The Iraq Thread

[Guest]

I really like Rush Limbaugh and I check his site on a regular basis. It's better then the Onion.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pete @ Mar. 15 2003,00:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">always intresting to see denoir, longinus, bgnorway, pukko and others on one side of the fence fighting against tex, akira, foxer and others.....

later all.

Pete<span id='postcolor'>

Nice to hear from you again Pete

Are you still "mental" ?

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

What about the other links FSpilot posted?

PBS

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh....da.html

Or the guardian network

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/archive/article/0,,4296646,00.html

And in a positive move somewhat related to Iraq Bushs Arab/Israeli peace initiative

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

War is hell!

No more war!

And no more September the 11ths!

There. Now Bush and Blair will realise the error of their ways and Saddam and the islamist terrorists will become nice fellows

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And in a positive move somewhat related to Iraq Bushs Arab/Israeli peace initiative <span id='postcolor'>

That´s ridiculouse. The major financer of the Israeli seddlement policy now wants to tell us they will change their course. It´s propaganda to get public back on wartrack. Nothing else.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Blair rejected suggestions the announcement was a public relations exercise timed to coincide with the climax of the Iraq crisis.<span id='postcolor'>

You guess...

I want to see actions not proposals. Bush has made a lot of proposals lately but I can´t see any of them getting true.

Blair will have his head washed this weekend. US , spain, and the Brits stand pretty alone now as the 6 undecided countries offered there own plan for Iraq. This plan will give the Iraq more time to disarm and does NOT include the option of a war yet.

So it´s basically 2 countries now that want to go to war without UN. Not much. Spain will get its bill from the EU for their behaviour. Aznar is already politically dead with the tanker incident. A war with spanish participation will eject him from his leader position as 80 percent of the spanish people oppose a war. Blair´s air is getting thinner and thinner as he wants to make it right for his public and the US. This does not work at all. In my opinion his days are running out also.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

I think it IS an initiative urged by Tony Blair aimed at making the middle east policies of America look (and actually be) more even-handed. Call it public relations if you want.

But now that Bush has said it hed better actually do something about it.

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

-Preempting a preemptive attack against a planned preemptive attack?

"But if the United States takes action to stop an Iraqi first strike, especially if they try to seize and protect the oil fields, U.S. officials admit they may end up starting the war itself."

\/

ABCNews

\/ interesting journal of independant journalist.(with views on Iraq issues ,not missing some apparent Orwellian implications of the above report)

- http://www.back-to-iraq.com/

[Balschoiw 0]

News:

March 11, 2003: Despite being outgunned, the two Kurdish groups controlling northern Iraq are prepared to counter a feared Turkish incursion into northern Iraq. The Turkish Army has stated that it will enter the region to provide the Iraqi people humanitarian aid, and will not open fire on anyone unless forced to. There are three clearly stated reasons the Turks would get violent: If Kurdish groups attack ethnic Turkmen groups in the area or attempt to establish an independent Kurdish state or if they attempt to occupy the strategically important cities of Mosul and oil-rich Kirkuk. An independent Kurdish state in Iraq could become a base of operations for Turkey's own restive Kurdish separatist movement.

Overnight on March 8-9, there were unconfirmed reports that the Turks had sent tanks into northern Iraq. Local civilians said that under cover of darkness the tanks used "portable metal bridges" to cross the Hezil River dividing Turkey and Iraq. Military officials would not confirm the report. Journalists photographed a Turkish military convoy including "hundreds" of armored vehicles (M60A3 main battle tanks and truly ancient M44T 155mm self-propelled guns) heading to the border, but only 26 kilometers from Zaho (or Zakho), Iraq.

The Turks also dismissed speculation over the movement of "foreign military equipment", categorically denying that it was part of any cross-border plans and was merely part of a continuing effort to upgrade Turkish military facilities. - Adam Geibel

March 8, 2003: Iraqi Kurd guerrillas and militias are now training to stop an attack by Turkish forces. These are not PKK units, but units from Iraq's KDP and PUK factions. The Post reporter was in KDP country.) The Kurds do not buy the Turkish claim that Turk troops would enter Kurdish zones only to deflect refugees fleeing fighting inside Iraq and heading north to Turkey. While the Post article says this creates a "formula for a war within in a war" (ie, a war within the US-Iraq conflict) that's not quite correct. The Turk-Kurd war is already an on-going affair. There has been a "working arrangement" among the Turkish military and the two main Iraqi Kurd factions. The Turks aim at the PKK and leave the KDP and PUK alone. The PUK and KDP receive various types of support from Turkey, but everyone knows Iraqi Kurds occasionally aid their cousins in the PKK. Could Turk and Kurd fighting escalate in Iraq? Sure. Who loses? The Kurds lose big. Turkey has airpower and trained and motivated troops. But Turkey also loses as the Kurd War inside Turkey reignites. Turkey doesn't want an independent Kurdistan emerging from a post-Saddam Iraq. In a sense the Kurd training the Washington Post reporter observed is classic information warfare. The Kurds send a message to Turkey and the world that they are suspicious of Turkish motives and --whatever the post-Saddam political arrangements may be-- intend to defend their autonomy against Iranians, Turks, and Baghdad. (Austin Bay)

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think it IS an initiative urged by Tony Blair aimed at making the middle east policies of America look (and actually be) more even-handed. Call it public relations if you want.<span id='postcolor'>

A bit contrary to this:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">March 13, 2003: The 29 month war with the Palestinians has hurt the Israeli economy and cuts in the budget are being made. This includes a $730 million reduction in military spending over the next two years. Israel is trying to get billions of dollars in "compensation" out of the United States for Israel's cooperation (that is, not attacking Iraq) in the upcoming war with Iraq. The US has not agreed to this, feeling that removing Saddam Hussein from power would eliminate a major enemy of Israel and that should be compensation enough.<span id='postcolor'>

I am sure that Israel will get money. Maybe not billions but they will get support.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Denoir- you are right , the French did not say they would veto ANY US/ UK resolution. They said they would veto any US/ UK resolution -authorising war- WHATEVER the situation.

According to this (MSNBC) report America is currently engaged in trying to dissuade Turkey. They should really be talking to the Turkish army instead of the prime minister.

Im not sure yet how far the Turkish army will go, they dont want to piss the US off too much, but they dont want Kurdistan either. If the US pledges to prevent the rise of an independant Kurdistan then Turkey -may- settle for that.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/885615.asp

[The Ferret 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq is getting illegaly bombed every day by US & UK planes, so special forces on the ground wouldn't be so much more radical<span id='postcolor'>

Denoir,

UN Resolution 687 which was in regards to the terms of the GW1 armistice, gave Iraq 15 days to disclose EVERY WMD in possession, and the details of all WMD development programs.

It gave them 45 days to begin complete destruction and dismantling. The consequence of failure? Military action. Iraq never complied...that was back in 1991. UN 1441 echoed many of the demands and thousands of liters of VX and anthrax remain un accounted for.

So is US/UK bombing illegal in the legal sense?

Or illegal in your Swedish/French sense of morality?

And what about this French morality. I remember how you said that your were from Sweden and how you backed the French postion 100%. Later you talked about loyalty and asked where was US loyalty to France's "peace" initiative.

Now im finding out that Iraq's telephone company is French!

That France makes over 3 Billion dollars a year on Iraqi Food for Oil and Money for Oil deals. I'm finding out that France and other European countries have attended trade shows in Iraq, and been promised all sorts of great business opprotunities in Iraq as soon as trade sanctions are lifted.

Did you know that good ol' Jack ChIraq has referred to Saddam as "my good friend"? Going back to the days when they sold them the nuclear reactor, didn't that business deal go down while Iraq was engaged in the Iraq/Iran war? I would think that in the French interest of "peace", and in their high sense of morality would have precluded the conduct of business deals while Iranian peoples were being killed by Iraqi bullets.

I must say, I'm confused. I lift my blood stained American hands to my head and rub! Surely, only America is capable of putting money before morals!

[Pete 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That France makes over 3 Billion dollars a year on Iraqi Food for Oil and Money for Oil deals.<span id='postcolor'>

how much does the US make for the same deals?

its nothing new, besides France is one of the many countries who would like to have the sanctions on Iraq removed, only ones wanting to keep the sanctions are Usa and England.

all our countries are making money on Iraq and the sanctions, but not all our countries like to see 500.000 children die before reaching the age of 4 just to make more money.

not all our countries like to feel responsible for the terrible drinking-water quality in Iraq that kills thousands and thousands of people...if the sanctions placed on iraq would allow them to buy/get decent water-pumping/cleaning equipment lives would be saved, but of course...just in case saddam makes more deadly wmd's....bah!

more people have now lost there lives becouse of the sanctions than saddams wmd's, a lot more...

quite funny...i remember one of the last things i wrote on this forum nearly a year ago, it was a comment about "Bush's plans on starting a war on Iraq by forcing new weapons-inspections on Iraq and then, after inspectors failure or Saddams refusal, attack Iraq.

i remember that very clearly and i never was suprised that USA still wants to start a war even if the inspections are actually working and saddam is cooperating.

from the start USA wanted this war, not to remove wmd's.

we can easily call bush a "liar" when he says that he wants a "peacefull solution" or that he "prays for peace".

im against this war, but i dont expect anything to stop it, it already started the day bush cheated his way to precidency, i just hope that it will be very bloody war, a war that will kill millions of civilians and soldiers, i hope it will be so damn bloody that americans never again lets a president as bush into power again, i hope this war will be so cruel that americans self get chocked over it, i hope that somehow americans will get to see what war really is and what it does....things as precision bombs, smart bombs or what ever are still just bombs, bombs that kill and destroy anything they land upon when dropped, or if unlucky, later when Iraqi people gets blown up ten years after the war when stumbling on bombs that never exploded...

im so tired of the constantly warmongering USA, not one year passes without America at war, not even one month...if the US is only involved in small wars then they are threatening to start larger wars somewhere else....so believe me, i HOPE that this war will be so savage that it will end future wars waged by USA.

according to the UN, the only wars that are legal are "defensive wars" or "war to stop a threat to the world-peace"

saddam's Iraq justifies none of those reasons to be used...

and i hope Bush chokes on his "freedom fries"!!

(i know...strong words, but im a little bit mental still, and tired)

[DarkLight 0]

Today there were demonstrations again all over the world, not as much people came as last time but there were pretty much ppl on the streets. Especially in the East a huge amount of people protested against Bush. And again, this shows what a war will do, nobody wants a war to come.

While Iraq is giving more evidence that they don't have any weapons, the US gov makes fake evidence, i can't believe some ppl don't understand why not many ppl like Bush.

One thing is for sure, if America goes to war, i and a lot more ppl will not accept it. I wonder if the US gov realizes how much hatred they are creating...

Once this war starts a lot of ppl will be sick of it and the US will feel that. Maybe even harder than they ever wanted...

Do you think we'll just sit on our asses and say: "Oh well... let's just accept the war"?

Do you really believe that crap? Do you really think that all the men who walked the streets today with fake dynamite on their bodies will not react once a war starts? One thing is for sure, i will react... and many others will too!

[Placebo 29]

The question I ask myself is how many bags of "freedom fries" could good ol uncle Saddam buy to feed his starving people instead of using the money to build lavish palaces and weapons stockpiles etc.

[FSPilot 0]

Lets not ignore this. We've got pictures that don't appear to be forged to me, and are from a professional source. And two unbiased sources that these pictures suggest are true. Why isn't this convincing?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's not the point. The point is that true or untrue, thr source is indeed biased, and FS did well to point it out ahead of time.<span id='postcolor'>

No, that's not what I said. Rush Limbaugh is biased, but the pictures aren't biased, the guardian isn't biased, PBS isn't biased.

[Pete 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (placebo @ Mar. 15 2003,19:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The question I ask myself is how many bags of "freedom fries" could good ol uncle Saddam buy to feed his starving people instead of using the money to build lavish palaces and weapons stockpiles etc.<span id='postcolor'>

heh..freedom fries are not healthy, would kill a lot of people.

i read an article some time ago about just that problem.

saddam actually does have enough food to feed the iraqi population as food if the one thing he gets for the oil, BUT..the iraqi regime lacks money to transport the food.

really, not kidding..it was something pretty complicated as that they dont have money to lease trucks from other countries to transport the food, and Iraq's own trucks are breaking down due to lack of maintenance.

that article did however point out that the food was handed out to the people as evenly as just possible and without any difference of the people's "race" (you know..kurdish, shia, sunni..etc).

if to dumb it down a bit...its like you get soup but no bowl to eat it from.

Iraq just doesnt have any money, the money that they do have is "private money"...as saddams own personal billions of dollars, but i agree with you, he should hand out some of that money to help his own people.

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (placebo @ Mar. 15 2003,19:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The question I ask myself is how many bags of "freedom fries" could good ol uncle Saddam buy to feed his starving people instead of using the money to build lavish palaces and weapons stockpiles etc.<span id='postcolor'>

he should buy unicef rations instead , much better on a nutritional plan .....

[Warin 0]

No, the US isnt the only nation with 'blood' on its hands when it comes to Iraq.

As for the original UN declaration in 91 being essentially ignored and unenforced..that would go down to Bush Sr as much as Clinton.

I am surprised that no one has mentioned, in regards to the Limbaugh links, that the majority (if not all) of the 9/11 terrorists received their flight training not in a shadowy camp in Iraq, but in US flight schools. Oh, and they were Saudis, not Iraqis.

It's funny that anyone who suggests that war is a bad idea is immediately labelled as Pro-Saddam. I am certainly not pro Saddam!

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Mar. 16 2003,00:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">he should buy unicef rations instead , much better on a nutritional plan .....<span id='postcolor'>

Well, pennies would give us our daily dose of copper.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Mar. 16 2003,00:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am surprised that no one has mentioned, in regards to the Limbaugh links, that the majority (if not all) of the 9/11 terrorists received their flight training not in a shadowy camp in Iraq, but in US flight schools.  Oh, and they were Saudis, not Iraqis.  <span id='postcolor'>

They were trained to fly a plane in Florida. They were trained to hijack a plane in Iraq. "Hijacking" isn't a course usually offered by US flight schools.

[Pete 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 15 2003,19:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lets not ignore this.  We've got pictures that don't appear to be forged to me, and are from a professional source. And two unbiased sources that these pictures suggest are true.  Why isn't this convincing?<span id='postcolor'>

the pictures of that aircraft on the field?

so what?..even if they do actually have it there, perhaps its used for ANTI-terrorism training??

i could hand you a picture of an american aircraft scrapyard and declare that as a huge terrorist training camp.....since a picture speaks better than a thousand words......

why dont you just show us a picture of a iraqi mudhouse and claim it as proof that bin laden lives in it as saddams lover every other weekend, thus connecting saddam with bin ladens AQ-network.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So is US/UK bombing illegal in the legal sense?<span id='postcolor'>

In basic terms yes. The bombardment runs were never validated by the UN. The No-fly - zone was set up by US, Brits and tata the french. The french pulled out very soon as they realized that the bombs often hit different targets as the officials claimed. Civillian structures were more a target than military ones.

I wonder how much AA tanks and facilities Iraq has ? Must be

thousands of them if you check the number of bomb runs.

The violations from US and Brits of their own tasks are currently checked by UN as the main targets for bombers are civillian installations. They also tend to violate other countries airspace. Iran is a neighbour and it´s not that smart to fly into their airspace, but anyhow it happened several times by "accident". Same with turkmenistan. I really like the messages from combined forces that look somethinbg like this all the time:

"After being targetted by Iraq AA units missiles/bombs were deployed at the targeting unit and other military installations. There is no confirmation for the destruction of the targeting unit."

This way the allies in bombs make sure that noone outside Iraq can setup a list of destroyed AA units in Iraq. What it is good for ? It could be easily counterchecked and if you compared the number of AA units Iraq has plus 20 percent we possibly don´t know about, you´ll see that no single AA unit should be in Iraq anymore. Furthermore they bombed "AA units" that often that the number of Iraqs AA must be 28 times higher than we know. That´s why they never tell if a target was destroyed or not.

And sure, water pumps and roads are a real threat to pilots....

It´s either this or the pilots are that bad that they miss targets multiple times. I don´t talk of 1 missled shot per 100. It must be more than 50 percent mislead shots if you take the reports of the allied forces literally.

It´s another lie that they shoot AA units only. A big one.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">we can easily call bush a "liar" when he says that he wants a "peacefull solution" or that he "prays for peace".<span id='postcolor'>

Yes I call TBA liars. They tried to convince the world to go to war with false and setup stories. To do this for a war is betraying the world at it´s best and therefore they get the "biggest liar of the year medal" from me.

Don´t come up with Saddam now. He has not threatened or is planning to attack the US on it´s ground with allies from Europe, is he ?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">according to the UN, the only wars that are legal are "defensive wars" or "war to stop a threat to the world-peace"

saddam's Iraq justifies none of those reasons to be used...<span id='postcolor'>

Exactly ! The only seriouse threat to world peace I can see right now is the TBA and India - Pakistan at the moment.

But as ever the ME is far from the US so they probably think it´s not a big problem...

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 15 2003,19:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Mar. 16 2003,00:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">he should buy unicef rations instead , much better on a nutritional plan .....<span id='postcolor'>

Well, pennies would give us our daily dose of copper. <span id='postcolor'>

What the hell are you talking about???

Unicef

All I can assume is you are talking about Unicef donations at Halloween... usually pennies

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pete @ Mar. 16 2003,00:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the pictures of that aircraft on the field?

so what?..even if they do actually have it there, perhaps its used for ANTI-terrorism training??

i could hand you a picture of an american aircraft scrapyard and declare that as a huge terrorist training camp.....since a picture speaks better than a thousand words......

why dont you just show us a picture of a iraqi mudhouse and claim it as proof that bin laden lives in it as saddams lover every other weekend, thus connecting saddam with bin ladens AQ-network.<span id='postcolor'>

We have reliable sources telling of an aircraft fuselage in Iraq being used to train terrorists. Now we have a picture of an aircraft fuselage in Iraq. Seems pretty conspicuous to me

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Mar. 16 2003,00:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What the hell are you talking about???

Unicef

All I can assume is you are talking about Unicef donations at Halloween... usually pennies <span id='postcolor'>

LOL, can't get one past you.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 15 2003,19:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Mar. 16 2003,00:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am surprised that no one has mentioned, in regards to the Limbaugh links, that the majority (if not all) of the 9/11 terrorists received their flight training not in a shadowy camp in Iraq, but in US flight schools.  Oh, and they were Saudis, not Iraqis.  <span id='postcolor'>

They were trained to fly a plane in Florida.  They were trained to hijack a plane in Iraq.  "Hijacking" isn't a course usually offered by US flight schools.  <span id='postcolor'>

Two points:

Firstly, it doesnt take a lot of training to hijack a mid week low occupancy flight, especially in pre 9/11 'security' concious times.

Secondly, the articles implied that terrorists got flight training at a secret base in Iraq. If that claim is false... then what does that say for the validity of the other, hmm?