The Iraq Thread

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 11 2003,01:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Feb. 11 2003,00:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sorry but what else should Iraq do now ? Anything left ?<span id='postcolor'>

UNMOVIC recently asked for 3 things:

- U2 flights - Iraq has agreed

- private interviews with scientists - 3 of 5 have just been interviewed

- new anti-WMD legislation to be adopted in Iraq  - being considered<span id='postcolor'>

With today's new anti-WMD decree, it seems that Iraq has been able to satisfy nearly all 3 of UNMOVIC's 3 main requests.  The only remaining issue is that some Iraqi scientists still insist on bringing tape recorders to their "private" interviews.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Feb. 14 2003,09:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Dont worry, they will create a new boogie man, they always do.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah...just imagine how many wars could have been avoided in the last 60 years if we hadn't created Hitler and communism.

Semper Fi

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Feb. 14 2003,09:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A US general will run the Iraq after the war. You know. It´s for iraq´s freedom and such...<span id='postcolor'>

It worked pretty well in Japan.

Semper Fi

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Actually on reflection ,after browsing the Middle east thread ,i think that the US should at least attempt to broker peace between Israel and Palestine before war on Iraq. Its too easy for Saddam to stoke those flames and ignite the whole middle east (although i think nothing major would immediatly happen ,recruitment to Al-Quaida might well go up)

If the US had first brokered a peace (not a perfect peace, thats too much to hope for- but eg. a serious cease fire) it would be much harder for Iraq to ignite tension among other middle eastern states. But i dont expect the US will do that with the strategy Bush seems currently to be employing

(ie nominally backing up the repressive monarchys in the arab states, whilst fully backing up Israel with rheatoric and weapons and ignoring the Palestineans- not the way forwards-not the best way to combat terrorism)

Pukko- i certainly think Saddam has commited enough human rights violations on a massive scale to warrant an action.

Its true that other states are bad on this issue, but the only ones who are worse than Saddam i think (eg North Korea)

would be very difficult to attack without risking wider war.

The Iraqi government is quite easy to attack quickly without too much risk of wider war.

Saddam Hussein IS breaching UN resolutions on weapons of mass destruction. He is trying to appear cooperative but large enough violations have taken place that could theoretically justify war in a legal sense. In a moral sense you have only to look at the suffering the Iraqi people have gone through, and which could continue if Saddam was able continue controlling the country.

If there is war people will die, but people die violently under Saddams regime anyway and if he rules Iraq for another.....10? 20? years how many more will die? and what if his son takes over? another 50 years?

War may -possibly- be averted if Saddam makes some great concessions though these would only be taking place because of the threat of force as foxer says. The new report may make war just slighty less likely

But if there is no war then even if they do officially celebrate,

ordinary Iraqis will not be celebrating in their heads or in their homes. They will simply be thinking

"oh no! another 20 years of bombing, living fearfully in a pariah state and being forced to praise this guy!"

or something like that

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 14 2003,21:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">With today's new anti-WMD decree, it seems that Iraq has been able to satisfy nearly all 3 of UNMOVIC's 3 main requests.  The only remaining issue is that some Iraqi scientists still insist on bringing tape recorders to their "private" interviews.<span id='postcolor'>

First, Iraq's legislation outlawing WMD's is ridiculous at face value.  Whoever dreamed that one up ate too many paint chips as a child.

Second, the agreement on U-2 overflights is, to put it mildly, conditioned:

Administration officials cited a Feb. 10 letter to the U.N. inspectors from Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's chief science adviser, Amir Saadi, agreeing to surveillance flights by American U-2s, French Mirages and Russian Antonovs. The letter stressed the need for inspectors to provide Iraq "with a timely notification of each flight, including the time and point of entry, speed and call signal that ensure communication with the pilot when necessary." Washington Post

Do you not see slight problems with surveillance flights being revealed ahead of time, complete with entry points?

Third, if you were an Iraqi scientist, would you really be willing to dime out Saddam Hussein if you did have any information?

Semper Fi

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 15 2003,03:08)</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">America always seems to need an enemy ,a bogeyman, a conflict to unite the country- first the British, then Spanish and native Indians, then all the European colonials when america aquired its own colonies (these were the slow years), Then the axis of WW1, then the interwar colonials again, then Japan, then the European fascists, then Russia, Cuba, the USSR,Vietnam, Iran ,Gaddafis Libya and a few others half heartedly .Then Saddams Iraq, then the war against drugs (they were really stretching for a foe),

Then Osama bin laden/Al-Quaida , then Iraq again, probably commie North korea next, then maybe commie China?<span id='postcolor'>

So THAT explains why we always have enemys when we go to war.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bush should (if it wasnt too late) play it as self defence from Iraqi weapons to the american public, but to the international community emphasize the liberation of an oppressed people, a 'moral' war if anything similar to the Kosovo conflict -look at Serbia now compared to under Milosevic- not perfect, but most would agree better, and no more state perpetrated massacres.<span id='postcolor'>

He can't say two seperate things, he's not a democrat.

But I do agree with most of what you're saying. I just had to get that out.

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

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Iraq Bans Weapons of Mass Destruction</span>

I thought it was some kind of joke.

That it. Crisis is over, recall the military, everyone go home, nothing to see here. You can call off those anti-war protest now. We all can sleep better tonight, all is well in the middle east. <span id='postcolor'>

hahahahahhh

thats rich

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The letter stressed the need for inspectors to provide Iraq "with a timely notification of each flight, including the time and point of entry, speed and call signal that ensure communication with the pilot when necessary." Washington Post<span id='postcolor'>

loooool

Thats even more rich

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Feb. 13 2003,21:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I assure you (with as much certainty as there is on such an issue) Darklight that there are not a lot of Iraqi people who love Saddam anymore. Maybe 15-20 years ago (probably when those people with Saddam pictures in their house left) but not now.<span id='postcolor'>

Most of them have been living here for about 2 to 5 years, anyway, sure the Iraqi people want to get help, but they don't want a war...

That's what it's all about, war is not a good solution. Then perhaps you might think: well then how do we have to help them?

My answer is simply that i do not know, i've never thought about it and it's not my task to do so...

But there's always a solution to everything, i'd really like it if we could help them without fighting them...

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Feb. 15 2003,04:11)</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">That's what it's all about, war is not a good solution. Then perhaps you might think: well then how do we have to help them?

My answer is simply that i do not know, i've never thought about it and it's not my task to do so...

But there's always a solution to everything, i'd really like it if we could help them without fighting them...<span id='postcolor'>

maybe you should come up with a good solution before you attack ours.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 14 2003,22:o8)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> First, Iraq's legislation outlawing WMD's is ridiculous at face value.  Whoever dreamed that one up ate too many paint chips as a child.<span id='postcolor'>

UNMOVIC's briainchild.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 14 2003,22:o8)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do you not see slight problems with surveillance flights being revealed ahead of time, complete with entry points?<span id='postcolor'>

Iraq allows unannounced surveillance flights, but can't guarantee their safety as long as US/UK aircraft continue to attack Iraqi positions.  Do you not see a slight problem with binding one side's hands while allowing the other to attack with impunity?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 14 2003,22:o8)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Third, if you were an Iraqi scientist, would you really be willing to dime out Saddam Hussein if you did have any information?<span id='postcolor'>

Again, UNMOVIC's brainchild.

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 14 2003,00:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Feb. 15 2003,04:11)</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">That's what it's all about, war is not a good solution.  Then perhaps you might think: well then how do we have to help them?

My answer is simply that i do not know, i've never thought about it and it's not my task to do so...

But there's always a solution to everything, i'd really like it if we could help them without fighting them...<span id='postcolor'>

maybe you should come up with a good solution before you attack ours.<span id='postcolor'>

Haha, as if i could find a good solution, i'm just a kid, i'll leave the hard work for the people who are supposed to be able to solve this kinda crap without nuking countries...

[Pukko 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Feb. 14 2003,22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Pukko- i certainly think Saddam has commited enough human rights violations on a massive scale to warrant an action.

Its true that other states are bad on this issue, but the only ones who are worse than Saddam i think (eg North Korea)

would be very difficult to attack without risking wider war.

The Iraqi government is quite easy to attack quickly without too much risk of wider war.

Saddam Hussein IS breaching UN resolutions on weapons of mass destruction. He is trying to appear cooperative but large enough violations have taken place that could theoretically justify war in a legal sense. In a moral sense you have only to look at the suffering the Iraqi people have gone through, and which could continue if Saddam was able continue controlling the country.

If there is war people will die, but people die violently under Saddams regime anyway and if he rules Iraq for another.....10? 20? years how many more will die? and what if his son takes over? another 50 years?

War may -possibly- be averted if Saddam makes some great concessions though these would only be taking place because of the threat of force as foxer says. The new report may make war just slighty less likely

But if there is no war then even if they do officially celebrate,

ordinary Iraqis will not be celebrating in their heads or in their homes. They will simply be thinking

"oh no! <!--emo&  another 20 years of bombing, living fearfully in a pariah state and being forced to praise this guy!"

or something like that<span id='postcolor'>

I'll not argue against you since I cant nearly, if anyone really can, claim to have a complete picture of the situation in the Gulf area. But I do question the middle east to be an safe area, and Iraq as a nation that only is beaten by North Korea when it comes to human rights.

Saddams regime is without doubt an oppressive dictatorship, and I will not defend him (on the other hand you might recall from the mideast thread that I dont defend our own very relatively 'free, unoppressive western world' either). But it also seems like (source from earlier posts here) Iraq is'nt the most opressive nation in the Gulf either, but on the contrary might be one of the better of the Arab nations when it comes to human rights, at least some - like womens rights. While at the same time USA is one of only 2 nations in the world that has not ratified the 'Convention on the rights of children', and many others like the 'non discrimination against women convention' etc. USA:s death penalties and other human rights 'violations' may not be comparable to Iraqs torture etc. though. And ofcourse its not really possible to compare Iraq to any western nation when it comes to human rights. But it might be ways to win even Saddams symphaties for a wider human rights program in the long run if the western world makes real efforts in improving relations and creating trust within the muslim world and stop bullying and exploit them - there have'nt been many real, serious, such efforts lately, have there? They are humans, and human rights is not only 'evil western ideas'. I think we will have much bigger chance of success in fighting terrorism and hostilities from muslim areas through struggles to really try to gain the muslims nations goodwill; wars dont do that very well as history can tell.

And when it comes to the middle east as an area where one can "quite easy to attack quickly without too much risk of wider war" I dont think many agree. I cant personally argue for the real dangers there (but Balschoiw for example surely can), but I'm quite sure that the dangers are quite big; both within Iraq and from neighboring nations. Here's a, quite silly indeed - but not without substance, link that has been posted here several times to a 'Gulf War 2 game':

http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml

And when it comes to North Korea, well they might be quite dangerous themselves without taking the surounding area in to consideration (or at least 10 times as dangerous as an 'Iraq in ruins' can be).

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq allows unannounced surveillance flights, but can't guarantee their safety as long as US/UK aircraft continue to attack Iraqi positions. Do you not see a slight problem with binding one side's hands while allowing the other to attack with impunity?<span id='postcolor'>

Firstly, I doubt Iraq could shoot down a U-2. I know the Soviets did it, but they probably got lucky after launching LOTS of missiles. Secondly, if they so much as fired a shot at that U-2 I expect UN support would swoon for the US/UK side. Of course France and Germany would praise saddam for some stupid reason, but that's just what they do.

And we're not attacking him with impunity, we're just binding his hands.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Haha, as if i could find a good solution, i'm just a kid, i'll leave the hard work for the people who are supposed to be able to solve this kinda crap without nuking countries...<span id='postcolor'>

Well maybe you should put more thought into a solution instead of just obstructing our solutions and creating more problems.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">but on the contrary might be one of the better of the Arab nations when it comes to human rights, at least some - like womens rights.<span id='postcolor'>

The ones being raped or the ones watching their children be tortured.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And when it comes to the middle east as an area where one can "quite easy to attack quickly without too much risk of wider war" I dont think many agree. I cant personally argue for the real dangers there (but Balschoiw for example surely can), but I'm quite sure that the dangers are quite big; both within Iraq and from neighboring nations. Here's a, quite silly indeed - but not without substance, link that has been posted here several times to a 'Gulf War 2 game':

http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml<span id='postcolor'>

Did the first gulf war erupt the whole region into war?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And when it comes to North Korea, well they might be quite dangerous themselves without taking the surounding area in to consideration (or at least 10 times as dangerous as an 'Iraq in ruins' can be).<span id='postcolor'>

We're trying democracy first.

wooo- 300th page

[Akira 0]

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

DIPLOMACY man!

"We're trying diplomacy first.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">de·moc·ra·cy     P   Pronunciation Key  (d-mkr-s)

n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

A political or social unit that has such a government.

The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.

Majority rule.

The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

[French démocratie, from Late Latin dmocratia, from Greek dmokrati : dmos, people; see d- in Indo-European Roots + -krati, -cracy.]<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">di·plo·ma·cy     P   Pronunciation Key  (d-plm-s)

n. The art or practice of conducting international relations, as in negotiating alliances, treaties, and agreements.

Tact and skill in dealing with people. See Synonyms at tact.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

[buy it]

diplomacy

\Di*plo"ma*cy\, n. [F. diplomatie. This word, like supremacy, retains the accent of its original. See Diploma.] 1. The art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations (particularly in securing treaties), including the methods and forms usually employed.

2. Dexterity or skill in securing advantages; tact.

3. The body of ministers or envoys resident at a court; the diplomatic body. [R.] --Burke.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

diplomacy

n 1: negotiation between nations [syn: diplomatic negotiations] 2: subtly skillful handling of a situation [syn: delicacy, discreetness, finesse] 3: wisdom in the management of public affairs [syn: statesmanship, statecraft]<span id='postcolor'>

[der bastler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 13 2003,22: 00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">SLOGANS FOR FEB. 15 ANTI-WAR RALLIES!

[...]<span id='postcolor'>

Don't forget the Oscar nominees:

George W. Bush

  "My Big Fat Iraq War"

Saddam Hussein & Kim Jong-Il

  "Monsters Inc."

Gerhard Schröder & Co

  "Rebel Without A Cause"

Osama Bin Laden

  "Catch Me If You Can"

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 14 2003,23:48)</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">Iraq allows unannounced surveillance flights, but can't guarantee their safety as long as US/UK aircraft continue to attack Iraqi positions.  Do you not see a slight problem with binding one side's hands while allowing the other to attack with impunity?<span id='postcolor'>

Firstly, I doubt Iraq could shoot down a U-2.<span id='postcolor'>

Shall I tell UNMOVIC that we've found a volunteer pilot?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 14 2003,23:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And we're not attacking him with impunity, we're just binding his hands.<span id='postcolor'>

You do know that you've been dropping bombs on Iraq for 10 years, don't you?  And 10 years of bombing with the loss of just a couple UAVs is what I'd call attacking with impunity.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 14 2003,23:55)</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">We're trying democracy first.<span id='postcolor'>

DIPLOMACY man!

"We're trying diplomacy first.<span id='postcolor'>

FSPilot is trying dictionary last.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 14 2003,23:55)</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">We're trying democracy first.<span id='postcolor'>

DIPLOMACY man!

"We're trying diplomacy first.

*snipped offending content*<span id='postcolor'>

Excuse me,

You have, in your post, infringed on my trademark of DefinitionMan. I demand that you remove the offending material, or I will have no choice but to retaliate with military action..

I think the world has pretty much spoken. 3 of the 5 permanent members of the UN security council say that they dont believe there is justification for military action at this point. And considering that Saddam continues to do everything asked of him, I have to agree that at this point, there is no justification for an attack. I find it funny that the supposedly infringing missile system only infringes the weapons ban when there isnt a guidance system installed, and then by something like 10% of it's range. And we're not talking about an extran 100km. We're talking 10-15km. And a missile without a guidance system is not that accurate now, is it?

And am I the only one that wants to punch that smug little shit Ari Fleisher in the face? He's such a condescending little prick that if I were a reporter, I'd want to get up and pummel him. He just grates on my nerves every time he opens his sanctimonious trap! ARGH.

[Guest]

I think that the quickest way to avoid war is to explain to Bush that Saddam Hussein is white, rich, well armed and has friends in the oil industry

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 15 2003,01:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And am I the only one that wants to punch that smug little shit Ari Fleisher in the face? He's such a condescending little prick that if I were a reporter, I'd want to get up and pummel him.  He just grates on my nerves every time he opens his sanctimonious trap! ARGH.<span id='postcolor'>

This isn't a value judgement or anything on the Bush administration (other than the standard "you are the company you keep" stuff), but Ari Fleischer is possibly one of the biggest assholes I have ever seen or heard. I wouldn't hesitate to rearrange the little rat bastard's face- arrogant, ignorant, and in power.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 15 2003,01:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And am I the only one that wants to punch that smug little shit Ari Fleisher in the face?<span id='postcolor'>

no

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 15 2003,01:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And am I the only one that wants to punch that smug little shit Ari Fleisher in the face?<span id='postcolor'>

I agree that he is a disgusting little creature but I wouldn't waste my energy on him. I consider him being a lesser life form.

When a dog urinates on a lamp post, you don't call it vandalism. The dog is just being a dog.

Ari Fleisher is just being true to his nature. Don't let it get to you

[Bernadotte 0]

Some of you might remember around 160 pages ago that I posted this:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Jan. 22 2003,11:o8)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Soon after 11 Sept 2001...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building -- say what you want about it, it's not cowardly.

-- Bill Maher on his talk show Politically Incorrect<span id='postcolor'>...soon after that...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is.

--Whitehouse spokesman<span id='postcolor'>...<span id='postcolor'>

That Whitehouse spokesman telling all Americans to watch what they say was Ari Fleischer.

[NavyEEL 0]

i dont find launching cruise missiles to be cowardly... i find it to be smart. Americans value life, unlike Al Qaeda. we use technology to our advantage to attempt to avoid any unnecessary loss of life

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Feb. 15 2003,03:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i dont find launching cruise missiles to be cowardly... i find it to be smart.  Americans value life, unlike Al Qaeda.  we use technology to our advantage to attempt to avoid any unnecessary loss of life<span id='postcolor'>

Unneccesary loss of life to Americans.

I am not going to fault the US armed services for that. Only a madman doesnt look out for the welfare of his troops (And yes, we all agree that Saddam is a mad man, we just differ on what the best solutions to him is).

But no matter how you slice it, smart weapons arent always that smart. They are only as good as the intel that chooses their aimpoints. Proof of that was the 'precision' munition dropped on the Canadians in Afghanistan. It hit right where the pilot meant it to. Thing is, it should never have been dropped where it was.

Doesnt matter how smart and precise a cruise missile is. If it hits a building tagged as a defense HQ that is actually an apartment building, or a hospital, those people are just as dead as they would have been from a plain old unguided iron bomb that missed.

Why do you think so many people are against a war in Iraq? It's not because we're against war (I would be a hypocrite if I was a peacenik and played Flashpoint!!. It's because the evidence is not yet at a point where it justifies the thousands and thousands of civilian deaths that are sure to occur in a war. Unlike GW1, this will be an urban war, not one in the desert. And no matter how good you are, a lot of civilians will die.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 15 2003,12:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Feb. 15 2003,03:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i dont find launching cruise missiles to be cowardly... i find it to be smart.  Americans value life, unlike Al Qaeda.  we use technology to our advantage to attempt to avoid any unnecessary loss of life<span id='postcolor'>

Unneccesary loss of life to Americans.

I am not going to fault the US armed services for that.  Only a madman doesnt look out for the welfare of his troops (And yes, we all agree that Saddam is a mad man, we just differ on what the best solutions to him is).

But no matter how you slice it, smart weapons arent always that smart.  They are only as good as the intel that chooses their aimpoints.   Proof of that was the 'precision' munition dropped on the Canadians in Afghanistan.  It hit right where the pilot meant it to.  Thing is, it should never have been dropped where it was.

Doesnt matter how smart and precise a cruise missile is.  If it hits a building tagged as a defense HQ that is actually an apartment building, or a hospital, those people are just as dead as they would have been from a plain old unguided iron bomb that missed.

Why do you think so many people are against a war in Iraq? It's not because we're against war (I would be a hypocrite if I was a peacenik and played Flashpoint!!.  It's because the evidence is not yet at a point where it justifies the thousands and thousands of civilian deaths that are sure to occur in a war.  Unlike GW1, this will be an urban war, not one in the desert.  And no matter how good you are, a lot of civilians will die.<span id='postcolor'>

Hole in one