The Iraq Thread

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 12 2003,20:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't know if you know this already but:

1) "bin Laden" is actully pronounced as "ben Laden"

2) Osama bin Laden means literally "Osama son of Laden". His father's name is Laden. So if for instance Bob was Osama's son he would be called Bob bin Osama..

..just some trivia <span id='postcolor'>

Other trivia:

Osama's name is actually spelt Usama, but the press didn't like the fact the first three letters of his name were USA. True story.

And Saddam Hussein is just pissed of that American's pronounce his name Sodom.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1. Are you seriously telling me that that half-assed crap Colin Powel served up was the best that the almighty US intelligence agencies could produce, if Saddam really is hoarding WMD? Please, gimme a break. Either the CIA and NSA are totally useless, or maybe, just maybe, Saddam isn't stockpiling these weapons.  <span id='postcolor'>

No, but I am convinced that no matter how much hard and solid proof that we show you that Saddam is developing WMDs, you'll still deny it up and down.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2. Is that a personal best on the numbers of "ifs" and amount of speculation in one post?

What if Georgw W conqures Iraq, and what if he annexes it as a new state, and what if he starts a new era of crusades to reclaim the holy land, and what if this triggers WW3  <span id='postcolor'>

Wasn't talking to you, and I was responding to "ifs" with "ifs".

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">On the other hand, if you actually realize that thousands of people have died because of this immediate war, Saddam was not real a threat, and the U.N. and Nato fall appart, you are likely to have a very tainted concience for the rest of your life.... well, we'll see what happens.<span id='postcolor'>

Orrr, we could invade Iraq, seize lots of illegal weapons and liberate the Iraqi people from a tyrannical dictator.  We can go on like this for a while.

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

Maybe I misused the word.  We just don't regard each others arguments as factual.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Does anyone else find it sort of sad and pathetic that the US government is trying to push the latest bin Laden rant into proof that Iraq and Al Qaeda are linked?  Especially when in the speach, bin Laden comes right out and says that he hopes the government of Saddam perishes?<span id='postcolor'>

I don't find it sad and pathetic, but it is a little odd.  Bin Laden isn't exactly NOT a hypocrit, so I don't think we should go through what he says word for word.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Of course, now something terrible will happen due to terrorists and I will feel like a total ass <span id='postcolor'>

I've got my duct tape ready.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 13 2003,05:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Other trivia:

Osama's name is actually spelt Usama, but the press didn't like the fact the first three letters of his name were USA. True story.

And Saddam Hussein is just pissed of that American's pronounce his name Sodom.  <span id='postcolor'>

Thats not trivia! j/k

If saddam knew all the things we said about him (and I don't doubt he does) he'd be much more pissed off.

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 13 2003,00:11)</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">1. Are you seriously telling me that that half-assed crap Colin Powel served up was the best that the almighty US intelligence agencies could produce, if Saddam really is hoarding WMD? Please, gimme a break. Either the CIA and NSA are totally useless, or maybe, just maybe, Saddam isn't stockpiling these weapons.  <span id='postcolor'>

1. No, but I am convinced that no matter how much hard and solid proof that we show you that Saddam is developing WMDs, you'll still deny it up and down.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2. Is that a personal best on the numbers of "ifs" and amount of speculation in one post?

What if Georgw W conqures Iraq, and what if he annexes it as a new state, and what if he starts a new era of crusades to reclaim the holy land, and what if this triggers WW3  <span id='postcolor'>

2. Wasn't talking to you, and I was responding to "ifs" with "ifs".<span id='postcolor'>

1. No, you are completely wrong. Please don't tell me what I think, as you have no clue. As I have already said, I would accept solid evidence, but I have yet to see anything resembling it.

2. Oh, boo-hoo, you weren't talking to me. Your public comments here are open to response by anyone on the board. Deal with it.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 13 2003,05:19)</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. No, you are completely wrong. Please don't tell me what I think, as you have no clue. As I have already said, I would accept solid evidence, but I have yet to see anything resembling it.<span id='postcolor'>

I wasn't tell you what you think, I was telling you what I think. I think we've given you more than enough evidence than we should have to decide and you're still asking for more.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2. Oh, boo-hoo, you weren't talking to me. Your public comments here are open to response by anyone on the board. Deal with it.<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe you should think twice before jumping into other people's conversations and, you know, finding out what's actually going on.

[Bernadotte 0]

What will happen at the UN this Friday?

Blix will present another progress report.

But then, France/Germany will propose their new plan to expand inspections and send in blue-helmets, right?

Will their idea immediately become a draft resolution that will be put to a vote?  ...A vote that the USA would want to veto?

A US veto could give France the guts to veto the USA's upcoming 2nd resolution.  And the UK public will not take kindly to Blair following Bush into battle without another resolution.

[Guest]

Regarless, I think it is no longer a question if France will be vetoing a US/UK proposed resolution for war. The question is now if US will find itself in the position to veto the German/French/Russian proposed resolution. Right now 11 of the 15 security council members support that but I don't doubt that USA will veto it.

So we can count out any UN or NATO endorsement at present time for a war on Iraq. Blix will present his update on friday, but I don't think that it will make any difference regardless of what he says. USA had decided on war, no matter what. France, Germany and probably Russia have decided to block a war. The current tention between Europe and America only makes the positions more locked.

Interesting International Herald Tribune article about the conflict

[FSPilot 0]

War without the UN is what scares me. I don't want to see the UN getting involved against the US. That could get very bloody.

[der bastler 0]

Because of his vote-for-me-I'm-against-the-war-campaign our chancellor entered a blind alley of foreign policy, smashing international relations and risking to split the NATO. He's stubborn, that's it. In the end there'll be much to do for Joschka...

On the other hand: Why attack Iraq now? In 1991 Saddam invaded Kuwait. And today? Reasons? Why not engage in summer or fall or next year or previous year or 12 years ago? Why now? And what's about North Korea, which is obviously a greater threat?

Central problem: The nation with the most sophisticated technology of surveillance cannot provide rock-solid evidence. Only out-of-focus satellite pictures and vague one-keyword radio dialogues. Imho there's nothing that legitimates the death of a single soldier. Until know...

[whispers]

("Iraq attacks NATO" would be a good reason; e.g. Turkey is a member. The CIA can't arrange something like that?)

[/whispers]

Btw, counter-terrorism: Why do we tolerate various restrictions of our civil rights? I think that is the biggest threat -the western democracies will turn into some sort of 1984-states if we don't stop this hysteric anti-terror-actions. Cameras everywhere, all emails read, your computer only working if a (corporate) server allows it (TCPA), "Rasterfahndung".

["Rasterfahndung" is german for tracing terrorists by using some sort of pattern (e.g. to check all arabic students at Hamburg university). Disadvantage: innocent people will be observed, what is a violation of the principle of our law ("Everybody's innocent until his guilt is proved")! ]

Well, soon you can call it democrazy...

[der bastler 0]

And don't forget -Germany gained much experience with a dictatorship. In Nürnberg counts of the indictment were "the preparation of a war of aggression" and "the execution of a war of aggression".

We can fight dictators, yes, but we should avoid behaving like them.

Be prepared but let Saddam make the first move...

[Balschoiw 0]

What can I say ?

This stinks ! Now USA want to force france out of NATO´s deciding process. Sorry peops but what Rumsfeld´s right hand had to say is incredible.

It´s not about facts anymore. The Usama statement used to connect Iraq with AQ ?!? Hell this is really weird.

LET´S SPEAK FACT: THE USA gives a shit about UN or EU or NATO or whatever. They will go to war, they will kill. For what reasons ? Bahh ! We don´t need evidence or things like that. We are the god - blessed right hand of the father himself. We defend justice and freedom. How could we be wrong ?

I´m sick of the low-level statements from Washington dealing with the EU or NATO or my home and country. We are the number 2 when it comes to abroad military missions today. We have taken over the lead in Kabul with Netherlands. Our KSK troops fight side by side in the mountains of Afghanistan. We take care of former Yugoslavia.

So noone, I repeat noone, has the right to give us names or talk about us like we were Hitler´s childs or retarded.

Sorry Mr George W., but this way will be a hard one, even for you.

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 13 2003,00:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 13 2003,05:19)</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. No, you are completely wrong. Please don't tell me what I think, as you have no clue. As I have already said, I would accept solid evidence, but I have yet to see anything resembling it.<span id='postcolor'>

I wasn't tell you what you think, I was telling you what I think.  I think we've given you more than enough evidence than we should have to decide and you're still asking for more.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2. Oh, boo-hoo, you weren't talking to me.    Your public comments here are open to response by anyone on the board. Deal with it.<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe you should think twice before jumping into other people's conversations and, you know, finding out what's actually going on.<span id='postcolor'>

OK, you think it's enough evidence, me (and the UN apparently) don't think it is.

I saw what was going on, You were making a ridiculous point, as per usual.

I can see you are trying to goad me into another rant that will get me another PR, but I won't take the bait.

Your debate skills boil down to "oh yeah, I know you are but what am I".

Trying to debate rationally with you is like wrestling with a pig in mud - all you get is dirty, and the pig enjoys it.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 13 2003,07:04)</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">On the other hand: Why attack Iraq now? In 1991 Saddam invaded Kuwait. And today? Reasons? Why not engage in summer or fall or next year or previous year or 12 years ago? Why now? And what's about North Korea, which is obviously a greater threat?<span id='postcolor'>

Saddams always been a threat, but we haven't paid any attention to him until September 11th. And we're trying democracy with NK first.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OK, you think it's enough evidence, me (and the UN apparently) don't think it is.

I saw what was going on, You were making a ridiculous point, as per usual.<span id='postcolor'>

This only shows how close-minded you are. "as per usual" that is.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I can see you are trying to goad me into another rant that will get me another PR, but I won't take the bait. <span id='postcolor'>

No, I've never tried to get you to rant. Believe me.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Your debate skills boil down to "oh yeah, I know you are but what am I".

Trying to debate rationally with you is like wrestling with a pig in mud - all you get is dirty, and the pig enjoys it. <span id='postcolor'>

Once again, this is what happens when people don't have an argument, they resort to personal attacks. No, you're not proving anything about the topic at hand, no, you're not being a mature member of the discussion. You're just poking at me with insults that prove nothing.

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 13 2003,02:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 13 2003,07)</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">On the other hand: Why attack Iraq now? In 1991 Saddam invaded Kuwait. And today? Reasons? Why not engage in summer or fall or next year or previous year or 12 years ago? Why now? And what's about North Korea, which is obviously a greater threat?<span id='postcolor'>

Saddams always been a threat, but we haven't paid any attention to him until September 11th.  And we're trying democracy with NK first.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OK, you think it's enough evidence, me (and the UN apparently) don't think it is.

I saw what was going on, You were making a ridiculous point, as per usual.<span id='postcolor'>

This only shows how close-minded you are.  "as per usual" that is.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I can see you are trying to goad me into another rant that will get me another PR, but I won't take the bait.  <!--emo&<span id='postcolor'>

No, I've never tried to get you to rant.  Believe me.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Your debate skills boil down to "oh yeah, I know you are but what am I".

Trying to debate rationally with you is like wrestling with a pig in mud - all you get is dirty, and the pig enjoys it.  <span id='postcolor'>

Once again, this is what happens when people don't have an argument, they resort to personal attacks.  No, you're not proving anything about the topic at hand, no, you're not being a mature member of the discussion.  You're just poking at me with insults that prove nothing.<span id='postcolor'>

Nope. Nice try, but no dice.  

How can you be so offended by someone pointing out your lack of any real debating skills?

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 13 2003,02:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">4--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 13 2003,074)</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">On the other hand: Why attack Iraq now? In 1991 Saddam invaded Kuwait. And today? Reasons? Why not engage in summer or fall or next year or previous year or 12 years ago? Why now? And what's about North Korea, which is obviously a greater threat?<span id='postcolor'>

Saddams always been a threat, but we haven't paid any attention to him until September 11th.  And we're trying democracy with NK first.<span id='postcolor'>

I think the word you want is diplomacy.

[Guest]

Ok, OxPecker and FSPilot, that's enough. I don't want to hear any more squabble from you two. You are just polluting the thread with your personal attacks and that is not acceptable.

[OxPecker 0]

OK, I won't rise to the bait any more. Sorry.

[brgnorway 0]

Anyway, I've noticed that many of you suggest the current Nato crisis to be a product of Belgium, France and Germany. I find this a bitt odd and presented my thoughts on the matter a few pages ago. I'd like to hear your comments on these thoughts - please?

Here you are:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmmm...yes I too think the Nato crisis could do permanent damage to the organisation. However, I disagree with you Othin about who's fault it is. To me it is not so obvious!

I think this situation was partially created in the aftermath of the 911 incidents. When US called upon article IV they changed Nato's role of being defensive to being offensive. Clearly, this fact combined with USA's policy of "preemptive actions" has a serious and potentially dangerous effect when US asks for the support of it's fellow Nato-members.

I'm sort of torn between the two parties in the Nato crisis. I do believe it's absolutely necessary to help a fellow member country. But on the other hand I also believe Nato's role should never have been changed into what it is today. When US most definately will attack Iraq - would you then say it is your job to take part in a war most likely also fought from Turkey (airbases at least)? There are also other factors in this picture to make it even more obscure. US has signaled a support for one of the Kurdish parties in north Iraq - the PUK. They are currently fighting another kurdish group called "Ansar al-Islam" - a group Powell claims is Iraq's connection with Al Queda - a claim that has now been rejected by amongst others the "International Crisis Group".

There are rightfully strong fears of the people supporting Ansar al-Islam that US might possibly bomb them during a war on Iraq. So my question is as follows: On the background of the turkish kurd-problem and US actions in the events of a war - can you guarantee nato members from being drawn into what clearly is an offensive, possibly illegal and certainly aggressive act?

My point is not so much that Nato's importance is reduced, but what we'll get instead - it's been mentioned before and I guess someone call it the "coalition of the willing" - and it's not my cup of tea - neither is it for France, Germany and Belgium. The old Europe maybe - but suits me fine thank you!

<span id='postcolor'>

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think this situation was partially created in the aftermath of the 911 incidents. When US called upon article IV they changed Nato's role of being defensive to being offensive. Clearly, this fact combined with USA's policy of "preemptive actions" has a serious and potentially dangerous effect when US asks for the support of it's fellow Nato-members.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not sure I follow you here. Clearly the US was attacked correct? Clearly first blood was drawn in NYC. So why can't the US invoke Article IV, since they were attacked?

[brgnorway 0]

0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 13 2003,040)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think this situation was partially created in the aftermath of the 911 incidents. When US called upon article IV they changed Nato's role of being defensive to being offensive. Clearly, this fact combined with USA's policy of "preemptive actions" has a serious and potentially dangerous effect when US asks for the support of it's fellow Nato-members.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not sure I follow you here. Clearly the US was attacked correct? Clearly first blood was drawn in NYC. So why can't the US invoke Article IV, since they were attacked?<span id='postcolor'>

I agree with you - they were attacked. However, there is a difference between a justified "war on terrorism" and preemptive attacks. The reason for US' will to war on Iraq is because of "preemptive actions". Clearly, such actions had no place in the former role of Nato and thus might pose problems for Nato in the future. I see no reason for Nato to once again become as "united" - as it was when we had a common cause - to protect eachother from the Warsaw pact.

The Iraq crisis proves this beyond doubt.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

We aren't attempting to help aid Turkey under Article IV, we are aiding Turkey because: A) they are a NATO member who is in a neighborhood that is about to get real unfriendly, and B) It is a damn convenient way to get more US friendly military hardware into the region. Now, of all the things the US is doing right now, I find it perplexing that reinforcing Turkey is so high on the list of things people are opposed to. I know you may disagree with me here, but at this point France and Germany are opposing initiatives like this not because they have any legitimate concerns, but solely because they were initiated by the US. This stubbornness on the Turkish issue just seems to reinforce that view.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Feb. 13 2003,04:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 13 2003,04<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think this situation was partially created in the aftermath of the 911 incidents. When US called upon article IV they changed Nato's role of being defensive to being offensive. Clearly, this fact combined with USA's policy of "preemptive actions" has a serious and potentially dangerous effect when US asks for the support of it's fellow Nato-members.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not sure I follow you here. Clearly the US was attacked correct? Clearly first blood was drawn in NYC. So why can't the US invoke Article IV, since they were attacked?<span id='postcolor'>

I agree with you - they were attacked. However, there is a difference between a justified "war on terrorism" and preemptive attacks. The reason for US' will to war on Iraq is because of "preemptive actions". Clearly, such actions had no place in the former role of Nato and thus might pose problems for Nato in the future. I see no reason for Nato to once again become as "united" - as it was when we had a common cause - to protect eachother from the Warsaw pact.

The Iraq crisis proves this beyond doubt.<span id='postcolor'>

Ah yes. I agree Article IV shouldn't be invoked for Iraq. I have no problem with it being invoked for 9/11.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 13 2003,04:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We aren't attempting to help aid Turkey under Article IV, we are raiding Turkey because: A) they are a NATO member who is in a neighborhood that is about to get real unfriendly, and B) It is a damn convenient way to get more US friendly military hardware into the region. Now, of all the things the US is doing right now, I find it perplexing that reinforcing Turkey is so high on the list of things people are opposed to. I know you may disagree with me here, but at this point France and Germany are opposing initiatives like this not because they have any legitimate concerns, but solely because they were initiated by the US. This stubbornness on the Turkish issue just seems to reinforce that view.<span id='postcolor'>

Turkey has called upon article IV and asked for consultations and preparationes because of the Iraq situation. US has demanded that fellow members fulfill their obligations in accordance with the Nato agreement. France, Germany and Belgium on the other hand sees the matter a bit different. They did not say they won't help a fellow member IF necessary. On the contrary, they insist they will help Turkey if needed, but they also claim there is no such situation present. These nations also fear that a Nato contingent present in Turkey could be used as backup crew or simply a replacement for US troops in order for US to further increase their manpower in war operations in Iraq. This is also one of Germany's main arguments against such an "obligation" because they fear it is a too strong signal that war is unavoidable.

Second point of importance is also that a present Nato force on the border of Turkey and Iraq can be drawn into battles provoced by (possibly) US waging war on the so called unfriendly kurdish parties such as Ansar al-Islam - a group US wrongfully claims to be the connection between Saddam and Al Queda. And that means the war against Iraq takes place.

edit: I forgot to mention that Germany provides Turkey with patriot missiles and other military resources. So the picture is somewhat balanced after all.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 13 2003,04:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We aren't attempting to help aid Turkey under Article IV, we are raiding Turkey ....<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah! Turkey's gonna get it next!

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 13 2003,05:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 13 2003,04:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We aren't attempting to help aid Turkey under Article IV, we are raiding Turkey ....<span id='postcolor'>

 

Yeah! Turkey's gonna get it next!<span id='postcolor'>

hehe.... I didn't see that - it proves your mind is sharp

This is the second you do this today.