# Is Iraqi war justified?



## MDLarson (Mar 8, 2003)

I watched President Bush's speech a couple of nights ago and tend to agree with his main points:

1)  Saddam and his regime are a threat to the West (primarily terrorism.)
2)  The UN has issued a demand for the disarmament of Iraq, which it has failed to do.
3)  Diplomacy has not worked thus far and action is needed to back up the UN resolution.

Consider this quote from here.





> None of the Iraqis who agreed to be interviewed for this article had any sympathy for Saddam Hussein. Armand, a filmmaker from Chicago, says he hopes if there is a war, Saddam will be ousted.
> 
> "It makes me sick when people campaign against war," says Armand, who says he fled Iraq after taking part in the unsuccessful rebellion against Saddam that followed the Gulf War. "I don?t want to live in this constant fear all the time. If there is a war and my family survives the war, I will at least be able to go and see them."


I realize that most of you folks are democrats and do not support Bush, but I'd like to get past that and just debate the necessity of this war.

p.s.  I voted "Yes"


----------



## Ricky (Mar 8, 2003)

War is never justified.


----------



## Giaguara (Mar 8, 2003)

Peace.

_"Indeed, peace is preferred, but when terrorists fly planes into buildings (causing massive loss of life) we cannot simply let the enemy plot for more of the same. Action is required. "_

Well. In Milan (Italy) there was a Swiss pilot piloting a Cessna to one of the famous skyscrapers (Pirelli, a skyscraper in the European scale) in last April or May. As far as I know, Italy hasn't started a war to Switzerland for that. About 10 persons died on that 'attack'. Does it qualify as a terrorist attack? A Swiss pilot flied intentionally into that building.


----------



## toast (Mar 8, 2003)

I am not a pacifist.
I voted *no* because, for the last two weeks, I have read hundreds of posts in this macosx.com café, and I didn't find one sole valuable argument supporting war, whereas I've read dozens of thoughtful opinions against it. 

Pax,
Toast


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 8, 2003)

Indeed, peace is preferred, but when terrorists fly planes into buildings (causing massive loss of life) we cannot simply let the enemy plot for more of the same.  Action is required.  Does no one see this simple equation?  Or is my equation wrong?  How can one justify idleness in these circumstances?


----------



## RacerX (Mar 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MDLarson _
> *Indeed, peace is preferred, but when terrorists fly planes into buildings (causing massive loss of life) we cannot simply let the enemy plot for more of the same.  Action is required.  *



Yes, absolutely! Action is required. We should never have started on this distraction in the first place.

If the Bush doctrine actually holds water, then why Iraq and not North Korea? Iraq isn't really a threat to anyone (but their own people) at this point. North Korea is going out of their way to be seen as a threat (though it is most likely a weird cry for help) and actually has the ability to do what Iraq can't (actually hurt us).

I only see three threats to US interests at this point (not in any order of magnitude):
 Terrorism from al Qaeda cells
 North Korea
 George W. Bush


----------



## JetwingX (Mar 8, 2003)

as many of you may know i am anti-war

read below (the sig )


----------



## AppMan (Mar 8, 2003)

Lock and load! Line em' up  & take em out!


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Mar 8, 2003)

I voted NO.
And what is confusing me a lot is, what the hell is the real reason and legitimation for a war? I really have no clue!
All I see is that the USA is jumping from one issue to the other. Doesn't make this all look professional but more (excuse me!) childish. How can anyone expect us (European) to understand their point?
And that's why I JUST see few cowboys trying to get their so much wanted war...
Sorry for being so frank!


----------



## chabig (Mar 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ricky _
> *War is never justified. *



Did your Mama tell you to post that?


----------



## Ricky (Mar 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MDLarson _
> *Indeed, peace is preferred, but when terrorists fly planes into buildings (causing massive loss of life) we cannot simply let the enemy plot for more of the same.  Action is required.  Does no one see this simple equation?  Or is my equation wrong?  How can one justify idleness in these circumstances? *


So an eye for an eye?  I'm guessing you're also for the death penalty?


----------



## Ricky (Mar 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chabig _
> *Did your Mama tell you to post that? *


No.  Don't make me moderate you.


----------



## adambyte (Mar 8, 2003)

The weird thing is that, the Iraqis have not exactly directly provoked the U.S. in any way. or at least, it doesn't seem like it. They just kind of sit there, and quietly build up a little arsenal. 

It seems the Bush Dynasty (somebody end it!) simply wants to get rid of Saddam and just can't let things lie.

I don't think a war was justified. No. But now that Bush has gotten the whole world riled up, he sure as hell can't back down now. And it shows.

Bah. Voted "don't know."


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ricky _
> *So an eye for an eye?  I'm guessing you're also for the death penalty? *


Already this thread has incited irrational debate (not just your post, Ricky.)

I look at it this way; "The West" (for lack of a better term) has a certain lifestyle.  Bush calls it Freedom.  Al Qaeda has made it clear with the Sept 11 attacks that they don't like something in the U.S.A.  They have and will attack again.

What are we to do?  They *have* attacked first.  Either they attack more innocent "infidels" or we put a stop to it.  For those who say "NO WAR!" so vehemently, please answer this hypothetical question:

How will your opinion change if you or your country are being attacked for no reason by a bloodthirsty dictator / leader?  What if they showed no signs of letting up or no willingness to participate in diplomacy?  What if they wanted to dominate the world?  _Would you support war then?_

Racer, if Iraq was not a threat to the outside world, why is it still producing weapons of mass destruction?  If Saddam is willing to use them on his own people, is that not enough of a reason to liberate the Iraqi people?

North Korea?  I have similar thoughts on that as well, but I'm not going to get into that here (for the sake of keeping the thread on-topic.)  Likewise, I have no intention of talking about the death penalty in this thread.

I have made an argument for the necessity of war, and so far nobody has disproved those three main points in my original post.

Please, for the sake of intelligent debate, refrain from personal attacks (including those on me!)


----------



## edX (Mar 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chabig for Ricky_
> Did your Mama tell you to post that?



if she did, he's got a very smart mother.


mdlarson - the tactic of interviewing a few people who have fled the country that is our enemy is a propaganda tecnique that never seems to get old. i can remember it being used to sell war and support the idea of 'liberation' back with Vietnam. 

But think about it, if i moved to Canada or Mexico and starting making statements about how the wolrd should liberate the US fromGeorge Bush, how much would that really mean?


----------



## Ricky (Mar 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MDLarson _
> *Already this thread has incited irrational debate (not just your post, Ricky.)*


Okay, let me rephrase my question a bit.
Do you think Timothy McVeigh deserved the death penalty he received from his bombing in Oklahoma City?  This relates to the discussion because of the way terrorists bombed the WTC with jets.  It is apparent that the U.S. thinks the leaders of the Al Queda deserve the death penalty for their actions.
Sorry if I seemed a little off topic.  :\


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *mdlarson - the tactic of interviewing a few people who have fled the country that is our enemy is a propaganda tecnique that never seems to get old. i can remember it being used to sell war and support the idea of 'liberation' back with Vietnam.
> 
> But think about it, if i moved to Canada or Mexico and starting making statements about how the wolrd should liberate the US fromGeorge Bush, how much would that really mean?*


It would mean more if you joined Al Qaeda, a real enemy.  And that doesn't mean these testimonies are untrue.

George Bush does not kill his own people.  I've even heard the Iraqi regime has a professional rapist who is sent to prey on the families of those who dissent Saddam.  I've also heard that Saddam poisons the children of those who oppose him and the resulting disfiguration is meant as a reminder never to cross him again.


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 8, 2003)

Note:  I replied to Ricky's death penalty question privately.


----------



## edX (Mar 8, 2003)

"I've heard" isn't much of an arguement. but it's the level of reasoning that Bush and those who support him are using to promote war. This scares me. The whole thing scares me.


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *"I've heard" isn't much of an arguement. but it's the level of reasoning that Bush and those who support him are using to promote war. This scares me. The whole thing scares me. *


Yeah, sorry about that.  It's the best I can do right now.  But you didn't read my original post...  those three points I outlined earlier are pretty hard to deny.

And yes, the "whole thing" scares me too.


----------



## Ugg (Mar 8, 2003)

GW has declared a war on terror.  Why aren't we in Northern Ireland, Rwanda, Cote d'Ivoire, Northern Spain, Chiapas, Chechnya.  All of these places have ongoing terror campaigns.  Ok, so maybe only in Northern Ireland has there been a major loss of US life but  Nobody has yet proved that there is a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda.  

Why are we attacking Iraq?   Nobody has yet answered that.  GW only has a mandate from Congress for a war on terror.  Although Saddam has certainly terrorized his own people and the Kuwaitis there is no link that he is associated with Al Qaeda.  There does seem to be evidence that the Saudi Royal Family has supported Al Qaeda.   Based on your logic shouldn't we go bomb Riyadh?  

There is no justification for fighting a war against Iraq, period.  Saddam should not be in power and I think few people would disagree  with that statement.  Maybe that should be the starting point of any discussion, not whether a war against Iraq is justified.


----------



## Ugg (Mar 8, 2003)

"George Bush does not kill his own people."

Well, all though the death penalty is legal in the US there is no doubt that he is responsible for a great deal of deaths in Texas.  Didn't he send more people to their execution than any other Governor in the history of the US?


----------



## edX (Mar 8, 2003)

huh? i must have read your first post to have replied about the interviewing dissidents part. but here, is this what you are looking for?



> _Originally posted by MDLarson _
> I watched President Bush's speech a couple of nights ago and tend to agree with his main points:
> 
> 1)  Saddam and his regime are a threat to the West (primarily terrorism.)


uh, this is the worst arguement of all. it was the biggest one used to promote Vietnam -the domino theory thing. we eventually lost that one and still the USSR dissolved and the world didn't turn into one big communist state. as has been stated eslewhere, there is no soliid proof of connections to terrorism with Sadam. only speculation. there is nothing to connect Iraq to bin Ladin. if there was, we would have heard about it long ago in much more precise detail.


> 2)  The UN has issued a demand for the disarmament of Iraq, which it has failed to do.


and so the UN should be the ones to take action, not Cowboy George acting as the Lone Ranger. we should act in conjunction with the organization *we set up* to handle such situations. the united nations shouldn't be something of convience that we choose to comply with only when it suits us.


> 3)  Diplomacy has not worked thus far and action is needed to back up the UN resolution.


again, let the UN decide that, not GW and the republican war economists. take action in response to something other than an imagined threat - which is all we really have right now. 



> I realize that most of you folks are democrats and do not support Bush, but I'd like to get past that and just debate the necessity of this war.
> 
> p.s.  I voted "Yes"



to be quite clear, i would feel the same way if it were a democrat doing all this. Lyndon Johnson was the democrat who was responsible for escalating Vietnam and i will never think of him in good ways. despite all his other flaws, i will always be thankful to Richard Nixon for ending Vietnam & the draft and opening up international relationships in unprecedented ways. all great works that Bush seems hellbent on undoing.


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by me_
> *Saddam and his regime are a threat to the West (primarily terrorism.)*





> _Originally posted by edX _
> *uh, this is the worst arguement of all. it was the biggest one used to promote Vietnam -the domino theory thing.*


I am not as informed as I should be about this point, but I trust Bush and his administration's discretion.  I believe the reports of Saddam destroying some weapons and at the same time making the same weapons.  I believe U.S. intelligence has more evidence than is public knowledge.  From my standpoint, I don't understand why Bush would want a war that wouldn't make a difference, like the picture you painted about Viet Nam.

I think the fundamental difference between me and many of you is that I trust Bush and you think he's a mad man.


----------



## toast (Mar 8, 2003)

> What are we to do?  They *have* attacked first



I've got to go out, I'l be quick: this is properly ridiculous, please learn world history before 9/11. Take a careful look at years 1975/76 and 1991-1993, please. More to come.


----------



## edX (Mar 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MDLarson _
> *I am not as informed as I should be about this point, but I trust Bush and his administration's discretion.  I believe the reports of Saddam destroying some weapons and at the same time making the same weapons.  I believe U.S. intelligence has more evidence than is public knowledge.  From my standpoint, I don't understand why Bush would want a war that wouldn't make a difference, like the picture you painted about Viet Nam.
> 
> I think the fundamental difference between me and many of you is that I trust Bush and you think he's a mad man. *



i know you're too young to remember Matt, but this was exactly the rhetoric used by those who supported the war in Vietnam. looking back we have a whole host of reasons as to why it wasn't so. it would be better if americans did less trusting and more questioning of all their leaders - regardless of their party affiliation. One reason Bush would so badly want a war of any kind is because war economies are boom economies. war is big business. Bush doesn't seem to have any other viable economic strategies that we've heard so far.

i also think ugg is making some good points that you seem to be ignoring.


----------



## toast (Mar 8, 2003)

Gulf War II

Hilarious. And somewhat credible.


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *i know you're too young to remember Matt, but this was exactly the rhetoric used by those who supported the war in Vietnam. looking back we have a whole host of reasons as to why it wasn't so.
> 
> i also think ugg is making some good points that you seem to be ignoring. *


Well, one thing Bush said was that they have a clear plan (in contrast to Viet Nam.)  Bush's plan is disarmament.

As far as Ugg's posts go, I figured I was addressing them anyway, plus I'm not interested in discussing the death penalty here.  I guess I could clarify my statement:  "Bush does not kill _innocent_ people."


----------



## toast (Mar 8, 2003)

*MDLarson:* _"Indeed, peace is preferred"_
Preferred ? Is it a question of preference ? Well, you know, those Iraqi civilians would prefer staying alive in that case ! Come on, peace is not preferrable, it's the only rational choice hanging around.

_"when terrorists fly planes into buildings (causing massive loss of life)"_

Those words in brackets don't mean anything. People with scruples will tell you the number of lives does not count. People without scruples will tell you 'approx. 3000' killed is nothing compared to the average US military attack. For my own, I opt for the first answer.

And searching for peace is *not* idleness. It's far more complicated to disarm Iraq peacefully than to send three B52s around and tell them to press the red button when George Walter feels it's time to rule the world again.

*RacerX*: _If the Bush doctrine actually holds water, then why Iraq and not North Korea?_
No oil. No geostrategic importance.

_not bad toast. this was the only part i felt needing editing out. -edX_
_very fine. -toast_

*MDLarson*: _"I look at it this way; "The West" (for lack of a better term) has a certain lifestyle.  Bush calls it Freedom.  Al Qaeda has made it clear with the Sept 11 attacks that they don't like something in the U.S.A.  They have and will attack again."_

Don't you feel you're making this a bit too much ideologic ? Do you really think Osama Bin Laden founded a planetary terrorist organization and planned the biggest terrorist attack the 20th century has known just because he doesn't like smell of hamburgers and self-made man mythology ?

Please do not forget that 'Liberty' has vanished from the US/Arabic world equation a long time ago. Oil, economic interests, OPEC, puppet regimes, post-Cold War relationships, pressure groups, state terrorism - food for thought. Please make this equation a *bit* more complex.

_"What are we to do?  They have attacked first.  Either they attack more innocent "infidels" or we put a stop to it"_

You missed it all.

1) They have NOT attacked you first. Before Al Qaeda threw two planes on the US, the US had sent (or sold) thousand of missiles over Afghanistan, over Iraq, over Middle East in general ! I repeat, history does not start on 9/11.

Check any history book, for G*d's sake ! WHO sold Saddam the gas he used against Kurds ? I know who. My own country. Yours too. Please, think with those arguments in mind. Stop referring at 9/11 as the first geopolitcal event of the 20th century.

2) You won't put a stop at terrorism by bombing a country. First of all, this country is one of the very few who does not support state terrorism. Moreover, fighting against terrorism and bombing a delimited piece of territory do not go together. On top of that, bombs add fuel to terrorism.

_"How will your opinion change if you or your country are being attacked for no reason by a bloodthirsty dictator / leader?  What if they showed no signs of letting up or no willingness to participate in diplomacy?  What if they wanted to dominate the world?  Would you support war then?"_

MD, *why don't you just apply this sentence to the USA instead of Iraq* ?!

- You have the bloodthirsty Bush administration, made of hawks and former Gulf generals.
- You show no sign to participate to world diplomacy, as you're yelling on all TVs you'll go to war with or without UN.
- You want to dominate the world.
- So, should I support war over the US  ? I don't, am I wrong ? 

_"George Bush does not kill his own people."_

Yes he does. That's just not the same Bush we're talking about: Bush Snr sent thousands of soldiers to Gulf War who came back home with Gulf War syndromes (backlash effects of gas, equivalent to cancer in terms of secondary effects).

_"I've even heard the Iraqi regime has a professional rapist who is sent to prey on the families of those who dissent Saddam."_

I thought that was a red two-necked dragon who came and spit fire over their houses. Hilarious.

_"I am not as informed as I should be about this point, but I trust Bush and his administration's discretion."_

You do have the right to trust your country's administration. But you should learn a bit more about some of its members, esp. Rumsfeld and Powell, as well as on your President too. But I have no lessons to give.

_I believe U.S. intelligence has more evidence than is public knowledge._

I believe Hans Blix knows far more than the US and that his report is not as biased as the American ones. I won't even evoke the British report, I'd be banned for flaming Great-Britain. 

Last points (copied on yours):
1) GWB and his administration are a threat to the Middle-East (and primarily to world peace).

2) The UN has issued a demand for the disarmament of Iraq, which it has failed to do in a first time, but has now changed and begins to cooperate, according to UN inspectors. Yesterday, UN's 3rd report claimed Iraq was cooperating fairly well.

3) War has not worked so far and action is to be avoided to back up the UN resolution and general role in internation relations. Bomb = solution has never been a correct equation nor a long-term solution.

*EDIT* Smaller points (disclaimer  ):

4) I don't think Bush is a madman. Most madmen are inoffensive. 

5) If you feel I've offensed you personnally at any point in this post, tell me, I'll ask a mod to cut it whatever it is. I'm making it very clear I am not anti-American nor anti-MDLarson, I hope you all get the message. And I play StarCraft too. 

6) That's the first time in my life I agree with my President.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Mar 8, 2003)

Very impressive toast!
It was a pleasure and huge satisfaction to read your post!


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 8, 2003)

Ack!  Hats off to you, Toast, I'm giving up.  I just don't have the energy to keep doing this.  You may be right on some points, but my opinion stands unchanged.  You all have convinced me that there is always the broader context to consider.

---
Well, that was an unpleasant thing to write!  :\


----------



## edX (Mar 8, 2003)

and Matt, whether we end up going to war because some of your points pan out or we don't because ours do, the idea of considering the broader context and consequences is always important in an issue like this. I'm not sure that we expected to change your opinion, but if we got you, for even a moment, to understand why we don't feel the same way, then this has been worth it. it takes a big man to admit what you just did. i just wish Bush could be as big a man.


----------



## TommyWillB (Mar 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ricky _
> *War is never justified. *


My feeling exactly!


...but on the other hand, I don't think war and justice have anything to do with each other. 

I do beleive War is sometimes useful when it is in defense... Starting a war is a much different thing.


----------



## TommyWillB (Mar 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ricky _
> *Okay, let me rephrase my question a bit.
> Do you think Timothy McVeigh deserved the death penalty he received from his bombing in Oklahoma City?  This relates to the discussion because of the way terrorists bombed the WTC with jets.  It is apparent that the U.S. thinks the leaders of the Al Queda deserve the death penalty for their actions.
> Sorry if I seemed a little off topic.  :\ *


It is interesting how George Bush has confused everyone into talking about al Qaeda and Iraq as if they are the same thing... No one from Iraq was in any of the September 11 planes!

How come no one talks about Afghanistan any more? Isn't that where the "terrorists" came from? How about the Talliban... They our friends now?

...and when is the last time we've seen or heard about anyone from al Qaeda? Didn't we give Osama and all of them the "death penalty" when we bombed them in their caves?


----------



## toast (Mar 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *and Matt, whether we end up going to war because some of your points pan out or we don't because ours do, the idea of considering the broader context and consequences is always important in an issue like this. I'm not sure that we expected to change your opinion, but if we got you, for even a moment, to understand why we don't feel the same way, then this has been worth it. it takes a big man to admit what you just did. i just wish Bush could be as big a man. *



My exact thoughts. 
_*Goes back to Apple General Discussion rooms*_


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *...the idea of considering the broader context and consequences is always important in an issue like this. I'm not sure that we expected to change your opinion, but if we got you, for even a moment, to understand why we don't feel the same way, then this has been worth it. it takes a big man to admit what you just did. i just wish Bush could be as big a man. *


Well, thanks for the "Big man status" complement.  

Actually, most of my motivation for posting this thread was a desire to let all opinions be heard.  I hope people can understand my side a little better, although I haven't exactly been convincing.

But anyway, let people vote!  And please, those who voted "Yes", maybe you guys have some better debating skills than I?


----------



## edX (Mar 8, 2003)

> And please, those who voted "Yes", maybe you guys have some better debating skills than I?



Matt, if only issues like this could be boiled down to debating skills. then we could be sure this war was never going to happen because GW has almost none of them. So far his only defense has been essentially "I'm right, i don't care what anybody says." 

but what does it possibly say that you haven't been as convincing as you thought you would be? i figure it reflects more on your source material than it does on you.


----------



## Ugg (Mar 8, 2003)

I think that this thread and forum are extremely important in that we all get together and talk about it.  And in my opinion, discussion about Iraq is the one thing that is seriously lacking.  

MD, I disagree with you from the very center of my soul but a part of me says, hmmm, what if he does have WMD and was planning on using them?  I can't reconcile that thought with my thoughts that war is never justifiable.  

In the days following September 11th, I saw a poster that has stayed with me, it said, "On September 11th more than 10,000 children around the world died of starvation"

Whose lives were more important that day?  Those who died by terrorist attacks or those who died because of our apathy?


----------



## Satcomer (Mar 8, 2003)

Haven't the other threads beat this issue to death. 

I want to make it clear in saying defensive war is justified. Does anyone read the history of our grandparents/great grandparents? I'll give a little clue, WWI & WWII.

Do I thinks war is justified against Iraq-undecided. Do I think GW is evil, no. Do I think he is misguided, yes.

Lastly, do I think France is acting right on the world stage, no. They are acting on pure emotion and hypocritically. What they are doing in Africa is almost the same as what GW wants to do. Go it alone.


----------



## toast (Mar 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Satcomer _
> *I want to make it clear in saying defensive war is justified. Does anyone read the history of our grandparents/great grandparents? I'll give a little clue, WWI & WWII.*



WWI was not defensive for all of us here. My own country went into WWI by pure colonialist ambition, not because some archduke was killed .



> _Originally posted by Satcomer _
> *Lastly, do I think France is acting right on the world stage, no. They are acting on pure emotion and hypocritically. What they are doing in Africa is almost the same as what GW wants to do.*



I agree France's position in Africa is a shame for every French citizen. It's very different from any GW action because of our colonial past with Africa, which makes things worse and very difficult to change.

The action is right, however, IMHO.
The thoughts behind it may be very much hypocritical, though, I agree.

But still, I'll back up any hypocrit who defends peace over war.


----------



## chabig (Mar 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ugg _
> *In the days following September 11th, I saw a poster that has stayed with me, it said, "On September 11th more than 10,000 children around the world died of starvation"
> 
> Whose lives were more important that day?  Those who died by terrorist attacks or those who died because of our apathy? *



Are you seriously trying to suggest that deaths in other countries due to starvation are the fault of the United States?


----------



## Ugg (Mar 9, 2003)

First off I said around the world.  Although it is hard to believe that someone could starve in the land of Super Size, I'm sure it is happening.  I should have clarified the statement to point a finger at everyone in the west or post industrial world or in countries that don't face mass starvation or whatever label you want to give it.  So, yes Americans are partly to blame.


----------



## plastic (Mar 9, 2003)

Another massive armed conflict does not help anyone at all. If Bush and his cowboy administrators are right about Saddam, then send in a covet operative and assassinate the Iraqi Terror-man. Why war?

And why, the massive number of engineers included in the shipping list who specialises in handling oil fires? Hmm... something that we missed?

Russia and Iraq signed a non-Opec deal on output of oil. Anyone remember that? They went against US' appeal to join Opec and well... now they are terrorist country.


----------



## plastic (Mar 9, 2003)

Just want to make it clear that I am not anti-US.

Just anti-war.


----------

