The Iraq Thread

[Badgerboy 0]

I don't know about you, but I'm hooked on this great new novel.

I wonder if we will see one from Mr B.

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ April 04 2003,04:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Obviously the Brits and others on the ground in Iraq have judged the intelligence to be valid, and moreso to be a threat.<span id='postcolor'>

Either that or British and other allied leaders are more concerned with ingratiating themselves with the mighty USA than acting on the evidence at hand.

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ April 03 2003,19:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't know about you, but I'm hooked on this great new novel.

I wonder if we will see one from Mr B.<span id='postcolor'>

Wait, so if Iraq was a woman that was raped by the Allied invasion in the gulf war, then Kuwait was a weak man? A woman??? HOT

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ April 04 2003,04:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">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.<span id='postcolor'>

LOL

Or, the evidence you have is on a level with the nigerian uranium 'intelligence'

I guess the fact that everything the US told the inspectors turned out to be a load of bollocks has me rather unsure about any intelligence the US has. It only stands to reason that you owuld give the people who can justify your war the best info to get your 'smoking gun'

Or, we could go into tinfoil hat theories (which I dont believe but are fun to make up ) about how the US wanted inspections to fail so that they could kill the growing legitimacy of the UN and at the same time install an US friendly puppet government in Iraq, thus paving hte way for lucrative contracts for US companies.

Funny thing is it doesnt sound as far fetched as it would have prior to the Bush Administrations

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 03 2003,19:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ April 04 2003,04:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Obviously the Brits and others on the ground in Iraq have judged the intelligence to be valid, and moreso to be a threat.<span id='postcolor'>

Either that or British and other allied leaders are more concerned with ingratiating themselves with the mighty USA than acting on the evidence at hand.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't think that's fair to the Brits. They have a strong military, good leadership, and public opion that disagrees with the war. The British have also enjoyed strong relationships with many nations, not just the United States.

What purpose would "ingratiating" themselves with the U.S. serve? It would be hard for our two countries to have stronger military or political ties then already exist. I don't think that it's any accident or surprise that the majority of countries that have gone into Iraq with us are the ones that we have the strongest intelligence ties and crossdecking with...

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 04 2003,04:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ April 04 2003,04:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Obviously the Brits and others on the ground in Iraq have judged the intelligence to be valid, and moreso to be a threat.<span id='postcolor'>

Either that or British and other allied leaders are more concerned with ingratiating themselves with the mighty USA than acting on the evidence at hand.<span id='postcolor'>

Always willing to give folks the benefit of the doubt, aren't you?

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 04 2003,04:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 04 2003,04:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ April 04 2003,04:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Obviously the Brits and others on the ground in Iraq have judged the intelligence to be valid, and moreso to be a threat.<span id='postcolor'>

Either that or British and other allied leaders are more concerned with ingratiating themselves with the mighty USA than acting on the evidence at hand.<span id='postcolor'>

Always willing to give folks the benefit of the doubt, aren't you?  <span id='postcolor'>

In a situation where giving someone the benefit of the doubt means sanctioning international aggresion (read WAR) on the scale of what is going on right now...then no..I would not feel that you should give someone the benefit of the doubt when every single piece of substantiating intel that has come to light has proven wrong.

[turms 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Or, we could go into tinfoil hat theories (which I dont believe but are fun to make up ) about how the US wanted inspections to fail so that they could kill the growing legitimacy of the UN and at the same time install an US friendly puppet government in Iraq, thus paving hte way for lucrative contracts for US companies<span id='postcolor'>

There are suggestions that support a theory of USA decision to attack (2001) no matter what UN would have found.I posted this link before but will do it again,seeing as it fits in this conversation

Link

[OxPecker 0]

OK, Othin and Tex - the reason I suspect Blair's motives are based on the way my own leader (John Howard, Australian PM) has handled things.

He sure as hell has committed Australian forces to the conflict for the puropse of ingratiating himself to the USA (brown-nosing to Bush). I had assumed that Blair's motives were similar - buddying up to the #1 superpower.

[Othin 0]

I also think it's important not to put to much trust in the Brits.  If they're going to get their asses kicked by the Iraqis like this, then they need to go back and train harder.  I'm disgusted.

British Marines thrashed by Iraqis

j/k

<span style='color:red'><3 <3 <3</span><span style='color:blue'>Brits</span><span style='color:red'><3 <3 <3</span>

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ April 04 2003,05:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I also think it's important not to put to much trust in the Brits.  If they're going to get their asses kicked by the Iraqis like this, then they need to go back and trainer harder.  I'm disgusted.

British Marines thrashed by Iraqis

j/k

<span style='color:red'><3 <3 <3</span><span style='color:blue'>Brits</span><span style='color:red'><3 <3 <3</span><span id='postcolor'>

LOL!

Poor Othin just set anglo-american relations back decades!

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ April 04 2003,05:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">LOL!

Poor Othin just set anglo-american relations back decades! <span id='postcolor'>

You mean they actually like us again??!

[PFC Mongoose 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ April 04 2003,02:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">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.<span id='postcolor'>

I didn't know the details or the logistics of the plan untill much of Iraq was taken. I only heard the operation discussed as the Coalition as a whole, not where each particular nation would be participating.

Of course, up untill I started participating in these threads, the only news I had on the war came from CNN, so there you go.

As far as the planning, yes, it seems like Rumsfeld made a lot of mistakes, however, the fact remains British troops might be required to assist in taking Baghdad. They have much more urban combat experience than the Americans, and American forces might fight the enemy in superior numbers than anticipated once inside the city.

As far as the war goes, I have no particular desire to see dead Brits, dead Americans, or dead Iraqi (except maybe the Fedayeen Saddam, the ISS, and the Mukharbarat.), however, Tony Blair said the final objective was to oust Saddam's regime, and I think for all the good the British Forces have done, for all the success, and all the skill and professionalism they have shown, it would inevitably be a defeat for them in a way, if they were pulled out of Iraq before this objective was complete.

Also, this isn't really 'my' war, unless you mean in a unified North American sense, which doesn't really make much sense. Canada wants nothing to do with the war, and while I wholeheartedly support the final objective, and for the most part, the means, I do not support the war itself as much as People Getting Done What They Said They Would, which is certainly not a justification, but rather, independently, a respectable trait.

I think I lost my own point somewhere near the end there... ah well.

[Guest]

US to declare victory with or without Saddam surrender

Now this is getting bloody absurd. What about the "disarmament of Iraq"? Was that not the issue?

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">General Richard Myers, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Thursday stated that the Iraqi capital would not have to be under US control in order for the United States to set up a new interim administration.<span id='postcolor'>

This is getting somehow weird. It would be like taking germany without Berlin...

This does not work. By isolating Bagdad they mean cutting Bagdad of food, water and escapeways. Who will pay ? Not the civillians of course. Now it is obviouse that the US don´t intend to get into Bagdad for urban warfare.

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">US to declare victory with or without Saddam surrender

Now this is getting bloody absurd. What about the "disarmament of Iraq"? Was that not the issue? <span id='postcolor'>

Sorry, I thought that was hilarious.....

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 03 2003,16:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What stopped Europeans from sending forces to Rwanda?<span id='postcolor'>

anyone?

[PitViper 0]

I don't think Saddam would be stupid enough to leave them "lying about" when we invaded.  It will take a good amount of time to find his underground labs. We know German and French companies have been supplying him with everything he needs to take the final step.

[WhoCares 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sorry, I thought that was hilarious..... <span id='postcolor'>

I would call it obvious.

It happens all the time in the industry - a product is done and ready for release when the error rate drops below a certain limit.

The only difference is that in the industry the limits are defined by the customer (=> quality requirements). In the politics (and war is just politics ith different means), the limits are defined by the same politicians that started the war...

Edit: added quote...

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 04 2003,17:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 03 2003,162)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What stopped Europeans from sending forces to Rwanda?<span id='postcolor'>

anyone?<span id='postcolor'>

USA is the one pretending to be the saviour of the world, not Europe. And btw, there were about 2,500 UN troops in Rwanda when the violence started.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 04 2003,17:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't think Saddam would be stupid enough to leave them "lying about" when we invaded.  It will take a good amount of time to find his underground labs. We know German and French companies have been supplying him with everything he needs to take the final step.<span id='postcolor'>

You mean the stuff that the American and British companies provided him with in the '80s?

Well, if the UN inspectors had been given the time to complete their work we would have known, now wouldn't we?

Also an interesting point is that Bush said that there was imminent danger of Iraq using those alledged weapons. Why havn't they used it? They are at the brink of destruction and they have not used it! That's all the proof you need that there was no danger from Iraq in the first place.

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 03 2003,18:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 04 2003,17:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't think Saddam would be stupid enough to leave them "lying about" when we invaded.  It will take a good amount of time to find his underground labs. We know German and French companies have been supplying him with everything he needs to take the final step.<span id='postcolor'>

You mean the stuff that the American and British companies provided him with in the '80s?

Well, if the UN inspectors had been given the time to complete their work we would have known, now wouldn't we?

Also an interesting point is that Bush said that there was imminent danger of Iraq using those alledged weapons. Why havn't they used it? They are at the brink of destruction and they have not used it! That's all the proof you need that there was no danger from Iraq in the first place.<span id='postcolor'>

So obvious and yet most ppl aren't able to see it...

[DarkLight 0]

You know, what i do wonder is, can we (europe) actually get pissed off at bush and take him to court because he violated international rules? Hell, these rules count for everyone, right? So in theory, could we do it?

[bn880 5]

By consistently cutting off water and power to major cities, using cluster bombs in civilian areas, shelling civilian areas, making cluster bomblets look like food packets I now fully consider the U.S. forces and leadership to be a new type of fascism. This is unacceptable, totally! If the world stands by and watches, I understand where everyone stands and belongs.

But hey, who cares about someone else, it's you who matters.

[FallenPaladin 0]

I wish we could!