The Iraq Thread

[Sam Samson 0]

look, you floosiedoosiewoosies:

the president's party just won by a landslide in the november elections, this being only the second or third time in 153 years. normally the president's party loses seats, like it did during clinton's tenure.

count the last national elections to be the belated nod for the prez and his policies by a previously sceptical populace.

now DON'T give me that whine about bush being an illegitimate any more. EVER.

[ralphwiggum 6]

wtf? am i on electoral college debate here? i thought it was about what would future of iraq will be?

[llauma 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Jan. 26 2003,19:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">wtf? am i on electoral college debate here? i thought it was about what would future of iraq will be? <span id='postcolor'>

If Bush was not legally elected then he is not allowed to order the american troops to attack Iraq.

Just trying to find the connection

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Jan. 26 2003,18:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 26 2003,18:o6)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You really think only 11 people are going to show up to vote one time?<span id='postcolor'>

Of course not.  The point is only that the American electoral college system may be legal but it's flawed.  A presidential candidate can quite easily lose with a majority of the popular vote.  I don't think this is possible in France.<span id='postcolor'>

it's impossible in france

the base of the french republic : every citizen are equal in right and duty

your vote here will have the same importance as a senator's vote

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Jan. 22 2003,16:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">CNN made a fortune 10 years ago broadcasting live from Baghdad and they don't plan to miss out on this new source of revenue.  In fact, all the major media groups are already investing heavily in new conflict logos and theme music to go along with the multi-million dollar advertising contracts being signed with corporate sponsors for when/if the first bombs start falling.<span id='postcolor'>

When I posted this a few days earlier (along with the Showdown Iraq logo image) I wanted to point out that the news media groups have a lot more to gain if there is war than if there isn't.  Now consider this:

War largely depends on the decisions of world leaders.

The decisions of world leaders largely depends on public opion.

Public opinion is largely influenced by the news media groups.

In other words, the decisions of Bush/Blair may be largely influenced by those who have a significant financial interest in there being a war.  

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Jan. 27 2003,00:57)</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 Bush was not legally elected then he is not allowed to order the american troops to attack Iraq.

Just trying to find the connection <span id='postcolor'>

But he was legally elected. Not only did he win the popular vote, but he also won the electoral college.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In other words, the decisions of Bush/Blair may be largely influenced by those who have a significant financial interest in there being a war. <span id='postcolor'>

Except for the fact that a lot of the American population doees not support this war, not to mention the international objections to the war.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 26 2003,20:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But he was legally elected.  Not only did he win the popular vote, but he also won the electoral college.<span id='postcolor'>

Uhh, Gore won the popular vote by about 100,000 people

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/

That link shows a difference of almost 400,000 votes, but the difference is immaterial. Both candidates got 48% of the vote, lending them rather more of a mandate than most European politicians get.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Jan. 26 2003,20:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Both candidates got 48% of the vote, lending them rather more of a mandate than most European politicians get.<span id='postcolor'>

Not so strange considering you only have two major parties, don't you think?

400,000 votes plus or minus doesn't really matter. Less then 50% of the US citizens vote anyway so the discussion of who won the majority vote is just academic. The largest number of people are not represented since they didn't bother to vote.

[FSPilot 0]

But it was their fault. Nobody's stopping them from voting.

[Balschoiw 0]

plssssss let´s get on back to our extended topic

Good news: Looks like the inspectors will get more time.

Bad news: Blair talked about weeks when he ment more time.

Ridiculouse !

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 26 2003,23:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But it was their fault.  Nobody's stopping them from voting.<span id='postcolor'>

Its time for Definition Manâ„¢ again!

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

Pronunciation: 'a-p&-thE

Function: noun

Etymology: Greek apatheia, from apathEs without feeling, from a- + pathos emotion -- more at PATHOS

Date: 1603

1 : lack of feeling or emotion : IMPASSIVENESS

2 : lack of interest or concern : INDIFFERENCE <span id='postcolor'>

I bet if the government offerd a 20 dollar voucher for beer/cigarettes/food to every person that voted responsibly, there would be far less apathy.

I am rather curious as to what Blix will have to say tomorrow.  Then again, when the most rational man in the cabinet starts talking like this I really start worrying.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Jan. 27 2003,05:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Its time for Definition Manâ„¢ again! <span id='postcolor'>

I'll get you definition man! And your nitpicking dog too!

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Jan. 27 2003,00:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">plssssss let´s get on back to our extended topic  

Good news: Looks like the inspectors will get more time.

Bad news: Blair talked about weeks when he ment more time.

              Ridiculouse !<span id='postcolor'>

I love this quote in a Time article:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Still, as the diplomat notes, "This will not end next week. There is a lot of anger in Washington. But now they are trapped, haunted by the Security Council. The agony is that we may be trapped with each other for weeks."

<span id='postcolor'>

[llauma 0]

USA is considering using nukes in Iraq?

Read these two articles from the LA Times.

U.S. Weighs Tactical Nuclear Strike on Iraq

The Nuclear Option in Iraq

You must register to read them but it only takes a couple of minutes.

[Pukko 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Llauma @ Jan. 27 2003,09:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">USA is considering using nukes in Iraq?

Read these two articles from the LA Times.

U.S. Weighs Tactical Nuclear Strike on Iraq

The Nuclear Option in Iraq

You must register to read them but it only takes a couple of minutes.<span id='postcolor'>

Here is a quote from the latest article:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">According to multiple sources close to the process, the current planning focuses on two possible roles for nuclear weapons:

attacking Iraqi facilities located so deep underground that they might be impervious to conventional explosives;

thwarting Iraq's use of weapons of mass destruction.

Nuclear weapons have, since they were first created, been part of the arsenal discussed by war planners. But the Bush administration's decision to actively plan for possible preemptive use of such weapons, especially as so-called bunker busters, against Iraq represents a significant lowering of the nuclear threshold. It rewrites the ground rules of nuclear combat in the name of fighting terrorism.

It also moves nuclear weapons out of their long-established special category and lumps them in with all the other military options -- from psychological warfare, covert operations and Special Forces to air power in all its other forms.

For the United States to lower the nuclear threshold and break down the firewall separating nuclear weapons from everything else is unsettling for at least three reasons.

First, if the United States lowers the nuclear threshold -- even as a possibility -- it raises the likelihood that other nations will lower their own thresholds and employ nuclear weapons in situations where they simply need a stronger military punch. Until now, the United States has reserved nuclear weapons for retaliation against nuclear attacks or immediate threats to national survival, a standard tacitly but widely accepted around the world. If the president believes that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein poses that kind of danger to the United States, he has failed to convince the world -- and many U.S. citizens.

Second, the move toward thinking of nuclear weapons as just one more option among many comes at a time when technology is offering a host of better choices. Increasingly, the U.S. military has the capability of disabling underground bases or destroying biological and chemical weapons without uncorking the nuclear bottle, through a combination of sophisticated airpower, special operations and such 21st century capabilities as high-powered microwave weapons and cyber warfare.

Third, there are dangers in concentrating the revision of nuclear policy within a single military command, STRATCOM, which until now has been focused strictly on strategic -- not policy -- issues of nuclear combat. Command staff members have unrivaled expertise in the usage and effects of nuclear weapons, but their expertise does not extend to the whys of weapons usage.

<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, the radiation of blown up bukers might be low, not taking into account any eventual spread of stored WMD:s. But the worst is ofcourse USA:s signal in being prepared to use nuclear bombs, even if not attacked first... What was this (well, still not 100% a fact) war about now again?  

[llauma 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @ Jan. 27 2003,15:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ok, the radiation of blown up bukers might be low, not taking into account any eventual spread of stored WMD:s. But the worst is ofcourse USA:s signal in being prepared to use nuclear bombs, even if not attacked first... What was this (well, still not 100% a fact) war about now again?  <span id='postcolor'>

I wanna laugh at USA's stupidity but it's hard to laugh when thousand of innocent people could be killed.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

That with the bunkers makes sense, no doubt. But does that mean then that the ordinary bunkerbuster wasnt efficient enough?

[CosmicCastaway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Jan. 27 2003,16:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That with the bunkers makes sense, no doubt. But does that mean then that the ordinary bunkerbuster wasnt efficient enough?

<span id='postcolor'>

I had an article on those things a while back pointing out that nuclear capable "bunker busters" actually proved to be only slightly, if at all, more effective against deep installations. (Can't find it now though ). Anyway, it's main point was that adding nuclear capabilities to those types of weapon was essentially a waste of effort as it didn't actually increase their ability to penetrate the earth, rendering them pretty much pointless against deep targets.

Still, it's a bit of a crapper to find nuclear weapons seriously considered.

[Balschoiw 0]

Hans Blix, Executive Chairman of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), and Mohamed ElBaradei, Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), each presented a report of their activities to an open briefing of the Council.

Responding to questions upon his arrival at the UN complex in New York, Secretary-General Kofi Annan recalled that last week Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei travelled to Baghdad to convey to senior Iraqi officials what is expected of them. “They expect a more proactive engagement and I hope the Iraqis will do what the inspectors have asked them to do,†said Mr. Annan, who will attend the Council briefing.

Asked about giving the UN inspectors more time, the Secretary-General said that today’s briefing would provide the Security Council with the facts to enable it to determine how to proceed next. “If they do need time, they should be given the time to do their work,†he said. “I’m not saying forever, but they do need time to get their work done, and I suspect the Council will allow for that time to be done.â€

Blix is opening  his report today. To see it live click here:

http://www.un.org/webcast/livestream1.ram

To see what Koffi Annan had to say use this link:

http://www.un.org/webcast/stakeout030127.ram

I like his last sentence:

"I have not given up on peace, and you shouldn´t either."

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I gotta say, publicly considering the use of nukes in a non-preemptive/retaliation scenario in a conflict where the main argument for going in in the first place is to enforce non-proliferation is highly suspect I just hope they aren't actually crazy enough to do it.

[Guest]

So now the report is out. The report from the UN inspectors say that Iraq is far from fully cooperating, but that it isn't resisting either. The inspectors need more time to make a proper evaluation. IAEA said that there was no evidence of an active Iraqi nuclear program but that it needed a few more months to prove it.

So what happens next? My guess is that USA will try to get through a UN resolution for an attack by putting pressure on the other security council members that have veto rights (i.e France, China and Russia). USA has a military build-up in progress that will need a month or so to complete. Then there is going to be a war, regardless of what the UN says.

[llauma 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 27 2003,18:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So what happens next? My guess is that USA will try to get through a UN resolution for an attack by putting pressure on the other security council members that have veto rights (i.e France, China and Russia). USA has a military build-up in progress that will need a month or so to complete. Then there is going to be a war, regardless of what the UN says.<span id='postcolor'>

If USA attacks Iraq without the support of the UN this crisis could become much more than just about Iraq.

Even if they come up with proof that Iraq has WMD's I see no reason to attack Iraq.

Especially USA shouldn't have any right to complain on Iraq as they have WMD's them selves and are willing to use them.

The world has been united since the collapse of Soviet but now USA is ripping it apart again.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Llauma @ Jan. 27 2003,19:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 27 2003,18:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So what happens next? My guess is that USA will try to get through a UN resolution for an attack by putting pressure on the other security council members that have veto rights (i.e France, China and Russia). USA has a military build-up in progress that will need a month or so to complete. Then there is going to be a war, regardless of what the UN says.<span id='postcolor'>

If USA attacks Iraq without the support of the UN this crisis could become much more than just about Iraq.

Even if they come up with proof that Iraq has WMD's I see no reason to attack Iraq.

Especially USA shouldn't have any right to complain on Iraq as they have WMD's them selves and are willing to use them.

The world has been united since the collapse of Soviet but now USA is ripping it apart again.<span id='postcolor'>

The world has been far from united since the fall of the USSR! There hasnt been any monolithic 'cold war' sort of conflict/tension, but to declare that the US is ripping apart an existing world unity is a little ludicrous.

They are however trying to appear to be the knight in shining armour, protecting the world from evil... but it comes off as the biggest kid in the schoolyard beating up a smaller kid to make a point.

[Guest]

I think it is sad that obviously the cold war experience has not taught us very much. I guess the lust for war, hate and agression runs too deep in human nature. I am very sceptical to that we some day might achieve world peace.

One can try to explain armed conflicts by terms of economic or cultural segregation but this war to come on Iraq shows that there does not have to be a justifiable reason behind it.

[Pukko 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 27 2003,20:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think it is sad that obviously the cold war experience has not taught us very much. I guess the lust for war, hate and agression runs too deep in human nature. I am very sceptical to that we some day might achieve world peace.

One can try to explain armed conflicts by terms of economic or cultural segregation but this war to come on Iraq shows that there does not have to be a justifiable reason behind it.<span id='postcolor'>

I believe symbolic reasons are the real strong ones as (I) usual (-ly do). And that it do not have anything to do with (the ever developing) human nature, just the symthom of a pathetic chapter in history.

At risk to repeat myself one time too much, I say there are 2 major symbolic reasons for the USA at this time:

1. The during the latest decades developed need for USA as a nation to have an external enemy (abstinence since the cold war). Muslims have been alienated in US media ever since the gulf war.

2. The need to unite the nation during a economically hard time; war does (in many cases anyway) unite people and give an at least short-time boost to production and economic growth. In this particular case I do not think it will work even on short-term anylonger though; but I do believe that it was one of the original intentions and reasons (add to that major stuff like oil and the Israeli lobby and there is quite a reaon for war).

If USA go through with this war, I believe that the world will learn yet another lession (and USA loose much of its international prestiege). And there will be ever harder to start wars in the future...

But I have to say that I do have been surprised, or even shocked, since 9/11 over how primitive/'uncivilised' times we still live in. But I still see great hope in the future.