The Iraq Thread

[WhoCares 0]

While we are on the public support to their government, I just want to comment on the article, linked by Akira a few pages back: France No Longer 'Ally'

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"But in the German case, the behavior of the Chancellor is idiosyncratic. He tried again to incite pacifism, and this time failed in Sunday's elections in Hesse and Lower Saxony. His capacity to do damage is now constrained. Chancellor Schroeder is now in a box, and the Germans will recover their equilibrium."<span id='postcolor'>

The german government has still the support of the majority in Germany, regarding their Iraq policy. They lost those elections, because they failed to deal with the economic decline in Germany and they failed in their attempt to cover this fact up with their Iraq policy. I guess, that's something they could learn from the US government

[joshnolan225 0]

america will not use nukes at all, it hasnt even been thought up during planning. If iraq uses NBC against anyone America will not respond with NBC. we will be the bigger man

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 04 2003,00:07)</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">I think more of them will be mad at you when you come around and kill their relatives...again.<span id='postcolor'>

Well I think otherwise.<span id='postcolor'>

Your opinion or my opinion doesn't matter... It's easy to say that you think something else while you aren't the person that'll get nuked soon.

Some of you people are incredible, just for once, try to imagine, what you would feel like if Saddam, evil dictator of the east would attack Bush's gov, great hero that protects the US against the East. You'd feel pretty angry.

Now switch the names.

Exactly the same.

For some reason you ppl cannot accept that Bush is hated a lot more in the east than Saddam...

[Jinef 2]

i know americans said that 9/11 was their wake up call etc.

what a load of bollocks, most of them still have no idea what day it is let alone what the world thinks about them!

for all the smart Americans out there, i sympathise that you have to live with a bunch of idiots who don't even have passports!

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (joshnolan225 @ Feb. 05 2003,12:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">america will not use nukes at all, it hasnt even been thought up during planning.   If iraq uses NBC against anyone America will not respond with NBC. we will be the bigger man<span id='postcolor'>

You are wrong - it has been thought of and not ruled out (nukes).

How can you be so uninformed - and claim the shit you do?

Do a search - and you shall find enough information!

I'll save you the trouble since you obviously never bother to find out info anyway:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Nuclear weapons have, since they were first created, been part of the arsenal discussed by war planners," Arkin writes in an article slated for publication in The Los Angeles Times today.<span id='postcolor'>

http://www.news.com.au/common....00.html

[brgnorway 0]

Here's a link for all of you that insists on a link between Saddam and Al Queda:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2727489.stm

It might possibly be difficult for Colin Powel to prove such a link, unless US fabricates something. Which, I'd say is not totally out of the picture!

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

Live (http://www.whitehouse.gov/live.ram) Powell talking to UN

[Guest]

Ok Colin Powell made some interesting points about Iraq counteracting the UN Inspector. The rest was just crap becoming more laughable each minute. Please, showing us cartoons of how assumed mobile labs might look like?

The two last parts (terrorism and violation of human rights) was just outright sad. He didn't even provide even one hint of evidence that the Iraqi goverment was in any way connected to AQ.

Anyway, it was an interesting presentation but based 90% on speculation. His pattern was to produce some trivial evidence and then deduce an implausible grand theory from it.

I must say that I liked the answer from China: "We thank the US for this information and I am sure that the inspectors will have good use for it"

Edit: Just heard the commentary on CNN on Powells speech. They said that it would be "unbelievably hard for the world to dismiss the US arguments now". Are they deaf, blind or just plain stupid?  

Well, I think at least China and Russia made clear for them that they didn't fall for the over-dramatic presentation.

I don't know perhaps such drama works in American soap operas, but I can guarantee you that it doesn't resonate well in diplomatic circles.

I think that Powell should have stuck to his primary point: that Iraq is lying about things which is technically a material breach of the resolution.

[Blaegis 0]

It was a well-planned presentation and the fact that Powell is a skilled public speaker made it ALMOST convincing. It is too bad he got the unenviable job to stretch the sparse and sketchy evidence to justify the military action in Iraq.

Let's say despite the lack of concrete evidence, I'll even buy the fact that Iraq possesses chemical and biological weapons. So? I still don't see how it gives one the right to invade another country. By that rationale the US should have invaded USSR in 1949 when it was testing its "illicit" nuclear weapons...  

Edit: Oh yeah, the best part was the attempt to draw in the European and Russian support with a picture of Al-Qaida organization chart. That was just plain hilarious.

[joltan 0]

Well, at least they inavded North America (just read that North Dakota satire again) in time... now that's what I call a real 'preemptive strike'!

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 05 2003,1800)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ok Colin Powell made some interesting points about Iraq counteracting the UN Inspector.<span id='postcolor'>

A bit of an understatement, I'd say.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 05 2003,1800)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The rest was just crap becoming more laughable each minute. Please, showing us cartoons of how assumed mobile labs might look like?<span id='postcolor'>

They were visual aids based on information provided by Iraqi defectors.  I don't think they were intended to serve as any sort of "evidence."

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 05 2003,1800)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anyway, it was an interesting presentation but based 90% on speculation. His pattern was to produce some trivial evidence and then deduce an implausible grand theory from it.<span id='postcolor'>

Do you seriously consider satellite photos of material being removed from numerous chemical weapons storage facilities "trivial"?  How about these sites being bulldozed to remove surface contamination?  Iraqi officers "evacuating" the weapons before the inspectors arrive?  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 05 2003,1800)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think that Powell should have stuck to his primary point: that Iraq is lying about things which is technically a material breach of the resolution.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, I agree with you there.  The only weak part in the presentation was the reliance on information provided "by our sources."  Then again, did anyone seriously expect Powell to say "According to information provided by Major XXX currently serving with the Republican Guard..."?

At this point, anyone who refuses to acknowledge that Iraq still has chemical weapons and is not actively screwing with the UN inspectors is delusional.  The remaining questions are:

1)  Is this a material breach of 1441 (if this really remains a question in anyone's mind), and

2)  What exactly did the UN mean by "serious consequences"?  Wait, I know!  We'll draft a resolution!

Semper Fi

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 05 2003,19:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">At this point, anyone who refuses to acknowledge that Iraq still has chemical weapons and is not actively screwing with the UN inspectors is delusional.  <span id='postcolor'>

The point that Iraq is having any significant number of chemical weapons is highly debatable. That they are activly screwing with the inspectors I have no doubt about, but is that justification enough to go to war?

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

1)  Is this a material breach of 1441 (if this really remains a question in anyone's mind), and

2)  What exactly did the UN mean by "serious consequences"?  Wait, I know!  We'll draft a resolution!<span id='postcolor'>

The point that Europe is trying to make is that a war isn't necessary to get rid of Iraq's assumed WMDs. A material breach of trying to hide stuff is not seen as enough for a war. USA objects to the cat & mouse game, but Europe thinks that while it obviously will take more time and resources that it is still better then Iraq.

I think that Iraq will be more and more cooperative as the war approaches. USA serves a good puropse as a big bad barking dog. A display of force can have even better results then the actual use of force.

What do you thing Saddam cares more about:

1) His own ass

2) His weapons

I would say 1). He knows that he cannot win against the US so he will do as much as is necessary to avoid a war.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do you seriously consider satellite photos of material being removed from numerous chemical weapons storage facilities "trivial"?  How about these sites being bulldozed to remove surface contamination?  Iraqi officers "evacuating" the weapons before the inspectors arrive?  <span id='postcolor'>

The evidence was never such. He would show a photo and say we don't know what they moved or where but we have "indicators" that it might be chemical weapons. The satellite photos showed very little of real information. Most of his conclusions were questionable deductions.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 05 2003,18:o6)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Edit: Just heard the commentary on CNN on Powells speech. They said that it would be "unbelievably hard for the world to dismiss the US arguments now". Are they deaf, blind or just plain stupid?  <span id='postcolor'>

Like I said before...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Jan. 26 2003,19:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></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.<span id='postcolor'>

[Longinius 1]

Well, I don't think it is strange that the Iraqis try to hide certain things from the inspectors. Seeing as how some of these inspectors have spied in the past, on the US account, I wouldnt want them to see everything I had either. The Iraqis might very well be moving regular ordonance around, weapons caches they dont want the Americans to know about in fear of an upcoming war.

They might also be moving air. Simply acting like they had weapons hidden, in order to push America into attacking. Then, when the war is done and the dust is settled and there are no weapons America would basically be in a world of hurt.

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

transcript

it's better with pictures

[Guest]

I laughed my ass off at the Iraqi response:

"USA is in violation of the 1441 resolution since article 10 in that resolution requires all member states to reveal all information they have on the subjcet [iraqi WMD's]"

I guess he is technically right

[bn880 5]

I watched this speech just now, it seems:

what evidence?

There is not a single pice of evidence that can be said to be real and trustworthy that Colin showed.

Distorted discussions between unidentified guards or people? Images that are confirmed by unknown humans? Not a single picture of an actual identified weapon.

If they saw 18 trucks making up 6 mobile labs, can they not pinpoint one of them. All the vehicles filmed at sites supposadly moving weapons, where is one of these vehicles packed with ammo? What was their destination? Did they vapourize out of reach of satellites?

Come on... evidence is intel that actually points to actual materials, not intel that stuff is probably hidden away.

Okay, I think there woill always be suspecious communications between officials when they are about to be inspected for purpose of war. SO it makes sense anything that might be twisted around into WMD relation was to be hidden. It doesn't mean everything if anything they were hiding are WMDs.

What I am trying to say is, going to war over satellite images of buildings, transport vehicles and un-proven sources is unjust.

[joshnolan225 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The point that Iraq is having any significant number of chemical weapons is highly debatable<span id='postcolor'> the point is there shouldnt be ANY chemical weapons.

[Guest]

I hope you are listening to the Iraq counter response now. It's quite interesting.

Ok some interesting points:

[*] The documentation on a nuclear program found in a scientist's home were already given to the UN inspectors in 1994.

[*] The US & UK are in daily violation of the 1441 by violating Iraqi airspace. Iraq was positive to allowing U2 flights just on the condition that these violations of their airspace stop.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 05 2003,19:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The point that Europe is trying to make is that a war isn't necessary to get rid of Iraq's assumed WMDs. A material breach of trying to hide stuff is not seen as enough for a war. USA objects to the cat & mouse game, but Europe thinks that while it obviously will take more time and resources that it is still better then Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

Apparently the U.S. isn't the only party making circular arguments.  What would Europe consider to be a successful outcome to Saddam's "cat-and-mouse" game?

1)  Evidence that he does have forbidden weapons?  We've already got that.

2)  Evidence that he doesn't have forbidden weapons?  See above.  

The inspectors' job was supposed to be to ensure that Iraq is cooperating with the disarmanent requirements, but we've established that this is not happening.  It's not realistic to expect a relatively small team of hamstrung inspectors to be able to find the weapons if Iraq is not cooperating.  

Although it may be a silly analogy, the situation reminds me of fraud detection in a corporate environment.  A prudent auditor can often detect a fraud committed by an employee acting alone, but the odds go down drastically if collaboration is involved.  However, if upper management has a hand in it, you can just about forget detecting anything.

(I said it was a silly analogy.)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 05 2003,19:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think that Iraq will be more and more cooperative as the war approaches. USA serves a good puropse as a big bad barking dog. A display of force can have even better results then the actual use of force.<span id='postcolor'>

Obviously, the UN show of force got the inspectors in the door.  My question is, what more can threats accomplish?  Let's assume that Iraq agrees to the U2 overflights and private interviews with scientists -- we're still looking at results 1) and 2) above.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 05 2003,19:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would say 1). He knows that he cannot win against the US so he will do as much as is necessary to avoid a war.<span id='postcolor'>

I hope so.  I've seen the desert, and I wasn't that impressed with it the first time.  I'd suggest that whatever is in his power, "now" would be a very good time for him to start doing it.  

Semper Fi

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Feb. 05 2003,20:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is not a single pice of evidence that can be said to be real and trustworthy that Colin showed.  <span id='postcolor'>

From the London Tribune:  "No British Prime Minister, we trust, not even the present one, would order the turning out of the Palace Guard on evidence from so unreliable a source as the CIA."

Then the Soviets admitted that there were missiles in Cuba.

Semper Fi

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 05 2003,20:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 05 2003,19:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The point that Europe is trying to make is that a war isn't necessary to get rid of Iraq's assumed WMDs. A material breach of trying to hide stuff is not seen as enough for a war. USA objects to the cat & mouse game, but Europe thinks that while it obviously will take more time and resources that it is still better then Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

Apparently the U.S. isn't the only party making circular arguments.  What would Europe consider to be a successful outcome to Saddam's "cat-and-mouse" game?

1)  Evidence that he does have forbidden weapons?  We've already got that.

2)  Evidence that he doesn't have forbidden weapons?  See above.  <span id='postcolor'>

Actually we don't. When you show me some actual Iraqi weapons I might believe you. Right now it is all speculation based on interpretation of questionable material.

All we know (assuming the tapes played aren't fake, which is quite possible) is that Iraq might be hiding something. We don't know what and have no evidence to say that it anything 'forbidden'.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The inspectors' job was supposed to be to ensure that Iraq is cooperating with the disarmanent requirements, but we've established that this is not happening.  It's not realistic to expect a relatively small team of hamstrung inspectors to be able to find the weapons if Iraq is not cooperating.  

<span id='postcolor'>

The idea is that if it is discovered and proved that Iraq has weapons that you take action. Action is not equal to war. As the French and Russians suggested, action could be an increase of number of inspectors and give them more resources to track down those weapons.

Edit: Btw. CNN's Paula Zahn, what a brainless bimbo!

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 05 2003,14:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Feb. 05 2003,20:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is not a single pice of evidence that can be said to be real and trustworthy that Colin showed. <span id='postcolor'>

From the London Tribune: "No British Prime Minister, we trust, not even the present one, would order the turning out of the Palace Guard on evidence from so unreliable a source as the CIA."

Then the Soviets admitted that there were missiles in Cuba.

Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'>

Despite what the truth of the matter actually is (I don't know), there has been no actual evidence given.

America has a very hard road to prove any of their information is real, because they are the most skilled at fabricating any type of film/video.

[ale2999 0]

I guess it all comes down to who has the most eloquent speaker . I am confused dont know who to believe. O well

[bn880 5]

What you actually have here is quite simple.

1. The U.N. is the body that should decide in unisom when to enforce it's resolutions with the action of war. Unless we want to go back in time 60 years.

2. For the U.S. and Britiain to prove there are weapons of mass destruction, there will have to be intelligence that points to actual weapons which can be found. Or, you have to wait for Saddam to actually try and use the supposed weapons.

3. If a weapon of mass destruction is found, it doesn't mean there is no answer but war. There are ways to disarm the weapons and actively disable Husseins ability to use these and similar weapons effectively.

4. America is pushing mighty hard, risking its entire economy, for what purpose? To help Iraqs neighbors, who do not actually ask for this "help"?

Say No to Drugs