The Iraq Thread

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Dec. 21 2002,01:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">See, in this case, the guy with the gun is in his own house, and you are the guy who is forcing his way in. If I were to follow the average americans logic, then the guy with the knife should, at this point, get the shotgun out to deal with the home intruder.<span id='postcolor'>

But see, this is after this guy took his neighbors hostage for a few weeks, so we had to come in and rescue the hostages and put him back in his house. And is now planning on blowing up the whole neighbor hood.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Thing is, it is not the place of the US to go in and kick him out. And no amount of blustering about him being a threat will justify current US foreign policy.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't think this is because he's a tyrant, our president, his cabinet, and the majority of our senate believe he's developing WMDs.

And yes, I do think we need to change our current foreign policy. Not because I think it's wrong, but because I think the world will react badly.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, and the US sanctions make sure none can challenge him. They also make sure the people get NOTHING, while Saddam can take everything. The only ones suffering and negatively effected by the sanctions are the civilians. Can't you see that?<span id='postcolor'>

The U.S. sanctions don't control who gets what, only what can get into Iraq.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And this was my point. The hypocracy comes from ignorance. The ignorance comes from placing to much trust and belief in the government and the current "system".<span id='postcolor'>

But nobody trusts or believes our current system.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 20 2002,20:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And this was my point. The hypocracy comes from ignorance. The ignorance comes from placing to much trust and belief in the government and the current "system".<span id='postcolor'>

But nobody trusts or believes our current system.<span id='postcolor'>

So if you dont trust your own government in internal affairs, why is it such a stretch to believe that they might be a little less than pure of heart in their thinking towards Iraq... hmm?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 20 2002,20:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But nobody trusts or believes our current system.<span id='postcolor'>

But you apparently do, my naive friend.

To quote you:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq has been proven to be working on nuclear weapons, just not to you. Just because you don't see it on CNN doesn't mean it isn't true. The president presented his case to the senate, the senate voted and said they thought Saddam was working on WMDs.

<span id='postcolor'>

[FSPilot 0]

*slaps forehead*

"nobody" was an overstatement.  I trust my govt. for the most part, a lot of other people do to, but not everybody.

*goes back to playing video games*

[Lazarus_Long 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Far from all, but a clear majority seems to be.

<span id='postcolor'>

Nope, youre wrong. A significant number can be said to be misinformed about foreign policy perhaps, but not any more than you wouldn't find in any European country - relatively speaking.

Besides you can't really generalize people like that. About 50% of the US seems to support Bush. Perhaps a little more than 50%. The majority of these people are not hardcore government supporters. (Republicans traditionally believe in small govenment) These are the same people who questioned, bitched, and moaned about everything Clinton did for 8 years. They have a very long history of questioning their government. In fact it's nice to hear them shut the hell up for a change.

[Warin 0]

I'd love to see a public opinion poll of Americans based on moderate casualties (1500-5000) during an operation in Iraq. I am willing to bet the approval numbers would plummet.

I think when the Pentagon says 'It isnt going to be a cakewalk' they are putting the thought into peoples heads that Americans are going to die when/if there is action in Iraq.

Part of me hopes there is a cabal of Generals in Iraq who have been bought off by the US, and at the first sign of trouble they off Saddam and his family... saving a lot of bloodshed. While I am not fond of the thought that there may be a US backed regime in Iraq (We've all seen the results of US Foreign Policy gone awry.. Phillipines, Nicaraugua, Cuba) I am far less fond of a shooting war where thousands of Iraqi citizens perish. That is a recipe for another 100 years of muslim hatred for the west

[Guest]

What bothers me most is I simply can't see why. The WMD stories and humanitarian reasons given are bullshit, you don't have to be a genious to see that.

Oil you might say. I don't think so. It would have to be long term planning and Bush doesn't strike me as a fellow who considers the long term future. In short terms an attack on Iraq would be bad. Oil prices would go up. No more food for oil program. Stock markets go down in times of political and military uncertainty etc etc.

It could also be of course that the Bush administration knows something we don't. But why are many other NATO countries against a war? If there is such a great threat, why has Colin Powell been working against a war? It doesn't add up!

The terrifying explanation that is left is that there does not have to be a good reason for going to war. I always thought that you only went to war and to kill people when you absolutely had to. Apparently not. So observe and learn from this. Next time you ask yourself  questions like "How could the holocaust happen? Why didn't people react?" - you'll have the answer. It is simple: there doesn't have to be a reason. People are easily manipulated and have very little empathy for anybody else but themselves. That is very sad and ruins just about every illusion of a peaceful civilized world

I do hope I'm wrong.

[Longinius 1]

"The U.S. sanctions don't control who gets what, only what can get into Iraq."

Oh yeah? If Iraq cannot import medicines or equipment to treat cancer victims, who will suffer from that? Saddam or the sick people?

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Dec. 20 2002,21:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In short terms an attack on Iraq would be bad. Oil prices would go up. No more food for oil program. Stock markets go down in times of political and military uncertainty etc etc.<span id='postcolor'>

only slightly. ever since Iraq became the subject of talks, such reflection has been added to value of stocks(or taken out of).

we've been hearing about this too long to actually have a big drop.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Dec. 21 2002,02:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh yeah? If Iraq cannot import medicines or equipment to treat cancer victims, who will suffer from that? Saddam or the sick people?<span id='postcolor'>

Since when can't Iraq import medicines or equipment?

[Akira 0]

This will probably be deemed WAAAAAAAAYYYY off topic...but it sort of IS on target.

It's about Nostradamus...thats right....Mr. Seer Of The Future himself.

Was looking it up cause I remembered a part in a show on him (hosted by Orson Wells of all people) that said the person that started World War III would be an Arab in a blue turban (or something equivalant).

Anyway what I found was this:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Beyond the events around the change of the millennium, it appears that conflicts between Christian and Islamic nations have the potential to occur. This could involve one or a combination of the following nations: Iran, Afghanistan, Algeria, Morocco, Pakistan, Tunisia, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Iraq, various nations of the former Soviet Union, and others; against Turkey, Italy, France, Germany, Austria, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Macedonia, Hungary, the United States, Israel, the United Kingdom, and various allies of these nations.

By land, various Islamic armies (and their allies) might one day invade Turkey, Macedonia, Greece, Hungary, the former Yugoslavia, Austria, and eventually march towards Italy, attacking the Italians and other forces located there. From Italy, the invaders could then attack other nations in various parts of Europe. It appears that Greece might endure chemical or biological warfare in these conflicts (see quatrains #9-91, #5-47, and #6-21). Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, and Libya may attempt to vex Egypt by land. By sea, these same North African nations appear to invade the southern coastline of France, Monaco, and Spain (then deeper into Europe).

Some of these conflicts could occur in one massive sweep. Or, they might take place over an extended period of years. In addition to land war, these conflicts seem to involve heavy naval warfare in the Mediterranean, Tyrrhenian and Aegean Seas. The nations of N.A.T.O. (or its future equivalent) and their various allies appear to eventually prevail in these conflicts.

The fate of Israel remains unclear. However, in paragraph #34 of the Epistle, Nostradamus states that Jerusalem might be assailed on all sides, and a Western naval force (from the United States and or other nations in the New World) will help Israel in fighting the forces of its future adversaries.

According to astrological information the years for the potential occurrence of these conflicts (between the period of 2000 to 2050) might be: 2000, 2002, 2013, 2015-16, 2017, 2019, 2021, 2030, 2037, 2038, and 2044.

One should consider the possibility that Euro/Arabic or "Muslim/Christian" conflicts might occur before, during, or after the war with the yet-to-arrive third antichrist. How Euro/Arabic conflicts inter-relate with the war with the third antichrist is unclear at this time. Some of them will be part of his war, and some of them might be precursory or unrelated independent events.

Nostradamus appears to suggest that the future third antichrist will come from a region east of the Black Sea. In paragraph #23 of the Epistle he states that "the grand Empire of the Antichrist shall begin in the region of the former empire of Attila" (Attila was the leader of the Asian Huns who invaded Europe during the fifth century). Nostradamus refers to the third antichrist as "the new Xerxes" (Xerxes was the Persian king who unsuccessfully invaded Greece in 480 B.C.).

Nostradamus intentionally used the names "Attila" and "Xerxes" as allusions to personality types and geographical areas. Thus, in a geographical sense, this suggests that he was referring to various regions of eastern Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.

The army of the third antichrist (an enemy of peace) will begin its trek towards Europe from a region between the Caspian and Black Seas. It appears that they will pass through Alania (southwestern Russia) and Armenia, then into Turkey (quatrain #5-54). From there they invade most all of Europe.

The naval forces of the third antichrist will be accompanied by the Libyan fleet into the Mediterranean and Adriatic Seas (quatrain #1-9). One of the climaxes of this future conflict appears to be a colossal naval engagement in the Adriatic Sea (quatrain #5-27). Island locations which sustain damage in this war include Malta, Euboea, Sicily, Sardinia, the Dodecanese Islands, and the Cyclades.

If the Russians are "not" allied with Europe and the West during the beginning of this war, Nostradamus states in the Epistle that a northern king from Aquilon (an allusion to Russia) will eventually help to set things right.

This suggests that if the Russians are allied against Europe and the New World at the start of this conflict, they will reverse their position at some future point during the hostilities, and militarily realign themselves with Europe and the West in an effort to quash the "Easterners". As used in Nostradamus' Epistle, "Easterners" would be a reference to the citizens of China, former Soviet nations in central and eastern Asia, the Muslim nations of the Middle East and Asia, and or other countries of the Orient.<span id='postcolor'>

Anyway...thats my two bits. Had a late night so can't contribute intelligently otherwise.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Dec. 20 2002,21:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">only slightly. ever since Iraq became the subject of talks, such reflection has been added to value of stocks(or taken out of).

we've been hearing about this too long to actually have a big drop.<span id='postcolor'>

Except for you don't know how long it will take or what outcome it will have. That means unstability for an unknown period. Not very popular among stock brokers.

[Longinius 1]

"Since when can't Iraq import medicines or equipment? "

Since the sanctions began?

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Dec. 20 2002,23:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Since when can't Iraq import medicines or equipment? "

Since the sanctions began?<span id='postcolor'>

They can import medicine under "humanitarian" goods. I don't know about equipment. Depends on what it is I guess and whether the uppity-ups decide if it can be used to make a weapon.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Depends on what it is I guess and whether the uppity-ups decide if it can be used to make a weapon.

<span id='postcolor'>

That´s exactly the point. Iraq for example is not allowed to import Digitales a heart attack and heart suffer medicine that is necessarry to treat heart attacks in the right way. Overdosed and abused it can be used to devlope poisons used to poison drinking water. Therefore it is banned to Iraq. This is only an example, but if you ever read the little papers that came with your medicine you can see how much is on the list for Iraq.

[FSPilot 0]

I wouldn't put too much stock in what nostradomus said.  He was wrong about the end of the world, and the deal about him predicting the 09/11 attacks turned out to be a fraud(http://www.tafkac.org/ulz/nostradamus.html).

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Dec. 20 2002,16:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This will probably be deemed WAAAAAAAAYYYY off topic...but it sort of IS on target.

It's about Nostradamus...thats right....Mr. Seer Of The Future himself.

Was looking it up cause I remembered a part in a show on him (hosted by Orson Wells of all people) that said the person that started World War III would be an Arab in a blue turban (or something equivalant).<span id='postcolor'>

If you want to talk about Nostradamus please read the Quatrains. You will soon realize that you can fit any story to them, especially since there is no order.

What appears to be said about WW3 is that there will be some sort of comet named MABUS... mabus which translates well into GW Bush or Saddam (SUddam)...

maybe you never noticed me writing MABUS? in my posts?

@Pilot: in your knifle anology, I would suggest you leave so that the person is not knifing you all the time... the first self defense step is to leave or not to offend.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Dec. 21 2002,10:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">@Pilot: in your knifle anology, I would suggest you leave so that the person is not knifing you all the time... the first self defense step is to leave or not to offend.     <span id='postcolor'>

But we're there to defend that neighbor, and the neighborhood.

[DarkLight 0]

Yesterday night, there was a documentary about why the people from Iraq like Saddam more then they like Bush.

Sad enough, i couldn't watch it, but the commercials already told me enough.

It is clear to me that lots of those people love their leader. Others don't love him, but they like him more than they like Bush.

Do no ask me why, because i can't tell you exaclty, i can tell you some reasons, like education and all that crap.

I know it sounds weird to hear that some people in this world, love a dictator that has killed lots of people, and that those people think this man is a lot better than a western 'civilized' president.

But for some reason this is the truth... Why is it that some people think that this is impossible, why is it that so many people believe that what i'm saying is all just media crap?

In my whole life, i haven't seen a lot of people in the east that actually like the US.

Don't say that i'm bashing, cuz i'm not, and you know it as good as i, i'm just saying my opinion, and what i've experienced during my life...

The hatred against the western world (not only the us) is very big in some places, so why does everyone think that it's impossible that they don't want to have some western army to invade their country.

Imagine that Saddam would attack the US to try to kill Bush, in his eyes, Bush is a crazy lunatic who has battled a lot of countries and who has killed innocents. So Iraq attacks the US while trying to save the American people from their 'dictator'.

Of course in the US, there will be some people who will be extremely happy to finally get rid of that stupid ol' president, but others will be extremely angry that another country attacks the US, destroys many of their important buildings, while trying to kill their great president.

Do you think the people who like Bush will accept such an attack? Do you think they'll just sit down and say, well, what happened is very sad but life goes on.

I don't think so...

Of course this was a surrealistic example, but i just used it so some of the people on this forum could have a good idea of what i mean.

There are waaaay too many people in Iraq that love Saddam. As unrealistic as it may sound, it is true, we find it hard to understand this, but are we the persons that live there? No we are not, the way kids are being raised there and many other factors are very different from here. Yes, you could call it brainwashing.

If you ask me, a lot of it IS brainwashing, but what are we gonna do about it, these people are conviced that their leader is great, you can't just tell them not to think that.

Look at what happens a lot in the east, people blowing themselves up (of course a good example is the WTC, but i'm rather sick of hearing about that) for their religion. Why do they do that? Because they are convinced that it is a good thing to do, they have been brainwashed like many others, you can't just go to those people and tell them to stop doing all that because it's not good. You can't just invade Iraq and tell the civilians who liked Saddam (and who hated the US) that they were wrong.

Brainwashing is everywhere, i've seen some commercials about american toys that are a good example of brainwashing (fe the bush doll), of course this also happens in Europe, i just can't think of a good example right now.

If you ask me, more people love Saddam then lots of us would want to believe...

Oh well, i gotta go eat now.....

[Lazarus_Long 0]

Well, it's not surprising that Iraqis praise Saddam everytime you stick a TV camera in front of them.  Any negative comments about their leader in public and that person will most likely suddenly disappear within a few days. Keep in mind that NOT loving Saddam is officially a crime in Iraq.  Once Saddam is gone I can guarantee that they will be singing a different tune about him.  On the other hand, I doubt they have much love for Bush either.  Its all FUBAR either way it goes.

As far as Islamic fundamentalism and hatred for western culture goes... Well you can change people’s opinion about a leader, but I agree that it's much more difficult trying to change their opinion in the matter of religion.  Islam, on the whole, is sort of in the "Middle Ages" of religious evolution.  Given time they will become more tolerant and civilized.  It took Christianity a good while before they became tolerable to live with.

Improve literacy and education in the region, make it accessible for everyone, not just the local elite and you will find these suicide bomber recruiters having a much harder time finding volunteers.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

That reminds me of a pretty funny story Tom Brokaw told on the Daily Show. He went to Iraq to do a news story, and during his free time he walked around and talked to regular Iraquis at a bazaar. One guy he talked to was something like this: "Saddam is a great man please come and kill him, we will fight the Americans in the streets they will be very welcome here..."

Kind of shows the split personality that repressed populations have. You see it in Cuba too: people not wanting to be interviewed about their real views, etc.

[Aaron Kane 0]

LOL, I love the Daily Show...

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SpeedyDonkey @ Dec. 21 2002,11:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">LOL, I love the Daily Show...<span id='postcolor'>I love the Late show, whit David Letterman <span id='postcolor'>

And soon you will realize just how lame David and his jokes are... Okay, I'm not going off topic more here.

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

There is a good reason for why he hsa been doing this for 21 yeas now! The thing whit dave is that either you love him or you think hes damn boring... also Paul Shafer (sp) is funny and good on da piano

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Saddam is a great man please come and kill him, we will fight the Americans in the streets they will be very welcome here..."<span id='postcolor'>

Hahaha, I saw that episode. Too bad they take long vacations on the daily show, probably wont see a new episode until the new year. -_-

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And soon you will realize just how lame David and his jokes are... Okay, I'm not going off topic more here.<span id='postcolor'>

*high fives bn880*

finally we agree on something