The Iraq Thread

[Pukko 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Jan. 20 2003,16:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why is it that no one every replies to any of my arguments?  Are they just too damn good, or do you think that my arguments aren't worth a reply!

Reply something damnit!  I want a discussion too!<span id='postcolor'>

Then you better start posting some concrete-soucrce based-unbiased-trustworthy stuff too. But the main thing is to keep it plain, simple and concrete And it really helps if you leave any aims of deepened understanding and knowledge to the side, and just tries to win the argument.. EDIT: I have to add that I dont really remember what kind of posts you use to to, so dont be insulted by the above if thats incorrect.

I write my abstract speculative/philosophical stuff, no matter if someone likes it or not at the few times I feel for it; and dont really care if someone responds. I try to keep on edge in my conception of the world, and therefore dont take much notice of details; the world (or indeed universe) is not a concrete place and I cant see the point in spending my entire life just trying to reduce it to a concrete winning argument....

And to get back on topic.

I read on the last pages once again about 'USA is blamed no matter what we do'. And well, the problem is not necessary that USA does too much; its in my opinion the ever lasting focus on 'concrete symbolic actions'. USA does not seem to do much that is not in their direct interest. It is always supposed to look like good things (aid to well choosen recievers, wars that always serve the nation in more than one aspect). USA is very keen on getting credit for every single international action (just look at their wheat sack that are sent as aid, lol ); and that is best done by only focusing on concrete actions - so that everyone can see that USA is doing something.

Not everyone focuses on concrete actions, in exchange for credit, but some takes comfort in only trying to do what they really believe to be good in the long run (as in abstract, long term intentions). Its not easy to know the differance, since the concrete shortterm actions is always given the shine of 'good for all intentions'.

But as a rule it may be said that the more someone brags about all the many good actions that is done, the more likely it is that its coplete bullshit in own interests.

I am a european, and I would never say that european countries mostly does abstract-alturistic-with-no-hope-of-getting-credit-for-it-actions. But the fact that you Americans primary see us as passive, 'just sitting on our asses' is a real good sign for that we do are quite successful in the making of such actions.

Now one may argue that EU is just ineffective and buerocratic. It is indeed at the time, but I really fear for the opposite to be a fact; that EU is really certralised and that many actions are taken to unite the european people. Such actions would have to be symbolic-concrete actions, like 'in the most extreme case' playing world police and staring wars at will. Therefore I hope that EU will not make any real efforts in uniting the European people quickly by cheap tricks, or we will just take USA:s place once their influence shrinks...

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh give me a brake! If you don't know what OPEC is - or how it works - how are you going to grasp the reality of middle eastern politics?<span id='postcolor'>

OPEC is the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries. As far as I know it only controls how much a country produces each year, not it's price.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, it could very well happen. Saddam only has to lob a few scuds over to Israel. Actually, it would make sense because most arabs are not too fond of Israel and the support US could armtwist their arab "allies" to give could very well vanish.<span id='postcolor'>

This is what Saddam tried to do in desert storm, it didn't work.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So why do you think Schröder is asking for a UN resolution nr.2 - backed by France? My guess is that the Russians will jump the bandwagon too - especially after signing another new oilcontract with Iraq the other day.<span id='postcolor'>

Haven't heard of it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No I didn't! Remember where I said "it could very well be" (that he has such weapons) - but it's the weapons inspectors job to prove it.<span id='postcolor'>

And they already did. 1998, before they got kicked out.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I do understand what you are saying: "do this or do that - someone allways complaints". What I said a few posts ago is something very different: You (US) are too pragmatic for your own good. No ethic or lack of morale tends to piss off the subjects of tyrants (as in most arabic countries you support). I'd say that's part of the reason why WTC happend in the first place. It certainly isn't because they envy you the position as the "defender of the free world" or your lifestyle,<span id='postcolor'>

So to explain 9/11 we've gone from not having a good international policy to just not having good morals?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, could be a problem. But the thousands of kids dying every month due to the lack of food AND high tech medicine equipment is also a problem.<span id='postcolor'>

But we do give it to them, lots of people do. You know where saddam hides all that food? In his mouth.

He does get food and medicine in exchange for oil, but he doesn't let his people have it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are allready plenty of oil that could be pumped up but OPEC sets the price and amount of oil that should be produced in the OPEC countries.<span id='postcolor'>

Which will probably go down if we flood the market.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Knowing is not the same as proving. You still have to prove that he has WMD's NOW and not back then.<span id='postcolor'>

Now I know how denoir feels when he laughs at me for saying something stupid.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And so will the US, you admitted to it yourself, that WMD's would be used to retaliate. What gives the US the right to use them and not Saddam?<span id='postcolor'>

Retalliation isn't the same as losing power. We'd strike back, not use them as a last ditch attempt to kill people.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You mean like Afghanistan? You want to know how the oil would be controlled? By privatly owned companies, where Bush just happens to be a major shareholder.<span id='postcolor'>

Afghanistan produces oil?

And I highly doubt Bush would own the shares. Probably some American company.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I promise you that any nation in Iraqs situation, that has had WMD's in the past and the been bombed to shits, would have a hard time keeping track of all material. Iraq doesnt really strike me as the most organised and well documented nation in the world. I am also quite sure that not even the US has 100% control of all their military material.<span id='postcolor'>

Ohh, we should just leave them alone because they lost it?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US is critizised because they claim to be acting on behalf of the world. And they are the ones preparing for a war, not Iraq. Its hard to critizise Iraq for trying to defend itself.<span id='postcolor'>

Iraq is not preparing for war? They've been stockpiling WMDs since before the gulf war!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He is probably trying to rebuild the infrastructure that was bombed to shits in the last war... And its not like he is getting any large sums of cash for that oil.<span id='postcolor'>\

Wrong, it's not going to his civilians.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We wouldnt benefit. But it is not right to keep sanctions on an entire nation just so we can get cheaper oil. Or atleast most people outside of the US dont think so.<span id='postcolor'>

AHA! So this war ISN'T about oil!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The problem of such a situation is that Iraq would have probably not used his WMDs unless he was attacked.<span id='postcolor'>

I've heard experts say the opposite.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This gives Saddam the right to nuke USA, according to the Bush principle.<span id='postcolor'>

The "Bush principle" doesn't give Iraq any rights. It says what the US will do if Iraq attacks us.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You see if Saddam uses his WMDs then USA will use its WMDs. So he has to use them pre-emptivly before the US can utlize its weapons.<span id='postcolor'>

The US will only use them in retalliation. And we're not going to strike until we have UN approval first, at least I hope not.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wonderful logic don't you think?<span id='postcolor'>

You're right, it is circular logic. But the US isn't looking to feel justified by Saddam's actions. We know he has WMDs, we know he'll probably use them. So are we to sit and wait for him to use them, kill a few thousand more innocent civilians?

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

OOh, no I didn't. Better fix that before you base your whole argument on it.

[brgnorway 0]

7--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 20 2003,197)</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">OPEC is the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries.  As far as I know it only controls how much a country produces each year, not it's price.

<span id='postcolor'>

And how exactly do you figure out the price of crude oil?

By lowering or increasing the production relative to the demand. Of course no one says "right - todays price of crude is hmmm....let's say 30,2 dollars per barrel (but since you are my friend you'll get it for nothing    [joke] ).

Seriously, they have (as we do) financial analysts that try to predict the right amount to produce in order to achieve a targeted price - perhaps even as close to 30,2 dollars as possible.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is what Saddam tried to do in desert storm, it didn't work.<span id='postcolor'>

This time it could make a difference. Remember, most of the world does not want a war in the middle east now despite the UN resolution. A conflict including Israel could make it very hard for your government to achieve it's "armtwist-policy" in the region. It could even destroy the unique "friendship" of Israel and Turkey. My guess is serious unrest with the subjected middle eastern population.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Haven't heard of it.<span id='postcolor'>

Realy? I would think even CNN has had that on the news!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So to explain 9/11 we've gone from not having a good international policy to just not having good morals?<span id='postcolor'>

For the poor world - including the middle east - US policy was never a good deal - moraly or ethically.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But we do give it to them, lots of people do.  You know where saddam hides all that food?  In his mouth.

He does get food and medicine in exchange for oil, but he doesn't let his people have it.

<span id='postcolor'>

No, you don't - and the rest of the world are not allowed to!

In case you didn't know - Saddam has given out with help from the Red Cross, food supplies for 3 months in case of war.

He does NOT receive medicines for oil because he is not allowed to sell his oil due to the fact that the price is to be decided AFTER the deal has been done. So there is NO money to buy medicines from UN. If there had been money most of the medicines would not be delivered because US restricts the type of medicines that could be used in a weapons programe. Unfortunately, most medicines fit both purposes.

How many times do I have to tell you these things!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OOh, no I didn't. Better fix that before you base your whole argument on it. <span id='postcolor'>

OOh, yes you did! :

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

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

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

the germans focused on civilians, british and americans tryed to attack military targets

Oh then Berlin must have been dreaming when 18 waves of carpet bombings went over them during ONE day !

Same with Dreden, Hannover...

They intentionally bombarded civilians to lower morale and bring them to their knees. This is no secret. Also US and Brits make no secret of it.<span id='postcolor'>

let me just respond to that. Germany started the incredible terrible bombing strategy and the allied forces simply adopted this escalation of bombing and improved it an "observe impact and improve impact" strategy. In the last years of the war the allies bombed out german cities simply for testing purposes.

During the last years the allied were so sophisticated that they were able to adapt bombs to cities. Old cities had a wodden floor so the bombs were made heavy in order to let them blow up after having fallen through several floors. New cities had wodden roofs and so the bombs were modified that the explode right away. And those bombs {blockbuster) were fire-bombs that simply put an entire city on fire. There was no protection from theses bombs cause those ate up the oxygen and people even in the cellar died because of no air. Then the allied threw bombs that blew up even up to half and hour later so the ambulance and fire-workers would be blown to dust.

So taking this into consideration we should see that the allies didnt start the war but were willing to adapt and improve the level of brutality.

Concerning the oil-prices.

Why do you think the price of gold is rising so heavily right now. Cause gold is a substitute currency for oil. The oil proces already rose heavily due to the Iraq war threat and they will not settle even years after the war. Cause if you would know the stock-market then you would know that not availabilty makes the price but certainty/uncertainty of forecast.

Watch a bit CNN Buisness news and you can see how the price of oil is rising steadily and any agressive speech by Bush gives it an extra boost.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 21 2003,01:31)</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">And how exactly do you figure out the price of crude oil?

By lowering or increasing the production relative to the demand. Of course no one says "right - todays price of crude is hmmm....let's say 30,2 dollars per barrel (but since you are my friend you'll get it for nothing <!--emo& [joke] ).

Seriously, they have (as we do) financial analysts that try to predict the right amount to produce in order to achieve a targeted price - perhaps even as close to 30,2 dollars as possible.<span id='postcolor'>

So OPEC indirectly controls the price of oil. Whats your point?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This time it could make a difference. Remember, most of the world does not want a war in the middle east now despite the UN resolution. A conflict including Israel could make it very hard for your government to achieve it's "armtwist-policy" in the region. It could even destroy the unique "friendship" of Israel and Turkey. My guess is serious unrest with the subjected middle eastern population.<span id='postcolor'>

OK, but again, there wouldn't be a conflict in Israel if they didn't get involved. We'd just try to knock down as many SCUDs that we can with patriots.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Realy? I would think even CNN has had that on the news!<span id='postcolor'>

Link?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He does NOT receive medicines for oil because he is not allowed to sell his oil due to the fact that the price is to be decided AFTER the deal has been done.<span id='postcolor'>

No, he trades oil for medicine and food. It's just that simple.

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

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

Anybody else see the difference?

And I think you're taking what I really said out of context. In an effort to illustrate the "darned if you do darned if you don't" concept to you I said "if we follow your solution we're setting up puppet governments". I didn't say that we were doing it right now.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

You know what would be great?

That in the end everything turns out to be a diplomatic masterpiece of international cooperation: the US (never seriously having intended a war) were willing to play the bad cop. The UN (especially european union) were acting as well, playing to hold back the mad dog (US) from attacking Iraq as long as Saddam shows cooperation.

That would be great! A big clue, nothing else

[-TU--33ker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Jan. 20 2003,20:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">let me just respond to that. Germany started the incredible terrible bombing strategy and the allied forces simply adopted this escalation of bombing and improved it an "observe impact and improve impact" strategy. In the last years of the war the allies bombed out german cities simply for testing purposes.

During the last years the allied were so sophisticated that they were able to adapt bombs to cities. Old cities had a wodden floor so the bombs were made heavy in order to let them blow up after having fallen through several floors. New cities had wodden roofs and so the bombs were modified that the explode right away. And those bombs {blockbuster) were fire-bombs that simply put an entire city on fire. There  was no protection from theses bombs cause those ate up the oxygen and people even in the cellar died because of no air. Then the allied threw bombs that blew up even up to half and hour later so the ambulance and fire-workers would be blown to dust.

So taking this into consideration we should see that the allies didnt start the war but were willing to adapt and improve the level of brutality.<span id='postcolor'>

I've seen such bombs at my workplace when i've been working as an ammunition clearing worker at the district governement.

Albert is right the allies tried absolutely everything that worked as a bomb in the last days of WW2! they tried all kinds of explosives and igniters. the bombs became bigger and bigger. and I saw the results of such bombings on old photos made by reconnaissance aircraft.

but that's enough offtopic now.

[Llauma 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 20 2003,20:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 21 2003,01:31)</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">And how exactly do you figure out the price of crude oil?

By lowering or increasing the production relative to the demand. Of course no one says "right - todays price of crude is hmmm....let's say 30,2 dollars per barrel (but since you are my friend you'll get it for nothing  <!--emo&  [joke] ).

Seriously, they have (as we do) financial analysts that try to predict the right amount to produce in order to achieve a targeted price - perhaps even as close to 30,2 dollars as possible.<span id='postcolor'>

So OPEC indirectly controls the price of oil.  Whats your point?<span id='postcolor'>

Now when you realize that they do set the price, you are being nonchalant.

The point is that you made a false statement so he tried to prove you wrong. That's it...

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote ([TU]$33ker @ Jan. 20 2003,21:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Jan. 20 2003,20:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">let me just respond to that. Germany started the incredible terrible bombing strategy and the allied forces simply adopted this escalation of bombing and improved it an "observe impact and improve impact" strategy. In the last years of the war the allies bombed out german cities simply for testing purposes.

During the last years the allied were so sophisticated that they were able to adapt bombs to cities. Old cities had a wodden floor so the bombs were made heavy in order to let them blow up after having fallen through several floors. New cities had wodden roofs and so the bombs were modified that the explode right away. And those bombs {blockbuster) were fire-bombs that simply put an entire city on fire. There  was no protection from theses bombs cause those ate up the oxygen and people even in the cellar died because of no air. Then the allied threw bombs that blew up even up to half and hour later so the ambulance and fire-workers would be blown to dust.

So taking this into consideration we should see that the allies didnt start the war but were willing to adapt and improve the level of brutality.<span id='postcolor'>

I've seen such bombs at my workplace when i've been working as an ammunition clearing worker at the district governement.

Albert is right the allies tried absolutely everything that worked as a bomb in the last days of WW2! they tried all kinds of explosives and igniters. the bombs became bigger and bigger. and I saw the results of such bombings on old photos made by reconnaissance aircraft.

but that's enough offtopic now.<span id='postcolor'>

I know offtopic but I wanted to add one last thing (and afterwards I will proceed ON-topic)

My statement wasnt meant to put the blame away from germany, I think I never left a doubt that Germany is the one and only initiator of the most cruel war ever

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Llauma @ Jan. 21 2003,02:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The point is that you made a false statement so he tried to prove you wrong. That's it...<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, but he's not making any points that I should be aware of?

[Llauma 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Jan. 20 2003,21:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You know what would be great?

That in the end everything turns out to be a diplomatic masterpiece of international cooperation: the US (never seriously having intended a war) were willing to play the bad cop. The UN (especially european union) were acting as well, playing to hold back the mad dog (US) from attacking Iraq as long as Saddam shows cooperation.

That would be great!  A big clue, nothing else<span id='postcolor'>

Something like this?

[foxer 0]

Bombs gives power to words and paper.Without war, words and paper would mean nothing.Iraq signed a peace treaty saying they would do this and that.They never live up to it.Should the US just let it go and not worry about it ? If they did let it go ,words/treaty's  would mean nothing,atleast in 3rd countries.If words and papers didn't mean anything,then UN wouldn't mean anything.

Also about opec.America companies love opec,they make more money because of them.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Jan. 20 2003,11:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Can't think logically?<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, and you are beginning to put yourself in that category. I did not say everyone. I do not call people asking for a peacefull resolution illogical.

[Longinius 1]

"Now I know how denoir feels when he laughs at me for saying something stupid."

Yes, I really am stupid for seeing a difference in the past and the present. Uhum, yep.

"Retalliation isn't the same as losing power. We'd strike back, not use them as a last ditch attempt to kill people."

The difference being?

"Afghanistan produces oil?

And I highly doubt Bush would own the shares. Probably some American company."

No, Afghanistan does not produce oil. But it plays a big role in the oil industry because of a certain pipeline.

"AHA! So this war ISN'T about oil!"

It isnt? Why do you figure?

"No, he trades oil for medicine and food. It's just that simple."

Its called "oil for food" last i checked and not "oil for medicine". Besides, the little medicine he could get that way isnt nearly enough of what is needed.

I think its sad that you can actually support other peoples misery the way you do, FSPilot. Hopefully one day you will actually travel outside of the US and see how it is like for real people in the real world and not base your opinions on political propaganda and newsclips.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, I really am stupid for seeing a difference in the past and the present. Uhum, yep.<span id='postcolor'>

No, but you contradicted yourself in the same sentence.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Knowing is not the same as proving.<span id='postcolor'>

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

Retalliation is striking back to neutralize a threat that has proven to be hostile by attacking you first.

Losing power means youre on your way out of control of whatever.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It isnt? Why do you figure?<span id='postcolor'>

Because, oil-wise we would benefit nothing by taking Iraq. We'd have to pay real money for oil instead of just food and medicine.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Its called "oil for food" last i checked and not "oil for medicine". Besides, the little medicine he could get that way isnt nearly enough of what is needed.<span id='postcolor'>

No, he gets medicine too. He just doesn't give it, or any of the food to his civilians.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think its sad that you can actually support other peoples misery the way you do, FSPilot. Hopefully one day you will actually travel outside of the US and see how it is like for real people in the real world and not base your opinions on political propaganda and newsclips.<span id='postcolor'>

I think it's sad that you can actually support putting other people in danger the way you do. Hopefully one day you will actually look at the facts instead of what some anti-US propagandist feeds you and base your opinion on them.

[foxer 0]

I think its sad that you can actually support other peoples misery the way you do, FSPilot. Hopefully one day you will actually travel outside of the US and see how it is like for real people in the real world and not base your opinions on political propaganda and newsclips.

America has poor people also,it's not like every american is RiCh.We have homeless,we have hungry people.maybe not 3rd world countries style.But we do.Maybe you should come to the USA one day and see how it is, not what tv says it is.

-

They do get medicine,but i think if it could make an chemical weapons they do not give it to them.

[foxer 0]

Vets suing companies that help iraq with chemicals supplies.....MAybe this also already been posted.

link

some of what it sayss............

Neither American company listed -- Alcolac International, based in Baltimore, Maryland; and Al-Haddad Trading, based in Nashville, Tennessee -- are still in business.

--

One of the largest alleged suppliers to Iraq's chemical program, according to Iraq's list, was the German company Karl Kolb. A spokesman for the company said it has done business with Iraq for 35 years, but he denied any connection to its weapons programs.

[Longinius 1]

"No, but you contradicted yourself in the same sentence.

"Knowing is not the same as proving.""

How is that a contradiction? I know for a fact that I have never killed a person in my life. I cant prove it though. Is that a contradiction?

"Retalliation is striking back to neutralize a threat that has proven to be hostile by attacking you first.

Losing power means youre on your way out of control of whatever."

Well, if he has all ready lost control he cant attack you then, apparantly. If he will attack you, it will be a retalliation, because once you have won he will no longer have any power to strike at you with.

"No, he gets medicine too. He just doesn't give it, or any of the food to his civilians."

Utter bull. If he didnt there wouldnt be anyone alive in Iraq now, and there still are dispite the US efforts to see to it otherwise.

"I think it's sad that you can actually support putting other people in danger the way you do. Hopefully one day you will actually look at the facts instead of what some anti-US propagandist feeds you and base your opinion on them. "

I am looking at the facts, as provided by news sources and experts all over the world. You however are only looking to American sources for your information.

The only people put in danger here is the Iraqi people.

"America has poor people also,it's not like every american is RiCh.We have homeless,we have hungry people.maybe not 3rd world countries style.But we do.Maybe you should come to the USA one day and see how it is, not what tv says it is."

You cant even begin to compare the state of America with that of Iraq, Somalia or Bosnia for example. The fact that you even try to make a comparison is sad. Yes, there are poor people in America but they live in a wealthy society with a functional health- and welfaresystem.

I also think I am pretty informed about the situation in the US, having both friends and family who have worked and lived there. I am also quite sure one can get an accurate picture of the US simply by reading standard newspapers, watching CNN and NBC and various documentaries.

"They do get medicine,but i think if it could make an chemical weapons they do not give it to them. ".

I am quite sure an expert could list reasons to use most medical equipment to make chemical weapons. It is for example impossible to treat many cases of cancer and other serious illnesses in Iraq. Men, women and children are dieing every day because of this. And its on our hands.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 19 2003,19:57)</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">I never said the U.S. has not sponsored groups. I was talking about WMD. You know what WMD means right? Ummm, I don't think the U.S. Government gave the Taliban any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons<span id='postcolor'>

Not nuclear (as far as I know) but chemical and biological, in Iraq's case. Check earlier posts in this thread, many references were provided. During the Iran-Iraq conflict USA provided Iraq with bio-chemical agents that had no other usage then in weapons.<span id='postcolor'>

That is extremely debateable.

The source you yourself provided stated that the UK and Switzerland gave bio-chemical agents as well, and I KNOW Switzerland wouldn't give bio-chemical agents that have strict weaponary uses.

Your source also stated that these samples were sent to the University of Baghdad, and a number of what turned out to be dummy pharmacutical companies. Your source also states that they were cultures, not box loads of them. This leads me to believe the were meant for research purposes only.

After the cultures arrived at their destination, it is from there that the military took control of them, as your source states. So if anything it leads me to believe that the US, UK, and Switzerland were all duped if anything.

EDIT: Unless of course you are talking about a different source.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 20 2003,10:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Bush doctrine also advocates the use of tactical nuclear weapons if faced with other WDMs such as chemical and biological weapons. This gives Saddam the right to nuke USA, according to the Bush principle.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually that isn't a "Bush doctrine." It is a US military doctrine present since the 1950's, geared mainly at the old USSR. Basically a "MAD" principle, where it states "if you use yours I'll use mine." Meant to deter more level-headed WMD holders to rethink their WMD usage strategy (if one exsisted) in the hope that no one would use those weapons.

Lot of fuss over a principle that has been used for 50-odd years.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Jan. 20 2003,20:38)</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">Quote

the germans focused on civilians, british and americans tryed to attack military targets

Oh then Berlin must have been dreaming when 18 waves of carpet bombings went over them during ONE day !

Same with Dreden, Hannover...

They intentionally bombarded civilians to lower morale and bring them to their knees. This is no secret. Also US and Brits make no secret of it.<span id='postcolor'>

let me just respond to that. Germany started the incredible terrible bombing strategy and the allied forces simply adopted this escalation of bombing and improved it an "observe impact and improve impact" strategy. In the last years of the war the allies bombed out german cities simply for testing purposes.

During the last years the allied were so sophisticated that they were able to adapt bombs to cities. Old cities had a wodden floor so the bombs were made heavy in order to let them blow up after having fallen through several floors. New cities had wodden roofs and so the bombs were modified that the explode right away. And those bombs {blockbuster) were fire-bombs that simply put an entire city on fire. There was no protection from theses bombs cause those ate up the oxygen and people even in the cellar died because of no air. Then the allied threw bombs that blew up even up to half and hour later so the ambulance and fire-workers would be blown to dust.

So taking this into consideration we should see that the allies didnt start the war but were willing to adapt and improve the level of brutality.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually...the Allies started it...accidently.

A lone stray English bomber headed over Berlin and, thinking it was at the target, dropped its bombs. This infuriated Hitler, who up tho this point had only attacked Airdromes and bases of the RAF and military.

Within a few days the first Blitz against London took place, and there it escalates.

Other than that I liked your post

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 21 2003,04:35)</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">"Knowing is not the same as proving."<span id='postcolor'>

If you know it, it's already been proven, or you can prove it. Otherwise it's just a theory.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, if he has all ready lost control he cant attack you then, apparantly. If he will attack you, it will be a retalliation, because once you have won he will no longer have any power to strike at you with.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, if he's LOST control he wont do anything. But if hes LOSING control, he still has it, so he can do something.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Utter bull. If he didnt there wouldnt be anyone alive in Iraq now, and there still are dispite the US efforts to see to it otherwise.<span id='postcolor'>

You think the only way to get food is to import it?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am looking at the facts, as provided by news sources and experts all over the world.<span id='postcolor'>

Both of which can be easilly biased and subject to their own opinion.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">you however are only looking to American sources for your information.<span id='postcolor'>

Since when was the UN inspection team an American source?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The only people put in danger here is the Iraqi people.<span id='postcolor'>

If you ignore all the civilians Saddam threatens simply with his posession of WMDs, then yes.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am also quite sure one can get an accurate picture of the US simply by reading standard newspapers, watching CNN and NBC and various documentaries.<span id='postcolor'>

Don't count on it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am quite sure an expert could list reasons to use most medical equipment to make chemical weapons. It is for example impossible to treat many cases of cancer and other serious illnesses in Iraq. Men, women and children are dieing every day because of this. And its on our hands.<span id='postcolor'>

No, it's on Saddam's hands. He's the one who started and lost the war that ended up in these terms of surrender.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The source you yourself provided stated that the UK and Switzerland gave bio-chemical agents as well, and I KNOW Switzerland wouldn't give bio-chemical agents that have strict weaponary uses.<span id='postcolor'>

If I remember correctly, we (US UK and Switzerland) gave Iraq vials of diseases so they could develop cures for them. Instead they've been developing WMDs.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Since when was the UN inspection team an American source?<span id='postcolor'>

So you are the one that knows the reports UN inspectors made to 98 and today ?

DOUBTED. This is sensitive material and NOT public. Don´t tell me you know more than me when it comes to UN papers or reports Mr. FS Pilot.

The current piece of information provided to media from UN inspectors and officials is nothing to be a complete report.

You´re government told the UN lately to reveal certain sources or locations of WMD´s lately. Till now , and it´s been a while since they said so, there has been NO info from your government. Besides the ones we already had and inspectors are already checking or have checked since their task started.

And for the SCUD missiles. I remember that I already have posted the verified number of remaining SCUDS after DS1. There were 6 left with conventional loadout and a range of 250 km´s.

Maybe they added hypersonic - warp system lately. Otherwise I see no chance for the SCUD´s to reach Washington. You tend to forget things a lot when they don´t fit your view FS. Better keep some things in mind for more than 2 weeks. This will save a lot of people at this forum from debating / clearing out the same things over and over again in regular intervals.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You think the only way to get food is to import it?<span id='postcolor'>

farming can be a bad job in the desert with jets over you that bomb anything to pieces that looks like a "threat" to them.

I´d love to see you working at a farm with no water supply as the jets accidentially hit them quite often...

Oh maybe you´ll discover some funny bomblet remains under your potatoes.

Debating is one thing, but ignorance and basically lack in knowledge is a very different one.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">with his posession of WMDs, then yes.<span id='postcolor'>

WHERE ARE THEY ?!? Jeeez !!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He's the one who started and lost the war that ended up in these terms of surrender.

<span id='postcolor'>

The terms of surrender didnt enclose a 10 year ban in medical aid. They also didnt include the established "No fly zone"

And they certainly did not include an US option for an illegal preemptive strike against his country.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Instead they've been developing WMDs.<span id='postcolor'>

suspecting someone is different than prove. This seems to be the basic FS story again.

[FallenPaladin 0]

Very good statement, Balschoiw, I`m happy we have someone with your experience here in this forum. If people like you are in the head positions of the UN then maybe we`ll be able to avoid a war in iraq.

I just wonder what lone wolf behaviour of the US government would lead into...

[Whoami88 0]

129 pages...

Have we accomplished anything?