The Iraq Thread

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (joshnolan225 @ Feb. 05 2003,03:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">damn that was good dinner(chile) anyone see JAG, damn that was awesome, god, loveit, anyway, FUBAR, ur just itchin for it...... and its gonna start all over again, lets all just move on<span id='postcolor'>

Oh c'mon, I can't use quotes to prove when they guy is telling plain untruths about what he has said?

Anyway, i agree with the move on part.

[Mister 5 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (joshnolan225 @ Feb. 05 2003,03:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">dude that North Dakota thing sonds like it was written by the left opposite of many heavy right wingers, it wasnt even funny and it bored me, in addition to having no value whatso ever, the author took the situation extremely out of context.  no one can compare North Dakota where nuclear weapons were placed for American defense during the cold war, not in aggressive use, as opposed to Iraq, which in my opinion is pursuing WMDs for an aggressive purpose,especially when A:there isnt a nuclear threat from any other nation, And B:we ccan have Nukess they cant, so says the UN........ also have a happy day.....<span id='postcolor'>

It's from The Onion, you're not supposed to take it seriously.

[Harnu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (joshnolan225 @ Feb. 05 2003,03:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">dude that North Dakota thing sonds like it was written by the left opposite of many heavy right wingers, it wasnt even funny and it bored me, in addition to having no value whatso ever, the author took the situation extremely out of context.  no one can compare North Dakota where nuclear weapons were placed for American defense during the cold war, not in aggressive use, as opposed to Iraq, which in my opinion is pursuing WMDs for an aggressive purpose,especially when A:there isnt a nuclear threat from any other nation, And B:we ccan have Nukess they cant, so says the UN........ also have a happy day.....<span id='postcolor'>

That's why the artice is a joke

[joshnolan225 0]

ypu guys need to watch Hannity and Colmes, Fox News Channel it s on now, (90-100 USEST), good representation for both sides of the debate

[Harnu 0]

And Fubar, do you have an idea how distracting that hot....hottttttt sig is. I mean im trying to have a serious debate then that sweet sweet... I MEAN

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (joshnolan225 @ Feb. 05 2003,03:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ypu guys need to watch Hannity and Colmes, Fox News Channel it s on now, (90-100 USEST), good representation for both sides of the debate<span id='postcolor'>

I watch that show to get my daily dose of incoherent partisan bickering and shouting. And yeah, for future reference, the Onion is a satirical online newspaper

[joshnolan225 0]

oh i certainly relize that, i just was pointing out that as a satire against the policy of the US, it failed horribly. I dont take everything too seriously

[joshnolan225 0]

HEY I LIKE IT OK

[Mister 5 0]

Any show that has even slight representation from both sides is guaranteed to have partisan bickering.

[joshnolan225 0]

its more the guests than the moderators, i apoligize for getting off topic sorry

i hear so much about it in my life, the arguements associated, and it allows me to see the facts and make my own decision based on the arguements , yes they bicker.its the point of the show

[FSPilot 0]

225 pages and finally this thread is getting spammed.

[joshnolan225 0]

back to iraq

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...the choice for the UN was between continued containment and invasion. Both strategies had problems, but an invasion required 250,000 troops and over $100bn while for containment the numbers were 250 inspectors and $80m.

-- Blix<span id='postcolor'>

...and that $80m is all paid by Iraq.

[joshnolan225 0]

one word: appeasment

[Renagade 0]

The question is : do u think a-bombs or bio/chem weapons will be used in the upcoming war from either side ?

[Harnu 0]

Probably Saddams side first. If he starts losing all control of his country, what would be stopping him? As far as Atomic Bombs by the US, I doubt it.

[Akira 0]

Don't forget the Pentagon now has a computer making decisions on whether a not a nuke will be needed to bust a bunker (including fallout, "collatoral damage" etc).

We'd have to be real jackasses, I mean REAL jackasses to use a nuke to bust a damn bunker. I can only imagine the international outburst from that (rightly so as well).

[Akira 0]

Gotta finish up work and go home.

Tomorrow is the big day. Powell and the UN.

Here's hopin' we ain't on the road to unavoidable war by the time I wake up.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

fingers crossed.

[FSPilot 0]

I've got mine crossed too. I cant wait to see what Colin Powell has to say, but I'm thinking it will be evidence from 1998. My thinking is that we've known they were a threat since then, but we didn't have any motivation to go after them until 9/11. But that's just me speculating.

About the nukes: US would probably only use them in retalliation, and Iraq wouldn't use them officially. That's not to say they wouldn't give them to a terrorist or have someone do it covertly.

[HellToupee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 05 2003,19:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I've got mine crossed too. I cant wait to see what Colin Powell has to say, but I'm thinking it will be evidence from 1998. My thinking is that we've known they were a threat since then, but we didn't have any motivation to go after them until 9/11. But that's just me speculating.

About the nukes: US would probably only use them in retalliation, and Iraq wouldn't use them officially. That's not to say they wouldn't give them to a terrorist or have someone do it covertly.<span id='postcolor'>

assuming they had one and didnt care about guanteeing an attackon them,

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">About the nukes: US would probably only use them in retalliation, and Iraq wouldn't use them officially. That's not to say they wouldn't give them to a terrorist or have someone do it covertly.<span id='postcolor'>

THEY HAVE NONE ! WHEN WILL YOU EVER REALIZE !

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Feb. 05 2003,11:18)</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">About the nukes: US would probably only use them in retalliation, and Iraq wouldn't use them officially.  That's not to say they wouldn't give them to a terrorist or have someone do it covertly.<span id='postcolor'>

THEY HAVE NONE ! WHEN WILL YOU EVER REALIZE ! <span id='postcolor'>

He won't - ever. Even if Iraq eventually turns out to be a mess - with lots of dead civilians - he'll still say it was the right thing to do.

[Major Fubar 0]

You may be interested to know, the Australian senate has today passed a vote of no confidence in prime minister John Howard over his handling of Australia's invlovement in the coming US vs. Iraq action.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Howard gets no confidence vote

The Senate declared it had no confidence in Prime Minister John Howard - the first time in 102 years it withdrew support for a sitting prime minister.

The Senate also censured the government over its forward deployment of Australian troops to the Persian Gulf for a possible invasion of Iraq.

In a 33-31 vote, the opposition and minor parties passed the six-point motion condemning the government and prime minister.

It expressed no confidence in Mr Howard and insisted the United Nations be involved in disarming Iraq.

But the motion expressed full confidence in Australia's servicemen and women on duty in the Middle East.

A censure against Mr Howard from Opposition Leader Simon Crean in the House of Representatives was defeated along party lines.

Australian Greens Senator Bob Brown said the Senate censure marked a historic condemnation of the government.

"The Australian Senate has no confidence in Prime Minister Howard," Senator Brown said.

"It's the first time in history, in 102 years, that this Senate has voted no confidence in the prime minister of the day.

"He stands condemned, censured and without the confidence of the house of review, the Senate in Australia."

Australian Democrats leader Andrew Bartlett said the Senate delivered a rebuke to the government.

"The Senate has backed our troops and the United Nations, while delivering a rebuke to the government," he said.

The vote topped off a day-and-a-half of war talk in the Senate, with Defence Minister Robert Hill facing a barrage of questions during the first question time for the year.

Trish Crossin (ALP, NT) welcomed the censure motion saying Australians no longer trusted Mr Howard.

"The Labor Party is not convinced that a war with Iraq is necessary," Senator Crossin said.

"Mr Howard's commitment to sending Australian forces to the Middle east pre-empts a decision of the Security Council."

In the House, Mr Crean accused Mr Howard of failing to tell the Australian people the truth about Australia's commitment to a war against Iraq.

"I move that this house censure the prime minister for the prime minister's breach of trust with the Australian people in not telling them the truth that he has already committed Australian troops to war against Iraq," he said.

But Mr Howard derided Mr Crean, arguing his attack was driven purely by politics.

"It still remains the case that a final decision to commit to military operations has yet to be taken," he said.<span id='postcolor'>

Source

[Major Fubar 0]

Also, here is a vote from The Age (proabably our biggest newspaper) (source) about how the Asutralian public feel.

Just letting you my international friends at the forum here know about the Australian point of view, since we are one of the two nations supporting the USA.