Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
brgnorway

The Iraq Thread

Recommended Posts

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Shall I tell UNMOVIC that we've found a volunteer pilot? biggrin.gif<span id='postcolor'>

I'll tell them myself.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You do know that you've been dropping bombs on Iraq for 10 years, don't you? And 10 years of bombing with the loss of just a couple UAVs is what I'd call attacking with impunity.<span id='postcolor'>

You missed my point entirely. We aren't attacking them at all. We're not advancing, we're holding our ground. They keep making weapons that threaten our planes patrolling the no-fly zone, so we destroy them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think that the quickest way to avoid war is to explain to Bush that Saddam Hussein is white, rich, well armed and has friends in the oil industry wink.gif<span id='postcolor'>

Well you guys are into believing and telling lies, I don't see why not.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I find it funny that the supposedly infringing missile system...<span id='postcolor'>

I find it funny how you only believe people when they agree with you.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And am I the only one that wants to punch that smug little shit Ari Fleisher in the face? He's such a condescending little prick that if I were a reporter, I'd want to get up and pummel him. He just grates on my nerves every time he opens his sanctimonious trap! ARGH.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, so much for peace. confused.gif

Your argument- "No guys! Lets not bomb Iraq! They've only been dodging weapons inspectors, violating human rights, mocking the UN, and developing weapons of mass destruction since they maliciously invaded a neighboring country for oil! Theres no reason to bomb Iraq! Let's beat the crap out of Ari Fleisher! He... just bugs me."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 15 2003,05:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, so much for peace. confused.gif

Your argument- "No guys!  Lets not bomb Iraq!  They've only been dodging weapons inspectors, violating human rights, mocking the UN, and developing weapons of mass destruction since they maliciously invaded a neighboring country for oil!  Theres no reason to bomb Iraq!  Let's beat the crap out of Ari Fleisher!  He... just bugs me."<span id='postcolor'>

Here is the thing, FSPilot:

If Blix and ElBaradei stand up in the UN next week and say:

We dont believe Iraq ever intends to comply with 1441, and that military force is required.

You will not hear me voice one more comment that there shouldnt be military action in Iraq.

The thing is, Powell talks like there is a confirmed link between AQ and Iraq, because of the bin Laden communique last week. Strange that pretty much every person who has actually read the statement and knows anything about the region says that using that as proof is foolish.

And if that sort of proof is the rallying cry for war, then I will say that war is unjustified any day of the week.

And Ari Fleisher is a prick. Why dont they let Dubya do Q&A like pretty much every other president has? Oh..that's right.. without a script, bad things might happen. Look at the silliness that happens WITH a script!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 15 2003,10:52)</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">If Blix and ElBaradei stand up in the UN next week and say:

We dont believe Iraq ever intends to comply with 1441, and that military force is required.

You will not hear me voice one more comment that there shouldnt be military action in Iraq. <span id='postcolor'>

So why do you call it a "supposed" illegal missile system?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And Ari Fleisher is a prick. Why dont they let Dubya do Q&A like pretty much every other president has? Oh..that's right.. without a script, bad things might happen. Look at the silliness that happens WITH a script!!<span id='postcolor'>

I don't care who you think is a prick. You're saying on one hand we shouldn't attack Iraq because we have no evidence to back up our reasons, but on the other hadn you're saying we should beat Ari Fleisher because you just don't like him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 15 2003,05:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't care who you think is a prick.  You're saying on one hand we shouldn't attack Iraq because we have no evidence to back up our reasons, but on the other hadn you're saying we should beat Ari Fleisher because you just don't like him.<span id='postcolor'>

There's a bit of a difference between beating up a snide little punk and invading a country- I hope you see that, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 15 2003,05:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So why do you call it a "supposed" illegal missile system?<span id='postcolor'>

Because WITH a guidance system, the thing complies with what Iraq is allowed to have. It's only without the guidance system that it goes farther.

And surely you realize that there is a reason they use guidance systems in missiles??

Now..if the inspectors find some intact and functional Scud missiles, I would call that a material breach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 15 2003,06:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now..if the inspectors find some intact and functional Scud missiles, I would call that a material breach.<span id='postcolor'>

To be fair, there are still about 20 Al-Hussein Scud-type missiles still unaccounted for- somehow I don't see Iraq just getting rid of them without making a big show of it to turn world opinion. The whole idea of 1441 is that if Iraq still has those Scuds, they are to turn them over to the inspectors to be dealt with accordingly; or, if they have been destroyed, to provide sufficient evidence of their destruction. Anything less than that is a material breach of 1441, and as such, will carry "severe consequences" (which obviously varies from country to country, depending on who you ask).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 15 2003,17:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, so much for peace. confused.gif

Your argument- "No guys! Lets not bomb Iraq! They've only been dodging weapons inspectors, violating human rights, mocking the UN, and developing weapons of mass destruction since they maliciously invaded a neighboring country for oil! Theres no reason to bomb Iraq! Let's beat the crap out of Ari Fleisher! He... just bugs me."<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You missed my point entirely. We aren't attacking them at all. We're not advancing, we're holding our ground. They keep making weapons that threaten our planes patrolling the no-fly zone, so we destroy them.<span id='postcolor'>

What weapons of mass destruction?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">mocking the UN, and developing weapons of mass destruction since they maliciously invaded a neighboring country for oil!<span id='postcolor'>

well gee wizz the US dose that to, they want to invade iraq for oil, and mocking the UN to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 15 2003,05:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The thing is, Powell talks like there is a confirmed link between AQ and Iraq, because of the bin Laden communique last week.  Strange that pretty much every person who has actually read the statement and knows anything about the region says that using that as proof is foolish.<span id='postcolor'>

Wow. Check out this story...

Manipulating public opinion with half truths....

How 1984ish. If they say enough times that this is proof, then eventually it will be proof. And that sort of logical faux pas is just terrifying. Especially since gullible sorts will buy into it without a second thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There's a bit of a difference between beating up a snide little punk and invading a country- I hope you see that, right?<span id='postcolor'>

It's the principle. One one hand he wants peace but on the other hand he wants to beat people.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well gee wizz the US dose that to, they want to invade iraq for oil, and mocking the UN to.<span id='postcolor'>

The US does not want to invade Iraq for oil. We've been over this numerous times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 15 2003,07:40)</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">well gee wizz the US dose that to, they want to invade iraq for oil, and mocking the UN to.<span id='postcolor'>

The US does not want to invade Iraq for oil.  We've been over this numerous times.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm still to be convinced that this isn't (at least partially) about oil. Just because you keep saying it isn't doesn't make it so.

Anyway, don't you keep mentioning "assets" (i.e. oil) when giving your reason for an attack?

Even if it's not about oil this time, it sure was in the first gulf war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I see it, the United States has only one legitimate cause for war: to enforce a material breach of UN resolutions. No matter what the human rights violations perpetrated by Saddam Hussein and Co. we don't currently have monopoly on moral superiority, nor can we attack Iraq for human rights violations while simultaneously trading with China, allying ourselves with countries like Pakistan. To do so is what is known as hypocrisy on a grand scale.

So anyhow, what do we know about Iraq's WMD capability? We know that prior to 1991, Iraq maintained a substantial chemical arsenal, including but not limited to weaponized mustard and chlorine gas, as well as large quantities of chemical precursors. In addition, UNSCOM verified that Iraq maintained a VX nerve gas R&D during most of the 80's, although R&D past 1988 has not been confirmed by UNSCOM. Declared production of VX from 1987-1988 is verified by UNSCOM, although UNSCOM found evidence of additional, undeclared procurement. As far as weaponized VX goes, Iraq declared that attempts to weaponize their VX stocks failed, mainly due to inherent instability of their VX stock. However, UNSCOM found evidence of stabilizing compounds at known Iraqui R&D sites. Iraq declared pre-Gulf War they had a stock of 3.9 tons of VX. UNSCOM has noted that this declaration cannot be supported by any evidence of documentation inspectors had access to. At the risk of being patronizing, I'd like to point out that trusting the words of a government that still maintains that it won the Gulf War is something only the foolish and/or well armed should do.

Iraqi biological weapons R&D and Production can be better documented by what we don't know, rather than what we know. Iraq has declared production of the following bacterial agents that have direct military applications: Botulinum toxin, Bacillus anthracis, and Clostridium perfringens. Some theorize that Iraq has pursued a weaponized version of Brucella mellitensis, which causes Brucellosis. Also, UNSCOM believed that Iraq may have been developing another as yet uknown agent in as yet undiscovered facilities.

Iraq's nuclear capability is something akin to a soap opera (the following info is taken directly from http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Iraq/IraqAtoZ.html). Iraq's modest civilian nuclear program dates all the way back to the "Atoms for Peace" program in 1956, when the US led the international community in establishing nuclear research programs in nations around the world. The library of declassified documents from the Manhattan Project bestowed on Iraq in 1956 proved useful 15 years later in giving Iraq's nascent nuclear weapons program a good start. In 1962 construction began on Iraq's first research reactor - the 2 megawatt IRT-5000 supplied the Soviet Union. It went critical in 1967, and was later upgraded to 5 MW in 1978 ([barnaby 1993; pg. 87], International Nuclear Safety Center).

In 1968 Iraq signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), ratifying it in 1969. This formally committed Iraq to forswearing nuclear weapons. But in 1971 a secret plan was initiated to breach the treaty. At that time the program was run by the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), a small department within the Ministry of Higher Education. The chairman of the physics department of the Nuclear Research Center, located at the Atomic Energy (or AE) facility at al-Tuwaitha, 17 km south of Baghdad, was Khidir Hamza.

Hamza reports that in late 1971 he was approached by the two men in charge of the IAEC, the secretary-general of AE Dr. Moyesser Al-Mallah and the newly appointed director of the Nuclear Research Center Husham Sharif, both Baath party members. Al-Mallah and Sharif requested that Hamza develop a plan for acquiring nuclear weapons, one that used an ambitious and carefully designed civilian nuclear program to obtain the technologies, skills, and infrastructure required to successfully create a nuclear arsenal. They pointed out that this plan would secure greatly increased funding for the nuclear program from the Vice President and Vice-Chairman of the Revolution Command Council (RCC), Saddam Hussein. Up to this time Iraq's nuclear program had been small and poorly funded, much of which came from international aid programs.

Saddam Hussein shrewdly decided that Iraq must have one of its own people in the IAEA to find out how it operated, what it knew, and to influence its decisions. In September 1973 Al-Mallah, Hamza, and minister of higher education Hisham al-Shawi, went to Vienna to lobby for an Iraqi to have a seat on the IAEA board of governors. They were successful, with al-Shawi taking the seat. To further penetrate the IAEA's operations, a special intelligence office was created at the Iraqi embassy in Vienna. The position of "scientific attaché" was created and filled by Suroor Mahmoud Mirza, a brother of Saddam's senior bodyguard. Intimate access to inside knowledge of IAEA operations proved invaluable in circumventing IAEA's detection of Iraqi cheating. Al-Shawi was even successful in getting an Iraqi nuclear physicist - Abdul-Wahid al-Saji - appointed as an IAEA inspector.

Iraq set about trying to secure a large reactor suitable for substantial plutonium production in 1974. Iraq initially approached France about obtaining a 500 megawatt gas cooled power reactor [Evron 1994; pg. 26]. This type of reactor, using graphite as moderator and natural uranium as fuel, was obsolete as a power source by this time but had served as the backbone of the British and French nuclear weapon programs. A reactor of this size is comparable to the original plutonium production reactors built for the Manhattan Project and would produce at least 125 kg of plutonium a year in normal operation. Natural uranium reactors of all types are intrinsically well suited for weapons plutonium production due to the abundant U-238 for breeding, the low burn-up of the fuel, and the ability to procure fuel from numerous sources, including domestic ones. The tightening of international controls on reactor exports after the 1974 Indian nuclear test shut off this option. France turned down the request stating that reactors of that type were no longer built. Iraq also approached Canada about a heavy water moderated/natural uranium Candu reactor - the type used by India for its weapon program [Albright et al 1997; pg. 343]. Iraq then opted for two research reactors from France that ran on highly enriched uranium. One of these was a large materials test reactor (MTR) - a type of high power experimental reactor used for intense irradiation of target materials. This reactor had a nominal operating power of 40-megawatt (thermal), but was actually capable of continuous operation at power levels up to 70 MW. This was an extremely inappropriate choice for a nation just beginning a peaceful nuclear program. The 70 MW power of the MTR made it one of the largest of this type in the world. An MTR is typically only needed by nations with advanced power reactor programs that need to study how reactor materials behave under intense and prolonged irradiation, or require large amounts of special isotopes. Of course this was exactly Iraq's plan - to use it for irradiating a blanket of unsafeguarded uranium to produce the special isotope Pu-239.

For his part, Saddam Hussein did not pussy-foot around about his intentions. Just before flying to France to close the Osirak deal in September 1975, he gave an interview to a leading Arabic language newsmagazine from Beirut in which he declared that his country was engaged in "the first Arab attempt at nuclear arming" [burrows and Windrem 1994; pg. 37]. Further he argued that Iraq should be helped to develop nuclear weapons to balance the Israeli arsenal [Hamza and Stein 2000; pg. 105].

Hamza travelled to France to open negotiations on an agreement for the MTR in June 1974. This reactor was a derivative of the French Osiris reactor which was a pool-type reactor fueled by 93% enriched - that is, weapon grade - uranium. Since the French were selling the reactor to Iraq, they dubbed this export model the "Osirak" reactor (in French orthography, Os + Irak, sometimes given as "Osiraq" using English spelling), the name under which it is commonly known. The Iraqis didn't call the reactor "Osirak" however, the proper name for it was "Tammuz-1", named after the month of the Islamic calendar when the Baath came to power in 1968. Along with Tammuz-1 Iraq also contracted for a second lower power reactor called Tammuz-2 (or Isis to the French).

The Iraqis had several objectives in obtaining Tammuz-1/Osirak (in keeping with current practice I will call it Osirak henceforth). The principal one was to produce plutonium of course, hopefully enough for one or more bombs, but even if not, to obtain a complete suite of modern reactor technology for study and copying, to provide experience in high-flux reactor operation, and in plutonium production, refining and manufacturing. Also along with its companion the 800 KW (thermal) Tammuz-2 (and a smaller amount of HEU in the Russian supplied IRT-5000 reactor), it immediately placed enough weapon-grade uranium in Iraq's hands for two bombs.

The agreement for the reactors was finally concluded in 1976. France began to have second thoughts about the wisdom of putting this much HEU in Iraqi hands, or in providing such an efficient irradiation facility. France tried to amend the contract and provide a model using a lower enrichment fuel, called "caramel" fuel with an 8% enrichment. Iraq insisted on the HEU fueled version [Evron 1994; pg. 26]. Significantly, Iraq had never expressed interest in commercial light water power reactors - a type with limited proliferation potential. When highly proliferating power reactors appeared unobtainable the notion of obtaining any sort of power reactor was dropped entirely. As Vandenbroucke put it in 1984: "This apparent willingness to settle for any kind of reactor, provided it was of the more proliferating type, followed by Iraq's refusal to switch to non-weapons-grade fuel, points toward a major Iraqi desire to obtain bomb-grade material." [Vandenbroucke 1984]. Some commentators argued at the time that the fact that Osirak was not built underground, but was covered by a vulnerable dome indicated the peaceful intent of the reactor. This neglected the fact that the Dimona reactor in Israel was built in exactly the same way, and that Iraq had actually requested an underground facility, but had been turned down by the French. The infrastructure was built during 1976-1979, and in 1979 construction of the reactor itself commenced.

Anyways, this goes on for pages. If you want to read it all, be my guest, but I won't post it here. The basic outline is that Iraq's nacent nuke program was clipped in the bud in the early 80's by a preemptive Israeli airstrike that blew the Iraqi's new power plant to kingdom-come. From there, Iraq's nuclear program centered less on producing its own fissile materials and other materiel, and more on obtaining said 'nuke stuff' from outside sources; basically trying to make the best bomb that oil money can buy. This once again came to a screeching halt when the Gulf War started, and the subsequent UN inspections put a severe cramp in Saddam's style. In conjunction with the defection of Khdir Hamza, Iraq's top nuclear scientist, it is generally agreed that Iraq's nuclear program was effectively halted during the 90's. However, some worry that during the time between the UN's leaving Iraq in '98, and their return in November '02, Saddam has been able to buy enough materiel to, at worst, construct a crude A-bomb, and at best, have shortened their pursuit of the bomb by several years.

So, as you see, Iraq has alot of explaining to do, and so far, they aren't exactly clearing the air. Now, if Iraq cannot fully account for their chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs since 1991, in addition to grandfathered weapon stocks from pre-Gulf War. If they don't do that, and tout-de-suite, they will be subject to 'severe consequences'. Now unless the UN wants to develop a reputation of being an insignificant, irrelevant League of Nations-type international body, then they have an obligation to follow up on their resolutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 15 2003,07:40)</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">There's a bit of a difference between beating up a snide little punk and invading a country- I hope you see that, right?<span id='postcolor'>

It's the principle.  One one hand he wants peace but on the other hand he wants to beat people.<span id='postcolor'>

Any way you slice it, that argument is bullshit. Moral equivalency isn't a very strong argument to begin with, and comparing a fistfight with a war that has the potential to end thousands of lives is possibly the height of idiocy. Face it: right now you are just grasping at straws to try and prove some sort of hypocrisy in your opponent's argument. And he doesn't want to beat people, he wants to beat one person, who I think we can all agree bears an unnerving resemblence to a weasel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 15 2003,13:01)</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">Moral equivalency isn't a very strong argument to begin with, and comparing a fistfight with a war that has the potential to end thousands of lives is possibly the height of idiocy.<span id='postcolor'>

No, again you fail to see the principle of this. Maybe if I dumb it down some:

He doesn't want to hurt people in Iraq because he doesn't see a reason.

He DOES want to hurt people that simply piss him off.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Face it: right now you are just grasping at straws to try and prove some sort of hypocrisy in your opponent's argument.<span id='postcolor'>

That would make more sense if my opponent's statement actually had something to do with what we were arguing about.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And he doesn't want to beat people, he wants to beat one person, who I think we can all agree bears an unnerving resemblence to a weasel.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah right. He doesn't want to hurt civilians, just one civilian because he bugs him. confused.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Tex, HellToupee, Major Fubar & others:

Why, oh, why do you keep debating with FSPilot? Have you not seen what in the last 300 pages what it means? You are only torturing yourself...

FSPilot: Now, while I cannot force you not to participate in this thread, I beg you to do so. Havn't you noticed that you have driven even the most cool-headed persons here to a point where they would like to hurt you physically?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 15 2003,13:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Tex, HellToupee, Major Fubar & others:

Why, oh, why do you keep debating with FSPilot? Have you not seen what in the last 300 pages what it means? You are only torturing yourself...

FSPilot: Now, while I cannot force you not to participate in this thread, I beg you to do so. Havn't you noticed that you have driven even the most cool-headed persons here to a point where they would like to hurt you physically?<span id='postcolor'>

Do you really think that just because someone who believes the lies that terrorists and dictators spout out gets angry I should leave? Or even that it's my fault?

I'm just arguing my side of the story. Just because you don't believe it and start to get angry and personal with me doesn't mean a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 15 2003,08:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do you really think that just because someone who believes the lies that terrorists and dictators spout out gets angry I should leave?  Or even that it's my fault?

I'm just arguing my side of the story.  Just because you don't believe it and start to get angry and personal with me doesn't mean a thing.<span id='postcolor'>

To be perfectly honest, you are performing a broken-record routine, which is incredibly irritating. Few of these guys have expressed a belief in Iraq's statements, much less support for Saddam. You continue to sidestep the issues they are bringing up, which would be, as a set of bullet points:

-Why the urgency? Iraq has been contained for over a decade, why invade now?

-Where is the proof that Iraq has WMDs? (Personnally, I think this question has been satisfactorily answered, for the record)

-What justification does the US have to launch a preemptive attack?

-Why is the US so willing to circumvent the UN, in the event that the UN does not approve a military response? Could it be...

-That the Bush administration, with its multitude of contacts in the petroleum industry, and a preexisting personal grudge against Saddam, is using US manpower and military might to fight its own private battles?

-How can the risk of touching off a region-wide conflict justify the removal of a man who, as stated above, appears to be a poster-child for containment and deterrence?

-How does the US plan to resolve the question of who should run iraq post-Saddam? Will the Kurds get their own country? Will Turkey get some extra territory out of the bargain?

Just to get you started. I'm sure Denoir and the rest will be more than happy to expound on this list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 15 2003,08:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 15 2003,13:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Tex, HellToupee, Major Fubar & others:

Why, oh, why do you keep debating with FSPilot? Have you not seen what in the last 300 pages what it means? You are only torturing yourself...

FSPilot: Now, while I cannot force you not to participate in this thread, I beg you to do so. Havn't you noticed that you have driven even the most cool-headed persons here to a point where they would like to hurt you physically?<span id='postcolor'>

Do you really think that just because someone who believes the lies that terrorists and dictators spout out gets angry I should leave?  Or even that it's my fault?

I'm just arguing my side of the story.  Just because you don't believe it and start to get angry and personal with me doesn't mean a thing.<span id='postcolor'>

I fully support your right of having an opinion of your own. But that's just it, you don't have an opinion of your own - you have taken just about any position possible in these debates. You have contradicted yourself so many times that it is obvious that you are just debating for the sake of debating, not because you have something valuable to say.

I checked our ban records and I can inform you that from the start of this thread until now, four people have gotten temporary post restrictions because of going to personal attacks against you. They are the only people that have been PR:ed in this thread. There are plenty of people here that do support a war but none of them have been verbally assaulted by fellow members to that point that post restrictions had to be issued.

You must realise that you are doing something wrong when you infuriate people to the point that they get themselves post restricted!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Do you really think that just because someone who believes the lies that terrorists and dictators spout out gets angry I should leave? Or even that it's my fault?"

So now Hans Blix is a terrorist? The UN is a dictatorship? We are argueing for the inspectors and the UN. Nothing else. If you can't see this, you havent understood much of what has been discussed here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today the US spends 379 billion dollars for their weapons, that's 15% more than during the gulf war.

Great news for the 32 million americans that are poor, 4,5 million of them are children, 0,5 million are homeless people.

Of course they're well protected, but i guess they don't really care.

Hell, it gets even better! The US is gonna spend a couple 10 billion dollars on the war on Iraq. While every day 35,000 children die cuz of hunger or diseases that can easily be cured. The prize to give every person a good health each year is about 40 billion dollars, not much if you compare it with what we spend for nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Feb. 15 2003,10:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Today the US spends 379 billion dollars for their weapons, that's 15% more than during the gulf war.

Great news for the 32 million americans that are poor, 4,5 million of them are children, 0,5 million are homeless people.

Of course they're well protected, but i guess they don't really care.

Hell, it gets even better!  The US is gonna spend a couple 10 billion dollars on the war on Iraq.  While every day 35,000 children die cuz of hunger or diseases that can easily be cured.  The prize to give every person a good health each year is about 40 billion dollars, not much if you compare it with what we spend for nothing.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Today the US spends 379 billion dollars for their weapons, that's 15% more than during the gulf war.<span id='postcolor'>

Hehe, that would be a good point if it wasn't completely taken out of context.

In reality, US Defense spending has been trending downwards ever since 1968. In 1991, the US spent about 5% of its GDP on Defense Spending, and now currently we spend a little more than 3% of our GDP annually on Defense. Darklight, you fail to take into account inflation and inherent economic growth, which during the 90's was considerable. So basically, although the dollar amount is higher than in 1991, we are actually spending less, much less on our military. Military cuts are not the way to go if you want to free up even more funds for social welfare programs, which brings me to another point. In the EU, countrys like Spain and France, who spend 25%-30% of their annual GDP on social welfare simultaneously have the lowest worker productivity per capita, while Ireland, which has the lowest annual social welfare expenditures, has the highest worker productivity per capita in the EU.

As for American poor, I'd like to poke a few holes in your numbers real quickly here. Those statistics include illegal immigrants, and those who collect welfare checks but refuse to become gainfully employed. Now, I hate to sound like a Republican here, but in many cases, it is not the government's fault that some of America's poor refuse to get jobs. I mean, why get a job when you can sell drugs and post bail with your welfare check? On a completely unrelated note, I go to a school where about 35% of the students could be considered as poor. Most of them dress better than I do: all the latest fashions, everything. It's a simple matter of priorities: no welfare program in the world can change that. Does that mean there aren't those out there who are legitimately needy? Of course not. However, if our welfare system weren't the pie-in-the-sky handout machine it is, the current funding it receives (which is substantial: rather more than the 3% national defense gets) would be plenty to handle the demand for help from those who really need it.

As for national defense being money wasted, I'd like to point out that if it wasn't for our professional military that makes it its job to protect your right to be ungrateful, you would probably have the honor of participating in a conscription program, Euro-style. That and there is no other way to spend money that has a more tangible reward/cost ratio: spend a million, get a supersonic fighter. Spend a billion, you get a single warhead that can make an area the size of Rhode Island uninhabitable for 250 years. Hell, spend 100 grand and you get yourself an M60 and enough ammo to fire that fucker for 4 weeks non-stop.

Compare that with welfare, where what do you get? Lazy citizens with an unhealthy sense of entitlement.

Jeez, I sound like such a fuckin redneck Republican, but there you go. Our military is vitally important to all aspects of our nation (it bolsters our economy way more than you realize, and in more ways than one), and already we have it on a shoestring budget- now you want to cut it even more?! And to fund doomed and innefectual programs like Welfare, no less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 15 2003,12:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for national defense being money wasted, I'd like to point out that if it wasn't for our professional military that makes it its job to protect your right to be ungrateful, you would probably have the honor of participating in a conscription program, Euro-style.<span id='postcolor'>

DarkLight is from Belgium so he is eligible for conscription "Euro-style", as you put it smile.gif

But there is a good point that you are making and it is the military's contribution to US society. USA's military is much more then just the soldiers, tanks and aricraft. It is a huge organization that is very integrated with the society. It's a big difference between Europe and USA. In Europe the military is on its own and seldoms interacts with the society in genral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We experienced war and we don't want it again." That's the opinion of many old people here in Germany. And I think this is not limited to german old people...

Right, Germany started that war which smashed most european cities to ruins. And right, if someone had interfered before 1939 (Hitler startet a four-years-plan rearming the Wehrmacht in 1936) this war would have never took place.

But this is the dilemma. History told us what happens if dictators act freely. On the other hand, if Iraq is attacked without a reason (i.e. UN decision) this would be an act of aggression comparable to Operation BARBAROSSA in 1941. To avoid imprudent decisions the UN sent in the inspectors, Hans Blix returned and reported no violation of resolution 1441. Full stop.

This is diplomacy; Saddam needed to feel the blade on his neck (well, in this case it's a double-handed axe), and the army did a good job on this. If Blix doesn't report a violation of 1441, america should not attack. The GIs can depart and they can say "without us you would still talk to Saddam without any result!" Remember Sunzi's "Art of War"; 25 centuries ago he wrote :

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

1. Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.

2. Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

<span id='postcolor'>

(source)

P.S.: The USA implemented real democracy in germany and represented the "good guys". In case of an unjustified attack on Iraq they would lose this status, and that's what I fear most. Look what I've found on heise.de. It's an article with the title "Saddam's right wing extremist friends". Actually, right wing parties are unimportant here in Germany, they don't enter the parliaments because nobody wants them. For now. But these parties utilize the anti-american sentiments that are well fed by the so-called american imperialism (i.e. to wage war on countries they dislike).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

der bastler is correct. amongst the 30000 marchers who protested in NZ today, many were older generation. Many I spoke to said they had seen war. They know what it involves and cannot bear to see it any more. There is a mass movement of anti american sentiment building up here and around the world. What a shame! over 100,000 US GI gave their lives to protect us and many other small countries from the Japanese in the pacific.

I hope that one day my grandchildren dont ask them to tell them the story again about the World War to Disarm America.

Then out of the ashes of that war, a new superpower would emerge, its infrastructure nearly intact ( read: US after WWII), to make every body like them. der bastler, i think the quote from The Art of War was very fitting. If hitler had been really clever, he wouldnt have invaded europe. He would have made the whole of Europes youth wish they were German. (read: global McMonoCulture)

Found this at www.Zmag.org:

First, let us stop calling it a "war". The last time "war" was used in the Gulf was in 1991 when the truth was buried with more than 200,000 people. Attacking a 70-mile line of trenches, three American brigades, operating at night, used 60-ton armoured earthmovers to bury alive teenage Iraqi conscripts, including the wounded and those surrendering and retreating. Survivors were slaughtered from the air. The helicopter gunship pilots called it a "turkey shoot".

Of the 148 Americans who died, a quarter of them were killed by Americans. Most of the British were killed by Americans. This was known as "friendly fire". The civilians who were killed, whose deaths were never recorded by the American military because it was "not policy", were "collateral damage".

Today, after 13 years of an economic blockade that has been compared with a medieval siege, Iraq is defenceless, no matter the discovery of an odd missile that can reach barely 90 miles. Its ragtag army is woefully under-equipped and awaiting its fate, along with a civilian population of whom 42 per cent are children. They are stricken. Even the export of British manufactured vaccines meant to protect Iraqi infants from diphtheria and yellow fever has been restricted. The vaccines, say the Blair government, are "capable of being used in weapons of mass destruction".

This is the nation upon which the Bush gang says it will rain down 800 missiles within the space of two days. "Shock and awe" the Pentagon calls its "strategy". Meanwhile the weapons inspectors and their morose Swedish leader go about their treasure hunt and a cartoon show is hosted in the UN by General Colin Powell (who rose to the top by covering up the notorious My Lai massacre in Vietnam).

It is all a charade. The Americans want Iraq because they want to control and reorder the Middle East. Their once-favourite dictator, Saddam Hussein, made the mistake of misreading the signals from Washington in 1990 and invading another favourite American oil tyranny, Kuwait. So belatedly, Saddam must be replaced, preferably by another Saddam, though more reliable and less uppity. There is no issue of "weapons of mass destruction". That is a distraction for us and the media.

Is this post too long? how long are they allowed to be??? confused.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here we see a good illustration of the massive and possibly unbreachable divide between euro and american opinion

Tex- Darklight may fail to take into account inflation, economic booms etc- but you fail to take into account a few things as well. Such as-

The US won the cold war, there is now no nation that comes even close to US military power projection capability. If they began today (and assuming a few have eg China) it would take multiple DECADES for anyone to even approach the state (technologically/numerically etc) of US conventional forces.

Think of the aircraft carriers just to begin with.

The US military has no rival. 5 or ten countries would have to declare conventional war on the US simultaneously to even present a real challenge. The US can bomb anyone into the ground.

Thats not to say i think the US could sucessfully occupy 5 or 10 hostile foreign countries(or would want to), but it could certainly put them through hell.

So who is this vast force of manpower (and womanpower) with some of the best technology in the world , an overwhelming supply train ,totally unrivalled aircraft carriers etc directed at?

Osama Bin Laden presumably (poor old Iraq wont last long)

It can sometimes seem as though the US military industrial complex is looking for any excuse to perpetuate its own existance and in that way can partially direct US foreign policy

(or so i would think if i was cynical)

what Denoir says is true and it backs up what i was saying earlier about the US always needing a cause- no not just random enemies...a cause. Invariably expressed as a fight for either self protection(understandable at least) or especially 'freedom' (a word whos overuse by US politicians has possibly devalued it to some extent-especially in this forum)

An enemy protection from whom is invariably lent by the US armed forces (even when it was drug lords) and whos overthrow can only come from the US public rallying behind their military industry and supporting the cause with heart and mind

It does all seem a bit 1984 to the average war weary european.But on the other hand im not some 'right on' left winger who thinks the US should dump its armed forces and give the money to poor little Timmy.

maybe theres room in the US treasury for both...(it is the biggest economy in the world)

and maybe US citizens should start to scrutinise their countries foreign policy as rigorously as they do domestic issues.

But maybe European citizens should take a good hard look at themselves as well. A decade or two ago a lot europeans were still ruled by vicious dictators (Margaret Thatcher doesnt count) the east germans , all of eastern europe..

If it wasnt for that vast US military complex in opposition would the pressure have been there for the USSRs collapse? Would east Germany be free?

Some europeans are quick to forget.

Then again the US propped up a lot of dictators as well...

...anyway Saddam may yet do enough under pressure for the US and Britain to walk away with a 'victory'

otherwise it looks like war, whatever we here think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×