The Iraq Thread

[Pukko 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 02 2003,02:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This brings me to an interesting question that I want to ask the people opposing the war. Do you wish USA to suceed in its invasion of Iraq or would you rather see Iraq defending itself successfully?<span id='postcolor'>

I will refer to my post on this page here:

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....st=3435

If the USA goes in with UN approval (pint 3 in that post) I really hopes that everything goes perfectly well; no big amounts of civilian casaulties, no new 'highway of death', a better leadership of Iraq established and no further spread of the conflict in the middle east. Because then all of the world will be 'equally' responsible for what happens. I just hope that it do not make the Bush administration confident enough to continue its 'crusade against the evil' in other nations. I do not in any case think that Iraq has much to put up against an US invasion - and therefore that the invasion in it self could not really 'fail'.

If the USA goes in alone (read point 4 in my older post), I hope for the future of our planet that the USA will not 'succeed'. If USA in some mysterious way would be able to - after the invasion that could hardly fail in it self - make it all look good (little collateral damage or unneccesary slaughter, no spread of the conflict and a quick positive replacement of Saddam), and thereby 'eliminating' the UN and the opposing nations - it would be the start of a new and dark era of our history.

On short term it would all look good, but as all nations now are 'on their own', preemptive attacks are perfectly legitime, USA would continue the 'crusade against evil' and no UN is around to solve conflicts - it would soon be global chaos (also called WW3).

But if the USA would be considered to fail (lots of collateral damage, unnecessary slaughter, widespread conflict and failed replacement of Saddam + both home & global opinion against the war), then the UN would survive...... errm..... I dont really think there would be much positive stuff anyway, because the USA would be 'humiliated' and - read point 2 in the post.

Well, really, I think the whole situation is a failure, and all other options than the 1:st point (everyone happy) would lead to bad consequences in the long run. A faliure if USA goes in alone without UN approval, or if USA leaves in shame without invading (point 2), then the bad consequenses could be limited to USA alone (except for all people that would die in the conflict & of increased terrorism in the first case) - buts its quite unlikely that they would. The world is still under great US influence, and a negative development in the US would have more than 'US frustration warmongering' consequenses for the rest of the world. The EU might be enough independent of USA in the short future to avoid a major depression, but other regions might not...

So to counclude: I would be happy if point 1 came true, would accept it if point 3 came true, would be worried if point 2 came true, and furious if point 4 came true....

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 02 2003,04:45)</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">I can stand jokes about the president,and about usa gov't and stuff.But to wish bad things on Soldiers just because their doing there job.Now that's pretty sad.That's like saying "i hope alot of europeans soldiers die in afghanistan soo they know what the terrorist can do there". I'm not over here saying "woot we going kill bunch of iraqi soldiers,kill them dumbass ragheads".

<span id='postcolor'>

+

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe if his kid was being tortured or his wife was being raped by one of Saddam's policemen he'd have a different opinion.

<span id='postcolor'>

I misunderstood you! I thought you compared "his wife and kids" with US soldiers.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Personally I think the Iraqi people would welcome American occupation.  <span id='postcolor'>

Personally, I think you are a bit naive for believing that!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Don't get me wrong they wouldn't exactly be waving American flags during the war.  But what's better, living under an oppressive and murderous dictator as well as numerous deadly sanctions, or living under a free democracy?<span id='postcolor'>

Which alternative is better I don't know - but it sure ain't being killed by US soldiers or starved to death because of US invasion? You tell me?

[killagee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 02 2003,12:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe if his kid was being tortured or his wife was being raped by one of Saddam's policemen he'd have a different opinion.<span id='postcolor'>

in the last 5 years, there have been 5200 confirmed sexual assault convictions against American Serviceman based outside the USA. Who are the rapists???

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 02 2003,10:05)</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">I misunderstood you! I thought you compared "his wife and kids" with US soldiers.<span id='postcolor'>

I didn't say more than half of what you quoted me as saying.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Personally, I think you are a bit naive for believing that!<span id='postcolor'>

No, I'm not naive. But let's look at the facts instead of just being blinded by your anti-Bush feelings. Saddam has tortured raped and murdered his people for a very long time. Because of him being in power sanctions kill lots and lots of people. Saddam gassed his own people as well. Saddam = bad. America would bring about a lot of good things that Saddam will not. Now would you rather have the oppressive murderous dictator, or a democratic leader?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Which alternative is better I don't know - but it sure ain't being killed by US soldiers or starved to death because of US invasion? You tell me?<span id='postcolor'>

Starved to death because of US invasion? You mean starved to death because of UN sanction, right? Sanctions that a US invasion would end.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (killagee @ Mar. 02 2003,12:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">in the last 5 years, there have been 5200 confirmed sexual assault convictions against American Serviceman based outside the USA. Who are the rapists???<span id='postcolor'>

Show me how they're government sanctioned, then you might have an argument.

[HellToupee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 02 2003,19:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, I'm not naive. But let's look at the facts instead of just being blinded by your anti-Bush feelings. Saddam has tortured raped and murdered his people for a very long time. Because of him being in power sanctions kill lots and lots of people. Saddam gassed his own people as well. Saddam = bad. America would bring about a lot of good things that Saddam will not. Now would you rather have the oppressive murderous dictator, or a democratic leader?

death because of US invasion? You tell me?<span id='postcolor'>

lol u have no idea do you

[foxer 0]

I hope this war ends quickly.Because if takes more then a  year it will probably be another vietnam.Which is very bad for me.I don't wanna be  drafted.But if it takes that long ,more civilians will died along with soldiers.So i hope it ends right before it started.But if it does turn into another vietnam bush will be outta office,and probably some democrat will be elect president.

I doubt we would go after north korea after iraq.Because we are running outta soldiers.I think.I mean how many wars do we have going on now ? If  we went to war with NK it would probably be all South korea and japan soldiers.So i doubt Sk and JP would be soo ready for an war with NK.But then again shouldn't NK be a UN problem ? So that mean everyone fighting NK.I think it would be easy to pass something in the UN for war with NK.

Now iran,we might go after.I doubt we go after them now ,maybe 5 years down the road,when afghanistan,iraq,other places are clear.

[foxer 0]

1--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (killagee @ Mar. 02 2003,071)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 02 2003,12<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe if his kid was being tortured or his wife was being raped by one of Saddam's policemen he'd have a different opinion.<span id='postcolor'>

in the last 5 years, there have been 5200 confirmed sexual assault convictions against American Serviceman based outside the USA. Who are the rapists???<span id='postcolor'>

That's not too bad,i mean we have like hundreds of thousands of soldiers over seas .Their not all going be straight as an arrow.Now if they don't go to jail.Now that's when it's wrong.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (killagee @ Mar. 02 2003,07<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">in the last 5 years, there have been 5200 confirmed sexual assault convictions against American Serviceman based outside the USA. Who are the rapists???<span id='postcolor'>

We have over 100,000 troops deployed overseas at any given time. Now, over five years? that really isn't as bad as it sounds, when taken in context. Also, I'd like to point out that almost all of those convictions came about through the UMCJ, which governs US military behavior. So, if our troops break the law, we make sure they are accountable for the actions. We sure as hell don't encourage rape, and I deeply resent the implication that all American servicemen are rapists. I suggest you be a little more careful with your words.

[killagee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 02 2003,20:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (killagee @ Mar. 02 2003,07<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">in the last 5 years, there have been 5200 confirmed sexual assault convictions against American Serviceman based outside the USA. Who are the rapists???<span id='postcolor'>

We have over 100,000 troops deployed overseas at any given time. Now, over five years? that really isn't as bad as it sounds, when taken in context. Also, I'd like to point out that almost all of those convictions came about through the UMCJ, which governs US military behavior. So, if our troops break the law, we make sure they are accountable for the actions. We sure as hell don't encourage rape, and I deeply resent the implication that all American servicemen are rapists. I suggest you be a little more careful with your words.<span id='postcolor'>

You are correct. My figures are incorrect. The figure of 5200 is for only the US forces based in Japan ( "Blowback" by Charles Johnson. Time Warner, 1998 ). These are only the confirmed cases remember. In no way am I saying that Americans are worse rapists than anyone else. Brutal violence apon civilians by military personel is commonplace across the world and througout history. Why, during much of the seventies and eighties, when Saddam was at his most brutal domestically, was he one of the US's closest allies? Why did the US support (weapons, ammunition, Special forces training, and the wiping of debts) the Indonesian invasion of east timor? Good guys dont always wear white ( or their caps backwards) and the bad guys dont always wear turbans. The only way to move forward is to make all (and that includes the US) countries under the juristiction of the world court, backed by a strong UN. Any country that has bears aggresive foreign policy should lose its seat at the UN. The Five members of the Security council sell 85% of the worlds weapons. (New build and Second Hand).

Sorry if I offended anyone with the sexual assault statistic.

[killagee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 02 2003,17:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (killagee @ Mar. 02 2003,121)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">in the last 5 years, there have been 5200 confirmed sexual assault convictions against American Serviceman based outside the USA. Who are the rapists???<span id='postcolor'>

Show me how they're government sanctioned, then you might have an argument.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah true. These are not institutional cases. However the US has supported many regimes that do use civilian extorsion and terror, many almost as an official logistical process. However recently the US had tried to distance itself form many of its mercenary puppet states.

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 01 2003,02:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">8)... I have no fucking clue, there is no good fucking reason if you ask me.  It's all a bunch of bullshit if you ask me.

I hope one of your friends will die in this upcoming war... so you can see what you've done.  Apparantly the only way to make people realize that they were wrong is the hard way...

I can stand jokes about the president,and about usa gov't and stuff.But to wish bad things on Soldiers just because their doing there job.Now that's pretty sad.That's like saying "i hope alot of europeans soldiers die in afghanistan soo they know what the terrorist can do there". I'm not over here saying "woot we going kill bunch of iraqi soldiers,kill them dumbass ragheads".

I mean i think you should get a 24 hour ban.But maybe there some biased here? A european one ? hmm<span id='postcolor'>

I am not violating any of the forum rules => no ban

I can understand your anger, probable because i made my message some kind of riddle.  I was pretty pissed off at the time that i wrote it.  And let's not forget that english is not my first language, i'm only human after all...

I do not wish that any of those soldiers die, i'm just saying that people only realize what's going on when their sons get shot to pieces...

Don't take it too serious, i'm not wishing that anybody dies, because i honestly believe that life is valuable... very valuable.

I was kinda referring to Vietnam, everyone realized what was going on when it was already too late...  When the real images of war were shown people realized that some kids were being slaughtered there.  On both sides...

The only way people will realize what's happening is when this happens again, sad but if you ask me, it's the truth...

Many people don't really know what war is...  I doubt that there are a lot of veterans who are eager (sp) to fight another war...  They have seen it all, it's a crazy thing to see a grown up man cry like a little baby.  But everytime i see veterans talking about war, they all start crying.

Only war can do that...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe people would be a bit less eager for war if they had lost a friend in a war.

<span id='postcolor'>

Exactly

To FSPilot (for some strange reason i couldn't quote your message...)

The Iraqi ppl would prefer a democratic leader of course, but they do not want war and they do not want some Western idiot to rule their country.

The last thing probable won't happen, at least not for long, well... that's what i hope...

The first thing is coming their way...

[Necromancer- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 02 2003,00:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">5--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Necromancer- @ Mar. 02 2003,005)</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">funny though that people are so naÄve about Saddam.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh right, I see - you are saying that all of us not supporting a war against Iraq now - happen to love Saddam? If you do I suggest you are the one who's naive!'

Look, no one here loves, admires or are fond of dear uncle Saddam. It's just that many of us don't think it's a good idea to go to war because of the consequences.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not to mention that people are stupid enough to go to Iraq to become a human shield for civilian targets.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, I think they are silly too. However, I watched an interview on NRK (norwegian TV-station) and a girl that was on the way to Bagdad said it was not to be a human shield but to "be there and document possible war crimes on both sides". Having said that I strongly believe she was a wee bit more interested in eventual US conducted war crime.<span id='postcolor'>

If we do nothing, Saddam will stay on his throne continueing his research on biological and chemical weapons when the UN weapon inspectors left while he also will probably help Al Qaeda with their training.

I doubt any coup will be succesful, due to the massive support he has.

UN sanctions dont help, because he's cunning enough to get resources from other sources and he doesnt give a shit about it.

Besides... arent we all waging a war against terrorism?

Its better to face the consequences we know now than to face them later on.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If we do nothing, Saddam will stay on his throne continueing his research on biological and chemical weapons when the UN weapon inspectors left while he also will probably help Al Qaeda with their training.

I doubt any coup will be succesful, due to the massive support he has.

UN sanctions dont help, because he's cunning enough to get resources from other sources and he doesnt give a shit about it.

Besides... arent we all waging a war against terrorism?

Its better to face the consequences we know now than to face them later on. <span id='postcolor'>

I can´t help but this is all a bit stupid, isn´t it ?

[Necromancer- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 02 2003,14:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I can´t help but this is all a bit stupid, isn´t it ?<span id='postcolor'>

Uh... could u provide some explanation on that reply?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 02 2003,10:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (killagee @ Mar. 02 2003,07<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">in the last 5 years, there have been 5200 confirmed sexual assault convictions against American Serviceman based outside the USA. Who are the rapists???<span id='postcolor'>

We have over 100,000 troops deployed overseas at any given time. Now, over five years? that really isn't as bad as it sounds, when taken in context. Also, I'd like to point out that almost all of those convictions came about through the UMCJ, which governs US military behavior. So, if our troops break the law, we make sure they are accountable for the actions. We sure as hell don't encourage rape, and I deeply resent the implication that all American servicemen are rapists. I suggest you be a little more careful with your words.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, hell I dont like to be the one who goes totally offtopic but I have to agree on that point. I worked in South East Asia for a while and that near a harbour where the american navy often stop for resupplying its ships. The soldiers that leave those boats usually havent a seen a girl then for quite a while and are slaves of their animalistic reproduction instincts. But the Military Police is very strict and intensively patrols the club and bar districts. And those MPs never caused any troubles to the locals. If there was a fight where american soldiers and locals were involved then the MPs only acted against the soldiers. And I didnt see many soldiers molesting girls.

In Germany the american community of soldiers has always behaved well and I dont remember any incidents where we had troubles with american soldiers in clubs or bars.

On the other hand I believe that sexual harassment WITHIN the army is quite an issue.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 02 2003,07:19)</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">I didn't say more than half of what you quoted me as saying.

<span id='postcolor'>

I know that - but you were replying to foxers post!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, I'm not naive.  But let's look at the facts instead of just being blinded by your anti-Bush feelings. <span id='postcolor'>

Yes, you are being naive. And I am certainly looking at the facts - read my posts, they are all about facts. It wouldn't make a difference who had the office - but I strongly suspect a proven perjuror is less dangerous to the rest of the world than the inbesile currently in presidency.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saddam has tortured raped and murdered his people for a very long time. <span id='postcolor'>

Yes he's a nasty bugger - and you may soon join the club if you invade Iraq.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Because of him being in power sanctions kill lots and lots of people. <span id='postcolor'>

With good help from UN's strongest supporters (when it suits them) !

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saddam gassed his own people as well. <span id='postcolor'>

Even though he has always fought the kurds I'm inclined to go with you on this one - which brings Joschka Fischers question to Rummybumy: Warum jetz? You certainly didn't care that much when it happened!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now would you rather have the oppressive murderous dictator, or a democratic leader?

<span id='postcolor'>

Get this into your head: Bush is not a democratic leader of Iraq!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">America would bring about a lot of good things that Saddam will not.  <span id='postcolor'>

Expect the iraqi people to feel the same way when counting their "collaterale damage".

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Starved to death because of US invasion?  You mean starved to death because of UN sanction, right?  Sanctions that a US invasion would end.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, read this then (oh sure, we all know that Reuters are very biased and probably commies too! ) :

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">U.N. warns of food humanitarian crisis in Iraq

By Samia Nakhoul

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The U.N. World Food Programme (WFP) said on Tuesday a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq might disrupt government food handouts to millions of sanctions-hit Iraqis and lead to a widescale humanitarian crisis.

"There is a very substantial part of the population dependent on the food distribution, and therefore if the system breaks down there will be a major humanitarian crisis," Torben Due, WFP's representative in Iraq told Reuters in an interview.

"The conflict can potentially lead to a large scale humanitarian crisis...Something should be done to avoid this crisis," he added.

Due said the majority of Iraqis, impoverished by 12 years of U.N. sanctions and with a large proportion already suffering from malnutrition, solely depend on the government food handouts every month and could be primary victims.

"If that system stops functioning, we will have a very sustainable part of the population that will not be able to go out and buy food and eat because their income is so little," he said.

Iraq's 25 million population still live under United Nations trade sanctions imposed on Baghdad after its 1990 invasion of Kuwait and face the threat of a U.S.-led war if Baghdad fails to disarm under U.N. resolutions.

Due said while WFP and other U.N. agencies are still hoping for a peaceful settlement to the standoff between the United States and Iraq, they have been preparing contingency plans "for the worst case scenario".

CONTINGENCY PLANS

He said WFP has contingency plans to provide assistance to 4.9 million people for a period of six months and it might provide help for 10 million but would not be able to substitute the government distribution system.

"It is impossible to establish an alternative to the current Iraqi government distribution system. It is a very effective system. Every citizen in Iraq gets the food rations regularly," Due added. "So what we will be doing is to support and supplement the system not to replace it."

U.N. agencies have already positioned hundreds of tonnes of relief supplies in the region, including medicines, nutritional supplements for children and water equipment as part of a broader U.N. effort to be ready for a humanitarian crisis.

Girding itself for a U.S.-led war, the Iraqi government has distributed food rations to Iraqis that could last until July.

Due said many households would have enough food but not the poor, who normally sell part of their rations because they are their main source of income, to cover other needs.

Under an oil-for-food programme, which started in 1996, Iraq is allowed to sell unlimited quantities of oil to buy food, medicine and other humanitarian needs to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people.

U.N. relief officials said Iraq distributes 450,000 tonnes of food every month and it would be quite impossible and very expensive to airlift food supplies in such quantities.

The rations include wheat, flour, sugar, rice, milk powder, tea, salt, detergents, soap, beans, lentils and cooking oil. The basket is 2,470 calories a day but does not include fruit, vegetables, or meat.

Due said a new war would result in infrastructure breakdowns, including water supplies and electricity, and the outbreak of disease. Malnourishment, already high among children under five, is also expected to increase.

"The situation today in Iraq is not like 13 years ago, the coping mechanism of the Iraqi people is much less than it was 13 years ago, therefore any interruption in this oil-for-food programme will have a serious effect on the humanitarian situation."

<span id='postcolor'>

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/598469

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Quote  

America would bring about a lot of good things that Saddam will not.  

Expect the iraqi people to feel the same way when counting their "collaterale damage".

I would just like to bring up two things here. You are stating that the US would bring a lot of "good things". What the hell is that supposed to mean? "good things"? Good things like Democracy? Well then I can tell you that if there is a democratic election in Iraq then this would release many forces but definetly not the democratic streams. The most influences opposition forces in Iraq are Mullahs. And a Mullah as the new leader of Iraq would be an option that would kick Iraqs human rights right back to the stone-age (reference Afghanistan). And true democracy would mean to let this happen.

Of course you believe it to happen as Mr. Bush described it, just the same way as it was with Germany. Finding a jew-killing Nazi country and quickly turning it into a civilised democratic coalition partner with a flourishing industry.

Indeed it was great imagery that Mr. Bush used in his speech but he deliberately ignored one little thing. Germany was a country with a long democratic history and western values (before Hitler). But Iraq is a totally different story. Democrary is not the key to success and happyiness. The USA simply does not have the experience to claim that they will be able to perfectly understand and solve the issue IRAQ after a war.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Mar. 02 2003,15:09)</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 would bring about a lot of good things that Saddam will not. <span id='postcolor'>

This statement belongs to Fspilot.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Expect the iraqi people to feel the same way when counting their "collaterale damage"<span id='postcolor'>

And this one is mine - I'd say I totaly agree with you.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Mar. 02 2003,15:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But Iraq is a totally different story. Democrary is not the key to success and happyiness. The USA simply does not have the experience to claim that they will be able to perfectly understand and solve the issue IRAQ after a war.<span id='postcolor'>

Exactly. I think it is very wrong that we assume that our values are the 'right ones'. Democracy is our model of preference but it doesn't mean that everybody agrees on that. I think that one minimum requirement is that we respect other cultures and political systems. If we start bombing countries with the purpose of establishing a democratic system, we are no better then the terrorists who attacked the WTC out of contempt for our system.

Societies have their natural evolution and development. We must not interfere or we will only create new conflicts. A global homogenization is not desirable. The goal should be that we respect our differences while working together.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 02 2003,12:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Societies have their natural evolution and development. We must not interfere or we will only create new conflicts. A global homogenization is not desirable. The goal should be that we respect our differences while working together.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't think we will ever fully realize this. But I agree, that's how it should be. I also think that having too many unions of mixed wold cultures will simply continue to drag the entire world into conflict. It's a strange idea, but it's true.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 02 2003,03:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> hmmm....By the way - Turkey's national assembly has turned down the proposal of letting 60 000 US soldiers into Turkey soil.<span id='postcolor'>

A CNN correspondent said, "The problem for some Turkish parliamentarians is that they felt compelled to act according to the wishes of their constituencies."  Yes... this is indeed a great problem that the democracies of the USA and Britain seem to have solved.    LOL

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 02 2003,03:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also, relating this to the above mentioned points - how would anyone even think of something so stupid as try to change/reform the middle east with brute force?<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"The Arabs understand only force."  -- Ariel Sharon<span id='postcolor'>

[Guest]

Anthrax, VX uncovered in Iraq

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

SIGNIFICANT quantities of anthrax and VX nerve agent have been accounted for during ongoing excavations in Iraq, Iraqi presidential adviser Amer al-Saadi has said.

He said excavations at the al-Aziziya air base, 104km south-west of Baghdad, had also uncovered bomb fragments.

Iraq insists it destroyed tonnes of toxic agents unilaterally in 1991.

The discovery was announced as UN biological experts arrived for talks with Iraqi authorities.

"So far we have reached a figure not quite 157 (tonnes of anthrax), but we are nearing it, there is work in progress," Saadi told a news conference.

"So far, more than eight (bombs) have been found which were intact, not perforated, which could be tested for the material inside."

Saadi also said there was "another question with the anthrax, which is the bulk material that was left over, that was unfilled and that was unilaterally destroyed also".

The material "is in a site called al-Hakam, and this is what the meeting (with the UN experts) this evening is all about".

"The destruction site is known and it is still undisturbed and we could look for DNA signatures of those materials and perhaps we could quantify this material, not just qualitative tests, but quantitative tests to estimate how much was destroyed there," Saadi said.

"That, in addition to the 157 tonnes in al-Aziziya, will make the total."

He said 1.5 tonnes of VX still to be accounted for "was unilaterally destroyed in a dumping site near al-Muthanna State Establishment, and we have made analyses which strongly indicate that the total material was destroyed there".

That was also being discussed in the talks, he said.

"The results that we have made so far indicate something which is near, quite near, that total (that) was destroyed there."

<span id='postcolor'>

Let me guess what the White House is going to respond to that:

"Resolution 1441 called for complete, total, and immediate disarmament. It did not call for pieces of disarmament. This is just a part of their games of deception."

[Snoopy 0]

Human Shields group fleeing Iraq

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It heightened fears among some peace activists that they could be stationed at non-civilian sites. Mr Meynell and fellow protesters who moved into the power station in south Baghdad last weekend were dismayed to find it stood immediately next to an army base and the strategically crucial main road south to Basra. Iraqi officials said there was little point in guarding what they considered to be low-risk targets.

<span id='postcolor'>

[Longinius 1]

"But what's better, living under an oppressive and murderous dictator as well as numerous deadly sanctions, or living under a free democracy?"

When Nazi Germany invaded Russia during WW2, the population had a choice.

1) Welcome the Germans as liberators from an oppressive government. Face it, as long as you werent a jew you were pretty well of in Germany compared to Russia at the time.

2) Fight for Stalin in defense of the oppressive regime.

Most people chose option 2. Not because Stalin forced them, but because they were being invaded. They didnt care who it was invading them, but the fact was, someone was attacking them and trying to force their ways on them.

My fear is that many Iraqis will react the same way. They will see the US as aggressors, even if they might be better of under the rule of the US than that of Saddam.

And no, I am not saying that USA = Nazi Germany. I am talking about invading armies, not about ideology.