The Iraq Thread

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ale2999 @ Feb. 05 2003,14:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I guess it all comes down to who has the most eloquent speaker .<span id='postcolor'>

Heh... you are right upto a certain point. If there was actual intel pointing to real weapons, they could be found by the U.N., and then the only question would be, are these weapons under Iraqs control. (I forsee an argument of planted evidence, wether true or not)

[Die Alive 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 05 2003,14:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I laughed my ass off at the Iraqi response:

"USA is in violation of the  1441 resolution since article 10 in that resolution requires all member states to reveal all information they have on the subjcet [iraqi WMD's]"

I guess he is technically right <span id='postcolor'>

I laughed even harder when I read in today's newspaper a quote from Michael Jackson: "I am telling you the honest truth, I didn't do anything to my face."

Maybe the UN inspectors should visit Michael Jackson and look for evidence of alterations on his face. Knowing the UN, they'd probably wouldn't find anything.

And some of yous would believe them and Wako Jacko.

-=Die Alive=-

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Feb. 05 2003,20:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Say No to Drugs<span id='postcolor'>

Say "No, thank you."

Semper Fi

[Blaegis 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Feb. 05 2003,20:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1.  The U.N. is the body that should decide in unisom when to enforce it's resolutions with the action of war.  Unless we want to go back in time 60 years.

2.  For the U.S. and Britiain to prove there are weapons of mass destruction, there will have to be intelligence that points to actual weapons which can be found.  Or, you have to wait for Saddam to actually try and use the supposed weapons.

3.  If a weapon of mass destruction is found, it doesn't mean there is no answer but war.  There are ways to disarm the weapons and actively disable Husseins ability to use these and similar weapons effectively.

4.  America is pushing mighty hard, risking its entire economy, for what purpose?  To help Iraqs neighbors, who do not actually ask for this "help"?<span id='postcolor'>

Precisely. And since the US will be going to war regardless of UN support, the reason for it has to be something else than the Iraqi WMDs or their ties with Al-Qaida (which do happen to make the best excuse for it, though ). If you accept  that, you can take your pick of other reasons for war that make more sense - be it securing the Iraqi oil for the US, the long-standing vendetta against Saddam by the Bushes or expiring due-date on a large batch of Tomahawks .

[Guest]

I somehow got the impression that Powell's exposé was more about convincing the US public then the Security Council. I mean the important countries in the SC all have competent intelligence services - it would be strange if they don't have some form of picture of what is going on in Iraq.

I wouldn't be surprised that the French have even better intelligence assets in the region then USA has. France has been involved in the regious for over two centuries and have probably much better connections there then the US has.

[foxer 0]

Here's what i think.The US has more evidence then this,But they don't want to share it because The guy(the spy) is still undercover.Also the US could know where iraq/saddam is keeping his weapons at ,but don't want to say because when they attack iraq they will capture them soo iraq doesn't gas US/allies soldiers.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

We even got an ugly german now in the council...I didnt listen to his speech (big thunderstorm in Malta, no more foreign TV tonight). I agree though that Powell and the way he talked appeared to be addressing the americans rather than the council. The british ministre held a powerfull speech. China and Russia only touched the issue quite superficially. I guess they dont want to get too involved.

Did you notice that Powell seems to love his pencil, he was druming the table all through the meeting!

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Still, admit it...it was kind of boring... the opinions from Fischer to Straw and Powell were preproduced. This wasnt a discussive meeting, this was reading out premade speeches. Kind of dissapointing..and I got bored..terribly bored..feel asleep and later on switched to discovery channel

[Guest]

Yes I would like all of them to appear on the "Jerry Springer" show. I've heard that Fischer's right hook is quite impressive.

Also wouldn't it be fun to hear Chirac's repertoire of "Your moma" jokes directed at Blair? (of course it would be "Votre mÄre" jokes, but the princeple holds)

Well, you can't blame a guy for dreaming

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 05 2003,22:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes I would like all of them to appear on the "Jerry Springer" show. I've heard that Fischer's right hook is quite impressive.

Also wouldn't it be fun to hear Chirac's repertoire of "Your moma" jokes directed at Blair? (of course it would be "Votre mÄre" jokes, but the princeple holds)

Well, you can't blame a guy for dreaming <span id='postcolor'>

ta mÄre est tellement grosse que quand elle sort ça fait une eclipse

ta mÄre est tellement poilue que tu sais plus oů est sa tÄ™te

ta mÄre est tellement conne qu'elle t'aas pas avorté

more to come , maybe not ...

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Well I am getting kind of bored..now even CNN slightly calms down a bit cause thy notice they start to bore people with Iraq. The former slogan "war on Iraq" is now called "the case of Iraq". And always the same damn information..Bush speeches impacting international stock-markets... the price of gold rising because it is a crisis-safe investment. The we hear a short interview (nothing new) with Mr. Blix and then some boring comments from Blair and finally some counter-comments from some insignificant french diplomats. And all this packed in a ton of advertising about "Belgium, the great place to invest in" and a silly weather forecast that never covers the places you are right now!

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Feb. 06 2003,05:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Here's what i think.The US has more evidence then this,But they don't want to share it because The guy(the spy) is still undercover.Also the US could know where iraq/saddam is keeping his weapons at ,but don't want to say because when they attack iraq they will capture them soo iraq doesn't gas US/allies soldiers.<span id='postcolor'>

Well the US better show the UN this 'extra' intelligence soon or it doesn't look like they are not going to get much UN support for the war.

And it seems like most people worldwide only back a war if it has UN sanction so if any nations do commit to a war, including the US, the leaders of these nations might find themselves quite unpopular unless they can find convincing proof or Iraq having WMD and proof they planned to use them in anger wihtout provocatation.

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Feb. 05 2003,22:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Feb. 06 2003,05:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Here's what i think.The US has more evidence then this,But they don't want to share it because The guy(the spy) is still undercover.Also the US could know where iraq/saddam is keeping his weapons at ,but don't want to say because when they attack iraq they will capture them soo iraq doesn't gas US/allies soldiers.<span id='postcolor'>

Well the US better show the UN this 'extra' intelligence soon or it doesn't look like they are not going to get much UN support for the war.

And it seems like most people worldwide only back a war if it has UN sanction so if any nations do commit to a war, including the US, the leaders of these nations might find themselves quite unpopular unless they can find convincing proof or Iraq having WMD and proof they planned to use them in anger wihtout provocatation.<span id='postcolor'>

So they show the UN inspectors where he hiding the weapons.They find them,the world says look inspectors are working.There is no need for war.Also if they say we must go to war then we have gave details on how we found those weapons.So it would be harder to find the other weapons.

I would think the Us would know where those chemical weapons trucks went to.I'm sure they just  didn't disappear.UN inspectors wouldn't be in there if us wasn't ready to go to war.So countries claim that inspectors need more time,but they keep forgetting that when US wasn't pressing for a war they weren't allow in the country with inspectors.But when the US started to want war ,iraq is letting inspectors in.Now countries are saying give inspectors  more time ?

[Mister 5 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Feb. 05 2003,13:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i know americans said that 9/11 was their wake up call etc.

what a load of bollocks, most of them still have no idea what day it is let alone what the world thinks about them!

for all the smart Americans out there, i sympathise that you have to live with a bunch of idiots who don't even have passports!<span id='postcolor'>

That's a horrible thing for a person to say.

[Harnu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister 5 @ Feb. 05 2003,22:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Feb. 05 2003,13:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i know americans said that 9/11 was their wake up call etc.

what a load of bollocks, most of them still have no idea what day it is let alone what the world thinks about them!

for all the smart Americans out there, i sympathise that you have to live with a bunch of idiots who don't even have passports!<span id='postcolor'>

That's a horrible thing for a person to say.<span id='postcolor'>

But it is how it feels sometimes...

[Harnu 0]

As for un-nammed sources. Lets say the did give names, who's to say those are real people? You see either way you look at, named sources or not, would they make it any more reliable to you?

[Akira 0]

The reaction here is about as I expected in when I logged on. I was interested to read what evidence had been presented and what the members here thought of it.

Then I started thinking. What is it going to matter what the evidence is? Will anyone really care? Will the evidence really be all that compelling that members would out right switch from one extreme to another?

The fact is most people (European, Canadian, and American) here have already made up their mind, and no amount of arguing or evidence will change that fact. What would reliable evidence be to members? What would be the definitive evidence be that would cause someone to say "You know what. You were right." Short of Saddam standing up and saying "Yes we have weapons, and yes we are linked to Al Queda" or the US saying "Whoops. Our bad. We were wrong" there is nothing in this world that will convince debaters of one side or another. Looking back in the past few pages people have gone so far as to even say that they would have to see a weapon or have Iraq use one to start to believe. Then what is the point of the inspectors and the UN resolution? If that was the case then it would be already be too late and the UN failed.

My guess is the fervent Americans will use this to also solidify and reorganize their view with a new load of rhetoric ammunition (same for the Europeans).

Everyone is locked in their mindset and nothing will change that fact. So what is the point of debating it anymore? Both sides are slamming into a brick wall of stubbornicy (my word).

EDIT: My bad grammar.

[Guest]

That may be so, but it is the pro-war side that loses on not convincing the rest. Bush needs allies for his war so it's his problem to convince them.

But the request for evidence is very simple: evidence. Not circumstantials and theories but hard proof. It is very simple: show us a weapon. Show us an official Iraqi document that says that he wants to use it. Then we can discuss a war.

The US has so far not produced any such evidence. I blieve the things that Powell presented today, but that was not near enough to justify a war.

[Pukko 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Feb. 02 2003,02:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @ Feb. 02 2003,02:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I got four points in this post, starting with:

1.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 01 2003,03:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NSA Secret Tapes<span id='postcolor'>

From what I understand in that article most of the new evidence that will be presented on Wednesday is going to be strictly media based proof. Just like all the proof presented after 9/11 to justify an attack on Afganistan, or is there any 'hard' evidence that I have missed there (except for the fairytales about liberating the Afgan people). I cant honestly say that I am convinsed that the terrorists were at all muslims (but I know, stating that now is like saying that the earth is flat; it has become an undoubtable absolute truth). I hope for the sake of all lovely American people that the day will not come when any eventual 'real' people behind 9/11 present hard evidence that they were the real terrorists; and then fulfil their goal of 'eliminating' the USA.

There is one risk in trusting the US government being completely honest about all their 'secret proofs'. The day may come when it is revealed to be all made up bullshit, and that it was justified by pointing out that the 'times demanded it'.

Please just remember the points that media like the movie 'Wag the dog' and this clip of George W Bush speaking tries to make.

2.

I will not support a war against Iraq even if some real hard proof of Iraq possesing some WMD:s. The exeption would be if hard proof could be given of big amounts of  missile-based-WMD:s could be presented and/or hard proofs of plans to use them. And the proofs would have to be accepted by a majority of the global community, and preferably also be accessible to everyone who want to check its authenticity.

If the 'media-proof' presented on wednesday only is about some thousand artillery based chemical-capable-shells, I dont know if will cry or laugh about it... but I have no doubt that no matter how pathetic the evidence turns out to be, the war will launched anyway.

And dont come dragging with the 'Iraq breaks UN rules' as a justification for a war. Many, many many other coutries do too, and USA is one of the worst members of the UN when it comes too ratifying UN conventions (like the chemical & biological weapons, childrens rights and 'non discrimination against women' etc. conventions + ignoring the criminal court and Kyoto protocol. And there are many more), and thereby placing itself outside the UN, while at the same time controlling it in many areas...

3.

If a war against Iraq is so extremely important, then it also have to be worth the risking of lives to accomplish it. If one are not ready to risk one's own life for a cause, there is no justification to risk others lives for it. In this case by, not only risking - but knowingly killing thousands civilians by, bombing. If you answer with the 'one have to break some eggs to make an omelett' argument, I really dont have any words for how low you have sunken, but know this: wars today is a quite perverse form of entertainment.....

4.

I hope you know, I'm quite sure that you deep inside know anyway, that the only lasting and real result of a vaugly justified war against Iraq now (and most certainly Iran and North Korea later) will be wastly increased hatered against the USA globally. The comfort you may get in having a vaugly defined enemy to blame everything on (also called scapegoat) - terrorists - comes to a very high price (yes I am implying that many of you want to have, and actively work to maintain -even if uncounciously -, this enemy), global depression and conflict - most certainly unprecendented in all history....<span id='postcolor'>

i agree with pukko , and he's found the words i wasn't able to find myself , it's nice to see that there are still some reasonable people on this poor planet<span id='postcolor'>

Nice to see that someone read it anymore comments anyone?

I stand by my opinions, even if there are much more to say, mostly about what is already discussed here in general (that others do much better than I am capable of), but also some closer examinations of our indeed quite pathetic western society - but I will spare you from that in this context

Let there be no doubt however, [me using Bush rethorics] the United States of America will go to war no matter what happens. Because once an American president has said something, especially if it is repeated for a year, there is too much pride and prestiege involved to not go through with it. A war that probably wont even be enough justified within the USA, and just serve as a big dig of USA:s own grave. What will the masters of illusions be rememered as in history; the land of cheap entertainment?

I feel truly sad about these signs of our deeply pathetic period in history, and would like to share something that might give you some energy back, if you like me feel it draining. Just a link to a piece of music that has been on the Swedish lists since September, that might give sparkling light of hope in these dark times. I would not call it 'anti American', rather 'tired of US influence'. It might also give Americans an hint of developing international attitudes towards the USA:

Click on the red text "se videon" on the 5:th line to see the real player video

ps. You might, and will, call me anti american. But even if I have not been to the USA myself, I have many relatives there (one of who became 'miss tiny Illinois' the other year.. ) and have met many interesting Americans too . I also know a woman here in Sweden who lost her father in WTC. I dont have anything against American human beings, but I do begin to have a hard time with US idelology.

EDIT pps. I neither cried or laughed at the 'great US evidence' presented today, rather just the calmly shocked feeling of 'is this really possible in the year of 2003?'

[Frisbee 0]

Funnily enough,there would be undeniable evidence after that speech.

Where is it I wonder?

Don't switch the roles around,the us has to prove there IS a reason,noone has to prove there isn't a reason.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Benn under fire over Saddam interview

By Charles Reiss, Political Editor, Evening Standard

5 February 2003

Tony Benn was involved in a verbal punch-up with Downing Street and the BBC today over his TV appearance with Saddam Hussein.

The veteran Left-winger became embroiled in a furious exchange with Radio 4's Today presenter James Naughtie.

Then No10, on behalf of Tony Blair, delivered an icy response to the interview with the Iraqi dictator which was screened by Channel 4 last night.

The Prime Minister's official spokesman said Mr Blair, who appears on BBC's Newsnight tomorrow, was preparing for "a slightly tougher time from Jeremy Paxman than perhaps Saddam Hussein had".

There was widespread criticism for the way Mr Benn, in his 35-minute session with Saddam, had failed to ask him any tough questions.

Mr Benn, challenged on the Today programme, hit back angrily, describing the corporation itself as a "weapon of mass deception".

In a charge which does look likely to anger Downing Street, he appeared to suggest that Saddam and Mr Blair were tarred with the same brush.

"There is not a single head of state in the world whose hands are clean,?" Benn declared.

During the TV conversation with Saddam, Mr Benn asked him just two questions relating to the charges against the regime. He asked whether Iraq had any weapons of mass destruction and was told they did not.

Asked on the Today programme about his failure to challenge Saddam, Mr Benn replied: "I did not do a Robin Day."

Questions were still being asked today about the money paid for the interview by Channel 4, said to be up to Å70,000.

<span id='postcolor'>

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frisbee @ Feb. 05 2003,23:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Don't switch the roles around,the us has to prove there IS a reason,noone has to prove there isn't a reason.<span id='postcolor'>

"2.  Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;"

Resolution 1441

Explain to me again how the UN (not just the U.S.) has the burden of proof here?

Semper Fi

[Guest]

Yes you are right, that is one little twisted resolution. I wonder who pushed for that formulation...hmmm

It was actually a compromise. The US demanded that the burden of proof was on Iraq and if they didn't comply the UN would approve military action. The compromise was that the burden of proof was on Iraq and if they didn't comply there would be "serious consequences" (not defining what those was).

Just because it is a UN resolution doesn't mean it is necessarily fair. The UN is responsible for the utterly inhumane sanctions against Iraq.

Common sense and our western laws dictate that you are innocent until proven guilty. There is a very good reason for that practice.

The UN agreed however on the twisted version because they needed to please America while avoiding war. There are many things I disagree with the UN about.

Still they are the only ones in the end that have the right to make a decision to go to war. If they do, I won't like it, but I won't question their right to do so.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 06 2003,00:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes you are right, that is one little twisted resolution. I wonder who pushed for that formulation...hmmm<span id='postcolor'>

I dunno, it seemed straightforward to me.  Then again, I'm married to a divorce lawyer, so I've got more than my fair share of experience in dealing with convoluted arguments.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 06 2003,00:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Common sense and our western laws dictate that you are innocent until proven guilty.<span id='postcolor'>

My question is, how many times does Iraq need to be found guilty?  They were guilty in '91, they were guilty in '98, they are guilty now...

Semper Fi

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 05 2003,19:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My question is, how many times does Iraq need to be found guilty? They were guilty in '91, they were guilty in '98, they are guilty now...<span id='postcolor'>

But you know, they paid through their teeth and then some for being guilty already. Dropping bombs on them is so terrible.... hmm.

This message was intercepted between an Iraqi woman and a Canadian news agancy:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Reporter: So what is the general feeling among the Iraqi people about the possibility of this war?

Iraqi woman: What most people tell me is that they can't believe someone is going to do this to them again. They think it's impossible that this can actually happen twice. Being under Saddams control is bad, but to have their cities bombed again is not something they are willing to accept.<span id='postcolor'>

The woman also told the reporter that she had gone through the Iraq/Iran and Desert Storm conflicts, and she said that the Iraq/Iran war was not nearly as bad as DS1, because Iran/Iraq war took place on the fron lines, while during DS1 their entire cities were bombed and destroyed. This is not something Iraqis want...