The Iraq Thread

[nolips71 0]

my auntie was in the london peace marches. how embarressing

[Blake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 16 2003,15:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">These days, Iraq is far less likely to bomb a civilian area in these regions than Israel is to bomb Palestinian areas.  So if it's even a little bit ethical to maintain no-fly zones over Iraq then why not have them over Gaza and the West Bank too?<span id='postcolor'>

Israel would never use gas or WMDs against Palestinian civilians. Saddam has done so, not against rebel fighters, but villages full of men, women and children. Israel is of course guilty of hitting also civilian targets, but at least they try to attack PA guerilla targets. But also, Kurds don't mount suicide attacks in Baghdad's bus lines. Lifting no-fly zones over Iraq would do little to improve Iraq's security against Kurds, quite the opposite it would give Saddam free hands to mount attacks against his minorities.

[Harnu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 15 2003,23:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ Feb. 15 2003,23:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq is only bombed when planes patrolling the southern no-fly zone are threatend.<span id='postcolor'>

Are you saying that it's ok to bomb a country if they try to defend their airspace?<span id='postcolor'>

It's not defending if we are not attacking. No one gets hurt as long as pilots aren't threatend.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

"The ethical thing is to do what you believe to be the right thing to do at the time. ."

Denoir-

"I disagree. The ethical thing to do is what is universally believed to be the right thing to do at the time. Otherwise you can also say that Saddam's attacks on the Kurds are ethically correct since I'm sure that Saddam thought that it was the right thing to do at that time.

No, ethics is not individual - it's a collective agreement of what is right."

I am in agreement with that. The MOST ethical thing to do is the universally approved of action. But this is complicated by small problems like peoples divergent thoughts of the same issue. What other people believe is ethically right can help to inform your belief of what is right.People rarely agree absolutly, and sometimes when a majority agree, the majority is wrong (having been misled for instance)-

And sometimes actions that are unpopular at the immediate moment appear to have been the wiser or more ethical choice over time(and are then approved of by the majority)

Perhaps i should have been clearer with my words (who is the 'you' i refer to? a person ,a government, a country?)

actually i think the words in the english language 'ethical' and 'unethical' (as though a line can be drawn in the sand) are unhelpful if you believe as i do in degrees of more ethical and less ethical behaviour. In international politics this is especially true. In the current situation people look likely to suffer and die whatever happens. So who is right?

There are ethical arguments both for and against war that could convince people of sound mind.

So it must inevitably become a subjective judgment. And those with the power to enforce their views most strongly will define which 'ethical' action is performed.Some people will (almost)always disagree with any particular thing.This is the reality. The only variable is the level of disagreement.

And i certainly do not think that superior numbers(of those in agreement) necessarily equals a superior ethical position. In international politics people must almost always negotiate in the end to reach an imperfect agreement that may differ from their ideal ethical position

i would say that international agreements (if/when ethics is even an issue) take place in spite of certain ethical considerations in order to accomodate broader and more general ethical guidelines that everyone can (theoretically) agree on.

This may mean (in the UN for instance)that in many cases the only statements that could recieve universal backing are so general as to be functionally meaningless and so inoffensive as to suggest no real change.

Longinius- I think that the USA (and the EU) -should- press

Turkey more strongly on its bad relationship with the kurds.

There are diplomatic reasons why the US doesnt (they feel they need to keep Turkey as an ally) especially now. I think that US governments have been overly polite in this but in the aftermath of a war in Iraq they would be forced to stop such actions.

There is nothing in my opinion to legitimise Saddams gas attacks and other massacres, tortures etc .

I agree that the USA and other 'big' countries have acted poorly with the kurds and other before but i am an optimist (in the short term)

and its never to late to start making up for past mistakes.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Was that boring? maybe i should say stuff like

The UN SUX ,KILL SADDAM, LONG LIVE FREEDOM !

or not.

[Pukko 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Feb. 16 2003,22:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Was that boring? maybe i should say stuff like

The UN SUX ,KILL SADDAM, LONG LIVE FREEDOM !<span id='postcolor'>

OMG, thats hilarious. You should be a comedian!

I agree on most things you write about ethics, again good post! I felt the need to add some comments though:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This may mean (in the UN for instance)that in many cases the only statements that could recieve universal backing are so general as to be functionally meaningless and so inoffensive as to suggest no real change.

<span id='postcolor'>

Thats not what I would call bad things however.

To begin with "functionally meaningless": We live in a very pragmatic time were everthing should be concrete, 'great sounding', things that lead to conctete actions. War is a good example of such 'today considered as meaningful stuff'. Concrete great stuff is not often very creative in the long run though, but mostly serves as signals to the masses that something is done. The UN has therefore a reputation as meaningless in many peoples opinions, they dont primary perform concrete actions, but only seems like boring buerocrats. An example of what I mean is: The split between the social science approaches 'hermeneutic' (abstract interpretions) and 'positivistic' (logical conclusions based on concrete observations); the later is not considered to function very good anymore - there is always more to things than the immediatly observable. The problem is of course that with hermeneutic methods one cant claim to find any absolute truth; on the other hand its most likely that there dont exist any 'absolute truths'. We just have to learn to live with slow 'meaningless loking' struggles if we want to solve any problems with creative, positive and lasting results. One function to solve problems 'the American entertaining way' is of course that they in most cases pop up again, even if in other form - like destroy one enemy, and you get another. But that is indeed a positive thing if one are addicted to unite towards an common enemy; always make sure there is one. USA will not fail to have plenty of new enemies after the coming war on Iraq...

As for "real change": Do you really think that radical-quick-big changes is always, or at all, positive? Do you for example think that extreme feminists (that want to 'eliminate' all 'men' here and now) have a positive approach? The biggest chance of a positive success is almost always to be found in relatively slow, mutual, change and development.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is nothing in my opinion to legitimise Saddams gas attacks and other massacres, tortures etc .

I agree that the USA and other 'big' countries have acted poorly with the kurds and other before but i am an optimist (in the short term)

and its never to late to start making up for past mistakes.

<span id='postcolor'>

I can tell you that I am just as optimistic of US political change as I am of Iraqi political change (quite possible in the long run in both cases I believe, even if I think that US change is even harder to achive than Iraqi change). So is it really reasonable at all for USA to attack Iraq, most likely killing more innocent civilians than any eventual Iraqi attack would? The problem is that thousands innocent civilian deaths from an US attack is certain, but the opposite (any eventual Iraqi attack) is only speculations, and can be dealt with peacefully if only the right methods is (allowed to be) used - but its hard for anyone to know for sure which one is the right. But I cant see anything else than that an attack have lesser chance of success in the long run than the worst peaceful solution.

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

Longinius- I think that the USA (and the EU) -should- press

Turkey more strongly on its bad relationship with the kurds.

There are diplomatic reasons why the US doesnt (they feel they need to keep Turkey as an ally) especially now. I think that US governments have been overly polite in this but in the aftermath of a war in Iraq they would be forced to stop such actions.

<span id='postcolor'>

Fun thing that I heared on Swedish news tonight regarding USA-Turkey: USA offers Turkey 50 billion SEK as 'aid', and another 170 billion SEK as a loan (total ~26 billion US$ ) for Turkey to allow USA to use their airbases in an attack on Iraq. It is not clear yet whether Turkey are going to accept the proposal, but Turkey have pressed USA for a much higher amount!

EDIT: USA is also working on similar offers to Israel and Jordan.

source (in Swedish)

[killagee 0]

Nice call. I like the napster analogy. It has certainly become much harder for Governments to fool their constituancy, and I think this has to be a good thing. The one downside I see is that in all types of business management (and politics/foreign affairs is definately big business) there are times when decisions need to be made that are unpopular in the short term, in order to get a long term improvement (ie: pulling down houses for a new road, tax increases, coming clean over past mistakes etc). You only have to venture to your local pub to realise that the world is full of short attention span idiots, who under a democracy have as much say as the people who actually think about the issues. Oh well...

Got to say though, most of the people in these forums, on both sides of the argument, seem to be well informed and intelligent. Makes a nice change from most of the forums on the net! Cheers to the OFP community

[SGTKOPP 0]

the right thing to do is to shoot Saddam!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SGTKOPP @ Feb. 17 2003,06:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the right thing to do is to shoot Saddam!!!!!!!!!!!    <span id='postcolor'>

right...and as you've mentioned before you would likely be in Iraq to do it at the first opportunity right Sarge? Nevermind that the US itself outlaws political assasinations . So then why is Saddam such a special case that you would be willing to disregard US law to get rid of him? Let me guess, you have good reason to believe he's in posession of nuclear tanks?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Feb. 17 2003,06:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Let me guess, you have good reason to believe he's in posession of nuclear tanks?<span id='postcolor'>

And it's only a matter of time before he sells them to terrorists!

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 16 2003,07:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Killagee, since you seem to be such an expert at photo-analysis, would you care to tell me what these are pictures of?

EDIT: It's not my favorite camp-site, in case you were wondering.<span id='postcolor'>

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's not defending if we are not attacking.  No one gets hurt as long as pilots aren't threatend. <span id='postcolor'>

Unfortunally this is not true.

1. Allied forces checking the No-Fly-zone leave their corridors a lot of times to bomb facilities outside no-fly-zone, cross borders to Iran and so on.

2. The targets they bomb are not only AA facilities, but civil radars, civil installations such as water pump stations, roads, civil airports and civil transports.

February 12, 2003: US and British warplanes destroyed an Iraqi surface-to-surface missile battery that was seen moving to within range of American troops in Kuwait. Usually, only air defense systems are attacked, but last September, some anti-ship missiles near Basra were attacked.

There is already an UN investigation on these cases as the US/Brit fighters don´t follow their own rules.

[Major Fubar 0]

The only people who should be more nervous than the Iraqis once the action starts are the English and Australian troops.

Remember how many allied vehicles got shot by American pilots in the first gulf war...

"Hey Zeke, that there 'ol tank don't look like no Abrams, it must be Iraqi! Lets blow it up...yeehaw!"

[joltan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Feb. 17 2003,06:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SGTKOPP @ Feb. 17 2003,06:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the right thing to do is to shoot Saddam!!!!!!!!!!!    <span id='postcolor'>

right...and as you've mentioned before you would likely be in Iraq to do it at the first opportunity right Sarge? Nevermind that the US itself outlaws political assasinations  . So then why is Saddam such a special case that you would be willing to disregard US law to get rid of him? Let me guess, you have good reason to believe he's in posession of nuclear tanks?<span id='postcolor'>

They don't - this was more or less abolished last year...

Check this bbc article and this, too.

Quote: 'And United States special forces or CIA agents will, according to the Washington Post, be allowed to kill him "in self-defence".' - Yeah, right...

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Feb. 16 2003,19:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 16 2003,15:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">These days, Iraq is far less likely to bomb a civilian area in these regions than Israel is to bomb Palestinian areas.  So if it's even a little bit ethical to maintain no-fly zones over Iraq then why not have them over Gaza and the West Bank too?<span id='postcolor'>

Israel would never use gas or WMDs against Palestinian civilians. Saddam has done so, not against rebel fighters, but villages full of men, women and children. Israel is of course guilty of hitting also civilian targets, but at least they try to attack PA guerilla targets. But also, Kurds don't mount suicide attacks in Baghdad's bus lines.<span id='postcolor'>

Please try to stay on the topic of shielding civilians from airborne attack.  (Geez... I'm still trying to figure out why no-fly zones are justified as long as Kurds don't attack Baghdad buses.)

I hope you aren't saying that it's ok for Israel to bomb Palestinian civilian targets as long as they don't use WMDs. Saddam Hussein gassed some Kurdish civilian areas in the 80s for supporting the Iranian army in the Iran/Iraq war.  Sure there were rebel fighters among the Kurdish civilians.  However, poison gas is no better at knocking on doors and checking ID cards than an Israeli 2000 lbs is when dropped on an apartment building.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Feb. 16 2003,19:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lifting no-fly zones over Iraq would do little to improve Iraq's security against Kurds, quite the opposite it would give Saddam free hands to mount attacks against his minorities.<span id='postcolor'>

Saddam already has free hand to attack, just not from the air.

[Pukko 0]

From one of Joltans links ( EDIT: Should maybe add that the article is from June last year)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What is notable about this new American interventionism is the way it bypasses the United Nations.

Like it or not, Washington has no patience for the UN. The United States has its own intelligence, its own forces - and is prepared to act on its own.

It would sometimes seek allied help, including Russian help. But it would not depend on such help.

To some, this means going back to the days of big power politics, even to the 19th century when states made determinations of what threats they faced and acted as they saw fit. And they often saw fit to be aggressive.

The UN charter was supposed to lead to an era of collective action. It allows individual states to act only in self defence, though that is not defined.

Washington is going to define it very widely.

The policy can be called unilateralism, it can be called aggression, it can be called assuming responsibility. It has to be called a fact.

<span id='postcolor'>

The obvoius argument here is of course that USA after all is the only superpower. The as obvoius counter argument is - for how much longer?  

(to spare you from asking what I mean: do you think that that these are signs of a sound and healthy superpower? )

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ Feb. 16 2003,20:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 15 2003,23:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ Feb. 15 2003,23:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq is only bombed when planes patrolling the southern no-fly zone are threatend.<span id='postcolor'>

Are you saying that it's ok to bomb a country if they try to defend their airspace?<span id='postcolor'>

It's not defending if we are not attacking.  No one gets hurt as long as pilots aren't threatend.<span id='postcolor'>

Bullshit.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">14 April 1994 - A pair of UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters were shot down by 2 US Air Force F-15's flying out of Incirlik, Turkey. The F-15s misidentified the Black Hawks as Iraqi Hinds violating the "no fly" zone. All 6 crewmena aboard the helicopters were killed, along with 20 passengers, including UN observers in the Provide Comfort Zone and military officers from Britain, France and Turkey.<span id='postcolor'>

Are you saying the F-15 pilots were being threatened?  Those on board the Blackhawks sure got hurt.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Feb. 17 2003,02:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">8--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 16 2003,078)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Killagee, since you seem to be such an expert at photo-analysis, would you care to tell me what these are pictures of?

EDIT: It's not my favorite camp-site, in case you were wondering.<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

It's not about photo analysis. Colin stated why he thinks the photos are evidence. And, what he said is no proof.

If they had anything they should give it to the inspectors, so the weapons can be found and destroyed. What Colin showed is like a little cartoon with soap opera drama. Not evidence of anything other than, Iraqis have factories and transport vehicles... oh no!

[Blake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 17 2003,15:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Please try to stay on the topic of shielding civilians from airborne attack.  (Geez... I'm still trying to figure out why no-fly zones are justified as long as Kurds don't attack Baghdad buses.)

I hope you aren't saying that it's ok for Israel to bomb Palestinian civilian targets as long as they don't use WMDs.  Saddam Hussein gassed some Kurdish civilian areas in the 80s for supporting the Iranian army in the Iran/Iraq war.  Sure there were rebel fighters among the Kurdish civilians.  However, poison gas is no better at knocking on doors and checking ID cards than an Israeli 2000 lbs is when dropped on an apartment building.

Saddam already has free hand to attack, just not from the air.<span id='postcolor'>

This entire issue belongs to mid-east thread and you brought the Palestinian-Israeli issue here in the first place.

I'm just pointing out that Kurdish attacks are not aimed at Iraqi civilians. No I'm not saying that it is justified to attack palestinian civilian targets where did you get that? Israeli strikes may cause collateral damage when trying to eliminate terrorists but at least they try to avoid them. Unlike Saddam's regime and terrorist organizations like Hamas. If you are comparing current IDF activities to mass murders performed by Saddam Hussein you are derailed from reality very badly.

And no, victims of 1982 massacer in Lebanon were not shot by the IDF.

Saddam has no free hand to attack - if he'd do that he would be severly punished. No-fly zones contains his actions in the air and gives signal that he's being watched and contained.

[Die Alive 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Feb. 17 2003,09:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not evidence of anything other than, Iraqis have factories and transport vehicles... oh no!<span id='postcolor'>

-=Die Alive=-

[bn880 5]

Yep,

anyway, I just saw the USS coleslaw or somename on CNN, the carrier was preparing for an attack on Iraq. I heard something that rang a bell and really ticked me off from a crewman responsible for "building" the 1000lb guided bombs. "I don't care how they are used (the LGB's), I don't care who they are dropped on... terrorists do not care who they target, they did not care in 2001 and will not now... (and so on)"

This is exactly along the same line as what Bush said in his state of the union speech, comparing the pre-emptive strike to terrorists not giving a warning.

So, uhhh, terrorists...........

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Feb. 17 2003,19:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 17 2003,15:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Please try to stay on the topic of shielding civilians from airborne attack.  (Geez... I'm still trying to figure out why no-fly zones are justified as long as Kurds don't attack Baghdad buses.)

I hope you aren't saying that it's ok for Israel to bomb Palestinian civilian targets as long as they don't use WMDs.  Saddam Hussein gassed some Kurdish civilian areas in the 80s for supporting the Iranian army in the Iran/Iraq war.  Sure there were rebel fighters among the Kurdish civilians.  However, poison gas is no better at knocking on doors and checking ID cards than an Israeli 2000 lbs is when dropped on an apartment building.

Saddam already has free hand to attack, just not from the air.<span id='postcolor'>

This entire issue belongs to mid-east thread and you brought the Palestinian-Israeli issue here in the first place.<span id='postcolor'>

I'll ask you again to please try to stay on the topic of shielding civilians from airborne attack.  You say the no-fly zones serve an ethical purpose.  I say that's bullshit because the US does nothing when a US-made 2000 lbs bomb is dropped on a crowded apartment building or a US-made Hellfire rocket is fired at a crowded street elsewhere in the world (it doesn't even matter where, does it?).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Feb. 17 2003,19:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm just pointing out that Kurdish attacks are not aimed at Iraqi civilians.<span id='postcolor'>

So what?  What do Kurdish attacks have to do with no-fly zones?  Again... please try to stay on the topic of shielding civilians from airborne attack.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Feb. 17 2003,19:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> No I'm not saying that it is justified to attack palestinian civilian targets where did you get that?<span id='postcolor'>

You said that no-fly zones are not necessary over the West Bank and Gaza because "Israel would never use gas or WMDs against Palestinian civilians."  I believe it's unethical to kill civilians no matter what types of weapons are used.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Feb. 17 2003,19:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Israeli strikes may cause collateral damage when trying to eliminate terrorists but at least they try to avoid them.<span id='postcolor'>

That's bullshit, Blake, and you know it.

1 crowded apartment building  +  2000lbs bomb  =  massive collateral damage  +  no attempt to avoid it

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Feb. 17 2003,19:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Unlike Saddam's regime and terrorist organizations like Hamas.<span id='postcolor'>

What does Hamas have to do with no-fly zones?  You really should try harder to stay on the topic of shielding civilians from airborne attack.  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Feb. 17 2003,19:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you are comparing current IDF activities to mass murders performed by Saddam Hussein you are derailed from reality very badly.<span id='postcolor'>

This may come as a surprise to you, Blake, but I am really trying to stay on the topic of shielding civilians from airborne attack.  Of the hundreds of civilians killed this way throughout the Middle East in the past 10 years, what percentage do you think were victims of US-made bombs?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Feb. 17 2003,19:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And no, victims of 1982 massacer in Lebanon were not shot by the IDF.<span id='postcolor'>

LOL... Why the hell are you bringing this up?  You really are having trouble staying on the topic of shielding civilians from airborne attack, aren't you?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Feb. 17 2003,19:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saddam has no free hand to attack - if he'd do that he would be severly punished.<span id='postcolor'>

No free hand to attack, eh?  LOL...

Try and tell that to all the rebel forces he wiped out in the mid-90s, AFTER the no-fly zones were established.  Try and tell that to all the Kurdish refugees who fled when the Iraqi army swept through northern and southern Iraq in the mid-90s, AFTER the no-fly zones were established.

And why even try to disarm a nation if it has "no free hand to attack?"  Perhaps it is you who is "derailed from reality very badly."

[Blake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You say the no-fly zones serve an ethical purpose.  I say that's bullshit because the US does nothing when a US-made 2000 lbs bomb is dropped on a crowded apartment building or a US-made Hellfire rocket is fired at a crowded street elsewhere in the world (it doesn't even matter where, does it?).<span id='postcolor'>

Well I still think it's good to have them and contain Saddam on at least some scale. What is so terrible about these no-fly zones? Israeli-PA conflict is totally different issue than Saddam vs. Kurds. Given total freedom he would do much more terrible things than Israeli government does. Civilian casualties are terrible in any conflict but in PA-Israeli conflict there are no good guys and both sides do bad things. World wouldn't be a better place if no-fly zones would suddenly be lifted in Iraq.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You said that no-fly zones are not necessary over the West Bank and Gaza because "Israel would never use gas or WMDs against Palestinian civilians."  I believe it's unethical to kill civilians no matter what types of weapons are used.<span id='postcolor'>

I would give full support to no-fly zones in West Ban and Gaza if Israel's intention was to simply massacer Palestinian people. But still their main aim is to get rid of terrorists with the air strikes and other means or do you disagree? Both sides will fight regardless of all cease-fires or peace plans and there's circle of death that seems unstoppable. It's war and collateral damage is inflicted on both sides.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1 crowded apartment building  +  2000lbs bomb  =  massive collateral damage  +  no attempt to avoid it<span id='postcolor'>

I didn't say there wouldn't be mistakes which are inexcusable but the main aim is not to just to kill civilians indiscriminantly. You also have to remember why these strikes are launced after terrorist attacks not just for ethnic clensing.

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

This may come as a surprise to you, Blake, but I am really trying to stay on the topic of shielding civilians from airborne attack.  Of the hundreds of civilians killed this way throughout the Middle East in the past 10 years, what percentage do you think were victims of US-made bombs?<span id='postcolor'>

What does it matter that are bombs are made in Russia/US/China? The original issue was the justification for no-fly zones over Iraq. Israeli-Palestinian conflict which you linked here is a different matter altogether and not comparable. I just answered when you asked why there aren't no-fly zones over West Bank and Gaza.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No free hand to attack, eh?  LOL...

Try and tell that to all the rebel forces he wiped out in the mid-90s, AFTER the no-fly zones were established.  Try and tell that to all the Kurdish refugees who fled when the Iraqi army swept through northern and southern Iraq in the mid-90s, AFTER the no-fly zones were established.

And why even try to disarm a nation if it has "no free hand to attack?"  Perhaps it is you who is "derailed from reality very badly."<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, true, Saddam's attacks and the resulting refugee crisis were regrettable and serious miscalculation from US side. If they cannot send ground troops, no-fly zone is better than nothing and lifting it would only give more freedom to Saddam. I see no reason to lift them at this point.

[FSPilot 0]

NATO: France isn't invited.

Apparently NATO had a meeting to decide about Turkey in a council that France simply isn't a member of. Do you all think this means NATO supports the war with Iraq, or are they just trying to help Turkey defend itself?

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 18 2003,05:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NATO: France isn't invited.

Apparently NATO had a meeting to decide about Turkey in a council that France simply isn't a member of.  Do you all think this means NATO supports the war with Iraq, or are they just trying to help Turkey defend itself?<span id='postcolor'>

I think its more of a desire for compromise with the Turkey situation. NATO, like the UN, is split as well. Especially since there is no attack that needs to be defended against.

I think it also shows that France is starting to find itself diplomatically isolated.