www.bigfatbaby.com/newfun2/flash/saddam.swf

That's .... disturbing.

lamo funny very funny

Right very funny..

I don't see how you can see this as very funny, bombing another country killing innocent people..




Two words..


"Typical Americans".

killing inocent people? haha your funny..

Oh, so they are not innocent? is that what your saying?

How would you like it if i posted some flash with bin laden, "lets bomb bush & the U.S"?

I'd say "your an idiot" plain and simple...btw i don't know if you noticed this or maybe I wasn't the only one? but it said "its time to bomb saddam" last time i checked saddam is only one person, and we by now should know he's not innocent...

Hmm, bombing saddam would mean bombing the country hes based in, wouldnt it? You can't exactly bomb one person, now can you?

sure you can...its called strategic bombing..

Right..

Like the bombing in afghanistan? Blew a wedding apart, killed a few hundred.. right strategic bombing..

want me to go on?

Blah, bunch of war mongers.

http://www.madblast.com/view.cfm?type=FunFlash&display=1627

Warning: bad language

Hahaha, i wouldnt be surprised at saddam laughing at these, he wants attention and you sure are giving it to him..

and what makes it more funny, is your so desperate to get back at him you need these "flash" movies, oh please.. how sad :P

Since everyone is sharing images, flash ect, i might aswell :)

we have a reason...

And enlighten me what that may be?

Originally posted by edude
And enlighten me what that may be?
To ensure that Iraq is not violating the 1991 cease treaty in which they agreed to disarm. Since they kicked out UN inspectors, the United States had to get on their case because of the possibility that they are harboring chemical, biological and/or nuclear weapons/materials.

The point of war would be to secure any weapons they have. Since they have agreed to let UN inspectors back in, we do not have to go to war. If we did nothing about it and they launched attacks on other nations (with the small possibility of the United States as a target) the results would be many more casualties than would be if we fought them and took the weapons ourselves. The United States does not go in and completely blow up Iraq or even bomb civilian structures, bombs would only be directed at military installations.

Originally posted by edude
And enlighten me what that may be?

If you don't think the US has a reason, why don't you ask the UN:

http://www.daily-journal.com/content/?id=16332

which intrestingly enough says:

The administration gamely answers that the United States always reserves the right to make its own judgment and act in its own defense.

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/62492.htm

as Iraq upped the ante by firing once again on U.S. and British warplanes over a "no-fly" zone.

The White House says the Iraqis are in "material breach" of U.N. resolutions simply by firing on the planes - in other words, that Iraq is already asking for war.

Lets see, they wiolate the rules and provsions of the UN, is that reason enough for you?

Europeans are tons of fun. Lets take a look at your history for a minute.

First there is the fact that at a conference in Munich in 1938 the leaders of Italy, France, and England agreed to give land to Hitler as long as he promises not to attack other areas. That was a real smart move. What did Hitler do shortly there after? He attacked other areas.

Proof that Europe has been slow to act in the face of a clear and repesent danger to the world and would rather just sign treaties saying please don't hurt us, just go bother anyone else, we won't defend them. Way to go Europe!

What happpens a year later? Britain and France declare war as Hitler walks into Paris. Some good that little treaty did.

Europe has always been slow to act on such things like this. They were with Hitler they are with Saddam.

US: This guy has nukes and is trying to use them on us, we decalre war!

EU: No you don't, not so fast, lets sit and argue about it for a few years, draw up resoltuions, and complain how you are barbarians.

US: But he forgot to fill out the UN approval form for nukes.

EU: Where's our army?!? Their all dead men!

When will Europe learn, after Hitler Jr has taken half the continent and is bombing England? Than the barbarian Americans and their uncivilized manners will be put up with, right?

please :rolleyes:

Way to take two jokes of political staire and turn it into a political debate, but now you got it.

Edude is it just me or do you just stick your foot in the door everywhere you can to stirr up things?

Originally posted by DanielP
Edude is it just me or do you just stick your foot in the door everywhere you can to stirr up things?

No, some people just don't know what is going on outside their little bubble and that there is a world out there.

Originally posted by DanielP
Edude is it just me or do you just stick your foot in the door everywhere you can to stirr up things?

I agree one one thread he said he was from iraq then today from australia..he must move alot

Originally posted by mindboggle

To ensure that Iraq is not violating the 1991 cease treaty in which they agreed to disarm. Since they kicked out UN inspectors, the United States had to get on their case because of the possibility that they are harboring chemical, biological and/or nuclear weapons/materials.

The point of war would be to secure any weapons they have. Since they have agreed to let UN inspectors back in, we do not have to go to war. If we did nothing about it and they launched attacks on other nations (with the small possibility of the United States as a target) the results would be many more casualties than would be if we fought them and took the weapons ourselves. The United States does not go in and completely blow up Iraq or even bomb civilian structures, bombs would only be directed at military installations. I agree with edude. How can you bomb Sadaam without injuring innocent people. Even with "strategic bombing" is it possible to just kill one person?

Hmmh, I guess only Iraq has these weapons? If the US has the right, and other US allies have the right to house weapons of mass destruction, why shouldn't Iraq have this same right?

Here's what the president has to say about this thread....

Originally posted by iamdave
I agree with edude. How can you bomb Sadaam without injuring innocent people. Even with "strategic bombing" is it possible to just kill one person?

Hmmh, I guess only Iraq has these weapons? If the US has the right, and other US allies have the right to house weapons of mass destruction, why shouldn't Iraq have this same right?


Our good friend Clinton did us a favor back in 92, hah right. The CIA had a operative in Iraq, how was about to assignate Saddam. Well our good o' boy, decided that he thought this wasn't right. He canceled the operation, and then nailed him for "murder for hire". Saddam would be six feet under if it wasn't for Clinton. Now the reason the USA doesn't want the Iraqi's (Specifically Saddam) to have biological/chemical/nuclear warfare is because of the fact that he has threatined his neighboring countries, he's made threats against the USA. I'm assuming that EDude and IAmDave believe that we're not aloud to protect ourselves. I don't want to get into an argument about the whole 9/11 thing and the FBI/CIA knowing about WTC. But by now don't you think we've learned to be prepared?

:emlaugh:

oh dear god...this is just too much

:D

Originally posted by interactive



Our good friend Clinton did us a favor back in 92, hah right. The CIA had a operative in Iraq, how was about to assignate Saddam. Well our good o' boy, decided that he thought this wasn't right. He canceled the operation, and then nailed him for "murder for hire". Saddam would be six feet under if it wasn't for Clinton. Now the reason the USA doesn't want the Iraqi's (Specifically Saddam) to have biological/chemical/nuclear warfare is because of the fact that he has threatined his neighboring countries, he's made threats against the USA. I'm assuming that EDude and IAmDave believe that we're not aloud to protect ourselves. I don't want to get into an argument about the whole 9/11 thing and the FBI/CIA knowing about WTC. But by now don't you think we've learned to be prepared? It's on the thing do be prepared, and to protect yourself, but why bomb a country, when you are going to kill innocent people?

Does anyone here know how war works?

People die.

It's not like you see in the Rambo movies or the Bond flicks.

Do we forget that in desert storm he used chemical weapons on both our troops AND his own people?

While I don't necessarily like wars... why does he need nukes when he could focus on his people and make his land a better place... same thing as North Korea... they waste a ****load of money on a military and weapons development which you really don't need..... granted the US has a lot it doesn't need we have been slowly getting rid of the things.

We
Are
Retards

:D

Originally posted by edude
Right..

Like the bombing in afghanistan? Blew a wedding apart, killed a few hundred.. right strategic bombing..

want me to go on?

Blah, bunch of war mongers.

Right, just like bombing the World Trade Center. I guess that's okay because it happened in the U.S. and they were going after the U.S. Government. So, some innocent people got in the way. When the numbers get close to those that died on one single day here versus the entire time we've been there, then I'll show concern. Sorry that this sounds harsh but when any terrorist comes into my country and starts the problem, we must fix it.

As for a war in Iraq, I am against this. I am not against the UN going in and enforcing the rules that were set in place back in 1991. They should have been doing this all along but everyone's attention was focused elsewhere.

Originally posted by timechange
We
Are
Retards

:D Well said!

Originally posted by DanielP
Do we forget that in desert storm he used chemical weapons on both our troops AND his own people?

While I don't necessarily like wars... why does he need nukes when he could focus on his people and make his land a better place... same thing as North Korea... they waste a ****load of money on a military and weapons development which you really don't need..... granted the US has a lot it doesn't need we have been slowly getting rid of the things.

Cookie for you.

And yes the OS gov't has a lot of military spending. Take for example that silly Cold World DoD brain child, ARPANET. Who needed that anyhow? Funding on that should have been cut long before it started.

WOW LOL

Looked like my little joke caused quite the debate.

I don’t think there is a single person on this board including myself who would like to see innocent people die, but I also don’t believe there is a single person on this board who would shed a tear if he (Saddam) died.

That’s what the joke was about Saddam dieing. And yes I would be quite happy if I heard the news that he was dead.
:)

Originally posted by iamdave
I agree with edude. How can you bomb Sadaam without injuring innocent people. Even with "strategic bombing" is it possible to just kill one person?

Hmmh, I guess only Iraq has these weapons? If the US has the right, and other US allies have the right to house weapons of mass destruction, why shouldn't Iraq have this same right?
Yes, of course civilians would be killed as well as military personnel, but that would be the difference of hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed if Iraq deploys the weapons they may have.

And yes, the United States does have nuclear weapons (there are no biological or chemical weapons, but the government has the materials to make them). There is a difference between Iraq and the United States if you hadn't noticed. Iraq is ruled by an insane dictator who would probably rather blow up all of his neighbors then to sign peace treaties. You need to understand all of the issues at hand before making your argument.

The reason why I am making such a big deal out of this is because it makes me angry when other people go around saying that it's just typical America wanting to "blow things up" without any reasons.