The Iraq Thread

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 03 2003,22:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Pardon?  I believe the Brits colonized it did they not?<span id='postcolor'>

Yes they did - well, that area at least. It was under British rule until 1932 when the kingdom of Iraq was founded.  And it was largely a tribal society that had not taken the step to the 20th century. It was first under Qassem the first president that the country modernized. He was inspired by the modernization of Egypt under Nasser and the Arab nationalist movement. His time in power was short however, the Baathist overthrew him in 1963 but continued his modernization and by 1970 Iraq was the regional leader in terms of modernization and quality of life of its citizens.

[interstat 0]

Good to see Blair has osme backbone, may have come to realise the folly he has caused in supporting the USA:

UK and US disagree over syria and Iran

Once we have sorted Basra, I hope the majority of the UK forces are brought home. Or will we have to do the dirty work in Baghdad?

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Once we have sorted Basra, I hope the majority of the UK forces are brought home. Or will we have to do the dirty work in Baghdad?<span id='postcolor'>

No bloody chance. Thats not our mandate.

[interstat 0]

Yeah my thoughts exactly badgerboy, we can watch the explosions on TV!!

Also not good news:

Russian muslims declare jihad

Bit of a bummer for the west, go USA, GO!!

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 03 2003,22:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Some discussion regarding "www.iraqbodycount.com" and its methodology.

http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2003_03_30_oxblog_archive.html#91909162<span id='postcolor'>

The count includes all civilians killed, regardless of who kills them. What's so strange about that?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </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">UPDATE: According to the AP today, "Iraq says nearly 500 civilians have been killed and more than 4,000 wounded since the war began." In other words, the Iraq Body Count Project's minimum count of Iraqi civilian deaths is higher than what the Iraqi government itself claims!<span id='postcolor'>

amazing. outpropagandizing the baathist regime.<span id='postcolor'>

They've lost control over a large part of their country and have not got a clue on what is going on. If you bother to read the methodology description you'll see that these numbers are taken from public media sources. They are crossreferenced and once a death toll has been confirmed by two independent sources, they are published.

Sounds a lot better to me then the Pentagon/Baghdad propaganda that we are being fed.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (interstat @ April 03 2003,23:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah my thoughts exactly badgerboy, we can watch the explosions on TV!!  

Also not good news:

Russian muslims declare jihad

Bit of a bummer for the west, go USA, GO!!  <span id='postcolor'>

Not quite

One idiot cleric called for Jihad, he was subsequently rebuffed by the head of Russia's Muslim community. Although I think the rebuffal could have been worded a bit stronger than "it's unecessary". Anyways, I don't like it one bit, I can see this causing more terrorist attacks in Russian soil, causing Western countries to see Russia as overtly hostile, and perhaps making the situation in Chechnya worse, if that's possible.

[interstat 0]

CIA questions evidence against Syria:

syria

[Guest]

Iraq doesn't like France very much either

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Aziz also made indirect accusations against countries that opposed the US-led war on Iraq.

"A number of those countries were not pro-Iraqi. They were pro-themselves, when they resisted the American policy regarding Iraq. Actually they did it for themselves, for their own interests," he said.

"They never really supported us," he said.

<span id='postcolor'>

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 03 2003,23:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 03 2003,22:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Some discussion regarding "www.iraqbodycount.com" and its methodology.

http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2003_03_30_oxblog_archive.html#91909162<span id='postcolor'>

The count includes all civilians killed, regardless of who kills them. What's so strange about that?<span id='postcolor'>

Here's a quote taken directly off of the IBC site:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is a human security project to establish an independent and comprehensive public database of media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq resulting directly from military actions by the USA and its allies in 2003.<span id='postcolor'>

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 04 2003,01:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 03 2003,23:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 03 2003,22:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Some discussion regarding "www.iraqbodycount.com" and its methodology.

http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2003_03_30_oxblog_archive.html#91909162<span id='postcolor'>

The count includes all civilians killed, regardless of who kills them. What's so strange about that?<span id='postcolor'>

Here's a quote taken directly off of the IBC site:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is a human security project to establish an independent and comprehensive public database of media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq resulting directly from military actions by the USA and its allies in 2003.<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

If there had been no war those people killed by the Iraqis now would have not been killed. If an Iraqi mortar shell by accident kills civilians it's still on Bush's conscience since he started the war. The counter lists civilians killed in the war. USA started this war hence all the civilian casualites are its fault.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If there had been no war those people killed by the Iraqis now would have not been killed. If an Iraqi mortar shell by accident kills civilians it's still on Bush's conscience since he started the war. The counter lists civilians killed in the war. USA started this war hence all the civilian casualites are its fault.<span id='postcolor'>

Somehow I don't think that's what the makers of IBC.com were thinking when they wrote that. But whatever, if you suddenly can lay claim to the sole interpretation of a 3rd party website's goals in spite of what is written on the site itself, I have no interest in continuing this line. Read the goddam webpage, check the stats, and then tell me if it is reporting all civilian deaths, no matter who kills them. That's all I'm going to say.

[PFC Mongoose 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ April 03 2003,23:40)</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">Once we have sorted Basra, I hope the majority of the UK forces are brought home.  Or will we have to do the dirty work in Baghdad?<span id='postcolor'>

No bloody chance. Thats not our mandate.<span id='postcolor'>

Blair said the purpose of the U.K.'s involvement in the war was to oust the regime of Saddam Hussein.

If destroying the regime means going into Baghdad, don't you think British forces have a responsibility to go in and see it through?

Or do you believe they should just pull back and let the Americans finish the job?

Not meaning to sound inflammatory, I'm just actually curious about what your views on this are.

In fact, I hope no one so far has felt inflamed or insulted by my posts, my views, or often my ignorance.

I'm just really enjoying a heated debate with a groupd of (mostly) highly intelligent, well-informed people.

[OxPecker 0]

-----never mind, already been answered a few pages back-----

[Badgerboy 0]

This has been discussed before, so in short.

The plan called for British forces to operate in southern Iraq, whilst the US drove on Baghdad. This had been decided way before war was declared.

Our job was Basra, the second biggest city, not Baghdad. If Brits need to get called up to help, it will underline how badly Rumsfeld fucked up the planning on this one.

And to be brutally honest, this is your war, not ours. I have no inclination to see piles of dead Brits, who shouldn't be there in the first place.

[Warin 0]

Rummy Speaks!

Good lord, this man is a dumbass. And I do find it amusing that the main justification for this was has been to date a straw-man. the Iraqis have not used chemical munitions of any sort, and not shown that they even posses them.

I seem to remembe a report before the jump off that chemical munitions were being distributed to front line troops. Strange they havent materialised. Military Intelligence seems to be a bit of an oxymoron in this case.

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Do they want to not use all their weapons and hope that they can get a deal when it's not even a remote possibility?" Rumsfeld asked. "Or will they go ahead and use them and totally eliminate the perception in their people that he (Saddam) might survive? Because once he uses those, it's pretty clear there can't be a deal."

Rumsfeld ruled out any such deal with Saddam's government.

<span id='postcolor'>

Nice one. Now according to his pox ridden logic, now Saddams got nothing to lose by using chemical weapons,so he might as well let rip.

Honestly, does anyone on this forum think the guy isn't a nutcase?

[turms 0]

I stumbled on a interseting article:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">US President George Bush was persuaded by UK Prime Minister Tony Blair not to attack Iraq in the immediate aftermath of the 11 September terrorist attacks, it has been claimed. <span id='postcolor'>

Article on BBC

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ April 03 2003,18:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I seem to remembe a report before the jump off that chemical munitions were being distributed to front line troops.  Strange they havent materialised.  Military Intelligence seems to be a bit of an oxymoron in this case. <span id='postcolor'>

Not really strange that they haven't been used yet. Saddam knows that at this point he has the majority of the worlds public opinion in his favor. He's not going to hurt that until he's sure that he's going down and no ones going to help.

Now that the Coalition forces have drawn up to Baghdad itself, the chance that he's going to use them is greater and greater. If he gives the order and his commanders decide to take it, it will be interesting to see what method he tries to employ it in. Tactics from the Iran Iraq war, or some sort of trap? We'll have to see I guess.

Also if we choose to believe the opinions of some, the Coalition hasn't faced the "front line" troops yet...

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ April 04 2003,03:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">5--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ April 03 2003,185)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I seem to remembe a report before the jump off that chemical munitions were being distributed to front line troops.  Strange they havent materialised.  Military Intelligence seems to be a bit of an oxymoron in this case. <span id='postcolor'>

Not really strange that they haven't been used yet.  Saddam knows that at this point he has the majority of the worlds public opinion in his favor.  He's not going to hurt that until he's sure that he's going down and no ones going to help.

Now that the Coalition forces have drawn up to Baghdad itself, the chance that he's going to use them is greater and greater.  If he gives the order and his commanders decide to take it, it will be interesting to see what method he tries to employ it in.  Tactics from the Iran Iraq war, or some sort of trap?  We'll have to see I guess.

Also if we choose to believe the opinions of some, the Coalition hasn't faced the "front line" troops yet... <span id='postcolor'>

So what happens if the War ends, Saddam is killed, and no stocks of chemical or biological weapons are found?

President Bush: Ooops. My bad.

So far every prediction the US has made about Chemical weapons in this war has been wrong, right?

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ April 04 2003,03:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So what happens if the War ends, Saddam is killed, and no stocks of chemical or biological weapons are found?

President Bush: Ooops. My bad.

So far every prediction the US has made about Chemical weapons in this war has been wrong, right?<span id='postcolor'>

If no chemical or other WMD are found and Saddam is killed, the war will still be justified becase "we liberated the Iraqi people".

The fact that the whole reason that they went in for was invalid will be quickly swept under the carpet.

[Badgerboy 0]

I agree. Even the speeches emphasis this already. They speak less and less of finding chemical weapons now.

Problem with that is, if it does happen, the war will have been highly illegal. The US went to war over resolution breaches, not human rights. Lets all see how it plays out.

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ April 03 2003,18:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So what happens if the War ends, Saddam is killed, and no stocks of chemical or biological weapons are found?

President Bush: Ooops. My bad.

So far every prediction the US has made about Chemical weapons in this war has been wrong, right?<span id='postcolor'>

I wouldn't neccisarily say that every prediction the U.S. has made have come wrong. They definately expected Sadaam to use them earlier, but then again we haven't seen the concentrations of his forces that was expected.

But, this war wasn't launched on a guess. They exist. In all likelihood if the chemical munitions aren't used in battle, it's because the Iraqi commanders refused to carry out the orders. Or that they didn't get the orders because of leadership deaths, communications problems, or dissolution of the remaining C2.

[turms 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But, this war wasn't launched on a guess. They exist. <span id='postcolor'>

Good to hear somebody has found evidence at last!

Could you share them with us?

[OxPecker 0]

Yeah, quit holding out on us Othin, if you have evidence that the rest of the world doesn't, share!

[Othin 0]

Sweet, I've been waiting weeks to say this!

Much like Balischow I cannot reveal nor confirm my sources.  You'll just have to take my word and the fact that the United States is not in Iraq alone.  Obviously the Brits and others on the ground in Iraq have judged the intelligence to be valid, and moreso to be a threat.