Upcomming War In Iraq

bubbleblower · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The rationale for going in right now is that the rainy season will make Iraq's chemical and biological weapons almost useless. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Oh, right, I hadn't heard that, but that makes sense.

I'm just saying that strategic concerns should outweigh tactical concerns. Is it worth so negatively influencing the next 50 years of foreign affairs over the specifics of how to win a battle? There is no question about the ultimate ability to win, nor does forfeiting the rainy season mean we have to accept heavy casualties to our troops.

Our current tactics reflect the policy of fighting with both hands tied behind our backs to avoid civilian casualties. That's fine by me, since we have the ability and the luxury to do that. But from a strictly self-serving point of view, the necessity of doing that diminishes with the more allies we have. If we wait two years and return in the summer, but with 50 nations on our side, we can compensate for the tactical disadvantages by simply being a little more messy. (Because who's going to complain?) I'm not trying to be cold-hearted, but there are no easy answers here. Pushing this war prematurely could very well lead to a much larger conflict with arab nations, the human consequences of which probably far outweigh either Iraqi civilian casualties, or Iraqi-inflicted bio-chem attacks.

CanadianWolverine · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (bubbleblower @ Feb 24 2003, 12:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> If we wait two years and return in the summer, but with 50 nations on our side  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Er, can you please share whatever it is you are using to predict the future? I'd really like to find out if reaming out others on a forum will get my **** kicked <i>a la</i> Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

I'm not sure where I read it or heard it, but I remember this statement:
"Every plan is perfect until the first shot is fired."

What makes you think that two years from now world opinion via a countries leaders will not go completely in the other direction, with Sadam Husien stone walling the UN for another 12 years, giving him yet more chances to spread his industrial arsenal production to groups with like minded goals? Its been shown that Sadam Husien's Iraq has the means and is using mobile and hidden production plants and weapons stockpiles, as well as evidence stumbled upon by inspectors that Iraq was not complying with a UN resolution to disarm Iraq and that Iraq must fully comply or face the consequences.

Oh man, I hope you never, ever lead a group of willing men into battle, since being "messy" does not seem to faze you.

Here's a little saying that I have made up for myself when I take something into consideration:
"Plan for the worst, expect the best."
***A Cover My **** Statement***
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any other sayings similar to this are purely coincidental, since I have neither seen this ever written before or said by a person other than myself in my presence. So, please don't go quoting it without pegging my name on to the end. If you want to use my real name, which is Michael Randall, go ahead. If you completely forget who said this, well, I'll let it slide, maybe. Thanks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That said, Murphy's Law has a habit of working its way into any plan, so if the military tacticians of an allied country want to try to take steps to avoid Mr. Murphy, I'm all for it. I'd rather see the other soldier die for his country, rather than mine, thank you very much.

Also, regarding the notion that muslim nations will rise up and collectively beat the snot out of us if a USA lead war in Iraq happens and if we, USA and its allies, don't have the complete support of the UN, is frankly BS. Where was the action before, during and after the Gulf War when the same threat was issued? What about several times Israel has won its freedom, weren't they threatening the same thing at those times if we supported Israel? All I have ever read or heard about was some extremist groups taking actions against our civilians. It isn't going to happen, but they do strike at us with suicide covert agents. Enough is enough, how much longer are we going to put up with most of the world still continuing to be under one tyranny/dictatorship after another? Free votes are not possible for citizens in the majority of the world's countries, and even those that do have free votes don't use them for a variety of reasons. If there is anyway that the USA has been a negligent world power, I would have to say it has been in letting tyrannies/dictatorships prove diplomacy ineffective by not having decisive shows of force to back it up, essentially giving a free ride to any country that wants to stone wall the UN. But regrets aside, the present is our resposibility, and we should rock Sadam Husien's world.

moultano · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (bubbleblower @ Feb 24 2003, 12:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> If we wait two years and return in the summer, but with 50 nations on our side, we can compensate for the tactical disadvantages by simply being a little more messy. (Because who's going to complain?) I'm not trying to be cold-hearted, but there are no easy answers here. Pushing this war prematurely could very well lead to a much larger conflict with arab nations, the human consequences of which probably far outweigh either Iraqi civilian casualties, or Iraqi-inflicted bio-chem attacks.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
In the event of a messy war, Bush will completely lose the support of the American populace. Don't get me wrong, I really don't want him reelected, but I don't think that is going to happen.

If a proper democracy is set up in Iraq it could spark the beginning of a veritable Arab renaissance. I would predict the Saudi royal family falling from power within 5 years. The reason they are so scared of Palestine becoming autonomous is that it would inevitably be the first true democracy in the region due to the high literacy rate under Israeli rule. The same thing would happen with a democracy in Iraq. It would spread like wildfire. If we do this right (keep your fingers crossed . . . tightly crossed) I think we'll see the populations rising up against their leaders. The fringe Islamist segment of the population will undoubtably try to strike back. They are going to try to do that anyways, whether we attack or not.

The key to all this though is setting up a working democracy in Iraq. There is plenty of reason to doubt that this will happen. (We don't exactly have a good precedent for that.) This is the real thing we need to protest for.

RyoOhki · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>QUOTE (Ryo-Ohki @ Feb 22 2003, 11:49 PM)
The world's nations have spoken: they don't want the war.

I understand America bashing is quite a popular sport in the UN.
The function of the modern UN is to allow countries to make radical claims and demands to appease the leftist voters back home because they know the US will never call their bluff.

As Big Game Hunter stated, there is absolutely no question that Iraq has weapons of mass distruction. Iraq and Saudi Arabia are the only reasons why we don't have lasting peace in Israel. I have yet to hear anyone give a good reason why it wouldn't be to everyone's benefit to overthrow Saddam. If there are any, by all means . . . </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Oh, sorry, here was me thinking the UN was about solving conflicts without the need for war. I don't even feel I should warrent that comment about "leftist voter appeasment" with a response. So I won't. You know that the UN is an international body that takes opinions from nations across the world a debates them in an open forum. "America bashing" as you so nicely put it occurs because there are a lot of nations across the world who don't really like the US barging into their affairs. When was the last time a nation said to the US: hey, you can't have nuclear weapons!" Yet the only nation ever to have used them has the 2nd largest stockpile in the world. That'll deter Bin Laden, yes sire. Can't you see why countries like Iraq and Nth Korea asipre to nuclear weapons? It's because they look at the nations that have them and see that they recieve respect. The world views you a lot differantly, and a lot more cautiously. Look at the aid and agreements Nth korea will get out of having nukes, is it any wonder Iraq and other nations want the same? And who is the US to tell them what to do?

Israel does quite enough by itself to ensure that there isn't a lasting peace. Oppresing the Palistinians brings about a lot of their resentment in the Arab world. Iraq can't do anything to Israel anyway, it's armed forces are extremely limited and it has no air force to speak of. Israel gets away with murder, literally, flaunts it's nuclear arsonal and ICBMs and snubs the world because the US always supports them. There's been almost 20 UN resolutions in the Security Council regarding Israel that have been blocked by a sole vetoing

You want to hear why we shouldn't overthrow him? Ok, here we go.
Firstly: He is the recognised leader of a country. Maybe the people didn't vote him into power, but the people of China didn't vote their Premier into power either. Just saying he's a dictator is not grounds for removal.
Secondly, removing Saddam would cause great instability in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran do not want to have 200,000 odd US soldiers suddenly plonked down in the center of the Middle East. From bases in Iraq the US can exert control over most of the Middle East. These nations, who have strange ideas about soverenity, don't want that. This will bring political upheaval and a swing towards more radical governments and ideas in the Middle Eastern nations
Thirdly, the US will create a whole new generation of terrorists. Iraqis will see their homes destroyed, their families killed, their homeland taken away from them and put under a US general's control. They will want to fight back against this new aggreser. They will turn to those who offer such services: terrorists. All you'll do is drive thousands of people towards terrorism, as they will see it as their only way to get revenge on the people who took their country. Far from eliminating terrorism, this war will enhance it. Osama Bin Laden must be dancing for joy.
Fourthly, Muslim nations do not like to see non-muslims enter their soil without consent. Invasion is definietly not with consent. This is a very central part of Islamic culture and thought, and seeing hundreds of thousands of non-Muslim forces forcably enter onto Muslim soil is a great insult. This will push more arabs to radicalism and terrorism.

I'll stop there because my dinner is getting cold <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

Big_Game_Hunter · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Firstly: He is the recognised leader of a country. Maybe the people didn't vote him into power, but the people of China didn't vote their Premier into power either. Just saying he's a dictator is not grounds for removal.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

This is the best argument I've heard against war. It's true, there is nothing about Iraq that is any worse than dozens of other countries that we are allied with, or with whom we are on good terms. The difference however, is exactly that. He is our enemy. When your enemy threatens you, you take action.

bubbleblower · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CanadianWolverine @ Feb 24 2003, 01:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>That said, Murphy's Law has a habit of working its way into any plan, so if the military tacticians of an allied country want to try to take steps to avoid Mr. Murphy, I'm all for it. I'd rather see the other soldier die for his country, rather than mine, thank you very much.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I think you misunderstood what I said. When I talk about our ability to fight a more messy war to compensate for the disadvantages of waiting, I don't mean taking more casualties on our side. I mean compensating by being less careful about civilian casualties. If, for example, the Iraqis were using sabot rounds to disperse chemical weapons, we have the ability to destroy anything that moves within 20 miles of where the round came from, urban area or not. Our history of not doing so reflects restraint, not lack of ability. The reason for that restraint is partly out of the need to keep good relations with our allies, but as I said, if the allies are there with us, there are less countries to complain. All hands would be equally dirty.

***EDIT: Big Game Hunter pointed out that my use of the term "sabot" was in error. A sabot round is an armor piercing dart that sheds the surrounding artillery shell. I originally thought an armor-piercing dart was just one kind of sabot, and sabot meant a more generalized modular artillery shell, such as the kind used to lay mines or dispense gas via artillery. My bad. I'm speaking in fairly general terms anyway, but I try to avoid outright falsehoods.

I'm not advocating this at all, I'm simply saying that there are many ways to achieve a victory with minimal casualties on our side, in escalating degrees of how many Iraqis will die.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>What makes you think that two years from now world opinion via a countries leaders will not go completely in the other direction, with Sadam Husien stone walling the UN for another 12 years, giving him yet more chances to spread his industrial arsenal production to groups with like minded goals? Its been shown that Sadam Husien's Iraq has the means and is using mobile and hidden production plants and weapons stockpiles, as well as evidence stumbled upon by inspectors that Iraq was not complying with a UN resolution to disarm Iraq and that Iraq must fully comply or face the consequences.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I don't pretend to know what they will do. Either way we will still have the ability to take out Iraq without incurring heavy casualties on our side. But from a political standpoint, it looks really bad when Bush seems committed to prosecuting the war, over the protests of key allies, without the inspectors coming up with anything more than proof of conventional weapons violations and a major attitude problem, and without being able to show solid proof of the existence of the WMDs.

Now, at the rate the inspections are going, it will be undeniable within months that Hussein is in serious violation in multiple, tangible instances, and there will be no choice but for the other countries to pick a side. Just this week Blix gave an order to destroy some missiles that exceed their range, which of course Iraq will fail to do. But Bush has been hell-bent on doing it around March, without even bothering to come up with the necessary evidence to sway more people. He NEEDS to present that evidence to counter the claims of oil-snatching and imperialism. I personally think Hussein probably IS doing naughty things, but the only things we've been shown hard evidence for is his spite for our authority and some violations that fall far short of nukes. People are so afraid of America abusing its power, that the guilty verdict needs to come from the mouth of Blix, and it looks like its finally starting to come. But taking a shortcut of even a few months will have a lasting legacy of Bush acting all on his own

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Also, regarding the notion that muslim nations will rise up and collectively beat the snot out of us if a USA lead war in Iraq happens and if we, USA and its allies, don't have the complete support of the UN, is frankly BS. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I don't think they will beat the snot out of us. They don't have the ability to. But they might TRY, which would lead to a much higher number of them dying than the extra number of Iraqis we might have to kill if we waited another year.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Oh man, I hope you never, ever lead a group of willing men into battle, since being "messy" does not seem to faze you.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Wasn't planning on it. But the word "messy" was directed towards being less inhibited in applying force, i.e., B52s and daisy cutters in neighborhoods. Not towards our own forces. When our ability to fight a war safely becomes jeopardized, there are all kinds of rotten things we can do to regain the comfort level we desire.

I'm suggesting that waiting a while more could greatly diminish the negative political impact of attacking Iraq, because there's a good chance that the inspectors will get snubbed or shot at at some point, forcing the hand of some of our allies. And if that doesn't happen, we can still take them out if we have to, and the burden of our increased risk will probably just get transferred to the Iraqis.

It is impossible to do anything more than speculate about any of this, since the intelligence data that has been shared is fairly limited. If the Bush administration has satellite photos of a death ray, absolutely they should go to war, but until they let other people in the secret, they pay the price of looking over eager.

CanadianWolverine · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (bubbleblower @ Feb 24 2003, 06:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Wasn't planning on it. But the word "messy" was directed towards being less inhibited in applying force, i.e., B52s and daisy cutters in neighborhoods. Not towards our own forces. When our ability to fight a war safely becomes jeopardized, there are all kinds of rotten things we can do to regain the comfort level we desire.

I'm suggesting that waiting a while more could greatly diminish the negative political impact of attacking Iraq, because there's a good chance that the inspectors will get snubbed or shot at at some point, forcing the hand of some of our allies. And if that doesn't happen, we can still take them out if we have to, and the burden of our increased risk will probably just get transferred to the Iraqis.

It is impossible to do anything more than speculate about any of this, since the intelligence data that has been shared is fairly limited. If the Bush administration has satellite photos of a death ray, absolutely they should go to war, but until they let other people in the secret, they pay the price of looking over eager.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Ack, sorry for being mistaken about the use of messy.

Very good points, and I find your reasoning fairly sound. I geuss I just find myself impatient to get a job done I know I need to see completed, so I would have to concede that war right now may not be the best strategic move, but I do see that when it comes to dealing with Sadam Husien's Iraq force sooner, rather than later be neccissary. It is distasteful that is has come to this, but I just don't think North America, Europe, Australia, or Russia can tolerate the actions of particular players in the middle east for much longer and not expect another 09/11/2001. What does that say when the events of that tuesday on the other side of the continent in another country have me genuinely **** off at world politics? I'm not sure...

I take exception to the "death ray satelite photos". That Iraq has been so uncooperative as to not give the US government something they could take to our popular media sources and prove that they have WoMD is so very inconvient to our short attention spans on current events. Perhaps the UN inspectors could kindly ask Sadam Husien and Co. if they could paint chemical/biological/radiological hazard on the top of crates, tarps, bunkers, trucks, buildings, railway cars, semi truck trailers, barrels, people's head dressings who happen to have backpacks and suitcases that contain said WoMD materials and finished products so we can take athestic pictures when the lighting is just right. This isn't like the Cuban missile crisis, where you can identify ICBMs with little shadow of doubt and know from cofidential sources leaked information that confirm that those are in fact nuclear war heads. This is so much a need for careful orchestrated surprise visits to suspected areas with ground and air forces so you can catch them with their hand in the WoMD cookie jar. Its almost like trying to corner a determined escaped convict, its crazy hard if it isn't coordinated on many levels and the element of surprise is there. Just as a fictional example, if there were UN inspectors in Canada, I would know to move something just by keeping some eyes out on the street to look for their vehicles with the big UN letters painted on it, then just move the stuff they were looking for to a location they just looked at or that is incredibly out of their way. The technology is not infallible and can be worked around. Sometimes, I think people forget how effective the manpower driven soviet spies were against our high tech driven spies.

Big_Game_Hunter · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>without being able to show solid proof of the existence of the WMDs.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

This is not a court of law where the Iraqis are innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on them to show that they have destroyed their massive stockpiles of CW and BW. It is not up to us to try and figure out where they are hidden.

As it is all they have done is claim that they don't exist, but in order for this to be true, their PROVEN chemical and biological factories would have had to been idle for no reason during the peak of the Gulf War. This is what they have not accounted for nor have they offered any convincing evidence of disarmament. The most we get from them is denial backed up by nothing. I suggest you read the articles I posted earlier if you have doubt of this.

But their <i>possesion</i> of these things is a minor point. The real issue is their zealousness for <b>producing</b> these things. The goal of Iraq is most certainly not disarmament but to acquire an infrastructure capable of quickly being able to produce all varities of WMD and the delivery systems to go with them. Again I refer you to the articles, as well as encouraging you to research the matter yourself in depth.

Nemesis_Zero · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CanadianWolverine @ Feb 24 2003, 02:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I'm glad to see that some others have decided to brave this thread's waters despite Nemisis Zero and AllUrHiveRBelong2Us, amongst others. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Excuse me for having an opinion.

Reading through the last two pages, I found pretty much nothing I could reply to without of repeating myself.

"Wouldn't you have wanted to stop Hitler sooner?"
"Iraq has WoMD, period."
"The governments against the war are selfish and try to appeal to their dangerously leftist electorate."

I'm honestly sick of saying the same thing over and over again, just to so someone can tell me I'm "intimidating" the other faction, so these'll be the last words I post in this thread:

Have you ever sat in a bunker and listened to the bombs, hoping that you and your family will ever see the light of day again?
Have you ever got a rifle put in your hands and were told to defend your country against technically multiple times superior invaders?
Have you ever fallen asleep hungry because some people in a shiny white building decided that would weaken other people in other shiny white buildings?

Then how can you decide about the necessity of a <i>war</i>?

moultano · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Feb 24 2003, 08:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> "The governments against the war are selfish and try to appeal to their dangerously leftist electorate." </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Hey now, I never said "dangerously." I agree with them most of the time. It's part of the structure of the UN now though that compromise is almost impossible. I would say that this is what happened to Kyoto (I still think we should have signed it anyways).

More later, Physics class.

RyoOhki · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The difference however, is exactly that. He is our enemy. When your enemy threatens you, you take action. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Ah, but here's the clincher. A lot of us don't see him as a threat. Saddam has been a US enemy since the Gulf War, but has he actually threatened the US? Well, not really. He doesn't have the capacity to do so. When a nation like Nth Korea which has the power to back up it's claims makes a threat, it's a threat. Saddam saying he will crush troops who invade his country is hard to see as a threat.
On the Iraq/Nth Korea issue though Nth Korea has been American's enemy for a lot longer, and yet the US is solving that diplomatically. Why can the Iraq situation not be solved diplomatically? "Take action" can be many forms, and personally I think war should be the final and absolutly last one tried after all others have failed. The inspection process hasn't failed; neither has diplomacy, in fact the opposite has occured: Saddam has let the inspectors back in and is letting them go wherever they want. Only when all other options are exhasted should war be considered. Until then it's just un-nessasary violence.

Big_Game_Hunter · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Feb 24 2003, 08:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The difference however, is exactly that. He is our enemy. When your enemy threatens you, you take action. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Ah, but here's the clincher. A lot of us don't see him as a threat. Saddam has been a US enemy since the Gulf War, but has he actually threatened the US? </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
"Saddam's repeated publicized exhortations to his 'Nuclear Mujahidin' to 'defeat the enemy'"

How much more of a threat do you want?

Regarding North Korea, that is an entirely different situation and really has no bearing on a war in Iraq. They are independent of each other, not to mention it is pure speculation as to how we will solve the North Korea conflict.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Take action" can be many forms, and personally I think war should be the final and absolutly last one tried after all others have failed. The inspection process hasn't failed; neither has diplomacy, in fact the opposite has occured: Saddam has let the inspectors back in and is letting them go wherever they want. Only when all other options are exhasted should war be considered. Until then it's just un-nessasary violence. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Isn't that the $10,000 question? My opinion is that regardless of how cooperative he is, it is a moot point, as inspections are like, as the inspector's themselves say, "trying to find a needle in a stack of needles." As I've said before, the complete LACK of evidence of disarmament is all that is needed. Not finding a hidden complex in a 437,072 sq km country is not evidence of its non-existance. So what is the point?

Not only that, but in the previous round of inspections in the 90's and even today, whenever the second inspectors come close to finding something, Iraq can either hide it or claim it is too "sensitive" to be inspected. It's like if I let you in my apartment to search for milk, only you are not allowed to look in the refridgerator. If you insist on seeing it, then I'm afraid you'll have to leave for 5 minutes while I prepare the fridge to be less "sensitive."

Since as I expected no one seems to have read the article I linked, here are some juicy quotes:

"After both the Gulf war and Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, Iraq rebuilt key portions of its chemical production infrastructure for industrial and commercial use, as well as former dual-use CW production facilities and missile production facilities."

"UNSCOM reported to the Security Council in December 1998 that Iraq also continued to withhold information related to its CW program. For example, Baghdad seized from UNSCOM inspectors an Iraqi Air Force document discovered by UNSCOM that indicated that Iraq had not consumed as many CW munitions during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s as had been declared by Baghdad. This discrepancy indicates that Iraq may have hidden an additional 6,000 CW munitions. "

"UNSCOM assessed that Iraq was maintaining a knowledge base and industrial infrastructure that could be used to produce quickly a large amount of BW agents at any time."

Regarding their short range missile program: "In fact, we can find no logical explanation for the size and configuration of these mixing buildings other than an Iraqi intention to develop longer range, prohibited missiles "

These are not the actions of a country that is trying to disarm. They are the actions of a country that is trying to SEEM like they are disarming, while in fact covert development continues unimpeded. These are all quotes from around when the inspectors left Iraq due to Iraqis abject refusal to cooperate. FOUR YEARS have passed since then. Saddam let the inspector's back in after allowing himself four years to further disguise his WMD programs. He STILL has yet to show any evidence that he has dismantled his programs and destroyed his stockpiles.

If further futile inspections still seem like the answer to you, I guess you have a right to your opinion. But there should be no question that Saddam Hussein is actively trying to hold on to and create a powerful mass destruction capability.

moultano · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Feb 24 2003, 08:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Reading through the last two pages, I found pretty much nothing I could reply to without of repeating myself.

"Wouldn't you have wanted to stop Hitler sooner?"
"Iraq has WoMD, period."
"The governments against the war are selfish and try to appeal to their dangerously leftist electorate."

I'm honestly sick of saying the same thing over and over again, just to so someone can tell me I'm "intimidating" the other faction, so these'll be the last words I post in this thread:

Have you ever sat in a bunker and listened to the bombs, hoping that you and your family will ever see the light of day again?
Have you ever got a rifle put in your hands and were told to defend your country against technically multiple times superior invaders?
Have you ever fallen asleep hungry because some people in a shiny white building decided that would weaken other people in other shiny white buildings?

Then how can you decide about the necessity of a <i>war</i>?  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
I would like to have you in this discussion. I feel like it would lose some validity otherwise.

Do you think that the people of Iraq are better off under Saddam's oppression than under what government would follow?

Nemesis_Zero · February 2003

Wrong question.

The ugly truth is that "Saddams oppression" is the only thing that holds the land together - without that man, there won't be the "people of Iraq", there'll be the people in the newest Iranian regions, the people who're oppressed by several warlords conflicting each other, and with very, very much luck, the people in Bagdad, who're not oppressed, but can't leave their houses because the US troops are fighting the former Iraqi opposition which already stated it'd not tolerate a non-Iraqi administration of the country (I'll dig for an English article on this if you wish).
Should the war not go that good, we won't have the people of Bagdad, but the glowing corpses in that big impact crater.

So, basically, taking the hardships of a war, the criminal seperatists, the hostile neighbors and the hostile opposition into account, yes, I think that Saddams oppression is right now the smaller evil.

moultano · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Feb 24 2003, 02:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Oh, sorry, here was me thinking the UN was about solving conflicts without the need for war. I don't even feel I should warrent that comment about "leftist voter appeasment" with a response. So I won't.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
If you want to talk about Kyoto in another thread, then by all means . . . In my opinion that's exactly what happened.
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Israel does quite enough by itself to ensure that there isn't a lasting peace. Oppresing the Palistinians brings about a lot of their resentment in the Arab world. Iraq can't do anything to Israel anyway, it's armed forces are extremely limited and it has no air force to speak of. Israel gets away with murder, literally, flaunts it's nuclear arsonal and ICBMs and snubs the world because the US always supports them. There's been almost 20 UN resolutions in the Security Council regarding Israel that have been blocked by a sole vetoing </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
All of that is certainly true, but it's Iraq and Saudi Arabia that are funding the Palestinian suicide bombers. With the economic state that Palestine is in, the best thing that a depressed teenager can do to help their family economically is to go blow themselves up in a market. Your average Palestinian doesn't care about the issues anymore. They want the violence to end, Arafat out of power, and the tourists to come back. The reason there isn't peace already is because every time they get close, Saudi Arabia pumps more money into the terrorist pipelines.
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Thirdly, the US will create a whole new generation of terrorists. Iraqis will see their homes destroyed, their families killed, their homeland taken away from them and put under a US general's control. They will want to fight back against this new aggreser. They will turn to those who offer such services: terrorists. All you'll do is drive thousands of people towards terrorism, as they will see it as their only way to get revenge on the people who took their country. Far from eliminating terrorism, this war will enhance it. Osama Bin Laden must be dancing for joy.
Fourthly, Muslim nations do not like to see non-muslims enter their soil without consent. Invasion is definietly not with consent. This is a very central part of Islamic culture and thought, and seeing hundreds of thousands of non-Muslim forces forcably enter onto Muslim soil is a great insult. This will push more arabs to radicalism and terrorism.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I think we are going to be seeing American flags all over the streets of Baghdad and people joyous at their liberation. Although thats probably not how the people in other Islamic dictatorships will see it in their press so you might have a bit of a point there.
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You want to hear why we shouldn't overthrow him? Ok, here we go.
Firstly: He is the recognised leader of a country. Maybe the people didn't vote him into power, but the people of China didn't vote their Premier into power either. Just saying he's a dictator is not grounds for removal.
Secondly, removing Saddam would cause great instability in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran do not want to have 200,000 odd US soldiers suddenly plonked down in the center of the Middle East. From bases in Iraq the US can exert control over most of the Middle East. These nations, who have strange ideas about soverenity, don't want that. This will bring political upheaval and a swing towards more radical governments and ideas in the Middle Eastern nations</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> Personally, I don't believe national soveriegnty has any weight in our moral equation. National sovereignty doesn't give a country or a leader immunity for its human rights abuses.
I don't give a **** about the government of Saudi Arabia for aforementioned reasons. I'm sure we can assure Syria and Iran that an attack is not forthcoming.

Again the basis for all of this is the hope that we will set up a working democracy in Iraq. If this doesn't happen then the war will have been unjustified and for naught. If it does, it will have been more than worth it.

bubbleblower · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Big Game Hunter @ Feb 24 2003, 07:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> This is not a court of law where the Iraqis are innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on them to show that they have destroyed their massive stockpiles of CW and BW. It is not up to us to try and figure out where they are hidden.

As it is all they have done is claim that they don't exist, but in order for this to be true, their PROVEN chemical and biological factories would have had to been idle for no reason during the peak of the Gulf War. This is what they have not accounted for nor have they offered any convincing evidence of disarmament. The most we get from them is denial backed up by nothing. I suggest you read the articles I posted earlier if you have doubt of this.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
There is no need to convince me personally that we need to take out Iraq, that they almost certainly are pursuing WMDs, or that they are in clear violation of UN sanctions. They've been re-violating every time they shoot at our planes in the no-fly zone for the past 12 years.

What I'm contending is that the opinion of the millions of average joes who don't read newspapers or do any research still has a lot of power, regardless of whether they are correct. There are a LOT of people who don't understand why we're attacking Iraq, and are saying things like "oil!" and "imperialism!" I don't personally agree with that, but it does seem to me that it is much more than a vocal minority. I would say the majority of people I talk to are against this war (in Seattle, a liberal city.) We don't even have the support of some of the countries I thought were on our side.

Does the fact that most people are opposed mean they are right? Hell no. But that doesn't mean we can just ignore their feelings, because collectively they have a lot of power, and voting rights. If the next generation of European teens grow up thinking the US is a global menace, in many ways it has the same effect for us as if we WERE. I think there is a strategic advantage for us to defuse some of these tensions by letting some of the other countries change their minds and hop on board. I think that is very likely, because the inspectors, while they of course are not going to catch anyone's hand in a cookie jar, have been trying to expand their foothold ever since they got there. At some point they're going to get the door slammed on their nose, and then the masses will have their "proof"- that even the peaceful UN inspectors got snubbed. I could be wrong, but I don't think that waiting a few more months to find out means we forfeit the ability to take him out in time.

This is the point I'm presenting, that is open for debate: Doesn't it seem like public opinion in western nations is heavily opposed to this war, or am I misreading the political atmosphere?

Big_Game_Hunter · February 2003

Well said, I agree completely. However, I do think you are misreading public opinion. Anti-war Americans truly are the vocal minority. This is not true for Britain or Canada or basically anywhere else. Here are a couple polls to look at:

<a href='http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030211.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030211.asp</a>

<a href='http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030220.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030220.asp</a>

As you can see 63% of Americans favor invading Iraq, while 34% oppose.

Another interesting statistic, <b>68%</b> of Americans rate securing foreign energy supplies as "very important." So even if the war WAS about oil 68% of Americans would be on the same page.

CanadianWolverine · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Big Game Hunter @ Feb 24 2003, 02:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Well said, I agree completely. However, I do think you are misreading public opinion. Anti-war Americans truly are the vocal minority. This is not true for Britain or Canada or basically anywhere else. Here are a couple polls to look at:

<a href='http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030211.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030211.asp</a>

<a href='http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030220.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030220.asp</a>

As you can see 63% of Americans favor invading Iraq, while 34% oppose.

Another interesting statistic, <b>68%</b> of Americans rate securing foreign energy supplies as "very important." So even if the war WAS about oil 68% of Americans would be on the same page.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
<b>Big Game Hunter</b>:

Cool, thanks for the polls, but does anyone know where there is one for Canada? I know I'm for war, but how do other Canadians feel? Is it a regional thing, does particular regions of our countries strongly have opinions one way or the other?

Sometimes I have questions about polls and if they are needed or accurate. Are polls accurate reflections of public opinion or should elected officials make policy based on what they think they were elected for? Are polls redundant, thought provoking, propaganda ammunition, or just plain a better a gauge of public opinion than an elected official?

And I did read that link you posted, thanks.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Excuse me for having an opinion.
...
I'm honestly sick of saying the same thing over and over again, just to so someone can tell me I'm "intimidating" the other faction, so these'll be the last words I post in this thread:
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

<b>Nemesis Zero</b>:

I'm not objecting to you having an opinion, if you didn't share your opinion this thread would be so boring. Its more like, when I read through a ton of notes before posting, then decided that I wanted to try to represent my opinion, I met with much more "posting opposition" from the "No" side of this debate and no "posting support" from seemingly non-existant "Yes" side at the time. I had read through 14 pages of posted discussion, in which the "No" side of this debate had a decidely thorough "posting support", especially from yourself and AllUrHiveRBelong2Us, among others. Also, I had noted instances where you had used your forum moderator responsibilties to take out posts and avoid spam (thanks for pointing out the edit feature), in a debate/discussion/argument where your bias is clearly stated for the "No" side of this war. If I was the forum moderator and my bias was plainly for "Yes", wouldn't you find yourself wondering that if you post this or that rebuttle, you might find the post you worked on edited? Besides, it doesn't really seem to matter, as the posting support seems to be swinging towards the "Yes" side now, alot like a pendelum's momentum, though it did seem an awful lot like the pendelum stayed on "No" side for amount of time after reading through 14 posting pages and seeing the kinds of responses I had to my posts. I hope you can understand that this and previously stated reasons show how it might be percieved as just slightly daunting to have an opinion opposite of other posters at times on a subject that both sides feel strongly about.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Wrong question.

The ugly truth is that "Saddams oppression" is the only thing that holds the land together - without that man, there won't be the "people of Iraq", there'll be the people in the newest Iranian regions, the people who're oppressed by several warlords conflicting each other, and with very, very much luck, the people in Bagdad, who're not oppressed, but can't leave their houses because the US troops are fighting the former Iraqi opposition which already stated it'd not tolerate a non-Iraqi administration of the country (I'll dig for an English article on this if you wish).
Should the war not go that good, we won't have the people of Bagdad, but the glowing corpses in that big impact crater.

So, basically, taking the hardships of a war, the criminal seperatists, the hostile neighbors and the hostile opposition into account, yes, I think that Saddams oppression is right now the smaller evil.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I take exception to your use of "smaller evil". You claim that the region would be utter chaos and anarchy had it not been for the (what comes across as) benevolent dictatorship of Sadam Husien. I doubt the validity of your statements as they come across as conjecture, and not even remotely speculation. That you even bring up doubts as to the oppressive nature of Sadam Husien's regime is incredible, how can you have any doubts about his nature when he has had political opponents, even his own family members, assasinated and has used biological and chemical weapons against unarmed Kurd men, women and children, not to even bother going into the lengthy discussion of the Gulf War Syndrome that has afflicted many a proud warrior from the United States and its allies. The real ugly truth is that most of the world puts up with evil men in exchange for money, power, fame, and history book recognition. I say we don't put up with it any longer, lets bring the house down and hold others accountable with decisive military force when diplomacy fails. And diplomacy has been at it for a good 12 years, a time of peace when USA's enemies used that time to build weapons and scheme against you. Considering 09/11/2001, I have to clearly go with removing by force as an option against a clear and present danger. Where is the will to fight for your freedom, America? Why must the international community see fit to rally against the USA, who while may have incredible technical and industrial military prowress, does not have the support of vocal leaders of muslims who number somewhere around a billion, live in more than half the world's land mass, and in many cases live in oppressive regimes. The voice of freedom internationally is not the majority, it just merely has the upper hand for the time being, something which men like Osama Bin Laden and Sadam Husien would like to see change drasticly, something to do with "strange ideas of soveriegnty" like eliminating anything that is not in their One World Religion ("For Allah!") viewpoint, which just happens to be places like Israel, United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, and USA. I suppose my country of Canada wouldn't stand much of a chance with the elimination of any of those places, so I say we fight back while we still have the chance to be a voice for freedom.

bubbleblower · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Big Game Hunter @ Feb 24 2003, 02:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Well said, I agree completely. However, I do think you are misreading public opinion. Anti-war Americans truly are the vocal minority. This is not true for Britain or Canada or basically anywhere else. Here are a couple polls to look at: </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Yeah, I've seen similar results on polls, although the last time I saw one (a while ago) it was more like 50-50. I'm skeptical of polls a little, based how good of a cross-cut they poll, and how the questions are phrased, etc etc. But I won't pretend my personal experiences are somehow more scientific or broad-reaching.

I'm not really as concerned about American outrage at ourselves, as I think that Americans start out at a much higher level of trust of their government than people of other nations. Americans aren't as likely to suspect we're about to try to conquer the world, because we figure we'd be the first to know about it. I'm more concerned about the Brits, Canadians, French, Germans, Russians, etc. They don't have as much of an ability to sense the "Yankee street." (allusion to "Arab street.")

If there are cards Bush can play to minimize the effect of opposition from other countries, I hope that he plays them. I think he can do that a little while longer before it is too late. He may not have to, in fact, because I saw this morning that Blix has a set a March 1st deadline for destroying those missiles that exceed their range, and it sounds like Baghdad is still weaseling. Disobeying direct orders from Hans Blix is just the kind of door-slamming we need to start getting other voices besides Bush and Blair to admit that Iraq isn't cooperating. I think a lot of people for some reason think Iraq is entitled to **** off America, but feel differently about Blix, because he represents "the international community."

Nemesis_Zero · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CanadianWolverine @ Feb 24 2003, 08:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I take exception to your use of "smaller evil". You claim that the region would be utter chaos and anarchy had it not been for the (what comes across as) benevolent dictatorship of Sadam Husien. I doubt the validity of your statements as they come across as conjecture, and not even remotely speculation. That you even bring up doubts as to the oppressive nature of Sadam Husien's regime is incredible, how can you have any doubts about his nature when he has had political opponents, even his own family members, assasinated and has used biological and chemical weapons against unarmed Kurd men, women and children, not to even bother going into the lengthy discussion of the Gulf War Syndrome that has afflicted many a proud warrior from the United States and its allies. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
First, I do <b>not</b> believe Hussein to be a benevolent dictator, in fact, I doubt the possibility of such a person.

When I set 'Saddams opression' in quotes, it was because I took them as quotes from Moultanos posts, not because I had any doubts about this. There is no need to convince me of Husseins opression, I <i>am</i> already convinced of it. As you should've noticed during the last twenty pages, I do not defend the regime of Hussein.

Second, if you want a discussion about Gulf War syndrome, go ahead, but better keep in mind that the Pentagon didn't go out of that without of blame, either.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The real ugly truth is that most of the world puts up with evil men in exchange for money, power, fame, and history book recognition. I say we don't put up with it any longer, lets bring the house down and hold others accountable with decisive military force when diplomacy fails. And diplomacy has been at it for a good 12 years, a time of peace when USA's enemies used that time to build weapons and scheme against you. Considering 09/11/2001, I have to clearly go with removing by force as an option against a clear and present danger. Where is the will to fight for your freedom, America? Why must the international community see fit to rally against the USA, who while may have incredible technical and industrial military prowress, does not have the support of vocal leaders of muslims who number somewhere around a billion, live in more than half the world's land mass, and in many cases live in oppressive regimes. The voice of freedom internationally is not the majority, it just merely has the upper hand for the time being, something which men like Osama Bin Laden and Sadam Husien would like to see change drasticly, something to do with "strange ideas of soveriegnty" like eliminating anything that is not in their One World Religion ("For Allah!") viewpoint, which just happens to be places like Israel, United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, and USA. I suppose my country of Canada wouldn't stand much of a chance with the elimination of any of those places, so I say we fight back while we still have the chance to be a voice for freedom.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I won't comment on this as I a) made my point on pretty much every of the touched subjects clear already, and b) they have nothing to do with my precessing statements.

Big_Game_Hunter · February 2003

Wise words:

Bush met with Nobel Peace laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, who urged Europe to confront Saddam.

"I believe it is the moral duty to intervene when evil has power and uses it," Wiesel said.

"If Europe were to apply as much pressure on Saddam Hussein as (it) does on the United States and Britain, I think we could prevent war," he said. He said the Holocaust could have been avoided if the world had intervened in 1939, a time in history he compared to the current crisis with Iraq.

Gargamel · March 2003

The main war is getting closer, as it has already started with special ops and airstrikes some time now.
(Or maybe never ended since GulfWar)
The USA and British overwhelming Forces will crush the poorly outfitted Iraki Defenders.
Saddam will go in exile. Main Victims will be the Iraqi population.
USA will then have to militarily OCCUPY Iraq, set up a pro-US government like in Afganistan and suck all Iraqi Oil out till Texaco and Exxon have nothing left but Sand.
Isnt war great? It can liberate a whole Country after blowing everything up and restore peace and freedom:
When you re dead you are free and peaceful.

Thank you for supporting the Slaughter for Money, be it Oil or the WarMachine Companies.

Next Bus-Stop: N.Korea

What happened with the palestinian State mentioned in another (and becomming really old) UN Resolution?
Ah... who cares about Palestinians, ha?

Join the US Military now! Be a part of a high-tech Warmachine which fights, conquers and doesnt ask any questions!

You have my sympathy

AllUrHiveRblong2us · March 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Gargamel @ Mar 3 2003, 05:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> What happened with the palestinian State mentioned in another (and becomming really old) UN Resolution?
Ah... who cares about Palestinians, ha?  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Why would we need to go into Palestine to kill Palestinians? We're already paying Isreal a very large sum to do exactly that.

Nemesis_Zero · March 2003

The Palestinian situation is pretty much the trickiest political situation we've currently got on the globe. I suggest you open a seperate thread for that.

Dezmodium · March 2003

Just to jut something in.

Those who say that this is a war of good against evil: thats what Bin Laden uses for cause.

Lets not try to make this thing any more "Holy War" than it is already being made out to be.

Quidam · March 2003

unfortunatly, i think some people <i>are</i> turning this into a semi-holy war.

driving around town today, i see a lovely billboard that could only be labeled as propaganda; it read:

<b>ONE GOD</b>

of course, it could have just been a reference to peace, saying that we should uniteand stop killing. but seeing as i live in a predominantly christian area, and that it had no other markings aside from those words, im going to assume the worst.

Forlorn · March 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Big Game Hunter @ Feb 27 2003, 09:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Wise words:

Bush met with Nobel Peace laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, who urged Europe to confront Saddam.

"I believe it is the moral duty to intervene when evil has power and uses it," Wiesel said.

"If Europe were to apply as much pressure on Saddam Hussein as (it) does on the United States and Britain, I think we could prevent war," he said. He said the Holocaust could have been avoided if the world had intervened in 1939, a time in history he compared to the current crisis with Iraq.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Yep.

I think Elie pretty much supports the argument Saddam is a weaker Hilter of sorts, and should be stopped.

However, no matter how much I support the war, I would like to point out that Eli also said "He would like to see other solutions tried first."

However, I think in the past 12 years we have.

Onuma · March 2003

Everyone seems to forget the last decade...

Forlorn · March 2003

Indeed. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'>

Gargamel · March 2003

Isnt it sad?
Isnt it really really sad?
While most of us know and understand that a War in Iraq wont bring anything good to anyone except Bush Administration Oil Puppies, isnt it sad that we let those suckers rule over the US population? over the U.N? over the whole world? They do anything they want, without caring and we are sitting here and cant do anything <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'> This suxx.

Upcomming War In Iraq

Comments