The Iraq Thread

[Balschoiw 0]

applause

Although I disagree with afghanistan a bit. But that is a different story.

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Feb. 19 2003,20:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">applause  

Although I disagree with afghanistan a bit. But that is a different story.<span id='postcolor'>

That's because you want peace no matter what happens.

If america didn't do something in afghanistan there would be lots of piss off americans at bush and muslims.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If america didn't do something in afghanistan there would be lots of piss off americans at bush and muslims. <span id='postcolor'>

I understand the motivations behind the war in afghanistan, but the way this goal is being achieved is not my way. The effects of the war in afghanistan seem to fade more and more. Warlords grab their guns again and former vice president is gathering taliban and al quaeda forces at the border to pakistan. There is civil war right now and the only "relatively" savezone is Kabul. Not to compare with a real "safezone" of course. But as I already said that´s a very different story, so let´s sneak back to Iraq and have some buttertea

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Feb. 19 2003,20:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I haven't read this yet, do you have a source about the letter from Bush?<span id='postcolor'>

Only the article in Swedish that I posted a while back. It was an interview with our foregin minister Anna Lindh who said that it was discussed during the EU meeting two days ago. I found another article here but I'm afraid that they are just refering to her statements.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Feb. 19 2003,20:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

If america didn't do something in afghanistan there would be lots of piss off americans at bush and muslims.

<span id='postcolor'>

I agree that something had to be done. I think however that USA is going the completely wrong way about this whole 'War on Terror' business. Afganistan showed that. You can't stop terrorists by invading countries. AQ has terrorist cells all over the world and they are highly mobile. They are integrated into the normal civilian structures of the society. A military defeat of a country doesn't change that.

Terrorists are not like a hostile country and their forces are not like a country's military. While the WTC attacks were on a grand scale, terrorist are still just a form of criminals in the core. They have to be flushed out as such. Global police work is the answer, not military intervention.

Europe had a lot of problems with terrorism during the '70s. They were often sponsored by the Soviet Union and East Germany. We solved the problem in the end. Not through military action but through police work. The situation with AQ is a bit different since they are much more international then the European terrorists were, but the principle holds. On the other hand we still have problems that havn't been solved with the IRA and Bask separatists. They have however been sedated through political solutions that led to diminishing support for their cause.

It is very important to point out that force is not the only thing that is required to stop terrorists. A parallel political effort is required so that people become less willing to become terrorists. Therefor it is imperative that you understand what the root cause of the terrorism is.

So I would say that two major components are required:

[*] Global police work to catch the terrorists

[*] Political work to prevent people from wanting to become terrorists

USA is going IMO in the completely wrong direction on both points. Military action is prefered before police work. Instead of trying to mend fences with the muslim world USA seems to do its best to piss it off. The sum of the results is that you don't catch the terroists since the military isn't organized to do that kind of work and you end up getting more enemies and potential future terrorists each day through ignorant politics.

[9mm 0]

I'd support military action against Iraq under one condition:

USA HAVE to help to build a stable and predictable (the best would be of course democratic) govement in this country.

And yes i wouldn't consider military action against Iraq as a part of war on terror, as like Denoir said you can't fight terrosism with tanks and bombers, becouse the final effect is quite opposite from what whas expected.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So I would say that two major components are required:

Global police work to catch the terrorists

Political work to prevent people from wanting to become terrorists

<span id='postcolor'>

I would say that the "second Denoir's commponent" despite beeing pretty long-term one would bring greater results than any military (or even police) action.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 19 2003,20:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And with everything I have ever seen, the assumption that Saddam is in league with terrorists is essentailly flawed.<span id='postcolor'>

You may want to reconsider re-phrasing to the effect that "the assumption that Saddam is in league with Al-Qaeda is essentially flawed."

1) It's common knowledge that Saddam pays off the families of Palestinian "martyrs."

2) Remember Abu Nidal, the man who frickin' personified terrorism in the 80's?  Guess where he lived and trained from '74 to '80.  Oh yeah -- he "committed suicide" in Baghdad last year by shooting himself in the head four times.  Sounds like someone in Iraq was doing a little housecleaning.

IMHO, whether he has terrorist ties is irrelevant.  The issue here is 687 and 1441.

Semper Fi

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 19 2003,23:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">IMHO, whether he has terrorist ties is irrelevant.  The issue here is 687 and 1441.

Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'>

Apparently, these don't count because there isn't a 'universal consensus'

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 19 2003,21:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can't stop terrorists by invading countries... A military defeat of a country doesn't change that.<span id='postcolor'>

Granted it won't stop terrorism, but it will damned sure make it riskier for other countries to openly sponsor it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 19 2003,21:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Global police work is the answer, not military intervention.<span id='postcolor'>

There's a time and a place for both.  FBI agents were unable to make any progress in Yemen due to lack of cooperation.  How far do you think they would have gotten in Afghanistan?

Semper Fi

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (9mm @ Feb. 19 2003,22:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'd support military action against Iraq under one condition:

USA HAVE to help to build a stable and predictable (the best would be of course democratic) govement in this country.

And yes i wouldn't consider military action against Iraq as a part of war on terror, as like Denoir said you can't fight terrosism with tanks and bombers, becouse the final effect is quite opposite from what whas expected.<span id='postcolor'>

That would probably mean selling iraqi oil.Which then can be turn around as saying the USA is only doing this for oil.In which case the war will never have legit reason,because people will think that iraq has something other then oil to sell.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Feb. 19 2003,15<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 19 2003,07:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Exactly, it becomes a question of loyalty. How can the EU trust them in the future when they go off crying to the US?<span id='postcolor'>

They have not joined the EU jsut yet, and in the future, it's obvious they need to have everything spelled out on how to proceed while preserving dignity for the EU.  For instance you don't see Texas running off to the EU on it's own (lol), the states show solidarity.<span id='postcolor'>

Wrong analogy.

Unless you are saying the EU is a single country then it fits, otherwise it doesn't. A closer analogy for Texas writing the EU would be Normandie, or Hamburg writing a letter of support to the US.

So if the EU isn't a single, political entity, then the Eastern European nations had every right to speak their mind. The fact that there is no consensus in the EU itself about support for the US pretty much proves this, being many political machines under the nominal control of one over-reaching political machine. The EU is a confederacy, a loose grouping of states under the minimal control of a larger government. These states still control their own political make-up, and deal with their own political issues within their borders. As with the Confederacy int he 1870s, all the states dealt with their own laws and governing, while the Confederacy government in Virginia (Richmond) made broad political policy that the states could choose to go with or ignore based on their needs. The birth of the Confederacy? The government in Washington told the southern states what to think and do, and the southern states didn't take kindly to that.

The US is not made up of automaton states. Even within our own borders, the Mayor's Associations, City Associations, and even individual state governments will make statements against or in support of Washington policy. Granted they don't send it right to say the EU, for example, but then again the Eastern European states aren't part of the EU yet are they? Even within Congress what can you see as far as votes, beyond the usual political line? States voting for laws, measures, and resolutions. These represent not only political parties, but constituant complaints and fears as well. What can you see when one Texas Representative votes yes for a law and the other votes no? Hell what do the peace marches throughout the US, when war is the line tell you? I think you get the picture.

From the statement and threats by Chirac it becomes clear that a melting pot of political ideas and ethnic makeup is not wanted nor desired. Automatons seem to be the desired members. "You don't toe the line, we won't admit you." The US has been heavily criticized for that very tactic (even in a post in the past few pages), and yet when Europe does it, it is justified. Seems like a strong double standard to me. While at one point criticizing the US for "blackmailing" states into support, Chirac is backed up and praised even for doing the same thing. Double standard, and arrogancy presuming Europe can do no wrong.

Chirac had no right to tell the Eastern European states to "shut up," whether they sent a letter or not, nor was he justified in threatening them with cancelation of their EU applications. They are independant political entities and are quiet free to think as they want.

EDIT: Bad spelling and clarified the "Texas Analogy"

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Texas is not a good example at all, because an American state is not sovereign as such, and has clear limitations set upon it by our federalist system. Among those limitations is that no state may make their own treaties or agreements with foreign countries. Now, contrast this with the European countries in question, which are sovereign states and not bound by any federal limitations. France has no business threatening these countries with rejection from the EU, much the same way the US doesn't have any business strong-arming the same countries into supporting our policy. However, like Akira pointed out, you are applying a double-standard: when America applies economic pressure, it is blackmail, when France does so, it is realpolitik that is highly praiseworthy. Smell that? That would be hypocrisy.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Feb. 19 2003,14:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Feb. 19 2003,20:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">applause

Although I disagree with afghanistan a bit. But that is a different story.<span id='postcolor'>

That's because you want peace no matter what happens.

If america didn't do something in afghanistan there would be lots of piss off americans at bush and muslims.<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, and that's worse than the war? Anyway, many people on these forums forget that war is almost always the worst answer and the most devastating one.

{I was trying to post this 3h ago but something got wacky }

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 19 2003,17:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Feb. 19 2003,15<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 19 2003,07:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Exactly, it becomes a question of loyalty. How can the EU trust them in the future when they go off crying to the US?<span id='postcolor'>

They have not joined the EU jsut yet, and in the future, it's obvious they need to have everything spelled out on how to proceed while preserving dignity for the EU. For instance you don't see Texas running off to the EU on it's own (lol), the states show solidarity.<span id='postcolor'>

Wrong analogy.<span id='postcolor'>

What are you doing explaining this in depth? It was lun joke. (my French skills show) I was not trying to give the best analogy out there, just how.... man, never mind.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Feb. 20 2003,01:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 19 2003,17:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Feb. 19 2003,15<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 19 2003,07:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Exactly, it becomes a question of loyalty. How can the EU trust them in the future when they go off crying to the US?<span id='postcolor'>

They have not joined the EU jsut yet, and in the future, it's obvious they need to have everything spelled out on how to proceed while preserving dignity for the EU.  For instance you don't see Texas running off to the EU on it's own (lol), the states show solidarity.<span id='postcolor'>

Wrong analogy.<span id='postcolor'>

 What are you doing explaining this in depth?  It was lun joke. (my French skills show)  I was not trying to give the best analogy out there, just how.... man, never mind.<span id='postcolor'>

Then your joke was wrong.

And I was bored...

But my explanation was only the first sentence. My main point (admitedly long winded), and Tex's as well, was pointing out the hypocrisy and double-standard of it ok for Chirac to blackmail Eastern European states, but not the US.

Shows some what of a prejudice towards the US, and the ethnocentric "we can do no wrong" attitude that so many Europeans hate in the US posters (but have shown time and again that they themselves have).

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 19 2003,23:o4)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 19 2003,20:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And with everything I have ever seen, the assumption that Saddam is in league with terrorists is essentailly flawed.<span id='postcolor'>

You may want to reconsider re-phrasing to the effect that "the assumption that Saddam is in league with Al-Qaeda is essentially flawed."

1) It's common knowledge that Saddam pays off the families of Palestinian "martyrs."

2) Remember Abu Nidal, the man who frickin' personified terrorism in the 80's?  Guess where he lived and trained from '74 to '80.  Oh yeah -- he "committed suicide" in Baghdad last year by shooting himself in the head four times.  Sounds like someone in Iraq was doing a little housecleaning.

IMHO, whether he has terrorist ties is irrelevant.  The issue here is 687 and 1441.<span id='postcolor'>

Rather than beating around the bush, E6Hotel, could you please describe what you perceive to be the most relevant threat posed against the USA by Iraq?

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 19 2003,19:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Then your joke was wrong.

And I was bored...

But my explanation was only the first sentence. My main point (admitedly long winded), and Tex's as well, was pointing out the hypocrisy and double-standard of it ok for Chirac to blackmail Eastern European states, but not the US.

Shows some what of a prejudice towards the US, and the ethnocentric "we can do no wrong" attitude that so many Europeans hate in the US posters (but have shown time and again that they themselves have).<span id='postcolor'>

GET OFF OF IT! What are you talking about? You are saying I had a prejudice making fun of the EU when compared to the US? Don't you understand how simple it is what i wrote? There is no deep down information there about me. Other than Texas is the first state that comes to my mind today.

EDIT: FYI my joke is not wrong, when I joke around it's indended to be funny sometimes in more than one way, it was funny that it's not a really good analogy as well as it being close enough to be a good message on how the EU should handle it's matters.

EDIT2: Sorry I'm kind of pissed off already today after someone tried to tell me that V=IR means as voltage increases current decreases when R is constant... geez

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ok, now you are starting to sound like FSPilot. <span id='postcolor'>

Bwahahaha! I'm spreading.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If I remember correctly he is the one who has in a two year period started one war and about to start another. And before you start saying that you were the ones that were attacked first I'll just point out that it wasn't Afganistan who attacked you. You started the war against Afganistan since they refused to extradite certain persons.

Bush is the main danger to peace and stability in the world.<span id='postcolor'>

OK, I was sitting on my hands until I saw this. The US did not start the war on Afghanistan, we only attacked. In other words, Afghanistan (namely, the Taliban) provoked us and technically attacked us, though indirectly. So no, we did not start the war in Afghanistan. And by going through with the war in Afghanistan we are trying to get peace in the world. Al Queda certainly wasn't picking flowers.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Interesting reading...can anyone verify if these are true fatcs?<span id='postcolor'>

While we're taking things out of context, guess which country aggressively invaded the majority of europe in the 1930-40s in an attempt to take over the world?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">On the subject of violations of WMD treaties... <span id='postcolor'>

Rumsfeld addressed that earlier today in his press release. Said there weren't any real plans underway.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Isn't it interesting that UNMOVIC insists Iraq prove the destruction of the agents, even though UNMOVIC remains unsatisfied with the proof of their existence. <span id='postcolor'>

No, since UN inspectors found the weapons in 1998, but no evidence of their destruction since then.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Feb. 20 2003,02:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 19 2003,19:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Then your joke was wrong.

And I was bored...  

But my explanation was only the first sentence. My main point (admitedly long winded), and Tex's as well, was pointing out the hypocrisy and double-standard of it ok for Chirac to blackmail Eastern European states, but not the US.

Shows some what of a prejudice towards the US, and the ethnocentric "we can do no wrong" attitude that so many Europeans hate in the US posters (but have shown time and again that they themselves have).<span id='postcolor'>

GET OFF OF IT!  What are you talking about?  You are saying I had a prejudice making fun of the EU when compared to the US?   Don't you understand how simple it is what i wrote?  There is no deep down information there about me.  Other than Texas is the first state that comes to my mind today.

EDIT: FYI my joke is not wrong, when I joke around it's indended to be funny sometimes in more than one way, it was funny that it's not a really good analogy as well as it being close enough to be a good message on how the EU should handle it's matters.<span id='postcolor'>

You need to calm the hell down there freak.

Teh gistof my post wasn't even directed at you.

So as you say..."Get off it"

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 19 2003,20:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You need to calm the hell down there freak.

Teh gistof my post wasn't even directed at you.

So as you say..."Get off it"<span id='postcolor'>

Am I calling you names somewhere???

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 20 2003,02:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You need to calm the hell down there freak.<span id='postcolor'>

Flaming and namecalling is not acceptable. It's a violation of the §1.1 and I'm giving you 24h off the forums.

Read the forum rules!

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 20 2003,02:10)</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">Interesting reading...can anyone verify if these are true fatcs?<span id='postcolor'>

While we're taking things out of context, guess which country aggressively invaded the majority of europe in the 1930-40s in an attempt to take over the world?<span id='postcolor'>

America?

[OxPecker 0]

Just a quickie offtopic: where the heck do I find the § character on my keyboard? I copied/pasted that one from Denoir.

[Balschoiw 0]

should be SHIFT 3

I have german keyboard so maybe this will lead you into doom

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sorry I'm kind of pissed off already today after someone tried to tell me that V=IR means as voltage increases current decreases when R is constant... geez

<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe this is precise enough to put you in a better mood

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 20 2003,10:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OK, I was sitting on my hands until I saw this.  The US did not start the war on Afghanistan, we only attacked.  In other words, Afghanistan (namely, the Taliban) provoked us and technically attacked us, though indirectly.  So no, we did not start the war in Afghanistan.  And by going through with the war in Afghanistan we are trying to get peace in the world.  Al Queda certainly wasn't picking flowers.<span id='postcolor'>

Whats to stop Bin Laden turning around and saying that America provoked him thus technically attacking him and Al Quada forcing him to have to attack America back?