What do you think about a new Golf war???

[berserkur]

check this picture out!

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/mirror/feb2003/1/8/00010A29-9D0C-1E4C-9CC180BFB6FA0000.jpg

 

[Shiny]

Well here is one for all you "ANTI-WAR" people.

Just say, Sadam actually has hi-tech weapons.

If he then lauched 4 missiles, with the intent of getting England or the US but each killing 40,000 people in neutral counteries.

If then 160,000 people are dead, are all you protestors still against the US/England ?

Are you suddenly pro-war now that the threat is real?

And because of you the delay allowed Sadam to organise his weapons, dont you then have the blood of those people on your hands along with the US and England who actually probably sold the weapons to him?

I am quite interested to hear what you have to say about that.

 

[Danyael]

I think that the US is very stupid for even thinking about it without the UN behind them. I don't agree with much of the US ideas about anything since the American Indian treaties...

Remember the Sioux Nation never agreed on a peace treaty......

 

[Warthog]

Originally posted by Shiny
Just say, Sadam actually has hi-tech weapons.

That's a big assumption to make about a country whose forces are mainly made up of machines left by the collapsing USSR.

That, and if Saddam has any hi-tech weapons...again, they'd just be decaying castoffs that they probably wouldn't be able to detonate properly.

Would the rest of the world have blood on their hands if Saddam made the first strike because we hesitated to act? Probably. But it cuts both ways - If we acted too soon, we'd still have blood on our hands. Not only Iraqi, but the consequent effects of stirring up the whole Middle East.

Frankly, I think the world needs to wait until we have more evidence that Saddam is really going to lash out. And unless the US gov't is holding something back from us, which I'm sure they are, I haven't seen it yet.

Bush has not effectively pleaded his case for war before the American people, let alone the world. And I wouldn't put it past him to think that a war on Saddam might guarantee him re-election. That's what Bush Senior thought would happen in '92. Of course, Clinton won, because the economy was going so much to shit that people didn't care about the damn Gulf War anymore. Gee, doesn't that sound familiar?

Of course, it's not my decision to make.

Like I said earlier...I can't wait for the day we perfect the hydrogen fuel cell so we can stop fucking worrying about oil already.

oh well, bleblabla...sorry about that

 

[Smeagol]

Clone of the attack !

Hi,

Check out this one, indeed a nice movie coming soon, don't miss that !

http://www.thescreamonline.com/images3-1/clone2.html

Have fun !

Smeagol

 

[berserkur]

*Well here is one for all you "ANTI-WAR" people*
-does that mean you´re pro war? if so explain why?

*If he then lauched 4 missiles, with the intent of getting England or the US but each killing 40,000 people in neutral countries.*

-first of all he hasn´t got so far reaching weapons and why should he trie to attack the US or UK or for that matter accidentally other countries? they would blow the shit out of him & he wants to remain in power and has been in power for more than 30 years, he has nothing to do with fundamentalists, he isn´t even religious.

this pre-emptive strike the US/UK are launching will only create more of a terrorist threat and enrage the super-fundamendalists even more

what would cool things down in the fundamental sphere is a free Palestine,
how many fucking UN resolutions has Israel broken = numerous
but no no one does anything! why? there coz they´re a friend of the US...

If then 160,000 people are dead, are all you protestors still against the US/England ?
* you see that won't happen and it´s a immature perspective to think so
if it happens and chances are 1/ 1000000000000000000000

oh my God Saddam is the most dangerous man in the world ARGH!!!

 

[Metalsulm]

Originally posted by berserkur
*Well here is one for all you "ANTI-WAR" people*
-does that mean you´re pro war? if so explain why?

*If he then lauched 4 missiles, with the intent of getting England or the US but each killing 40,000 people in neutral countries.*

-first of all he hasn´t got so far reaching weapons and why should he trie to attack the US or UK or for that matter accidentally other countries? they would blow the shit out of him & he wants to remain in power and has been in power for more than 30 years, he has nothing to do with fundamentalists, he isn´t even religious.

this pre-emptive strike the US/UK are launching will only create more of a terrorist threat and enrage the super-fundamendalists even more

what would cool things down in the fundamental sphere is a free Palestine,
how many fucking UN resolutions has Israel broken = numerous
but no no one does anything! why? there coz they´re a friend of the US...

If then 160,000 people are dead, are all you protestors still against the US/England ?
* you see that won't happen and it´s a immature perspective to think so
if it happens and chances are 1/ 1000000000000000000000

oh my God Saddam is the most dangerous man in the world ARGH!!!

Wise words....I agree

 

[CHtheMetalfreak]

oh my God Saddam is the most dangerous man in the world ARGH!!!
With Bush!!!! War NO!!! oh man........ the UK help the USA, but its the only big country with Poland who help this fucking President to kill People for oil!!!!!

The conflict from Israel and Palestina, is so old like the story of christians, thats the Problem in this conflict..........

That had nothing to do with this Fucking Bush!!!! The only he can is to make a new war, because this is the problem from all USA Presidents!!!!

 

[Fallen_Knight]

No war yet..

 

[Wackianne]

pffff....

Yesterday I read about a danish pizzeria-owner that doesn´t sell pizza to any German or French people anymore because of their "coward and illoyal" attitude towards the USA......