dead?

An interesting topic that ive wanted to discuss with people and i thought who better than you guys, with such varied input on everything.

Will the war on Iraq be the lraq war? will bio and chemical warfare wipe out all human life? is this the end of days predicted by the christians? or is this just going to be another fight? im interested in your views.

Although I hate thinking it, I believe that if the war was to take its toll or iraq and defeat for Saddam Hussien was looking inevitable , Iraq would fire their arsenel of weapons of mass destruction or use their bio and chemical warefare against the allied nations.

What would they have to lose?
This may be Paranoia on my part and just a thought, I hope thats all it ever is.

__________________
When I Die Bury Me Upside Down So The World Can Kiss My A$$.

to be honest, the amount of **** humanity has pulled on this planet, i think we deserve to be wiped out. although my views will probably change when i'm facing death..

I live in Canada... I'm safe.
As long as that cowboy is in office however ... America is not.

I'm not a thick skulled, big ball'd redneck. I disagree with mass slaughter of the innocents... over something as ironic as oil.

Why must we kill each other over something that will eventually kill us all.

I guess it's a vicious cycle.

__________________
"I know a man who was born with his heart on the outside. Every man's worst fear, he also had heavy hands. he couldn't touch his lovers face, he couldn't hold a baby." - Buck 65

I agree what are you on about? because some people show ignorance for humanity, all good and evil people should die and be wiped out. Sorry Dan but that logic is just stupid in the first degree

Thats debatable, i dont believe anyone is entirely safe, although i do hope i am wrong.

We must attack against Saddam we should have killed him in the Gulf war, if he doesn't build bombs this time what about next time, he will not have Mercy on us, we must unite or fall.

__________________
http://www.critical-mass.cjb.net

oh so its ok to pull in other countries to lose soiders in a war, that the US wants, i mean Australia really has no choice, without the US of A we are defencless, so its kinda help us or we wont help you when you want it. I would wait until the UN decides war is nessercary not G. W. Bush

Personally, this is my view also. Call me opinionless if you will, but this is the way I see it.

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

If we wanted oil, there are other, more plentiful nations we'd probably find cause to attack first. And Bush wouldn't be proposing $1.2 billion to develop hydrogen-based automobiles, either.


Nonsense. America has been involved in many conflicts for such a young nation, and has rarely shyed away from it. Now the US is being put down for doing its job well and only losing X percentage of its population? Last I checked minimizing casualties was cause for praise.

Well? That is debatable.

No, I don't think that's okay at all. But let me set this straight. The US does not want this war. The government of the US does. The country and the government are not one and the same. I do not appreciate the generalization.

__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/

If there isn't a war this time, there will be next time.

It's simple if we do not want terrorism we must defeat this threat, shameful I know it seems.

Terrorism? Who said anything about terrorism?

A war against Saddam Hussein and Iraq is a completely different war to the war on terror. It is a war against weapons of mass destruction and such, yes. But terrorism?

It comes so hot on the trail of our not being able to find/kill Osama Bin Laden that the Bush administration is able to veil this war under the same banner and title as the post September 11 war against terror, although it is anything but.

It may be a war that involves scary things, but this isn't a war against terrorism. Terror is not Iraq. Terror is terror and Iraq is Iraq. And this is a war against Iraq.

Ok

Let me ask you naysayers this:

If we knew prior to 9-11 exactly what was going to happen and then did nothing to prevent it then you would say it was Bush and Co's fault that those people in the WTC were dead, right? You'd want to hang his @ss from the closest tree for not protecting those people.

This time there is warning. We know what Saddam is capable of. We know he hates us. We DO NOT know what happened to his stores of chemical weapons. We do not have precise locations of weapons manufacturing facilities but we don't need them to know that one buys plutonium(among other things) in order to make them.

I don't need a mushroom cloud as evidence that Saddam means to try for the rest of his life to take out as much of the US and US interests/allies etc as he can.

US intelligence knew of the building aggression towards the US in Afghanistan and chose to do nothing. We were all focused on Clinton's dick and how exactly Monica Lewinsky wrapped her lips around it... and the come stained dress and on and on. We were clueless as a nation and we got a heads up delivered in one hell of a frightening package.

Now that we know that Iraq as a nation (lead by a fundamentalist in league with other fundamentalists) is not interested in peace with the US or in anything other than turning the rest of the world to Islam the sheeple of the world want to turn the other cheek.

I plain, flat out, do not agree with the sheeple. Iraq (Saddam)needs to be stopped in any way possible. Why should we wait until he strikes again? WTF is the logic in that? Please tell me... I don't understand it.

I would most definitely prefer that Saddam and his friends be shown the way to the promised land i.e. 97 virgins and all. I would prefer that no innocent life is taken in all of this.

Here are the cold and hard facts though. If we do not strike, the innocent lives taken will be ours and our allies. If we do not strike we will enable Saddam to make his arsenal even more powerful so that when he does hit he will score a knock out punch. We cannot bury our heads and hope it will go away amidst the re-runs of whatever the fck we're watching on TV.

He is a danger to free people everywhere.

Iraq is ruled by a fundamentalist who happens to agree with the views of said Mr. Bin Laden. It's come to light as of late that some of the funding to Al-Queda was provided by Iraq. Saddam has many links to terror...

I'm referring to the "accusation" that the US has not suffered major military losses. That indicates effectiveness. It's a virtue, but the thing you quoted made it out to be a flaw.

Anyway, this is all rather simple: Saddam Hussein has gone well out of his way to interfere with weapons inspectors. He did so a decade ago and he's doing so again now. We have reason to believe he was loaded in terms of weapons, and he's yet to provide evidence that he's done away with said weapons. Why would he interfere with these inspections if he didn't have something to hide? For the hell of it?

It is pretty well known that Saddam is hardly even religious. It's just rethoric he's using to get the rest of the arab and muslim world with him. I don't know what it's like nowadays, but I know that during the times of the Gulf war there were even christians in the government. I do believe one of the ministers in the present government is in fact a christian.

I don't really buy the argument that in order to prevent further attacks on US they have to elliminate every potential future suspect. It's kind of sick to me. But anyway... US will strike - it's just a matter of time. They will do it with or without (probably without) both domestic and foreign opinion.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

Someone who's violated his own people, threatened the US and defied numerous commands and inspectors regarding disarmament is hardly a "potential future suspect." He's already guilty of several questionable things, and it's no stretch to refer to him as a threat.

So why aren't USA attacking?

Perhaps it's because those in power care more about world opinion than you may realize; they'd obviously rather have a smoking gun to show the world before taking action. There are a multitude of other potential reasons as to why they would hold off, too, but they're all speculation. Regardless, it's not hard to come up with plausible explanations as to why no move's yet been made.