The Iraq Thread

[PitViper 0]

eww.. realplayer

*pulls out cross and garlic*

[PitViper 0]

Some Galloway related events..

http://www.itv.com/news/671569.html

suspended by Labor Party

http://www.itv.com/news/485015.html

under further investigation for misusing funds from "Miriam Appeal".

[PitViper 0]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20030506-32981825.htm

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ 06 May 2003,19:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20030506-32981825.htm<span id='postcolor'>

Sounds like a load of bovine scatology to me.

And these are likely the same 'intelligence officials' who brought up the African 'proof' that Iraq was trying to obtain fissile materials.

[Schoeler 0]

I don't think the Washington Times is a very mainstream rag. Now, if it appeared in the Washington Post, that would be another matter entirely.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ 06 May 2003,16:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't think the Washington Times is a very mainstream rag.  Now, if it appeared in the Washington Post.<span id='postcolor'>

You're kidding right?

[ralphwiggum 6]

as far as i know, Washington Times is owned by Moonies.(remember mass marriage ceremony?)

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ 02 May 2003,19:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm providing a possible theory, not forcing it down your throat.  Oh and if you htink Bush speaking and power up is 100% coincidence, man, that's something.

EDIT: Anotherwords, we have nothing to actually argue about.  We can not find the truth easily.<span id='postcolor'>

and you were posting as if it was evidence of US occupation's vice.

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ 06 May 2003,16:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">eww.. realplayer

*pulls out cross and garlic*<span id='postcolor'>

LOL, couldn't agree more...

[PitViper 0]

some developing info on the museum..

http://www.nytimes.com/2003....SE.html

[FSPilot 0]

BBCs straining to do some blaming.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They arrived in five vehicles, but refused to ward off the looters. Instead, the soldiers fired several dozen rounds at the college's south wall, says Dr Majeed.

'Green light' to looters

"It was a green light to the looters. It told them 'We are not going to do anything to stop you.'"<span id='postcolor'>

Since when did shooting at someone mean "go ahead"?

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A federal judge in New York Wednesday awarded damages against the government of Iraq after ruling that the families of two victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, suicide hijackings had shown "albeit barely" that Iraq had provided material support to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.

Judge Harold Baer ruled that the two families were entitled to $104 million compensation from Iraq, bin Laden, al-Qaida, the Taliban movement and their government of Afghanistan. He had entered a default judgment against these defendants on Dec. 23, 2002, after they failed to show up to contest the case.

But he dismissed the families' suit against deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein on the basis that -- as head of state -- he enjoyed absolute immunity.

Lawyers for the two families said they would attempt to recover the money from the $1.7 billion in Iraqi assets frozen in the United States.

-- UPI<span id='postcolor'>

         

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ 08 May 2003,00:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BBCs straining to do some blaming.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They arrived in five vehicles, but refused to ward off the looters. Instead, the soldiers fired several dozen rounds at the college's south wall, says Dr Majeed.

'Green light' to looters

"It was a green light to the looters. It told them 'We are not going to do anything to stop you.'"<span id='postcolor'>

 Since when did shooting at someone mean "go ahead"?<span id='postcolor'>

Read the whole article, they didn't fire at the looters but at some college staff that tried to protect the place from looting. Once they realized that there were no soldiers there they left and let the place be looted.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">An engineering lecturer at the college, Najah Rustin, was across the road when the trouble began. He dashed to the scene, where he found his father remonstrating with the soldiers.

US troops 'refused to protect' the college, says Ali Thowani

"Someone had told the Americans that maybe the [college] guards were Baathists. My father speaks English and he said 'No, they are not Baathists, they are lecturers,'" says Mr Rustin.

Mr Rustin's father backs up his son's account. "I told them the institute must be saved from the thieves, but they said 'We are soldiers. This isn't our work. Our work is only to fight.'"

<span id='postcolor'>

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

Bernadotte: Only in America, ey?

[FallenPaladin 0]

What I dislike about many US soldiers I`ve seen on TV and read about in GW 2.0 is their attitude towards the Iraqis as nation. They only tell how they "kicked some ass" and that they went to Iraq "to kick some ass" (quote from one of the Apache crew, who was shot down, captured and freed later) .

How can people within such a state of mind be used to anything else than mindless shooting around?  

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ 07 May 2003,23:15)</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">A federal judge in New York Wednesday awarded damages against the government of Iraq after ruling that the families of two victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, suicide hijackings had shown "albeit barely" that Iraq had provided material support to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.

Judge Harold Baer ruled that the two families were entitled to $104 million compensation from Iraq, bin Laden, al-Qaida, the Taliban movement and their government of Afghanistan. He had entered a default judgment against these defendants on Dec. 23, 2002, after they failed to show up to contest the case.

But he dismissed the families' suit against deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein on the basis that -- as head of state -- he enjoyed absolute immunity.

Lawyers for the two families said they would attempt to recover the money from the $1.7 billion in Iraqi assets frozen in the United States.

-- UPI<span id='postcolor'>

         <span id='postcolor'>

This beggars belief!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He had entered a default judgment against these defendants on Dec. 23, 2002, after they failed to show up to contest the case.<span id='postcolor'>

Madness! I wonder how some people can sleep at night.

Besides, if the coalition can't bring hard evidence to show Saddams links with Al Qaeda, how the hell did these families get evidence that could stand up in a court of law? Maybe we should ask!

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ 08 May 2003,00:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What I dislike about many US soldiers I`ve seen on TV and read about in GW 2.0 is their attitude towards the Iraqis as nation. They only tell how they "kicked some ass" and that they went to Iraq "to kick some ass" (quote from one of the Apache crew, who was shot down, captured and freed later) .

How can people within such a state of mind be used to anything else than mindless shooting around?  <span id='postcolor'>

They're soldiers- they're paid to kick ass, and then take names afterwards. They didn't go into Iraq to start up a post-dictatorship support group complete with unconditional positive self-regard and group hugs. They kicked Saddam's ass, and to their credit they've only shot at one or two crowds of angry Iraqis since the combat ended. For us that's a pretty decent scorecard. Plus, staff sergeants don't want to look like nerds in front of their troops lol- "Yes, Mr. Blitzer, we came into Iraq to establish a dialogue with democratic elements and to ensure the smoothest possible peaceful transition"- this is stuff you just don't hear.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ 08 May 2003,00:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What I dislike about many US soldiers I`ve seen on TV and read about in GW 2.0 is their attitude towards the Iraqis as nation. They only tell how they "kicked some ass" and that they went to Iraq "to kick some ass" (quote from one of the Apache crew, who was shot down, captured and freed later) .

How can people within such a state of mind be used to anything else than mindless shooting around?  <span id='postcolor'>

I think that is perfectly understandable. That's war. They are soldiers and it limits their choice of killing or getting killed. Of course you're happy when you kill an enemy soldier; that means that you have increased your chance of survival.

One cannot apply normal ethics and moral to war. Individual soldiers can't go around considering ethical consequences of their actions because they can only come to one conclusion: killing is wrong. And if they start acting on it, they will die.

War is hell in every aspect and that's the simple truth, not just some cliché.

Therefor the politicians that chose war are the ones to blame, not the soldiers who are very much victims of the circumstances, trying to stay alive.

This of course is debatable. In the Nürnberg tribunals it was said that "I was following orders" was no excuse. The individual soldiers had a responsibility to act ethically. From a practical military point of view this is BS. War is unethical by definition. You kill the enemy or the enemy kills you. You can't go around thinking about what wonderful human beings those that you kill are.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This of course is debatable. In the Nürnberg tribunals it was said that "I was following orders" was no excuse. The individual soldiers had a responsibility to act ethically. From a practical military point of view this is BS. War is unethical by definition. You kill the enemy or the enemy kills you. You can't go around thinking about what wonderful human beings those that you kill are.

<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, but the majority of the convictions passed down at Nuremberg were for actions that didn't take place in the scope of normal combat operations, and/or were for 'soldiers' who carried ranks that were supposed to signify that they knew better. You didn't see too many front-line soldaten (even SS) on the Nuremberg docket.

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ 08 May 2003,01:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ 07 May 2003,23:15)</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">A federal judge in New York Wednesday awarded damages against the government of Iraq after ruling that the families of two victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, suicide hijackings had shown "albeit barely" that Iraq had provided material support to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.

Judge Harold Baer ruled that the two families were entitled to $104 million compensation from Iraq, bin Laden, al-Qaida, the Taliban movement and their government of Afghanistan. He had entered a default judgment against these defendants on Dec. 23, 2002, after they failed to show up to contest the case.

But he dismissed the families' suit against deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein on the basis that -- as head of state -- he enjoyed absolute immunity.

Lawyers for the two families said they would attempt to recover the money from the $1.7 billion in Iraqi assets frozen in the United States.

-- UPI<span id='postcolor'>

         <span id='postcolor'>

This beggars belief!<span id='postcolor'>

How about all the support the US government used to supply to Osama - he would never have got to the position he did without that early help. Maybe the US governent should be sued too.

Madness. "Only in America" seems to cover it...

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 08 May 2003,05:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Read the whole article, they didn't fire at the looters but at some college staff that tried to protect the place from looting. Once they realized that there were no soldiers there they left and let the place be looted.<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, now read my quote.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They arrived in five vehicles, but refused to ward off the looters. Instead, the soldiers fired several dozen rounds at the college's south wall, says Dr Majeed.<span id='postcolor'>

Then they left as there's no reason for them to be there.

[Guest]

Yes, FSPilot, now read my quote again. They did not fire those shots at the looters but at the people protecting the place from looting.

-------

How to rape a country

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

Restrictions the US has eased include (...) authorising any activity paid for by the US Government, including reconstruction moves by contractors. However, restrictions on the export of goods which are controlled for national security purposes will remain, with a special government license being required for such trade. Now that sanctions are being lifted, the way is clear for the US to hire consultants to rebuild Iraq's currency and financial system.

Sources in Washington told BBC News Online that BearingPoint is likely to get the deal, which could be worth up to $70m.

BearingPoint already has a three-year $40m contract to do the same in Afghanistan.

<span id='postcolor'>

So much for the freedom of the Iraqi people. The country isn't allowed to export any goods unless approved by USA. Only US contractors have been given contracts etc...

Observe carefully what is happening since you are witnessing the brutal rape of a country.

[Longinius 1]

They are only helping them, Denoir. These savages clearly don't know whats best for them, so Uncle Sam should decide for them. Its all in their best after all. It has nothing to do with America striking a profit from it. Because Americans are perfect and would never, ever, EVER, be in risk of getting greedy politicians and decisionmakers that wouldnt think twice about raping a foreign nation.

Bleh...

[theavonlady 2]

How is this "raping a country"?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now that sanctions are being lifted, the way is clear for the US to hire consultants to rebuild Iraq's currency and financial system.<span id='postcolor'>

The whole purpose is to get Iraq's finances back on its feet.

I'm nota arguing that this is "favoritism" but what does this have to do with "raping a country"?

[Longinius 1]

"Now that sanctions are being lifted, the way is clear for the US to hire consultants to rebuild Iraq's currency and financial system."

Thsi part feels a bit like raping. "...clear for the US to hire...". Shouldnt that be Iraq or possibly the UN who decides who to hire?

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ 08 May 2003,10:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Thsi part feels a bit like raping. "...clear for the US to hire...". Shouldnt that be Iraq or possibly the UN who decides who to hire?<span id='postcolor'>

Fine. Play your semantics game. Very childish. Did it ever occur to you that Iraq's financial infrastructure can use some outside help? Obviously it did, since you yourself suggest the UN.

Now, if you want to talk about "raping a country", the same BBC article says:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But the BBC's Jon Leyne in Washington says Russia and some other council members are reluctant to relinquish their control over Iraq's oil, exercised under the sanctions regime.<span id='postcolor'>

Obviously some of you rabid anti-Americans have selective vision.