The Iraq Thread

[Pukko 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 13 2003,00:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">None in this forum or elsewhere loves Saddam, and most wish he would go to hell - and stay there!<span id='postcolor'>

Ah, my good Norwegian friend, so you are preparing a safe haven for Saddam in Hell are you now?

I actually lived right nextdoor to Hell when I worked (and moved in with my stuff into a room in the hangar) at a chopper company at Trondheim (Vćrnes) Airport in Norway

Here is the map, should you like going to Hell:

Here's a picture from Hell station (to use when going to Hell by train instead of by plane):

And here's a link to Hell Hotel (its quite busy, be sure to make you reservations in good time):

Hell hotels - Find cheap prices & discount hotels in Hell

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @ Mar. 13 2003,03:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 13 2003,00:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">None in this forum or elsewhere loves Saddam, and most wish he would go to hell - and stay there!<span id='postcolor'>

Ah, my good Norwegian friend, so you are preparing a safe haven for Saddam in Hell are you now?

I actually lived right nextdoor to Hell when I worked (and moved in with my stuff into a room in the hangar) at a chopper company at Trondheim (Vćrnes) Airport in Norway

Here is the map, should you like going to Hell:

Here's a picture from Hell station (to use when going to Hell by train instead of by plane):

And here's a link to Hell Hotel (its quite busy, be sure to make you reservations in good time):

Hell hotels - Find cheap prices & discount hotels in Hell

<span id='postcolor'>

Hehe I love that!

Actually, Saddam would fit in very well since all people up there has a moustache - and pretty big ones too! I'm sure you noticed that when you were up there? And they are all mad - possibly not as mad as he - but close!

There is a joke we have here in the south about people from Trřndelag (or hell for that matter). I don't know if you are familiar with the term "rĺnete" or "harry" (the swedish term might be "raggare" ) but in order to be just that you must own a very old Volvo - preferably an Amazon. Anyway, if you venture up there and happen to be a "southerner" you will risk being beaten up and consequently bear the mark of Volvo on your forehead - a result of those fellas slamming your skull into the hood of a Volvo!

[Pukko 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 13 2003,03:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hehe I love that!

Actually, Saddam would fit in very well since all people up there has a moustache - and pretty big ones too! I'm sure you noticed that when you were up there? And they are all mad - possibly not as mad as he - but close!<span id='postcolor'>

Of course! And you know what? Usama bin Laden use to hang around there with his friends George W. Bush & co too  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is a joke we have here in the south about people from Trřndelag (or hell for that matter). I don't know if you are familiar with the term "rĺnete" or "harry" (the swedish term might be "raggare" ) but in order to be just that you must own a very old Volvo - preferably an Amazon. Anyway, if you venture up there and happen to be a "southerner" you will risk being beaten up and consequently bear the mark of Volvo on your forehead - a result of those fellas slamming your skull into the hood of a Volvo!

<span id='postcolor'>

Bush and bin Laden was actually the leaders (sharing the dictatorship) of Trřndelags most feared "raggers" - The Hells Angels. Indeed they got one hotrod Amazon each, and they were real heavy duty I tell you!    They played Twisted Sisters on max volume on their Volvo-original stereos, and everyone not headbanging when they passed got forced to do some head banging into their flame-painted hoods  

They were really the reason I could not stand it anymore and had to quit, you norwegians are way too hardcore for me  

[brgnorway 0]

0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @ Mar. 13 2003,050)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 13 2003,03:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hehe I love that!

Actually, Saddam would fit in very well since all people up there has a moustache - and pretty big ones too! I'm sure you noticed that when you were up there? And they are all mad - possibly not as mad as he - but close!<span id='postcolor'>

Of course! And you know what? Usama bin Laden use to hang around there with his friends George W. Bush & co too  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is a joke we have here in the south about people from Trřndelag (or hell for that matter). I don't know if you are familiar with the term "rĺnete" or "harry" (the swedish term might be "raggare" ) but in order to be just that you must own a very old Volvo - preferably an Amazon. Anyway, if you venture up there and happen to be a "southerner" you will risk being beaten up and consequently bear the mark of Volvo on your forehead - a result of those fellas slamming your skull into the hood of a Volvo!

<span id='postcolor'>

Bush and bin Laden was actually the leaders (sharing the dictatorship) of Trřndelags most feared "raggers" - The Hells Angels. Indeed they got one hotrod Amazon each, and they were real heavy duty I tell you!    They played Twisted Sisters on max volume on their Volvo-original stereos, and everyone not headbanging when they passed got forced to do some head banging into their flame-painted hoods  

They were really the reason I could not stand it anymore and had to quit, you norwegians are way too hardcore for me  <span id='postcolor'>

Spot on! hmm...Do I sense some sarcasm here?

Anyway, lets get on with the topic:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Despite the speculation that a resolution may never be tabled, Britain has nonetheless been proposing amendments to its draft motion, which it hopes will make it more palatable to Security Council members.

.........The six new tests of disarmament include demands for Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to make a public statement admitting he has weapons of mass destruction .......

<span id='postcolor'>

Now - how silly is that?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2845665.stm

[Col. Kurtz 0]

And even if he did that and announced to the world he had WMD, Britain and American would probably use it as an excuse to bomb them to the stone-age anyway.

My conspiracy machine says this- imagine the resolution passes so Hussein has to jump through all these hoops and do these thing. I doubt Hussein would admit to having WMD, so thatw ould mean that Iraq had failed to comply with the resolution, thus war time at the zoo.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Mar. 13 2003,05:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And even if he did that and announced to the world he had WMD, Britain and American would probably use it as an excuse to bomb them to the stone-age anyway.

My conspiracy machine says this- imagine the resolution passes so Hussein has to jump through all these hoops and do these thing. I doubt Hussein would admit to having WMD, so thatw ould mean that Iraq had failed to comply with the resolution, thus war time at the zoo.<span id='postcolor'>

Something tells me you are right

[Pukko 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 13 2003,05:25)</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">Despite the speculation that a resolution may never be tabled, Britain has nonetheless been proposing amendments to its draft motion, which it hopes will make it more palatable to Security Council members.

.........The six new tests of disarmament include demands for Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to make a public statement admitting he has weapons of mass destruction .......

<span id='postcolor'>

Now - how silly is that?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2845665.stm<span id='postcolor'>

Actually I'm quite sure that the real demand was for Saddam to make that public statement on live TV (I'm almost 100% that message was told on SVT news last night) too.... sounds almost as stupid as "freedom fries" to me

whoa, time for bed  

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @ Mar. 13 2003,05:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 13 2003,05:25)</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">Despite the speculation that a resolution may never be tabled, Britain has nonetheless been proposing amendments to its draft motion, which it hopes will make it more palatable to Security Council members.

.........The six new tests of disarmament include demands for Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to make a public statement admitting he has weapons of mass destruction .......

<span id='postcolor'>

Now - how silly is that?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2845665.stm<span id='postcolor'>

Actually I'm quite sure that the real demand was for Saddam to make that public statement on live TV (I'm almost 100% that message was told on SVT news last night) too.... sounds almost as stupid as "freedom fries" to me

whoa, time for bed  <span id='postcolor'>

On live TV eh?

"Target that signal and fire!"

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 13 2003,15:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">On live TV eh?

"Target that signal and fire!"<span id='postcolor'>

Make sure that all his generals, and espicially Udai (however its spelt) Hussein are standing right next to him when you do that if you please

[Jinef 2]

Indeed, that would be a nice way to end the day. Watch the news and see a live killing!

[Guest]

Since the whitehouse has dismissed all of Saddams statements and actions as "lies and deception" what on earth would make anybody think that they would trust what Saddam said on Iraqi TV?

[Balschoiw 0]

There is a chance Bush and Saddam will meet some day unplanned. They both have the same shoemaker in Italy

No shit. Saddam has some freaky shoe style (still a revolutionary man) but Bush´s taste is quite conservative and boring. Maybe his mum still selects them for him ?

I don´t remember the name of the company, but it is well known and filmstars also have their shoes made there along with presidents and wannabee´s. The pair starts at 2000 Euro and there is no upper limit.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 13 2003,20:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is a chance Bush and Saddam will meet some day unplanned. They both have the same shoemaker in Italy<span id='postcolor'>

Who was most probably Imelda's supplier, too, I bet.

[Balschoiw 0]

The boss of the company couldnt hold to say that Mr Bush prefers shoes from old europe to the ones made in the USA for several times during the interview.

And he had a biiiig grin in his face.

[The Ferret 0]

Hello again,

Been reading the posts and would just like to throw in my penny's worth...some observations and comments about what I've been reading. It will cover various topics.

1. France: I'm not going to get into the whole thing about the quality or lack of quality regarding the French military. I will say I have no appreaciation for the french character at this point. Iraq is in violation of the treaty that ended GW1. If France, and europe in general, would have applied the efforts of their protests against what Iraq has ALREADY done, and not against what America has SAID it will do, that pressure may have well been enough to have ended this already. Instead, they actually increased the likelyhood that there will be a war, and increased the amount of blood that will be shed in that event. Hasn't France been fighting in the Ivory Coast to protect it's interests and citizens? Add to all this that the fact, according to the United States Tour Operators Association, that American tourists in France are being cursed in the streets and being told to go home. Am I to take it that it's no longer just the US government that they hate now? At this point the only thing France has yet to do: send us a modification kit for the Statue of Liberty...a big middle finger to replace the torch, and the means to rotate it TOWARDS New York City.

2. WMD's: If the Iraqi military is issuing Chemical gear to it's soldiers, and orders to use the devices to it's field commanders, can we all just agree that yes, Saddam has them, and no he shouldn't have them. For those of you that honestly believe he does not have WMD's, can you please tell me when Saddam had the big change of heart? Tell me when you first noted the "kinder, gentler" Saddam. If you are going to tell me it's because the US may use Chemical weapons against Iraq, you need to understand that US doctrine concerning the deployment of chemical weapons is similar to that of deployment of minefields...to deny the enemy an area, not to fight through it or in it. Exactly the kind of weapon you won't deploy on an assault.

3. Inspections: If Iraq is cooperating per the UN resolution, why is there a need to "give inspections time to work"? If they are not cooperating, why? Given the size of Iraq, can inspections work without Iraqi cooperation? If Iraqi cooperation is necessary, and they are not fully cooperating, what are we waiting on to work exactly? Why is Blix leaving reports concerning cluster bombs and drones out of the final report? Does a gun smoke before its been fired or after?

4. American's role in WW2: (Just tell me where I'm wrong, and why America has an inflated view of it's participation). America strongly resisted entrance into WW1. Europe called repeatedly on our participation. American leadership used the rather thin excuse of the death of 124 American's aboard the Lusitania, to push for War. By wars end the American Expeditionary Force was at 2 million men on the ground in Europe. Would it be unfair to say that US entrance was the turning point in the War? The US went home, and disarmed. At the beginning of WW2 the US had one of the smallest and most ineffective militaries in the world. Everyone's equipment was superior to our own, not to mention the level of training. So much so that, both Japan and Germany, handed our asses to us several times in the early battles. America entered the war and the outcome is history. Now, let's talk about the US role. Several of you have pointed out that the USSR was the real hero. Fine, but I want to put that in perspective, because I do think we have some credit due us. I cannot deny that 8 of every 10 German soldiers killed were killed on the Russian Front. I would never deny the blood, skill, or bravery of the Soviet soldier. However, I would submit that a large part of that success is because of American involvement thru the Lend Lease Program. I do not think that Germany would have won against Russia, the battles insuring Soviet survival were won or stalemated before much of the American support started rolling in. But think about the Russian Offensives and ask yourself if the USSR would have been able to mount them, or been able to counter German Offensives without this US (and other Allied) support:

20,000 Armoured Fighting Vehicles (tanks, half-tracks, SP Artillery, the Sherman was widely used in Soviet Tank Training Regiments because it was mechanically more reliable than the T-34)

151,000 1.5 ton trucks

201,000 2.5 ton trucks (thats about 59% of the trucks used by the soviets)

52,000 motorcycles

2 million tires

7000 anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns.

2400 Field guns and artillery pieces.

81,000 machine guns

103,000 tons of toluene (used in production of TNT, USSR produced 116,000 tons...they would have had 50% less explosives without our aid)

476,000 tons of 100% octane aircraft fuel.

8,000 aircraft

5.5 million combat boots

4.5 million tons of food stuffs ( saw a History Channel special on the T-34 tank. An old crusty Russian tank soldier talked about how much they enjoyed American canned beef)

23 million yards of military cloth

317,000 tons of explosives (that includes the afore mentioned toluene)

22 million shells ( How many of those shells killed Germans? Arty was the biggest killer in WW2 you know.)

It goes on and on...a study of this will show that a lesser percentage of this equipment was British, and I don't snub my nose at that, but isn't it also fair to say that the US was propping up Britain and keeping her going long before the US was formally involved in the war? Wasn't it US built Liberty Ships that kept supplies flowing to Britain? I hear alot about "The USA's late entry into the war...DEC 41. The USSR entered JUN 41. Six months is the difference between "late" and "hero" eh? And after the war? We were told, by all countries participating in the Lend-Lease Program: "We cannot, and will not repay the debt." America didn't whine or moan, or demand.

I gotta go to work...chew on that. If you flame me, at least be fair and honest. I'm trying to be! Forgive any errors in spelling or grammar.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (The Ferret @ Mar. 13 2003,21<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">America strongly resisted entrance into WW1. Europe called repeatedly on our participation. American leadership used the rather thin excuse of the death of 124 American's aboard the Lusitania, to push for War. By wars end the American Expeditionary Force was at 2 million men on the ground in Europe. Would it be unfair to say that US entrance was the turning point in the War?<span id='postcolor'>

Yes it would be extremely unfair. Americas participation in WW1 was minimal and irrelevant. You say that you sent 2 million men? Try 30,000 men for the first few months - later when the situation setteled down, you sent more.  This in a war where individual battles could kill over 300,000 men. The total number of casualties of ww1 were in the range of 20 million. There were about 53,000 American casualties most that occured in the single larger battle that you were involved in (Meuse-Argonne).

So America's role in WW1 was truly irrelevant - the Aussies for instance did much more. It's a grave distortion of history saying that you saved France's butt in WW1.

WW2 is a completely different story where USA was instrumental in defeating the Nazis. Without USA, Soviet would have done it, and IMO that would have been a worse option.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">3. Inspections: If Iraq is cooperating per the UN resolution, why is there a need to "give inspections time to work"? If they are not cooperating, why? Given the size of Iraq, can inspections work without Iraqi cooperation? If Iraqi cooperation is necessary, and they are not fully cooperating, what are we waiting on to work exactly? Why is Blix leaving reports concerning cluster bombs and drones out of the final report? Does a gun smoke before its been fired or after?<span id='postcolor'>

They are cooperating after a fashion. They are cooperating enough that the inspectors who are independent and unbiased feel that they can perform their job (which they didn't in 1998 if you remember). Is full Iraqi cooperation necessary? Not according to ElBaradei (head of IAEA). In short the inspectors say that they can complete their work and if anybody can make that judgement it's them. Blix leaving out reports? No, it was all in his report, it's just the US opinion that those things are violations of the terms of 1441, which the inspectors havn't verified yet. As for the smoking gun, they're actually just looking for the gun and havn't found it. Neither the inspectors nor the intelligence agencies of the world have mangaed to find any substantial chemical and biological weapons that Iraq hasn't declared.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2. WMD's: If the Iraqi military is issuing Chemical gear to it's soldiers, and orders to use the devices to it's field commanders, can we all just agree that yes, Saddam has them, and no he shouldn't have them. For those of you that honestly believe he does not have WMD's, can you please tell me when Saddam had the big change of heart? Tell me when you first noted the "kinder, gentler" Saddam. If you are going to tell me it's because the US may use Chemical weapons against Iraq, you need to understand that US doctrine concerning the deployment of chemical weapons is similar to that of deployment of minefields...to deny the enemy an area, not to fight through it or in it. Exactly the kind of weapon you won't deploy on an assault<span id='postcolor'>

There is no credible evidence at all that Saddam has ordered the deployment of chemical weapons. And about him having a change of heart - it's not sudden. Their interest in chemical and biological weapons phased out after the war with Iran. Most noticable is that they did not use any WMDs in GW1.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> France: I'm not going to get into the whole thing about the quality or lack of quality regarding the French military. I will say I have no appreaciation for the french character at this point. Iraq is in violation of the treaty that ended GW1. If France, and europe in general, would have applied the efforts of their protests against what Iraq has ALREADY done, and not against what America has SAID it will do, that pressure may have well been enough to have ended this already. Instead, they actually increased the likelyhood that there will be a war, and increased the amount of blood that will be shed in that event.<span id='postcolor'>

This is another silly distortion of the truth. It's not France that is a danger to peace, it's USA. And this is not a speculation, just the stating of a fact. Bush is the one talking about a war. France is saying that as long as the inspectors feel that they can complete their work that we should let them. And sure, Bush's war monging has put pressure on Baghdad to cooperate with the inspectors, but it's irrelevant since Bush's mind is set on going to war no matter what.

As for the "French character" - I'm Swedish and I agree with their position 100%. Sweden was not helped by the US in any way in any military conflict. On the contrary, as a matter of fact several of my direct ancesters fought on the American side during your little insurrection against the British. So if we apply your logic, you should be kissing my ass out of gratitude, not vice versa. Trying to dismiss a valid political position with references to historical events is silly.

[Balschoiw 0]

Thank god Denoir already answered this post. it saves a lot of typing for me.

But this one:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Inspections: If Iraq is cooperating per the UN resolution, why is there a need to "give inspections time to work"? If they are not cooperating, why? Given the size of Iraq, can inspections work without Iraqi cooperation? If Iraqi cooperation is necessary, and they are not fully cooperating, what are we waiting on to work exactly? Why is Blix leaving reports concerning cluster bombs and drones out of the final report? Does a gun smoke before its been fired or after?

<span id='postcolor'>

definately has to be commented as it is wrong.

Iraq IS cooperating on full scale. UN inspectors tell what they want and Saddam does it. You got the U2 planes, the scientists, the inspectors number increased and they were not ONCE kept from doing their work. They were granted 100 percent entry to any facility.

The CIA played a dubiouse card with it´s "proof" and "information" they claimed to have on WMD´s in Iraq. They finally gave some info to UN inspectors and what did they find at the locactions (BTW they already knew the locations) ? Nothing ! Nothing , nothing , nothing. Not even a trace of WMD´s. So THE reason at that time to go for war was worth ..you guess..nothing !

Propaganda is one thing. But if you abuse CIA or other intelligence services like the Mi5 to spread or invent reasons for a war that are de facto nothing than bullshit you cross a line. A big line. You betray your public. And you intend to kill people for lies your secret services set up.

You may not understand that checking facilities for WMD´s in Irak takes time, but it does. It´s not the US to decide it´s the UN. The inspectors say they need more time. Is this so hard to understand ? By now you don´t have ANY WMD on your list found in Irak. The nuclear threat your president put on first row some time ago is non existant. The link to AQ is non existant.

I feel more betrayed by US government at the moment than by Saddam who has his panties down. But if all this should not be enough for you it is a basic things that you have to believe the UN inspectors that say they haven´t found anything significant till now. They are the ones to decide, not the US who never were able to establish CIA agents in Irak undetected. You maybe want to check the famous history of the CIA in Irak. It is a good laughter.

[Sam Samson 0]

stick with it, ferret!

eh, that denoir guy is just scramblebrained.

and that he is for blix-krieg is no surprise. blix is a swedish civil servant. you can't rise any higher in sweden than becoming a civ.

I've been giving the deep fissures appearing between europe and the US over iraq some thought. you know: why is it that they're going rabid with anti-americanism and anti-semitism (again) without being able to present a coherent strategy of their own? (12 years of inspections haven't brought us any further. what do they want? another 12 years? they might die of smallpox thanks to saddam in the meantime.)

three points come to mind:

the US is basically a religious, in many parts a decidedly christian nation.

europe deems to have overcome the religion upon which their civilizations were founded. thus they are angry at the percieved backwardness of the US and mock it.

second: the US is a capitalist country, believing in hard work and making good money.

europeans are at heart socialists, priding themselves in their cushy welfare states (now approaching bankruptcy, while the capitalist US is the hyperpower of the world, showing europe's underlying philosophy to be faulty. arrgh, the anger! the shame! there's only one remedy: fullscale denial!

third: europeans don't believe in the significance of the nation state. they currently seem driven to abolish what is left of their once great nations and desperately try to melt into something grander (?), like the european union, to me a benign form of the old soviet union. they love fuzzy terms like "international community." there's nothing in them that makes them believe in their individual nations. all sing the high praises of being part of some group.

the US on the other hand has since its inception believed that it had a call, that it is the "city on a hill", meant to be a beacon to the world. and it is!

the current iraq crisis is just baring these fissures in the trans-atlantic relationship.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (The Ferret @ Mar. 13 2003,21<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wasn't it US built Liberty Ships that kept supplies flowing to Britain? I hear alot about "The USA's late entry into the war...DEC 41. The USSR entered JUN 41. Six months is the difference between "late" and "hero" eh? And after the war? We were told, by all countries participating in the Lend-Lease Program: "We cannot, and will not repay the debt." America didn't whine or moan, or demand.<span id='postcolor'>

Two points:

Yes, it was the US built Libery Ships and Lend/lease that helped keep Britain alive.  And it was Canadian escorts that kept those ships from being even more of a target for the Wolfpacks!  Not knowcking the US here at all, but WWII really was an effort of many nations.  Yes the US was a big player, but not the only one.  

I do have to agree with you about the USSR being a 'late' entry into WW II.  And if Hitler hadnt launched Barbarosa, they may have stayed out until much later as welll.  The difference between the US and the USSR is this:  The war was fought on the steppes and in the streets of the Soviet Union.  Many cities were leveled, and millions of civilians were killed.  How many US cities were beseiged for months, almost the entire civilian populations wiped out or starved to death?  Um...None.

This doesnt mean the US contruibuted any less.  If the US hadnt entered the war, we'd likely all be speaking Russian now.  So I suspect a lot of people are eternally grateful.  

The difference between then and now is that your President seems to be on a course that only war will solve.  And that sits very poorly with people who have seen a lot of war and death on their own territory.   And while I find the French position to be a little unpalatable at time (Chiraq and company are being just as irrationaly pigheaded in my opinion as Bush is), I am much more in support of continued inspections and allowing inspectors to do their job.  Iraq IS complying, albeit slowly and carefully.  And that is as much to do with the threat of force imposed by the US as anything else.  And in that way, Bush has essentially won already.  Sadly, I think the Bush administration decided a long time ago that only a war was going to work.  And that's wrong.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Mar. 13 2003,23:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">second: the US is a capitalist country, believing in hard work and making good money.

europeans are at heart socialists, priding themselves in their cushy welfare states (now approaching bankruptcy, while the capitalist US is the hyperpower of the world, showing europe's underlying philosophy to be faulty. arrgh, the anger! the shame! there's only one remedy: fullscale denial!<span id='postcolor'>

Firstly, while I was tempted not to, you get 48 hours PR for your attack on Denoir. either that or we let people say exactly what they think of you. And that would turn the board into a mess of flames in all direction. And that isnt going to happen.

Secondly,

Yeah, the US is a wonderful place to live! That's why the HMO's lobbied the company that makes the allergy medication Clarines to turn it into an over the counter medication. That way they dont have to pay for it. After all, it was cutting into their profit margins too much! Now people who need this medication just to live a normal life have to pay for it out of their own pockets... meaning less money to put food on the table. And the rich get richer! Oh, and dont forget about the pharmacists that lose money because theft of that product has skyrocketed . I am not saying that socialised medecine is always better, but in most cases it's better for EVERYONE than the situation in the US. I know one guy that works at Microsoft, and STILL has to do dentistry on himself (I kid you not! because he is a 'contractor' and doesnt receive benefits. And paying for benefits for him and his family would eat up nearly HALF of his paycheque.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Mar. 13 2003,23:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and that he is for blix-krieg is no surprise. blix is a swedish civil servant. you can't rise any higher in sweden than becoming a civ.<span id='postcolor'>

I am for an independent assessment of the situation in Iraq. Somehow I doubt that the CIA can make an objective one. The UN is on the other hand an organization whose primary task is to represent the entire world, without any bias to individual nations. USA has recognized this since they were instrumental in creating the UN.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I've been giving the deep fissures appearing between europe and the US over iraq some thought. you know: why is it that they're going rabid with anti-americanism and anti-semitism (again) without being able to present a coherent strategy of their own? (12 years of inspections haven't brought us any further. what do they want? another 12 years? they might die of smallpox thanks to saddam in the meantime.)

<span id='postcolor'>

Rabid anit-americanism and anti-semitism? Yes of course, everybody who disagrees with you is a nazi. What about your rabid anti-muslim and anti-european sentiments of lately?

Now for your three points, I actually agree with them mostly.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the US is basically a religious, in many parts a decidedly christian nation.

europe deems to have overcome the religion upon which their civilizations were founded. thus they are angry at the percieved backwardness of the US and mock it.

<span id='postcolor'>

Indeed. But it's not quite like that. Try telling the Italians that they are not religious! No, the difference is that we have learned to accept and respect other relgions and that we separate church from state.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">second: the US is a capitalist country, believing in hard work and making good money.

europeans are at heart socialists, priding themselves in their cushy welfare states (now approaching bankruptcy, while the capitalist US is the hyperpower of the world, showing europe's underlying philosophy to be faulty. arrgh, the anger! the shame! there's only one remedy: fullscale denial!

<span id='postcolor'>

Yes and not really. Europe is certainly more left on the political scale then USA is. Your claim that our economy is going down the drain - think again. The EU is doing quite ok right now taking the macroeconomical climate into consideration. USA on the other hand... what was it? -300 billion dollars (going from a surplus of 400 billion)! And now you have to finance a war, all by yourselves...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">third: europeans don't believe in the significance of the nation state. they currently seem driven to abolish what is left of their once great nations and desperately try to melt into something grander (?), like the european union, to me a benign form of the old soviet union. they love fuzzy terms like "international community." there's nothing in them that makes them believe in their individual nations. all sing the high praises of being part of some group.

the US on the other hand has since its inception believed that it had a call, that it is the "city on a hill", meant to be a beacon to the world. and it is!

<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, I agree. The reason for that is that we have had 1000 years of nation states and have evolved beyond that. Perhaps you should learn from our experience

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the current iraq crisis is just baring these fissures in the trans-atlantic relationship.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes it is in part, but let's not forget that you want to bomb the hell out of a country for no substantial reason. I think that it has something to do with it too..

[Jinef 2]

At least the Briish troops in the Gulf are prepared, true lot's of them don't like the idea of this war due to the public opinion but they are ready to do their part, however if America doesn't need their assistance then fine in my opinion, let's pull out and see America deal with their national security threat.

The French position is perfectly justified, they interpret that as no WMD have been found that none of the resolutions have been broken so there is no need for a war and they are trying to uphold civilised diplomacy here. I think Britain should be adopting the same stance on the war.

How many of you warmongers can actually get official evidence of WMD in Iraq? The mst obvious source of this is probably Blix and his gang, as they have found nothing and have reported adequate cooperation then techinically there is no justification.

A second resolution would be like the 1939 act hitler created to give him complete power, France is pefectly justified to be able to oppose this.

Also considering that America uses their veto on every sensible resolution that comes out i don't think we can criticise france for improper use.

[HellToupee 0]

im sure without lend lease the germans would have won, a quote from a russian general to stalin

"they can push us back to the urals, and we will still win"

Also the sherman was much hated by russian tankers, it was weak,and had high profile, the t34 was a far better tank, lend lease was around 8% of what the soviets had.

[Jinef 2]

Okay back to Iraq - who thinks Tony will keep trying to buy time?

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Mar. 14 2003,07:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Okay back to Iraq - who thinks Tony will keep trying to buy time?<span id='postcolor'>

Me!

I think Blair has come to the conclussion that it would be political suicide to go to war with Iraq without UN backing so he wants a resolution to pass, and I reckon he is willing to make far more consessions than America.