VeeshanVault

WHAT weapons of mass destruction?
So far the UN inspectors have found nothing to indicate that Iraq has any such weapons.

You seriously can't be this naive. It's a FACT that 4 years ago Iraq had thousands of tons of chemical and biological weapons. And now they are providing NO proof whatsoever that they were destroyed. You can really say that you believe Saddam got rid of them?

Guilty until proven innocent?

In Saddam's case under the circumstances, yes.

And who gave many of those countries their weapons of mass destruction?
Thats right, the good ole US of A.

Yet another american fooled by the Bush propaganda machine.

Wrong. And what is this about the Bush propaganda machine? One minute he can't form a coherent phrase and the next he has his own propaganda working? Bush has never mentioned Blix, I chose to do my own research of the man, seeing as war may hinge on his effectiveness.

Nah, I think Saddam is a psychopath who should be removed from power.

Seriously, I'd like to know why you think Saddam Hussein is a threat to you, as an American.

A psycopath with weapons of mass destruction who is hell bent on revenege isn't a threat?

Has there been any evidence linking him with bin laden or any other terrorist activity against the USA?

Iraq directly funds the terrorist organization Hammas and has trained and harbored Al Qaeda terrorists. And that's just what we know.

The US gave Iraq the means to make chem/bio weapons in the 80s.

The shelf life of biological weapons is not 20+ years.

Sept 2002:

"At last week's Armed Services Committee hearing, Secretary [Donald] Rumsfeld said he had no knowledge of any such shipments and doubted that they ever occurred"

We know he has them. There is no question about it. He has used them in a recent conflict against the Kurds.

Recent?
15 years ago, before the Gulf War, Iraq had the facilites to manufacture biological weapons... but then again, Saddam has been murdering Kurds for the past 35 years.





Stop and think for a second.
All of your beliefs and opinions on Iraq are spoon fed to you by your media. Your government controls what your media tells you. Your government could tell you that they have proof that Iraq has ICBMs with nuclear warheads pointing at the USA and you would probably believe them.
Bush has so much to gain from ousting Saddam

We do not have the luxury of gut instincts here being the end all for a war my friend.

What we don't have is the luxury to sit around and wait for another 9-11.

I SAW SADDAM USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS YESTERDAY!!! I SAW HIM MYSELF ON TEH TELEVISION!!

So we invade every country that contains a terrorist? Soon as I see proof that Iraq is providing support to terrorism against the USA then I will agree with an invasion. And before you bring up them supporting palistinian terrorists, while we are on that subject, why is it do you suppose that we do not bomb the palistinians for terrorism?

OK, I'm getting a little tired of you freaks screaming about facts and proof....


It's a FACT that 4 years ago Iraq had thousands of tons of chemical and biological weapons.

How is that a fact?
Is it a fact because your government told you so?

Of course we all know that politicians never lie.


A psycopath with weapons of mass destruction who is hell bent on revenege isn't a threat?

Revenge against who?
Saddam my be a lunatic, but he's not so stupid to think that he can exact any sort of revenge on America without paying for it with his life and his country.


Iraq directly funds the terrorist organization Hammas and has trained and harbored Al Qaeda terrorists.

Don't you think it's awfully convenient that the only links between Al Qaeda and Iraq only started showing up in the past few months?
What a coincidence that for 2 years there was no link between the 2, but when Bush started firing up the war machine, it suddenly pops up.

How fortuitous that they happened to 'glean' some information from some 'high ranking Al Qaeda detainees' that linked Iraq and biological warfare.
Even better for Bush that this information was dished out right about the time when he was facing pressure from the UN to back down on his hardline stance on Iraq.

As for Hamas and Iraq... well I don't know where you pulled that from, but it sure smells like bullshit.

/boggle


http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical ... ingas.html



http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/h ... 070302.htm


http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.30A.byrd.wmd.htm


Next time do your own research.


There has been absolutely zero explanation of any of these programs being dismantled. Some of these gases require fairly heavy maintenance to remain active. Most of the biologicals don't take anything more than a petri dish.

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:What we don't have is the luxury to sit around and wait for another 9-11.

How does bombing the living fuck out of Iraq stop rogue terrorist groups?
If anything, attacking Iraq is going to piss off more muslim extremists and give them more incentive to attack America.

Right, lets try invading a country with something other than gut instincts for a reason. Yea, I think that idea is pretty cool. us going into Iraq right now is about as valid as the USA getting nuked by Korea because *they have a feeling we are gonna go after them*

two bloody wars leading to the deaths of Iraqi civilians and inhabitants of neighbouring countries;

elimination of one million people (5% of the population) since Saddam Hussein took power (this figure does not includes victims of wars with neighbouring countries). Not even the Sunni minority and his own family were spared;

disappearance of 8,000 men in Kurdistan (Barzan region) and 10,000 Feyli Kurds;

destruction of 4,500 Kurdish towns and villages;

deportation of more than one million Kurds in southern Iraq and a quarter of a million Feyli Kurds to Iran;

continuation of the policy of ethnic cleansing in Kurdish regions under Baghdad’s control, such as Kirkuk, Sinjar, Khanaqin, Mandeli, Makhmour, Tuz and Mossul;

destruction of more than 150 Assyro-Chaldean villages, along with their ancient monasteries and churches, and repression targeting the Turkmen minority;

disappearance of more than 180,000 people during Anfal campaigns. UN Special Rapporteur Max Van der Stoel said that these campaigns were a form of genocide;

massive deployment of chemical weapons (gas) against the Kurdish population in Halabja;

deployment of more than 10 million anti-personnel mines in the Kurdish region (nearly 15,000 individuals have been killed or wounded since the end of the Gulf War);

inhumane and degrading treatment (decrees legalising the amputation of various parts of the body);

systematic torture, including the rape of women;

beheading of women (at least 130 women were executed between June 2000 and April 2001 for alleged prostitution);

destruction and systematic drainage of the marshlands of southern Iraq;
summary executions (2000 prisoners in March 1998 in just one day in the Abu Greb prison as part of the ’prison cleansing’ operation).


I think this is enough for me to jump off the anti-war bandwagon

Fallanthas wrote: Next time do your own research.


There has been absolutely zero explanation of any of these programs being dismantled. Some of these gases require fairly heavy maintenance to remain active. Most of the biologicals don't take anything more than a petri dish.

Yes, it's well documented that they used biological weapons against the Kurds over 15 years ago... but a lot has happened since.

As for the facilites being dismantled... I think your cruise missles and strategic bombing did a good job of that that in the Gulf War. Iraq's weapon facilities were priority targets.

I'm not anti war.
I strongly believe that Saddam should be ousted.

Mostly for the reasons Cartalas mentioned.



It just bothers me that Bush is painting Iraq to be a major direct threat to the USA... and that people believe it.

miir wrote:I'm not anti war.
I strongly believe that Saddam should be ousted.

Mostly for the reasons Cartalas mentioned.



It just bothers me that Bush is painting Iraq to be a major direct threat to the USA... and that people believe it.

I understand where your comming from but how do you propose anyone doing this without military action?

Miir,


There is also evidence that Saddam used biologicals against the village of Halabjah in 1998.


Just how recent does it have to be man?


I could give a damn what state his delivery systems are in. A decent-sized truck makes a good delivery system for one hell of a big slice of Europe and all of the Middle East.

Cartalas you better add another 20-30 contries to your death list if that list of yours is enough to send your soldiers to die in the desert.

People like Krimson give me hope. The frothing retards here continue to miss the point. Us filthy liberals aren't against war we just want to see a hell of a better reason for sending our lads to bleed in the gulf.

Hard evidence please. Anything less is just a veil for imperialism. I'm looking forward to seeing Blair squirm this week when parliament tries to force his hand on whether he would support a unilateral US action (ie not UN sanctioned).

I'll run the risk of a _possible_ serious terrorist action at some indeterminate point in the future over the guaranteed death and suffering of our troops in an unjust war.
I've said it here before but it bears repeating. An unjust attack on Iraq will start an escalating cycle of bloodshed, terrorist and otherwise, that will not end in our lifetimes.

There was no gas attack on Kurds in 1998.
It was 1988.


Get your dates right.

I see now that Iraq is a much bigger threat than I ever thought. And here I thought N.Korea was the one we should be worried about. There are many Saddam Husseins in this world today. There are many tyrants who do these awful things, but you don't see the US going to Africa to stop militia gang wars do you?

You honestly fucking believe that this is a humanitarian mission cuz the US cares oh so much about the kurds?

This argument is really stale. The simple fact is that the US will go to war, and the consequences on the US will be tenfold.

The problem is that you folks don't understand the nature of terrorism, you don't see that retaliation for an UNJUST act by the US will come towards the civilians inside the country.

But wtf does it matter right?

vn_Tanc wrote:Cartalas you better add another 20-30 contries to your death list if that list of yours is enough to send your soldiers to die in the desert.

People like Krimson give me hope. The frothing retards here continue to miss the point. Us filthy liberals aren't against war we just want to see a hell of a better reason for sending our lads to bleed in the gulf.

Hard evidence please. Anything less is just a veil for imperialism. I'm looking forward to seeing Blair squirm this week when parliament tries to force his hand on whether he would support a unilateral US action (ie not UN sanctioned).

I'll run the risk of a _possible_ serious terrorist action at some indeterminate point in the future over the guaranteed death and suffering of our troops in an unjust war.
I've said it here before but it bears repeating. An unjust attack on Iraq will start an escalating cycle of bloodshed, terrorist and otherwise, that will not end in our lifetimes.

So you propose the live and let live policy? Im not saying im for or against invading Iraq I just see no other option. This man needs to pay for his crimes and to sit here and watch Sadam live in the lap of luxury while his people are murderd and starving is a slap in the face of the US and the UN.

Bah, I picked the date off of a senatorial address.


He had it wrong, go figure.


The lifetime of some of this stuff is measured not in years, but in decades. There is still not one word of explanation concerning these known agents being disposed of.


Think about that.

The problem is that you folks don't understand the nature of terrorism

No, we understand it very well.


Roll over and show them your belly, Xyun. Go ahead.


Here you are again arguing to give the lunchroom bully the money. Hell, we might piss off his friends if we fight back!

miir wrote:

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:What we don't have is the luxury to sit around and wait for another 9-11.

How does bombing the living fuck out of Iraq stop rogue terrorist groups?
If anything, attacking Iraq is going to piss off more muslim extremists and give them more incentive to attack America.

Well being passive got us 9-11. Now we are trying to be a little more aggressive. It's called trouble shooting

Let me try to make this simple for you:

August 1990 - Iraq invades Kuwait
Jan\Feb 1991 - Iraq gets the shit beat out of them in 6 weeks.
1991-1998 - Iraq submitted to weapon inspectors, economic embargo, and no fly zones. Food for oil program is established, really should be called oil for us (to pay for damages), some oil for food program.
December 1998 - US\UK, both illegally and unsanctioned, bomb iraq for not cooperating with inspectors. Saddam then throws the CIA agents, err weapon inspectors out of the country in response.
1999 - 2002 - We hear SFA about iraq. See scattered reports of staving kids due to the embargo and skirmishes over the no fly zones, both of which are still in place after more than a decade .
Sept 2001 - 911 terrorist attacks.

Now here is the interesting part. During this 1999-2002 period Iraq did nothing to bring any attention upon itself. In fact Iraq isn't even on the radar.

All the attention is on Bin Laden for 911 (btw did Bin Laden ever claim responsibility for 911?). Then the Taliban get attention because they are evil (even though the US helped them take power). So the US invades Afganistan. The "War on Terror" buzz is in full gear (Just like George senior's "War on Drugs").

Now the taliban are gone. Things are getting quiet. Media is only giving 2 minutes at the end of shows for a video clip of a hill being blown up (suspected terrorist inside).

Then out of the blue we get Dumbya's "Axis of Evil" speach that kinda floors everyone. WTF, when was the last time we've seen Iran or North Korea in the news, even for Iraq it had been a few of years.

From there we are now to the point that Iraq has become public #1 of the week, with North Korea waiting in the wings, for absolutely no obvious reason.

Meanwhile, the guy that is supposidly responsible for 911 is forgotten. Bin Laden who?

So explain to me how\why Sadam became a more important target than bin laden? Just clear up this one little point and I'll sleep better.

-----

Now the media buzz is painting North Korea as a bunch of agressive lunatics. If I was leading North Korea after seeing the pointless agression towards Iraq and being labelled part of the "Axis of Evil" along side Iraq I would ramp up nuke production also just to deter similar agression.

Okay Forthe, here is the logic.


You cannot eliminate terrorism, because terrorism itself is an individualistic act. You will never, ever eliminate the random lone bomber.

The way you cut down on the impact of such acts is to hold them at the individual level. You do not, under any circumstances allow such acts to become organized, nor give them any form of legitimacy.

So you attack infrastructure. You eliminate support routes, both for specific groups and for the ideal of terrorism in general. You make it clear to those who support such acts that they are unacceptable to the world community and will not be tolerated.

Iraq will not be the end of this, I guarantee you. Look for the next operation to be in northern South Africa, at a guess.


Bin Laden? He is either dead or so highly publicized he can't run a covert op anymore. The demise of Bin laden as a terrorist threat began when you heard his name.

Don't you think it's awfully convenient that the only links between Al Qaeda and Iraq only started showing up in the past few months?
What a coincidence that for 2 years there was no link between the 2, but when Bush started firing up the war machine, it suddenly pops up.

How fortuitous that they happened to 'glean' some information from some 'high ranking Al Qaeda detainees' that linked Iraq and biological warfare.
Even better for Bush that this information was dished out right about the time when he was facing pressure from the UN to back down on his hardline stance on Iraq.

You're right, the Bush administration all this time should have been giving us daily updates. I can't make sense of your second statement. You're saying it's a coincidence that we got useful information on the dealing of Al Qaeda from high ranking Al Qaeda officials? Pretty big coincidence to me too...

As for Hamas and Iraq... well I don't know where you pulled that from, but it sure smells like bullshit.

Sorry, I don't pull stuff out of my ass and post it like it's fact like I've seen several people do in this thread (not totally directed at you Miir). The tactic I've seen from people on this board is they make an accusation, then ask someone to prove them wrong w/ facts and that's ridiculous. I say Bush has butt sex w/ Saddam in Crawford and until you prove me wrong I know I'm right!!!

I'm not anti war.
I strongly believe that Saddam should be ousted.

These two consecutive statements do not make sense to me. Saddam CAN'T be ousted w/o war. He has body doubles all over the place and has a strong strangle hold on the civilian population. I don't know if I'm coming off as a war hungry red neck, because I'm most certainly not. I'd love a peaceful solution to this. War is our last option, and frankly we've tried all other options. (EDIT: just re read what you said, thought you said you were anti war, sorry about that. But the point remains for the people who are against war but want Saddam gone)

The frothing retards here continue to miss the point.

Cool, my first time being flamed on VV...I guess.

Hard evidence please. Anything less is just a veil for imperialism.

It's called putting the dots together. Does a million dollars exist? OMG but you have never seen a million dollars up close!!

I'll run the risk of a _possible_ serious terrorist action at some indeterminate point in the future over the guaranteed death and suffering of our troops in an unjust war.
I've said it here before but it bears repeating. An unjust attack on Iraq will start an escalating cycle of bloodshed, terrorist and otherwise, that will not end in our lifetimes

So we should just roll over and let Iraq continue to threaten us until another 911 happens? Ousting Saddam will be a powerful message to terrorists and will take away much of their funding, as well as rescourses. And I'm not even mentioning what Saddam has done to other people (see Cart's list).

This argument is really stale. The simple fact is that the US will go to war, and the consequences on the US will be tenfold.

The problem is that you folks don't understand the nature of terrorism, you don't see that retaliation for an UNJUST act by the US will come towards the civilians inside the country.

This arguement IS getting really stale for me. Iraq IS a direct threat to national security and our only option left is war. Look at how many chances we've given Iraq.

Don't understand the nature of terrorism? You're right...when we invaded Afghanistan the retaliation was ten fold!! I'm sure Bin Laden is laughing somewhere on how is master plan worked.

So explain to me how\why Sadam became a more important target than bin laden? Just clear up this one little point and I'll sleep better.

Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have been crippled, but aren't defeated. Thus our forces are still hunting Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and are working very efficently, while we have many more people left to hunt more terrorism.

So we should just sit back and let Iraq do what it wants until we capture Bin Laden? That's what I gleamed basically from your argument.

Don't you think it's awfully convenient that the only links between Al Qaeda and Iraq only started showing up in the past few months?
What a coincidence that for 2 years there was no link between the 2, but when Bush started firing up the war machine, it suddenly pops up.

Ummm days afterwards they had press conferences talking about the possible connection. They also had pictures of an Iraqi government offical talking to one the leaders of the 9-11 attack, a year earlier.

Nice try though.

So we should just roll over and let Iraq continue to threaten us until another 911 happens?

Threaten you how? Are their nasty buildings bruising the tips of your bombs in the no-fly zones?
Iraq was involved in 911 how? Link these pictures you claim are proof. Or any other form of link between the two (other than being arab) that isn't hearsay.

Nothing has changed in Iraq since 1998 when the last inspectors pulled out. It wasn't cause for a war the but somehow it is now.
The only thing that has changed is the leadership of the US and the attitudes of the people since the WTC. Someone has to pay and in the absence of finding the real culprit(s) Bush is rattling his sabre at the nearest easy target.

This argument rumbles on and on and you warmongers get hemmed in every time on the iraq issue then ALWAYS make the leap to "911" when the link between the two has not been even remotely proven or even suggested outside the whitehouse.

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:If you pay no attention, it's amazing how much you can claim ignorance about.

I've never seen bunnies fuck, but that doesn't mean they don't do it

Your argument is compelling and your points irrefutable. I must concede.

dumb ass.

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Ummm days afterwards they had press conferences talking about the possible connection. They also had pictures of an Iraqi government offical talking to one the leaders of the 9-11 attack, a year earlier.

Nice try though.

Both Reuters and Newsweek reported that this wasn't proven and quoted US officials calling it speculation by the Czech 's.

Forthe wrote:

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Ummm days afterwards they had press conferences talking about the possible connection. They also had pictures of an Iraqi government offical talking to one the leaders of the 9-11 attack, a year earlier.

Nice try though.

Both Reuters and Newsweek reported that this wasn't proven and quoted US officials calling it speculation by the Czech 's.

Yep, but this does prove that it wasn't just a recent thing mmmkay?

Hey Forthe, just because Clinton pretty much ignored it for his entire term does not automatically make that the way to handle to situation. That my friend is flawed logic, and I know you are intelligent enough to recognize it as such.

Bottom line is that we should not invade Iraq and destroy their people at this time. What we SHOULD be doing is helping to assemble a team of assassins to go in and kill Saddam Hussein and his crazy ass sons. We don't need to punish the people for a lunatic. Kill the problem and then let them establish an actual government.

Of course the problem with this revelation of common sense is that liberals would whine and cry about it for the next 100 years. Is Canada really this full of liberals or did someone relocate Southern California into a cooler area?

Bottom line is that we should not invade Iraq and destroy their people at this time. What we SHOULD be doing is helping to assemble a team of assassins to go in and kill Saddam Hussein and his crazy ass sons. We don't need to punish the people for a lunatic. Kill the problem and then let them establish an actual government.

I can go for that.


I'm sure there is something wrong with that simple a solution though. World leaders would probably object to one of their own being tapped, even if he is a fricking lunatic.

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Bottom line is that we should not invade Iraq and destroy their people at this time. What we SHOULD be doing is helping to assemble a team of assassins to go in and kill Saddam Hussein and his crazy ass sons. We don't need to punish the people for a lunatic. Kill the problem and then let them establish an actual government.

Hell hath frozen over.
I agree with Kilmoll.

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Bottom line is that we should not invade Iraq and destroy their people at this time. What we SHOULD be doing is helping to assemble a team of assassins to go in and kill Saddam Hussein and his crazy ass sons. We don't need to punish the people for a lunatic. Kill the problem and then let them establish an actual government.

What is this we crap, asshole? Are you volunteering?

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Bottom line is that we should not invade Iraq and destroy their people at this time. What we SHOULD be doing is helping to assemble a team of assassins to go in and kill Saddam Hussein and his crazy ass sons. We don't need to punish the people for a lunatic. Kill the problem and then let them establish an actual government.

This is a fantastic idea, though it needs a little work.

There needs to be a large group of people that they prune down to the six (or eight or whatever) assassins over the course of like 10 weeks of them living in a house together, and it needs to be broadcast on Fox.

[quote="Kilmoll the Sexy"]What we SHOULD be doing is helping to assemble a team of assassins to go in and kill Saddam Hussein and his crazy ass sons. quote]

I agree. However, this is against UN regulations.

Forthe wrote: Now here is the interesting part. During this 1999-2002 period Iraq did nothing to bring any attention upon itself. In fact Iraq isn't even on the radar.

Erm...Saddam was publicly offering money to the families of suicide bombers during this time. Blow up your child, get a check from Saddam...this is possibly the worst of his atrocitites.

Is that not bringing attention upon himself and Iraq Forthe??

Dated April 3rd 2002.

(CBS) Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has raised the amount offered to relatives of suicide bombers from $10,000 per family to $25,000, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Wednesday.

Since Iraq upped its payments last month, 12 suicide bombers have successfully struck inside Israel, including one man who killed 25 Israelis, many of them elderly, as they sat down to a meal at a hotel to celebrate the Jewish holiday of Passover. The families of three suicide bombers said they have recently received payments of $25,000.

Winnow wrote:

Forthe wrote: Now here is the interesting part. During this 1999-2002 period Iraq did nothing to bring any attention upon itself. In fact Iraq isn't even on the radar.

Erm...Saddam was publicly offering money to the families of suicide bombers during this time. Blow up your child, get a check from Saddam...this is possibly the worst of his atrocitites.

Is that not bringing attention upon himself and Iraq Forthe??

Dated April 3rd 2002.

(CBS) Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has raised the amount offered to relatives of suicide bombers from $10,000 per family to $25,000, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Wednesday.

Since Iraq upped its payments last month, 12 suicide bombers have successfully struck inside Israel, including one man who killed 25 Israelis, many of them elderly, as they sat down to a meal at a hotel to celebrate the Jewish holiday of Passover. The families of three suicide bombers said they have recently received payments of $25,000.

Maybe I should have been more clear with the timeline for you Winnow. How about 1999 until 2002, after 911 and after Bush bored of Afganistan.

You just quoted a spin doctor. The same spin doctor that tried to ressurect the reports Midnyte mentioned above as true with no new evidence (months after they were labeled speculation by the CIA and FBI).

Assassinating Saddam would certainly be the cleanest and simplest method for solving a lot of the problems. The problem is he's aware that people would like to kill him so he's behind heavy security which makes it hard to get to him, and he tends not to advertise his location, and its hard to kill someone if you dont know exactly where he is, and while succeeding would be effective to a point in Iraq, it would chill relations with the rest of the region, at least to some degreee. and the propaganda effects of being caught trying would be unpleasant.
*Hugs*
Varia

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:What we SHOULD be doing is helping to assemble a team of assassins to go in and kill Saddam Hussein and his crazy ass sons. quote]

I agree. However, this is against UN regulations.

Not to mention US law.

It's gonna be war or nothing.

Mplor wrote:

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:What we SHOULD be doing is helping to assemble a team of assassins to go in and kill Saddam Hussein and his crazy ass sons. quote]

I agree. However, this is against UN regulations.

Not to mention US law.

It's gonna be war or nothing.

If I'm not mistaken, assassination never was a law. Just a presidential decree made by Johnson methinks. Any president can decide to overturn the decree. Not sure if Bush has done so or not though.

On sniping him there is a law. I dont know the exact word for words to it but it pretty much boils down to this.


If a leader of a nation is in civilain attire, he is a " ruler, president, king, or what have you" and can't be killed. It would be a assissnation and not with in US, UN law.

Now here is the catch. If the President, King, Ruler, Pimp, or random_leaders_title is in a military uniform he is fair game. Its a loophole put in the law to allow this to happen. Reason why they are fair game is because they.... Are in Uniform and "leading" their military, or they have steped over and became a Military Combatent? how ever the hell you spell it.

That is why we went after Castro. He is "always" in his Military Uniform,well back in the days we tried to kill him. Its a law somewhere its just so late I dont feel like looking it up.

The US speical forces also had the "true" Saddam in sniper scopes at least 12 diffrent times during D. Storm. The call was made not to even tho he was in uniform, due to the out pour it would bring from people around the world saying we assassanted him.Although the law states diffrently. That is one of the reasons why he remained in power.


And a fuck you to anyone who picks out my spelling!

We also had to talk the Israelis out of assassinating Saddam several times in the 90s. Mossad, Israel's special forces unit, has no qualms with killing political leaders -- and in fact, has become quite good at it. We've relied on Mossad to do much of our dirty work in the Middle East, and I wouldn't be surprised if that trend continues in the upcoming war.

If I remember right, it was Carter that made the law against killing world leaders.

That would explain why Saddam is wearing those suits all the time instead of his military uniform.

Anyone who thinks that Iraq is broke and poor is right. The people of Iraq have been broke and poor for almost forever. Saddam on the other hand is richer than shit from selling oil. Enough to build all those Palaces at the least. I think he has plenty of money to be paying off terrorists to do his dirty work that he can't do in the open. Hell we did it for years with natives of different countries.

Personally I would definitely like to see the crack assassination unit though.

Deward

Sylvus wrote:This is a fantastic idea, though it needs a little work.

There needs to be a large group of people that they prune down to the six (or eight or whatever) assassins over the course of like 10 weeks of them living in a house together, and it needs to be broadcast on Fox.

ELL OH ELL

Seriously, you made me laugh, a rare treat in a thread like this. Laughing at midnytes son of the soil mentality doesn't count.

The one thing that bugs me about this whole thing. Haven't there been a decent number of documented cases of returning gulf war vets having health troubles? I forget what it was exactly that a number of them were contracting but I certainly don't want to have the new people to go through long lasting effects again if at all possible.

Chidoro,

There has in fact been a non specific syndrome noticed among gulf vets and even their immediate families, however it has not been pinned to a specific cause, and the number of people ill is not in excess of those in the military who were not forward deployed. The government report says that there is no casal relationship.

This all being given, the same was true of the effect of agent orange, and it was 25 years before the government admitted to a relationship.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribun ... ing_1.html.

Thought that might be relevant to this. Possibily a solution w/o going to war, although imo Saddam is just trying to buy time.