The Iraq Thread

[Blake 0]

Iraq should now just put the cards down or dismiss US evidence with credible counter-evidence. So far there has only been rhetoric. I don't support war but really, who does really think Saddam Hussein is credible? He should really do his best now. Al-Quada crap aside,

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For some reason you ppl cannot accept that Bush is hated a lot more in the east than Saddam...<span id='postcolor'>

It's not about who's hated, it's about who's right.

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

Iraq isn't allowed to have these weapons. We regard them as a serious threat. This is why we plan to invade them if it turns out they have WMDs.

Look, I agree that we should try to find a peaceful resolution instead of going to war. But what is that resolution? Sending in inspectors isn't working, they're hiding the weapons and doing the same stuff they've done before. Sanctions are no good, they're apparently inhumane and not working in the first place.

So my question is to everyone who opposes a war, which includes me at this point. What do you think is a reasonable alternative?

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Feb. 06 2003,04:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq should now just put the cards down or dismiss US evidence with credible counter-evidence. So far there has only been rhetoric. I don't support war but really, who does really think Saddam Hussein is credible? He should really do his best now. Al-Quada crap aside,<span id='postcolor'>

Rhetoric seems the order of the day on both sides.

But I will agree that if the US lacks in credibility,  Saddam is the king of deceivers.   Right now I feel that if the US had credible and reliable evidence for current Biological or Chemical weapons in or being developed currently by Iraq that they would have shown German, French, Russian and Chinese intel services by now.  The whole 'We cant tell other intelligence professionals for fear of compromising sources' is crap.  I dont for a moment expect that they will tell the general public, because that would compromise sources.  But not sharing intel is the first sign that what they have is weak enough that they'd rather fall back on rhetoric.  Powell made some rational and reasonable points...but there is still no 'smoking gun' that makes me believe that War should be the inevitable conclusion to this.

[OxPecker 0]

The two main points that people need to consider are -

1. Iarq is really no threat to the US because (even if they have the alleged WMD) -

a. They have no long range delivery systems (this is a FACT, not speculation, not propoganda)

b. There is NO hard evidence (excluding that extremely questionable phone recording, which is not hard evidence imho) that the Iraq government or military has any direct ties or allegiance to terrorist organisations

I think people who believe Saddam is going to give a WMD to some terrorist to smuggle into the US have seen True Lies or Sum of all Fears once too often.

----

2. Wait for the UN! If you are so damn determined to attack Iraq, wait for UN sanction. Otherwise, get the hell out of the UN! Quit the UN and go attack whoever you please.

It's like a cop who joins the police force, but doesn't obey the laws and enforces "justice" without following rules and regulations. There are several words to describe a cop like that - rogue, vigilante, loose cannon etc. Does America really want to behave like that?

----

P.S. Sorry for my rant that got me the 48hr post rstriction. I still stick by every word of it, but I shouldn't have aired it in public like I did.

[Blake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 06 2003,05:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So my question is to everyone who opposes a war, which includes me at this point.  What do you think is a reasonable alternative?<span id='postcolor'>

If Saddam stays stubborn his people will certainly stay on his side very firmly - he's leading the country to another war because of his precious WMD toys which he refuses to turn out. Any Iraqi not totally suffocated by propaganda will realize cold facts. With mounting tension, US could mount limited war with ground forces luring Iraqi Army to uninhabited areas near borders etc. Swift spec operation to secure oil fields from sabotage. Air strikes and large-scale cruise-missile attacks using precision munitions on infastastructure and army facilities. Propaganda on Iraqi troops defending cities. After few weeks of limited warfare and increased pressure, Iraqi morale would probably begin to crumble - then at decisive moment a Iraqi-officer supported coup in Bagdad and likely elimination of Saddam Hussein. Declaration of temporary government and cease of hostilites.

Just a guess.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Feb. 06 2003,04:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 06 2003,05:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So my question is to everyone who opposes a war, which includes me at this point.  What do you think is a reasonable alternative?<span id='postcolor'>

If Saddam stays stubborn his people will certainly stay on his side very firmly - he's leading the country to another war because of his precious WMD toys which he refuses to turn out. Any Iraqi not totally suffocated by propaganda will realize cold facts. With mounting tension, US could mount limited war with ground forces luring Iraqi Army to uninhabited areas near borders etc. Swift spec operation to secure oil fields from sabotage.  Air strikes and large-scale cruise-missile attacks using precision munitions on infastastructure and army facilities. Propaganda on Iraqi troops defending cities. After few weeks of limited warfare and increased pressure, Iraqi morale would probably begin to crumble - then at decisive moment a Iraqi-officer supported coup in Bagdad and likely elimination of Saddam Hussein. Declaration of temporary government and cease of hostilites.

Just a guess.<span id='postcolor'>

I think it's rather optomistic to think that Saddam is going to be 'lured to uninhabited areas near borders'  He learned that lesson in GW1.  As for 'precision munitions' taking out military assets, what are you going to do when those assets shelter in the shadow of appartment buildings and hundreds of civilians die?

The simple fact is that tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians will die in the event war comes to Iraq.  Why do you think the world wants some serious and irrefutable evidence that Saddam posseses weapons of mass destruction and wants to use them?

Because those who arent blinded by the stars and stripes dont want another couple of generations of people hating the west because of dead family.

[HellToupee 0]

the iraqis will defend what needs to be defended they wont head out into a nice open field to be bombed from a plane up at the stratosphere.

[Blake 0]

Of course not. He's shouldn't be an idiot. But dictators driven between rock and a hard place could start doing stupid and unrealistic things. Iraqi counter-attack in Kuwait 1991 against invading US forces was pure madness and without any realistic chances of success.

I'm speculating that Iraq just might be a hollow shell. If war comes all will depened on the fighting spirit and loyalty to Saddam. Or it might also be disaster with 10s of thousands of civilians killed. That's the big uncertainty of war.

I'm not 'blinded by stars and stripes' I'm not an American in the first place. I'm just speculating what might happen and not blindly chanting that it all would certainly end up in disaster. You never know how suddenly a dictatorship run by one man would fall down and crumble. Taliban (not directly comparable) held 90+ percent of Afganistan and collapsed very quickly altough people predicted disaster for any invader.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 06 2003,04:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Right now I feel that if the US had credible and reliable evidence...they would have shown German, French, Russian and Chinese intel services by now.  The whole 'We cant tell other intelligence professionals for fear of compromising sources' is crap.<span id='postcolor'>

<imagines the likelihood of U.S. intelligence revealing sources and collection methods to Chinese intelligence>

*chuckles*

C'mon now.  Russia would be stretching things, but China?

BTW:  Anyone else wondering how many Iraqi officers Saddam killed today?

Semper Fi

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 06 2003,05:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BTW:  Anyone else wondering how many Iraqi officers Saddam killed today?<span id='postcolor'>

Enough so that the CIA won't be recruiting too many new sources in Iraq for the foreseeable future.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 06 2003,05:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><imagines the likelihood of U.S. intelligence revealing sources and collection methods to Chinese intelligence>

*chuckles*

C'mon now.  Russia would be stretching things, but China?

BTW:  Anyone else wondering how many Iraqi officers Saddam killed today?

Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'>

Hey, if I had to rely on a country not to veto my pet war, I'd be making things look gold plated, even if it meant some chances being taken.

Simple fact is this:

If the US cant convince Germany and France... what does that say for the quality of their evidence?

I am all for eliminating Saddam. I think the people in Iraq would be far better off without him, his family, and his top cronies. My problem is that a war will kill a LOT of innocent people.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BTW: Anyone else wondering how many Iraqi officers Saddam killed today?<span id='postcolor'>

Definately those two that they caught on the phone.

I watched the whole thing today on CBS, honestly, I think Powell's case seemed pretty convincing. But I think that more time should be given to the U.N. to actually prove things, however Iraq and the U.N. have had since 1991, what the hell is taking so long? It has been clear since at least 1998 that Iraq will never fully co-operate.

I wonder why news agencies even bother to cover Iraq's reaction to the accusations. Since when have we ever trusted the word of a dictator? C'mon....

It seems that there are a number of chemical stores unnacounted for, you can send in all the inspectors you want, but if Saddam wants to hide his weapons there is no chance of them being found by the inspectors.

One last thing: how many Iraqis have died due to the U.N. sanctions and Saddams' leadership? What if those sanctions continued for another 15 years? What would be worse, a war that we can win, or years of dictatorship and sanctions?

Just a question.........

Tyler

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If the US cant convince Germany and France... <span id='postcolor'>

Germany has no veto power, so their opinion seems irrelavent. The French are just being French. They hesitated in 1990, they will hesitate now.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 06 2003,06:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If the US cant convince Germany and France... what does that say for the quality of their evidence?<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not sure it says anything about the quality of the evidence at all.

Refer to my post on the previous page....I was talking about this forum but it can easily be applied to the real world.

I'm wondering if German and French discontent lays in their desire to become and international diplomatic "force," to make I suppose a groundbreaking stand against US policy. Though apparently the fact is the US will go in with or without approval, thus actually showing how little they do matter and how inconsequential the UN is.

The problem with the UN is it only works as far as the countries willing to abide by it. If a country can simply disregard or ignore their resolutions and demands, what good is the organization? (Speaking of both US and Iraq among other nations). If the organization has no diplomatic or enforceable clout...then why listen to it?

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 06 2003,05:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 06 2003,04:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Right now I feel that if the US had credible and reliable evidence...they would have shown German, French, Russian and Chinese intel services by now.  The whole 'We cant tell other intelligence professionals for fear of compromising sources' is crap.<span id='postcolor'>

<imagines the likelihood of U.S. intelligence revealing sources and collection methods to Chinese intelligence>

*chuckles*

C'mon now.  Russia would be stretching things, but China?

BTW:  Anyone else wondering how many Iraqi officers Saddam killed today?

Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'>

Surely there is some comprimise between not revealing (and thus endagering) names of sources, and some comment like "our sources tell us" - to me that's the equivalent of being in court and presenting evidence to the effect of "oh yea, some guy told me, so it's true, but I can't tell you who the guy is, OK?".

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 06 2003,06:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm wondering if German and French discontent lays in their desire to become and international diplomatic "force," to make I suppose a groundbreaking stand against US policy. Though apparently the fact is the US will go in with or without approval, thus actually showing how little they do matter and how inconsequential the UN is.<span id='postcolor'>

I think that Germany is genuinely against a war for ideologically pure reasons (despite the fact that their Chancellor may have manipulated those feelings for political advantage, but what else is new?). However, France has a stubborn notion that they can still play on the level of the US, and they are tugging as hard as they can through the EU and the UN to do so. Remember the Cold War? De Gaulle used France's perceived importance to any Western Alliance to punch way above his weight in politics. Basically, the French are once again being ornery merely to prove that they are still somewhere near the heavyweight status of the US. Oh yeah, that and their numerous petroleum interests in the region, but you could flip that argument right back to the US, so I'll let it slide.

[red oct 2]

i've heard today that the french have been secretly getting their soldiers ready for a war w/ Iraq. even thought that they are totally against the war, some buisinessmen have been trying awfully hard to make oil deals w/ iraqi officials before this whole thing started. basicly since bush and company are claiming that go to war requardless of what the U.N. has to say, it'll leave France w/ nothing while U.S. Britian, Spain, Italy, Australia lay claim to the Spoils. i'll try to find some link to this. not right now though. gota get to bed, i have a Job interview tomarrow

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 06 2003,08:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">However, France has a stubborn notion that they can still play on the level of the US, and they are tugging as hard as they can through the EU and the UN to do so. Remember the Cold War? De Gaulle used France's perceived importance to any Western Alliance to punch way above his weight in politics. Basically, the French are once again being ornery merely to prove that they are still somewhere near the heavyweight status of the US. Oh yeah, that and their numerous petroleum interests in the region, but you could flip that argument right back to the US, so I'll let it slide.<span id='postcolor'>

The French, stipped bare.

Thank you, George Will.

[Major Fubar 0]

Just saw some footage on TV of US forces in the gulf. There was an Abrams with "Payback" written on the side of the barrell.

Just wondering: payback for what exactly?

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Feb. 06 2003,09:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just saw some footage on TV of US forces in the gulf. There was an Abrams with "Payback" written on the side of the barrell.

Just wondering: payback for what exactly?<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe for them having to go out there in the first place.

[theavonlady 2]

All Eyes Turn Towards Bahgdad

[Powerslide 0]

And history repeats itself again....and again...and again...and it will continue to do so. Sick of it. Here's my solution. Get all the knucklehead politicians together, fill the room full of Canadian whisky. Now if Bush can outdrink Saddam, Saddam coughs up his booty, if Saddam can outdrink Bush he gets a timeshare in Florida a new mercedes, and 3 years of paid therapy. The rest of them can get tanked and tell their true feelings to each other (except Jean Cretian, he slobbers when he's drunk).

Quote:

First off this has nothing to do with resources,

That's not true.

Quote:

Iraq doesn't produce much oil

12% of total US imports is not much oil?

Quote:

(Venezuela has a lot more),

So does Canada. relevance?

Quote:

the reason we(our government) wants to get them out of the picture is just like I said, they are an arms supplier to to terrorist groups.

I find it hard to understand how a country whose military has been reduced to 20-30% capacity by a war which has resulted in ground littered with radioactive materiel with a half-life of 4.7 billion years, and a 42% rate of leukemia is providing weapons to terrorists more than, say, Russia, which not only made in excess 14 billion in weapons sales to foreign markets each of the last two years (and about 4 before that) or Pakistan, which is, in fact, the source of both the actual Taliban, and the weapons that they used in Afghanistan (the original source actually being Russia, again).

The reason the government wants to get 'them' (read 'him', actually, because the Iraqi people, the Iraqi military (the troops themselves, which are largely conscripts) and the rest of the middle east thinks Saddam is a madman, and rightly so) out of the picture, bearing in mind that they put him there in the first place, is to buy the oil companies that he refuses to allow foreign purchases of. If Western interests can control that (somehow small?) 12-14% of US imports (not including what they export elsewhere), then they will be able to put pressure on Saudi Arabia. (story continues, but in the interest of brevity, not here).

if you think 12-14% is not a lot of oil, you underestimate the effect that a less than one-percent change in output (or the threat thereof) can have on Western gas prices, my friend.

Quote:

It's like Iraq's revenge. they can sell arms to people who fight America without they themselves having to move a finger.

How about we draw the line between 'Iraq' and 'the madman that the CIA put there,' please? Iraq is a landlocked country north of the Persian Gulf with an oil-based economy which has been reduced from relative prosperity to near complete destruction and a state of abject, terrifying poverty by a campaign of arms, scorched-earth tactics and crippling economic controls in the course of ten years. It's people are much like any other people, and they almost unilaterally do *not* support their government. In fact, the general concensus about Saddam there is *complete hatred*.

Quote:

And believe me I don't agree with my governments actions often, I am by no means a nationalist, but this is a good course of action I think.

Sure, I'm always for genocide and massive, imperial conquest. . . It's always worked for us in the past, eh?

[theavonlady 2]

Full transcript, videos and slides of Powell's UN address can be found on this US State Dept. page.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 06 2003,07:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am all for eliminating Saddam.   I think the people in Iraq would be far better off without him, his family, and his top cronies.  My problem is that a war will kill a LOT of innocent people.<span id='postcolor'>

I wonder how many diplomats in the League of Nations in the 1930s used similar logic to allow German violations of the Treaty of Versailles to go unpunished.

[WhoCares 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 06 2003,10:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wonder how many diplomats in the League of Nations in the 1930s used similar logic to allow German violations of the Treaty of Versailles to go unpunished.<span id='postcolor'>

With the little difference, that Germany was a big player, on political, economic and military sectors. Nobody wanted to mess with them and so the other left them alone. You really can't compare todays Iraq with Germany of that time.