we all just might die!!!!!

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 [email protected] 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.

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.

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!

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)).

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.

Quote:

---

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).

/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.

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.

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.

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... :D BTW Fox IMO has some of the best coverage out there without the usual left leaning spin... Again JMHO...

Quote:

---

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

---

knoledgesponge nuclear warheads do not launch they are in explosive devices like a fire cracker. In order for saddam to "launch" anything at the us he would have to have an ICBM which he does not have. All that saddam does have is a scud missile which as this link illustrates is only slightly modernized WW2 technology.

Do you really expect any educated person to believe that!

This is really pathetic, an iraqi site quoting UN regulation.

Hey knoledgesponge! Compleate this slogan by JFK "Ask not...."

That is an American flag your flying, right !?!

I wouldn't trust a geocities site to explain Bushes plan for war with Iraq. Goto CNN.com to check first, it's a lot more reliable than a geocities site.

Also, IF we used a nuke, it would be a last resort. If sadam proved to tough to beat the president may use it. The chances of a nuke being fired by the US is slim though.

Britain and America do not, a coalition make...it's about the OIL. It'a always about the oil. Look up Haliburton(Dick Cheney's company), they've been trading with Iraq. But why would we want to mention that when there's more "money" to be made? As long as we pay a buck and a half for our 10 mile a gallon SUVs.....
If one got honest news from CNN and FOX then we wouldn't be in this situation. Do your own research...."the truth is out there",...but are you strong enough to accept it?

Also who the **** are we to decide who runs Iraq?!?!?! Much like who the **** are the Chinese to decide who's Prez in America!

Mahakaal I do agree with you that the real driving force behind any military action in Iraq will be oil. I also havent investigated Haliburton but I wont doubt it for a second that GW and Cheney and alot of other people would benefit financially from a new Iraqi government which is friendly to the U.S. Just look at the situation with North Korea who have openly admitted that they have nuclear devices and they are going to move into full scale production of those devices. Will we invade North Korea as a result of these relevations? Probably not. But I do believe that the U.S. as a world power does have a moral obligation to help out those in need. That is why I would support military action in Iraq with a broad coalition and international support including the UN. However action with anything other than a broad coalition would simply be irresponsible. :D

all_smiles, Scud is a very short range missile, around 180 km. Saddam does have missiles with range of around 3,000 km but you hit the nail in that he definitely doesn't have intercontinental ballistic missiles. See HERE if you want to know more about Iraqi missiles and their coverage.

I think the whole idea of attacking Iraq is a bit dull, just like Mahakaal said, "who the **** are we to decide who runs Iraq?!?!?!". I believe Saddam will leave the world in peace if he's not attacked. Bush is just trying to complete something that his dad failed to do. Iraq has even announced that the UN weapon inspectors can freely come and check the places for weapons of mass destruction. Sure, they can hide them but this is a big step anyway.

ntsa, the missing "w" in knoledgesponge's name is probably the least of his problems. ;)

/me giggles at www.geocities.com/iraqinfo/sanctions/sarticles10/nuke.htm

even the address seems really official >_<;

might go sign up and with geocities and make a site proclaiming that I am a God, Souleman & ntsa are the joint heads of an orginisation which rules the whole planet & Greekgoddess is actually just a very pretty man with a femine voice ;)

but because it would be on the web it would all be true - lol

/me wlaks off shaking head & giggling

v_Ln

What is true and untrue is ambiguous at times and everyone has a different train of thought upon this subject( as you can see by reading these posts and by also watching the news on TV. One argument after the other. I do not like the idea of war so many innocents will die. I had a Muslim woman for a patient once, she told me that jihad (or holy war) is allowed only if someone if trying to take your home or land or trying to force you to change your religion. The Koran teaches much the same as our Bible. As she said many people will use their religion as an excuse to destroy. However, if war does come I would definitly support our cause with all my effort. I thank God that I don't live in Afganistan or any other third world country(my husband says I would be dead within the week for opening my mouth. LOL) I am thankful to be free and would fight for that priviledge Auntie

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by auntie
I had a Muslim woman for a patient once, she told me that jihad (or holy war) is allowed only if someone if trying to take your home or land or trying to force you to change your religion.....I thank God that I don't live in Afganistan or any other third world country(my husband says I would be dead within the week for opening my mouth. LOL) I am thankful to be free and would fight for that priviledge Auntie

---

Correction for you, Jihad does NOT translate as "holy war". But I can understand why we would choose to refer to it as that. What with so many muslim loonies declaring Jihad left, right and center :D . But Jihad means "(to) struggle".
Also a question for you...what "third" World countries have you been to? Or your husband?
Thx in advance for replying :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by l33tp3t3y
I wouldn't trust a geocities site to explain Bushes plan for war with Iraq. Goto CNN.com to check first, it's a lot more reliable than a geocities site.

---

LOL.....CNN?! The propaganda machine of the US. I'd be more likely to believe something scrawled on the wall of a public toilet than anything CNN report.... ;)

I wouldn't say that it was the propaganda machine for the US Conf1rm3d_K1ll... more like the propaganca machine for the left wing... :D I agree that a geocities site is probably the last place to look for valid info on any war with Iraq... www.janes.com is a good site to pick up a good deal of information that the regular news site tend to leave out... Another site that has some good info is www.army.mil/enduringfreedom while it IS a propaganda site it does contain some decent information as well as links to other DOD and alphbet soup agency sites... MSNBC seems to have a few unbiased reports as does ABC news online... For the most part each "news" agency puts their own spin on each story so it makes it rather dificult to get what is fact and what is just some reporters speculation or wishful thinking...

The word "Jihad" has a dual meaning it can be literally translated as"a struggle or striving " (an internal quest for personal betterment.) and it can also be equated with the war aspect of Jihad which some muslims emphasize .A "greater Jihad" is when someone trys to live up to the requirements of faith and a "lesser Jihad" which is an armed self defense of a community. Who can lead a Jihad? A Imam or successor to the prophet Mohammed and only for the restoration of peace and freedom of worship and from tyranny. It does not involve the killing of women or children and must cease when arms are laid down. The Koran gives strict rules on this. The only thing I was trying to say was that many muslims like bin Laden have perverted the meaning of Jihad for their own puposes as I was told by that patient. So I guess if you want to just take only one of the meanings of the word (for there are dual meanings) it can mean the translation you gave . I also said I am glad that I do not live in a third world country by that I broadly meant many of the much poorer , developing nations of the world. I never mentioned whether or not I had lived elsewhere . I simply stated the fact that I am glad I live here and that I was born here. Sorry if I ruffled your feathers. It was not my intent to do so, I have no quarrel with anyone. Auntie

CNN under left wing control? LMAO. There's not a single leftist on CNN for miles. Though agreed that "news" agencies will put a spin on things, however that does not justify believing that all of a sudden Iraq has become much more of a threat.
Fair.org is an excellent media watchdog group.
A very good example of spin/propaganda can be found at Honestreporting.com.


EDIT: If you read my first post about Jihad, I stated exactly what you stated except I gave the literal meaning of the word. That loony muslims will twist things around to fit their own agenda. Also I didnt mean to across as picking on you, my apologies for that :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by 4MidgetHitmen
I wouldn't say that it was the propaganda machine for the US Conf1rm3d_K1ll... more like the propaganca machine for the left wing... :D

---

Left wing? How the hell do you figure that?


Here's a definition-


Left Wing

1. The liberal or radical faction of a group.



I'm confused :confused:

Quote:

---

Left wing? How the hell do you figure that?

---

Very seldom do you see a story on CNN that does not contain more than a little of the reporters bias either for or against the subject being reported on without regard for the oppisite side of the coin ABCand CBS are just as bad... Fox IMO has a much better track record on reporting both ides of a story... Again this is JMO... As examples... Ruby Ridge... CNN gave masive coverage to the stand off and Rady Weavers aledged crimes.... Yet when he was aquited of all charges and released they gave about 2 minutes to the story and as I recall the reporter who "covered the story" felt as if he had gotten away with murder... Waco is another example... CNN had a camera on "the compond" for the entire 52 days... They reported that the Branch Davidians were manufacturing Meth (the lie the FBI and ATF used to get JTF6 involvment) they reported on the trial of the Davidians, etc... They failed however to point out that the Davidians never manufactured drugs of any kind and that a jury aquited them of all but one charge (A weapons charge I think) but the Judge decided that the jury didn't do their job and nullified their verdict and found them all guilty by proclamation... It was CNN that let Randy Shugart and Mike Gordons families know they were killed in Somalia by showing pictures of their bodies being draged down the street and dismembered... Fox, ABC, and CBS all had the same footage CNN did and out of respect for the families involved they did not show the tape... I know that their isn't a media outlet in the US that does not bring its own "spin" to a story... that being said there are those who at least make an effort to give equal time to both side of a story... CNN is not one of those however... Most of their reporting leans very heavily to the left IMO... And will always do so... But then again as someone was kind enough to point out to me in an AP assignment, "what do you know about anything that happens outside of the cave you, your wife/sister, and puppies you call kids live in you a55hole redneck." All of the above is ( with the exception of the insults thrown at my family... To who ever gave the AP assignment notice I only took exception at what you said about my wife and kids... I am an a55hole and a redneck..:D) JMHO I don't expect everyone to agree (that would be really boring) and wouldn't want them too...

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by 4MidgetHitmen
Waco is another example... CNN had a camera on "the compond" for the entire 52 days... They reported that the Branch Davidians were manufacturing Meth (the lie the FBI and ATF used to get JTF6 involvment) they reported on the trial of the Davidians, etc... They failed however to point out that the Davidians never manufactured drugs of any kind and that a jury aquited them of all but one charge (A weapons charge I think) but the Judge decided that the jury didn't do their job and nullified their verdict and found them all guilty by proclamation...

---

:confused: In your own example above you've described a media organisation that spreads misinformation to support the Government. How do you figure that not to be a "propaganda machine of The US" and more importantly how the hell do you call it left wing? :confused: You've lost me...


Anyway, this is way off topic and getting boring. :o

Anyways, more "on topic". The latest (or post latest) issue of popular science has highlighted a very scary thing. The US planning and activly designing "mini-nuclear" warheads for use in Iraq. As the tora bora cave complex has shown the US, their bunker busting capabilities are lacking. They have realised this in the past and have taken efforts to design a bunker busting missle, that bores about 12-20 feet into the ground, and then detonates a nuclear payload. The shock waves let out will destroy anything inside the caverns, and the fallout "should be minimal" as they said. So where do we draw the line on this? The US has already ok'd the reasearch and developement of these weapons for use on Iraqi bunkers.



Now, I agree that something has to be done with saddam. Now, he has in the past brought this upon himself. He was the one who invaded kuwait and started this chain reaction. I have no pity for him at all. I personally do not want that psycho fu*k having nuclear warheads and chemical weapons at all. Who cares if they don't reach us here in the US. What about Isreal? I have alot of friends and some family in Isreal and it scares the **** out of me knowing that at any moment that psychopath can destroy them all. Screw Saddam. We gave him a chance to step down, he chose to go fighting, and I will support my country in its decision.



Various references for you to check.

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science...1094-1,00.html


http://www.observer.co.uk/internatio...763903,00.html
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa083102a.htm
http://www.fas.org/press/011219-mininuke.htm
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...bunker+busters

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%. -------ntsa

if this isnt the most true statement.....cnn.com would be your best bet if your going to do some research......second....its called the UN....we dont run it so it kinda holds us on a
leash from using nukes

I think it's really very unlikely for the USA to nuke Iraq. For starters, they have enough conventional weapons. Also they want the oil to *not* glow in the dark once they've kicked his arse so they can drain the oil.

My main worry is that if Bush (and his little puppy our "glorious" :) ahem, leader, ahem Blair) attack Iraq (with or without UN resolutions, Bush doesn't seem to give a ****), Iraq will not be able to retaliate.

At least Iraq won't have a hope of any of its missiles reaching the USA or UK, however they will nevertheless find someone to retaliate against anyway... Syria or Israel or any of the US's buddies in the region.

Now Israel has a lot of weapons of mass destruction, a lot more than Iraq (which probably has no nukes and only a few chemical missiles). Israel has a history of attacking its neighbours, and the current administration seems unstable.

How many skud missiles (some of them with chemical warheads) would it take for Israel to retaliate with a few nukes? Sure, the USA and UK ambassadors in Israel are going to be begging them not to nuke Iraq (they want the oil, remember?) but they've historically not had much luck in stopping Israel from attacking people with conventional weapons.

Some estimates put Israel's nuclear arsenal at 200 warheads, including some "tactical" weapons - the ones they're most likely to use.

This is why I'm shitting my pants.

Some stuff I'd like to say:

Quote:

---

By: Albert EinsteinI don't know with what weapons the 3rd WW will be fought, But I do know the 4th will be fought with sticks and stones.

---

If all humans on this planet die, life will still exist, or as I read somewhere a while back:
There are two things that will certanly live thrue nuclear hollocoust, cocroaches and Cher..

I could say that I think extinction of human kind, by human conduct would be expectable.
But luckily results of the past don't guaranty the future

although im not a big bush fan....i dont think we(the US) will result to nukes.....we have enough conventional weapons and like slarty said....they have oil(1/3 of the world's) and we want oil....enough said.....well probably invade them and take the country before we nuke them