we_don't_want_this_war silentbob Why can't you see that? 030212 ... Insat They are stuck with it now. By withdrawing they lose face, they are just too blind to see that they lost it with most people a long time ago. I dont want this war either. 030212 ... blue star They're not stuck with it, because if they don't withdraw now, they're going to get involved in ground wars, and then North Korea's gonna be all like,"Oh, sweet! The fuckers have their pants down!" And then they're going to level Washington,D.C. And I'm sorry, but we deserve it. 030212 ... x february_16 (stop this war! unity, as one, stick together -op ivy) 030212 ... p2 i don't want a war but who's to say it isn't necessary the league of nations was a joke the united nations will become the same you can't turn a blind eye when they start playing with nuclear weapons and long range missiles everyone tried to appease hitler tried to talk it out and negotiate if he had nuclear capabilities then we wouldn't be here now war sucks but so does saddam and all those fuckers if i'm drafted i'd proudly go and get my head shot off i know you all disagree but that's just my opinion 030213 ... x i don't know if you happened to notice, but none of what you mentioned is what this war is about. 030213 ... p2 each person can have their own reason everyone claims an ulterior motive that's not the point of what i said regardless of what you think is the reason saddam et al need to be stopped that's the bigger picture are you protesting the war or the reason for the war? if there's a better reason will you still protest? 030213 ... x you can't say "regardless of my reasons", because my thoughts include that saddam is not a threat. he'd have to be on a suicide mission to attack us. think that's likely? 030213 ... p2 what was pearl harbor? saddam hides in his underground bunker and thinks he's invincible he believes this because he has no reason not to desert storm taught him: 1) the americans can't get to me 2) i need more power to defeat them and nuclear weapons is his solution "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." 030213 ... p2 plus just because he's not a threat to you doesn't mean he's not a threat i was reading the news the other day "n. korea has the capability to send a nuclear attack to the u.s." "oh shit" "oh wait, it can only hit california... where's the funny pages? that garfield cracks me up." 030213 ... silentbob george bush needs to be stopped. If they have nuclear capabilities, they will use them against us if we strike first. if i get drafted i'm moving to canada, or claiming homosexuality, or shooting off my leg. but i don't think they will reinstate the draft 030213 ... birdmad war looms closer, oil prices and therefore gasoline prices go up, shrub and cheney's cronies make a(nother) mint, mission objective one accomplished. As for N. Korea, president cowboy's brand of diplomacy when he took office didn't help that any either. Severing as many diplomatic ties as we did with Pyongyang was not a good idea, strategically. Keep your enemies where you can see them. Shrub's policy seems to have been "maybe if i isolate and ignore 'em they'll go away" wrong answer Saddam only represents a chance to preserve and enhance business interests in that region and to finish up family business that daddy shrub didn't have the stones to take care of when he should have I'm looking at my calendar and surprised it isn't telling me that it's 476 AD a world power stretched to its limits as a result of alienating to many of its allies/subjects/tributaries collapsed right around that time and history does repeat itself 030213 ... p2 iraq is not developing nuclear weapons as a defense they are a hostile country they invaded kuwait do you believe desert storm changed saddam in any way? he's the same person he was when he invaded except now he knows he needs more power even if he doesn't attack the u.s. should we let him attack/invade his neighboring countries? and if/when the u.n. decides to step in he will use his nuclear weapons "in self-defense" you know the ones he developed while all the other countries were fucking around as for n. korea, there is no reason to negotiate if they can break the original deal they are more than likely to break any other deal they can in the quest for power the policy isn't "isolate and ignore" to make them go away the policy is to try to build as much global pressure that n. korea will have to comply unfortunately the rest of the world seems to be content in letting n. korea's treaty violation slip by this sets a very bad precedence not only for n. korea but for all the other aspiring dictators out there 030213 ... ever dumbening you're gonna _claim_ homosexuality, bob? just kidding bro, i'm with you, uh, in a non-sexual sort of way, and without the leg mutilation part either. thread drift--it's splacktacular! ps see ya sunday ms x. 030213 ... silentbob many countries hate us for interfering why are we always the older brother who steps in? our interfering blows up in our faces a lot of the time but regardless of "what we need" and all that or whatever.... Bush and company are ignoring what the UN is saying... they aren't listening to reason i thought we were looking for osama bin laden that failed. now we're blaming saddam hussein? because he's linked to Al-Quaida? He supported Osama? You know who else supported Osama? bush did. 030213 ... x well by that logic, p2, since the united states is breaking the UN treaty, they are liable to go back on their word at any given time. we're not so trustworthy ourselves. p.s. yes you will 030213 ... p2 so we should ignore what's right because it will make us unpopular? that's something that will definately blow up in our face sure we can ignore saddam for a while he, or someone like him, will eventually take over the entire mideast and then he'll want more and then he'll look towards europe or the rest of asia and then he'll want more and then he'll look towards us and by then he'll be a huge power one that we can't ignore do you think his thirst for power has a limit? he's filthy rich lives like a king can afford anything he could possibly desire and still wants more while his people starve sure let's ignore this man and ignore his weapons of mass destruction until they are pointed at us then we can fight the war on our own soil we won't have to send troops out isn't that convenient? so let's ignore him for now and be sure to study up on the iraqi language you may need it several years from now sorry, i'm a bit unaware which u.n. treaty did we break? i need to read up on it 030213 ... cube This war isn't about oil or weapons of mass distruction. It's about the strength of the Euro undermining the US currency. It's about macroeconomics. If the US doesn't invade Iraq, the possibility of a collapsing Japanese economy becomes very real. On the other hand, by invading Iraq without UN consent governments around the world may see the US as an unworthy ally. The subsiquent rally to the Euro may precipitate the very economic collapse the administration is trying so desperately to avoid. Can you say "Catch_22"? ³ 030213 ... p2 like i said different people will claim different ulterior motives but saddam is still dangerous and should be removed from power 030213 ... x that is YOUR OPINION NOT FACT 030213 ... p2 fact: the u.n. had previously sent in inspectors who had certified that iraq was free of weapons of mass destruction fact: after being certified, defecting iraqi scientists gave testimony to having developed chemical weapons and testing them on prisoners fact: the inspection was a waste of time fact: saddam has lied before and will lie again fact: saddam is not to be trusted fact: an evil person in a position of power is dangerous 030213 ... blue star fact: the war-mongerers have gotten to p2. Let all the blatherers mourn as one. 030213 ... dissapointed in someone who seemed intelligent you need to work on the difference between fact and opinion 030213 ... p2 why are the creative types always so liberal? previous inspections failed to find what defectors provided evidence for later on how will this inspection be different? 1) do you deny he is evil? 2) do you deny he has power? 3) isn't that a dangerous combination? i can't fathom which you disagree with 1) he invaded kuwait! he's tested chemical weapons on his own people! he had his defector brother-in-law gunned down after promising him amnesty! 2) he's the leader of a country! he's rich! money provides power! 3) evil + power = EVIL POWER! 030213 ... p2 sorry correction after rechecking my sources it was his 2 son-in-laws not his brother-in-law 030213 ... blue star Do you honestly think that those people (the Iraqi people, yes there are other people in Iraq besides Saddam) will THANK YOU for going along with this bullshit? Do you think that after their children have been ground into hamburger and their homes have been turned into powder that they're going to write us a note saying,"Gee, thanks America. I mean, yeah, sure you ruined our lives and all, but at least you got rid of that bastard Saddam." Hasn't HE done enough to them already? Personally I'd find it amusing if the rest of the world thought that a regime change was necessary here (I know I do) and decided to do something about it, but I don't think it's right to kill off thousands of people for one, albeit evil, man, Iraqi or Texan. 030213 ... littlefoot america is like the rich kid. the kid that has everything and thinks hes better than all the other kids (even if he doesn't admit it). the kid that thinks everyone else should be like him. the kid that tries to fix things by being an insensitive bastard. the kid that no one wants to play with except for the few manipulated tools within his grasp. america sucks. better buy some duct tape. (haha, yeah, becuase duct tape will save us from biological warfare er whatever. more like... sales could boost the economy? hmmm...) 030213 ... silentbob 1) Yes i deny he is evil. "good" and "evil" is just biblical or hollywood bullshit. There is no Good or Bad. its all relative. By that logic every president starting with Washington was evil. 2) Yes. he has power. and he wants more power. And so does bush. They are equal as far as i'm concerned being powerhungry and wanting more power, that is dangerous. 1) bush and other presidents have invaded more countries in the last few hundred years than kuwait has had time to. Not only did we slaughter and opress the people originally living in this country, we also bombed and invaded other smaller countries to put up military bases. 2) we tested chemicals on veterans, and other humans in your own words: 2) he's the leader of a country! he's rich! money provides power! 3) and while i'm at it, he's not the smartest guy whose ever been in office either. i mean, he doesn't even know the difference between HIV and AIDS. and that is really scary. 030213 ... x thanks kitten 030213 ... cube I was not stating my opinion above and I don't disagree that Saddam is one of the bad guys, but this war isn't about that. For the full story: http://evworld.com/databases/ storybuilder.cfm?storyid=490&subcookie=1 I can think of better causes to get my head shot off than to just temporarily prop up an ailing economy. Then again, I'm not American, so my priorities are not quite as hawkish... ³ 030214 ... p2 oh brother comparing bush to saddam is like comparing the flu to cancer you can vote out bush after his term expires saddam is a *dictator for life* and just like i would do something regardless of whether or not it made me unpopular i would also do something for my own reasons not for the gratitude of others if i was on the subway and saw a kid getting seriously beaten by his large drunk father i would stop him not because i want the kid to say "thanks" and in the case of iraq the other countries are like the other passengers on the train who keep whispering "what the hell?" "leave him alone." "it's a family affair." "you're just going to make him turn his anger this way." sorry i can't do that 030214 ... p2 that's right you've found out the truth the duct tape industry fabricate the entire thing the american economy is based on duct tape sales and there is no u.n. the building is just a huge soundstage where these things are filmed you should check out the 37th floor they've got bagels! 030214 ... p2 and there is no spoon, right? good and evil right and wrong it's all relative ok, let's work with that bush vs. saddam evil? maybe equal? i think not this may be a choice of the lesser of two evils but they are definitely not equal and yes there have been evil presidents like nixon but i challenge you to besmirch the name of fdr who actually started the march of dimes which is why he is commemorated on the dime the major difference as previously stated is that presidents can be changed and even bloodlessly ousted increased media presence now keeps the presidents in check it's not perfect but it does uncover the scandals every once in a while 030214 ... p2 as for HIV vs. AIDS the V in HIV stands for virus so it is not the HIV virus HIV is the virus that causes AIDS therefore HIV is the AIDS virus go to webster.com search on "HIV" where you can read "called also AIDS virus" 030214 ... p2 "correlation does not imply causation" just because a war provides benefits oil, dollar, power, whatever doesn't mean that's the reason there is no hard evidence to prove whatever is going on in bush's head (insert empty_head joke here) this is precisely why i said to take away any ulterior motives you have already attributed to the war and focus on whether or not there is a real and justifiable reason to go to war some of you say "definitely not" i say "not yet" so should we wait til saddam is ready for war? i guess that's a matter of opinion 030214 ... yeah i do want this war, so fuck all you hippies 030214 ... birdmad My opposition to this war has nothing to do with the moral ramifications. from a strategic point of view Bush is writing every jacked up, undiscovered terrorist fuck hiding in our midst a free pass to run amok all over the inside of this country. So it won't just be Iraqi civillians who can point to Dubya when the smoke clears and say "thanks a lot, fucker" it will be Americans too. And frankly, i'll give Nixon credit for finally being the one to act on what everyone already knew and pull the US out of Viet Nam. Sure, he may have been an unctious and slippery character in his own right, but at least he brought something of a close to the mess that Eisenhower started in '56. I find it funny that in our rush to persuade the UN and NATO to bend to our will, the hawks keep invoking the spectre of Hitler. The Irony of that is that this administration is playing the same tune. Whether Iraq had genuinely complied with the UN or not, we would be pursuing an agenda there. As for my point about North Korea earlier: trust them or genuinely negotiate with them? hardly. Maintain enough of a diplomatic line to keep an eye on them is more apt. It's a foregone conclusion that Kim Il Jong won't play ballwith the international community, but the Bush administrations's hard-line stance towards Pyongyang just reinforced their belligerence. politics is just like crime, i should know i spent much of the time from age 16 to 24 doing things only criminals and politicians get away with and the things i see in the news look like my college days but just on a grander scale. If you are doing buisiness with crazy people, you must either exploit their insanity to your favor (which in the case of Saddam we did until the first invasion of Kuwait whereupon he went rogue and began shitting too close to his own backyard) or you must be prepared for absolutely ANY eventuality. Saddam wants to play chicken, Dubya wants to play chicken, Kim wants to play too. Crazy people don't abide by any rules of engagement, as such this war doesn't just stand to imperil our troops, but you, me, the average person on the street. There is some talk of the terror alert system possibly moving up to code red and soon. we don't want this war, not just because we'll have to see death on TV, but because we may well be seeing it in our own streets and frankly, if it weren't for my health, i would go if sent. Not because i believe in, or support this administration or its policies, but because i think it would be an interesting experience to actually have legal sanction to potentially kill someone 030214 ... silentbob p2, you have a lot of good points but... this is just how it looks to me: youre on the bus...the kid is getting beat. youre watching. the people are watching and whispering. and then you go at him with everything youve got, killing a lot of the other people standing next to him, and the kid himself, but he just doesnt die. but in reality... bush isnt going to get killed in this war. and neither will saddam. its the people fighting it for them. its like if you were on the bus, and there was a father on the bus hurting his son and you told your son to go fight his son... or his other son..... bush and saddam arent in danger. the american and iraqi people are. 030214 ... p2 our security here is an illusion bush has done nothing to put us into any more danger than we were in before the only thing that has changed is that we are now more aware of it so the sleepers cells are being awakened now? well they would have eventually isn't that what they're for? 030214 ... p2 this has grown rather lengthy and will probably not be resolved so i'll wrap up my end yes, i agree the death of "innocent" people is a sad thing but unfortunately i think eventually we will have to deal with iraq and we will have no choice but to go to war yes ms. x, that is my *opinion* i'm sure this is where our views differ as much as i hope i'm wrong i can't deny what i feel 030214 ... sim Are you aware that North Korea is told to be able to reach california with long distance nuclear weapons? This war would be of no other sense than establishing a new world order of military power. The absolute wrong signal for the future of the human race. With you silentbob. 030214 ... niska no one does. just one man, for one reason, based on one very sad oversight. bullies are never satisfied though... 030309 ... sabbie fact: bush has lied before and will lie again fact: bush is not to be trusted fact: an evil person in a position of power is dangerous look around. every leader is doing dodgy things. who decided that bush was on the side of Right and that everyone else was Bad? bush did. if everyone claims that god is on their side, where does that leave the dead? 030309 ... p2 please re-read this entire blather. the lesser of two evils has already been discussed. the difference between president & dictator has already been discussed. i'm still waiting for a response from x as to which u.n. treaty the us broke. to say a person has lied before and will lie again is too general. this is true for 99.99% of the population. please be specific as to what issues of global importance that bush has lied about. again, i must profess my ignorance, and will read up on whatever you say he lied about. until then however, i cannot accept them as fact simply because you said so. ps- there is no god. 030310 ... cube I doubt whether Bush has actually perjured himself - politicians being a cagey lot. It seems obvious, however, that he's not telling the whole truth. Personally, I take no council from a godless man... ³ 030310 ... p2 not telling the whole truth about... are we going back to the whole ulterior motives thing again? if so, let me know so i can avoid a redundant conversation. 030310 ... screwing for virginity but there must be ulterior motives, because the obvious ones make little sense. 030310 ... p2 i don't deny the possibility of ulterior motives that's not the point please re-read this blather and search for "ulterior" also please be specific which obvious motives don't make sense? if they didn't make sense how are they obvious? 030310 ... stork daddy no one denies that saddam is a potential threat, but if the degree and imminency of threat is the only criteria for deciding which war to fight, which effort to give our limited and dwindling resources to, there are more imminent threats not just to the US but to world stability. The blatant development of nuclear weapons capable of striking the US in Korea as well as the recent discovery of Uranium enrichment programs in Iran seems far more threatening to the US than vaguer "weapons of mass destruction" of Saddam's Iraq. This is of course just threats to the US i'm extrapolating, of course Saddam presents a hazard to Iraq's own citizens as well as others in the Arab world, however it stands to reason that if our true intentions are moralistic and we truly are just using our standing to act as a sort of goodwilled paternal influence in world affairs, then there are again greater threats to human rights in other countries, many of which have dictators hand picked by the US fairly recently. The way pre-emptive is commonly used is not blindly without any evidence (as in one who jumps off a bridge when they're ten so they don't develop breast cancer) but rather an action based on knowledge of reasonably predictive factors. These factors should lead to the conclusory action either by logically following exactly or at least, as is most often in human affairs, by being statistically predictive. We know people don't amass weapons just for decoration, and we know Iraq has attempted to conquer other countries in the region before, but when has there ever been evidence of Iraq consorting with terrorists or directly attacking the US not in defense but offensively? There simply hasn't been. It is imaginative conjecturing which follows from claiming Saddam is evil and then using that so called knowledge to imagine the possible situtations an evil being clamors for. The fact that he's gassed his own people, while deplorable, does not mean he isn't calculating enough to not attack the US in any observable way, ensuring his demise. We are essentially punishing the country's people for their leader's inability to prove he's a threat. The very lack of evidence is being used as an admission of guilt. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. The victims in this war will be the Iraqi people as well as our own troops. I do not deny that in certain conflicts collateral damage is necessary, however, what one must do in any situation is weigh the possible number of lives lost against the possible number of lives saved. In order to make a decision like that, evidence is needed, not brash action. Comparing the pallored threat of Sadam to the spectre of Hitler both totally ignores the actuality of the situation and the capabilities of modern technology. The similarities between Saddam and dictators of history are the similarities necessary for dictatorship, megalomania, desire for power etc. However, other than that there are far less similarities. Hitler wasn't recognized as a threat and was allowed to expand before he could be reasonably contained. Saddam has been recognized for quite some time now and has been contained in many measurable ways, and with the threat of force backing further inspections could be limited even further. Indeed if Hitler were a dictator in today's world we would be in far more danger than the danger posed by Saddam. Saddam may be driven with power, but he hasn't been foolish enough thus far to let his ideological beliefs overide the understanding of his own limits within the economics of force he received in the first gulf war (where might i add we had not one but two chances to depose him). We initially could've supported the original uprising the first President Bush called for the people of Iraq to undertake before the war and we could've also marched on to Baghdad towards the end of the gulf war. The fact is, other interests have always been not just ulterior but quite apparent in our actions. The fact is that this theatre is of more than a bit of interest to the world and especially US interests. Sure we could just unimpose sanctions and ask Saddam to produce more oil, but we want a more direct control than that, so we justify our action to obtain this by claiming outrage and Saddam's inhumane actions. The fact is many poorer countries, some with greater populations, are just as downtrodden and oppressed. Also, more money could be sent to the AIDS crisis. Our energy could be put towards speeding up the peace process in Israel and the setting up of an autonomous Palestinian state, increasing stability in the region and easing the hostility underlying terorrist actions (our most imminent threats). I do not need to hear described the acid baths, fingernails being ripped off, rapes, chemical bombings of kurds and iraqi citizens-all of these are horrible violations of a certain universal sense of human life's value. However, a lost parent is a lost parent, and if our means of deposing Saddam are as atrocious in terms of life lost as Saddam's means of staying in power, the end cannot justify it, and we remain nothing more than the more powerful sovereign, and justice becomes a flimsy word if it is not held up in the concrete operations of war, it becomes a word that does not exist in the heart, or in the history and memory of humanity, but rather a word that only has meaning if there's a gun behind it. I, and i believe no one will argue that certain actions need to be prevented, and these international laws must be prevented with force if necessary, however all intervening actions between the violation and the force must be taken when those punished for the crime are not completely those guilty of it. This is more complex than putting a child in a time out, homes, economies, and families are threatened. This war also won't bring us out of a recession because the country is not being mobilized to war and workers are not being hired due to the replacement of human labor in factories with machine labor and the more technological nature of war. This means that other than the elite technological sector, the rest of America, the purchasers of goods, are not benefiting. Also in the past, scientific advances once made for war, were often found to have commercial value, but in the modern world, we are applying technology already commercialized and therefore again the benefits are not noticeable. All of these risks, thus far, and i say THUS far, outweigh the KNOWN benefits of a war in Iraq both for the US, Iraq's people, and the world. It is our duty to continue inspections as well as to continue seeking for solutions which do not require actual military actions, to see if there is not a way to either disarm Saddam or force regime change without the massive costs of war, or to at least prove conclusively that the lives lost in this conflict were necessary. For the reasons ennumerated above, I and I think the majority of America and the world has concluded neither avenue has been satisfactorily pursued. There is no denying Saddam is a threat of sorts, but a caged one for now who must be inspected before further action. If, after all, Saddam did posess nuclear weapons (which seems doubtful) and we attacked, there is no telling which country he might launch one at in desperation. War might become justified with further inspections, but at this juncture, it simply isn't prudent. After all, any country that can't prove it is threatening could be a covert threat. If lack of proof is our new criteria what country isn't game? This is exactly the way the Bush regime wants to misuse the emotion leftover in the American public from the 9-11 attacks to convince us to surrender liberties for protection, to regress to the thought processes of childhood where daddy and mommy always know best, and to let a vocal minority speak for our country rather than as a constructive tool for pride, economic growth and involvment with the democratic process. A war may be fought, and if the draft was ever reinstated (even in the case of college students as some democratic senators proposed in an attempt to expose the unfairness and stir up discontent) i would go and fight and die. I'd shoot someone's father or brother or son, and i'd willingly risk loss of an arm or a leg or my life, because i believe that a society is bigger than an individual and that my loved ones will be protected by that society for my sacrifice and that is worth my life to me, it is worth not having children or seeing my thoughts ever positively benefit society. If that is how i must serve my society, as a cog rather than a administrator, well that's fine, it's part of the contract, but i refuse to fight a war fought on a whim, fought without respect to the time you are taking from those who die. You are taking years from their lives, and in a case where the threat is not so urgent that there is no possible justification of or room for waiting or waffling on the issue (which is obviously not the case here) your deliberations must take into account those lives, and those years before surrendering to what seems in a single minute the best course of action. Of course no one wants the fate of Hamlet, to cause destruction with introspection, to never try anything and thereby ensure all of the wrongs you sought to right with your thoughts, however, it simply isn't the case that we aren't in the position to strike. Having so situated ourselves, we are safe to question the necessity of further action. I feel this is the only moral, economically feasible, and sane course of action. This argument was not directed at anyone in particular, so no offense to you personally if you happen to be opposed to the arguments. However, if you wish to argue against those points, in favor of war, by all means please do, since that is the very process i'm recommending. 030310 ... Judas October one, X is refering to the fact that the U/n are against the war in Iraq. three out of the five permanent member are against it. And if America goes to war they will be in breach of U.N. regulations on what constitutes a fair and justifiable reason for war. two, george bush has never lied huh? I would refer you to his presidential campaign in which the most dishonest activities in American History were used to get him elected. I also refer you to his admission of drink driving in which he claims he was "pulled over for driving too slowly." which is not how the police report tells it. and also his claim not to have committed a felony in the last 25 years. while not a lie, as far as we know, it does cause one to wonder what he did 26 years ago. three, to say that georgie porgie puddin and lie, has lied before but may not lie again is totally naive. and beside the point. liar or not, the question remains, if you go to war without the support of the UN you are commiting an act deemed ilegal under international law. to invade another country without of the support of the UN, under ANY pretext, is wrong. The UN was set up for this exact reason. It is there to be an international arbitrator of the democratic process. No matter how much the USA beleives it is in the right, no matter how evil we beleive Saddam Hussein to be, if the world says NO, then who is the USA to say well sod the world we're doing it anyway. is the rest of the world not to have a voice if it does not agree with the USA? 030310 ... minnesota_chris I agree with most of that. However, I think we have a semiplausible rationale for a unilateral war declaration, that being that Hussein tried to assasinate Pres. Bush. 030311 ... blue star boo frickin hoo... people try to assassinate other people all the time. When that's ground for war, we're all screwed. See: World War I, Martin Luther King, Jr., Abraham Lincoln, US trying to assassinate just about every ruler they didn't like.... We have to be more selective about what constitutes grounds for war if we want a peaceful world. (Besides, personally if I was in the Middle East and taking the shit we give them, I'd try it too.) 030311 ... Annie111 PENTAGON OFFICIALS were still assessing the data, but a spokeswoman at Eglin Air Force Base in northwest Florida said the live test of the powerful new Massive Ordnance Air Burst (MOAB) bomb apparently was successful. A C-131 “Samaritan” aircraft dropped the bomb on a test range at the western reaches of the base shortly after 2 p.m. ET, and the blast could be heard from offices on the east end of the 724-square-mile facility, said Senior Airman Nicholasa Brown. The explosion sounded “just like thunder,” she said. Cheryl Irwin, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said the test was completed at Eglin, but she did not immediately know whether it was considered successful. The MOAB is guided to its target using satellite signals. In a word play on its acronym, military officials have dubbed it the “mother of all bombs.” MOAB is much bigger than any other conventional bomb in the U.S. arsenal. Dropped out of the rear of a transport plane and guided by global positioning satellites, it spreads a flammable mist over the target, then ignites it, producing a highly destructive blast. The next-biggest U.S. bomb is the 15,000-pound BLU-82, dubbed the “Daisy Cutter.” No on-site news coverage of the test was allowed for safety reasons, but an Air Force chase plane filmed the blast and was to make it available later to news organizations. NBC’s Tammy Kupperman reported from the Pentagon that some officials were pushing for its release for the psychological value of showing the blast to the Iraqis. This shit is fuckin real. That could be us in that flammable mist. Fuck this war. 030311 ... minnesota_chris fuel-air explosive bombs aren't really new technology, but they are scary. I think you need a plane to drop them, though, and I don't think the Iraqis are flying cargo planes above the US currently. And blue star, isn't this warm weather great? I agree with you, it's a crappy reason to go to war. But I do think it is a reason. I think it's the reason that Bush has in the back of his little noggin. Gonna pay those bastards back, who tried to kill my dad. 030311 ... yeah damn, i hate all you antiwar hippies 030311 ... Em We decided that we are pro-peace But not necessarily anti-war 030311 ... DannyH Americas overwhelming military might will ensure this war is quick and whilst there will be casualties I doubt they will be on a major scale. Worrying about the specific consequences of war is a distraction. What we should really be fearing is the clear signal that America now considers itself the supreme global authority. Given that executive power in America is a purchasable commodity, what we discover is that the long predicted takeover of the world by companies is finally coming to fruition. Welcome to the new world order... 030312 ... pipedream nobody has the right to play god. nobody. 030312 ... Nathan88 nobodies playing god...how many of you here like the movie swordfish? cuz if you do take any argument you have on here not to go to war and keep it to yourself...big deal, so now the war is public instead of kept secret...sure there are reasons why we shouldnt but there are also reasons why we should...either way whatever happens happens 030312 ... niska 'In A World Gone Bad' by the Beastie Boys 030312 ... kx21 Why_Not? Giiven that War is the genuine confirmation of effectiveness of UN's Security Resolution- 1441... 030312 ... niska or, "...gone MAD". there are two titles on WinMX right now. 030312 ... kx21 Why_not? Given that the War is the genuine confirmation of UN's Security Resolution - 1441 fore the sake of World security / peace... 030312 ... kx21 Why_not? Given that the War is the genuine confirmation of UN's Security Resolution - 1441 for the sake of World security / peace... 030312 ... silentbob did bush say we were fighting a war for peace? when i heard that i laughed as i remembered something someone wrote HERE on blather and i was glad i read it here on blather "Fighting a war on peace is like fucking for virginity" it was actually a war on terrorism and after i thought about it that made sense too. so now when i say that to my friends they laugh and i feel good. 030312 ... silentbob fighting a war FOR peace is like fucking FOR virginity sorry 030312 ... phil it's still fucking. and that's good. 030312 ... wasting my hate see: protesting_the_war 030312 ... phil Bush is a genious. 030312 ... x yeah, a regular nukular physicist 030313 ... User24 I didn't want a war that nearly turned into a lame poem. phew! saved from lamness. 030423 ... smurfus rex kinda curious how the next election will go...i predict a lot more people will turn out than in 2000...if only to elect someone else. Vote "None of the above" in 2004! Whee. 030423 what's it to you? who go blather from