The Iraq Thread

[FallenPaladin 0]

German writer Gunther Grass (sp?) who wrote "Die Blechtrommel" compared Bush to Bin Laden. Both are fundamentalists in his eyes and their talks can be used for both of them if you just exchange a few words. "We are the light, bla bla bla."

Shit, I spoke in public against the new christian Paladin Bush (ignore the Pope! )... I can already hear the B52s with the smart cluster bombs approaching my hometown. Very soon I`ll no longer be FallenPaladin but CollateralPaladin!!      

[PFC Mongoose 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ April 04 2003,11:10)</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">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.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, like they said in the PEntagon Briefing on Reuters RawVideo yesterday, the idea is that if Baghdad is isolated, it means that the rest of the country might not neccessarily be as influenced by what's going on there (re: the people can finally 'rise up' if they so desire, which I'm still quite skeptical about, though I've been saying all along that at least some people in the country might be willing to rise up if it means getting a representative Government.)

How they'll stop it from being a Humanitarian disaster is beyond me; though I think if Saddam is theoretically sensible enough to not use the B/C weapons most aknwoldge he probably has, then I think the Coalition might be sensible enough to be able to pull it off.   We'll just have to wait and see.

</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">    

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 03 2003,16:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

What stopped Europeans from sending forces to Rwanda? <span id='postcolor'>

anyone?

<span id='postcolor'>

No idea.  None at all.  All I know about Rwanda without looking stuff up is it's in Africa, somewhere.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 04 2003,17:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

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

<span id='postcolor'>

Possibly. How long would that have taken, though? Months? Years? Were they getting unlimited access? Access to the Palaces? Would they have been ejected again once they started getting close?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 04 2003,17:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

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'>

True, I highly doubted there was an imminent danger all along. highly doubt any nation in the world would use an NBC weapon on just about any other nation in the current political climate without a high probability of extreme retaliation. It almost always isn't worth it. But what if Ansar al-Islam got a hold of one? What if soemhow the Palestinian Liberation Organization got a hold of one? (No, I'm not saying there is a link between Iraq nd the PLO, I'm just speculating).

For me, the point was, the U.N. told Iraq to disarm, and they didn't fully comply. Tehy told them again, and they didn't fully comply. They sen in inspectors, and the Iraqis played games with them, and threw them out. The only real progress I've seen the U.N. make in Iraq came after the U.S. threatened them. The U.S. threatened them, and they let the inspectors back in. The U.S. threatened them, and they began disarming al-Samouds, though not nearly as quicklyas they supposedly could have; and they were alledged to have reconstitued the moulds for the al-Smouds even as they claimed to be destroying them (an allegation made by Hans Blix himself.)

So, in this instance, I feel it is the U.S., and not the U.N., who has been getting the job done. And if the U.N. is unwilling, or unable to disarm IRaq, then the U.S. will obviously take it upon itself to do so, and they are. And they will. And probably, this isn't the best way, and probably, it could have been done peacefully, especially if the Security Council could have shown just a hint of uniformity on this, but they didn't. And so now, after 12 years, the U.S. is going to FINALLY disarm the Iraqi regime of illegal weapons, as advised by U.N. Resolution; but not supported by Resolution, and so, I feel, perhaps wrongly, perhaps not; that it's about freaking time.

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, if the UN inspectors had been given the time to complete their work we would have known, now wouldn't we?<span id='postcolor'>Well Hans Blix is slower then any average retarded grandpa so i honestly doubt it.

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SpeedyDonkey @ April 03 2003,20:30)</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">Well, if the UN inspectors had been given the time to complete their work we would have known, now wouldn't we?<span id='postcolor'>Well Hans Blix is slower then any average retarded grandpa so i honestly doubt it.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, bombing the hell outta countries is a lot faster, and it's a great way to hide all the economical problems!!!

Best solution ever!

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC Mongoose @ April 04 2003,19:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Possibly.  How long would that have taken, though?  Months?  Years?  Were they getting unlimited access?  Access to the Palaces?  Would they have been ejected again once they started getting close?<span id='postcolor'>

The inspectors were never ejected from Iraq, they left on their own after they concluded that Iraq was making it impossible to complete their work.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For me, the point was, the U.N. told Iraq to disarm, and they didn't fully comply. Tehy told them again, and they didn't fully comply. They sen in inspectors, and the Iraqis played games with them, and threw them out. The only real progress I've seen the U.N. make in Iraq came after the U.S. threatened them. The U.S. threatened them, and they let the inspectors back in. The U.S. threatened them, and they began disarming al-Samouds, though not nearly as quicklyas they supposedly could have; and they were alledged to have reconstitued the moulds for the al-Smouds even as they claimed to be destroying them (an allegation made by Hans Blix himself.)

<span id='postcolor'>

The point is that this round thanks to the imminent threat of war, the inspections were working. Not perfectly, but enough to make the inspectors confident that they could complete their task. They were destroying weapons and documenting the weapon programs when Bush decided to pull the plug. The inspections were working so there was no reason whatsoever to go to war at this time. None of us can predict the future but the inpections had a good chance of succeeding. If Iraq had begun messing with the inspectors again, the choice of going to war always remained. And then you would also have the support of the world. There was a chance that war could have been avoided and all those people now being killed in Iraq could have been alive. Those lives are on Bush's conscience.

Second, the fact is that it never had anything to do with weapons of mass destruction. If you remember how this started: terrorism. When no ties could be found accusations of a nuclear weapons program was introduced. When there was no evidence at all to support that accusation, chemical and biological weapons became an issue.

Read this article, you may find it interesting:

Blair 'delayed US strike on Iraq' (BBC)

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 03 2003,21:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC Mongoose @ April 04 2003,19:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Possibly.  How long would that have taken, though?  Months?  Years?  Were they getting unlimited access?  Access to the Palaces?  Would they have been ejected again once they started getting close?<span id='postcolor'>

The inspectors were never ejected from Iraq, they left on their own after they concluded that Iraq was making it impossible to complete their work.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For me, the point was, the U.N. told Iraq to disarm, and they didn't fully comply.  Tehy told them again, and they didn't fully comply.  They sen in inspectors, and the Iraqis played games with them, and threw them out.   The only real progress I've seen the U.N. make in Iraq came after the U.S. threatened them.   The U.S. threatened them, and they let the inspectors back in.  The U.S. threatened them, and they began disarming al-Samouds, though not nearly as quicklyas they supposedly could have; and they were alledged to have reconstitued the moulds for the al-Smouds even as they claimed to be destroying them (an allegation made by Hans Blix himself.)

<span id='postcolor'>

The point is that this round thanks to the imminent threat of war, the inspections were working. Not perfectly, but enough to make the inspectors confident that they could complete their task. They were destroying weapons and documenting the weapon programs when Bush decided to pull the plug. The inspections were working so there was no reason whatsoever to go to war at this time. None of us can predict the future but the inpections had a good chance of succeeding. If Iraq had begun messing with the inspectors again, the choice of going to war always remained. And then you would also have the support of the world. There was a chance that war could have been avoided and all those people now being killed in Iraq could have been alive. Those lives are on Bush's conscience.

Second, the fact is that it never had anything to do with weapons of mass destruction. If you remember how this started: terrorism. When no ties could be found accusations of a nuclear weapons program was introduced. When there was no evidence at all to support that accusation, chemical and biological weapons became an issue.

Read this article, you may find it interesting:

 Blair 'delayed US strike on Iraq' (BBC)<span id='postcolor'>

And let's not forget, that Bush would be A LOT more popular all over the world IF he would've listened to all the protests.

Oh well, i guess that's not important. Still, i'm surprised that one man can do something while a huge amount of the world protest against it. It's so funny that all the power lays in one man's hands, well actually not really, but now that UN rules don't seem to count anymore, pretty much everything can be done.

[R. Gerschwarzenge 0]

I can't help myself. I just have to post this pic here.

[russin 0]

lmao bush left the lens caps on hahaaahahaahahahaaha what was he smokin i bet some good green buds wonder what he was seeing

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah, bombing the hell outta countries is a lot faster, and it's a great way to hide all the economical problems!!!

Best solution ever!

<span id='postcolor'>

Well i am certainly not saying that. All i say is that i dont belive the weapons inspectors would find anything if Iraq tries to hide thier weapons.

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

apparently he has some minor problems with the childerns book too

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

Just a question for all you dove´s of peace out there. I really dont understand why you are so very much agains this war. I mean i have some friends from iraq and they are pleased about the war becouse of the liberation of Iraq. Sure they are afraid of civilian casualties but they belive Iraq has to "pay the price" and yes, even with blood to once and for all get rid of Saddam.

And to think that the coalitions only intention is to get oil sounds kind of cynical to me. Sure they might have financial interest. But France Russian and german are for the very same reason opposing the war.

[-iCeMaN- 0]

Oh God they shot down a F/A 18... is that even possible by the Iraqis?  What did they do? Throw a few rocks at the plane and jam the engines like they did to a F117 in '91??  Them and their stupid sticks and rocks.

It gives a whole new meaning to the phrase:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Sticks and stones can't hurt my bones"<span id='postcolor'>

-iCe-

[canukausiuka 1]

I am starting to lose faith in our ability to prove that Saddam had WMDs cached anytime soon. So far every potential report has turned out false (but this is also due to the media blowing up every possible sighting. I swear, they are this close to just making stuff up to keep folks interested in their war coverage!. I still belive Saddam had them, but probably went to great lengths to protect them from discovery. Of course, there'll be little way to prove anything.

Even if we did, I would be absolutely shocked if several people didn't claim that they were planted, ridiculous as that is. If GWB got caught planting evidence like that in Iraq, well, Watergate would suddenly be so pathetic in comparison (Furthermore, it'd be at least a decade before we got a good president. Having a bad president doesn't make the next one good, it just means that the next one looks better than he is.). The US really has a lot to lose here if this goes against us in the long run. We've already created dissent not just in the world, but domestic as well (I'm not saying that world dissent is not as bad as domestic, it's just more expected). To be honest, I don't feel the war's justification was presented, but for the sake of my nation (and for international stability), it better be there.

However, now that we are at war, I am 100% behind our actions. Frankly, we cannot pull out, the only way to resolve this now is to win the war and set up a functional Iraqi government. If we don't win, I cannot see anything but more wars in the future, and with the Middle East being the center of it all . If the Iraqi government fails to cohere, we're in trouble, too. I really just hope that we can get done there, and bring our boys (and our allies theirs) back home safe and sound. I know, I have a friend in the Marine Corps and one of my friends has a brother in Iraq right now. I don't want to see our troops sitting in Iraq for even months after the interim government comes to full speed.

There's a lot at risk with this conflict, and I just pray that God will protect the men and women who are innocent in these matters. The soldiers who die doing there job are not criminals, and it's as much a tragedy that they die as civilians. The only people I don't have that pity for are those that have no respect for their fellow humans. May God take pity on them, and may he bless those that are willing to lay down their lives to stop them.

[Akira 0]

Children's Book

Binoculars

And a few more legends:

Bin Laden Family

IQ

Grocery Scanner

And I'll throw one in about Rumsfield:

Axis Of Weasels

These items are getting old hat and tiresome. As stated before...there are plenty of ways to critizz Bush without resorting to made up fables that only weaken the arguement and make the user look somewhat childish.

And on a side note...my own beloved Texas Legislature:

Boston Strangler

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SpeedyDonkey @ April 04 2003,16:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just a question for all you dove´s of peace out there. I really dont understand why you are so very much agains this war. I mean i have some friends from iraq and they are pleased about the war becouse of the liberation of Iraq. Sure they are afraid of civilian casualties but they belive Iraq has to "pay the price" and yes, even with blood to once and for all get rid of Saddam.

And to think that the coalitions only intention is to get oil sounds kind of cynical to me. Sure they might have financial interest. But France Russian and german are for the very same reason opposing the war.<span id='postcolor'>

Your friends can not tell Iraqi families what price they have to pay. And remember, your friends are not in Iraq, they like the "No Information Entered" country where you live.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">These items are getting old hat and tiresome. As stated before...there are plenty of ways to critizz Bush without resorting to made up fables that only weaken the arguement and make the user look somewhat childish.

<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, I'd have to agree. It's just kind of boring. I mean come on, if Bush is that big an idiot, don't you think you guys would have some newer material to work with?

Although to be honest, this one cracks me up every time.

[Badgerboy 0]

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ April 05 2003,02:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

I posted that awhile ago

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (|iCeMaN| @ April 04 2003,23:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Oh God they shot down a F/A 18... is that even possible by the Iraqis?  What did they do? Throw a few rocks at the plane and jam the engines like they did to a F117 in '91??  Them and their stupid sticks and rocks.

It gives a whole new meaning to the phrase:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Sticks and stones can't hurt my bones"<span id='postcolor'>

-iCe-<span id='postcolor'>

Throw stones You are a really smart one, aren't ya Plus, the only F-117 shot down so far was over Serbia/Kosovo (that region anyhow).

On the other hand, the Iraqis managed to shoot down something like 20 odd planes in the last war, was that done with stones as well

Some people

[Badgerboy 0]

How?

Compare the amount of sorties flown, and then the amount of SAMs, AAA,and MANPADS.

Oh,and of course PATRIOTS!

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ April 05 2003,02:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

You should email this to The Sun

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You should email this to The Sun <span id='postcolor'>

Yeah right. They would miss the point completely, brand me a morphine addled, tranvestite Nazi lover, and send a hit squad of deranged, brain dead readers round my house to pummel me. The lock on the door would confuse them for a while, and the fact that I have windows in my home, but I'm sure they would gain access eventually.

No apologies to Sun readers, your all bastards!

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ April 05 2003,04:57)</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">You should email this to The Sun <span id='postcolor'>

Yeah right. They would miss the point completely, brand me a morphine addled, tranvestite Nazi lover, and send a hit squad of deranged, brain dead readers round my house to pummel me. The lock on the door would confuse them for a while, and the fact that I have windows in my home, but I'm sure they would gain access eventually.

No apologies to Sun readers, your all bastards!<span id='postcolor'>

Tell us how you really feel. Don't hold back this time...

lol

[Heavy Metal 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (R. Gerschwarzenge @ April 04 2003,20:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I can't help myself. I just have to post this pic here.

<span id='postcolor'>

Sorry, Bush ain't that stupid!

This Dud on the other hand:

[Badgerboy 0]

It's faked. (The Clinton one). If you open it in a decent image browser, you can easily see how.

Besides, who cares. If Bush manages to jam his gonads in a toaster, then I might find it amusing.