The Iraq Thread

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ April 16 2003,08:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So how does continueing sanctions agaisnt the civilians that we all have railed against, get back at the US? Now they are using the Iraqi civilians as some kind of political bargaining chip? That is just sad...I see their sympathy for Iraq goes only so far...<span id='postcolor'>

It is sad, I agree, but it isn't as sad as it might look. USA has made big promises for Iraq and if they don't want their influence to be very short-termed then they will have to help rebuild the country. The question is just who will pay for it. If the sanctions aren't lifted it will prevent the sale of Iraqi oil (for money) and leave the entire bill to the US to pay.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 16 2003,09:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ April 16 2003,08:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So how does continueing sanctions agaisnt the civilians that we all have railed against, get back at the US? Now they are using the Iraqi civilians as some kind of political bargaining chip? That is just sad...I see their sympathy for Iraq goes only so far...<span id='postcolor'>

It is sad, I agree, but it isn't as sad as it might look. USA has made big promises for Iraq and if they don't want their influence to be very short-termed then they will have to help rebuild the country. The question is just who will pay for it. If the sanctions aren't lifted it will prevent the sale of Iraqi oil (for money) and leave the entire bill to the US to pay.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes this is a highly difficult situation. On the one hand the nations opposing the coalition war won't pay the bill because the responsability is placed securely within the coalition. On the other hand they are sort of a hostage of the situation - how can they deny the iraqi people indirect humanitarian help which rebuilding the country could very well be said to be. This would not be such a huge diplomatic problem if US/UK allowed UN to rule. After all, US has stated that the action it took was in accordance with the UN resolutions.

I have an entirely different propposal - however unrealistic it may be. Let US and UK pay for the damage they have caused to the civilian infrastructure during the last decade and this war. Use the "oil for money-programme" pay for the ruined country caused by Saddam and the Baath-party and restoring a sort of democracy. Let UN run the country untill democracy can be implemented as well as fund humanitarian help.

Sounds fair too me - but it's not going to happen

[Blaegis 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 16 2003,08:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">France, Germany and Russia had a meeting on Monday. The conclusions, agreed by all was this:

[*] No UN = no lifting of sanctions

[*] USA pays the entire bill or no lifting of sanctions

[*] Any UN proposal that will try to legetimize the war will be vetoed.

This sounds a bit different then from the story you posted, doesn't it? De Villepin was in Stockholm yesterday to discuss Iraq and the result was a joint statement confirming the points above.<span id='postcolor'>

Are you sure about this, Denoir? I scrolled through the news reports regarding the St.Petersburg summit, and their wording was not nearly as strong as quoted by you. It was along the lines of a more diluted "French, Russian and German leaders push for key role for UN in reconstruction of Iraq". Besides, what do you mean by "No UN"? UN involvement in Iraq can range from just humanitarian aid to UN-supervised and UN-endorsed transitional period, which, I'm sure you'll agree are two completely different things. So will FRA-RUS-GER be satisfied with a token UN role or will they actually fight for a leading one? I think, sad as it is,  in the end they'll take what they can get...

As for de Villepin, well:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">(April 14th) "Let us be pragmatic, let us start from the reality of the problems...and one will see that everybody will be able to find its place... It is obvious that the U.S. administration has a role to play. It is useless to go back to what divided us...let us turn to the future."<span id='postcolor'>

So I still maintain that the politicians (regardless of their nationality) will abandon their so-called principles when it's expedient to do so.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ April 16 2003,11:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Are you sure about this, Denoir? I scrolled through the news reports regarding the St.Petersburg summit, and their wording was not nearly as strong as quoted by you. It was along the lines of a more diluted "French, Russian and German leaders push for key role for UN in reconstruction of Iraq". Besides, what do you mean by "No UN"? UN involvement in Iraq can range from just humanitarian aid to UN-supervised and UN-endorsed transitional period, which, I'm sure you'll agree are two completely different things. So will FRA-RUS-GER be satisfied with a token UN role or will they actually fight for a leading one? I think, sad as it is, in the end they'll take what they can get...<span id='postcolor'>

Very sure. It has been a lot in the media here. Yesterday our foregin minister Anna Lindh and Villepin made a joint statement about it.

As for the UN role, there are three positions.

US: UN will have a role in the rebuilding of Iraq

UK: UN will have a key role in the rebuilding of Iraq

FRG+EU: UN will have a central role in the rebuilding of Iraq

From what it looks like USA wants the UN to take care of the humanitarian part, Britain wants a shared administration while FRG and the EU wants a UN administrated transitional government. Both Villepin and Chirac have made it very clear that if USA wants UN funding for the rebuilding then the UN has to take the lead. It seems to be the position of the EU also. It doesn't stop there however. The current demands are for Britain and USA to fund it while the UN takes charge. It's very logical since it was the Anglo-American forces that destroyed the country in the first place so there is no reason for those that opposed the war to pay for something that they were very much against.

As for the "being pragmatical" statement, I interpreted it as directed to USA and not refering to France's position.

As I said, Germany might fold but I doubt very much that France and Russia will. The current trends are in the opposite direction.

Edit: UK warns Europe over Iraq -BBC article on the subject.

[Blaegis 0]

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

US: UN will have a role in the rebuilding of Iraq

UK: UN will have a key role in the rebuilding of Iraq

FRG+EU: UN will have a central role in the rebuilding of Iraq<span id='postcolor'>

I also heard Bush saying that the UN will have a "vital" role in Iraq. He never did explain what that "vital" actually meant...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The current demands are for Britain and USA to fund it while the UN takes charge. It's very logical since it was the Anglo-American forces that destroyed the country in the first place so there is no reason for those that opposed the war to pay for something that they were very much against.<span id='postcolor'>

Logical it may be, but it's not going to happen. Well, there's the EU summit and UN SC meeting taking place today, so perhaps we'll see which way things are going.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir-"You have an extremely biased point of view but not from the classical American perspective but from a conservative British one. It's not meant as criticism - it's always interesting to have an opposing view, no matter how biased it is" <span id='postcolor'>

I dont want to rant on about my politics but

Actually being called a British conservative is for me deeply insulting . I am sure in Scandinavian terms i am a conservative but in Britain i am more or less centre left (with a few right wing libertarian tendancies). If you recall that political orientation test from a while back i was indeed a centre left libertarian and left of probably most (all?)

of the americans here. I have never voted for the British conservatives and almost certainly never will (unless they majorly change their tune). Not a great fan of Thatcher, a believer in the welfare state, skeptical about Blairs privatisation schemes , not a habitual reader of the Sun of The Telegraph (in fact more the Guardian- tantamount to pinko commie liberalism), ok enough ranting.

If you want a real British conservative view look at that Paratrooper guy who was around here a while ago.

Sure i am skeptical of the french political elite in regards to the EU but thats because i want the EU to work and as it should ( not getting hijacked by any one or few countries interests.)

Anyway when i get worked up about the French you have to remember that im English (half). We've been at each others throats for a thousand years. Imagine Norway with ICBMs an attitude and a plan.

Scary

Im unhappy with the UN but thats because its failing just when it needs to be succeeding like never before. (Blaegis has pointed out some of the difficulties in reforming it though)

-----------------------------------------------------------

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Denoir-"Not to mention that they are absurd. Do you consider police shooting bankrobbers to be "summarily executing them"? What I say is stop the criminal activity one way or another, even using deadly force if necessary. That's nothing radical, every police in the world works according to that principle. If you have armed robbers then you have to use force to stop them."<span id='postcolor'>

Who said anything about -armed- robbers? The looters of the national museum did not need to be armed. I have scarcely seen a single armed looter. Guns take up too much loot space.

Shooting armed looters is one thing (even then they should certainly be given warnings), shooting unarmed looters (including women and children) is quite another.

I think the Americans already are aggresivly disarming those they come across with firearms looters or not.

As for bias heheh

Naturally the German French and Russian governments are all 100% trustworthy totally without greed (or even business acumen) and far beyond reproach. Unlike those dangerous religious fanatics the neo-colonialist

americans and the running dog imperialist British.You Scandinavians must be naive or blinded by your Viking ideology.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ April 16 2003,12:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Logical it may be, but it's not going to happen. Well, there's the EU summit and UN SC meeting taking place today, so perhaps we'll see which way things are going.<span id='postcolor'>

In theory Russia and/or France could seriously fuck over the US by refusing to lift the sanctions. That would block the usage of the Iraqi oil for everybody (except the civilians through the oil-for-food program). It would however be a significant escalation of the current Euro-American conflict. Nobody wants to see this because Europe is America's biggest trading partner and vice-versa. Also the Iraqi population would draw the short straw.

I think however the Bush administration is also painfully aware of the fact that if the sanctions arn't lifted then this whole war would have been in vain for their part. Iraq would reamin as paralyzed as it was before the war. So I think that Bush will be looking for a compromise. On the other hand, one never knows. It's not like he has been listening to others so far.

Too bad that the Iraqis will be in the squeeze, otherwise it would have been a good idea to teach the Bush administration the consequences of ignoring the international community. It does not have to be for long, just a year until he loses the elections. The US economy has gone down the drain so his career depends very much on the outcome in Iraq. Make it a shitty one and you'll have somebody more reasonable in charge next term..

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Bgrnorway-"I have an entirely different propposal - however unrealistic it may be. Let US and UK pay for the damage they have caused to the civilian infrastructure during the last decade and this war. Use the "oil for money-programme" pay for the ruined country caused by Saddam and the Baath-party and restoring a sort of democracy. Let UN run the country untill democracy can be implemented as well as fund humanitarian help."

I think this idea is more reasonable than denoirs idea that because Britain and America 'destroyed the country' (a fallacy anyway) they have to repay for rebuilding all of it.

All of this teaching america a lesson seems rather counterproductive. It certainly wont increase American cooperation with the UN if that is the intention.

Even if George Bush is voted out or steps down i wouldnt necessarily expect the foreign policies to totally change. This 'war on terror' thing post s.11 seems quite popular with the US public in principle.

To keep enforcing UN sanctions even after a totally new Iraqi government is set up would be to go against their initial purpose and against the spirit of the UN(as much at least as militarily enforcing UN resolutions on Iraq whether the SC liked it or not).

The best way of convincing america not to act like this again is not to jeopardise the future of the Iraqi people or use them as a pawn in this great game. On the contrary that would be the worst ,least impressive most dangerous way.

[edit- on the last part i seem to remember that the UN has stated (perhaps privatly) that it would not even be able to run to country as this point. - edit]

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ April 16 2003,14:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You Scandinavians must be naive or blinded by your Viking ideology.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm sorry, but not all scandinavians are vikings. We finns (though a part of scandinavia) always fought those evil vikings in the west and the evil russians in the east, when they came raiding our villages. Of course we ocassionally raided them back, polite as we are.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Oligo- I appreciate it  , but it was a response to people talking about my 'anglo-saxon' ideology. I should probably point out that only a small number of British people (not including me)are anglo-saxons.

I have Spanish Scottish Norman blood if anyone cares

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 16 2003,15:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ April 16 2003,12:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Logical it may be, but it's not going to happen. Well, there's the EU summit and UN SC meeting taking place today, so perhaps we'll see which way things are going.<span id='postcolor'>

In theory Russia and/or France could seriously fuck over the US by refusing to lift the sanctions. That would block the usage of the Iraqi oil for everybody (except the civilians through the oil-for-food program). It would however be a significant escalation of the current Euro-American conflict. Nobody wants to see this because Europe is America's biggest trading partner and vice-versa. Also the Iraqi population would draw the short straw.

I think however the Bush administration is also painfully aware of the fact that if the sanctions arn't lifted then this whole war would have been in vain for their part. Iraq would reamin as paralyzed as it was before the war. So I think that Bush will be looking for a compromise. On the other hand, one never knows. It's not like he has been listening to others so far.  

Too bad that the Iraqis will be in the squeeze, otherwise it would have been a good idea to teach the Bush administration the consequences of ignoring the international community. It does not have to be for long, just a year until he loses the elections. The US economy has gone down the drain so his career depends very much on the outcome in Iraq. Make it a shitty one and you'll have somebody more reasonable in charge next term..<span id='postcolor'>

You know if america did that,there would be an protest,burning american flags.People saying this is why they hate usa gov't.So blah.Once again,if USA is not doing it ,it's ok.However if they do,their screwed,stupid,don't know what their doing.Blah

Damn if you do,damn if you don't.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ April 16 2003,15:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bgrnorway-"I have an entirely different propposal - however unrealistic it may be. Let US and UK pay for the damage they have caused to the civilian infrastructure during the last decade and this war. Use the "oil for money-programme" pay for the ruined country caused by Saddam and the Baath-party and restoring a sort of democracy. Let UN run the country untill democracy can be implemented as well as fund humanitarian help."

I think this idea is more reasonable than denoirs idea that because Britain and America 'destroyed the country' (a fallacy anyway) they have to repay for rebuilding all of it.<span id='postcolor'>

No, I didn't say repair all of it. My idea of a fair deal is exactly as you described it. US/UK pay for the war damages, UN administration runs the country, Iraq is rebuild partially by revenues from its oil and partially from intrenational monetary aid.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually being called a British conservative is for me deeply insulting <span id='postcolor'>

Sorry, I probably used the wrong term there. Conservative in the meaning of defending your country's action in a stubborn old-fashioned way. "Classical British" attitude would perhaps be the better term of it: You know: "It's a good cause and if something is wrong, it must be the Yanks' fault anyway"

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Who said anything about -armed- robbers? The looters of the national museum did not need to be armed. I have scarcely seen a single armed looter. Guns take up too much loot space.

Shooting armed looters is one thing (even then they should certainly be given warnings), shooting unarmed looters (including women and children) is quite another.<span id='postcolor'>

As I said, stopped one way or another. If a warning shot is enough then that's good. If not then shoot them. The same way as a police would deal with it. I don't see how that can be so problematic or "wrong".

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Naturally the German French and Russian governments are all 100% trustworthy totally without greed (or even business acumen) and far beyond reproach. <span id='postcolor'>

They have their own agendas. The difference is that they don't go invading countries for little reason and killing people. Which makes them the good guys. I don't care if Chirac is doing it to gain domestic popularity - as long as he does the things that agree with my views I'm for it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You Scandinavians must be naive or blinded by your Viking ideology.<span id='postcolor'>

We don't take sides in principle. We're neutral and have been so for a long time. Now and then we give Nobel prize awards. We respect the UN and have restrained ourselves from annexing Norway. That's Sweden.

</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 (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ April 16 2003,14:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You Scandinavians must be naive or blinded by your Viking ideology.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm sorry, but not all scandinavians are vikings. We finns (though a part of scandinavia) always fought those evil vikings in the west and the evil russians in the east, when they came raiding our villages. Of course we ocassionally raided them back, polite as we are.<span id='postcolor'>

You are just a bunch of deluded Swedes. You might as well start preparing for rejoining Sweden. Face it: Your destiny is to either be annexed by Sweden or Russia. Which do you prefer? I mean, you have Swedish as an official language, you've been a part of Sweden for over 500 years. Face it, you are our lost province.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ April 16 2003,12:33)</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">

US: UN will have a role in the rebuilding of Iraq

UK: UN will have a key role in the rebuilding of Iraq

FRG+EU: UN will have a central role in the rebuilding of Iraq<span id='postcolor'>

I also heard Bush saying that the UN will have a "vital" role in Iraq. He never did explain what that "vital" actually meant... <span id='postcolor'>

Someone has to generate all the paperwork...

[Goeth 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 16 2003,18:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You are just a bunch of deluded Swedes. You might as well start preparing for rejoining Sweden. Face it: Your destiny is to either be annexed by Sweden or Russia. Which do you prefer? I mean, you have Swedish as an official language, you've been a part of Sweden for over 500 years. Face it, you are our lost province. <span id='postcolor'>

Come and get us, russians tried that and now it´s your turn

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 16 2003,12:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You are just a bunch of deluded Swedes. You might as well start preparing for rejoining Sweden. Face it: Your destiny is to either be annexed by Sweden or Russia. Which do you prefer? I mean, you have Swedish as an official language, you've been a part of Sweden for over 500 years. Face it, you are our lost province. <span id='postcolor'>

Look at this, Denoir acting like Hussein. Denoir, are you sure you don't have any Russian blood there buddy?

[LandShark-AL 0]

Russia and France have been selling weapons to Iraq as late as 2002 in violation of UN sanctions and they want to work with the UN to rebuild Iraq? What a load of shit they are just

looking to make money rebuiling Iraq well to bad the UN will be handing of food and meds. Russia and France are out in the cold.

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LandShark-AL @ April 16 2003,22:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What a load of shit they are just

looking to make money rebuiling Iraq<span id='postcolor'>

ooooh give me a break will you ..... what are the interests of the USA in this affair ? they just came here for sand trade ?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LandShark-AL @ April 16 2003,22:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Russia and France have been selling weapons to Iraq as late as 2002 in violation of UN sanctions and they want to work with the UN to rebuild Iraq? What a load of shit<span id='postcolor'>

I agree. "What a load of shit". There is no evidence whatsoever that Russia or France has been selling weapons to Iraq since the introduction of the sanctions.

Fortunately you don't decide who is going to rebuld Iraq, at least not if you want some UN support, like the lifting of the sanctions for instance. You thought that them opposing the war was bad? It's nothing compared to the damage to US economy they can do by not lifting the sanctions. No Iraqi oil = No funding for rebuilding.

Edit: Here's a nice publicity shot, US troops in cooperation with Saddam's police force. (Don't take me wrong, I think it is a good move to prevent the looting and to restore order)

[Blaegis 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LandShark-AL @ April 16 2003,22:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Russia and France have been selling weapons to Iraq as late as 2002 in violation of UN sanctions and they want to work with the UN to rebuild Iraq? What a load of shit they are just

looking to make money rebuiling Iraq well to bad the UN will be handing of food and meds. Russia and France are out in the cold.<span id='postcolor'>

Listen, numbnuts, for the tenth fucking time: the US arny has rolled over the whole Iraq, yet all those brand-new Russian weapons just vanished into thin air? Come on, there must be at least one Kornet-E launcher? Igla SAM? GPS jammer? Anything? No? Well, then maybe, just maybe, you should consider that all those media reports we heard awhile back were slightly exaggerated. Or maybe they had no foundation in reality whatsoever. I'm not even going to mention the fact that your country has just waged an illegal war of aggression on another country, so perhaps it's not your place to lecture others on breaking UN sanctions. And finally, (and that is my personal opinion), I think that Russia actually should have provided military assistance to Iraq. It might have discouraged the US from going through with the attack in the first place.

Anyway, back to current events: I don't think the European nations supporting leading role for the UN Iraq can do too much to influence the situation. If those countries play the aforementioned sanctions card in the UN SC, the US will instantly demonize them for acting against the interests of the Iraqi people. At the same time, it won't have too big of an effect on the US economy, since the main goal of the war (i.e. preservation of the USD as the default oil trading currency) has already been achieved. The way I see it, the only real leverage the pro-UN EU countries possess right now is the potential reform of the petroleum market. For example, Russia, as an oil exporter could switch to dual- (Dollar-Euro) or even triple- (Dollar-Euro-Yen/Yuan) currency oil trading. Other petroleum exporters could be encouraged or provided incentives to do the same. Of course such a move would really be playing for top stakes (and therefore unlikely), as the US is a mite sensitive about the status quo in single-currency oil exchange and the anchor it provides for its economy...

[FallenPaladin 0]

Three things I just learned from the news:

1. Concerning the looting of the Baghdad National Museum:

Don`t know if that`s been mentioned yet. I saw an interview with one of the "managers" (curators?) of this museum after it was looted. He said that the looters took only the really expensive and very old parts and left or destroyed the newer ones (e.g. egyptian copies) . They only took the creme de la creme so to say.

Well, strange, what? I weren`t able to see the difference between a 5000 year old artefact or it`s 3000 year old egyptian copy. Any ideas where those Indiana-Jones-looters came from?

2. US military according to the media shot looters in Nasarija. They also killed one of the new Iraqi policemen. Poor guy. If I`d ever come to fight on one side with the USA I`d always watch my six.

3. I just forgot while writing the text above.

I`ll add it when I recall it.

[LandShark-AL 0]

Bull shit weapons from Russia with dates in 2000 and France

weapons with dates in 2002 have been found thats a fact

and as for the UN we dont need them at all and there in a movement starting in the US for us to pull out of the UN and

kick them out of here and with Bush have 79% of the people

here behind him you just wait and see what happens.France

is trying to suck up to Bush its not going to fly so France is out Russia is out and the UN is all but out so guys can just cry and cry

[Akira 0]

US Passing Out Dollars In Baghdad

I can see what will be said about this ...

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 16 2003,22:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Fortunately you don't decide who is going to rebuld Iraq, at least not if you want some UN support, like the lifting of the sanctions for instance. You thought that them opposing the war was bad? It's nothing compared to the damage to US economy they can do by not lifting the sanctions. No Iraqi oil = No funding for rebuilding.<span id='postcolor'>

this is where opposing for sake of opposition comes. If UN does not lift sanctions on Iraq, it would imply that welfare of Iraq is not the concern of UN, but rather opposing what US do is.

let's face it. Saddam's regime is gone and it won't attack Kuwait anymore. If UN is really interested in helping Iraqi civilians, lifting sanctions up is one answer.

the political implication is that lifting sanctions would give stamp of approval for US's action, or at least percieved to be.

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

wonder what kind of pistol the Iraqi police is holding and why is the US soldier on far distance(on far right) looking at camera?

[Blaegis 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 16 2003,23:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">wonder what kind of pistol the Iraqi police is holding and why is the US soldier on far distance(on far right) looking at camera?  <span id='postcolor'>

Looks like a Beretta M92 to me (was it called M9 in US service). As for the guy looking at the camera, maybe the situation depicted isn't as threatening as the photogapher would like us to think. So the soldier's going for the "hi, mom" shot.  

edit: LandSharkAl - They haven't found any new Russian equipment in Iraq. What they did find were some old Roland-1 and -2 SAMs, some of which had a number 2002 printed on them. The bright people who discovered that assumed that the missiles were made in 2002. Unfortunately the production runs of Roland-1 and -2 stopped in in 1988 and 1993, respectively. Try again.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

FallenPaladin-"Don`t know if that`s been mentioned yet. I saw an interview with one of the "managers" (curators?) of this museum after it was looted. He said that the looters took only the really expensive and very old parts and left or destroyed the newer ones (e.g. egyptian copies) . They only took the creme de la creme so to say.

Well, strange, what? I weren`t able to see the difference between a 5000 year old artefact or it`s 3000 year old egyptian copy. Any ideas where those Indiana-Jones-looters came from?"

That -is- interesting. As i reported here earlier, according to Channel 4 news(uk) the (hefty metal) door to the museum was not forced but was opened from the inside. Certainly seems suspicious to me.

Remember that there is a massive smuggling/ organised criminal network with links to the Ba'athists that prospered under Hussein. Most of these people will be perhaps rich apparently normal citizens far from the zealots of the Saddam fedayeen and independant of the conventional apparatus of state.