The Iraq Thread

[5thSFG.CNUTZ 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is all Bush's talk about going in without a material breach and a second UN mandate that is a bluff. Now he even insists that Iraq must prove it no longer has WMDs.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, Hans Blix has said this. See previous posts in thread.

[Blake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Jan. 21 2003,20:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is all Bush's talk about going in without a material breach and a second UN mandate that is a bluff.  Now he even insists that Iraq must prove it no longer has WMDs.  How can you prove that you don't have something.  Can Bush prove that he no longer possesses cocaine?  Certainly not from his behaviour.  <span id='postcolor'>

He has to prove he has destroyed his WMDs. And records WMDs are usually kept, even Saddam SHOULDN'T be so sloppy that he has just 'lost' his nuclear weapons without traces that they have been destroyed. WMDs are not just dumped by some unknown conscripts just because their conscript NCO suddenly decides to give that order. Those orders come from top level with detailed orders where, how and when those weapons are demolished. There are records of those events or should be. I trust that the weapons inspectors know how to dig up this stuff.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 21 2003,19:20)</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">Are you daft? The whole point is that he CANT import it. Possibly he can import bandaids and asprin, but thats about it. He cant import dialisys equipment, he cant import most modern medicine or lab equipment. Dont you get that??<span id='postcolor'>

Because he isn't goign to use it to help people, he isn't going to give it to doctors or hospitals.  He's going to use it to hurt people.  Don't you get that??<span id='postcolor'>

You are so blinded with your preconceptions that you disregard all reality. Iraq is a fairly modern country compared to other in the region. Iraqi citizens have much more freedoms then for instance the Saudi citizens. Saddam is a dictator, yes, but he does also take care of his people. He is helping his people, that's a fact. They may not have many political freedoms but the interest of Saddam is Iraq and its people. I can't understand how you can have such a simplistic view on the world. This is not a Hollywood movie or a cartoon.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </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">I hope you someday live in a nation that gets bombed back to the stoneage. After you have been bombed and most of your family is killed, you get sanctions imposed on your nation. A ban on cancer treatment is one of the effects. Then your kid or wife gets cancer and slowly dies, because your doctors cant treat her.<span id='postcolor'>

Are you going to attack me or actually make a point?  We all know that saddam is doing horrible things to his people, that's not the issue.<span id='postcolor'>

No, that was not his point. We are the ones that are responsible for those horrible things by imposing inhumane sanctions on iraq.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Uh no.  We wont let some people have WMDs because we know they'll use them to kill civilians.  We have them because we'd only use them to defend ourselves<span id='postcolor'>

Like Iraq now has to defend itself?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </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">So you say that you don't need personally to see any evidence, since you trust your president.<span id='postcolor'>

I trust my president's evidence.  But I'd like to see a coalition before we go to war.<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, so you do blindly trust your government then. Just for the record.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </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">So you do have a crystall ball?<span id='postcolor'>

No, but I do have common sense.  The Taliban was a resistance movement, no big histories of gassing civilian populations or invading countries with no warning.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh but it is not just the Taliban. It's Iran, Iraq, Contras, Cuba.. etc etc. There are a vast number of blowbacks that you have created because of the failure to predict the consequences of your actions. Where was your common sense when you armed Saddam Hussein against Iran? The point is that you have failed to anticipate the development of so many situations that you have no credibility left. Saddam has not threatened anyone with WMDs (at least not after the Gulf War), so anything else is an assumption and a questionable extrapolation. You can't even prove that he has an active WMD program and much less prove that he would use it.

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

So doing bad things in the past does mean that you are bound to do them again?<span id='postcolor'>

Iraq is a dictatorship that gasses it's own people and invades countrys with little or no warning.

See, the thing about the US is that we get a new president every 4 or 8 years.  Why should Bush be held responsible for what Reagan did, or Washington for that matter?

<span id='postcolor'>

Because it is the same government form behind it. Your constitution hasn't changed so the successors are accountable for what previous governments have done. This is not an opinion, it is a legal fact. This is one of the major differences between a dictatorship and a democracy/republic. The government is not equal the people that are in charge at the moment. The presidents, senators and congressmen are the caretaker of the government form. They change, the government form doesn't (at least not the US one since your constitution is unchangable in its core).

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Jan. 21 2003,19:48)</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">It is all Bush's talk about going in without a material breach and a second UN mandate that is a bluff.  Now he even insists that Iraq must prove it no longer has WMDs.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, Hans Blix has said this.  See previous posts in thread.<span id='postcolor'>

Blix has said nothing about invading Iraq without a material breach and without a second UN mandate.  Bush has.

Indeed, Blix has also told Iraq to prove it doesn't have WMDs and that they were disposed of.  But Blix does not support invading over any lack of such "evidence." ...Unlike Bush.

[Blake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 21 2003,20:51)</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">You are so blinded with your preconceptions that you disregard all reality. Iraq is a fairly modern country compared to other in the region. Iraqi citizens have much more freedoms then for instance the Saudi citizens. Saddam is a dictator, yes, but he does also take care of his people. He is helping his people, that's a fact. They may not have many political freedoms but the interest of Saddam is Iraq and its people.<span id='postcolor'>

So you are basically saying that murdering, invading and conquering is ok because it is in the interests of Iraqi people?

So basically Stalin was a good guy too? Nazi-Germany fits all descriptions you mentioned above. Good infastructure and some liberties (but god forgive if you say someting against your leaders). Now that is a 1984 scenario and that was not a hollywood film but a british film

I think you are giving too much credit for hard-line dictators that binds basically rotten structure together.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, that was not his point. We are the ones that are responsible for those horrible things by imposing inhumane sanctions on iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

So Saddam has no part in suffering of Iraqi people?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Where was your common sense when you armed Saddam Hussein against Iran?<span id='postcolor'>

Then why Iraqi Army uses Soviet equipment?

[nopulse 0]

Who was it that said the reason why Saddam used chemical weapons on "kurds", was because they were given to him by the U.S or something. I'm trying to track down that post.

[Sam Samson 0]

still at it, eh?

it's a real toughie, that question, I realize that:

should we help a vicious fascist dictator - with a heart of gold, denoir assures us -, or his well-taken-care-off people.

I say, let's call saddam "uncle saddam," lovingly. and let's list his many good deeds. (like gassing kurds? hello? )

denoir wins the ofp-reward for seeing clear.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Jan. 21 2003,14:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 21 2003,20:51)</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">You are so blinded with your preconceptions that you disregard all reality. Iraq is a fairly modern country compared to other in the region. Iraqi citizens have much more freedoms then for instance the Saudi citizens. Saddam is a dictator, yes, but he does also take care of his people. He is helping his people, that's a fact. They may not have many political freedoms but the interest of Saddam is Iraq and its people.<span id='postcolor'>

So you are basically saying that murdering, invading and conquering is ok because it is in the interests of Iraqi people?

So basically Stalin was a good guy too? Nazi-Germany fits all descriptions you mentioned above. Good infastructure and some liberties (but god forgive if you say someting against your leaders). Now that is a 1984 scenario and that was not a hollywood film but a british film

I think you are giving too much credit for hard-line dictators that binds basically rotten structure together.<span id='postcolor'>

Is it alright for the U.S. and U.K. to do so? Apparently YES. All members backing the U.S. are throwing away logical reasoning. I'm not afraid to gorup you together, because it is currently a fact.

This debate is going in circles...

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Jan. 21 2003,20:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">should we help a vicious fascist dictator<span id='postcolor'>

Well why shouldn't you? The United states has a proud history of supporting such characters: Batista, Pinochet, even Saddam himself at one point

[Sam Samson 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (nopulse @ Jan. 21 2003,20:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Who was it that said the reason why Saddam used chemical weapons on "kurds", was because they were given to him by the U.S or something.  I'm trying to track down that post.<span id='postcolor'>

it's a fantasy.

do you not like americans, or what?

the US doesn't and never has exported chemical weapons like poison gas to anybody.

saddam made that all by himself. with the help of predominantly european companies.

(where did you say, you're from?)

............I'm not gonna pursue this.

[Bernadotte 0]

Iraq gassed the Kurds for supporting Iran during their war.

The gas was produced using US-supplied technology.

If I were Hussein and bent on threatening my neighbours I'd do the following:

- comply with all UN resolutions towards lifting sanctions and averting invasion,

- resume full oil exports,

- let a few years pass,

- spend some of that petro-wealth on WMDs produced by some other nation.

Disarming Iraq offers no guarantee that they will stay that way (even if Hussein goes).

[bn880 5]

I don't have a link or you, but Colin Powell just stated that Saddam must be disarmed one way or another... if someone has the full story please post up a link.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Jan. 21 2003,20:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 21 2003,20:51)</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">You are so blinded with your preconceptions that you disregard all reality. Iraq is a fairly modern country compared to other in the region. Iraqi citizens have much more freedoms then for instance the Saudi citizens. Saddam is a dictator, yes, but he does also take care of his people. He is helping his people, that's a fact. They may not have many political freedoms but the interest of Saddam is Iraq and its people.<span id='postcolor'>

So you are basically saying that murdering, invading and conquering is ok because it is in the interests of Iraqi people?

So basically Stalin was a good guy too? Nazi-Germany fits all descriptions you mentioned above. Good infastructure and some liberties (but god forgive if you say someting against your leaders). Now that is a 1984 scenario and that was not a hollywood film but a british film  

I think you are giving too much credit for hard-line dictators that binds basically rotten structure together.<span id='postcolor'>

No it doesn't make him a good guy. Hitler did his things in the interest of the German people but at the expense of others and that certainly doesn't make him a good guy. Iraq's agressions on Iran and on Kuwait were made in the interest of the Iraqi people, but that doesn't make it ok.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </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">No, that was not his point. We are the ones that are responsible for those horrible things by imposing inhumane sanctions on iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

So Saddam has no part in suffering of Iraqi people?<span id='postcolor'>

Of course he has. His people are suffering the consequences of his actions. The responsibility for that is his. That doesn't mean however that it was his agenda. FSPilot is trying to make it look like like Saddam is interested in hurting the Iraqi people.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </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">Where was your common sense when you armed Saddam Hussein against Iran?<span id='postcolor'>

Then why Iraqi Army uses Soviet equipment?<span id='postcolor'>

Because the Soviet Union sold even more weapons to Iraq. The fact remains that in 1980 USA sent Iraq weapons for the fight against Iran.

[Sam Samson 0]

nope, buddy. the poison gas was created in a german-furnished laboratory. I think they even gave them the dogs to test the installation.

...there was something like that in libya too, wasn't there?

why, if not for disarming and trying to bring stability into the region would the US get involved in anything like a conquest of iraq with its subsequent occupation and the responsibilities that brings with it?

oil?

come on! think again.

it's not about oil, for crying out loud.

if it were, we could buy it from him real cheap.

saddam is more than eager to buy the west off, as his deals with france and russia clearly show, if we would just let him go on and tinker with his various weapons programs.

the mid-east is a snakepit, and it's not the US' fault.

but I believe the US would take its responsibility to nation-build serious, if it were in the situation of having to care for that people.

it worked with japan. US policy even helped make friends out of germany and france, with their formerly "inheritable enmity."

it recreated europe in its image, ushering in the greatest period of freedom and prosperity that continent has ever seen.

but I admit... the mideast might prove to be a toughie.

the disconnect between the rulers and the ruled is much greater down there.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Jan. 21 2003,20:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (nopulse @ Jan. 21 2003,20:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Who was it that said the reason why Saddam used chemical weapons on "kurds", was because they were given to him by the U.S or something.  I'm trying to track down that post.<span id='postcolor'>

it's a fantasy.

do you not like americans, or what?

the US doesn't and never has exported chemical weapons like poison gas to anybody.

saddam made that all by himself. with the help of predominantly european companies.

(where did you say, you're from?)

............I'm not gonna pursue this.<span id='postcolor'>

How he US armed Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons

Certainly biased, but the references seem to be valid. Did some cross checking on the articles that are mentioned and it seems to add up. You can check for yourself.

Edit: Btw did you know that USA is one of the few countries in the world that hasn't signed the international ban on chemical weapons?

[FSPilot 0]

Yes samsom, the US did arm Saddam with the technology needed for bio/chem weapons. We didn't intend for them to be used as bio/chem weapons, they were our allies, and we had no way of knowing that he would pursue a weapons program and that he would use these weapons on civilians.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You are so blinded with your preconceptions that you disregard all reality. Iraq is a fairly modern country compared to other in the region. Iraqi citizens have much more freedoms then for instance the Saudi citizens. Saddam is a dictator, yes, but he does also take care of his people. He is helping his people, that's a fact. They may not have many political freedoms but the interest of Saddam is Iraq and its people. I can't understand how you can have such a simplistic view on the world. This is not a Hollywood movie or a cartoon.<span id='postcolor'>

So what about all the stories of forced military service? What about the people dying for questioning Saddam? I never said it was some 3rd world nation that had no connection to the modern world.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, that was not his point. We are the ones that are responsible for those horrible things by imposing inhumane sanctions on iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

But the sanctions aren't inhumane, how they're enforced are. Allowing Saddam to import food and medicine for oil isn't inhumane at all. But due to Saddam's evil nature we can't just give him anything he wants.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Like Iraq now has to defend itself?<span id='postcolor'>

Nobody's attacked Iraq yet. And aside from that, what do you think he's going to do with these weapons? Like I said, he's not going to use them as paperweights or doorstops. He's either going to really use them, or threaten to and boss people around.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ok, so you do blindly trust your government then. Just for the record.<span id='postcolor'>

Only when necessary. I don't always blindly trust my government, but when they simply can't give me the information I would tend to trust them. But I don't take everything they say as the truth instantly.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Where was your common sense when you armed Saddam Hussein against Iran?<span id='postcolor'>

Saddam Hussein wasn't an enemy back then. He hadn't gassed people or attacked civilians.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The point is that you have failed to anticipate the development of so many situations that you have no credibility left.<span id='postcolor'>

But these are different situations. It's obvious that Saddam has used these weapons and will use them again. We had no real way to anticipate those other situations as far as I know. And either way it's irrelevant because we're dealing with different presidents and different people.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Because it is the same government form behind it. Your constitution hasn't changed so the successors are accountable for what previous governments have done. This is not an opinion, it is a legal fact. This is one of the major differences between a dictatorship and a democracy/republic. The government is not equal the people that are in charge at the moment. The presidents, senators and congressmen are the caretaker of the government form. They change, the government form doesn't (at least not the US one since your constitution is unchangable in its core).<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, so the president can be held accountable for past mistakes that he didn't make. But does that mean he'll make them as well? I doubt it.

[Balschoiw 0]

FS I am a proud member of the UN since 13 years and to call me a five year old child like you did, will end my senseless debate with you. I am through with you as you miss things required for a seriouse discussion. I provided info and knowledge first hand and got the loop of ignorance from you every time.

IMO you are one of the most ignorant and selfassure people I have ever talked to.

Mod´s hand me over my posting restriction, but I had to say that.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 21 2003,21:09)</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">Like Iraq now has to defend itself?<span id='postcolor'>

Nobody's attacked Iraq yet.  And aside from that, what do you think he's going to do with these weapons?  Like I said, he's not going to use them as paperweights or doorstops.  He's either going to really use them, or threaten to and boss people around.<span id='postcolor'>

What I think he is going to do with the weapons (assuming he has them, that is)? Exactly the same thing as the US is doing with its weapons. He will use them if Iraq's existance is threatened, just as you would if the existance of USA was.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </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">Where was your common sense when you armed Saddam Hussein against Iran?<span id='postcolor'>

Saddam Hussein wasn't an enemy back then. He hadn't gassed people or attacked civilians.

<span id='postcolor'>

Yes he had. Check the article that I posted above, or this one:

Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas , Published on Sunday, August 18, 2002 in the New York Times

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </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">The point is that you have failed to anticipate the development of so many situations that you have no credibility left.<span id='postcolor'>

But these are different situations. It's obvious that Saddam has used these weapons and will use them again. We had no real way to anticipate those other situations as far as I know. And either way it's irrelevant because we're dealing with different presidents and different people.<span id='postcolor'>

You have no way of anticipating what Saddam is going to do. It is not at all obvious that he will use them again. Iraq is in a very different situation then it was in the '80s. As I said earlier, just because a country does something one time doesn't mean it will do it again.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ok, so the president can be held accountable for past mistakes that he didn't make. But does that mean he'll make them as well? I doubt it.<span id='postcolor'>

Considering what Bush is doing now, I would indeed say yes to that.

[Sam Samson 0]

this is one busy thread!

interesting where you guys get your info, greenleft.xyz

not that I'm really amazed, mind you.

btw, did you know that the recent anti-anti-terror demonstrations in DC were sponsored by the communist workers world party? that's the entity behind a.n.s.w.e.r

I heard it was great.

narco-terrorist spokesmen spoke..., an imam called for the bringing down of bush-cheney-rumsfeld (the "real" axis of evil.) then the field chanted "allahu akbar."

another brilliant speaker, malik zulu sabazz, said that in his view george washington and rudy giuliani are the real terrorists, not bin laden.

democrats rangel and conyers called for a reintroduction of the draft, so all american families would feel the pain and share in the sacrifice. (an obvious attempt to whipping the populace into a frenzy.)

seems you anti-anti-terror guys here are in good company.

[NavyEEL 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Jan. 21 2003,21:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">democrats rangel and conyers called for a reintroduction of the draft, so all american families would feel the pain and share in the sacrifice. (an obvious attempt to whipping the populace into a frenzy.)<span id='postcolor'>

talk about a bad idea...

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Jan. 21 2003,21:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">FS I am a proud member of the UN since 13 years and to call me a five year old child like you did, will end my senseless debate with you. I am through with you as you miss things required for a seriouse discussion. I provided info and knowledge first hand and got the loop of ignorance from you every time.

IMO you are one of the most ignorant and selfassure people I have ever talked to.

Mod´s hand me over my posting restriction, but I had to say that.<span id='postcolor'>

You really need to work on your flaming, this isn't very impressive More foul language and direct personals attacks are required for post restrictions

For the record I must still say that I do not condone personal attacks like this one. They easily turn to pure flaming, which is

not acceptable.

I am going to follow Balschoiw footsteps and from now on not responding to FSPilot's posts. Hopefully it will turn the discussion into something more constructive then it is right now.

Sam Samson:

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

interesting where you guys get your info, greenleft.xyz

not that I'm really amazed, mind you.

<span id='postcolor'>

I know, I had a laugh about that too. I searched on google and that's what came up first so I took it. There are however plenty of other sources. That article itself was just a reprint from somewhere else

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Jan. 21 2003,21:o0)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">nope, buddy. the poison gas was created in a german-furnished laboratory.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A 1994 US Senate report revealed that US companies were licenced by the commerce department to export a “witch's brew†of biological and chemical materials, including bacillus anthracis (which causes anthrax) and clostridium botulinum (the source of botulism). The American Type Culture Collection made 70 shipments of the anthrax bug and other pathogenic agents.

The report also noted that US exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare facilities and chemical warhead filling equipment.

<span id='postcolor'>

...and...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Then US Secretary of State George Schultz and commerce secretary George Baldridge also lobbied for the delivery of Bell helicopters equipped for “crop sprayingâ€. It is believed that US-supplied choppers were used in the 1988 chemical attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja, which killed 5000 people.<span id='postcolor'>

Seems they had more than one supplier.

[Cloney 0]

Ok so we give them all these chemical weapons. How the hell are we supposed to know what they are going to do with them.

I'll hazard to take the guess that we thought he was going to use them to defend himself, and like Denoir pointed out, only in times when the existence of Iraq was threatened. i.e Iran decides to attack again.

Bernadotte, there are about a million different uses for a helicopter. You can't just say its our fault for giving them the helicopters because they were obviously going to use them to disperse chemical weapons. You could use a crop spraying helicopter for many things. I don't think it was totally evident that they were going to use it to disperse chemical weapons. Maybe Saddam has a hell of a large garden?

It is akin to me stabbing someone to death with a pen with a sharp point made by Bic that I bought from Office Max and saying that Bic and Office Max are sponsors murderers.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">FS I am a proud member of the UN since 13 years and to call me a five year old child like you did, will end my senseless debate with you. I am through with you as you miss things required for a seriouse discussion. I provided info and knowledge first hand and got the loop of ignorance from you every time.

IMO you are one of the most ignorant and selfassure people I have ever talked to.

Mod´s hand me over my posting restriction, but I had to say that.<span id='postcolor'>

Hey, you got personal first, not me.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What I think he is going to do with the weapons (assuming he has them, that is)? Exactly the same thing as the US is doing with its weapons. He will use them if Iraq's existance is threatened, just as you would if the existance of USA was.<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe this is why we disagree. I think he's going to use them maliciously. To threaten and attack his neighbors.

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

I'd like to see that article backed up more before I believe it. Something like this would be splattered all over cnn and other news. I'm not saying it's biased, but they might just have bad sources.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You have no way of anticipating what Saddam is going to do. It is not at all obvious that he will use them again. Iraq is in a very different situation then it was in the '80s. As I said earlier, just because a country does something one time doesn't mean it will do it again.<span id='postcolor'>

I'd agree with you, but I don't think this guy's changed. He's still a generall evil person.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Considering what Bush is doing now, I would indeed say yes to that.<span id='postcolor'>

Well I guess that's a matter of opinion.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am going to follow Balschoiw footsteps and from now on not responding to FSPilot's posts. Hopefully it will turn the discussion into something more constructive then it is right now.<span id='postcolor'>

I think it's funny how you're ignoring his previous hostility.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cloney @ Jan. 21 2003,21:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can't just say its our fault...<span id='postcolor'>

I didn't.  Sam thought the Germans were the sole suppliers of Iraq's chemical weaponry and I corrected him.  That's all.  The helicopter bit could have been left out.