The Iraq Thread

[Mister 5 0]

Yep, those veterinarians are avidly anti-war.

[Akira 0]

Pentagon Orders 5 Times As Many Bodybags As Gulf War

Yikes!

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SGTKOPP @ Feb. 11 2003,04:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 11 2003,04:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">a better option than initiating an illegal war.

Fuuny thing is if Iraq did somehow smuggle a WMD into America as retaliation for a US attack, all the Bush supporters would feel vindicated and say "see, we told you so!".  <span id='postcolor'>

what exactly is a legal war jacka!! The point is that he never got rid of the weapons he had  <span id='postcolor'>

Err, one supported and endorsed by the UN? Duh.

[FSPilot 0]

The UN needs to prove that it will backup its words by making Saddam disarm. If they don't do that and we have to go in there with troops, well then who cares what the UN says?

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 11 2003,04:43)</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">Bush has obviously made his mind up, nothing Iraq could do now would stop a war. Even if Iraq handed over it's entire (alleged) secret stash of WMD, America would still bomb them to teach them a lesson.<span id='postcolor'>

1. Speculation.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What can they do? If they really do have WMD, don't you think the USA bombing the crap out of them might force them to use them, either on their neighbours or on US itself?<span id='postcolor'>

2. They're going to use them anyway.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just give the UN a chance FFS, maybe they haven't acted as decisively or quickly as America might have wanted, but it's a better option than initiating an illegal war.<span id='postcolor'>

3. They've had a chance for 12 years.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Fuuny thing is if Iraq did somehow smuggle a WMD into America as retaliation for a US attack, all the Bush supporters would feel vindicated and say "see, we told you so!".  <span id='postcolor'>

Yes, we did tell you so.  And you didn't listen, and it ended up killing people. <span id='postcolor'>

1. Specualtion: yes, but based on all of his speeches, what would you say his intentions are?

2. Extreme specualtion on your part. I remember no such statement from Saddam or any other Iraqi official, or any solid evidence to back this theory.

3. So, by this statement, you agree with me war is inevitable from the US (Bush) point of view, no matter what Iraq do at this stage, even surrendering any WMD and production facilities. Yes, they've had 12 years, so now it's too late? I agree they should have complied well before now, but isn't a late surrender better than none? Isn't a peacful solution preferrable to war?

4. Warning! Warning! Specualtion overload! I doubt an Iraqi terrorst WMD attack would kill as many civvies as the planned US action on Iraq is bound to. And even if Iraq is going to supply these WMD to terrorists, it will probably be America attacking Iraq that triggers them doing so. If America just hold their horses and let the UN do their job, I would be amazed if any of these theorised WMD attacks take place.

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 11 2003,06:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The UN needs to prove that it will backup its words by making Saddam disarm.  If they don't do that and we have to go in there with troops, well then who cares what the UN says?<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe the rest of the civilised world care, just a smidge.

So, do you think we should disband the UN because they aren't doing their job? Do you think the world would be a better place without such a body? Or does it just rankle they wont give the US the thumbs up to let loose the dogs of war?

Don't you think Iraq has paid in the last 12 years with all the economic sanctions?

I agree iraq should have complied, and the uN should have acted sooner, but that still doesn't make an unsanctioned war by the US right.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 11 2003,11:11)</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. Specualtion: yes, but based on all of his speeches, what would you say his intentions are?<span id='postcolor'>

So you don't believe Bush when he talks about WMDs, but you do believe him when he talks about going to war?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2. Extreme specualtion on your part. I remember no such statement from Saddam or any other Iraqi official, or any solid evidence to back this theory.<span id='postcolor'>

How about the fact that they're developing them in the first place? They've used them offensively in the past, and theres absolutely no threat from the US if they don't have them. So the only possible excuse for them to have them is to use them offensively.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">3. So, by this statement, you agree with me war is inevitable from the US (Bush) point of view, no matter what Iraq do at this stage, even surrendering any WMD and production facilities.<span id='postcolor'>

No, that's not what I said. I said the UN has had the chance to disarm Iraq for 12 years and they haven't done it. If Saddam cooperated fully, completely, and without hesitation, came up with accounts of what happened to EVERY last ounce of any weapon outlawed by UN resolution 1441 that the UN found in 1998, and let the UN go through his country with a fine tooth comb, then and only then war would not be necessary.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, they've had 12 years, so now it's too late? I agree they should have complied well before now, but isn't a late surrender better than none? Isn't a peacful solution preferrable to war?<span id='postcolor'>

But they're not surrendering. They're stalling. Avoiding U2 overflights until they absolutely have to. Suddenly coming forth with warheads that they just plum forgot about.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And even if Iraq is going to supply these WMD to terrorists, it will probably be America attacking Iraq that triggers them doing so.<span id='postcolor'>

No, I don't think so. Saddam is not developing these weapons for self defense or retalliation. If he didn't have these weapons he would not have any reason to defend himself, at least not from the US.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If America just hold their horses and let the UN do their job, I would be amazed if any of these theorised WMD attacks take place.<span id='postcolor'>

Like I said. The UN has had 12 years to do their job. And terrorists don't need the US to provoke them to attack. There was nothing about September 11th that made them want to attack us.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 11 2003,11:16)</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">Maybe the rest of the civilised world care, just a smidge.<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe they should care more that the one of the worlds major policing forces isn't backing up its words.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So, do you think we should disband the UN because they aren't doing their job? Do you think the world would be a better place without such a body? Or does it just rankle they wont give the US the thumbs up to let loose the dogs of war?<span id='postcolor'>

I think if I promise my boss I'll mow a certain chunk of a golf course I'll get chewed out for not mowing that golf course. I think if the UN says they'll make sure Iraq disarms and will enforce it with whatever wording they used, they should do it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Don't you think Iraq has paid in the last 12 years with all the economic sanctions?<span id='postcolor'>

Of course I do. But it didn't stop them from developing WMDs.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I agree iraq should have complied, and the uN should have acted sooner, but that still doesn't make an unsanctioned war by the US right.<span id='postcolor'>

But should it be sanctioned?

[FSPilot 0]

Did anybody catch the Monday version of the Daily Show?

John referred to France and Germany as "The Axis of Impotency".

edit - sorry, should of put this in my last post

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 11 2003,04:43)</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">Just give the UN a chance FFS, maybe they haven't acted as decisively or quickly as America might have wanted, but it's a better option than initiating an illegal war.<span id='postcolor'>

They've had a chance for 12 years.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, I can only repeat, what has surely been written before. Why didn`t the US government care for Iraq in the last 12 years? Why only now?

Yeah, I know Hussein has become so much more dangerous in the time since Mr. Bush is President...  

Best thing that could happen to show us the real spirit of Pres. Bush (well, he`s showing it the whole time, but still people refuse to see it), would be Hussein going to exile. Pres. Bush would still attack the Iraq, I`m pretty sure, even if it was already "liberated" from evil dictator Hussein. I`m only speculating, but my speculations are surely more bullet-proof than the speculations the US government gave us as evidence for Iraqs evil take-over-the-world-with-terror-plans.

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 11 2003,07:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Did anybody catch the Monday version of the Daily Show?

John referred to France and Germany as "The Axis of Impotency".

edit - sorry, should of put this in my last post <span id='postcolor'>

Well, if you use your brains they call you impotent

[theavonlady 2]

Well now you've all gone and done it!

It's either war or this!

[FallenPaladin 0]

I have no problem with Madonna, I prefer her to war

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Feb. 11 2003,10:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have no problem with Madonna, I prefer her to war  <span id='postcolor'>

I assume I'm older than you. That might explain our differences in taste. You might say I'm a pre-Madonna.

[Balschoiw 0]

To all guys that think war is the finest invention until the wheel was researched:

IGNORANCE KILLS

In this case it will kill the Iraqi population you claim to "free" and US soldiers but I am quite sure you will not be able to kill Saddam. You didn´t manage to kill him for 10 years now and there have been several attempts to do so. You will fight a country barely able to defend at all. Great job USA ! You are the best...

I prefer using my brains.

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Feb. 11 2003,10:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">IGNORANCE KILLS

In this case it will kill the Iraqi population you claim to "free" and US soldiers but I am quite sure you will not be able to kill Saddam.<span id='postcolor'>

It`s like in the Dark Ages while the inquisition took place. Kill the body and free the soul

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Feb. 11 2003,12:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It`s like in the Dark Ages while the inquisition took place.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeh. People were up to their necks in oil back then as well.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SGTKOPP @ Feb. 11 2003,04:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">what exactly is a legal war jacka!!<span id='postcolor'>

You don't need to be scared of saying Jackass around here, Sarge.  Watch this:

jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass jackass

See... Didn't hurt a bit.  

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 11 2003,09:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You might say I'm a pre-Madonna. <span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 11 2003,11:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeh. People were up to their necks in oil back then as well.<span id='postcolor'>

LOL...  You're on a roll, today.

[PitViper 0]

Inspections Are

A Total Waste of Time

By KHIDHIR HAMZA

My 20 years of work in Iraq's nuclear-weapons program and military industry were partly a training course in methods of deception and camouflage to keep the program secret. Given what I know about Saddam Hussein's commitment to developing and using weapons of mass destruction, the following two points are abundantly clear to me: First, the U.N. weapons inspectors will not find anything Saddam does not want them to find. Second, France, Germany, and to a degree, Russia, are opposed to U.S. military action in Iraq mainly because they maintain lucrative trade deals with Baghdad, many of which are arms-related.

* * *

Since the passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 we have witnessed a tiny team of inspectors with a supposedly stronger mandate begging Iraq to disclose its weapons stockpiles and commence disarmament. The question that nags me is: How can a team of 200 inspectors "disarm" Iraq when 6,000 inspectors could not do so in the previous seven years of inspection?

Put simply, surprise inspections no longer work. With the Iraqis' current level of mobility and intelligence the whole point of inspecting sites is moot. This was made perfectly clear by Colin Powell in his presentation before the U.N. last week. But the inspectors, mindless of these changes, are still visiting old sites and interviewing marginal scientists. I can assure you, the core of Iraq's nuclear-weapons program has not even been touched. Yesterday's news that Iraq will "accept" U-2 surveillance flights is another sign that Saddam has confidence in his ability to hide what he's got.

Meanwhile, the time U.N. inspectors could have used gathering intelligence by interviewing scientists outside Iraq is running out. The problem is that there is nothing Saddam can declare that will provide any level of assurance of disarmament. If he delivers the 8,500 liters of anthrax that he now admits to having, he will still not be in compliance because the growth media he imported to grow it can produce 25,000 liters. Iraq must account for the growth media and its products; it is doing neither.

Iraq's attempt to import aluminum tubes of higher tensile strength than is needed in conventional weapons has been brushed aside by the IAEA's Mohammed El-Baradei. He claims there is no proof that these tubes were intended for modification and use in centrifuges to make enriched uranium. Yet he fails to report that Iraq has the machining equipment to thin these tubes down to the required thickness (less than one millimeter) for an efficient centrifuge rotor. What's more, they don't find it suspect that Iraq did not deliver all the computer controlled machining equipment that it imported from the British-based, Iraqi-owned Matrix-Churchill that manufacture these units.

Mr. Blix also discounted the discovery of a number of "empty" chemical-weapons warheads. What he failed to mention is that empty is the only way to store these weapon parts. The warheads in question were not designed to store chemicals for long periods. They have a much higher possibility of leakage and corrosion than conventional warheads. Separate storage for the poisons is a standard practice in Iraq, since the Special Security Organization that guards Saddam also controls the storage and inventory of these chemicals.

What has become obvious is that the U.N. inspection process was designed to delay any possible U.S. military action to disarm Iraq. Germany, France, and Russia, states we called "friendly" when I was in Baghdad, are also engaged in a strategy of delay and obstruction.

In the two decades before the Gulf War, I played a role in Iraq's efforts to acquire major technologies from friendly states. In 1974, I headed an Iraqi delegation to France to purchase a nuclear reactor. It was a 40-megawatt research reactor that our sources in the IAEA told us should cost no more than $50 million. But the French deal ended up costing Baghdad more than $200 million. The French-controlled Habbania Resort project cost Baghdad a whopping $750 million, and with the same huge profit margin. With these kinds of deals coming their way, is it any surprise that the French are so desperate to save Saddam's regime?

Germany was the hub of Iraq's military purchases in the 1980s. Our commercial attache, Ali Abdul Mutalib, was allocated billions of dollars to spend each year on German military industry imports. These imports included many proscribed technologies with the German government looking the other way. In 1989, German engineer Karl Schaab sold us classified technology to build and operate the centrifuges we needed for our uranium-enrichment program. German authorities have since found Mr. Schaab guilty of selling nuclear secrets, but because the technology was considered "dual use" he was fined only $32,000 and given five years probation.

Meanwhile, other German firms have provided Iraq with the technology it needs to make missile parts. Mr. Blix's recent finding that Iraq is trying to enlarge the diameter of its missiles to a size capable of delivering nuclear weapons would not be feasible without this technology transfer.

Russia has long been a major supplier of conventional armaments to Iraq -- yet again at exorbitant prices. Even the Kalashnikov rifles used by the Iraqi forces are sold to Iraq at several times the price of comparable guns sold by other suppliers.

* * *

Saddam's policy of squandering Iraq's resources by paying outrageous prices to friendly states seems to be paying off. The irresponsibility and lack of morality these states are displaying in trying to keep the world's worst butcher in power is perhaps indicative of a new world order. It is a world of winks and nods to emerging rogue states -- for a price. It remains for the U.S. and its allies to institute an opposing order in which no price is high enough for dictators like Saddam to thrive.

Mr. Hamza, a former director of Iraq's nuclear-weapons program, is the co-author of "Saddam's Bombmaker: The Terrifying Inside Story of the Iraqi Nuclear and Biological Weapons Agenda" (Scribner, 2000).

...straight from the horse's mouth.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Feb. 11 2003,16:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...straight from the horse's mouth<span id='postcolor'>

...... to the glue factory.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Feb. 11 2003,15:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Meanwhile, the time U.N. inspectors could have used gathering intelligence by interviewing scientists outside Iraq is running out. The problem is that there is nothing Saddam can declare that will provide any level of assurance of disarmament. If he delivers the 8,500 liters of anthrax that he now admits to having, he will still not be in compliance because the growth media he imported to grow it can produce 25,000 liters. Iraq must account for the growth media and its products; it is doing neither.<span id='postcolor'>

It's funny how those 8,500 liters of anthrax keep popping up when liquid anthrax has a shelf life of three years. That anthrax was produced prior to 1991!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Mr. Hamza, a former director of Iraq's nuclear-weapons program, is the co-author of "Saddam's Bombmaker: The Terrifying Inside Story of the Iraqi Nuclear and Biological Weapons Agenda" (Scribner, 2000).<span id='postcolor'>

Oh an Iraqi defector! That's quite an unbiased source.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 11 2003,16:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh an Iraqi defector! That's quite an unbiased source.  <span id='postcolor'>

He's a former director of Iraq's nuclear program, for crying out loud!

Who's your source of info? Saddam, maybe?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 11 2003,15:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He's a former director of Iraq's nuclear program, for crying out loud!<span id='postcolor'>

Oh, I don't doubt that he knows what is going on. What I am doubting is what he is telling. One of the formost principles of intelligence gathering is that you don't trust defectors. They are in trouble with their governments and their sole survival depends on those that they defected to. Therfor they have a tendency to say what you want to hear, not what is actually the truth. Also they only remain interesting as long as they have information to give so they can go to great lengths making up information so that they would still be regarded as useful.

Not to mention that a man who has betrayed his own country may not have second thoughts before betraying you.

Therefor no serious intelligence agency considers information from defectors as reliable. They can be telling the truth but there is also a very big chance that they are not. It's not a foundation you would base your decisions on.

[WhoCares 0]

Who is Khidhir Hamza?

Okay, a Google search for the Author of this article tells us, that he is not what I would call an unbiased source, but anyway