Warin 0 Posted February 11, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 11 2003,22:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Already aired it. Â Wonder why they denied having it in the first place? Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'> Ahh. Okie. Hum, nowhere in there does it say that Al Qaeda is in alliance with Iraq... Though, I think the members of NATO trying to block support to Turkey in the event of a conflict need treatment for cranial rectumitis. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
E6Hotel 0 Posted February 11, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 11 2003,22:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Though, I think the members of NATO trying to block support to Turkey in the event of a conflict need treatment for cranial rectumitis.<span id='postcolor'> Their position w/ respect to NATO is a logical extension of their UN position. Of course, IMO when they go for their treatments they should have a few other loose screws snugged up a bit. Semper Fi Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
interstat 0 Posted February 11, 2003 Some Eu countrie have always have a bit of a thing about Turkey, perhaps the medieval idea of the muslim invaders. when they were trying to decide to let the Turks in to the EU a few months back caused a debarkle. Did anyone watch Rory Bremner on Sunday (English people only)? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frisbee 0 Posted February 11, 2003 Turkey wasn't allowed in because of human rights violations. (as far as my memory can be trusted) I agree that Turkey should be protected,I don't really like Belgium's stance on this,it's brave but stupid.But it was to be expected with this governement Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Balschoiw 0 Posted February 11, 2003 One moment please. The current blocking has nothing to do with NATO not assisting turkey. This has never been questioned. The NATO will assist turkey for sure. That´s not what the debate is about. The debate is about WHEN the equipment and troops will be sent to turkey. That is very different. The NATO is a defence ring and turkey has not been attacked from iraq , so that is what we are talking about. Bush claimed that NATO will not assist turkey. This is bullshit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OxPecker 0 Posted February 11, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 11 2003,06:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 11 2003,11:11)</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">1. Specualtion: yes, but based on all of his speeches, what would you say his intentions are?<span id='postcolor'> So you don't believe Bush when he talks about WMDs, but you do believe him when he talks about going to war?<span id='postcolor'> Exactly right. Because one is a statement of intent, which needs no proof. The other is an allegation against another party, which does require proof - proof I have not seen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
5thSFG.CNUTZ 0 Posted February 11, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote ([TU]$33ker @ Feb. 11 2003,15:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">this is my apology to all the americans who still know the difference between nazis and anti war demonstrants. <span id='postcolor'> Which is the vast majority IMHO. At least as far as the people I know. Also, I live in the midwest which is more conservative than many parts of the United States. Anyways, enough about the damn article. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Othin 0 Posted February 11, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Feb. 11 2003,14:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One moment please. The current blocking has nothing to do with NATO not assisting turkey. This has never been questioned. The NATO will assist turkey for sure. That´s not what the debate is about. The debate is about WHEN the equipment and troops will be sent to turkey. That is very different. The NATO is a defence ring and turkey has not been attacked from iraq , so that is what we are talking about. Bush claimed that NATO will not assist turkey. This is bullshit.<span id='postcolor'> I have to disagree with you there. France, Belgium, and Germany are blocking NATO contingency planning for a defense of Turkey. Turkey then invoked Article IV of the NATO treaty which requires the entire alliance to consult if one of the members feels threatened. I do not feel that contingency planning for a defense of a fellow NATO member constitutes express consent of NATO for a war in Iraq. I think this was a petty political ploy, and has further isolated France, Germany, and Belgium from their long time allies. Oh well, at least the Commenwealth (Canada, Australia, UK, and the US) will survive... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted February 11, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, I can only repeat, what has surely been written before. Why didn`t the US government care for Iraq in the last 12 years? Why only now? Yeah, I know Hussein has become so much more dangerous in the time since Mr. Bush is President... <span id='postcolor'> Somone needs to re-read their history book. Not only have we been enforcing no-fly zones over Iraq, but we've also been bombing his air defenses for a few years, as well as WMD plants we knew about. Not to mention sanctions and UN teams, but those are more UN deals than ours. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Pres. Bush would still attack the Iraq, I`m pretty sure, even if it was already "liberated" from evil dictator Hussein. I`m only speculating, but my speculations are surely more bullet-proof than the speculations the US government gave us as evidence for Iraqs evil take-over-the-world-with-terror-plans.<span id='postcolor'> SPECULATOR!!! But thats a pretty pigeon-holed statement, considering YOU'RE the one juding your own speculations. *sigh* If only I could grade my own algebra tests. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In this case it will kill the Iraqi population you claim to "free"<span id='postcolor'> Yet you still ignore the population of other countries that will be killed when Saddam uses his WMDs. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I prefer using my brains.<span id='postcolor'> You're saying we're not? Thats getting pretty personal. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Who is Khidhir Hamza?<span id='postcolor'> Speculation from someone trying to prove a point. And don't tell me that guy isn't making any money from that article. Especially with the two ads on the site. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OxPecker 0 Posted February 12, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 12 2003,00:47)</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">In this case it will kill the Iraqi population you claim to "free"<span id='postcolor'> Yet you still ignore the population of other countries that will be killed when Saddam uses his WMDs.<span id='postcolor'> You seem to be confusing the word if with when. Unless you have a crystal ball. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akira 0 Posted February 12, 2003 Patriotism And Free Speech Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted February 12, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 12 2003,06:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You seem to be confusing the word if with when. Unless you have a crystal ball. Â <span id='postcolor'> I've got common sense. We know he's developing, and the only logical reason he would be developing them is to attack with them, since he wouldn't have to defend himself if he didn't have them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brgnorway 0 Posted February 12, 2003 Hmmm...yes I too think the Nato crisis could do permanent damage to the organisation. However, I disagree with you Othin about who's fault it is. To me it is not so obvious! I think this situation was partially created in the aftermath of the 911 incidents. When US called upon article IV they changed Nato's role of being defensive to being offensive. Clearly, this fact combined with USA's policy of "preemptive actions" has a serious and potentially dangerous effect when US asks for the support of it's fellow Nato-members. I'm sort of torn between the two parties in the Nato crisis. I do believe it's absolutely necessary to help a fellow member country. But on the other hand I also believe Nato's role should never have been changed into what it is today. When US most definately will attack Iraq - would you then say it is your job to take part in a war most likely also fought from Turkey (airbases at least)? There are also other factors in this picture to make it even more obscure. US has signaled a support for one of the Kurdish parties in north Iraq - the PUK. They are currently fighting another kurdish group called "Ansar al-Islam" - a group Powell claims is Iraq's connection with Al Queda - a claim that has now been rejected by amongst others the "International Crisis Group". There are rightfully strong fears of the people supporting Ansar al-Islam that US might possibly bomb them during a war on Iraq. So my question is as follows: On the background of the turkish kurd-problem and US actions in the events of a war - can you guarantee nato members from being drawn into what clearly is an offensive, possibly illegal and certainly aggressive act? My point is not so much that Nato's importance is reduced, but what we'll get instead - it's been mentioned before and I guess someone call it the "coalition of the willing" - and it's not my cup of tea - neither is it for France, Germany and Belgium. The old Europe maybe - but suits me fine thank you! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HellToupee 0 Posted February 12, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 12 2003,13:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">4--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 12 2003,064)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You seem to be confusing the word if with when. Unless you have a crystal ball. <span id='postcolor'> I've got common sense. We know he's developing, and the only logical reason he would be developing them is to attack with them, since he wouldn't have to defend himself if he didn't have them.<span id='postcolor'> what if he dosnt have them and stil has to defend him self, right now he most likly isnt anywhere near gettin any sort of WMD, yet invasion looks likely, would he be safer with or without them, sure it would guarntee and attack, but if he dosnt have them he can stil expect and attack. The evidence is a joke NK is almost ignored even when they throw threats its still big bad iraq with no WMDs, no delivery system and crippled by 10 years of resoultions that is teh big danger. Saddiam wants power using a nuke means bye bye power, he could get 1 maybe to but the US has thousands of nukes 1% of which is enough to wreck the whole planet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OxPecker 0 Posted February 12, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 12 2003,01:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 12 2003,06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You seem to be confusing the word if with when. Unless you have a crystal ball. Â <!--emo&<span id='postcolor'> I've got common sense. Â We know he's developing, and the only logical reason he would be developing them is to attack with them, since he wouldn't have to defend himself if he didn't have them.<span id='postcolor'> Oh yeah, the middle East is such a stable place Iraq would never have the need to defend itself if it didn't have WMD, would it. Don't be silly. Remember the Iran/Iraq war, was that about posession of WMD? ---- What it boils down to is this: If the US attacks Iraq, civilians will die, lots of them. No ifs or buts, its a fact. If the US doesn't attack, civilians might die if Iraq uses its WMD, if it has any in the first place. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted February 12, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 12 2003,07:08)</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">Oh yeah, the middle East is such a stable place Iraq would never have the need to defend itself if it didn't have WMD, would it. Don't be silly. Remember the Iran/Iraq war, was that about posession of WMD? <span id='postcolor'> No, they used WMDs in a war for selfish reasons. Which is more proof that Saddam isn't interested in keeping the region stable. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If the US attacks Iraq, civilians will die, lots of them. No ifs or buts, its a fact. If the US doesn't attack, civilians might die if Iraq uses its WMD, if it has any in the first place.<span id='postcolor'> So you're willing to risk the lives of millions or billions of civilians on a might? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OxPecker 0 Posted February 12, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 12 2003,02:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">8--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 12 2003,078)</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">Oh yeah, the middle East is such a stable place Iraq would never have the need to defend itself if it didn't have WMD, would it. Don't be silly. Remember the Iran/Iraq war, was that about posession of WMD? <span id='postcolor'> No, they used WMDs in a war for selfish reasons. Â Which is more proof that Saddam isn't interested in keeping the region stable. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If the US attacks Iraq, civilians will die, lots of them. No ifs or buts, its a fact. If the US doesn't attack, civilians might die if Iraq uses its WMD, if it has any in the first place.<span id='postcolor'> So you're willing to risk the lives of millions or billions of civilians on a might?<span id='postcolor'> Millions or billions? Jeebus, has Saddam built a Deathstar? In short, yes, I am willing to take that risk, since I think it is a very small one. At least until more solid evidence is produced of what WMD Iraq has, that is my opinion. And your first answer doesn't even relate to what I said. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
E6Hotel 0 Posted February 12, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 12 2003,0208)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh yeah, the middle East is such a stable place Iraq would never have the need to defend itself if it didn't have WMD, would it.<span id='postcolor'> On a related note, wouldn't WMD's as a "defensive" tool work better if the other side knew you had them? Â Not much deterrence effect otherwise. Semper Fi Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OxPecker 0 Posted February 12, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Feb. 12 2003,02:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">8--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 11 2003,178)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What it boils down to is this: If the US attacks Iraq, civilians will die, lots of them. No ifs or buts, its a fact.<span id='postcolor'> I'm going have to ask for some sort of substantiation for that claim.<span id='postcolor'> What, you think all of the "smart" weapons that the US use on Iraq will miraculously not take any civilian lives? Do you have any idea how many Iraqi civvies dies in the first Gulf War? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OxPecker 0 Posted February 12, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 12 2003,02:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 12 2003,0208)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh yeah, the middle East is such a stable place Iraq would never have the need to defend itself if it didn't have WMD, would it.<span id='postcolor'> On a related note, wouldn't WMD's as a "defensive" tool work better if the other side knew you had them? Â Not much deterrence effect otherwise. Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'> On a related note, did the US tell Japan about the first atomic bombs before they dropped them? No, but they were still classified as defensive weapons, to end a war. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted February 12, 2003 This thread now had the same number of views as the Mid-East thread... soon, more posts! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
E6Hotel 0 Posted February 12, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 12 2003,02:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">On a related note, did the US tell Japan about the first atomic bombs before they dropped them? No, but they were still classified as defensive weapons, to end a war.<span id='postcolor'> Since you brought it up... Thought the Hiroshima and Nagasaki discussion had been beat to death already. Â At any rate, I don't think anyone in their right mind has ever considered the a-bombs "defensive" weapons. Semper Fi Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted February 12, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 12 2003,07:33)</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">Millions or billions? Jeebus, has Saddam built a Deathstar? In short, yes, I am willing to take that risk, since I think it is a very small one. At least until more solid evidence is produced of what WMD Iraq has, that is my opinion.<span id='postcolor'> And like I've said before, if all the evidence that has been produced doesn't convince you, nothing short of a nuclear bomb will. And like E6Hotel has said, WMDs are better used as a deterrent than a last ditch defense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joltan 0 Posted February 12, 2003 The only thing I see endangering 'millions of lifes' is starting this fecking war at all. The instability caused by it and the resulting casualties in (mainly) civilian lifes can easily amount to those ranges - those that will die in the war itself (especially on the US side) will be neglible in comparison to what most likely follows the short slaughter. Iraq killing millions (billions! lol) in an act of aggression? You've seen to much propaganda on CNN! Those times have long gone - and when Iraq did those things (during the war against Iran) it was on the right side, meaning these were good deeds, highly appreciated and supported by the US governement. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted February 12, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Feb. 11 2003,20:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This thread now had the same number of views as the Mid-East thread... soon, more posts! <span id='postcolor'> Pardon me, I think the viewcount is limited to 2^15 - 1 decimal. Anyway, this thread will soon overshadow the mid-east one. Thanks to FSPilot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
