The Iraq Thread

[FallenPaladin 0]

Quote[/b] ]US americans

Hehe, sounds like something Bush would say.

The united states americans will not tolerate this act of utter barbarity, Barney must be destroyed!

In Germany we say "US Amerikaner" because we call the people from South America (Brasil, Venecuela, and so on) in the first place americans, too. Pointing out that the other people are from the USA helps avoiding misunderstandings.

[FallenPaladin 0]

There are either no WMDs in Iraq or there will be found some nice new WMDs ("Made in USA"). The second alternative would be pretty stupid for the USA, but who knows what the hawks come up with next... On the other side this new fu##ing the world wouldn`t even be needed,  because the USA needs no reasons to go to war at all.

Too make it even more clear. I also don`t believe the TBA would plant false WMDs, but I wouldn`t wonder if they did so on the other hand. All I wanted to point out is that there`s no reason needed any more for this invasion of Iraq. That`s the sad and disturbing thing.

PS.: I`m sorry for your broken .22 rifle. I could fix it.

PPS.: Take my criticism easy, mate. I know you`re one of the more impartial americans here on the forums and I honor it. Nevertheless I can`t stand criticising UN inspectors who were impaired by the USA so they couldn`t to their job correctly. Sometimes I have the feelings the USA hindered them more than Iraq before the war.

[-TU--33ker 0]

Quote[/b] ]Well, that`s been a little different. They had a lot of freedom and could go wherever they wanted. They got intel from the famous CIA which was total crap obviously. The inspectors did a pretty good job, before they were kicked out of Iraq by Bush and Co. If they found no WMDs, there are no WMDs left.

that's a good point. yesterday i saw some UN inspectors who have been to Iraq and searched there for WMDs on TV. they were toatally pissed off by the obviously wrong intel given to them by the US.

[Schoeler 0]

Fair enough. I think they should have been give at least another 90 days, but the inspections process itself was fucked up. The iraqis knew when and where they were going for the most part. Either Iraq had a superior intelligence service, or they were being tipped off by someone within the inspections group. I don't know if Iraq had any WMD prior to the war, but I do know that Saddam wanted them. He lied to the world in the past about such things, and hid weapons from inspectors before, so I don't doubt that he may have been doing it again. Time will bear all of this out.

I can't agree on your view that the U.S. is giving the finger to the world. If that were true, we would have simply gone into Iraq without wasting all of the time to drum up some case about WMD in the first place. Or, now we would simply tell the world, "Sure, we lied about the WMD, now what are you going to do about it?" We did neither. Instead, we are frantically trying to find the weapons, so that George Bush has a shot at re-election next year.

[Jinef 2]

I would say the US Administration is giving the 'birdie' to the world.

[-TU--33ker 0]

OK the US are trying to find WMDs now. but simply the fact that they lied about them before, makes the search look ridiculous.

[Crazysheep 1]

Quote[/b] ]Also, I always believed it was our written Constitution, and in particular, our Bill of Rights that distinguished American freedom from the freedom of other nations, not just the 2nd Amendment.

I'm no fan of the popular USA attitude to the constition-it is not a timeless list of rules, it's a list of rules that was made 200 years ago......

But that's irrelevant, so I be quiet now.

[USSoldier11B 0]

Quote[/b] ]I would say the US Administration is giving the 'birdie' to the world.

Damn right, and let me add my birdie too.

[Guest]

Fair enough.  I think they should have been give at least another 90 days, but the inspections process itself was fucked up.  The iraqis knew when and where they were going for the most part.  Either Iraq had a superior intelligence service, or they were being tipped off by someone within the inspections group.  

That was a US claim, fiercly denied by the inspectors. It was part of Powell's UN bluff. The inspectors themselves said that in this round of inspections there was no evidence at all that the Iraqis knew where the inspections would take place.

Considering how Powell put forward the Nigerian uranium faked evidence and sent the UNMOVIC on wild goose chases, I see no reason why I should trust him on that the Iraqis knew where the inspectors were going.

Quote[/b] ]I can't agree on your view that the U.S. is giving the finger to the world.  If that were true, we would have simply gone into Iraq without wasting all of the time to drum up some case about WMD in the first place.  Or, now we would simply tell the world, "Sure, we lied about the WMD, now what are you going to do about it?"  We did neither.  Instead, we are frantically trying to find the weapons, so that George Bush has a shot at re-election next year.

Do you know how much it costs to go to war alone? It's damned expensive and that's why Bush tried to get as many allies as possible. A UN stamp on the operation would have minimized the cost of the operation for the US while giving the whole thing a political stamp of justification. The WMD claims were not only used to get international support but primarily for getting congress, senate and popular support. Admitting that they lied about them would be political suicide for the Bush administration. They don't have the final word as they operate within a legal/political framework.

I would be surprised if they don't find any leftovers from the old  Iraqi WMD program. Something unaccounted for probably exists. I mean if the US military doesn't know where its biological weapons are hidden it would be strange that Iraq did.

The case that Bush presented was that Iraq had to be invaded because it had WMDs that it could use any day. The possession of them is one thing and the intent to use them is another. The first one is hardly a justification for a war since then USA would have been invaded a long time ago for having a considerable NBC arsenal. The intent to use them is the key. This assumption was proven wrong. He didn't even use them in self defence (mind you, something that the US would not hesitate to do if its mainland was invaded). So when Saddam didn't use them even when he had nothing to lose it blew away any possible justification through his possession of WMDs.

[FALLOUTFUN 0]

Heres a resently made Bushism (A word made for every time Bush F*cks up a speach)

Quote[/b] ]...We will continue our search in Iraq, However we have not found and do not expect to find weapons of ma...Any way...

At this point he shut up, While I'm at it I think I'll give you may favourite Bushism

Quote[/b] ] It is worrying to find that more and more of Americas Imports are coming from Foreign countries

What is really worrying is that this man has the power to nuke the earth 15 times over.

[FallenPaladin 0]

You have to see the bright side of it. I bet he has a horrible geographical (sp?) knowledge, so maybe he`ll order the first nukes to Utah, because it sounds almost arabic, almoooost.

[SgtBarnes 0]

The Quest for the Oily Grail

LOL

[Jinef 2]

Or Omagh

In Northern Ireland, it would definately sort out the problems over there.

[Schoeler 0]

The case that Bush presented was that Iraq had to be invaded because it had WMDs that it could use any day. The possession of them is one thing and the intent to use them is another. The first one is hardly a justification for a war since then USA would have been invaded a long time ago for having a considerable NBC arsenal. The intent to use them is the key. This assumption was proven wrong. He didn't even use them in self defence (mind you, something that the US would not hesitate to do if its mainland was invaded). So when Saddam didn't use them even when he had nothing to lose it blew away any possible justification through his possession of WMDs.

Well, you've heard my theory about why the weapons wouldn't be used even if he had them. I don't think any of his subordinates had any illusions about winning the war, so I doubt they would have committed any war crimes considering they knew they would eventually end up on trial.

[Guest]

Firing a missile does not require much technical skill and to claim that Saddam had no loyalists who would be willing to do that is absurd. You had people blowing themselves up for Saddam, which is far more of a sacrifice than firing a missile with a chemical agent.

[Schoeler 0]

The generals upon whose authority the release of such weapons rested, were, however busily negotiating themselves their best surrender deal for the eventual ceasefire. If the weapons were available to lower level field commanders and junior officers, then there weren't any at all, because I have no doubt then that someone among them would have used WMD.

[Guest]

Apache shot down in Iraq

The pilots survived.

Since the end of the war 44 US soldiers have been killed.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

True there is continuing conflict no doubt, although from that same report :

"Accidents still account for 70% of the deaths since May 1, according to the Pentagon. Seven men died in two helicopter crashes. Eight servicemen died in munitions explosions. Twelve died in vehicle accidents. Two died when their rifles accidentally discharged. Two drowned in canals."

Its from the Pentagon so it must be Shrubite propaganda but still its worth getting some perspective.

It appears at this moment that the much vaunted national uprising has still not really taken place. Something that must surely be a relief (after considering the likely bloody consequences of a widespread anti coalition uprising). Of course there is still the potential for unrest to escalate thanks to certain troublespots (large parts of Baghdad, Fallujah etc) , religious extremists, outside interferance (notably Iran)

and any large coalition blunders or insensitivities...

[Crazysheep 1]

Quote[/b] ]It appears at this moment that the much vaunted national uprising has still not really taken place. Something that must surely be a relief (after considering the likely bloody consequences of a widespread anti coalition uprising). Of course there is still the potential for unrest to escalate thanks to certain troublespots (large parts of Baghdad, Fallujah etc) , religious extremists, outside interferance (notably Iran)

and any large coalition blunders or insensitivities...

I read somewhere that an organised rebellion is to have its D-Day take place on July 6th. I suspect it isn't true though.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Well, with a few thousand soldiers based in Iraq I guess it is kind of statistical logic that some "cross the river of Hades" once in a while. Same could happen if they would be back in the US.

Car-accidents: Sure

Drowning: Drunk people do crazy things

Accidents with loaded weapons: Thats fore sure!

[Guest]

It appears at this moment that the much vaunted national uprising has still not really taken place.

And I don't think it will. These people did not manage to organize themselves to revolt when they were living under the boot of Saddam so why would they be able to organize themselves when they're under the (comparably ligheter) boot of USA?

Btw. comrade IsthatYouJohnWaynofski, your glorious propaganda service reports 30 US casualties not 45.

One interesting thing they do mention is this:

Quote[/b] ]There were 85 attacks on US forces in May alone - almost triple the number of the previous month

If it's true - is this just a statistical quirk or is it a real trend?

[Jinef 2]

well they've only been there for two months so i doubt it's a quirk.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Quote[/b] ]There were 85 attacks on US forces in May alone - almost triple the number of the previous month

If it's true - is this just a statistical quirk or is it a real trend?  

Well, what counts as an attack? A lone gunman with an assault rifle? Some guys on a technical? Crowds lobbing grenades?

[Guest]

@ June 13 2003,00:59)]Well, what counts as an attack? A lone gunman with an assault rifle? Some guys on a technical? Crowds lobbing grenades?

Since it's the BBC probably not getting invited for afternoon tea counts as a vicious attack.

[Badgerboy 0]

@ June 13 2003,00:59)]Well, what counts as an attack? A lone gunman with an assault rifle? Some guys on a technical? Crowds lobbing grenades?

Since it's the BBC probably not getting invited for afternoon tea counts as a vicious attack.  

Bloody right too! Damn savages!