The Iraq Thread

[Die Alive 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (joltan @ Jan. 30 2003,12:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 30 2003,15:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And how the hell did he come to that conclusion?<span id='postcolor'>

Probably because God doesn't outlaw wars for some reasons.<span id='postcolor'>

Thou shalt not kill? Anyone? Ever heard that?<span id='postcolor'>

Do unto others before they do unto you!

-=Die Alive=-

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It doesn't matter, it's different for what you believe in.<span id='postcolor'>

So by your logic, the destruction of the WTC was okay, because thats what THEY (The perpertators) believe in.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Jan. 31 2003,00:23)</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">Thou shalt not kill? Anyone? Ever heard that?<span id='postcolor'>

It's my personal belief, and a lot of other people's too, that that commandment refers to killing for personal reasons. Ie, lust, revenge, jealousy. God actually trained the Israelites for war.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So by your logic, the destruction of the WTC was okay, because thats what THEY (The perpertators) believe in.<span id='postcolor'>

To the terrorists, yes. The terrorists thought it was OK, they thought God (well, allah) was on their side. We think they're wrong and we're right, so we think God is on our side.

Why do I have to explain the fundamentals of religion in a thread about Iraq?

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Jan. 30 2003,16:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I thought about something funny last night, and it's soooo ironic.

The US will only attack Iraq if they have nuclear weapons, right?  Now the funny thing is, perhaps Iraq didn't want to use those weapons.  But by attacking them, the Western world is forcing Iraq to defend themselves.  Basically this means, that if Iraq has weapons, a war isn't a solution because it'll only make them scared and they'll react.  Maybe by using the strongest weapons they have.  (IF they have these weapons of course)

It's like scaring a cat, when you scare a (wild) cat it runs away, but when you make sure that the cat can't escape, and you scare it.  The animal will defend and charge at you.

Basically the animal itself is not dangerous, but putting it in a situation where it HAS to defend itself, is a dangerous thing to do.  Because then the animal will choose to charge and use it's best weapons to try and save itself.  

Same thing...

Think about it...<span id='postcolor'>

I wouldn't say it is ironic...

But on the flipside of that sentiment, if Iraq uses their "best" weapon, which I assume you mean WMD's, then that would show the US was correct and that an attack was "justified."

Iraq claims no WMD's, releases documents "backing" this up. Their stance has always been that they have no weapons. Now if suddenly they start lobbing off WMD shells, it will merely show that they were lying the whole time, and not adherring to the UN resolution, thus producing the "material breach." The US would be proven right but in a rather cataclysmic way.

Really right now if Iraq does have those weapons, it would be in their best interest all around to keep them hidden and unused. That leaves sympathy and world opinion on their side, and the US still in a bind.

[Akira 0]

Why France Hates The US

[llauma 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 30 2003,23:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Jan. 30 2003,16:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I thought about something funny last night, and it's soooo ironic.

The US will only attack Iraq if they have nuclear weapons, right?  Now the funny thing is, perhaps Iraq didn't want to use those weapons.  But by attacking them, the Western world is forcing Iraq to defend themselves.  Basically this means, that if Iraq has weapons, a war isn't a solution because it'll only make them scared and they'll react.  Maybe by using the strongest weapons they have.  (IF they have these weapons of course)

It's like scaring a cat, when you scare a (wild) cat it runs away, but when you make sure that the cat can't escape, and you scare it.  The animal will defend and charge at you.

Basically the animal itself is not dangerous, but putting it in a situation where it HAS to defend itself, is a dangerous thing to do.  Because then the animal will choose to charge and use it's best weapons to try and save itself.  

Same thing...

Think about it...<span id='postcolor'>

I wouldn't say it is ironic...

But on the flipside of that sentiment, if Iraq uses their "best" weapon, which I assume you mean WMD's, then that would show the US was correct and that an attack was "justified."

Iraq claims no WMD's, releases documents "backing" this up. Their stance has always been that they have no weapons. Now if suddenly they start lobbing off WMD shells, it will merely show that they were lying the whole time, and not adherring to the UN resolution, thus producing the "material breach." The US would be proven right but in a rather cataclysmic way.

Really right now if Iraq does have those weapons, it would be in their best interest all around to keep them hidden and unused. That leaves sympathy and world opinion on their side, and the US still in a bind.<span id='postcolor'>

Don't people say that the most dangerous man is the one who has nothing to loose?

I am not a threat against you but if we two are locked in a room and you try to kill me I would for sure do everything I can to kill you first.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 30 2003,23:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why France Hates The US<span id='postcolor'>

This Times article is a better attempt of describing why Europe isn't so happy about iraq: 6 Reasons Why So Many Allies Want Bush To Slow Down

It's written from an American perspective so it is biased that way. If you keep in mind that it was written by and for Americans, it's a piece worth reading.

Another article that goes more in depth (American too) is well worth the read too "In Europe, a rising tide of anti-American feeling".

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Llauma @ Jan. 30 2003,23:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Don't people say that the most dangerous man is the one who has nothing to loose?

I am not a threat against you but if we two are locked in a room and you try to kill me I would for sure do everything I can to kill you first.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh no I agree.

All I'm saying is that if he does, not only does he run the risk of proving his enemy correct, but also loosing world sympathy and support.

To take on your example. If I say you have a knife and aren't allowed to, and the world says you have to give up your knife, including sending people to pat you down. No knife is found, but I decide that we should be locked in a room together because I'm taking you out since I suspect you are hiding your knife. So when we are you pull out a knife to defend yourself...it shows that I was correct in a manner.

Long winded but that is what I am getting at.

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Jan. 30 2003,19:23)</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 doesn't matter, it's different for what you believe in.<span id='postcolor'>

So by your logic, the destruction of the WTC was okay, because thats what THEY (The perpertators) believe in.<span id='postcolor'>

Exactly correct. Doesn't mean it is right to the majority of the world, but it was right to them.

Why can't Americans understand? No one (well no one reasonable) is saying that S11 was justified, but then attacking Iraq for oil and because they didn't get closure on Osama isn't justified either.

Can any of the pro US advocates here give me a reasonable explanantion why the UN won't endorse the US actions on Iraq? Is it because it isn't morally right to do so, or do you think it's another anti-US conspiracy by the rest of the world?

Bush is single handedly dragging the world to the brink of WW3. Oops, not quite single handedly, his lapdogs Blair and Howard are responsible too. His constant bullying of Iraq is glavanising the whole muslim population of the world against the west. Not to mention shooting his mouth off and the whole "Axis of Evil" fiasco.

Saddam is an asshole dictator and human rights violator, no doubt. But when the hell did the US become the worlds police (well, I guess they have thought of themselves this way ever since WW2, but most of the world would disagree).

Ah whatever, take out saddam if you can, install another puppet, and then act all indignant in 10 years time when he bites that hand that fed him just like Saddam and Osama did.

[Akira 0]

For Those That Say Its About Oil

[llauma 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 31 2003,00:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For Those That Say Its About Oil<span id='postcolor'>

I don't understand how those numbers shows its not about the oil. Maybe you could tell me?

[ralphwiggum 6]

amount of iraq's oil that US imports from is quite small compared to other sources.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Jan. 31 2003,01:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">amount of iraq's oil that  US imports from is quite small compared to other sources.<span id='postcolor'>

And imports from OPEC nations are declining across the board.

I guess we have to invade Canada if its about oil

[Guest]

That shows more then anything that it is about the oil. Obviously USA wants a bigger piece of Iraq's oil then it has now.

[Balschoiw 0]

One moment please. Couldn´t it be that OPEC (which is a thorn in US oil´s eye as they have risen the barrel price from 10 to 30 US dollars over the last ten years) could be possibly split by introducing a US puppet to Iraq ?

I got my clearance today to post the info we collected and have all numbers set. I will post them tomorrow as it will take a some time and it´s pretty late here in germany.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Exactly correct. Doesn't mean it is right to the majority of the world, but it was right to them.

Why can't Americans understand? No one (well no one reasonable) is saying that S11 was justified, but then attacking Iraq for oil and because they didn't get closure on Osama isn't justified either.<span id='postcolor'>

Did you read my reply?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Can any of the pro US advocates here give me a reasonable explanantion why the UN won't endorse the US actions on Iraq? Is it because it isn't morally right to do so, or do you think it's another anti-US conspiracy by the rest of the world?<span id='postcolor'>

They think we're going too fast.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">His constant bullying of Iraq is glavanising the whole muslim population of the world against the west. Not to mention shooting his mouth off and the whole "Axis of Evil" fiasco.<span id='postcolor'>

Here we have a perfect example of someone brainwashed by the democrats, maybe even osama bin laden himself who wants the whole world to hate the west and think that Bush is attacking muslims.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saddam is an asshole dictator and human rights violator, no doubt. But when the hell did the US become the worlds police (well, I guess they have thought of themselves this way ever since WW2, but most of the world would disagree).<span id='postcolor'>

This isn't a police action, this is a preemptive strike. As well as an enforcement of the UN own rules.

Let me ask you all this. Are we setting up a puppet government in Afghanistan?

[Bernadotte 0]

Sources of US oil.

I wouldn't rely too heavily on such stats.  In 2001, Canada also imported ~1 million barrels per day.  You see, it's more cost effective to send oil from Western Canada straight south to the US, while importing oil into Canada's industrial east than to pipe it across the country.

[Vikingo 0]

Don't know if this was posted before (sorry if it was) but just read this at Flashpoint Zone Site and I think is a good reading:

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

To the tune of "if your happy and you know it.." Ok, altogether now!

If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.

If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.

If the terrorists are frisky,

Pakistan is looking shifty,

North Korea is too risky,

Bomb Iraq.

If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.

If we think that someone's dissed us, bomb Iraq.

So to hell with the inspections,

Let's look tough for the elections,

Close your mind and take directions,

Bomb Iraq.

It's pre-emptive non-aggression, bomb Iraq.

To prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.

They've got weapons we can't see,

And that's all the proof we need,

If they're not there, they must be,

Bomb Iraq.

If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.

If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.

If you think Saddam's gone mad,

With the weapons that he had,

And he tried to kill your dad,

Bomb Iraq.

If corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.

If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.

If your politics are sleazy,

And hiding that ain't easy,

And your manhood's getting queasy,

Bomb Iraq.

Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.

For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq.

Disagree? We'll call it treason,

Let's make war not love this season,

Even if we have no reason,

Bomb Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

Mr. Bush you will turn ON the fuse and this world will go to hell now or in a couple of years. In that way you will never bring peace to countries and people around the world -well that is the way to move the economy,no?- and more hate will rise against your country (among others called "friend" ones). Sad thing that the ones that die are always inocent people and not people like YOU.  

I always think : if you buy fireckackers to new year party... you use them! Having all those nukes arround the same will happen some day (you don't need to be Nostradamus to know that) and with crazy people playing with the countries like if they are chess pieces I'm sure the "new year" for our world is comming fast...

Oh! never put this angry at forums but I'm against all wars and more and more to this one that is sadly comming.

 Fernando 'Vikingo' Santamaria

            from Argentina

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 31 2003,01:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That shows more then anything that it is about the oil. Obviously USA wants a bigger piece of Iraq's oil then it has now.  <span id='postcolor'>

How is that?

By your own posts, and those of others, it has shown that the US profits from sanctions and embargos against Iraq, particularly oil export controls.

So what is to be gained by going in there and setting up a new world order as some say? Little except international and domestic unrest.

Saying that this is about "oil" is oversimplifing a complex question. I'm not saying its just about WMD, nor am I saying its just about Saddam. But to say its about oil, or rather OPEC's oil is liberalistic propoganda ( I like that phrase).

There are far easier countries (and more unstable) to toy with and gain control of their oil (OPEC that is).

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 31 2003,01:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">By your own posts, and those of others, it has shown that the US profits from sanctions and embargos against Iraq, particularly oil export controls.

So what is to be gained by going in there and setting up a new world order as some say? Little except international and domestic unrest.<span id='postcolor'>

USA does profit short term from the current food for oil deal. It is nothing however compared to how much it would profit, especially long term from control or exclusive cooperation with Iraq's oil industry.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saying that this is about "oil" is oversimplifing a complex question. I'm not saying its just about WMD, nor am I saying its just about Saddam. But to say its about oil, or rather OPEC's oil is liberalistic propoganda ( I like that phrase). <span id='postcolor'>

I don't think it is all about oil either. I think it is a political move designed to

[*] gain popular support to elect Bush a second term

[*] divert attention from domestic problems

[*] get a strategic point in the Middle East

[*] oil

[*] divert attention from the fact that Osama is still alive and kicking

[*] strengthen domestic military and other industry

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 31 2003,01:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't think it is all about oil either. I think it is a political move designed to

[*] gain popular support to elect Bush a second term

[*] divert attention from domestic problems

[*] get a strategic point in the Middle East

[*] oil

[*] divert attention from the fact that Osama is still alive and kicking

[*] strengthen domestic military and other industry<span id='postcolor'>

I'll follow you on that one...

Might add another...

[*] Pissed off he allegedly tried to kill Daddy.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 31 2003,01:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[*] Pissed off he allegedly tried to kill Daddy.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, the song does go something like "So, here's one for dear daddy, from his favorite little laddy, Bomb Iraq!"

[bn880 5]

Yep,

but I have to run this one by the American members here:

When you look at Bush, do you have any insparation that he is exceptionally intelligent or a well balanced individual? Does he inspire confidence at all?

Personally, when I see him, I know I don't want to talk to him under any circumstances.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 31 2003,02:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Personally, when I see him, I know I don't want to talk to him under any circumstances.  <span id='postcolor'>

is it because of the Secret Service around him or the monkey bar cage around him?

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 31 2003,01:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1. Did you read my reply?

2. They think we're going too fast.

3. Here we have a perfect example of someone brainwashed by the democrats, maybe even osama bin laden himself who wants the whole world to hate the west and think that Bush is attacking muslims.

4. This isn't a police action, this is a preemptive strike.  As well as an enforcement of the UN own rules.

5. Let me ask you all this.  Are we setting up a puppet government in Afghanistan?<span id='postcolor'>

1. No, but I was just using that quote to make my own point, not directly oppose or criticise the quote itself.

2. Damn right you are, but I it is more about justifaction than speed. Just exactly what threat does Iraq pose to the US directly? No, not your allies, or your resources, but to your country and populace. I suppose you could trot out the old "terrorist training ground" card if you are really desperate to justify.

3. I am brainwashed? LOL. Yes, that's right, my opinion differs from yours, therefore I must be brainwashed. I prefer the term unbiased (as I'm neither from the US nor the Middle East) and informed to brainwashed, but I don't expect you to accept that.

4. [sarcasm]Kind of like S11? [/sarcasm] Preemptive strike, is this the new buzzword to justify any actions you take, no matter how unjustfied or extreme?

5. [sarcasm]Well obviously not, I mean it hasn't been publicised in the media, and we all know how the CIA, NSA etc. like to let the public know about all of their actions   [sarcasm]

Thanks FS Pilot, to me you've just proved every point I made about the extremist American point of view.