"A war against Iraq could kill half a million people, warns a new report by medical experts - and most would be civilians. The report claims as many as 260,000 could die in the conflict and its three-month aftermath, with a further 200,000 at risk in the longer term from famine and disease. A civil war in Iraq could add another 20,000 deaths. Collateral Damage is being published on Tuesday in 14 countries and has been compiled by Medact, an organisation of British health professionals. It comes as the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, is deciding how to respond to a series of deadlines on weapons inspections imposed by the United Nations." http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993043 These are the lengths the Bush regime is willing to go to for political gain.
Morlock Im not for a war with Iraq. Im not for a war with anyone actually. Im anti-war. Even if Saddam Hussein lets the weapon inspectors in and does everything that hes suppose to do President Bush will still want to go to war with him thinking that hes hiding something. Bush has no faith in humans... more specifically Bush has no faith in other people outside of the USA. Im more concerned about the economy right now then I am with Iraq, bush just needs to shut his mouth.
Bush is a classist, chauvinist, jingoist, moronic, shortsighted pig (lets not mince words here Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) whos pretty good at misdirection. The distraction of war and manufactured emergency wont have the appeal in a few months that it does now though. Peoples unemployment extensions are running out. Nothing like an empty belly to give you focus. Im concerned about the economy too. In the space of a year and a few months I've gone from having the best job I ever had to being poorer than Ive ever been in my life. Seeing our feckless leader on tv spouting cliches about god, country and evil doesnt pay the bills.
I am not going to argue with the Bush comments or state of the economy...I feel the same. But, you have to look at the other side of the argument if you want to make a valuable judgement. If Saddam refuses to comply with the UN resolution, we can only come to one conclusion: He is either hiding or developing weapons of mass destruction. So, should we wait to see if he drops a nuclear bomb somewhere? What would the death toll of that be? I am all for peace but you have to enforce the rules to keep the peace, right? If rules are not enforced on the world stage, anarchy will be the result. Yes, this means innocents will lose their lives at times. Its a terrible, but unavoidable, reality.
True. If he has them he will use them no doubt. But the only question is when. He isn't making them just to feel better about himself. He will use them. If we get him before they are made, we avoid lotsa people being blown up/gassed. If he refuses to cooperate with the UN...we have no choice. It should be a UN move, not a US only strike...but we have to do something. Otherwise, why the hell do we have a UN? What do you think we should do in this scenario? At some point action must be taken. [Edit for sentence structure]
If he has them he will use them no doubt. Yes doubt. Why would he use them? 1. Contrary to popular belief in America, he isn't insane. Nor is he evil. Nor does he have any other weird mental disorder. 2. There is nothing wrong with having the hots for him. He's a man. If you like men, there is nothing wrong here. If he were a male ape, then maybe something would be wrong. But the only question is when. He's making them for protection. Why else? Of course, maybe he could be making them for some other reason, but after all he is not currently at war with anybody. Ooh, and remember that Bush wanted us to go to war with him before anybody said anything about WMD? And we don't even have proof he's making WMD or that he has them. He isn't making them just to feel better about himself. When did we see proof that he's making them? Please cite your source(s). He will use them. Why would he do that, if he DOES have them? He doesn't have a history of doing things like that. If we get him before they are made, we avoid lotsa people being blown up/gassed. Chances are, if he started making them, he started a while ago and already has them. But maybe he didn't start making them. If he refuses to cooperate with the UN...we have no choice. Who started that whole UN thing in the first place? The US. Here's a short history: Weapons inspectors go in. (no problem here) CIA agents disguised as weapons inspectors go in (wouldn't you be mad?) Iraq does not expell weapons inspectors, but rather stops giving them the clearance they need Weapons inspectors leave, of their own accord It should be a UN move, not a US only strike...but we have to do something. Otherwise, why the hell do we have a UN? Maybe UN forces should annihilate the US for interfering with weapons inspections back in the day?
Isn't evil? He's a bloody dictator. A facist who has no quarrels with gassing his own people. A man who after invading Kuwait takes western hostages and holds them captive so the allies wont invade. A man who did a video broadcast with one of the kids on his knee saying basically invade and he will die. Your right, he isn't evil.
me im not sure that that is really the reason. bush is insane. he will go 2 any lengths 2 keep himself in power. watch bush speaking or at a press conference. it completely amazes me how anyone can take this man seriously. hes the worst worst worst actor. everytime he answers a question with the biggest lie, he sighs: "phew." and its not even insconpicuous, he's so obvious about it. im amazed.
Mostly he is the result of a mediocre man being bailed out of his own mess his whole life by a wealthy dad. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! He sometimes has a smirk reminiscent of Mussolini but he makes a better Bullshitler.
saddam will never nuke the west. the man is not mad. he is a middle eastern problem. let them deal with it. if help is requested, help will be given. making enemies unneccessarily is stupid.
My bet is this time Sadam will blink or will be made to blink by his associates. I think we are counting on dropping 500 pounds on his head. It is easier to get intel in Iraq than in Afghanistan.
furthermore there is talk of asylum in libya. its curtain call time and the man just might take a bow
"Isn't evil? He's a bloody dictator. A facist who has no quarrels with gassing his own people. A man who after invading Kuwait takes western hostages and holds them captive so the allies wont invade. A man who did a video broadcast with one of the kids on his knee saying basically invade and he will die. Your right, he isn't evil." Well, we didn't have any quarrels with him gassing his own people either. I think that continuing to support and fund such an evil person would be an evil act, don't you? And such is Bush the senior. I don't think we have any right whatever to claim moral superiority. Also, that little kid will die if we invade. While it is reprehensible for Saddam to use him for political purposes, we don't seem to have many qualms for killing little kids. For example, the support we continue to give Ariel Sharon after he launched an attack that killed 9 kids and one member of Hamas. (Robert Fisk, "Tageted Killings) Not to say that the Palestinian suicide bombings of children are necessary or justifiable, just a reflection of their desperate situation. It's like a comedy of errors, there aren't any good guys. If we attack Iraq, even to usurp such an evil person, then many innocent people will die. More importantly for the typical selfish American, it will upset so many people and create so much support for terrorist groups, that you will find your personal saftey and economic stability threatened. Just drop the feeling of moral superiority, we really don't deserve it.
Doesn't make him evil. This story is widely exagerrated. The incident was an unintentional consequence of using the bioweapons the US gave him against Iran. After the allies led him to believe they wouldn't have a problem if he did invade... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well, lots of innocent Iraqi children will die if we invade. Are you saying he's wrong to remind us of the humanitarian concerns?
dic·ta·tor ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dkttr, dk-t-) n. 1. a. An absolute ruler. b. A tyrant; a despot. 2. An ancient Roman magistrate appointed temporarily to deal with an immediate crisis or emergency. 3. One who dictates: These initials are those of the dictator of the letter. I think Saddam fits in 1b.