The Iraq Thread

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (joshnolan225 @ Feb. 04 2003,01:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Remember, this is not a war to liberate Iraq, like it was in Afghanistan, its a war to ensure american lives against a nuclear dictator who wants to destroy America.  <span id='postcolor'>

Nuclear dictator?

I think not.  The only thing remotely nuclear that could be pinned on Saddam and Co were some aluminum tubing that could possibly be used in Uranium enrichment.  The IAEA discounted those claims months ago. Sure Iraqi scientists possess the knowledge to build a bomb... but just remember that with a few hours in most public libraries in the US, you could gather almost all the same knowledge.

If you want to talk about nuclear dictators, talk about the dictator in North Korea.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (joshnolan225 @ Feb. 04 2003,01:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> ...America is a land of ideals, and the left is hell bent on destroying bush, one way or another, be it through creating another veitnam, where war stories were sensationalized, thus creating an environment where military officials couldnt work due to restrictions put on the war by Johnson, due to the pressure by the anti war left...<span id='postcolor'>

Do you like former foreign serviceman and British spy-novelist John Le Carré?  He ain't no left-winger, either.

He wrote a letter to the Times of London entitled:  The United States of America Has Gone Mad

(Unfortunately, the original version is not available for free.)

Warning:  Once you start reading it you might not be able to put it down.  

[joshnolan225 0]

cant say ive heard of him but i would be happy to check him out, to Warin: what evidence do you have that discounts iraqs ability to destroy human life through nuclear terror? outside of outdated reports and "propaganda"( i say only for lack of better word, please dont misquote). the united states has made it perfectly clear that North Korea is a dangerous ally of Iraq( if you could call it that). Yes, you are correct, NK is a danger of a nuclear power. however it has been made clear that the danger of transfer of nuclear weapons from NK is a certanty, if Iraq has a nuclear weapon program, NK is certanly a part of it. Iraq has the capablity to launch ICBs NK doesnt, NK has a nuke, however "so does Iraq". Who does that make a more dangerous nation? I honestly dont expect to change your opinion, i just want you to see where we are coming from, our arguements, I take it you are an American? If so, i ask you to look back to 9-11. remember the emotion? i lost 7 freinds that day on a field trip to NYC. I would have joined them if i had my permission slip signed..... Al-queada is the driving force that killed my friends, but Iraq also killed them with their support of the Islamic fundamentalism that runs AL- Quaeda, they helped killed them. I am convinced that Iraq is lying and deceiving America and the world, eventually planning to kill all those whom he wants dead. He kills his own people, what makes him unwilling to kill all?

[Guest]

You are making two big assumptions:

[*] Iraq has an active nuclear program

[*] Iraq has connections to AQ

Neither of those two have been even remotely proven.

Edit: One more thing. Iraq does not have ICBMs. Russia and USA are the only ones. Iraq has short range and medium range missiles. The medium range ones can reach Israel but it is doubtful if he has any left since it is one of the things he is not allowed to have.

[joshnolan225 0]

hey, i read that article, i was wondering are you sure he isnt left wing, i just get a sorta, liberal vibe from him. Its interesting getting the veiw of an englishman, but I do mwant to make one point: America did not start the War on terror, but she will finish it. I have to diagree about Iraqi oil. America has no desire to become an occupying force, Iraq has not threatend American oil interests in their country, so why go to war over that. I would look at ANWAR and americas oil interests there, America especially Bush is seeking economic independence from the middle eastern oil producing countries. I have faith in of elected officers, our democratic system, that we are doing the right thing. Read that book

[joshnolan225 0]

how have they not been proven........ sometimes the american people need to open their arms and their minds and go out of the way to get the facts. yess it has been proven, but then again i may have diferent sources, ideas, and backround than others, i tell you my opinions, based on fact that i have found to be .....fact. Any way , America should abandon one of its most steadfast allies and let it fall victim to Saddam( call on past actions of saddamm in the gulf war)

[joshnolan225 0]

oh yeah Denoir, i like your avatar. my mistake you are right

[joshnolan225 0]

IDF sponsered website that gives a perspective on worldwide veiws, and that of one that will suffer greatly i f iraq is allowed to contiue

[joshnolan225 0]

IDF website in case link aint workin

Although Iraq ratified the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1969, there were clear indications that it had been striving to possess nuclear weapons for a long time.

In 1989, the U.S. intelligence community assumed that the Iraqi government was interested in acquiring a nuclear explosives capability, based on evidence that Iraq was acquiring nuclear-related equipment and materials.

How close Iraq was to developing a bomb is open for debate. However, excerpts familiar with The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors, believe that Iraq could have produced a workable nuclear device in as little as six to 24 months, had they focused their efforts on a crash program to produce one.

The Iraqi nuclear program was massive, fiscally unconstrained, and was less vulnerable to destruction by precision bombing. During the Gulf War, the Iraqi nuclear facilities target list contained two sites, but after the war, inspectors operating under UNSCOM eventually uncovered more than twenty sites involved in the Iraqi nuclear program.

Iraq’s nuclear weapons program suffered a very significant setback both from the Gulf War bombing of nuclear-related facilities and IAEA monitoring since the war.

All fissile material was removed from Iraq by the IAEA, but the expertise of scientists and technicians survived and possibly some documentation and infrastructure.

The UN Security Council, in Resolution 687 (1991) envisaged that within 15 days of adoption of the resolution, Iraq would submit to the Director General of the IAEA a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of nuclear related materials.

It was not possible, however, for the IAEA to follow such a timetable, as Iraq chose to follow a course of denial, concealment, and obstruction. The initial declarations provided by Iraq were totally inadequate and the IAEA’s access to designated inspection sites was obstructed.

In recent years Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb.

A report released on 9 Sept. 2002, by the International Institute for Strategic Studies – an independent research organization – concluded that Saddam Hussein could build a nuclear bomb within months if he were able to obtain fissile material.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 04 2003,02:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Edit: One more thing. Iraq does not have ICBMs. Russia and USA are the only ones. Iraq has short range and medium range missiles. The medium range ones can reach Israel but it is doubtful if he has any left since it is one of the things he is not allowed to have.<span id='postcolor'>

Point of order: China has ICBMs as well and North Korea is expected to have the ability to deploy a true ICBM inside of 10 to 15 years

[toadeater 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (joshnolan225 @ Feb. 04 2003,01:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">    im no war monger, but i also kno that there is a time for america to stand up and defend herself.  Iraq is a bully and bullies dont go away, you dont stand up to them and say heres my lunch money, but please dont take it any more ill forgive you this time, but you have three weeks to stop doing it. no.  <span id='postcolor'>

Iraq is not a bully, it is just another country with its own interests in mind. Just like those nice guys in Iran and Turkey, and I suppose you can even say Israel. I bet you didn't know that Turkey massacred more Kurds than Iraq did, yet all we hear is "Saddam gassed his own people". Those people happened to have been Kurds who fled from Turkey, and Iranian soldiers. It is an even more ridiculous complaint considering he did this with full US knowledge:

(Rumsfeld shakes hands with Saddam)

[Akira 0]

Why to attack

Rebuttal

This is a good website also if you haven't seen it before. Lots of debate on both sides of global issues.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (toadeater @ Feb. 04 2003,03:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq is not a bully, it is just another country with its own interests in mind. Just like those nice guys in Iran and Turkey, and I suppose you can even say Israel. I bet you didn't know that Turkey massacred more Kurds than Iraq did, yet all we hear is "Saddam gassed his own people". Those people happened to have been Kurds who fled from Turkey, and Iranian soldiers. It is an even more ridiculous complaint considering he did this with full US knowledge:

(Rumsfeld shakes hands with Saddam)<span id='postcolor'>

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

That's pretty standard realpolitik, and the US is hardly alone in practicing diplomacy along these lines. Remember that Iran burned us bad in '79, and we needed a way to get back at them. Saddam Hussein happened to be that way. Of course it all blew up in our faces, but what the heck? That doesn't change the fact that he is one bad SOB, and in my opinion, if the US took him down, it would be a pretty good way of attoning for letting him get into position in the first place.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 03 2003,22:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

That's pretty standard realpolitik, and the US is hardly alone in practicing diplomacy along these lines. Remember that Iran burned us bad in '79, and we needed a way to get back at them. Saddam Hussein happened to be that way. Of course it all blew up in our faces, but what the heck? That doesn't change the fact that he is one bad SOB, and in my opinion, if the US took him down, it would be a pretty good way of attoning for letting him get into position in the first place.<span id='postcolor'>

It's not actually worth it for those reasons, not now anyway.

[Akira 0]

Picasso covered at UN

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 04 2003,06:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Picasso covered at UN<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A diplomat stated that it would not be an appropriate background if the ambassador of the United States at the U.N. John Negroponte, or Powell, talk about war surrounded with women, children and animals shouting with horror and showing the suffering of the bombings.

<span id='postcolor'>

yeah..wouldnt it suck to give people an idea of what the civilians in Iraq will face when the US starts bombing. Because we all know that smart bombs ony kill bad guys...

Right?

[FSPilot 0]

Yeah, and Saddam doesn't torture his civilians. Not at all. Oh no, but the US are the bad guys. We're trying to step in and get rid of this guy who has his civilians raped, tortures children in front of their parents, is an absolute horror of a dictator. And somehow WE are the bullys.

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 04 2003,07:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah, and Saddam doesn't torture his civilians.  Not at all.  Oh no, but the US are the bad guys.  We're trying to step in and get rid of this guy who has his civilians raped, tortures children in front of their parents, is an absolute horror of a dictator.  And somehow WE are the bullys. <span id='postcolor'>

Interesting, can you back any of this up with evidence - other than second hand hearsay?

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 04 2003,02:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (joshnolan225 @ Feb. 04 2003,01:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Remember, this is not a war to liberate Iraq, like it was in Afghanistan, its a war to ensure american lives against a nuclear dictator who wants to destroy America.  <span id='postcolor'>

Nuclear dictator?

I think not.  The only thing remotely nuclear that could be pinned on Saddam and Co were some aluminum tubing that could possibly be used in Uranium enrichment.  The IAEA discounted those claims months ago.  Sure Iraqi scientists possess the knowledge to build a bomb... but just remember that with a few hours in most public libraries in the US, you could gather almost all the same knowledge.

If you want to talk about nuclear dictators, talk about the dictator in North Korea.<span id='postcolor'>

I thought Nuclear Dictator was a thrash metal band from the eighties...

Seriously, that is the funniest term I have heard in ages...

[ebud 18]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Feb. 04 2003,07:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 04 2003,07:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah, and Saddam doesn't torture his civilians.  Not at all.  Oh no, but the US are the bad guys.  We're trying to step in and get rid of this guy who has his civilians raped, tortures children in front of their parents, is an absolute horror of a dictator.  And somehow WE are the bullys. <span id='postcolor'>

Interesting, can you back any of this up with evidence - other than second hand hearsay?<span id='postcolor'>

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-fil....ish.pdf

I'm sure some of this may be biased as Amnesty International claims, but they as well claim that torture under Saddam is not an uncommon occurance.

One more from Amnesty International

http://web.amnesty.org/web/content.nsf/pages/gbr_iraq_faq

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 04 2003,03:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 04 2003,02:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Edit: One more thing. Iraq does not have ICBMs. Russia and USA are the only ones. Iraq has short range and medium range missiles. The medium range ones can reach Israel but it is doubtful if he has any left since it is one of the things he is not allowed to have.<span id='postcolor'>

Point of order: China has ICBMs as well and North Korea is expected to have the ability to deploy a true ICBM inside of 10 to 15 years<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, I forgot about China. They have the DF-5 series of ICBMs.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 03 2003,20:52)</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">So why was Saddam taxing it to buy medicine/food when all the money was going to it in the first place?

<span id='postcolor'>

Saddam was putting a tax on the deal to enrich himself. As I said it was not tolerated, which is fine - but now we see the consequenses. And that's not altogether fine!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The world wouldn't stand for that happening. Simply put. If we invaded, liberated Iraq, then took over their oil business there'd be civil wars and uprisings, not to mention us boiling in political water. People simply wouldn't stand for that happening.

<span id='postcolor'>

Finally you get my point!

Well, the world wouldn't stand for it - but there is nothing anyone can do about it because US does it anyway! That's our fear - but time will tell.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And yet we still get a bad name because the Iraqi people are dying.

<span id='postcolor'>

Your vaccinations gave Saddam the means to produce biological and chemical weapons, and should have been obvious to you! This has nothing to do with the oil for food programe.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 04 2003,07:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah, and Saddam doesn't torture his civilians.  Not at all.  Oh no, but the US are the bad guys.  We're trying to step in and get rid of this guy who has his civilians raped, tortures children in front of their parents, is an absolute horror of a dictator.  And somehow WE are the bullys. <span id='postcolor'>

Yes those civilians will be thrilled to getting bombs dropped on them. Ah, how fortunate those are that can get killed by a US made cluster bomb. It's almost living the American dream.

In other news: USA officially thanks Osama for destroying the WTC. President Bush commented: We can now confirm that Joe Evil was killed in the attacks on the WTC. Joe Evil was a really bad guy so we are grateful that mr. bin Laden blew him away. Without mr. Evil, the world is a better place.

---------------

A question to you FSPilot and other war mongers: If Saddam Hussen had been in the WTC at the time of the attacks would those attacks have been a good thing? I can assure you that a war on Iraq will cost far more civilian lives then those that were killed on sep. 11th. Or do you think that American civilian lives are more valuable then Iraqi?

[Longinius 1]

"Or do you think that American civilian lives are more valuable then Iraqi?"

Well, to be honest, it wouldnt be strange if he did. Most people tend to value what they know more than what they dont know. And looking at history it is obvious that America (and many other nations) value their own civilians more than others.

[joshnolan225 0]

talking about assumptions

"Yes those civilians will be thrilled to getting bombs dropped on them. Ah, how fortunate those are that can get killed by a US made cluster bomb. It's almost living the American dream."

yes civilians may die, how many died in the gulf war? not many, anyway, targets have to be civilian for innocent people to die, or saddamm has to put them in military targets, so should we not defend ourselves cause he uses his own people as human sheilds?