The Iraq Thread

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 02 2003,19:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Let me guess what the White House is going to respond to that:

"Resolution 1441 called for complete, total, and immediate disarmament. It did not call for pieces of disarmament. This is just a part of their games of deception."<span id='postcolor'>

Of course you were right - no doubt about it! I just had to back it up so that everyone can confirm.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In an exclusive interview to be broadcast later on Tuesday he said even the destruction of al-Samoud missiles as demanded by the United Nations was no real sign of disarmament.

.......Mr Rumsfeld - seen as one of the leading hawks of the Bush administration - told the BBC's David Dimbleby he was not impressed by Iraq's level of co-operation with the United Nations weapons inspectors.

Even the destruction of the stock of al-Samoud II missiles - seen as a key test of Iraq's willingness to disarm - did not convince him that Saddam was complying with UN demands.

"Every single thing that he does, that anyone could cite is co-operative was after some long period of denying, of refusal to do it, and ultimately a willingness to do part of it," he said.

"It is such a reluctant process that it would take so many years to ever really believe you'd done the task of disarming."

<span id='postcolor'>

Haha - yeah right!

[WhoCares 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 04 2003,19:18)</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">.......Mr Rumsfeld ...

"Every single thing that he does, that anyone could cite is co-operative was after some long period of denying, of refusal to do it, and ultimately a willingness to do part of it," he said.

"It is such a reluctant process that it would take so many years to ever really believe you'd done the task of disarming."

<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

Just out of curiosity, what timeframe would be needed, that the USA would not go to war? A day, a month, 5 years? Which timeframe would stop the USA to send their soldiers to death, to kill iraqi soldiers, to cause collateral damage?

[Bernadotte 0]

The following is the text of John Brady Kiesling's letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.  Mr. Kiesling is a career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan.

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

I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as political counselor in the U.S. Embassy in Athens, effective March 7.  I do so with a heavy heart.  The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country.  Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job.  I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to convince them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided.  My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.

It is inevitable that during 20 years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies.  Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature.

But until this administration, it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president, I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.

The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values, but also with American interests.  Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson.  We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known.  Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.

The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem.  Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam.

The Sept. 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism.  But rather than taking credit for those successes and building on them, this administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated al-Qaida as its bureaucratic ally.  We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq.  The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government.  Sept. 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to do to ourselves.

Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?  We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary.  We have, over the past two years, done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners.

Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue.  The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism?  After the shambles of postwar Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead.

We have a coalition still, a good one.  The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century.  But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism.

Loyalty should be reciprocal.  Why does our president condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials.  Has "oderint dum metuant" really become our motto?  I urge you to listen to America's friends around the world.  Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine.  Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and European Union in close partnership.  When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry.  And now they are afraid.  Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security and justice for the planet?

Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability.  You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving administration.  But your loyalty to the president goes too far.  We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America's ability to defend its interests.

I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. administration.  I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.<span id='postcolor'>

[ralphwiggum 6]

well, here is a good way to sabotage your president's plans.http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/04/prayer.walkout.ap/index.html

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OLYMPIA, Washington (AP) -- Two lawmakers left the floor of the Washington House of Representatives during a prayer by a Muslim religious leader this week, citing patriotism and a lack of interest.

Republicans Lois McMahan of Gig Harbor and Cary Condotta of East Wenatchee walked to the back of the chamber during Monday's invocation by Mohamad Joban, imam of the Islamic Center of Olympia.

McMahan said she did not oppose having a Muslim deliver the prayer but left because "the religion is the focal point of the hate-America sentiment in the world."

"It's an issue of patriotism," she said. "Even though the mainstream Islamic religion doesn't profess to hate America, nonetheless it spawns the groups that hate America."

Condotta said he was talking to another lawmaker and "wasn't particularly interested" in the prayer. He would not elaborate.

In his prayer, Joban asked for God or Allah to bless the state of Washington and guide the House in making good decisions.

"At this time, we also pray that America may succeed in the war against terrorism," Joban said. "We pray to God that the war may end with world peace and tranquility."

Imam cites ignorance

The walkout reflected ignorance, Joban said.

"Even if half of them leave, it's OK for me," he added. "As a Muslim we have to respect what people believe and we have to forgive something because of ignorance."

The daily prayer is given at the opening of each Senate and House floor session by someone selected by Associated Ministries of Thurston County. Director Kathy Erlandson said she was disappointed.

"It makes me embarrassed to know that some of our legislators can't even treat someone with that common respect," she said. "He's an American citizen and he's praying for their work, then how can it be an act of patriotism to walk away?"

The National Council on American-Islamic Relations urged Republican leaders to condemn the walkout and apologize to Washington Muslims.

"How many times must American Muslims ask Republican leaders to repudiate Islamophobic hate within their own ranks? Americans must not allow the actions of a few, whatever their positions of authority, to divide our nation along religious and ethnic lines," executive director Nihad Awad said.

<span id='postcolor'>

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The walkout reflected ignorance, Joban said. <span id='postcolor'>

I agree wholeheartedly.

[SirLoins 0]

I thought I would add a little diversity to this lopsided forum.

I realize you all would never care about what Saddams own people think about him so read the below link.

No it's not a right-wing publication.

http://www.caabu.org/campaigns/iraqi-exiles-letter.html

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Mar. 04 2003,23:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The following is the text of John Brady Kiesling's letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.  Mr. Kiesling is a career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan.

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

I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as political counselor in the U.S. Embassy in Athens, effective March 7.  I do so with a heavy heart.  The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country.  Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job.  I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to convince them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided.  My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.

It is inevitable that during 20 years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies.  Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature.

But until this administration, it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president, I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.

The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values, but also with American interests.  Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson.  We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known.  Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.

The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem.  Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam.

The Sept. 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism.  But rather than taking credit for those successes and building on them, this administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated al-Qaida as its bureaucratic ally.  We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq.  The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government.  Sept. 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to do to ourselves.

Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?  We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary.  We have, over the past two years, done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners.

Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue.  The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests.  Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism?  After the shambles of postwar Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead.

We have a coalition still, a good one.  The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century.  But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism.

Loyalty should be reciprocal.  Why does our president condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials.  Has "oderint dum metuant" really become our motto?  I urge you to listen to America's friends around the world.  Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine.  Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and European Union in close partnership.  When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry.  And now they are afraid.  Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security and justice for the planet?

Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability.  You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving administration.  But your loyalty to the president goes too far.  We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America's ability to defend its interests.

I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. administration.  I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

Well, this guy was too long in foreign countries, he must have lost the "only real" american point of view. He sounds exactly like the eurowimps, especially that hostile subject FallenPaladin in BIS forum. We`ve marked his houses exact position on GPS and he`ll get a visit soon.

[Harnu 0]

Well a few hippes at my school are planning a "walkout" for tommorow after 2nd period. They were handing out fliers and they had a few reasons on there:

- To end military action on Iraq

- To recycle the money given to the military back into the economy!

There were a few others but I can't remember them.

The thing is, as much of a backthing that they would have, about 3.... maybe 4 % at the most would support the reasons. Everyone else is just looking for an excuse to get out. Not a very effective protest if you ask me...

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SirLoins @ Mar. 05 2003,00:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I thought I would add a little diversity to this lopsided forum.

I realize you all would never care about what Saddams own people think about him so read the below link.

No it's not a right-wing publication.

http://www.caabu.org/campaigns/iraqi-exiles-letter.html<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, I'm sure that is an authenticated letter from an unbiased source.

Smells like propoganda to me.

Lopsided? Man, have you actually read this thread?

[SirLoins 0]

That's what I love about this forum, no matter what link you give to support your side, it is considered as trash.

Yes, I have read this thread. Talk about propoganda.

I stand by my statement.

[OxPecker 0]

How can you call this forum lopsided if you have read this thread.

There have been many, many people supporting the US action on Iraq, as well as many arguing against it.

BTW I didn't call it trash, I am just skeptical about any anonymous correspondence that pats the governement on the back.

[SirLoins 0]

I don't consider FSpilot and one or two others many many people. There is an overwhelming bias against the US and the war against Iraq on this forum. I accept that and I don't care to argue that point.

All I am doing is adding as I said, a little diversity.

sorry if you don't see it that way.

Try this one on for size.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2786475.stm

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SirLoins @ Mar. 05 2003,02:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't consider FSpilot and one or two others many many people.  There is an overwhelming bias against the US and the war against Iraq on this forum.  I accept that and I don't care to argue that point.<span id='postcolor'>

There are certainly more people posting here that are opposing a war but that isn't anything special about this forum. We have members from all over the world and the vast majority of the people in the world are against a war. So it's not surprising that the ratio of pro-war/against war is as it is.

As for the exile-iraqi letters - they have already been posted in this thread. The only thing that can be said about them is that one should be careful believing them too much. They have an agenda and bias of their own and probably constitute the most possible biased source, except for perhaps Saddams propaganda machinery. Keeping that in mind, they are an interesting source.

[OxPecker 0]

No problem. I'm not trying to take away your right to add diversity here, I just don't agree with you that this thread is particulalry lopsided.

Anyway, that is a better article than the first one IMHO, simply because a name is put to the comments.

I'm sure there are many Iraqis who feel this way about Saddam, particulalry those who have fled their country.

I for one am not saying that life under Saddam is ideal for the Iraqi citizens, or even particularly good.

But I don't think the USA bombing the crap out of their country will do much good for them either.

And let's not forget, liberation of the Iraqi people is not America's reason for invading Iraq. It's just a nice bit of propoganda they are using to try to sway world opinion to their cause. I'm not even convinced that they would remove Saddam from power even if they could. And what would be the alternative if Saddam is ousted - another US puppet? Lets not forget where Saddam got his start in the first place.

There are many, many countries around the globe where the population suffers as many or even greater human rights abuses than in Iraq, but I don't see American troops knocking on their doors.

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Mar. 04 2003,17:23)</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">No problem. I'm not trying to take away your right to add diversity here, I just don't agree with you that this thread is particulalry lopsided.<span id='postcolor'>

The thread is lopsided. Just in a mathmatical sense. You have two or three people presenting one side of the issue, and like twenty presenting the other That's not really a big deal.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But I don't think the USA bombing the crap out of their country will do much good for them either.<span id='postcolor'>

First of all, we're not going to "bomb the crap" out of their country. There will be strategic strikes on military targets. You're not goinig to see the carpet bombing of Baghdad. The corollary to what you said is that NOT doing anything isn't really doing them much good at this point either...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And let's not forget, liberation of the Iraqi people is not America's reason for invading Iraq. It's just a nice bit of propoganda they are using to try to sway world opinion to their cause. I'm not even convinced that they would remove Saddam from power even if they could. <span id='postcolor'>

Ok, then I'll remind you that the safety and wellbeing of the Iraqi people is not France, Germany, and China's reason for protesting against military action in Iraq. That to is a nice piece of propaganda they're using to maintain relevency in international politics.

Sadaam would be (will be?) gone the first chance that the U.S. or U.K. gets.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And what would be the alternative if Saddam is ousted - another US puppet? Lets not forget where Saddam got his start in the first place.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, because obviously Hamid Karzai is a puppet. And the Marshall plan did put Europe into another dark age. And let's not forget where Sadaam got his start in the first place. He got his start on his own. The U.S. had little to do with Sadaam until the fall of the Shah.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are many, many countries around the globe where the population suffers as many or even greater human rights abuses than in Iraq, but I don't see American troops knocking on their doors.<span id='postcolor'>

True, but where is everyone else then? Why are there no French troops in North Korea, or German troops inspecting the area around the Three Gorges Dam for human rights violations?

And before I'm flamed for that last part... I have the utmost respect and realization for all of the contributions the French and German peacekeepers have made around the world.

[Akira 0]

UN Draws Up Secret Government For Post-War Iraq

[FSPilot 0]

Ehh, until it's backed up by a few other sources I'm not going to put that much stock in the report.

And that's at least 3 exiled Iraqis who want the war in Iraq to go forward, and have written a letter about it.

[OxPecker 0]

You make some good points Othin, but I have to correct you on the following -

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Mar. 05 2003,02:49)</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">Ok, then I'll remind you that the safety and wellbeing of the Iraqi people is not France, Germany, and China's reason for protesting against military action in Iraq.  That to is a nice piece of propaganda they're using to maintain relevency in international politics.<span id='postcolor'>

This would be a good point except for one thing - actions by France, Geramny, China aren't going to end in war and civilian deaths, where action by the USA & UK will. I'm not anti-US, I'm anti war (unless there is no other solution).

I'm just getting a bit tired of the US trying to push the humantarian angle on their attack when that is really nothing to do with why they are going in.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Mar. 05 2003,02:49)</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">True, but where is everyone else then?  Why are there no French troops in North Korea, or German troops inspecting the area around the Three Gorges Dam for human rights violations?<span id='postcolor'>

Again, the prime difference (in terms of hypocracy), is that France and Germany are not pushing for war. The only reason I point this out in the case of America is to point out again that humanitarian reasons are very little to do with their reasons for invasion.

-----

If the US want to go in all guns blazing to enforce resolution 1441, or because they think the big bad boogeyman Saddam is building a stockpile of WMD for terrorists to use against the USA, fine. I don't agree with it, but at least they are being honest.

But I find this ploy of trying to dress it up as a humantarian mission to free the oppressed masses in Iraq quite detestable and offensive. Where was their compassion for the huddled masses of Iraq after the first Gulf War, when they left them hung out to dry and did nothing to remove Saddam from power?

[FSPilot 0]

*cough*we signed a cease fire*cough*

Hey, come to think about it. The countries that wussed out of the war didn't sign that cease fire. Why didn't they step in and do something about it?

[Longinius 1]

"we signed a cease fire"

Why is it so hard for you to understand that there are other ways to help people besides using weapons? A cease fire is no excuse to NOT help the people you just blasted to bits and left under the control of a pretty fubared dictator.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">First of all, we're not going to "bomb the crap" out of their country.  There will be strategic strikes on military targets.  You're not goinig to see the carpet bombing of Baghdad. <span id='postcolor'>

Oh yes you will. Your so called "strategic targets" are not always military targets, but telephone infrastructure (already bombed this weekend), water infrastructure, power plants and electricity system, roads and bunks that are located within bigger towns and are in populized areas.

You don´t have to be a tactical specialist to analyse the current US plans. First there will be bobmbs. A lot of them. It´s most likely that even more bombs than in GW1 will be dropped to "prepare" the streets of Baghdad for invasion. The US is known for their heavy airstrikes that start an invasion. You will do them to protect your own troops that follow up the bomb runs on the ground.

To speak of military targets only is pure science fiction.

It´s like the clean pictures we´ve been offered during and after GW1. They showed not to be truth, but propaganda. A lot of civilians died ( yes I assume a worker for a telephone company is a civillian) and you didn´t even get close to the cities.

Now you have to and you will flatten the cities BEFORE you go in. That´s a matter of fact and will influence the deathtoll under the iraqi population A LOT.

Maybe you haven´t heard of the 10 million expected refugees. Will you take them up and fly them to the US ? You should as you are the ones that want that war.

[stgn 39]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 05 2003,11:03)</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">First of all, we're not going to "bomb the crap" out of their country.  There will be strategic strikes on military targets.  You're not goinig to see the carpet bombing of Baghdad. <span id='postcolor'>

Oh yes you will. Your so called "strategic targets" are not always military targets, but telephone infrastructure (already bombed this weekend), water infrastructure, power plants and electricity system, roads and bunks that are located within bigger towns and are in populized areas.

You don´t have to be a tactical specialist to analyse the current US plans. First there will be bobmbs. A lot of them. It´s most likely that even more bombs than in GW1 will be dropped to "prepare" the streets of Baghdad for invasion. The US is known for their heavy airstrikes that start an invasion. You will do them to protect your own troops that follow up the bomb runs on the ground.

To speak of military targets only is pure science fiction.

It´s like the clean pictures we´ve been offered during and after GW1. They showed not to be truth, but propaganda. A lot of civilians died ( yes I assume a worker for a telephone company is a civillian) and you didn´t even get close to the cities.

Now you have to and you will flatten the cities BEFORE you go in. That´s a matter of fact and will influence the deathtoll under the iraqi population A LOT.

Maybe you haven´t heard of the 10 million expected refugees. Will you take them up and fly them to the US ? You should as you are the ones that want that war.<span id='postcolor'>

People die in war as it is today.

but to get sadam removed is the most importend and civils dies its a pity but onfortunedly thats the cost for getting him removed.

By the way how would you prefer to die by a bomb or a decise(bad spelling) I would take the bomb or rifle. but thats just what I think.

STGN

[Guest]

Indeed, Balschoiw. Take Kosovo for example.

Phase 1: Strategic bombing of military bases, airfields etc. Did not work since the Serbs had already moved both material and personell to safe locations. NATO realized that it didn't work so they went to phase 2.

Phase 2: Tactical low-level bombing of tanks and troops. Did not work at all. Of about 500+ Yugoslav tanks that were deployed in Kosovo less then 10 were destroyed and equally many damaged. A lot of mock tank models were destroyed. After a while it became obvious that it didn't work so on to phase 3.

Phase 3: Strategic bombing of civilan infrastructure. Bridges, electrical plants, water plants, industrial infrastructure, TV-stations. Worked very well. The Serbian population were suddenly without electricity and water so that they suddenly wanted a quick end to the bombings.

Military targets?

Moral issues set aside, the fact that phase 3 worked well in Yugoslavia is far from guaranteeing that it will work in Iraq. Belgrade is a modern European city where people take for granted that they have electricity, water, TV, telephones, internet etc. Iraq's population on the other hand has been living under minimal conditions in part due to the sanctions and in part because of Saddam's regime. They will endure much longer then the Serbs did. When the bombing of the Iraqi infrastructure begins it will be excessive.

A bit of trivia: Do you know from which country is the company that was hired to rebuild Yugoslavias bridges and roads after Milosevic lost power? If you guessed USA, then you guessed right. It was a part of the trade agreement made between Yugoslavia and USA that was made after the sanctions were lifted. Nice complete circle, right? Not to mention that Yugoslavia will be paying for about the next 100 years the bombs that were dropped on them. And to further the irony they are doing it by borrowing money from USA. I have trouble seeing if economics is an instrument for war or if war is an instrument for economics.

[theavonlady 2]

These guys must be forum members.

[stgn 39]

3--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 05 2003,123)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Military targets?

<span id='postcolor'>

The to first is from the tv station which can be yoused for comonication I think is understandbel to set shouch an instalation out of worke.

The thrid I don't know what is and there for wohnt coment.

The fourth looks like a picture from WW2.

STGN