The Iraq Thread

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 01 2003,12:11)</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">Don't say, USA has them, why can't iraq.Because i hate when someone says that<span id='postcolor'>

But it's true. It's only fair that you set the same rules for yourself as you do for others.<span id='postcolor'>

I know,but i wouldn't really care about iraq weapons if they kept them under control like the USA does.USA has lots secrets about their weapons,and keep them under heavy watch to make sure no one tries to steal them.Now if iraq did that i wouldn't care what they was/are making.But when you can go to an scientist house and find 2,000 docs. about chemical weapons/nuclear weapons doesn't sound safe.That also goes to russia too,but were(usa) paying their scientist to keep their stuff an secret.Also we are paying money to have their nukes destroyed,so they don't fall the wrong hands.Also china piss me off too about how they sell their crap.Pakistan and india has nukes because of them.

Plus if 3rd world countries keep getting these weapons they will never go away.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Feb. 01 2003,12:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I know,but i wouldn't really care about iraq weapons if they kept them under control like the USA does.USA has lots secrets about their weapons,and keep them under heavy watch to make sure no one tries to steal them.Now if iraq did that i wouldn't care what they was/are making.<span id='postcolor'>

Well obviously they are pretty safe (if he has them) since neither the US nor the UN have managed to find any of them

[foxer 0]

Yeah safe from the west ,which most countries know how to make the crap. .The problem comes in is the guy that doesn't know how to make it.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 01 2003,07:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Feb. 01 2003,11:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why would you (US) feel threatened? His neighbouring countries arn't very afraid!<span id='postcolor'>

You're speaking for them?<span id='postcolor'>

Saddam's neighbours primarily feel threatened by one country in the region.  ...And it ain't Iraq.

Edit:  Happy Chinese New Year and welcome to the Year of the Scapegoat.

[llauma 0]

I don't understand this debate.

It's just as if we would debate of wether Iraq was right invading Kuwait or not.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Llauma @ Feb. 01 2003,13:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't understand this debate.

It's just as if we would debate of wether Iraq was right invading Kuwait or not.<span id='postcolor'>I agree because half of those expressing their loud opinions would have no clue why Iraq attacked Kuwait.  

[llauma 0]

=)

[NavyEEL 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 01 2003,03:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If Powell does an Adlai Stevenson and gives the UN a smoking gun, then I expect there will be another UN resolution.  And if it supports a military solution and passes the Security Council, then you wont hear another complaint from me about it.  If military action is the only way to ensure Iraq disarming, then so be it.  But it is not the place of the US to dictate to the world... especially isnce they are the masters of the military blunder in the latter half of the 20th century.<span id='postcolor'>

"Masters of military blunder"? Maybe that's because we're the only ones constantly engaged in military action across the globe. If you play 100 games of baseball, you're bound to lose once or twice. The US making mistakes in the past does not make it any less of a successful military force. We've learned from our mistakes and are determined to not make them again, unlike many other countries... and in case you haven't noticed, military action IS the only way to ensure Iraq disarming. They haven't disarmed already, and there is proof of that. You saw it on the news yourself. If he was really disarming, don't you think he would offer to help show that he was disarming? Instead, he just sits back without making any remarks or effort to clear his name and save his country from annihilation. Do you honestly think it's that hard to hide weapons from a few UN officials who go to inspect buildings one at a time, especially when you know where they're going beforehand? Come on now, give Saddam a little more credit than that. The UN has had their chance... twelve years in fact. Clearly THEY were unable to get Iraq to disarm peacefully, so that leaves only one choice...

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But it's true. It's only fair that you set the same rules for yourself as you do for others.<span id='postcolor'>

So if there's one drunk driver in the world, we should take away everyone's drivers liscense?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq could could use that kind of thinking to say 'we feel threatened by America and all its thousands of soldiers in Kuwait so we are going to invoke Bush Doctrine 2.0 and attack them first to make sure we reamin safe from any American strikes'. I feel Iraq has more reason to feel threatened by America than America needs to be of Iraq unless the Iraqis happen to have an agent with a suitcase nuke somewhere in America.<span id='postcolor'>

All the more reason to attack them.  They're not allowed to have WMDs, but they do, and we're afraid they're going to use them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well obviously they are pretty safe (if he has them) since neither the US nor the UN have managed to find any of them <span id='postcolor'>

Except for in 1998.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I agree because half of those expressing their loud opinions would have no clue why Iraq attacked Kuwait.  <span id='postcolor'>

I already told you why he attacked Kuwait and Iran in the first place.  You just happily ignored it.

[Longinius 1]

"I already told you why he attacked Kuwait and Iran in the first place. You just happily ignored it."

But you still dont know why, right?

[FSPilot 0]

I already told you why. What is it about that sentence that you dont get.

[Longinius 1]

"I already told you why. What is it about that sentence that you dont get."

If you did, I missed it. Which isnt strange, considering the amount of posts. Remember which page?

"But it is about WMDs. Those other dangerous countrys don't have sanctions and UN resolutions against them forbiding them to have WMDs."

If it is UN resolutions, all actions to inforce it should be spearheaded by the UN. Not the US.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Feb. 01 2003,21:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"I already told you why he attacked Kuwait and Iran in the first place.  You just happily ignored it."

But you still dont know why, right?<span id='postcolor'>

Let's take the anticipation out of this:

"The Persian Gulf War. In spite of its support of Iraq during the war, Kuwait was invaded by its much larger neighbor in 1990. Iraq had claimed Kuwait as part of its territory under Turkish rule. Using the pretext of disputed oil fields and disagreements over oil production quotas, Iraq quickly overran Kuwait, as the emir fled to Saudi Arabia."

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If it is UN resolutions, all actions to inforce it should be spearheaded by the UN. Not the US.<span id='postcolor'>

But the US is being put in danger because of the UNs unwillingness to enfoce its own rules.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 01 2003,23:15)</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">If it is UN resolutions, all actions to inforce it should be spearheaded by the UN. Not the US.<span id='postcolor'>

But the US is being put in danger because of the UNs unwillingness to enfoce its own rules.<span id='postcolor'>

How did you figure that out?

UN is nothing without the backing of it's own members - especially the more important ones. You americans despise every- and anything that you feel might impose on your constitution. So UN is allright as long as it serves your purposes - but when the opposite happends - you tend to moan a lot.

I'll give you one example. The Srebrenica tradgedy is by many americans claimed to be the result of a weak UN unable to show enough strength to back up it's decisions. UN asked for soldiers so Srebrenica could be exactly what they had promised the bosninan population - a safe haven. No one would grant a large enough force - including the US Clinton administration whom did certainly not want to risk casualties.

Funny, that after the massacre had taken place - Nato could deploy 35 000 soldiers to enforce it's own policy where UN had "failed".

[JJFLY 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Feb. 02 2003,00:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 01 2003,23:15)</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">If it is UN resolutions, all actions to inforce it should be spearheaded by the UN. Not the US.<span id='postcolor'>

But the US is being put in danger because of the UNs unwillingness to enfoce its own rules.<span id='postcolor'>

How did you figure that out?

UN is nothing without the backing of it's own members - especially the more important ones. You americans despise every- and anything that you feel might impose on your constitution. So UN is allright as long as it serves your purposes - but when the opposite happends - you tend to moan a lot.

I'll give you one example. The Srebrenica tradgedy is by many americans claimed to be the result of a weak UN unable to show enough strength to back up it's decisions. UN asked for soldiers so Srebrenica could be exactly what they had promised the bosninan population - a safe haven. No one would grant a large enough force - including the US Clinton administration whom did certainly not want to risk casualties.

Funny, that after the massacre had taken place - Nato could deploy 35 000 soldiers to enforce it's own policy where UN had "failed".<span id='postcolor'>

^

Yes your right

the reason why america doesen't agree with resolutions that deal with the consitution is beause US TROOPS ALWAYS make up the majority of UN forces involved. Also if it doesen't agree with our constitution, congress will check the President's power, not allowing him to send troops into the theatre neways....

Until European nations can field strong miantable forces in parts of the world at once, and can command them effectively, the US is yes in charge of the UN.

[FSPilot 0]

Yes but you could say that for every country.

[JJFLY 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 02 2003,00:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes but you could say that for every country.<span id='postcolor'>

no you can't alot of other countries don't have a military , economy or constitution

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (JJPHAT @ Feb. 02 2003,00:41)</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">US TROOPS ALWAYS make up the majority of UN forces involved. <span id='postcolor'>

I'm afraid you are being a wee bit ignorant now! Actually, there are lots of places around the world where US soldiers never set their foot in a peacekeeping operation.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Until European nations can field strong miantable forces in parts of the world at once<span id='postcolor'>

Well, there are europen nations with strong military forces deployed several places around the world. The foreign legion of France comes close to my mind.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the US is yes in charge of the UN.<span id='postcolor'>

This is where you are wrong you see! UN does NOT belong to the US. UN belongs to all of it's members. That is why you are not in charge of the UN even though you do your best to manipulate the UN administration.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 01 2003,20:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"The Persian Gulf War. In spite of its support of Iraq during the war, Kuwait was invaded by its much larger neighbor in 1990. Iraq had claimed Kuwait as part of its territory under Turkish rule. Using the pretext of disputed oil fields and disagreements over oil production quotas, Iraq quickly overran Kuwait, as the emir fled to Saudi Arabia."<span id='postcolor'>

First of all, Iraq never existed under Turkish rule.  It always had other names.  It only first came into being as a British mandate after WWI.  The mandate lines were drawn quite arbitrarily and irresponsibly.  Iraq felt that the British should have drawn the border around Kuwait, as well.

The oil field dispute was not a pretext.  Iraq had 25 years and far better pretexts to get away with annexing Kuwait.  A very large Iraqi oil pool also extends beneath Kuwait.  Kuwait was over pumping the field causing (1) oil to migrate to their side of the border and (2) creating unproducible gas zones in the entire formation.  You see, an oil field depressurised too quickly gets something like the bends.  Those gas bubbles in the rock can prevent vast reserves of the oil from every being produced.  And this had the potential to damage Iraq's reserves quite badly.

The Kuwaitis were being assholes.

The Iraqis took it up in the Hague.

The Hague responded saying something like "...and what about those Kurds?"

Iraq had no other option but to attack.  And in the end, they were not going to get kicked back out without first trashing Kuwait's oil fields.

By the way, I'm not justifying Iraq's actions.  I've watched and despised Saddam Hussein since the late 70s.  But the Kuwaiti regime is not much better.  Just put up your hand if you remember the Kuwaitis' $10m deal with PR firm Hill & Knowlton to get the US to enter the Gulf War conflict.  

Anyone? Anyone?

(little hint: incubators)

Edit:  Yeehaw!!  Finally got my second star.

[JJFLY 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Feb. 02 2003,01:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (JJPHAT @ Feb. 02 2003,00:41)</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">US TROOPS ALWAYS make up the majority of UN forces involved. <span id='postcolor'>

I'm afraid you are being a wee bit ignorant now! Actually, there are lots of places around the world where US soldiers never set their foot in a peacekeeping operation.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Until European nations can field strong miantable forces in parts of the world at once<span id='postcolor'>

Well, there are europen nations with strong military forces deployed several places around the world. The foreign legion of France comes close to my mind.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the US is yes in charge of the UN.<span id='postcolor'>

This is where you are wrong you see! UN does NOT belong to the US. UN belongs to all of it's members. That is why you are not in charge of the UN even though you do your best to manipulate the UN administration.<span id='postcolor'>

1. I'm not being ignorant, like i said in the MAJORITY of most MAJOR UN peackeeping missions US Troops make up the biggest contingent of forces

2. Yes several European nations can field strong militay forces , but they usually can't do it in more than one part of the world at a time, except for UK, if your thinking of the legion in the Ivory Coast that is not a UN sposnored mission

3. The US is de-facto in charge of the UN, cause why, we are the superpower, we pay for almost eveything and american blood has been spilled in UN Led missions worldwide

[Pukko 0]

I got four points in this post, starting with:

1.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 01 2003,03:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NSA Secret Tapes<span id='postcolor'>

From what I understand in that article most of the new evidence that will be presented on Wednesday is going to be strictly media based proof. Just like all the proof presented after 9/11 to justify an attack on Afganistan, or is there any 'hard' evidence that I have missed there (except for the fairytales about liberating the Afgan people). I cant honestly say that I am convinsed that the terrorists were at all muslims (but I know, stating that now is like saying that the earth is flat; it has become an undoubtable absolute truth). I hope for the sake of all lovely American people that the day will not come when any eventual 'real' people behind 9/11 present hard evidence that they were the real terrorists; and then fulfil their goal of 'eliminating' the USA.

There is one risk in trusting the US government being completely honest about all their 'secret proofs'. The day may come when it is revealed to be all made up bullshit, and that it was justified by pointing out that the 'times demanded it'.

Please just remember the points that media like the movie 'Wag the dog' and this clip of George W Bush speaking tries to make.

2.

I will not support a war against Iraq even if some real hard proof of Iraq possesing some WMD:s. The exeption would be if hard proof could be given of big amounts of  missile-based-WMD:s could be presented and/or hard proofs of plans to use them. And the proofs would have to be accepted by a majority of the global community, and preferably also be accessible to everyone who want to check its authenticity.

If the 'media-proof' presented on wednesday only is about some thousand artillery based chemical-capable-shells, I dont know if will cry or laugh about it... but I have no doubt that no matter how pathetic the evidence turns out to be, the war will launched anyway.

And dont come dragging with the 'Iraq breaks UN rules' as a justification for a war. Many, many many other coutries do too, and USA is one of the worst members of the UN when it comes too ratifying UN conventions (like the chemical & biological weapons, childrens rights and 'non discrimination against women' etc. conventions + ignoring the criminal court and Kyoto protocol. And there are many more), and thereby placing itself outside the UN, while at the same time controlling it in many areas...

3.

If a war against Iraq is so extremely important, then it also have to be worth the risking of lives to accomplish it. If one are not ready to risk one's own life for a cause, there is no justification to risk others lives for it. In this case by, not only risking - but knowingly killing thousands civilians by, bombing. If you answer with the 'one have to break some eggs to make an omelett' argument, I really dont have any words for how low you have sunken, but know this: wars today is a quite perverse form of entertainment.....

4.

I hope you know, I'm quite sure that you deep inside know anyway, that the only lasting and real result of a vaugly justified war against Iraq now (and most certainly Iran and North Korea later) will be wastly increased hatered against the USA globally. The comfort you may get in having a vaugly defined enemy to blame everything on (also called scapegoat) - terrorists - comes to a very high price (yes I am implying that many of you want to have, and actively work to maintain -even if uncounciously -, this enemy), global depression and conflict - most certainly unprecendented in all history....

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (JJPHAT @ Feb. 02 2003,01:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1. I'm not being ignorant, like i said in the MAJORITY of most MAJOR UN peackeeping missions US Troops make up the biggest contingent of forces<span id='postcolor'>

Take a look here. Look at all of the current UN Peace Keeping operations. The US participation is pretty insignificant when you compare the 'might' of the US to the other nations. I am willing to bet that Canada provides more men to worldwide peacekeeping than the US.

Heh. Where us Balschoiw when you need him

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 02 2003,02:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (JJPHAT @ Feb. 02 2003,01:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1. I'm not being ignorant, like i said in the MAJORITY of most MAJOR UN peackeeping missions US Troops make up the biggest contingent of forces<span id='postcolor'>

Take a look here.  Look at all of the current UN Peace Keeping operations.  The US participation is pretty insignificant when you compare the 'might' of the US to the other nations. I am willing to bet that Canada provides more men to worldwide peacekeeping than the US.

Heh. Where us Balschoiw when you need him <span id='postcolor'>

Hey - I was looking for something like that but couldn't find it.

Yes, Warin you have a good point, but can I add that US also used it's debt to UN as an econimic hostage when Boutrous Boutrous Gali started to critisize US politics. So, it's not just about manpower - but economy too.

By the way - Norway has a total population of ca. 4 500 00 and since 1989 we have contributed with 60 000 soldiers to different UN operations. Not bad!

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @ Feb. 02 2003,02:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I got four points in this post, starting with:

1.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 01 2003,03:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NSA Secret Tapes<span id='postcolor'>

From what I understand in that article most of the new evidence that will be presented on Wednesday is going to be strictly media based proof. Just like all the proof presented after 9/11 to justify an attack on Afganistan, or is there any 'hard' evidence that I have missed there (except for the fairytales about liberating the Afgan people). I cant honestly say that I am convinsed that the terrorists were at all muslims (but I know, stating that now is like saying that the earth is flat; it has become an undoubtable absolute truth). I hope for the sake of all lovely American people that the day will not come when any eventual 'real' people behind 9/11 present hard evidence that they were the real terrorists; and then fulfil their goal of 'eliminating' the USA.

There is one risk in trusting the US government being completely honest about all their 'secret proofs'. The day may come when it is revealed to be all made up bullshit, and that it was justified by pointing out that the 'times demanded it'.

Please just remember the points that media like the movie 'Wag the dog' and this clip of George W Bush speaking tries to make.

2.

I will not support a war against Iraq even if some real hard proof of Iraq possesing some WMD:s. The exeption would be if hard proof could be given of big amounts of  missile-based-WMD:s could be presented and/or hard proofs of plans to use them. And the proofs would have to be accepted by a majority of the global community, and preferably also be accessible to everyone who want to check its authenticity.

If the 'media-proof' presented on wednesday only is about some thousand artillery based chemical-capable-shells, I dont know if will cry or laugh about it... but I have no doubt that no matter how pathetic the evidence turns out to be, the war will launched anyway.

And dont come dragging with the 'Iraq breaks UN rules' as a justification for a war. Many, many many other coutries do too, and USA is one of the worst members of the UN when it comes too ratifying UN conventions (like the chemical & biological weapons, childrens rights and 'non discrimination against women' etc. conventions + ignoring the criminal court and Kyoto protocol. And there are many more), and thereby placing itself outside the UN, while at the same time controlling it in many areas...

3.

If a war against Iraq is so extremely important, then it also have to be worth the risking of lives to accomplish it. If one are not ready to risk one's own life for a cause, there is no justification to risk others lives for it. In this case by, not only risking - but knowingly killing thousands civilians by, bombing. If you answer with the 'one have to break some eggs to make an omelett' argument, I really dont have any words for how low you have sunken, but know this: wars today is a quite perverse form of entertainment.....

4.

I hope you know, I'm quite sure that you deep inside know anyway, that the only lasting and real result of a vaugly justified war against Iraq now (and most certainly Iran and North Korea later) will be wastly increased hatered against the USA globally. The comfort you may get in having a vaugly defined enemy to blame everything on (also called scapegoat) - terrorists - comes to a very high price (yes I am implying that many of you want to have, and actively work to maintain -even if uncounciously -, this enemy), global depression and conflict - most certainly unprecendented in all history....<span id='postcolor'>

i agree with pukko , and he's found the words i wasn't able to find myself , it's nice to see that there are still some reasonable people on this poor planet