The Iraq Thread

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 15 2003,01:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">7--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 15 2003,017)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Source?<span id='postcolor'>

<span id='postcolor'>

Nice visual aid . I felt bad bringing it up again since we've all seen that discussed a trillion times, but how else do you nullify the "They're the only one's who've shown they're willing to use them" argument?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 15 2003,01:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes I just posted that, thank you.  <span id='postcolor'>

Yes, I saw it after I posted it. If you want more recent examples, you can take the chemical weapons used in the Vietnam war.

Another interesting point is that a big part of Iraq's WMD capabilities were given to Saddam by the US to be used against Iran.

Edit: I guess you want a source for that. Here it is from a congressional hearing

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 15 2003,06:13)</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">If you want more recent examples, you can take the chemical weapons used in the Vietnam war.<span id='postcolor'>

You mean agent orange? The chemical targeting plants and not civilian populations? Yeah, we're really bad guys.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Another interesting point is that a big part of Iraq's WMD capabilities were given to Saddam by the US to be used against Iran.<span id='postcolor'>

Completely irrelevant. Especially since most of them were probably (hopefully) destroyed in the gulf war.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 15 2003,01:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well, times have changed.  <span id='postcolor'>

History repeats

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">saddams gassing was much more recent, and much less has changed.<span id='postcolor'>

Fatuous remark. I'm sure you haven't lived in the 1940's to experience how humanity's concept of an atrocity has evolved.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

we dropped the atomic bomb because it would save lifes and end the war.

<span id='postcolor'>

I agree on the "end the war" part. and yes, you did save lives, those of US servicemen at the cost of Japanese civilians

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

plus this was back in the carpet bombing days when civilian casualties were more acceptable than they are now.<span id='postcolor'>

When it was is really irrelevant. Wrong is wrong

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 15 2003,01:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Completely irrelevant.  Especially since most of them were probably (hopefully) destroyed in the gulf war.<span id='postcolor'>

How is it irrelevant? You are the ones who provided him with the weapons, and now you want to kill him because he has them?

Another source on the topic

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 15 2003,01:16)</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">Another interesting point is that a big part of Iraq's WMD capabilities were given to Saddam by the US to be used against Iran.<span id='postcolor'>

Completely irrelevant.  Especially since most of them were probably (hopefully) destroyed in the gulf war.<span id='postcolor'>

How's that irrelevant? You give them the equipment and blow them to hell when you decide you don't want them to have it?

[Guest]

It shows more then anything two things:

[*] The US has weapons that are in violation of the Geneva convention

[*] The US can't be trusted with those weapons since they give them to dictators like Saddam Hussein who in turn uses them on civilian populations.

[Akira 0]

Oh man am I sick of hearing about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

You think JUST American service men were saved by that bombing? For the killing of a few hundred thousand, MILLIONS were saved. And I mean BOTH American and Japanese service men as well as civilians.

Let us also not forget that the far reaching effects of the bomb were not known at the time (though hinted at). Its true destructive potential was unknown. Even so, with the long range effects now know, the bombs still SPARED millions. If we hadn't used them all we'd hear right now is how the millions were killed occupy Japan. People look for any way to poke at the US. You just can't please somepoeple. Scratch that. Anyone.

Saddam knows full well what these weapons can do. He doesn't use them to save lives, he uses them for the express purpose of taking them by the thousands.

[FSPilot 0]

Tovarish

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">History repeats<span id='postcolor'>

Wuh oh, the US is going to end a war and save lives! Run everybody!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Fatuous remark. I'm sure you haven't lived in the 1940's to experience how humanity's concept of an atrocity has evolved.<span id='postcolor'>

It's not fatuous at all. Nothing about saddam has changed since he gassed those people. Everything has changed about our country. We've gone through plenty of presidents, and our military has changed too.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I agree on the "end the war" part. and yes, you did save lives, those of US servicemen at the cost of Japanese civilians<span id='postcolor'>

Saved the lives of US servicemen, Japanese servicemen, and Japanese civilians.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When it was is really irrelevant. Wrong is wrong.<span id='postcolor'>

Exactly why the US is not going to be using them today.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How's that irrelevant? You give them the equipment and blow them to hell when you decide you don't want them to have it?<span id='postcolor'>

I don't think we've given them any weapons of mass destruction in the first place.

Denoir

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How is it irrelevant? You are the ones who provided him with the weapons, and now you want to kill him because he has them? <span id='postcolor'>

The only sources I've seen on this are obviously biased, including you.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It shows more then anything two things:

[*] The US has weapons that are in violation of the Geneva convention

[*] The US can't be trusted with those weapons since they give them to dictators like Saddam Hussein who in turn uses them on civilian populations.<span id='postcolor'>

The US has, yes, the US uses? Probably not.

And I still haven't seen a reliable source about us giving saddam WMDs.

[Guest]

The first link that I provided you with was from a US Senate Arms Committee hearing. Your own government admitts it, this is no secret. The other one is a brief of the findings of us senator Byrd's finding on the subject.

I don't think you can find better sources then that.

Edit: Here is another source, a news article: U.S. SENT GERMS TO IRAQ IN MID-'80S

Edit2: One more source:

Sunday Herald (Scotland)

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 15 2003,01:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 15 2003,01:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes I just posted that, thank you. <span id='postcolor'>

Yes, I saw it after I posted it. If you want more recent examples, you can take the chemical weapons used in the Vietnam war.

Another interesting point is that a big part of Iraq's WMD capabilities were given to Saddam by the US to be used against Iran.

Edit: I guess you want a source for that. Here it is from a congressional hearing<span id='postcolor'>

Not to say it isn't true...

But I put as much stock in that as...well. Insert metaphor here.

Why the link to THAT page? Help me find it in the actual congressional hearing record. I'll let you know if I find it.

[FSPilot 0]

Are we talking about the WMDs from BEFORE or AFTER the gulf war?

[Guest]

Here is the actual Senate report Akira:

U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Gulf War

I'm sorry but you can't talk your way out of this. It is very well documented.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Are we talking about the WMDs from BEFORE or AFTER the gulf war? <span id='postcolor'>

Before of course. During the Iran-Iraq conflict.

Here is another link to the hearing:

US military site

[FSPilot 0]

OK, so you've proved to me this..

The US gave an ally weapons of mass destruction to use against an enemy before we knew that our ally was a crazed dictator.

Not that incriminating if you ask me.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 15 2003,01:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US gave an ally weapons of mass destruction to use against an enemy before we knew that our ally was a crazed dictator.<span id='postcolor'>

You gave him Weapons of Mass Destruction. Biological and chemical weapons that he used against the civilian population. You knew very well what kind of a man that was. Did the US support stop after he gassed Kurds in the early eighties? Not at all, on the contrary.

US came in disagreement with Iraq first when Saddam invaded Kuwait and was threatening Saudi Arabia. When he was killing off his own or attacking Iran, that was no problem for the US. Only when your oil interests in the region were endangered, you acted.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 15 2003,01:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The first link that I provided you with was from a US Senate Arms Committee hearing. Your own government admitts it, this is no secret. The other one is a brief of the findings of us senator Byrd's finding on the subject.

I don't think you can find better sources then that.

Edit: Here is another source, a news article: U.S. SENT GERMS TO IRAQ IN MID-'80S

Edit2: One more source:

Sunday Herald (Scotland) <span id='postcolor'>

You will also notice that the Swiss, and British sent cultures also. Most of the shipments went to Universities or medical labs leading me to believe that they were meant for medical research a kin to the CDC. They were transfered from where they were sent to the military.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 15 2003,06:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">US came in disagreement with Iraq first when Saddam invaded Kuwait and was threatening Saudi Arabia. When he was killing off his own or attacking Iran, that was no problem for the US. Only when your oil interests in the region were endangered, you acted.<span id='postcolor'>

Of course we only acted when Saddam threatened the worlds oil supply. That's right. The worlds oil supply. Do you really think that the US is the only country that uses oil? The entire world is reliant on oil. When saddam invaded Kuwait he didn't only threaten the US, he threatened the world.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 15 2003,01:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 15 2003,01:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US gave an ally weapons of mass destruction to use against an enemy before we knew that our ally was a crazed dictator.<span id='postcolor'>

You gave him Weapons of Mass Destruction. Biological and chemical weapons that he used against the civilian population. You knew very well what kind of a man that was. Did the US support stop after he gassed Kurds in the early eighties? Not at all, on the contrary.

US came in disagreement with Iraq first when Saddam invaded Kuwait and was threatening Saudi Arabia. When he was killing off his own or attacking Iran, that was no problem for the US. Only when your oil interests in the region were endangered, you acted.<span id='postcolor'>

While not disagreeing with your "assessment," people also forget that Kuwait was and is a staunch ally of the US.

While my Dad was stationed in Montgomery, Alabama and attending the Air War College, there were many Kuwaiti servicemen also being trained. I had the pleasure of visiting with one of the families on a Sunday. Nicest damn people, and damn good food to boot.

So while some say its oil, I prefer to say it was also the fact that they are a friend.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 15 2003,01:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You will also notice that the Swiss, and British sent cultures also.<span id='postcolor'>

I am sure that they did but that doesn't make it right. And it's not like I've heard the Swiss advocating an invasion of Iraq. Britain is (unfortunately) with US on this endeavour. Unfortunately their governments opinion on a war on Iraq isn't the same as the people's opinion.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 15 2003,01:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Of course we only acted when Saddam threatened the worlds oil supply.  That's right.  The worlds oil supply.  Do you really think that the US is the only country that uses oil?  The entire world is reliant on oil.  When saddam invaded Kuwait he didn't only threaten the US, he threatened the world.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, I agree with that entirely. Europe was just as much involved in the last Gulf War as the US was, no doubt about it.

It was agreed that Saddam was a common threat. It is not agreed now.

[Balschoiw 0]

Hi lads !

I just returned from Turkmenistan with a load of info in my backpack. I am very tired now but I´ll sum up the info tomorrow to give you a fresh look on facts and situation as it is in Turkey, Iraq , Iran, Turkmenistan at the moment.

I have seen a lot of interesting things the last days.

Also wondered where the election threads went, but I guess I have to dig them out

Nice to be back. Not for long, but back

Did you know that Turkey army is already in Iraq fighting some battles at the northern border ?

More info tomorrow.

And FS Pilot keep calm about Internet resource links to the info I will provide. You wont find some so you have to live with the info or bust

[Guest]

Welcome back mate

I'm really glad you're back, now you can help me fend off these stubborn Americans

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Jan. 15 2003,07:04)</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">Hi lads !

I just returned from Turkmenistan with a load of info in my backpack. I am very tired now but I´ll sum up the info tomorrow to give you a fresh look on facts and situation as it is in Turkey, Iraq , Iran, Turkmenistan at the moment.

I have seen a lot of interesting things the last days.

Also wondered where the election threads went, but I guess I have to dig them out

Nice to be back. Not for long, but back

Did you know that Turkey army is already in Iraq fighting some battles at the northern border ?

More info tomorrow.<span id='postcolor'>

Welcome back, glad to see you've made it back in one piece.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And FS Pilot keep calm about Internet resource links to the info I will provide. You wont find some so you have to live with the info or bust <span id='postcolor'>

I've been doing a lot of busting lately. Frankly I don't trust half the resources on the internet unless they're a .mil or .gov.

[OxPecker 0]

Australia gets less than 3% of its oil from the middle east.

Anyway, it's irrelevant. No war for oil. Why should world superpowers be allowed to declare war on nations just to get their hands on natural resources.

Also found it funny how America backpedalled on North Korea once the thumbed their noses at the US. Whats the matter Bush, a little scared of a country you know can fight back?

Why can't America be a civilised country and follow the UNs recommendations all the time, instead of just when it suits them.

Its time for America to get over its S11 syndrome and stop acting the victim when it is the worlds largest aggressor. Nations around the world (muslim and otherwise) dont dislike America because it is a "Christain nation" or because "it is a shining beacon of democracy", but because it has meddled and bullied in world politics for the last 50 years. You cant have a nation with a might-makes-right mentality and then claim the moral high ground, it doesn't work that way.

Also, USA needs to remember where Saddam and Osama got their start, and who funded them.

I feel for all world victims of terrorism - but that includes innocent Afghanis and Iraqis bombed by US forces just as much as it does S11 or Bali victims.

What you need to realise is that most people who dislike America dont hate American citizens, but the policies of the American government.

Well, that off my chest.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">US President George Bush has warned that "time is running out" for Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to surrender the weapons of mass destruction which the US insists he owns.

"So far I haven't seen any evidence that he has disarmed," said Mr Bush. "I'm sick and tired of games and deception."

<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe it's not relevant to some of you, but I'd say a fundamental principle has been broken. If you are charged with a crime - isn't it the prosecution's job to prove you are guilty? In my logic I'd say it's the UN inspectors job to FIND ABC-weapons and then the UN is supposed to alternatively make the decision if there will be war or peacefull disarmament.

It certainly looks like the Bush-administration has made up their mind as judge and jury long before the trial has even started.