The Iraq Thread

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 18 2003,16:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 18 2003,16:46)</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">So here I am, 19 years later, never having set foot in the country of my parents.<span id='postcolor'>

The letter was written by a 19 year old born outside of Iraq to Iraqi parents who fled 23 years ago.  That's right, the author is not even Iraqi.<span id='postcolor'>

Is a palestinian born in exile still a palestinian?<span id='postcolor'>

What does born in exile mean?  How can someone be exiled from a nation they've never set foot in?  If someone is not granted citizenship in the country in which they are born then perhaps they are refugees, but they are not exiles no matter what status their parents have.

Perhaps you consider the author to have Iraqi ethnicity. Iraq is polyethnic, somewhat like the US.  If a baby is born outside the US to American parents would you say it has American ethnicity?  I wouldn't.  And I wouldn't necessarily say a child of Iraqi citizens born in Kuwait has Iraqi ethnicity, especially if the parents are, say, Kurdish.  (Iraq didn't exist before 1922.)

So if the author is not an Iraqi citizen and Iraqi ethnicity means so little, I therefore disagree with the use of the term Iraqi exile.

[der bastler 0]

btw: How do you prove that you don't have WMDs?

[joltan 0]

You can't. The others can always say it's just hidden, even if they don't exist at all. I don't want to go as far as to state that Iraq doesn't have them, but even if they had destroyed them all, and truely stopped developing them - they would never be able to prove it.

Same as you never can prove a theory to be right - you can only prove it to be wrong.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

some points addressing issues raised by various people-

1. The main suggested link (as in Tony Blairs speech) between A.Q. and Iraq is their proven willingness to use extreme chaotic violence against civilians as a first resort,

+their apparent enthusiasm for chemical and biological

weapons

any attempt by the Bush administration to suggest a more

concrete link can according to what i have seen be largely discredited

2. I think a person born in a foreign country of two Iraqi exiles

(who i imagine wish to return to their country of birth) could be considered an exile also if (a) they wish to 'return' to that country

(b) it would be highly dangerous for them to do so and are so prevented.

But thats just my personal opinion.

3. Der bastler "btw: How do you prove that you don't have WMDs"

Yes thats a big problem, especially when there are quite

clear historical records (accepted by Hans Blix)indicating that you still do.(with no evidence or claims of destruction of said weapons)

Or another problem for Hussein

'how do you prove youre not a genocidal psychopathic tyrant

who has systematically executed all possible rivals,

gutted your country of wealth and happiness and dragged it unwillingly through many bloody wars...except the one that the people obviously want, the one that would mean your end?'

Thats even tougher than the first.

"Even german independant authorities now claimed that the risk of smallpox in posession of terrorist goes to 0."

Thats an almost impossible claim to make and even more impossible to verify. I certainly hope its true.

ill now go to re-read further back in this thread

[der bastler 0]

"How do you prove that you don't have WMDs?" Yes, that's impossible. Even mathematicians don't dare to prove non-existence -they simply negate the statement and prove that the answer is "false".

That means the inspectors have to find WMDs in a certain period of time -otherwise the Iraq is expected not to be in possession of WMDs.

A new issue:

US Forces are allowed to use the airbases and the airspace in Germany while transporting troops and material into the gulf region. They are preparing an war on Iraq, without UN resolution this would be a war of aggression.

Our constitution outlaws even the preparation of a war of aggression:</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Article 26 (Ban on preparing a war of aggression)

(1) Activities tending and undertaken with the intent to disturb peaceful relations between nations, especially to prepare for aggressive war, are unconstitutional. They shall be made a punishable offense.

(2) Weapons designed for warfare may be manufactured, transported or marketed only with the permission of the Federal Government. Details will be regulated by a Federal Law.

<span id='postcolor'>Well, seems in case of an not-supported-by-UNO-war on Iraq the german government can be arrested...

A solution?

The people in Iraq are suffering from the embargo. With the oil-for-food-programme the UNO ensures a basic support, but Saddam & Co. control the distribution. 46,000 nodes of distribution assure the total dependence of the people (reduce the amount of food and water -> raise the hate).

Idea: The oil-for-food-programme is stopped and the UNO takes care of the distribution. There are enough (american) troops which can protect UN supply convois. Some time ago someone said that Saddam can only be unseated by the iraqi people -let's accelerate this process: Because of a more efficient distribution Saddam's influence would be reduced...

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (der bastler @ Feb. 18 2003,22:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"How do you prove that you don't have WMDs?" Yes, that's impossible. Even mathematicians don't dare to prove non-existence -they simply negate the statement and prove that the answer is "false".

That means the inspectors have to find WMDs in a certain period of time -otherwise the Iraq is expected not to be in possession of WMDs.<span id='postcolor'>

Because this argument never gets old:

Iraq is not required to prove that they don't have WMD's.  They are required, by resolution 1441, to prove that they have destroyed the WMD's they were known to possess in 1998.

EDIT:  But don't take my word for it, ask Dr. Blix:

"How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programs? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared and destroyed. Another matter -- and one of great significance -- is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tons of chemical agent were "unaccounted for." One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented. . . ."

Washington Post

Semper Fi

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">btw: How do you prove that you don't have WMDs?<span id='postcolor'>

It's common knowledge that they have them. Iraq needs to show evidence that they destroyed them. It's not up to the inspectors to find weapons, just evidence that they've destroyed the weapons.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Idea: The oil-for-food-programme is stopped and the UNO takes care of the distribution. There are enough (american) troops which can protect UN supply convois. Some time ago someone said that Saddam can only be unseated by the iraqi people -let's accelerate this process: Because of a more efficient distribution Saddam's influence would be reduced...<span id='postcolor'>

I don't think Saddam would still let UN inspectors in his country without the threat of war on the horizon. But if he does that might work.

[Akira 0]

WMDs

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 18 2003,23:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">WMDs<span id='postcolor'>

lol

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 18 2003,22:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq is not required to prove that they don't have WMD's.  They are required, by resolution 1441, to prove that they have destroyed the WMD's they were known to possess in 1998.<span id='postcolor'>

It's not from 1998 but from 1982 or '81, I don't quite remember. The missing VX gas and anthrax that seem to be the main issue is from 1989. Iraq claims that they destroyed it in '91 on their own and that the documnetation of the destruction perished in the bombings during the gulf war.

I would however not be surprised if that documentation turned up with surprised Iraqi officials saying "Oh, dear how did it get here? I swear, I looked under the bed the first time...".

I get the feeling that from Iraq's side it is much more of the principle of putting up a fight against the inspections then it is about hiding something. In the end they have always given in and let the inspectors get what they want. And in the end the inspectors havn't found anything.

[FSPilot 0]

Do you think Saddam would even be letting inspectors in his country if we weren't so insistent on this war?

[Akira 0]

Iranian Backed Troops Enter Iraq

[Snoopy 0]

An interesting video of protesters.

[FSPilot 0]

<!--QuoteBegin--Snoopy

+Feb. 19 2003,04:53--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Snoopy

@ Feb. 19 2003,04:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><a href="http://brain-terminal.com/articles/video/peace-protest.html" target="_blank">An interesting video of protesters.

</a><span id='postcolor'>

LOL

That's hilarious.

"Kill them with kindness"

"How to go about it?  I don't know, but thats the government's job to figure out."

There's a bookmark.  

[Akira 0]

Kurds Screwed By US Again?

[FSPilot 0]

Another good example of how we just cant make everyone happy. If we don't set up a democratic state the Kurds get on our case, if we do we're setting up puppet governments on oil wells.

[Snoopy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 19 2003,00:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 19 2003,04:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><a href="http://brain-terminal.com/articles/video/peace-protest.html" target="_blank">An interesting video of protesters.

</a><span id='postcolor'>

LOL

That's hilarious.

"Kill them with kindness"

"How to go about it?  I don't know, but thats the government's job to figure out."

There's a bookmark.  <span id='postcolor'>

hey, you quoted the wrong person!!

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 18 2003,23:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would however not be surprised if that documentation turned up with surprised Iraqi officials saying "Oh, dear how did it get here? I swear, I looked under the bed the first time..."<span id='postcolor'>

This reminds me of my What-Would-I-Do-If-I-Were-Saddam theory:

[saddam Hussein voice]

My deepest desire is to destroy George Bush.  So I should let the US blow huge sums of taxpayer money on mobilising for invasion, but never ever give the Security Council enough of a reason for a second resolution.  Yes, if things continue to go my way, Blair will abandon Bush without a second resolution, leaving the US further outcast in the world community and struggling to replace the British contingent in the Gulf.

Of course if Bush does go it alone, I can always produce any missing evidence in the final seconds ahead of any unilateral US deadline.  And there would always have to be such a final deadline, at least to give UNMOVIC a chance to evacuate.  As long as I don't give Bush a reason to use his forces, he will have damned little to show for all the money his nation is spending.

Furthermore, I can allow world tensions to keep rising as long as possible because this raises the price of oil which earns me even more money for my personal petro-smuggling operations.  But better still, it will increase inflation in the worlds greatest energy consumer, the USA.  Inflation will raise interest rates and that will stall any economic recovery that my buddy Bush will need to get re-elected.

What a fool... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...

[/saddam Hussein voice]

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 19 2003,00:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Another good example of how we just cant make everyone happy.  If we don't set up a democratic state the Kurds get on our case, if we do we're setting up puppet governments on oil wells.  <span id='postcolor'>

That doesn't make sense.  Without a democracy a puppet government will be even more likely.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 19 2003,05:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 19 2003,00:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Another good example of how we just cant make everyone happy.  If we don't set up a democratic state the Kurds get on our case, if we do we're setting up puppet governments on oil wells.  <span id='postcolor'>

That doesn't make sense.  Without a democracy a puppet government will be even more likely. <span id='postcolor'>

Hey, I'm not arguing it. I'm arguing that THEY will argue it. You know, they, the boogeymen.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">hey, you quoted the wrong person!! <span id='postcolor'>

Sorry! My mistake. Fixed. xD

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Okay, I was thinking about this a while ago, bear with me:

1. We know that Mr. Hussein has possessed WMDs in the past.

2. We know that a large amount of his original stockpiles are unnacounted for.

3. We know that Mr. Hussein is an adroit political operator- he is very good at manipulating public opinion.

So, we can safely assume that the Iraqi WMDs still unnacounted for A) are still in Iraq's possession, or B) have been destroyed by Iraq already, just outside the knowledge of the UN/UNSCOM/UNMOVIC.

Now, knowing what an astute manipulator of world opinion Iraq is, why did they not take the ripe opportunity of exercising option B, making a big show out of it, and resuming normal trading status (in addition to making the US look like the bad guy)?

Just food for thought.

[Jinef 2]

They don't need to make the US look like the bad guy, on saturday 2 million people decided to ramble around london shouting silly slogans - they already have it clear who's the bad guy.

Also a lot more of the British population is opposed as well but they had to go clubbing so they couldn't go

My 2 points are -

George and Tony are never going to have full public backing.

If the we do go in - what? Nobody cares if Iraqi citizens die. Anyway we aren't gonna suffer much right? There isn't going to be any retaliation right? Nobody would dare attack such a powerful country as America Right? Terrorism is something which happens to the 'Arabs' and Europeans init?

I'm sure i had a point in there somewhere but i think i lost it

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Feb. 19 2003,01:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They don't need to make the US look like the bad guy, on saturday 2 million people decided to ramble around london shouting silly slogans - they already have it clear who's the bad guy.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh, I got your point, but the fact that voluntary disarmament would make the US look like the bad guy is completely ancillary to the main point. What it would do is that it would immediately end the current threat of war, in addition to immediately putting Iraq into compliance with UN Res. 1441 in addition to the original 1991 resolution (can't remember its #).

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 19 2003,01:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Okay, I was thinking about this a while ago, bear with me:

1. We know that Mr. Hussein has possessed WMDs in the past.

2. We know that a large amount of his original stockpiles are unnacounted for.

3. We know that Mr. Hussein is an adroit political operator- he is very good at manipulating public opinion.

So, we can safely assume that the Iraqi WMDs still unnacounted for A) are still in Iraq's possession, or B) have been destroyed by Iraq already, just outside the knowledge of the UN/UNSCOM/UNMOVIC.

Now, knowing what an astute manipulator of world opinion Iraq is, why did they not take the ripe opportunity of exercising option B, making a big show out of it, and resuming normal trading status (in addition to making the US look like the bad guy)?

Just food for thought.<span id='postcolor'>

He has much more political value of giving it piece by piece. It's quite possible that a part of the documentation of the destruction got lost during the gulf war. He knows that Bush won't accept that as an answer. So instead he keeps information that he gives away now and then when the pressure builds up.

Your claim that "a large amount of his original stockpiles are unnacounted for" is incorrect. What is unaccounted for is a fraction of what he used to have.

Also, the inspections are humiliating for Iraq and they are not happy about them. I don't think they are really willing to give out any more information then they absolutely have to. I can understand that. It's not exactly like George and Saddam are buddies. There is really no reason for Iraq to cooperate more then necessary. This tactics has worked very well for 12 years and is obviously working today too. By clouding the issues - by walking on the thin line - he manages to evade a UN unity.

But, just because Saddam is a manipulating asshole doesn't mean that a war is justified. So far once he is pushed to reveal some information, it has always checked out. Just because he is making the inspections as difficult as he can doesn't mean he hides something.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 19 2003,01:56)</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">It's quite possible that a part of the documentation of the destruction got lost during the gulf war. <span id='postcolor'>

What information do you have that suggests Iraq completed disarmament prior to 1991? Because UNSCOM seemed to disagree (that and the fact they dismantled a good supply of WMDs during their 8 year time in-country), and until you can prove them wrong, I'm going to have to go with the boys in the powder-blue helmets on this one.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He knows that Bush won't accept that as an answer. So instead he keeps information that he gives away now and then when the pressure builds up.

<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, but following the theory that Saddam is a two-bit punk dictator with no greater concern than his own survival, would it not be advantageous to call up the UN and say "Hey, I give. Send the inspectors to [insert base name here], where they can supervise the destruction of my remaining chemical weapons capability". The US cannot deny something that happens right under the noses of the entire UNMOVIC search team.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Your claim that "a large amount of his original stockpiles are unnacounted for" is incorrect. What is unaccounted for is a fraction of what he used to have. <span id='postcolor'>

Although you are wrong, the point is immaterial. Complete disarmament means complete disarmament, and, if anything, a smaller amount of remaining weapons would make the cooperation process that much easier.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also, the inspections are humiliating for Iraq and they are not happy about them. I don't think they are really willing to give out any more information then they absolutely have to. I can understand that. <span id='postcolor'>

Humiliating. Doesn't exactly have the same weight when compared to the other alternative, which is "Prepare to have your country hit in a way that will make 1991 look like a game of touch [American] football ( )". Not to mention, the inspection process wouldn't be invasive at all if Iraq would cooperate and pull all the weapons out and destroy them or allow the UN to destroy them accordingly.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This tactics has worked very well for 12 years and is obviously working today too. By clouding the issues - by walking on the thin line - he manages to evade a UN unity.

<span id='postcolor'>

While it has simultaneously left Iraq in the proverbial shitter because of Saddam's chronic noncompliance with UN resolutions (you know the UN, right? It's that organization you have so much faith in). If Saddam were merely a punk and not a serious threat, wouldnt he have cut his losses and come even by complying and resuming normal status in the world community? I'm going to say this again. No matter what the original motive, having Saddam dead and out of power will ultimately benefit Iraq and the Iraqi people. So, even though we can't use that as a call to arms in the first place (because of our own record of hypocrisy in that area), I consider it a fairly sweet bonus.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But, just because Saddam is a manipulating asshole doesn't mean that a war is justified. So far once he is pushed to reveal some information, it has always checked out. Just because he is making the inspections as difficult as he can doesn't mean he hides something.<span id='postcolor'>

Of course it isn't a reason to go to war with him, or against anybody. If it was, I'd be in custody for punching my English teacher in his fat little face a couple times (okay, several times). But it doesnt matter, because he has already supplied ample reasons on his own. 8 years of cat and mouse with UNSCOM, and now his noncompliance with 1441, which means that he is already subject to (UN sanctioned) "serious consequences".