|
meggem15 |
08:41pm Mar 12, 2002 EST |
1 of 7 |
 |
|
I heard on the nightly national news last night that we are not going to start trying to overthrow Hussein for atleast another year. Does this worry you guys? This worries me because knowing that Hussein is developing biological and nuclear weapons a year sounds very long to wait - what is your opinion?
|
Locke |
09:29pm Mar 12, 2002 EST |
2 of 7 |
|
|
The sooner the better... Bring it on Suddam ;)
..punch and pie
|
AMBI02 |
10:25pm Mar 12, 2002 EST |
3 of 7 |
|
|
YEAH REALLY THE SOONER THE BETTER BUT I DONT THINK WE SHOULD BOMB THEM THOUGH I THINK WE SHOULD JUST TRY FOR SUDDAM AND KILL HIM AND SEE HOW THINGS GO REALLY! WITH OUT HIS LEAD THERE ARE NOT TO MANY MORE WHO COULD CARRY ON HIS FRAME OF MIND (WHICH I THINK IS VERY WARPED) THERE ARE NOT TO MANY PEOPLE WHO REALLY WANT A PIECE OR I DONT THINK SO ANYWAYS SADDAM MAY HAVE NERVE BUT I DONT THINK MANY OF HIS FOLLOWERS HAVE FAITH WITHOUT HIM EDGING THEM ON SO IF WE GET RID OF HIM THEN MAYBE WE COULD QUIET THEM DOWN WITHOUT A FULL BLOWN WAR LIKE IN AFGANISTAN. OSAMA MAY HAVE GOTTEN THE BENIFIT OF THE DOUBT BUT I DONT THINK WE SHOULD LET ANYONE ELSE! STRIKE BEFORE THEY STRIKE US! OR THATS WHAT I THINK ~~~~~AMBER~~~~~
|
Locke |
11:03pm Mar 12, 2002 EST |
4 of 7 |
|
|
hhmmmm... but who would take Saddam's place? One of the big reasons we didn't take him out in the gulf war is because the people that would rise to power in his place were all worse than he is.
So, I think we need to start a lil' rebellion in there and let their own people sort things out.
...punch and pie
If the government is putting it out there that we're going to be idle for a year, I doubt they mean it. Why give somebody you know is building nukes more time to do so or build up a force or hideout? I guarantee the government will be doing something in Iraq during the next year, it just won't be on the front page and it'll be taught in government classes thirty years from now. Locke might be right...we just might be over there starting a rebellion. It's not like we haven't done it before.
Dear Locke,
You're actually wrong. The reason why they didn't take Saddam out during the Gulf War is because they thought the citizens would themselves, but obvioulsy that didn't work. Finding a replacement for him would be the easy part. It's not like he is irreplacable. I could take over Iraq and do a better job then he is now or has ever done, but I wouldn't want to.
See ya,
Josh
|
Locke |
11:47pm Mar 19, 2002 EST |
7 of 7 |
|
|
interesting point Josh... but if you took over Iraq who would follow your government? The pesky thing about politics is that the people need to like the government in power to some point or it will collapse.
In my previous stating, "One of the big reasons we didn't take him out in the gulf war is because the people that would rise to power in his place were all worse than he is." I meant that finding a leader that everyone there would like would be impossible... thus causing the riotious situation you described... We're seeing the same thing just from different angles. ;)
..punch and pie
|
