The Iraq Thread

[Guest]

</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">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.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually you did know since the supplies continued after he used them.

That is however besides the point. The point is that it was another unexpected development. USA certainly did not expect those weapons to be a threat to them in the future. This is one of many examples of how short term foreigin policy can blow back into your face. USA helped Iraq because Iran was the main enemy back then. "My enemy's enemy is my friend" - kind of logic. It didn't quite develop as expected.

There is a great risk of an invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam blowing back in your face. There are so many things that can go really wrong and come to haunt you later. Even if we all agreed that the cause is just (and we don't all agree on that), the risk of nasty side effects is too big to justify an attack.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">crop spraying helicopter for many things<span id='postcolor'>

Yes but the only problem is that Iraq neither has/had large crop fields or agricultural fields in general, swamp regions that would justify the use of spray helos for insectizides or anything like that.

It is indeed a very dusty country, with the oil so close to the surface that it sometimes just comes out of the earth without drilling. Maybe they intended to use the helos as a measure against all the dust in the desert, but I doubt that

[Longinius 1]

"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??"

Actually, it wouldnt be Saddam that tried to import the medicine. It would be the people that now die from the lack of proper medical care.

"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."

Saddam didnt bomb his own people to a pulp and then refused to give them even the most basic of medical supplies. The rest of the world did that.

"He had them as recently as 5 years ago! He did NOT disarm, I persoanlly gurantee you that. "

So you have been to Iraq then?

"So what about all the stories of forced military service?"

You mean people in Iraq, a nation currently involved in a war, has a draft??!! How odd.

"What about the people dying for questioning Saddam?"

Denoir all ready said that political freedom was not one of the strong points. This has nothing to do with health care though.

"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."

1. Do you even know what kind of goods are sanctioned?

2. Dont you think it is our responsibility to help the people of Iraq if we refuse them the means to help themselves?

"Nobody's attacked Iraq yet."

They were bombed, again, just yesterday. So I'd say you were wrong.

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

Do you even know why Iraq went to war with Iran and Kuwait?

[Balschoiw 0]

News:

Germany possibly sends 20 BW troopers as UN personel to Iraq.

They will assist the UN inspectors with the drone Luna

to make their work more effective and provide aireal imaging as the local helicopters are very dependant on wether conditions at the moment. The soldiers will have a civilian status for the mission and will be under Hans Blix command only.

The german drone LUNA

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Jan. 22 2003,03:49)</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">Actually, it wouldnt be Saddam that tried to import the medicine. It would be the people that now die from the lack of proper medical care.<span id='postcolor'>

Who are under saddams control.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saddam didnt bomb his own people to a pulp and then refused to give them even the most basic of medical supplies. The rest of the world did that.<span id='postcolor'>

No, but he does do all this.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So you have been to Iraq then?<span id='postcolor'>

No, but UN inspectors have. Have you personally been there ot ensure that there aren't WMDs?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You mean people in Iraq, a nation currently involved in a war, has a draft??!! How odd.<span id='postcolor'>

Not a draft, a "if you can hold a gun we're going to send you off to your death or we'll kill you and your family".

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir all ready said that political freedom was not one of the strong points. This has nothing to do with health care though.<span id='postcolor'>

No, but it proves that he's an evil person who shouldn't have these weapons.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1. Do you even know what kind of goods are sanctioned?<span id='postcolor'>

It doesn't matter.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2. Dont you think it is our responsibility to help the people of Iraq if we refuse them the means to help themselves?<span id='postcolor'>

We don't refuse them the means to help themselves. You're giving in to Saddams lies that he's an innocent person and the US is some big demon trying to destroy him.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They were bombed, again, just yesterday. So I'd say you were wrong.<span id='postcolor'>

Another attack on their illegal air defenses, or one returning fire from their illegal air defenses?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do you even know why Iraq went to war with Iran and Kuwait?<span id='postcolor'>

Wasn't talking to you, doesn't matter anyway.

[Longinius 1]

"No, but UN inspectors have. Have you personally been there ot ensure that there aren't WMDs?"

No, I am quite sure Blix does a better job. But so far, he hasnt found anything. You no, nothing, as in - No WMD's.

"Not a draft, a "if you can hold a gun we're going to send you off to your death or we'll kill you and your family"."

Sounds like a draft to me.

"It doesn't matter."

So you think it is OK to sanction just about anything, since it doesnt matter?

"We don't refuse them the means to help themselves. You're giving in to Saddams lies that he's an innocent person and the US is some big demon trying to destroy him."

We refuse them the ability to import medicine and medical equipment. That has nothing to do with Saddams lies. We dont only refuse them these things, but we also do not do anything to ease the suffering.

"Another attack on their illegal air defenses, or one returning fire from their illegal air defenses?"

So now it is illegal for Iraq to defend themselves?

"Wasn't talking to you, doesn't matter anyway."

Yes it does. Because you stated that it was likely that Saddam attacked his neighbors. Since you say this, you surely must have some insight into the matter. So, why has he started the wars he has been involved in so far. What was the reason for the war against Iran and the invasion of Kuwait?

[nopulse 0]

You know whats scarey, its those unmanned Surveillance Planes (Predator UAV) the DOD is developing.  Apparently now they can equip them with weapons.

Can anyone say Skynet? lol

[Harnu 0]

Ya, they equipped some of the Unmanned Recon Vehicles used in Afgainistan with two Hellfire Missiles.

[Blake 0]

They have also been used - just few months back hellfires were fired at suspect Al-Quaida operatives at Yemen. Their car was destroyed and the operatives were killed. That's no science-fiction.

[Akira 0]

Idiots

My respect for their standing up in what they believe in is tempered by the idiocy of what they are doing.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My respect for their standing up in what they believe in is tempered by the idiocy of what they are doing.<span id='postcolor'>

Why is it idiocy? These people believe that the actions of the US and UK governments which are leading to what seems to be an inevitable conflict are wrong. And they are willing to lay their lives on the line to protest. It may be foolhardy and a touch on the insane side, but I wouldnt call them idiots.

I wonder how people will react if US bombs kill US citizens that have put their lives in jeopardy.

[Akira 0]

Hehehe

lol!

I love that sign!

[Blake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 21 2003,22:19)</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">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'>

I would not count on Saddam that much. He has gassed his minority Kurds in a form of ethnic clensing and Iranian soldiers in the Iran-Iraq war which was started by him because of his hunger for domination and more territories. Nobody's threatning the excistence of Iraq - only his dictator's throne is threatened and he will probably use them because he doesn't care the consequences.

But you keep saying that Iraq does not have any WMDs so this is purely hypotetical, right?

</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'>

We're dealing with the same dicator, same way of thinking, same ruthless methods. Or maybe he is a better man now, softened by his age? It is the same regime as in the 80s, only the fact that all political threats to Saddam seem to been eliminated by now. The entire political system only serves as Saddam's rubber stamp.

We're not even talking about a country we are talking about Saddam and what he might do. And that makes him dangerous - he still has illusions that he is the champion of the Arab nations and victor of the Gulf War. That's what makes him unpredictable and threat to entire area.

He must be disarmed. However, I still don't support war on current evidence. There are hopefully peaceful ways to deal with him and time will probably do the rest. Wishful thinking perhaps but who knows.

</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">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.<span id='postcolor'>

The looming war has not begun yet so it is too early to Judge. He did well in Afganistan but this is a different situation. What he is doing now is just threats, hard language and moving of forces to the Gulf. The only language Saddam seems to undertstand. Or do you think weapons inspectors could have returtned without harsh threats to Saddam? Not a chance.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Jan. 22 2003,00:38)</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">My respect for their standing up in what they believe in is tempered by the idiocy of what they are doing.<span id='postcolor'>

Why is it idiocy? These people believe that the actions of the US and UK governments which are leading to what seems to be an inevitable conflict are wrong. And they are willing to lay their lives on the line to protest. It may be foolhardy and a touch on the insane side, but I wouldnt call them idiots.

I wonder how people will react if US bombs kill US citizens that have put their lives in jeopardy.<span id='postcolor'>

In the US? Honestly? I think people here will say "It's their own fault."

I have no problem with their views, what i have a problem with is their playing into the hands of one of the possible future combatants. And by placing their lives in danger they place other lives in danger as well (regardless if the attack is wrong or right).

And I didn't call THEM idiots...just their actions idiotic.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 21 2003,18:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And I didn't call THEM idiots...just their actions idiotic.<span id='postcolor'>

So then they are not responsible for the actions?

If you call someones reasoning stupid, you actually do call them stupid, same goes for your line.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 21 2003,23:o0)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not a draft, a "if you can hold a gun we're going to send you off to your death or we'll kill you and your family".<span id='postcolor'>I know some Iraqi draft dodgers.  They fled to avoid prison.  Nothing has happened to their families.  Where do you get your info from?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 21 2003,23:o0)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Another attack on their illegal air defenses, or one returning fire from their illegal air defenses?<span id='postcolor'>Illegal?  What law do they break?  Air defences do not violate any existing cease fire agreements or UN resolutions.  Furthermore, the "no-fly zones" are not part of any such agreements either.  They're strictly a US invention.  Can you explain what makes them legal?  I can't.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Jan. 22 2003,04:21)</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">No, I am quite sure Blix does a better job. But so far, he hasnt found anything. You no, nothing, as in - No WMD's.<span id='postcolor'>

And what of what they found in 1998?  What do you think saddam did with that?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sounds like a draft to me.<span id='postcolor'>

No, drafts don't involve killing your family.  You seem to have a twisted view of reality.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We refuse them the ability to import medicine and medical equipment. That has nothing to do with Saddams lies. We dont only refuse them these things, but we also do not do anything to ease the suffering.<span id='postcolor'>

They can import all the medical equipment they want unless it could be used to kill people.  And you know why this doesn't matter?   Because saddam wouldn't give it to his people even if he could import it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So now it is illegal for Iraq to defend themselves?<span id='postcolor'>

US planes enforcing a no-fly zone is not an attack on Iraq.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes it does. Because you stated that it was likely that Saddam attacked his neighbors. Since you say this, you surely must have some insight into the matter. So, why has he started the wars he has been involved in so far. What was the reason for the war against Iran and the invasion of Kuwait?<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/iran-iraq.htm

The Iran-Iraq War was multifaceted and included religious schisms, border disputes, and political differences. Conflicts contributing to the outbreak of hostilities ranged from centuries-old Sunni-versus-Shia and Arab-versus-Persian religious and ethnic disputes, to a personal animosity between Saddam Hussein and Ayatollah Khomeini. Above all, Iraq launched the war in an effort to consolidate its rising power in the Arab world and to replace Iran as the dominant Persian Gulf state. Phebe Marr, a noted analyst of Iraqi affairs, stated that "the war was more immediately the result of poor political judgement and miscalculation on the part of Saddam Hussein," and "the decision to invade, taken at a moment of Iranian weakness, was Saddam's". <span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.desert-storm.com/War/chronology.html

Hussein accuses Kuwait on 17 July of oil overproduction and theft of oil from the Rumailia Oil Field.<span id='postcolor'>

Basically, for power and oil. Is that the type of person you want in an already unstable area with WMDs?

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 22 2003,01:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 21 2003,18:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And I didn't call THEM idiots...just their actions idiotic.<span id='postcolor'>

So then they are not responsible for the actions?

If you call someones reasoning stupid, you actually do call them stupid, same goes for your line.<span id='postcolor'>

The word "logic" is thrown around here a lot, mostly as the basis of some people's arguement. "Your logic states..." and "By your logic...".

Logic, dispite everything that I hear repeated around here, is not concrete and is goverened by human hubris. I think some people need a refresher course in philosophy and logic.

Some one can be a brilliant scientist and still do something stupid or idiotic. Nothing is static and nothing is set to "rules of logic." Because he did something stupid, does not make THE PERSON stupid. Your logic is fundamentally flawed.

So yes. I didn't call them idiots or stupid, I called their actions stupid.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Jan. 22 2003,06:06)</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">I know some Iraqi draft dodgers. They fled to avoid prison. Nothing has happened to their families. Where do you get your info from?<span id='postcolor'>

They probably left before the Iraqis got to their house to draft them in the first place. Either way, I just said they threaten to kill them and their family, not actually do it. Although I'm sure they do.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Illegal? What law do they break? Air defences do not violate any existing cease fire agreements or UN resolutions.<span id='postcolor'>

Firing on US aircraft sure does.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Furthermore, the "no-fly zones" are not part of any such agreements either. They're strictly a US invention. Can you explain what makes them legal? I can't.<span id='postcolor'>

They're a US and UK (in other words, a coalition) invention.

[Warin 0]

Sort of off topic, but a couple of  words that need to be injected into this discussion and some of its participants.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Main Entry: (1)inane

Pronunciation: i-'nAn

Function: adjective

Inflected Form(s): inan·er; -est

Etymology: Latin inanis

Date: 1662

1 : EMPTY, INSUBSTANTIAL

2 : lacking significance, meaning, or point : SILLY

synonym see INSIPID

- inane·ly adverb

- inane·ness  /-'nAn-n&s/ noun <span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Main Entry: ob·tuse

Pronunciation: äb-'tüs, &b-, -'tyüs

Function: adjective

Inflected Form(s): ob·tus·er; -est

Etymology: Middle English, from Latin obtusus blunt, dull, from past participle of obtundere to beat against, blunt, from ob- against + tundere to beat -- more at OB-, CONTUSION

Date: 15th century

1 a : not pointed or acute : BLUNT b (1) of an angle : exceeding 90 degrees but less than 180 degrees (2) : having an obtuse angle <an obtuse triangle> -- see TRIANGLE illustration c of a leaf : rounded at the free end

2 a : lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : INSENSITIVE, STUPID b : difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression

synonym see DULL

- ob·tuse·ly adverb

- ob·tuse·ness noun <span id='postcolor'>

Think about it.

[Akira 0]

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

From Denoir

Now now Warin. You are a moderator. You know better.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 22 2003,01:32)</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">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.<span id='postcolor'>

From Denoir

Now now Warin. You are a moderator. You know better.<span id='postcolor'>

What? I am not saying anything about anyone in particular.

Should someone choose to draw any conclusions, that is their own prerogative.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 22 2003,01:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> They probably left before the Iraqis got to their house to draft them in the first place.<span id='postcolor'>No.  They were already drafted.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 22 2003,01:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Either way, I just said they threaten to kill them and their family, not actually do it.  Although I'm sure they do.<span id='postcolor'>How do you know.  Have you spoken with any Iraqis about this, like I have?  Or are you just making this up as you go along?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 22 2003,01:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Firing on US aircraft sure does.<span id='postcolor'>No.  Not if the US aircraft is in Iraqi airspace.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 22 2003,01:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They're a US and UK (in other words, a coalition) invention.<span id='postcolor'>Um...  Is that your explanation for why you think they are legal?

[Tovarish 0]

[mr. Duck 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Jan. 22 2003,01:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

<span id='postcolor'>

Hey just like that song someone posted before