Iraq 'accepts Un Resolution'

[Alex @ ISPrime]

I wouldn't trust those cocksuckers!

I think they just want to buy more time...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_ea...ast/2465463.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2465463.stm)
:grrr:




Last edited by Alex @ ISPrime at Nov 13 2002, 06:56 PM

[voodooman]

Your exactly right Alex.

Saddam knows we are preparing to kick his ass again,
so he's just trying to delay that fact. Its still going to
or better happen, and I cant believe we are playing
these political games with em. They are evil and need
to die, YESTERDAY!!!
:steemed:

[Cal]

If you want to help subvert the Iraqi female population send in voodooman!

He's more effective than those stupid pamphlets we dropped from planes.

B)

C.

[Alex @ ISPrime]

Originally posted by voodooman@Nov 13 2002, 07:07 PM
Your exactly right Alex.

Saddam knows we are preparing to kick his ass again,
so he's just trying to delay that fact. Its still going to
or better happen, and I cant believe we are playing
these political games with em. They are evil and need
to die, YESTERDAY!!!
:steemed:
It's funny when Japanese attacked Perl Harbor we nuked them, when these motherfuckers attacked NYC we are nogotiating with them...

Fuck them bombs away! :yowsa:

[PornoDoggy]

I feel very, very sorry for anyone who thinks Iraq's "agreement" today is worth the paper it's printed on. Slowing things down for a bit might be a good thing ... we may need to work a little harder to get control of the last country we invaded before we take on another project.

Just out of curiousity, who you gonna nuke? Japan was a nation - we kinda knew where they were, and we dropped the nukes on them to save American (and Japanese) lives. When we dropped nukes on Japan we didn't have to worry about a dozen other smaller, less stable, nations following our lead and using them when they were attacked too. al Qaida isn't a nation. They may or may not be getting support from some governments. They are here today, and gone tomorrow, which makes targeting problematic, and the collateral damage a bit off the chart. What exactly would nuking somebody accomplish, and who you gonna nuke?

Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11. Trust me, if he had we'd know about it by now. The attempts at linkage are pretty feeble, and I suppose GW considered them necessary to sell the war to the public. I hope it doesn't backfire on him, because I have long believed it's a job we need to do. I just hope it doesn't cause us to take our eyes off the other enemy.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Nov 13 2002, 07:54 PM

[Alex @ ISPrime]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Nov 13 2002, 07:53 PM

Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11. Trust me, if he had we'd know about it by now.

How can you be so sure... we have proof that he was funding al-Qaida from day one. Osama met with Hussein not once, and is in full support of him.

When GB Sr. went to war with IRAQ he should have destroyed this fucker right there and then not pull out and let him regroup. Now GB Jr. is making the same mistakes his father made...

I mean look at the market, look at the economy, last time Bush Sr. Was elected president we had the same shit happening...

It's just SAD...


:blink:

[Mike AI]

You are right Alex.... we need to watch the Iraqies like hawks... they are definately stalling for time.

PD - the message that Bin Laden released the other day professed a lot of support of Iraq... there is linkage, maybe not for specific act of 9-11, but general training, support, money, etc...

They need to go down.

:snipe:

[ulfie]

This is only the 17th time Saddam has agreed to weapons inspectors. The first 16 agreements were all backed out of. I see no reason why we shouldn't believe him this time. :grrr:

[PornoDoggy]

Mike, I agree whole-heartedly that they should go down. There are plenty of reasons they should go down. But lets be realistic here ... if there was linkage that we were aware of Bush would have been on television about 4 hours after the B-1s left Missouri, and we would not be talking about WHEN we go to war ... Baghdad would be a historical site, as in, it would be history.