The Iraq Thread

[-Siegfried- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, nothing about the Maine can be said for sure, but I doubt it was blown up as part of a big conspiracy to start a war. <span id='postcolor'>

I don't think it was the US that blew it up. Probably it was the work of Cuban independentists who wanted to spark a conflict in order to find a way to independence. If I can criticise something here is how the whole event was handled by the US, who was happy to go to war without really having evidence that Spain was responsible for blowing up the Maine.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saying that is like saying the attacks of September 11th were huge government conspiracies, made in an attempt by arms suppliers to get rich<span id='postcolor'>

It's you who says that I didn't even mean to insinuate that the 9-11 events were a government conspiracy. In my opinion, the similarity between 9-11 and the Maine incident is that both events were used as a reason to start a war, not that they are government conspiracies. The irony of it is that just as the US could not prove that Spain sank the Maine, they could not prove that Iraq has links to terrorist organisations.

[PFC Mongoose 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Mar. 31 2003,04:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are a few extremists out there of course, I was trying to find a pic of a protesters poster that said "I support our troops shooting their officers".  I'd like to have a few words with the person holding that sign. <span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The anti-war site Indybay.org features this photo of anti-war protesters in San Francisco on March 13, 2003.<span id='postcolor'>

[Die Alive 0]

lol Here's a thumbs up to you those anti war protestors.

-=Die Alive=-

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Mar. 30 2003,23:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">u forget they are muslim that automatically makes them all terrorests in the eyes of the US.<span id='postcolor'>

Idiotic strawman statement,

[PFC Mongoose 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Die Alive @ Mar. 31 2003,19:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">lol Here's a thumbs up to you those anti war protestors.

-=Die Alive=-<span id='postcolor'>

You're telling the Anti-War protesters that you're ready for take-off?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 31 2003,20:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Mar. 31 2003,21:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">More fiction.<span id='postcolor'>

False Claims Litter Iraq Conflict. (Reuters)

<span id='postcolor'>

Yes. Some of the reporting is difficult to understand. Like that armoured column that was heading south from Basra. Reports first said 120 armoured vehicles. Next day the British announced that most of the column was destroyed by air and that the few remaining elements scattered.

The day after they tell us that there was no armoured column at all. How the hell do you make a mistake like that? "Hmm, is that a camel or 100+ enemy tanks?"

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 31 2003,22:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The day after they tell us that there was no armoured column at all.<span id='postcolor'>

T'was a column of 3, wasn't it?

[Guest]

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 31 2003,21:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">5--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 31 2003,225)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The day after they tell us that there was no armoured column at all.<span id='postcolor'>

T'was a column of 3, wasn't it? <span id='postcolor'>

3 camels ?

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC Mongoose @ Mar. 31 2003,10:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">IMG-Stupid Protest Sign

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The anti-war site Indybay.org features this photo of anti-war protesters in San Francisco on March 13, 2003.<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

Ooooh boy that's the one. Ten minutes alone with them in the fan room is all I'm asking. Plzplzplz Santa, I've been a good sailor this year.

Also interesting article DieAlive. That's good info for anyone planning to hitch hike overseas.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Mar. 31 2003,23:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC Mongoose @ Mar. 31 2003,10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">IMG-Stupid Protest Sign

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The anti-war site Indybay.org features this photo of anti-war protesters in San Francisco on March 13, 2003.<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

Ooooh boy that's the one.  Ten minutes alone with them in the fan room is all I'm asking.  Plzplzplz Santa, I've been a good sailor this year.

Also interesting article DieAlive.  That's good info for anyone planning to hitch hike overseas. <!--emo&<span id='postcolor'>

Y'know what? I support protesting against something you dont believe in... but to protest a war and then advocate killing ones own officers is awfully hypocritical!

So I vote someone in the SF Bay area helps track these miscreants down and give Othin his wish

[interstat 0]

Rumsfeld shakes hands with Saddam:

See the footage

How do you do mr Saddam, I'm sure we'll be friends for years to come,

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (interstat @ Mar. 31 2003,15:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Rumsfeld shakes hands with Saddam:

See the footage

How do you do mr Saddam, I'm sure we'll be friends for years to come,  <span id='postcolor'>

Someone else beat him there by quite a few years.

Alte Intimitäten zwischen Paris

[interstat 0]

Damn dirty chirac

Just shows how if you mess around with the middle east it;ll come back to haunt you.

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Die Alive @ Mar. 31 2003,19:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">lol Here's a thumbs up to you those anti war protestors.

-=Die Alive=-<span id='postcolor'>

Once upon a time in Australia (up to the 70's I believe), a thumbs up meant much the same as middle finger extended in the classic "bird".

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ April 01 2003,00:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (interstat @ Mar. 31 2003,15:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Rumsfeld shakes hands with Saddam:

See the footage

How do you do mr Saddam, I'm sure we'll be friends for years to come,  <span id='postcolor'>

Someone else beat him there by quite a few years.

Alte Intimitäten zwischen Paris<span id='postcolor'>

So you're saying Chirac dealing with Saddam in the 70's is somehow worse than the Republicans (embodied by Rummy) in the 80's?

What's your reasoning?

Sides, we all know that Secular Saddam was a far more attractive prospect that the more fundamental religious sorts.

[FSPilot 0]

Arguing that we shouldn't bomb Saddam because he once met with Donald Rumsfeld some 20 years ago is like arguing that I can't get a speeding ticket because I knew a police officer once.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ April 01 2003,01:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Arguing that we shouldn't bomb Saddam because he once met with Donald Rumsfeld some 20 years ago is like arguing that I can't get a speeding ticket because I knew a police officer once.<span id='postcolor'>

You really dont understand do you?

US foreign policy flops around so much that one minute someone is an ally and the next minute they have been pissed off and alienated. What everyone is pointing out is that the US government (Not the people, so stay off my fucking back about bashing Amerricans or the US in general! ) has this amazing habit of propping up evil bastards, only to abandon them when their interests dont mesh with US interests anymore. And that creates blowback when the fuck-ee starts to get pisses at the fuck-er. But it seems like when you become the President of the US, you turn in your common sense and screw anyone over whenever you need to

The way to fix things is not to bomb the hell out of anyone that ends up pissed at you. The key is to have enough sense not to piss people off in the first place.

Muslim extremists didnt just wake up one morning and decide that the US is the great satan. Maybe looking at why they did decide that may help keep it from happening again.

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Mar. 31 2003,16:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So you're saying Chirac dealing with Saddam in the 70's is somehow worse than the Republicans (embodied by Rummy) in the 80's?

What's your reasoning?

Sides, we all know that Secular Saddam was a far more attractive prospect that the more fundamental religious sorts.<span id='postcolor'>

No, I was just illustrating the point that it's not just a black and white issue and that deals were being made with Sadaam as far back as 76 by many in the "western" world.

I don't necessarily think that Chirac's, and by proxy France's, dealings were any worse then the United States. But they definately weren't any better. The U.S. provided intelligence, the starter cultures that Iraq wanted for its CBW programs, and acted as an enabler for the conflict with Iran. France armed Iraq conventionally, provided a weapons grade nuclear (nuh*kleee*urr) reactor, helped them build the infrastructure they needed to produce the CBW (along with Germany), and also acted as an enabler for the conflict.

I'm not trying to blame anyone though. Though that's not entirely correct, maybe I'm blaming everyone equally that was involved?

And I agree, at a point in the past Saddam was considered a lesser evil by those in power at the time. For better or worse some of those in power now think quite the opposite.

Is this right? History will judge.

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ April 01 2003,02:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Muslim extremists didnt just wake up one morning and decide that the US is the great satan.  Maybe looking at why they did decide that may help keep it from happening again.<span id='postcolor'>

You wouldn't believe how many people genuinely cannot see that.

There are a large number that believe they hate the USA because it is Christian and a "shining beacon of democracy".

But then again, if you try to explain the reasoning behind theses extremists noone listens, and they all accuse you of supporting terrorism.

[turms 0]

Whatta hell has chirac to do with this war?? Hes a man of peace.And digging up fotographs from the same era that USA was a great supporter of Saddam doesnt give me a opinion seeing chirac as a warmonger,threat to the worldpeace and supporter of the dictators...

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (turms @ Mar. 31 2003,17:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Whatta hell has chirac to do with this war?? Hes a man of peace.And digging up fotographs from the same era that USA was a great supporter of Saddam doesnt give me a opinion seeing chirac as a warmonger,threat to the worldpeace and supporter of the dictators...<span id='postcolor'>

Chirac has alot to do with this war, and everything that lead up to it.

All issues of morality aside, Chirac was acting on the interests of his own country to try and prevent the war from happening. Not just because of popular opinion, but to also protect the economic interests of France in Iraq.

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Whatta hell has chirac to do with this war?? Hes a man of peace.And digging up fotographs from the same era that USA was a great supporter of Saddam doesnt give me a opinion seeing chirac as a warmonger,threat to the worldpeace and supporter of the dictators...

<span id='postcolor'>

Ha, Chirac better hope he stays in power as long as possible. It seems as soon as he leaves, the police want to have a word with him concerning fraud/corruption charges.

Silly Frenchman!

[turms 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ April 01 2003,02:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (turms @ Mar. 31 2003,17:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Whatta hell has chirac to do with this war?? Hes a man of peace.And digging up fotographs from the same era that USA was a great supporter of Saddam doesnt give me a opinion seeing chirac as a warmonger,threat to the worldpeace and supporter of the dictators...<span id='postcolor'>

Chirac has alot to do with this war, and everything that lead up to it.

All issues of morality aside, Chirac was acting on the interests of his own country to try and prevent the war from happening.  Not just because of popular opinion, but to also protect the economic interests of France in Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

Only countries and statesmen Who has something to do with the WAR are the ones who invaded Iraq and the Iraqis themselfs.So in my opinion it would be absurd to drag chirac in this WAR,becouse he is the one who campaigned for the PEACE.

[Mr. Snrub 0]

France is already involved in this situation - through it's strong anti-war stance, and it's position within the UN. You don't necessarily need to be part of the invading Coalition to be part of the situation - you could just be on the other side of the fence.

While it's not all together pointless (ie. it has some relevance), arguing about various countries economic interests in this war won't really lead anywhere. You could argue that France, Russia, China and perhaps Germany oppose the war because of the considerable business deals they have with Iraq and other middle-eastern nations, but you can also argue that every country in the Coalition has vested interests in seeing it go ahead - the US with oil and rebuilding contracts, other countries pressing to joining the EU or get US foreign aid, Australia pushing for a free-trade agreement etc.

OxPecker is right - there is a huge schism between Western and Arab views on the war and terrorism. For instance, the Arab world links most things (like this war) back to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while we see them as stand-alone events of no relation. Until we can understand their point of view, and they can empathise with ours, the extremists will keep coming.

What I'm really starting to get tired of though is the typical immature arguments the general public (on both sides) is basing their opinions on. Believing Iraq and al-Qaeda are the same entity, all this France-bashing etc.

I just wish the public would realise that this situation is far more complex, with far more history than they realise. Any well thought-out, rational argument from anyside can't be summarised in one catch-phrase or banner slogan.