The Iraq Thread

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 01 2003,15:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 01 2003,04:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What is really scary is that the corporal was democratically elected<span id='postcolor'>

No he wasn't. At least i don't think he was. Was he?<span id='postcolor'>

If we are referring to the Austrian Corporal, no he wasn't really elected. I think it was German Government that elected his as Chancellor, not the people. He most certainly did not become Fuhrer through a vote. He just went ahead and declared himself so, but there was a vote afterwards where the German people had to ratify that they didn't mind him being Fuhrer. Of course, he won that. Funny considering there wasn't much choice since all his oppisition had been wiped out.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Mar. 01 2003,07:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 01 2003,150)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 01 2003,04:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What is really scary is that the corporal was democratically elected<span id='postcolor'>

No he wasn't. At least i don't think he was. Was he?<span id='postcolor'>

If we are referring to the Austrian Corporal, no he wasn't really elected. I think it was German Government that elected his as Chancellor, not the people. He most certainly did not become Fuhrer through a vote. He just went ahead and declared himself so, but there was a vote afterwards where the German people had to ratify that they didn't mind him being Fuhrer. Of course, he won that. Funny considering there wasn't much choice since all his oppisition had been wiped out.<span id='postcolor'>

Hitler did and didnt take power democratically.

Hitler told the German people that the problems of the Depression were not their fault. He blamed the Jews for Germany's problems. He used them as a scapegoat. Hitler said that he would be able to solve the problems and promised different things to different groups of people. To businessmen he promised that he would control the Trade Unions and deal with the Communists. To workers he promised that he would provide jobs. Hitler said that he would do away with the Treaty of Versailles, which had treated Germany so badly. Hitler was always backed up by large numbers of disciplined and uniformed followers - this made it appear that he was a man who could take decisions and sort out Germany's problems. As the situation in Germany became more and more desperate, people were more and more ready to listen to the ideas of Hitler. On 30th January Hitler was appointed chancellor by President Hindenburg. In January 1933 Hindenburg was persuaded by Franz von Papen to appoint Hitler as Chancellor of Germany. Von Papen believed that he would be able to control Hitler and use the 196 Nazi MPs to create a majority in the Reichstag. He was wrong: When he took office, Hitler was leading a coalition government. there were only three Nazis apart from himself. He immediately called a general election to try to win a majority. The general election took place on 5th March 1933. the Nazis won 288 seats. This was not a majority, but 52 Nationalists supported them. At the first meeting of the Reichstag on 23rd March, the 81 Communists stayed away. Hitler could now do as he liked. The Reichstag immediately passed the Enabling Act - this made Hitler dictator of Germany for four years. He immediately began to use this power to crush all opposition to him in Germany. All trade unions were abolished and all political parties banned, except for the Nazis. In November 1933 in another general election, in which only Nazi candidates were allowed, 92% of the people supported the Nazis.

So, while he seized power in a rather undemocratic way, the German people put him in a position where he could actually do it. And he did lead the party with the most elected representatives in the 1933 election.

[der bastler 0]

Well, after Saddam's missile game this week ("Missiles? Where?" - "Hmm, no, I will not destroy them!" - "Okok, I'll destroy them.") Hans Blix ought to be very angry. But: He compliments Saddam for his co-operation. And now I found this:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Stanislaw Lem @ FAZ)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

I've met Mr Blix in Vienna after he had inspected the reactor of Chernobyl. He believed the russian statement that there were only six killed in this disaster.<span id='postcolor'>source (german newspaper FAZ)

I ever thought Mr. Blix was the right man for this task -did I thought wrong?

And while discussing Adolf: He started his 4-years-plan in 1936 to re-arm the german forces. And in 1939 Germany was strong enough to perform Blitzkriege against all states bordering the Reich...

[HellToupee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 01 2003,17:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh please do read what I just said a few pages back.<span id='postcolor'>

read what u mite wanna say which posts theres many posts of u reguratating propaganda havnt seen anything beliveable or credable to rember.

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

Look, like I've already said, we've been told not to talk about it since it's pretty irrelevant.<span id='postcolor'>

Dont really see whats so funny, firebomb their cities with impunity, then nuke them, and then nuke them again, hell they coudnt even shoot at the bombers.

[DarkLight 0]

I seriously don't understand why the US should attack Iraq...

1) "Saddam kills his own people, if we bomb the shit outta them they'll be happy! After all, we only need to catch 8 Saddams before we are sure that we have every single Saddam! Saddam is THEEEE worst dictator out there!!!! Thousands of people are dying now and we are doing nothing!"

Of course this sounds like a great thing, our excellent Western world attacks Iraq just to help the Iraqi people.

Sad enough, there are some things that truly fuck up this whole idea, one of those is that Saddam isn't the worst dictator at all, the media just likes it when everyone believes this and of course it's great for the West too.

Next, if we really want to help all the people who die every day, perhaps we should spend all the money for our weapons on something useful. Instead of making the newest, strongest, and most dangerous weapons, we should spend all that money to help countries who really need it.

Perhaps we can help a country by giving it money, make all of the people in that country happy and save lots of lifes without even nuking half of them.

Looking at the amount of money that we spend each year on warfare, that should be no problem at all.

The real problem is, nobody gives a fuck about the poor children who die every day, it's not important for our presidents cuz it won't give them a good reputation. After all, what sounds best? "Our great president attacks the East, kills Saddam, and saves Iraq. The Iraqi people welcome him with tears in their eyes, of joy of course" or "Our president has donated x $ to y, the country is happy now"

Fuck this shit, after 11 sept everyone uses their "war on terrorism" as something to make them popular. This is the biggest bullshit ever. The word that Bush has said the most in his career probably is 'terrorists'.

When American people hear the word, they emmediatly get scared... "What terrorists? Quick, let's bomb the shit outta them before they get us". Do i hear someone being a bit paranoia?

2) "If we don't attack Iraq, they'll attack us first!"

Yes, of course how obvious, how could i be so dumb, Iraq is the country with the best weapons in the world, if they attack the US the rest of the world won't do anything at all!!!!

Of course nobody will mind Iraq bombing the shit outta our allies, why should we? Riiiiiiight!

Why don't i understand this? Isn't it obvious that Iraq isn't afraid of the whole Western world? Isn't it obvious that Iraq is prepared to bomb the West and then get bombed to pieces?

Just in case there are some extremely dumb people on this forum, this is called IRONY.

3) "Iraq is not trying to participate, it's so obvious that Saddam is playing a game with us"

Fuck this excuse...

4) "Everyone knows that Iraq has such weapons!"

Fuck this one even more...

Remember the great evidence that america provided a while ago? The one with the sattelite pics or whatever it was.

I can post these pics here and say: "on this pic you can clearly see that the Iraqi people are putting boxes into their trucks. Obviously the boxes are filled with food for the poor. The Iraqi people care more about the poor ones than us..."

Those pics aren't evidence at all, and as hard as it may be, till today there still isn't any good evidence at all.

5) Perhaps it's about oil...

Everyone seems to deny that it's about oil, this looks like a pretty nice reason, but perhaps not good enough to spend so much money.

6) It's about power...

Having Iraq in the Western power will of course be a nice thing, another place in the middle east that is our possession...

7) Bush junior revenges daddy?

Probable has something to do with it. It's like those great Western movies where the father gets shot and the son hunts challenges the killer so he can revenge his dad.

8)... I have no fucking clue, there is no good fucking reason if you ask me. It's all a bunch of bullshit if you ask me.

I hope one of your friends will die in this upcoming war... so you can see what you've done. Apparantly the only way to make people realize that they were wrong is the hard way...

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (der bastler @ Mar. 01 2003,10:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Stanislaw Lem @ FAZ)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

I've met Mr Blix in Vienna after he had inspected the reactor of Chernobyl. He believed the russian statement that there were only six killed in this disaster.<span id='postcolor'>source (german newspaper FAZ)

I ever thought Mr. Blix was the right man for this task -did I thought wrong?<span id='postcolor'>

This is bullshit. First Blix would have not in any way inspected Chernobyl. He was the head of the IAEA from 1981-1997 (Chernobyl was in 1986) and the global coordinator for the Chernobyl international response team. Second the statement that "only six were killed in the disaster" is bullshit. The first Soviet estimate for primary and secondary effect victims was in the range of 200,000. That was the official number. Later WHO and IAEA could reduce the number with about a factor 5. What Blix's IAEA and WHO team said was that the Soviet numbers were overestimated.

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

The IAEA and the Chernobyl accident

Although nuclear power plants are environmentally very benign in normal operation, it has always been understood that accidents could result in widespread contamination. There have been only two major accidents with civilian nuclear power plants, at Three Mile Island (TMI) in the USA in 1979 and at Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986. At TMI, a large part of the reactor fuel melted, but all radioactive material was kept inside the reactor building. The containment stopped any further spread of the radioactivity, as it was designed to do, and there was no significant release into the environment. A continuing health survey by the local authorities has shown no radiation induced health effects from the accident. Thus, we really can regard containment as a reliable barrier against releases, a barrier which worked and proved its usefulness at TMI. The Chernobyl accident gave rise to contamination not only in the immediate surroundings of the power plant but even outside the borders of the then USSR. In particular, some areas in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia were contaminated to such a level that the authorities introduced limitations on the consumption of locally produced foodstuffs and even undertook relocation of the public from these areas (altogether, some 140 thousand people). In 1989, the Government of the USSR formally requested the IAEA to co-ordinate an international assessment of the concept and plan which the USSR had developed to enable the population to live safely in areas affected by radioactive contamination following the Chernobyl accident, and an evaluation of the effectiveness of the steps taken in these areas to safeguard the health of the population.

In response, the IAEA organized an independent International Advisory Committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Shigematsu, the director of the Radiation Effects Research Foundation in Hiroshima, which since 1950 has monitored and analysed the health situation of atomic bomb survivors in Japan. This committee performed an evaluation during 1990 and the results were published in 1991. They included an assessment of the contamination and dose data already issued by the Soviet authorities; these were confirmed by the experts through independent corroborative measurements and calculations and comparison of their results with those officially provided. The committee's independent calculations of projected future doses, mainly due to the long-lived caesium isotopes, were lower than the USSR estimates by a factor of 2-3. In the case of doses from iodine it was not possible to make independent estimates and only the analytical techniques used by the USSR authorities at the time could be reviewed. These were found to have been fully satisfactory. The experts reviewed all data that were made available to them by individual experts, research institutions and other organizations from the former USSR. Furthermore, they took environmental samples and measured them independently and, moreover, they monitored the internal contamination of several thousand people living in the affected areas.

The International Advisory Committee also made a thorough review of the health situation at the time of the accident. It found a poor health situation, both in contaminated and non-contaminated areas. Although the review did not find evidence in 1990 that there had been any increases in leukaemia or thyroid tumours due to the accident, it warned that increases in some tumour types could occur later. Today it is generally believed that there is a causal link between the accident and the present noted increase in thyroid cancer cases. The situation is being followed by the World Health Organization (WHO). Media statements about 125 000 deaths due to the accident have been refuted by WHO officials.

The committee also made a thorough assessment of the protective measures that had been taken by the Soviet authorities and found them sometimes exaggerated and out of step with international recommendations. This overreaction may have contributed to the severe psychological problems found by the experts, which included stress and anxiety.

The Chernobyl study organized by the IAEA is one example of how the Agency seeks to obtain and publish objective information by engaging first class, independent scientists. The results of such studies are subjected to public scrutiny and peer review - which is not the case with most of the sensational media statements which appear. <span id='postcolor'>

But you have to remember that IAEA is a pro-nuclear organization. They are not and don't pretend to be objective on the subject. So their information on nuclear power plants will always be biased.

Edit: The real numbers 15 years later.

Dead within four months of the accident: 28

Dead within nine years: 9 more

Diagnosed with acute radiation sicknes: 237

Number of people with thyroid cancer (in Ukraina, White Russia and Russia): 1300

(thyroid gland cancer is not leathal)

(source: ssi)

(source: How bad was chernobyl?)

[SirLoins 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> by Darklight...    8)... I have no fucking clue, there is no good fucking reason if you ask me.  It's all a bunch of bullshit if you ask me.

I hope one of your friends will die in this upcoming war... so you can see what you've done.  Apparantly the only way to make people realize that they were wrong is the hard way...<span id='postcolor'>

I'm sure, as a mod has posted after your rant, that nobody will challenge your other 7 statements.  Of course they are not worthy of comment.

Number 8 pretty much says it all, you DON'T have a fucking clue.

And I'm sure if I made the comment  "I hope one of your friends will die in this upcomming war....", I would be severely chastized for that comment.  

But then again I support my countries efforts to save YOUR pitiful ass from the fate that you wish upon MY friends.

FREEDOM TRUMPS PEACE!!!

UK Telegraph: Saddam 'killed missile chief' to thwart UN team)

(The Los Angeles Times: Protesters With Bloody Hands -Max Boot)

(Reuters: Blix - Iraq Banned Weapons Unaccounted For)

(Human Rights Watch: Iraq's Crime of Genocide: the Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds)

(Amnesty International: Iraq: Systematic Torture of Political Prisoners)

(New York Times: How Many People Has Hussein Killed?)

(NY Times: War for Peace? It Worked in My Country -Nobel Laureate José Ramos-Horta)

(Colin Powell's Special Section - "Iraq: Failing To Disarm" -audio, video, text)

[Epita 0]

Well, mabe he will get his ass nuked of the face of the planet. but im not talking about Sadam, there are soo many nukes around here that are not accounted for... N Korea just shot a missile at Japan again. So i think people should really worry about will they survive this war, let alone why should it happen, because if America wants to go to war, who the hell is going to stop it. Not even if Bush was to 'die' it would still not stop them from going to war, Colin Powwell, and Dick Chenne will still start it, also Blair. The thing is America has the abilitly to do what it wants and to say to the rest of the world i.e. the UN screw you how are you going to stop me huh. Even all of the UN including Russia China and India/Pakistan would have a hard time taking on the USA and winning. That is the state of the world in which we live in. If Bushywushy wants to Nuke you, who is going to stop them. Besisdes you must be a really high ranking official within Al-Quidea if they say so.

Thats my rant over then!

Epita

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SirLoins @ Feb. 28 2003,19:36)</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"> by Darklight...    8)... I have no fucking clue, there is no good fucking reason if you ask me.  It's all a bunch of bullshit if you ask me.

I hope one of your friends will die in this upcoming war... so you can see what you've done.  Apparantly the only way to make people realize that they were wrong is the hard way...<span id='postcolor'>

I'm sure, as a mod has posted after your rant, that nobody will challenge your other 7 statements.  Of course they are not worthy of comment.

Number 8 pretty much says it all, you DON'T have a fucking clue.

And I'm sure if I made the comment  "I hope one of your friends will die in this upcomming war....", I would be severely chastized for that comment.  

But then again I support my countries efforts to save YOUR pitiful ass from the fate that you wish upon MY friends.

FREEDOM TRUMPS PEACE!!!<span id='postcolor'>

Save my pitiful ass? For some very strange reason, you are not saving my ass at all... I don't see why attacking some dumb country = saving me...

If you think you have a fucking clue, well then post the goddamn thing. I'm just saying that there is no fucking point to this dumb war.

I do not wish that anyone's family die, just showing that no one realizes what war is like... well, at least not everyone realizes that...

[The Ferret 0]

As an American, I support what our President is doing, but that is not to say that I or we as a nation "want" to go to war. Now, I have seen the international outcry against the war on TV, and I've read posts on this forum that reflect that view. I know there are alot of Europeans who post on this forum, and I know that most Europeans believe that Americans have no idea what goes on outside the US. So, I am asking, tell me where I am mistaken on the following points.

1. Iraq, under the leadership of Saddam, invaded Kuwait.

2. With the sanction of the UN (ie the world community), the US led an international military coalition that pushed Iraq out of Kuwait, and forced Iraq to sue for peace.

3. The terms of the treaty ending the war, stipulated that Iraq would destroy all weapons of mass destruction in their possession, stop any research, production, and development of such weapons, and that there would be UN inspections to insure that Iraq was upholding its end of the treaty.

4. Iraq thawarted inspection efforts immediately and eventually kicked out UN inspectors. Putting Iraq in violation of the treaty.

5. The international community and the US, under the Clinton administration, did not force Iraq to comply with the conditions to which they had agreed. Instead, it imposed embargos, which has had no effect on Saddam's weapons programs or palace construction, has only hurt the Iraqi populace, and on which we are all still waiting to work.

6. The US was attacked by Islamic extreamists on 9/11/01.

7. Iraq as a matter of state policy is likely to help and supply terrorist organizations.

8. Iraq is actively trying to develop WMDs.

9. If having successfully developed nuclear weapons, Saddam Hussein is exactly the type of man who would supply such weapons to terrorists for use against the US or Israel.

10. Despite lessons that Europe should have learned when appeasing Hitler, it still believes that "force is not the answer to everything"...so much so that it has come to believe that "force is the answer to nothing."

11. That although it is Saddam Hussein who is in violation of the treaty, the US is the country the world is protesting. Could not the protest signs have just as easily and more morally read "SADDAM DISARM" as opposed to "THE US IS IMPERALISTIC"

I have to go to work...I'll stop there. But I am curious. So tell me where I'm messed up.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (The Ferret @ Mar. 01 2003,20:53)</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">1. Iraq, under the leadership of Saddam, invaded Kuwait.

2. With the sanction of the UN (ie the world community), the US led an international military coalition that pushed Iraq out of Kuwait, and forced Iraq to sue for peace.

3. The terms of the treaty ending the war, stipulated that Iraq would destroy all weapons of mass destruction in their possession, stop any research, production, and development of such weapons, and that there would be UN inspections to insure that Iraq was upholding its end of the treaty.

4.  Iraq thawarted inspection efforts immediately and eventually kicked out UN inspectors. Putting Iraq in violation of the treaty.

5. The international community and the US, under the Clinton administration, did not force Iraq to comply with the conditions to which they had agreed. Instead, it imposed embargos, which has had no effect on Saddam's weapons programs or palace construction, has only hurt the Iraqi populace, and on which we are all still waiting to work.

6. The US was attacked by Islamic extreamists on 9/11/01.

7. Iraq as a matter of state policy is likely to help and supply terrorist organizations.

8. Iraq is actively trying to develop WMDs.

9. If having successfully developed nuclear weapons, Saddam Hussein is exactly the type of man who would supply such weapons to terrorists for use against the US or Israel.

10. Despite lessons that Europe should have learned when appeasing Hitler, it still believes that "force is not the answer to everything"...so much so that it has come to believe that "force is the answer to nothing."

11. That although it is Saddam Hussein who is in violation of the treaty, the US is the country the world is protesting. Could not the protest signs have just as easily and more morally read "SADDAM DISARM" as opposed to "THE US IS IMPERALISTIC"

<span id='postcolor'>

All these arguments have been replied to numerous times in this thread. Go see yourself!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As an American, I support what our President is doing<span id='postcolor'>

Do you suggest it's "un-american" not to to support your president? Did most of you support Nixon during the Watergate-scandal?

I'm norwegian - and I certainly don't support my PM. It's not considered as being unpatriotic with my own country.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">but that is not to say that I or we as a nation "want" to go to war. <span id='postcolor'>

Your president want's to go to war. If you support him I'd say you want to go to war!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I know there are alot of Europeans who post on this forum, and I know that most Europeans believe that Americans have no idea what goes on outside the US. <span id='postcolor'>

I believe your conclusions about how europeans regard americans are based on prejudice. However, I wouldn't totally disregard the fact presented on this forum about general knowledge of american pupils (survey made by National Geographic) . When reading the posts written by american forum-members I'd say they are very well informed indeed and would possibly prove this to be wrong.  

[brgnorway 0]

Big trouble for US's war plans?

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

US troops are waiting on ships off Turkey's southern coast

Turkey's parliament has narrowly failed to approve the deployment of US troops on its territory for a possible war with neighbouring Iraq.

MPs voted 264-250 in favour of the deployment, but the motion fell four votes short of the required majority of deputies present in the chamber.

<span id='postcolor'>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2810133.stm

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (The Ferret @ Mar. 01 2003,20:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">7. Iraq as a matter of state policy is likely to help and supply terrorist organizations.

8. Iraq is actively trying to develop WMDs.

9. If having successfully developed nuclear weapons, Saddam Hussein is exactly the type of man who would supply such weapons to terrorists for use against the US or Israel.

10. Despite lessons that Europe should have learned when appeasing Hitler, it still believes that "force is not the answer to everything"...so much so that it has come to believe that "force is the answer to nothing."<span id='postcolor'>

Ok,

Item 7: Pure supposition.  Nothing more.  Even the US government has ties to terrorist organisations (School of the Americas).  

Item 8 and Item 9: Saddam MAY have development ongoing of chemical or biological agents.  But there is no way he has anything approaching a viable nuclear program.  He has no infrastructure capable or refining weapons grade uranium.  His scientist may have the knowlege to build a device, but the lack the fissionable materials to actually construct it.  And as for the knowlege and know how...I suspect there are a lot of corporations in the US that could construct a nuclear device given fissionable materials.

Item 10:  Trying to compare Saddam to Hitler is laughable.  It astounds me that people still do it.  The situations are completely different, as are the times.  Germany of the early 30's was one of the most industrialised nations in the world.  The simple fact that Hitler was able to build the Wehrmacht up into the formidable force it was by 1939 demonstrates that.  Saddam has only one advantage: Oil.  He has virtually no industry.   Can you say with a straight face that Saddam can crank out world class armour and aircraft?  I think not.  No one wants to appease Saddam.  People who oppose military action in Iraq do so because of the terrible toll in human life a conflict will  cause.  And because western military action in the middle east will further erode the condition of the region, that is already unstable.

[Necromancer- 0]

funny though that people are so naÄve about Saddam.

Not to mention that people are stupid enough to go to Iraq to become a human shield for civilian targets. Once the Americans attack, they'll all prolly get arrested and hold hostage at military targets.

also a few weeks ago i read an article that the CIA tracked down "Ghost ships" which are floating in the Indi Ocean without making or replying to contact... which is forbidden by international maritime laws.

No action was taken due to the fact that the ships may probably be scuttled at contact.

[FSPilot 0]

I heard those ships just turned out to be a rumor, but I didn't hear anything else so I'm not sure.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">read what u mite wanna say which posts theres many posts of u reguratating propaganda havnt seen anything beliveable or credable to rember.<span id='postcolor'>

1) Use punctuation.

2) I just discussed what you brought up not even a day before you brought it up, I'm not about to do it again. At least not so quickly.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Dont really see whats so funny, firebomb their cities with impunity, then nuke them, and then nuke them again, hell they coudnt even shoot at the bombers.<span id='postcolor'>

The fact you think the Japanese would of surrendered. Now I'm going to stop replying to you, you either don't understand what I say or just don't read it in the first place.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Necromancer- @ Mar. 02 2003,00:05)</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">funny though that people are so naÄve about Saddam.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh right, I see - you are saying that all of us not supporting a war against Iraq now - happen to love Saddam? If you do I suggest you are the one who's naive!'

Look, no one here loves, admires or are fond of dear uncle Saddam. It's just that many of us don't think it's a good idea to go to war because of the consequences.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not to mention that people are stupid enough to go to Iraq to become a human shield for civilian targets.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, I think they are silly too. However, I watched an interview on NRK (norwegian TV-station) and a girl that was on the way to Bagdad said it was not to be a human shield but to "be there and document possible war crimes on both sides". Having said that I strongly believe she was a wee bit more interested in eventual US conducted war crime.

[foxer 0]

8)... I have no fucking clue, there is no good fucking reason if you ask me. It's all a bunch of bullshit if you ask me.

I hope one of your friends will die in this upcoming war... so you can see what you've done. Apparantly the only way to make people realize that they were wrong is the hard way...

I can stand jokes about the president,and about usa gov't and stuff.But to wish bad things on Soldiers just because their doing there job.Now that's pretty sad.That's like saying "i hope alot of europeans soldiers die in afghanistan soo they know what the terrorist can do there". I'm not over here saying "woot we going kill bunch of iraqi soldiers,kill them dumbass ragheads".

I mean i think you should get a 24 hour ban.But maybe there some biased here? A european one ? hmm

[Major Fubar 0]

What he said was maybe a bit harsh, but I can see the point he was trying to make.

Maybe people would be a bit less eager for war if they had lost a friend in a war.

[FSPilot 0]

Maybe if his kid was being tortured or his wife was being raped by one of Saddam's policemen he'd have a different opinion.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 02 2003,02:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe if his kid was being tortured or his wife was being raped by one of Saddam's policemen he'd have a different opinion.<span id='postcolor'>

I agree he went over the top - but you could ask why his kid or wife was there in the first place!

Don't get me wrong, but yesterday quite a few US soldiers used the bathroom when I was at work (no it's not a brothel - but a hotel) and I couldn't help myself from feeling sad if these young boys were sent to Iraq. Jesus, they were so young and it really saddens me! I wish US would change it's policy (I know - you don't agree with me) .

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 02 2003,02:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">3--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 02 2003,023)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe if his kid was being tortured or his wife was being raped by one of Saddam's policemen he'd have a different opinion.<span id='postcolor'>

I agree he went over the top - but you could ask why his kid or wife was there in the first place!

Don't get me wrong, but yesterday quite a few US soldiers used the bathroom when I was at work (no it's not a brothel - but a hotel) and I couldn't help myself from feeling sad if these young boys were sent to Iraq. Jesus, they were so young and it really saddens me! I wish US would change it's policy (I know - you don't agree with me) .<span id='postcolor'>

heh i agree , seeing these young boys launghing , kidding together before being sent to the front line ...

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Mar. 02 2003,02:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">8--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 02 2003,028)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 02 2003,02<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe if his kid was being tortured or his wife was being raped by one of Saddam's policemen he'd have a different opinion.<span id='postcolor'>

I agree he went over the top - but you could ask why his kid or wife was there in the first place!

Don't get me wrong, but yesterday quite a few US soldiers used the bathroom when I was at work (no it's not a brothel - but a hotel) and I couldn't help myself from feeling sad if these young boys were sent to Iraq. Jesus, they were so young and it really saddens me! I wish US would change it's policy (I know - you don't agree with me) .<span id='postcolor'>

heh i agree , seeing these young boys launghing , kidding together before being sent to the front line ...<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah Ran, you said it better than me - because that was excactly what they were doing!

I can't get it out of my head now!

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 02 2003,01:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I mean i think you should get a 24 hour ban.But maybe there some biased here? A european one ? hmm<span id='postcolor'>

Although I certainly don't agree with what he is saying, it's within the freedom of speech since it is not a violation of any forum rules.

This brings me to an interesting question that I want to ask the people opposing the war. Do you wish USA to suceed in its invasion of Iraq or would you rather see Iraq defending itself successfully?

My own answer to that is whatever minimizes the civilian casualties. I think it is 'better' if US or Iraqi servicemen die then the civilians.

This is however a complicated issue. If USA succeeds and establishes a new government in Iraq, the sanctions will be dropped and many lives will be saved. On the other hand if USA succeeds it might first lead to a bloodbath during the fighting plus it will give Bush renewed energy to go after for instance Iran or North Korea which can mean a lot of dead innocent people.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 02 2003,02:34)</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">This brings me to an interesting question that I want to ask the people opposing the war. Do you wish USA to suceed in its invasion of Iraq or would you rather see Iraq defending itself successfully?

<span id='postcolor'>

It's certainly an interesting question. I'm actually surprised this question haven't been raised before?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My own answer to that is whatever minimizes the civilian casualties. I think it is 'better' if US or Iraqi servicemen die then the civilians.

<span id='postcolor'>

I totaly agree with that! Soldiers are "there for a purpose" and should expect to die or be injured. This fate should not be shared by civilians!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is however a complicated issue. If USA succeeds and establishes a new government in Iraq, the sanctions will be dropped and many lives will be saved. On the other hand if USA succeeds it might first lead to a bloodbath during the fighting <span id='postcolor'>

que sera sera - but the alternative to both outcomes is to avoid going to war in the first place. Having said that though, I strongly feel something should be done to make Saddam go away. Actually, I believe the whole world should do something to get rid of all tyrants - but not with brute force if civilians are at stake. First step should be to end the support we - the western world - gives to such people!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">plus it will give Bush renewed energy to go after for instance Iran or North Korea which can mean a lot of dead innocent people.<span id='postcolor'>

I suppose Bush is not going to make a move on North Korea. Too risky and perhaps it would be better to "starve him out".

A few pages back I wrote that US may well try to change the political landscape of the whole middle eastern region.

It's important for Bush & neo-conservatives to secure Israel no matter what - even without a future Palestine. I bet they would have a go at Iran and maybe Syria or Jordan. I bet Bush & Co would just love to relocate the palestinians to an area (a kind of independent state) in Jordan or possibly Syria.

This naive pragmatism would solve (in Bush's view) a lot of problems in the long run if it succeeds. Some points to consider: Braking OPEC's hegemony on controling the price of crude. Turning the regions nations into democracies - and by that ending hostilities toward US, greater geo-political influence overall, and possibly provide US companies with a more competitive foundation over european (and Russian) companies.

I have to say I'm sceptic though. The means and motives are almost too naive to be true. In a real world I wouldn't expect this to happen. There is far too much that can end up in a horrible way. There are also a few points to be made that would challenge the ethics of such a conduct:

Who are we (the west) to decide upon what's right or not for peoples of different cultures. Etnosentrism never did anyone anything good! In some countries there are opposition that might increase and turn things around. There are already signs of that in Iran - but if US goes to war people will definately go with fundamentalism again.

Most often than not - trade and normalisation is the way to go because it causes people of those countries to claim rights of freedom and prosperity. If the western world focuses on religion as an enemy we are bound to loose the whole game and create holocausts.

hmmm....By the way - Turkey's national assembly has turned down the proposal of letting 60 000 US soldiers into Turkey soil. If the Turkey people (and politicians) are so uneasy about US presence  - how could the Iraqi people possibly accept an occupation? Also, relating this to the above mentioned points - how would anyone even think of something so stupid as try to change/reform the middle east with brute force?

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I agree he went over the top - but you could ask why his kid or wife was there in the first place!<span id='postcolor'>

They live there.

Personally I think the Iraqi people would welcome American occupation. Don't get me wrong they wouldn't exactly be waving American flags during the war. But what's better, living under an oppressive and murderous dictator as well as numerous deadly sanctions, or living under a free democracy?