The Iraq Thread

[OxPecker 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">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'>

Way to completely miss the point.

I challenge you to provide a single piece of evidence that any of these people ever said that the US deserved S11, or that it was justified, or in fact that they wish any US citizen, military or otherwise, dead.

What they (and others) have said is they understand the reasoning behind the attack, not that it was warranted or justified. e.g. If a schoolyard bully picks on another kid long enough, and the victim eventually sneaks a gun into school and blows the bully away, no one will say the kid was justified, but they will say they can understand why he did it.

I think yours is another case of US vs. Euro paranoia.

[FSPilot 0]

*gasp*

The US has WMDs? I never knew that!

come on, we allk now the US has WMDs, so does France. the problem is, we're not going to be using them unless provoked. saddam hussein has done lots of provoking in his days.

[Badgerboy 0]

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

The US has WMDs? I never knew that!

come on, we allk now the US has WMDs, so does France. the problem is, we're not going to be using them unless provoked. saddam hussein has done lots of provoking in his days.

<span id='postcolor'>

The point being, your cohort was under the naive impression that the US didn't harbour such 'nasty weapons'. I merely set him straight.

[edc 0]

We don't have Biological or chemical weapons that are for use.

[Wires 0]

Yeah but the Germans have always lead the way with poison gas Also the USA is much less likely to use such weapons same with most other countries that have them whereas Saddam has proven he will use them whenever and whereever he feels like.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (edc @ Mar. 28 2003,04:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We don't have Biological or chemical weapons that are for use.<span id='postcolor'>

Ummm.....riiiiiiight.

They were all made "for use." We signed a treaty that set-up their disposal and so far we are following it.

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We don't have Biological or chemical weapons that are for use.<span id='postcolor'>

Eh? So I suppose that massive arsenal of chemical weapons was created for a bit of fun?

Of course it was designed for actual use, there would be no point otherwise.

If you read that article, you will have noticed the part where it mentions </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As is the case with nuclear weapons, the President of the United States must approve the initial use of chemical weapons. This approval procedure is known as chemical release.<span id='postcolor'>

They follow the same principle as nukes, no first use, but they are there and waiting if needed.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wires @ Mar. 28 2003,04:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah but the Germans have always lead the way with  poison gas   Also the USA is much less likely to use such weapons same with most other countries that have them whereas Saddam has proven he will use them whenever and whereever he feels like.<span id='postcolor'>

Like during the last Gulf War when he definately had them?

[bn880 5]

Thinking back I think I know why the U.S. did not reveal their special evidence on WMD's of Iraq, not giving away the vital information to the Inspectors. They knew they would invade anyway and find nothing, now how would that look. I guess it's all hidden in Baghdad, you know.

[bn880 5]

On the same note:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Elsewhere, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov yesterday poured scorn on claims by the United States that its forces were "liberating" Iraq, saying these assertions were far removed from reality.

Ivanov told Russia's upper house of parliament: "It is already becoming clear how far removed from reality are their attempts to present military action against Iraq as a triumphant march for the liberation of the Iraqi people with minimal casualties and destruction."

Ivanov also cautioned U.S. and British forces advancing on Baghdad against making claims of discovering Iraqi stocks of banned weapons to justify their operations.

"If there are claims by coalition forces about discovering weapons of mass destruction...only international inspectors can make a conclusive assessment of the origin of these weapons," he said.

"No other evaluation and final conclusion can be accepted."

Ivanov told the Federation Council upper house that Moscow was concerned the United States was "trying to drag Russia into an information war" on Iraq.<span id='postcolor'> complete story: Peace plan

[HellToupee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 28 2003,13:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (joltan @ Mar. 28 2003,05:23)</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">~You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb the world to peace~<span id='postcolor'>

Live under a murderous tyrannical dictator for your whole life, then try to say that.<span id='postcolor'>

ill call up m iraqi friend and ask him to say it.

[PFC Mongoose 0]

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/27/sprj.irq.bush.blair/index.html" target="_blank">Bush appeared to bristle at suggestions that the war in Iraq enjoyed little global support.

"We've got a huge coalition. As a matter of fact, the coalition that we've assembled today is larger than the one assembled in 1991 in terms of the number of nations participating," Bush said, referring to the Gulf War. </a>

Anyone know how many contries contributed combat personnel to the Gulf War? I'm pretty sure it was more than three. (The only Coalition countries I've heard of sending combatants are American and Britain, and Austrailia's Spec Ops.)

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tales_From_Topographic_Oceans @ Mar. 27 2003,17:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We are not arrogant but decisive. People resent us for our decisiveness. Bush made a threat and then backed it up. Good for him. The UN three-ring circus diplomatic farce was going nowhere so we decided to act as allowed under SEC RES 1441 where there is a provision for "serious consequences" against Iraq for failing to comply. Certainly the phrase "serious consequences" is an umbrella under which war can fit. So one can argue our actions are legal at least from the UN standpoint.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually (and somebody please correct me if I am wrong), the resolution was specifically worded that way so the war was NOT the inevitable outcome of failure to comply.

I believe that in UN terms "serious consequences" does not automatically imply military action. Again, In UN terms, the phrase that represents military action and war declaration is "by any means necessary".

The way I understand it, there is a clear difference between these two terms in the eyes of the UN.

And sorry to correct you but it IS arrogance people despise US policy for. But to give you your due, I believe the US is being "decisively arrogant".

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC Mongoose @ Mar. 28 2003,06:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/27/sprj.irq.bush.blair/index.html" target="_blank">Bush appeared to bristle at suggestions that the war in Iraq enjoyed little global support.                                        

"We've got a huge coalition. As a matter of fact, the coalition that we've assembled today is larger than the one assembled in 1991 in terms of the number of nations participating," Bush said, referring to the Gulf War. </a>

Anyone know how many contries contributed combat personnel to the Gulf War?   I'm pretty sure it was more than three.  (The only Coalition countries I've heard of sending combatants are American and Britain, and Austrailia's Spec Ops.)<span id='postcolor'>

I think it was revealed that Poland had sent some too. That makes the grand total four!

[PFC Mongoose 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Mar. 28 2003,06:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 28 2003,13:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (joltan @ Mar. 28 2003,05:23)</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">~You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb the world to peace~<span id='postcolor'>

Live under a murderous tyrannical dictator for your whole life, then try to say that.<span id='postcolor'>

ill call up m iraqi friend and ask him to say it.<span id='postcolor'>

I think History proves that sometimes, Diplomacy fails,and Force is neccessary to accomplish a task.

I find it terribly sad, but quite true.

I'm not saying Saddam is Hitler, though, the similarities HAVE been pointed out,

but do you think Hitler could have been stopped from his plans for a Thousand Year Reich by Diplomacy? It may have been possible, but it's very hard to speculate now.

Even Canada, who treasures peace and tends to despise war, has a history of sending its sons and daughters to wars it deemed neccessary (which is why I'm slightly frsutrated that Chretien has taken his 'U.N. or nothing' stance, but that's really my own personal view.)

[PFC Mongoose 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 28 2003,06:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think it was revealed that Poland had sent some too. That makes the grand total four!  <span id='postcolor'>

Sweet!!!

With Poland's long list of Military Victories, Victory is assured!!!

[HellToupee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC Mongoose @ Mar. 28 2003,18:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Mar. 28 2003,06:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 28 2003,13:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (joltan @ Mar. 28 2003,05:23)</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">~You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb the world to peace~<span id='postcolor'>

Live under a murderous tyrannical dictator for your whole life, then try to say that.<span id='postcolor'>

ill call up m iraqi friend and ask him to say it.<span id='postcolor'>

I think History proves that sometimes, Diplomacy fails,and Force is neccessary to accomplish a task.

I find it terribly sad, but quite true.

I'm not saying Saddam is Hitler, though, the similarities HAVE been pointed out,

but do you think Hitler could have been stopped from his plans for a Thousand Year Reich by Diplomacy? It may have been possible, but it's very hard to speculate now.

Even Canada, who treasures peace and tends to despise war, has a history of sending its sons and daughters to wars it deemed neccessary (which is why I'm slightly frsutrated that Chretien has taken his 'U.N. or nothing' stance, but that's really my own personal view.)<span id='postcolor'>

jus taht iraq is a war deemed not nesscary by the majorty of the world, why do u think the UN was against it, the UN worked but the US showed y it dosnt work by ignoreing it, they wont let it work unless its working for them. UN or nothing is the only way to go.

[Tovarish 0]

Just found a political cartoon I thought was pretty appropriate, and I would hope we all agree on (dosen't just go for the States)

[PFC Mongoose 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Mar. 28 2003,06:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">jus taht iraq is a war deemed not nesscary by the majorty of the world, why do u think the UN was against it, the UN worked but the US showed y it dosnt work by ignoreing it, they wont let it work unless its working for them. UN or nothing is the only way to go.<span id='postcolor'>

IMO, the U.N. wasn't working that well at all, if 12 years after the fact, Iraq STILL had al-Samoud missiles that voilated U.N. Resolutions.

Iraq tossed out the Weapons inspectors, and didn't let them back in untill the U.N. found them in material breach of U.N. Resolutions. If I were Bush, I would have started getting ready to go in right then.

As I said, if the U.N. can't back up what it says, then nations won't take it seriously anymore. International LAw can't exist solely for the sake of International Law.

What do you think would happen if Police gave criminals warning for things like murder, robbery and assault? Do you think they'd be taken seriously?

I realise that is a somewhat extreme comparison, but the point remains.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC Mongoose @ Mar. 28 2003,07:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Mar. 28 2003,06:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">jus taht iraq is a war deemed not nesscary by the majorty of the world, why do u think the UN was against it, the UN worked but the US showed y it dosnt work by ignoreing it, they wont let it work unless its working for them. UN or nothing is the only way to go.<span id='postcolor'>

IMO, the U.N. wasn't working that well at all, if 12 years after the fact, Iraq STILL had al-Samoud missiles that voilated U.N. Resolutions.

Iraq tossed out the Weapons inspectors, and didn't let them back in untill the U.N. found them in material breach of U.N. Resolutions.  If I were Bush, I would have started getting ready to go in right then.

As I said, if the U.N. can't back up what it says, then nations won't take it seriously anymore.  International LAw can't exist solely for the sake of International Law.

What do you think would happen if Police gave criminals warning for things like murder, robbery and assault?  Do you think they'd be taken seriously?

I realise that is a somewhat extreme comparison, but the point remains.<span id='postcolor'>

Missiles that ONLY breached what Iraq could have without warheads and guidance systems.

And missiles that Iraq was destroying in accordance with UN requirements.

Sounds like it was working to me

[Balschoiw 0]

</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'>

Aha ! Now this is what I call bullshit. I have no doubt the coaltition will win this war. I don´t hope many people whatever side they are fighting for will be killed. To simply say that makes you a complete idiot and very simple minded in my opinion. You have no idea who I am.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 28 2003,09:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You have no idea who I am.<span id='postcolor'>

You're a CIA plant and don't deny it. I followed the link in your sig!

[PFC Mongoose 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Mar. 28 2003,08:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Missiles that ONLY breached what Iraq could have without warheads and guidance systems.  

And missiles that Iraq was destroying in accordance with UN requirements.

Sounds like it was working to me <span id='postcolor'>

I didn't know about the warheads/guidance systems bit.

But I do know they didn't start destroying them untill America threatened Unilateral action. I don't call that a victory for the U.N.

Besides, there were reports that even as they destroyed one mould for making the missiles, they were making another, in a different facility.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Besides, there were reports that even as they destroyed one mould for making the missiles, they were making another, in a different facility. <span id='postcolor'>

sources pls.

[PFC Mongoose 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 28 2003,09:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">sources pls.<span id='postcolor'>

Sincerest apologies, I will dig up what I can.

This isn't evidence, persay, but reasonable speculation:

al-Samoud 2s violate range, diameter, could be easily modified to fly farther

But this supports what Denior said:

Missiles only violate limits without warheads, guidance systems.

However, this says that it doesn't matter that the tested missiles that exceed the limit lack warheads and guidance systems. Further it states that the engines powering the missiles themselves contravene to U.N. Resolution, or that rather, the mothds for obtaining the engines were:

Letter from Hans Blix

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">(MSNBC) 3. The SA-2 missile engines imported outside of the export/import mechanism and in contravention of paragraph 24 of resolution 687 (1991), which have been configured for use in the Al Samoud 2, are in the process of being so configured, or are otherwise associated with the Al Samoud 2 missile program;<span id='postcolor'>

Here is the first thing I found that addressed the point I brought up; though I can not point to it as any kind of clear evidence.

Destroyed some, reconstituted others

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">(NBC 11)With respect to the casting chambers, I note the following: UNSCOM ordered and supervised the destruction of the casting chambers, which had been intended for use in the production of the proscribed Badr-2000 missile system. Iraq has declared that it has reconstituted these chambers. The experts have confirmed that the reconstituted casting chambers could still be used to produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 kilometers (93.8 miles). Accordingly, these chambers remain proscribed.<span id='postcolor'>

Redundant point:

Blix reccomends destroying missiles; rebuilt chambers

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">(Beaufort Gazette)Last week, Blix told the Security Council that a panel of international experts he invited to study the missile issue concluded that the Al Samoud 2 exceeds the limit. The experts also concluded that casting chambers which previous inspectors destroyed - but Iraq rebuilt - could still be used to produce motors for missiles capable of ranges "significantly greater" than 93 miles.<span id='postcolor'>

And again:

U.N. tells Iraq to destroy missiles

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">(NewsMax)Chambers used for casting rocket engines "that had been deemed proscribed and were destroyed under (the previous U.N. inspection regime's) supervision, the panel confirmed that the reconstituted casting chambers could still be used to produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 kms," the letter said. "These chambers remain proscribed and are to be destroyed."<span id='postcolor'>

Phew... that was more digging than I expected....

Gonna take a break, work on my mission, and if I can, try out a few I promised to try out. I'll be back in a bit, though, so don't think I'm copping out.