The Iraq Thread

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 22 2003,06:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wait a second...you just said no use for force...yet you acknowledge that US pressure was making inspections work...

Hello? US pressure was for FORCE. More importantly the theat of force...what I've been saying the whole damn time...

Oh whatever...go sit back on your throne.<span id='postcolor'>

For fuck's sake, France was not against the potential use of force. France was against <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>AUTOMATIC</span> approval of force. They required the UN inspectors to make the call, not that it is invoked automatically based on pre-defined conditions.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ two posts above)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What had Saddam cooperating was the reports from the inspectors. A no to automatic force is a no-brainer if you support the inspections. <span id='postcolor'>

what made Saddam cooperate was the fact that 1441 passed unanimously, and international action will be taken if he doesn't cooperate.

Saying a no to automatic force means that there won't be an immediate consequence of cheating, which would hint to Hussein that he might be able to play the dangerous game, which he is happy to do. a disregard of automatic force would mean that for the force to be used, there has to be discussions, and means more likely that there will be more talks, and time consuming happening.

1441 did not give automatic use of force to begin with, and i have no idea why France is so worried about that part even before the results of inspections came in.

unfortunately, if it weren't for Bush's threats, Iraq would not have let inspection go as they were. then, it would constitute a failure of inspection. than it should be heading towards the solution. what France is saying is that they want more talks if that failure comes, while automatic force means that as soon as inspection fails, the military action is taken. that immediate action would be the deterent of Iraq's failure to fulfill inspection cooperation.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Mar. 22 2003,06:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ two posts above)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What had Saddam cooperating was the reports from the inspectors. A no to automatic force is a no-brainer if you support the inspections. <span id='postcolor'>

what made Saddam cooperate was the fact that 1441 passed unanimously, and international action will be taken if he doesn't cooperate.

Saying a no to automatic force means that there won't be an immediate consequence of cheating, which would hint to Hussein that he might be able to play the dangerous game, which he is happy to do. a disregard of automatic force would mean that for the force to be used, there has to be discussions, and means more likely that there will be more talks, and time consuming happening.<span id='postcolor'>

You are forgetting the inspectors. France suggested that a briefing would be held each week and that the cooperation would be evaluated. And as for it being time consuming, well, that's better then to go off and start killing people because you are impatient.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1441 did not give automatic use of force to begin with, and i have no idea why France is so worried about that part even before the results of inspections came in.

<span id='postcolor'>

This was about the second resolution that USA/UK wanted to force through. One should also note that USA did not abandon that resolution because of French/Russian/Chinese vetoes but because they lacked the majority in the SC to get it through. None of the permanent members needed to use it's veto.

[Akira 0]

Ok...I'm going to try something I normally don't. Clarification. Especially cause I think you think I'm advocating something I'm not.

I'm not saying that a resolution for force now was needed. All I'm saying, and my POST was saying, was that some form of consequence was needed in any resolution that was past. I don't care if it allowed the inspection to go a week or 4 years. All I was saying was that some road map, with tests and checks, and with some form of consequences for failure as deemed by the inspectors was needed.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 22 2003,06:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You are forgetting the inspectors. France suggested that a briefing would be held each week and that the cooperation would be evaluated.<span id='postcolor'>

i thought it was every 3 weeks? jesus, no one likes to report every week....

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And as for it being time consuming, well, that's better then to go off and start killing people because you are impatient.<span id='postcolor'>

how about upholding your ideal? if there are no swift reaction, then the enforcement of ideals itself is worthless. and it's not like UN inspectors are trying to see Hussein's underware collection. Just what is the chance that Iraq would not comply given threats from Bush?(ack! Baysian!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This was about the second resolution that USA/UK wanted to force through. One should also note that USA did not abandon that resolution because of French/Russian/Chinese vetoes but because they lacked the majority in the SC to get it through. None of the permanent members needed to use it's veto.<span id='postcolor'>

so if it got more than half support while Rus/Frc/Deu vetoed, then what?

[HellToupee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 22 2003,18:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">8--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Mar. 22 2003,068)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">france has also stated they would veto any resolution that gives the US admin rights over iraq, if the US wants to fight an illegal war they should not benefit in any way, the UN should have control of rebuilding iraq and the US and its allies should pay for it.<span id='postcolor'>

An organization that maintains Libya as the chair-country of the UN Human Rights Commission can hardly be considered the ultimate arbiter of international law. But whatever.<span id='postcolor'>

its still ebtter than having the US decide international law

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 22 2003,06:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Mar. 22 2003,06<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">france has also stated they would veto any resolution that gives the US admin rights over iraq, if the US wants to fight an illegal war they should not benefit in any way, the UN should have control of rebuilding iraq and the US and its allies should pay for it.<span id='postcolor'>

An organization that maintains Libya as the chair-country of the UN Human Rights Commission can hardly be considered the ultimate arbiter of international law. But whatever.<span id='postcolor'>

You do realize that it was Africas turn to chose that leadership psition?

And that they picked Libya, NOT the apparatus of the UN?

[HellToupee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 22 2003,18:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This was about the second resolution that USA/UK wanted to force through. One should also note that USA did not abandon that resolution because of French/Russian/Chinese vetoes but because they lacked the majority in the SC to get it through. None of the permanent members needed to use it's veto.<span id='postcolor'>

no one ahs used their veto yet but im sure they will use them the next chance they get, the US didnt give teh UN a chance, they ignored the UN just as saddiam in 1998, they cant expect anyone to respect teh UN now since they did it its almost sayin hey guys since we do it everyone can. If iraq had no oil im sure their would be no invasion.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 22 2003,06:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm not saying that a resolution for force now was needed. All I'm saying, and my POST was saying, was that some form of consequence was needed in any resolution that was past. I don't care if it allowed the inspection to go a week or 4 years. All I was saying was that some road map, with tests and checks, and with some form of consequences for failure as deemed by the inspectors was needed.<span id='postcolor'>

All the countries opposing a war insisted that the inspections could not last forever. The final suggestion that France gave was that (with the inspectors' approval) a 30 day ultimatum would be given to Iraq to fulfill all the requests that the inspectors had. The inspectors themselves were perfectly aware of the external pressure on completing their task, and both Blix and ElBaradei said that their work could be finished within a couple of months.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">how about upholding your ideal? if there are no swift reaction, then the enforcement of ideals itself is worthless<span id='postcolor'>

There is obviously a big disagreement if a swift reaction was needed or if one could (with adequate pressure) let the inspectors take the time they needed to complete their work. Very few in the world saw any immidiate threat from Saddam and while a quick disarmament was favourable, it wasn't a question of life and death and not worth starting a war over. While the inspectors were in Iraq, Saddams alledged WMD capabilities were contained - no matter how you look at it. If the inspectors concluded that Iraq wasn't cooperating enough for them to complete their assignement there was always the option of war. Nothing in the world showed that Iraq had to be attacked right now. The benifits of taking it slower are obvious. If the inspectors had in the end come to the conclusion that Iraq wasn't cooperating, USA would have all the international support it could wish for. It would have been allowed to use Saudi and Turkish bases. German, French and possibly Russian troops would have helped. We would have all split the bill etc etc etc...

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 22 2003,07:29)</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">how about upholding your ideal? if there are no swift reaction, then the enforcement of ideals itself is worthless<span id='postcolor'>

There is obviously a big disagreement if a swift reaction was needed or if one could (with adequate pressure) let the inspectors take the time they needed to complete their work. Very few in the world saw any immidiate threat from Saddam and while a quick disarmament was favourable, it wasn't a question of life and death and not worth starting a war over. While the inspectors were in Iraq, Saddams alledged WMD capabilities were contained - no matter how you look at it. If the inspectors concluded that Iraq wasn't cooperating enough for them to complete their assignement there was always the option of war. Nothing in the world showed that Iraq had to be attacked right now. The benifits of taking it slower are obvious. If the inspectors had in the end come to the conclusion that Iraq wasn't cooperating, USA would have all the international support it could wish for. It would have been allowed to use Saudi and Turkish bases. German, French and possibly Russian troops would have helped. We would have all split the bill etc etc etc...<span id='postcolor'>

maybe we are having a miscommunication. my point is that as swift a reaction is to an action, the better response it is. by taking time to discuss what kind of action to take(should inspection fail), you are not giving enough hint of the urgency and incentive to comply.

i highly doubt if international politics would agree on US's decision if the inspection failed. first, there will be question of the report, and ppl will be discussing if what constitutes "failure". and after that there will be more arguing about whether a certain action is right or wrong.

[Bernadotte 0]

I'm kinda surprised by the number of people who don't realise that there have been 3 (three) sides in this whole debate:

1.  The No-War camp who oppose any use of force against Iraq under any circumstances.  (Syria, Lebanon, North Korea and a few other nations who could be next on Dubya'a list.)

2.  The Pro-inspection camp who were willing to give UNMOVIC as much time as they needed to disarm Iraq before calling upon force.  Most folks in this camp suspected that, sooner or later, Iraq would obstruct the inspection process such that an invasion would be necessary.  Of course, by then Iraq would at least have decommisioned the rest of its Al-Sammud II rockets.  (France, Germany, Russia, China and a majority of the world's nations.)

3.  The Pro-invasion camp who could not bear to wait through any more inspections/disarmament while the Iraqi summer approached.  (USA, UK, Australia plus a coalition of other willing nations who are not necessarily willing to commit combat troops.)

Members of this forum seem to belong to camps 2 or 3.  I don't recall seeing anyone from camp 1.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Mar. 22 2003,07:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You do realize that it was Africas turn to chose that leadership psition?

And that they picked Libya, NOT the apparatus of the UN?<span id='postcolor'>

No organization is any better than the sum of its parts.

[ralphwiggum 6]

well, a good way to call for international help, by Iraq

last thing you need is making more enemies and this is not a good way.

[foxer 0]

The final suggestion that France gave was that (with the inspectors' approval) a 30 day ultimatum would be given to Iraq to fulfill all the requests that the inspectors had

But that would be in the middle of apirl.Why didn't france do that back in january or february.Only because they offer that was because they/he knew war was close.He was just trying to stall,and just maybe the Us would not attack iraq this year.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 22 2003,09:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The final suggestion that France gave was that (with the inspectors' approval) a 30 day ultimatum would be given to Iraq to fulfill all the requests that the inspectors had

But that would be in the middle of apirl.Why didn't france do that back in january or february.Only because they offer that was because they/he knew war was close.He was just trying to stall,and just maybe the Us would not attack iraq this year.<span id='postcolor'>

They suggested a 120 day period in January. But yes, it was about stalling so that the UN inspectors could get some work done. It was also a move to show that USA didn't give a damn about Iraq had WMDs or not.

[//relic// 0]

OT, but I will say one thing in the 'political' Iraq thread.

This media war, with footage depicting destruction, maiming and killing is a sad commentary on the perverse and disgusting nature of western society that a war becomes nothing more than entertainment for the masses.

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 22 2003,09:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 22 2003,09:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The final suggestion that France gave was that (with the inspectors' approval) a 30 day ultimatum would be given to Iraq to fulfill all the requests that the inspectors had

But that would be in the middle of apirl.Why didn't france do that back in january or february.Only because they offer that was because they/he knew war was close.He was just trying to stall,and just maybe the Us would not attack iraq this year.<span id='postcolor'>

They suggested a 120 day period in January. But yes, it was about stalling so that the UN inspectors could get some work done. It was also a move to show that USA didn't give a damn about Iraq had WMDs or not.<span id='postcolor'>

I think it's been proven that iraq still had scuds,when they said they didn't.

Also about the rebuilding of iraq...

I think america,brits should keep the power in iraq,and not pass the stick to the UN.Why ? America would be alot more fair,then most countries in the UN.America gov't doesn't want to look like they went in there for the oil.So most likely they would bring in other countries companies into do the work,and some american companies.The french could bring in all their buddies companies,and home companies to fix iraq back up.

If the french take over control of iraq.They could only send in russia,chinese ,and french companies.Those were the big players in vetoing the war.So mostly likely they wouldn't play fair for america,britian companies,or countries that supported the war.I'm thinking the french wants a piece of the pie.This is the only way they can get some.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 22 2003,09:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think it's been proven that iraq still had scuds,when they said they didn't.<span id='postcolor'>

On the contrary. US and British military officials have said that they were not scuds. It was only some ignorant reporters and some excited Kuwaiti officials that have claimed that those were Scuds.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think america,brits should keep the power in iraq,and not pass the stick to the UN.Why ? America would be alot more fair,then most countries in the UN.America gov't doesn't want to look like they went in there for the oil.So most likely they would bring in other countries companies into do the work,and some american companies.The french could bring in all their buddies companies,and home companies to fix iraq back up.

If the french take over control of iraq.They could only send in russia,chinese ,and french companies.Those were the big players in vetoing the war.So mostly likely they wouldn't play fair for america,britian companies,or countries that supported the war.I'm thinking the french wants a piece of the pie.This is the only way they can get some.<span id='postcolor'>

Lol. Are you kidding me? Since when does the French equal the UN? USA still has veto rights so blocking the things that you don't like is not an issue. The notion of that USA and Britain, who have against international law and against the wishes of the world engaged in a military agression, would be more fair is laughable. The UN guarantees an internationally approved fair deal.

Anyway, I think that unless Iraq is put under full UN control that USA should not get one penny from the UN for Iraq. It's your mess, you clean it up.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ROR @ Mar. 21 2003,23:29)</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">What use?, to ensure a stable europe, well we are guilty of that. Europe is far better of today than it was on May 8 1945 ...As europeans shout in an inaudible voice "Thanks Marshall Plan"<span id='postcolor'>

You are being silly again! Yes, we all ensured a stable Europe -just as we all ensured a stable US. US was certainly better off selling their goods to Europe in the aftermath of the war and you earned big bucks from it. The secon world war left you with a better position than you could have dreamed of had it not been for the victory of the allies. It's stupid to claim anything else than a stable europe means a stable political situation, trade and export and a healthy world economy.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah, it is a proactive agenda to rid the world of terrorism AND the states that support it.<span id='postcolor'>

Proactive my ass! Of course you want to make sure US is safe from terrorism. However, the way it's done will do the opposite. And about your agenda? Control, control and control over resources you need such as oil, cheap labour in third world countries and a saying in everything that goes on in the world in general.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This "screwing the banana republiques" could be worthy of the nobel peace prize comared to the colonialism of the dutch, england, france, portugal, and spain.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh, I see you had no slaves in the US a couple of centuries ago? Of course, you have no slaves anymore, nor does european countries have colonial possesions anymore. My point is that US are guilty of pretty much bad that's being going on in several poor countries. You have - and are - supporting brutal dictatorships, undermine democratically elected governments (you are still doing that: Venezuela), and are guilty of aiding in coups in various places. You also have - former and present - dubious allies around this globe: Pinappleface Noriega and Saddam, Pinochet etc.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why? Have you ever been to the U.S.? If so what happened that made you so envious of it? <span id='postcolor'>

I don't envy your country anything. I'm far better off where I live! Actually, most europeans are! Less crime, less poverty, better security, better social benefits if I'm disabled in any way and last but not least I can become rich if I want to - which is THE reason you guys over there put so much weight on.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I noticed no one disputed my remark about france.<span id='postcolor'>

Too silly to comment - that's all!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Did any of you read what I stated about the iraqis living here. Surely iraqis who lived under the terror of saddom and support regime change can not be wrong, can they europe? Or is that arrogant of me?<span id='postcolor'>

I have to say that surprises me, because there have been numerous acounts on BBC World, The Swedish television and the Norwegian television where the Kurds and Iraqi of other ethnic origins are totally against Saddam - but does not welcome a war that might kill their relatives in their home country. There is especially one argument that resurfaces again and again: why now - when US used to support Saddam! Why not a decade ago when many iraqis where revolting after being told US would save them from Saddam!

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 22 2003,10:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 22 2003,09:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think it's been proven that iraq still had scuds,when they said they didn't.<span id='postcolor'>

On the contrary. US and British military officials have said that they were not scuds. It was only some ignorant reporters and some excited Kuwaiti officials that have claimed that those were Scuds.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think america,brits should keep the power in iraq,and not pass the stick to the UN.Why ? America would be alot more fair,then most countries in the UN.America gov't doesn't want to look like they went in there for the oil.So most likely they would bring in other countries companies into do the work,and some american companies.The french could bring in all their buddies companies,and home companies to fix iraq back up.

If the french take over control of iraq.They could only send in russia,chinese ,and french companies.Those were the big players in vetoing the war.So mostly likely they wouldn't play fair for america,britian companies,or countries that supported the war.I'm thinking the french wants a piece of the pie.This is the only way they can get some.<span id='postcolor'>

Lol. Are you kidding me? Since when does the French equal the UN. USA still has veto rights so blocking the things that you don't like is not an issue. The notion of USA and Britain who have against international law and against the wishes of the world engaged in a military agression would be more fair is laughable. The UN guarantees an internationally approved fair deal.

Anyway, I think that unless Iraq is put under full UN control that USA should not get one penny from the UN for Iraq. It's your mess, you clean it up.<span id='postcolor'>

On the contrary. US and British military officials have said that they were not scuds. It was only some ignorant reporters and some excited Kuwaiti officials that have claimed that those were Scuds.

you sure ? They reported atleast 2 of the missiles were scuds.

Anyway, I think that unless Iraq is put under full UN control that USA should not get one penny from the UN for Iraq. It's your mess, you clean it up.

I agree.The pie(iraq) should be all the allies(which are about 30 countries,that help with intel, military ships,land) that help attack iraq.

Lol. Are you kidding me? Since when does the French equal the UN. USA still has veto rights so blocking the things that you don't like is not an issue. The notion of USA and Britain who have against international law and against the wishes of the world engaged in a military agression would be more fair is laughable. The UN guarantees an internationally approved fair deal.

Well,they would probably veto anything that doesn't help them.Which is wrong.Because they didn't want this to happen.

[foxer 0]

Iraq also fired another Scud missile toward Kuwait on Friday, but Patriot missiles successfully intercepted the rocket over the desert.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81791,00.html

[foxer 0]

To be fair i'll post this.But remember this was said on the 20th.

U.S. and Kuwaiti sources initially reported all the missiles as Scuds, but the Pentagon later said it believes they were al Samouds or some other type of missile.

http://www.cnn.com/2003....ex.html

[Guest]

Yes there are conflicting reports on that. One should add that Blix said that Iraq had about 50 scuds that were unaccounted for and being investigated. The Al Samouds were being destroyed by the UN inspectors, but they only got halfways before the attacks started.

I think on the rockets that they havn't really got a clue what it was. Apparently most of them wern't even detected by radar. And I also think that US officials would have made a big deal about it if they could confirm that it really was scuds.

[R. Gerschwarzenge 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ROR @ Mar. 22 2003,00:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...As europeans shout in an inaudible voice "Thanks Marshall Plan"<span id='postcolor'>

Not all. (Finland & Spain)

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Over 100,000 iraqis live in the Detroit Michigan area, and the majority overwhelmingly support the war in iraq<span id='postcolor'>

Reminds me of Fuehrer Propaganda....

I am sure the Iraqis in the US are shouting in a choire: "yes please bomb our relatives so they are being freed from Saddam".

Well we have a hell lot of Iraqis in europe as well and I just have to cross the road to get to the next Kebab-stand in order to ask for an opinion. Everyone here agrees that Saddam is surpressing the nation but everyone here also agrees that the americans would be the last ones that would be asked for help (at least from an arab perspective).

I may also assume that any Iraqi in the US now would feel frigthened to state the opposite and therefore be considered a "potential terorist". With such a reputation you would loose any sympathy in your neighbourhood.

Revenge yes...but revenge means hitting the person himself and not the persons around him. WHAT THE F.UCK has this list on the SHIP to do with the iraqis ...they werent involved in any of those incidents..(the list basically implies that all arabs are terorists).so the question remains open...why are we here??? Answer it to me!!! In the beginning it was terrorism prevention (yes good justification...why dont we ban everyone here in order to prevent them breaking the forum rules beforehand)...then it was liberation of the people...then it was revenge...and now it simply is bloodthirst and all masks of justifications have been dropped. Whether this war is a clean war does not change jackshit...it is still an unjustified war.