Saddam has been a dictator (evil) and had weapons for 20 years and there has 
not been a global event.  Dubya has been President for 2 years and he is 
going to start one.  Taken with the fact that there are 2 other unrelated 
nations that he includes in his "axis of power", this is a dangerous 
situation.

On Wednesday 29 January 2003 05:52 am, Vahur Lokk wrote:
> On Wednesday 29 January 2003 09:50, you wrote:
> > All I've got to say for The Shrub, our President, is, "SHOW ME THE BEEF!"
> > If he shows me that he has proof for everything he said, especially the
> > parts about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, I too will stand up and
> > join you in saying loudly, "DO IT!"
>
> 1. No-one believes Saddam has nuclear weapons, even if he has been trying
> to get one.
> 2. He certainly has chemical - he has used them before
> 3. He certainly has biological - he has used them.
> I name fools everyone who seriously considers the idea that Saddam-like guy
> has destroyed them all.
> Now proof is almost impossible - its about finding a needle in a haystack.
> So in fact there is quite stupid situation:
> 1. There is no formal reason for war - no proof
> 2. There is de facto reason - those weapons are out there
> 3. War must start in february - climatical reasons
> 4. If location of bio and chem weapons cannot be found before the war
> breaks out, they can be used and effects of bio weapons will not be limited
> to the war regions but could wipe out half the world
> 5. If Saddam is just left alone continuing current idiotic policies it will
> only get worse - like him getting nukes also. Which would be real shit.
>
> So there is no good answer, and whichever way they go there are serious
> risks. Also this war will be much more difficult than previous Gulf War.
> From militery point of view, I mean. If you have a good way to get rid of
> Saddam fast, without the war, let uncle Bush know ;-)
>
> Wahur


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Reply via email to