we all just might die!!!!!

[knoledgesponge]

if everthing ive heard is true (and im pretty sure it is!)then we are most likely going to nuke Iraq. First of all if saddam does have all those weapons......so far saddam hasnt done anything to us......yet. If we go and nuke him hes just not going to sit there and do nothing.So far he doesnt have a good excuse to do anything to us, but if we nuke him, then hes gonna have a pretty damn good excuse to nuke us i mean think about it. Also even if hes only got 3 nukes thats still going to do a lot of damage. Modern nukes are hundreds of times more dangerous and effective than the ones we used in WW2. If we nuke him its just going to be a contest of who can keep on pressing the red button the fastest. Also if we nuke them its not just going to affect Iraq, its going to effect the whole middle east and the whole world. Maybe bush and some of u should go and research the explosion of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant and how it affected the whole world and research the suitability of the land Chernobyl once sat on, and think about how many people would die from the explosion, radiation, and cancer it would cause. Dont get me wrong im a republican and a very conservatist one at that but i just think what we are going to do is wrong and should be thought through more. feel free to comment but im not going to be able to read them till next saturday. but if u email me at knoledgesponge@yahoo.com ill do my best to reply to u within that day. But please do not flame me just because u do not agree w/me everybody has the freedom to free speech (least in the US) and im just taking advantage of it. But do feel free to Email me and please post and grade it accordingly.

[ntsa]

Erm. No.

I don't know where you got that, but the suggestion thgat the US might use of WMD againt Iraq is ludicrous. Any Coalition strike (and such a strike is now pretty much inevitable) will consist of conventional weapons, not only because of the collateral damage that would be sustained by the long suffering Iraqi people, but also because of the backlash in the international community that would be caused by the use of non-conventional weapons.

If Saddam Hussein has one ounce of compassion for his countrymen he could stop this thing right now by doing the honourable thing and standing aside and allowing regime change with proper democratic elections (an election with only one candidate is NOT democratic). But one can judge Saddams's compassion for his people by the fact that he uses them for target practice.

Given these facts the remainder of your diatribe is redundant.

[Tedob1]

i dont know where you getting your info knoledgesponge, but its wrong. First off nobody has any plans to nule Iraq. If we the US were to do that we wouldn't have an allie in the world. How would saddam deliver nules if he had them...recruit suicide bommers somewhere, pay the families of six or eight of them, tie them too it and have them walk it somewhere? Modern nukes are tactical in nature and mostly around the size of ww2 nukes. the days of the 25 to 250 megaton bombs are gone...just no future in it. Suitcase type bombs will take devistate a couple of city blocks, but the reprocussions for using such devices make it not worth while. The world will go on!

[KissCool]

I don't think it will become a nuclear war. The main purpose of diplomatic actions for the latest 57 years has been to sink the eventuality of a such war.
We will not destroy the humanity only for a little dictator who think he is invicible (a lot of dictators think they are invicible) and who's even not the worst on earth (remind Ceaucesku (sorry for the spelling of his name)).

[Scorp666]

I don't know about you guys but I am getting tired of those Irak, Bush, Saddam posts...
Since when this site became a political discussions site? And btw I don't think that if there is a war it will change much in the world except for the price of petrol for a while.

Most of these posts make no sense such as this one and now they push the lameness enveloppe to a new high by adding a yes/no poll.

[knoledgesponge]

Originally posted here by Tedob1
i dont know where you getting your info knoledgesponge, but its wrong. First off nobody has any plans to nule Iraq. If we the US were to do that we wouldn't have an allie in the world. How would saddam deliver nules if he had them...recruit suicide bommers somewhere, pay the families of six or eight of them, tie them too it and have them walk it somewhere? Modern nukes are tactical in nature and mostly around the size of ww2 nukes. the days of the 25 to 250 megaton bombs are gone...just no future in it. Suitcase type bombs will take devistate a couple of city blocks, but the reprocussions for using such devices make it not worth while. The world will go on!

www.geocities.com/iraqinfo/sanctions/ sarticles10/nuke.htm first of all guys after reading that report i hope you change ur minds or ur in for a surprise. for sure us nukeing iraq is not definite, and i stated that in my thread, and to Tedob: you can launch a nuke from thousands of miles away it doesnt have to be launched from a plane. but thanks for stateing your opinion

oh and guys besure to read the whole article because i find u guys r stating things that i said and/or clarified! thanks

and in the first place this really isnt about us nuking iraq if we go in and invade it hes still likely to nuke us with a long range missle or send us some biological weapons (that is if he hasnt already).

[ntsa]

/me lol @ knoledgesponge's "references"

I know that this may come as a shock, knoledgesponge, but not everything written on the Internet is 100% accurate. In some instances - like the one you cite - accuracy levels have sunk well below 0%.

The "Iraqi Resource Information Site" - bearing the subtitle "Campaign to End Sanctions" - is hardly the best place to find unbiased news on current events. Might I suggest www.cnn.com or even www.bbc.co.uk as perhaps slightly better source of informed speculation.

BTW - there's a W in knoledge. I'll let you figure out where for yourself. And try getting the information from a reliable source this time.

[Terr]

This is a misleading topic! I can say with 100% certainty that everyone currently alive in the world will die within a lifetime of each other.

[imported_all_smiles]

knoledgesponge i think that it is absolutly ridiculous for you to even suggest that the US would go to nuclear war with Iraq in the present situation. The purpose of any attack against Iraq would be to simply remove saddam from power and establish a democratic government in his place, not to annilate the entire population through the use of nuclear weapons. Like ntsa stated the information on the internet is not always 100% truthful. Look at the credibility of your sources before you cite them because if you dont then you may be in for a surprise and a little embarassment. As KissCool stated the goal of all diplomatic efforts is to remove the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons and in fact any strike on Iraq would be working towards this goal not away from it.

[4MidgetHitmen]

knoledgesponge there is a very slight chance that any war in iraq could become nuclear in nature... The US will not use nukes as a first strike... Current US doctrine on the use of nuclear weapons is as a response to the use of WMD against US troops, instalations, intrests, or allies... And unless you are talking about a Soviet (I know the USSR doesn't exist anymore) invasion of Western Eroupe I seriously doubt that we will nuke Iraq... FYI a couple of other good sources for info are:

www.foxnews.com
and
www.janes.com

To which ever kiddie it was who likes to call names: thank you for your point of veiw and if being from the country, loving my wife and family, caring for those in need, being a law abiding citizen, and loving God and his Son make me a redneck then I guess I am... And damn proud of it too... BTW Fox IMO has some of the best coverage out there without the usual left leaning spin... Again JMHO...