The Iraq Thread

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (joltan @ Mar. 28 2003,00:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't see how being against this war implies the wish for 'the worst possible things to happen to the American-British forces' - I personally know nobody who wishes that, although most people I know think that this war and the way the US and Britain have forced it is just pervert. Nobody wishes Saddam to win this war, but everybody wishes it hadn't started at all in the first place - and most people I know think there was a real chance for a peacefull disarmament, and that this war is a criminal act.<span id='postcolor'>

I agree with you!

But now that the war is a reality it's impossible for the coalition to withdraw from Iraq. That makes me believe that the best option would be if the coalition actually did win as fast as possible - with as little civilian casualties as possible.

Secondly, there is no doubt that most european countries will try their best to persuade US that UN should be given the job of rebuilding the nation, as well as establishing a sort of democracy. However, I fear the hawks of the US-administration will "take care" of it all and see Iraq as some kind of "prize money" .

That would be catastrophy!

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 27 2003,23:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">On a similar tangent the Swedish council of export decided today by a vote of 8-2 to continue arms export to USA and UK ( yey. go Sweden! )<span id='postcolor'>

People may hate our leadership, but goddam if they don't love our money

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 28 2003,01:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe not overtly,  but I know a lot of people that love seeing American troops dead.<span id='postcolor'>

..........you do?

I don't!

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 28 2003,06:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 28 2003,01:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe not overtly,  but I know a lot of people that love seeing American troops dead.<span id='postcolor'>

..........you do?

I don't!<span id='postcolor'>

How on earth did you spin what I said to even remotely suggest that I wanted to see American troops dead?

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 28 2003,01:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 28 2003,06:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 28 2003,01:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe not overtly,  but I know a lot of people that love seeing American troops dead.<span id='postcolor'>

..........you do?

I don't!<span id='postcolor'>

How on earth did you spin what I said to even remotely suggest that I wanted to see American troops dead?

<span id='postcolor'>

Actually I didn't - you'r spinning it in your own direction

I had a slight impression of you suggesting that many a european wanted to see lot's of dead US soldiers - am I right?

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 28 2003,01:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 28 2003,06:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 28 2003,01:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe not overtly,  but I know a lot of people that love seeing American troops dead.<span id='postcolor'>

..........you do?

I don't!<span id='postcolor'>

How on earth did you spin what I said to even remotely suggest that I wanted to see American troops dead?

<span id='postcolor'>

I think the "...you do?" means do you know people who want to see US soldiers dead?, not saying you want to see US soldiers dead. And he is saying "I don't!" as in he doesn't know people who want to see US soldiers dead.

Sometimes it's hard to get across the correct meaning with text, the inflections are all wrong.

[PFC Mongoose 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (joltan @ Mar. 28 2003,00:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and most people I know think there was a real chance for a peacefull disarmament, and that this war is a criminal act.<span id='postcolor'>

I think Iraq had 12 years to show its interest in peaceful disarmament. I think Saddam never had any intention of fully complying with U.N. Resolutions. I think if they had tried to set a firm deadline for IRaqi disarmament in Resolution 1441, then it would be much more difficult to question the legitimacy of this war; even if the U.S. Coalition had been fored to take unilateral action.

Now, France said it would agree to a 120 disarmament schedule, IF that's what the U.N. Weaons Inspeactors recommended, and IF, IIRC, it didn't mean, on certain terms, military intervention for failing to meet that deadline. So, the Weapons Inspectors have to keep inspecting, taking, how long? I am not certain. And if Iraq doesn't disarm, what then? Pass a similar U.N. Resolution? And if that doesn't work, maybe they'll pass another U.N. Resolution.

How many Resolutions does it take to say: "Look, you agreed to get rid of these weapons, so get rid of the,m, and prove it. Now." ?

In my opinion, which I will readily admit, may not be entirely informed, and slightly biased, the U.N., and institution I have long strongly believed in, may have almost put one foot into the League of Nations grave.

Just like in any aspect of life, if you say something, and then don't do it, you lose credibility, and legitimacy.

The U.N. said 'Iraq, disarm.' and wated. And they're still waiting.

The U.S. said 'Iraq, disarm.' and waited, and waited, and eventually, got tired of waiting, and has gone in to make them disarm; and to give Saddam the boot while they're at it.

And yes, it is a war. And no, I generally do not believe in violence as a solver of problems. And no, I do not want to see Coalition troops fighting for their ideals, and a safer world, die. And no, I don't want to see Iraqi solderis, fighting for their homeland, and in some cases, their beloved leader die. And no, I do not want to see the Iraqi people, most of them innocent, and cuaght in the middle, die.

But, all that said, I can't help but support this war, as I truely believe in what it is about. And if it drags on, I believe I will practice my marksmanship, get into shape, and offer to volunteer my help to the Coalition Forces, even if it costs me my life.

</end blithering rant>

[OxPecker 0]

Well, converse to the "Iraq had 12 years to comply, so It's OK for the USA to ignore the UN and international law", is the question "Why hasn't the USA pushed for enforcement of this resolution until 12 years have passed?".

Personally I believe it's because Iraq was an easy target for misplaced anger over S11.

[brgnorway 0]

Hmmm....I have to say that this discussion of wether it was right or wrong to go to war is a bit exhausted.

What's important now is this: what is to be expected after the war in iraq? Who will govern and how, for how long?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Mar. 28 2003,01:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Why hasn't the USA pushed for enforcement of this resolution until 12 years have passed?".<span id='postcolor'>

We did. Remember a little thing called Operation: Desert Fox?

[joltan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 28 2003,01:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe not overtly, but I know a lot of people that love seeing American troops dead.<span id='postcolor'>

No, definitely not - some words may be said in anger, but nobody WANTS your guys dead. You just can't expect much pity if you start a war and then suffer casualties.

That is like someone jumping from a high building - nobody wants him to. A tragedy, and something that other people should have tried to prevent. But if they don't succeed, is it really correct to accuse them that they wanted the guy dead? That's hillarious...

[joltan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 28 2003,01:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But now that the war is a reality it's impossible for the coalition to withdraw from Iraq. That makes me believe that the best option would be if the coalition actually did win as fast as possible - with as little civilian casualties as possible.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, that's for sure. The only hope left is that they win swiftly - but somehow I don't really see that coming. Not with politicians defining the strategy ('they just LOVE to be LIBERATED, no worries'), and the bad preparation for the humanitarian catastrophe ahead...

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (joltan @ Mar. 28 2003,02:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 28 2003,01:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But now that the war is a reality it's impossible for the coalition to withdraw from Iraq. That makes me believe that the best option would be if the coalition actually did win as fast as possible - with as little civilian casualties as possible.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, that's for sure. The only hope left is that they win swiftly - but somehow I don't really see that coming. Not with politicians defining the strategy ('they just LOVE to be LIBERATED, no worries', and the bad preparation for the humanitarian catastrophe ahead...<span id='postcolor'>

I'm afraid you are right again

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (joltan @ Mar. 28 2003,07:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think the "...you do?" means do you know people who want to see US soldiers dead?, not saying you want to see US soldiers dead. And he is saying "I don't!" as in he doesn't know people who want to see US soldiers dead.

Sometimes it's hard to get across the correct meaning with text, the inflections are all wrong.<span id='postcolor'>

*slaps forehead*

I agree.

My apologies, norway.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, definitely not - some words may be said in anger, but nobody WANTS your guys dead. You just can't expect much pity if you start a war and then suffer casualties.

That is like someone jumping from a high building - nobody wants him to. A tragedy, and something that other people should have tried to prevent. But if they don't succeed, is it really correct to accuse them that they wanted the guy dead? That's hillarious...<span id='postcolor'>

I don't mean pity, I'm not expecting or asking any. I'm talking about what I pick up on as restrained happyness when reports of a US advancement stalled, or casualtie reports coming in. You should see some of the reporters on the TV about this.

[PFC_Mike 2]

RE all the chemical suits found in Iraqi commnad installations:

If that isn't pretty clear proof that *something* is going on, what is?

Protective suits are expensive and a pain to use and maintain. Why would a cash-strapped nation have them unless they were going to use them? If Libya was found to have hundreds of gas masks and protective suits, would you believe that they had intent to use WMD? What nation could possible pose a WMD threat to Iraq? Not the US, which only bluffs about using bunker-busting nukes, and doesn't posses bio/chem weapons? Not the UK, not Iran...

If you don't believe Iraq has WMD you are lying or have your head in a hole and won't take it out.

[Akira 0]

Was looking through www.snopes.com, reading urban legends and the like...and came across this which I found rather interesting:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." -- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials <span id='postcolor'>

If you want to see the related story it is here:

Snopes.com

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC_Mike @ Mar. 28 2003,03:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">RE all the chemical suits found in Iraqi commnad installations:

If that isn't pretty clear proof that *something* is going on, what is?

Protective suits are expensive and a pain to use and maintain. Why would a cash-strapped nation have them unless they were going to use them? If Libya was found to have hundreds of gas masks and protective suits, would you believe that they had intent to use WMD? What nation could possible pose a WMD threat to Iraq? Not the US, which only bluffs about using bunker-busting nukes, and doesn't posses bio/chem weapons? Not the UK, not Iran...

If you don't believe Iraq has WMD you are lying or have your head in a hole and won't take it out.<span id='postcolor'>

You are the one that has a hole that needs filling if you honestly believe the US arsenal doesnt contain chemical and biological weapons!

Will they ever be used? Not likely, but I would bet you any day of the week that they exist.

[PFC_Mike 2]

I will be completely honest: I would much rather see dead Iraqi troops than dead Americans, Brits, and Poles. I don't have any hatred of the regular Iraqi army, but I am filled with joy whenever I hear a RG or Feyadeen unit was slaughtered by US airstrikes, simply because they are a modern equivalent of the SS. The sooner they die or surrender, the sooner the war ends and Iraq can move on. There is no excuse for supporting a bloody-fisted dictator, and hoping that he wins is despicable.

Bn880, Denoir, Balschow etc: No matter what you say, it's clear that you take great pleasure in US/Uk casualties, military or otherwise. Have the balls to admit you want the US to lose, and Americans to die! Come now, you've made dozens of insinuations suggesting that the US deserved 9-11 becuase of their "evil Western imperialist pop culture vigilante cowboy arrogance" Go on, say what you feel. It will make you all much less constipated.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC_Mike @ Mar. 28 2003,03:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">RE all the chemical suits found in Iraqi commnad installations:

If that isn't pretty clear proof that *something* is going on, what is?

Protective suits are expensive and a pain to use and maintain. Why would a cash-strapped nation have them unless they were going to use them? If Libya was found to have hundreds of gas masks and protective suits, would you believe that they had intent to use WMD? What nation could possible pose a WMD threat to Iraq? Not the US, which only bluffs about using bunker-busting nukes, and doesn't posses bio/chem weapons? Not the UK, not Iran...

If you don't believe Iraq has WMD you are lying or have your head in a hole and won't take it out.<span id='postcolor'>

........didn't you know that most - if not all - military units in the world has such equipment?

[PFC_Mike 2]

I'll bet anyone $100 US if you can prove that the US currently posseses chemical or biological weapons for any non-research purpose. They simply DON'T EXIST!

As for suits and masks, why would you have something you don't use? Seems expensive and pointless, especially for a country too poor to feed anyone but the leadership and their cronies.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC_Mike @ Mar. 28 2003,03:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'll bet anyone $100 US if you can prove that the US currently posseses chemical or biological weapons for any non-research purpose. They simply DON'T EXIST!

As for suits and masks, why would you have something you don't use? Seems expensive and pointless, especially for a country too poor to feed anyone but the leadership and their cronies.<span id='postcolor'>

LOL. Non research purposes.

What a funny euphemism.  You do know the difference between a biological or chemical agent that is for 'research purposes' and a weapon?  the delivery system.  And the US has the capability of manufacturing delivery system pretty easily.

As for US use of chemical weapons...

Agent Orange.

Oh..that's right. It was a defoliant, not a chemical weapon.  Shame about all the GI's who have life long problems because of it, not to mention the people in Vietnam.

You sound to me like you have a permanant case of cranial rectumitis.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC_Mike @ Mar. 28 2003,03:24)</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">Bn880, Denoir, Balschow etc: No matter what you say, it's clear that you take great pleasure in US/Uk casualties, military or otherwise. Have the balls to admit you want the US to lose, and Americans to die! Come now, you've made dozens of insinuations suggesting that the US deserved 9-11 becuase of their  "evil Western imperialist pop culture vigilante cowboy arrogance" Go on, say what you feel. It will make you all much less constipated.<span id='postcolor'>

That's outrageous and I believe you are crossing the line of good and civil code of conduct on this forum!

You comment is so stupid and hateful.

If anything - the 911 incident was argued to be a reaction to your foreign politics - however wrong the action was. There's a HUGE difference between wishing someone dead and trying to understand WHY it happend!

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not the US, which only bluffs about using bunker-busting nukes, and doesn't posses bio/chem weapons? Not the UK, not Iran...<span id='postcolor'>

The US currently maintains one of the largest stockpiles of Chemical and Biological weapons in the world. By treaty, it is supposed to be destroyed, but the process has been so slow, that tonnes and tonnes of the stuff are still sitting there in bunkers.

Ask the poor bastards wholive next to a certain chemical weapon dump in the US. New residents get issued a 'survival kit' incase anything does go wrong.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'll bet anyone $100 US if you can prove that the US currently posseses chemical or biological weapons for any non-research purpose. They simply DON'T EXIST!<span id='postcolor'>

Thats from FAS.

Wheres my $100 then?

[Badgerboy 0]

And don't even think about saying that lot is for 'research purposes'

I mean VX landmines for god sake!

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC_Mike @ Mar. 28 2003,03:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'll bet anyone $100 US if you can prove that the US currently posseses chemical or biological weapons for any non-research purpose. They simply DON'T EXIST!

As for suits and masks, why would you have something you don't use? Seems expensive and pointless, especially for a country too poor to feed anyone but the leadership and their cronies.<span id='postcolor'>

Global Security

Different site to add validity, though they also use the same map.

Can I have my $100 too? Could use it!