The Iraq Thread

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So why send the inspectors to Iraq in the first place then!

I'd say that the inspection-regime actually works. Proof is that Iraq dug up some records of what they did with some of the material.<span id='postcolor'>

I can't believe I'm hearing this. You're actually buying into Saddam's technique of delaying. The only reason he came up with evidence he should of come up with a long time ago is to get time.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">......or would you like to explain to me why US wanted the team to enter Iraq at all.<span id='postcolor'>

To enforce resolution 1441. Look I know what you're saying, you think he's finally complying and cooperating. But you're forgetting that this is late homework. He should of presented this material a long time ago. All he's doing is stalling.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is my explanation of the events: US wanted war and needed an excuse. They proposed that UN inspectors re-enter Iraq and anticipated that Iraq would not let them in.

Unfortunately they did. US then tried to find another reason for going to war.<span id='postcolor'>

I think it happened a different way. Bush tried to go to war with Iraq under the patriot act, but the democrats threw a fit and made him take it to the senate. After the senate approved war on Iraq, the democrats threw another fit and made Bush go to the UN, then the talk started about UN weapons inspectors.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 26 2003,23:42)</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">I can't believe I'm hearing this.  You're actually buying into Saddam's technique of delaying.  The only reason he came up with evidence he should of come up with a long time ago is to get time.

<span id='postcolor'>

Of course time is a factor! And I have no illusions about Saddam using every tactic he can to delay. My point is that time together with inspections and the threat of an eventual use of force if he's not complying, is nessecary in order to achieve a peacefull solution! One should strive for peace - not war. Actually, your president makes me laugh when he says "we don't want a war"and "there is still hope for a peacefull solution". Hahaha - kiss my ass!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To enforce resolution 1441.  Look I know what you're saying, you think he's finally complying and cooperating.  But you're forgetting that this is late homework.  He should of presented this material a long time ago.  All he's doing is stalling.

<span id='postcolor'>

Welcome to the wonderfull world of politics. You Fspilot and Washington claim the inspections doesn't work because Saddam is not complying to the resolution. The rest of the world states there is progress. Our opinions differ - but the rest of us won't be guilty of murder and warcrimes if you decide to invade Iraq. One day you will hopefully understand - even if I doubt it!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think it happened a different way.  Bush tried to go to war with Iraq under the patriot act, but the democrats threw a fit and made him take it to the senate.  After the senate approved war on Iraq, the democrats threw another fit and made Bush go to the UN, then the talk started about UN weapons inspectors.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm still satisfied with my own version, but isthatyoujohnwayne explained the US domestic political situation better:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It was only thanks to less hawkish republicans, British persuasion (arguably) and changing public opinion in the US that the Bush administration really began to see the UN as a necessary 'step' to go through.  

<span id='postcolor'>

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Feb. 26 2003,20:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">3. The effect a war has on oilprices is not a budget matter.

   It is consequenses and will affect the whole world economy<span id='postcolor'>

Very true. Here in Australia we are already being screwed over by the oil companies, using the looming war as an excuse to jack up their prices 10-20%.

Money grubbing assholes

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 27 2003,00:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Feb. 26 2003,20:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">3. The effect a war has on oilprices is not a budget matter.

   It is consequenses and will affect the whole world economy<span id='postcolor'>

Very true. Here in Australia we are already being screwed over by the oil companies, using the looming war as an excuse to jack up their prices 10-20%.

Money grubbing assholes  <span id='postcolor'>

hehe.....don't misunderstand - I feel sorry for you!

However, here in Norway we're constantly screwed.

We pay aprox. 0.90 GBP per litre. That's why I'm seriously considering buying a scooter or motorcycle instead of a second car (I have a family of my own - otherwise two vehicles wouldn't make sense of course).

[FSPilot 0]

Or we could all become rich famous movie stars and by hybrids.

Think there's any interest in making a movie about OFP?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Of course time is a factor!<span id='postcolor'>

I didn't say it wasn't. If anything I said it was. Saddam is delaying the inevitable. By doing this he proves that he's not interested in disarming, and he wasn't honest in his 12,200 page report.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My point is that time together with inspections and the threat of an eventual use of force if he's not complying, is nessecary in order to achieve a peacefull solution! One should strive for peace - not war.<span id='postcolor'>

But it's obvious that he's not complying. If he was those two bombs, the papers about 1991, the missiles, all would of been destroyed and documented.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Welcome to the wonderfull world of politics. You Fspilot and Washington claim the inspections doesn't work because Saddam is not complying to the resolution. The rest of the world states there is progress. Our opinions differ - but the rest of us won't be guilty of murder and warcrimes if you decide to invade Iraq. One day you will hopefully understand - even if I doubt it!<span id='postcolor'>

You will be guilty of murder and warcrimes if Saddam uses any of his weapons or gives any of them to a terrorist who uses them. Heck, I even think you're guilty of it now by delaying Saddam's ousting as long as you can.

[brgnorway 0]

1--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 27 2003,011)</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">I didn't say it wasn't.  If anything I said it was.  Saddam is delaying the inevitable.  By doing this he proves that he's not interested in disarming, and he wasn't honest in his 12,200 page report.

<span id='postcolor'>

If it's inevitable - why didn't just go to war in the first place?

Also - I believe the rest of the world can think of a few other countries not being honest aswell. Just think about the US hijacking the first rapport made by the inspectors. Sometimes it seems US forget that the report was UN property - and not a US property.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But it's obvious that he's not complying.  If he was those two bombs, the papers about 1991, the missiles, all would of been destroyed and documented.

<span id='postcolor'>

Most of us believes it's not so obvious. If the weapons inspectors and most others say there is progress would that still be irrelevant with you?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You will be guilty of murder and warcrimes if Saddam uses any of his weapons or gives any of them to a terrorist who uses them.  Heck, I even think you're guilty of it now by delaying Saddam's ousting as long as you can.<span id='postcolor'>

Most of us don't believe Saddam is a major threat to any country at the moment. Of course, if you push him enough he might turn out to be - but then again so would any country in the world.

Besides, after all you gave him the weapons - so you certainly are the guilty ones.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Or we could all become rich famous movie stars and by hybrids.

<span id='postcolor'>

In Europe you don't have to be a moviestar to buy a hybrid. You don't even have to be a pinko-commie bastard either. Just being a normal person would do actually!

[OxPecker 0]

1--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 27 2003,011)</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">Welcome to the wonderfull world of politics. You Fspilot and Washington claim the inspections doesn't work because Saddam is not complying to the resolution. The rest of the world states there is progress. Our opinions differ - but the rest of us won't be guilty of murder and warcrimes if you decide to invade Iraq. One day you will hopefully understand - even if I doubt it!<span id='postcolor'>

You will be guilty of murder and warcrimes if Saddam uses any of his weapons or gives any of them to a terrorist who uses them.  Heck, I even think you're guilty of it now by delaying Saddam's ousting as long as you can.<span id='postcolor'>

Well actually, no, if Saddam did that he would be guilty, not the rest of the world who thinks attacking Iraq with the scanty evidence at hand is a bad idea.

And as I've said before, there is no evidence that Saddam plans to equip terrorists with these alleged WMDs.

Let me spell it our again -

America attacks Iraq = innocent civvies will die (fact)

America doesn't attack Iraq = innocent civilians might die (very slim chance IMHO, no evidence other than conjecture and paranoia to back this up)

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">no evidence other than conjecture and paranoia to back this up<span id='postcolor'>

I can hear FS screaming:

"The kurds ! The Kurds ! He has done it once..."

And so on.

Wait and see.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If it's inevitable - why didn't just go to war in the first place?<span id='postcolor'>

Because we can make it easier on everyone by getting a coalition. Except for Saddam that is.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Most of us believes it's not so obvious. If the weapons inspectors and most others say there is progress would that still be irrelevant with you?<span id='postcolor'>

Yes because he should of completed everything years ago. There shouldn't be any room for progress, he should be done now.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Besides, after all you gave him the weapons - so you certainly are the guilty ones.<span id='postcolor'>

We're trying to take the weapons away from him! And what about the blood of Iraqi civilians being slaughtered by their "leader"?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In Europe you don't have to be a moviestar to buy a hybrid. You don't even have to be a pinko-commie bastard either. Just being a normal person would do actually!<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah I was just being sarcastic. I still can't afford one though.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well actually, no, if Saddam did that he would be guilty, not the rest of the world who thinks attacking Iraq with the scanty evidence at hand is a bad idea.<span id='postcolor'>

Not in my opinion.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">America attacks Iraq = innocent civvies will die (fact)

America doesn't attack Iraq = innocent civilians might die (very slim chance IMHO, no evidence other than conjecture and paranoia to back this up)<span id='postcolor'>

The amount of evidence is speculation. I think we have more than enough, you don't. The fact is, innocent civilians are dying now, innocent civilians died as a result of his being in power, and innocent civilians will die because of him in the future. Yes, innocent civilians will die in a war on Iraq. But how many lives will we save?

And very cute, Balschoiw. Maybe one day you'll think about arguing again.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 27 2003,03:02)</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">Because we can make it easier on everyone by getting a coalition. Except for Saddam that is.

<span id='postcolor'>

The coalition is not representative for the world's opinion on the Iraq crisis. Most of the major players disagree with you.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes because he should of completed everything years ago. There shouldn't be any room for progress, he should be done now.

<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe he should have completed years ago. On the other hand, UN/the world decided to give him a second chance. US is not in position to decide for UN that he's failing to comply with the resolution.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We're trying to take the weapons away from him! And what about the blood of Iraqi civilians being slaughtered by their "leader"?

<span id='postcolor'>

I sincerely believe you care FSpilot (not being sarcastic now), but US administration doesn't give a damn about those people. To Washington, "the poor and suffering of Iraq" is just an argument - a claim to be doing "the right thing or "caring about democracy". If your government cares so much about other people - why doesn't it start to overthrow a couple of the bad guys your government is supporting? I mean, there are lot's of Saddams out there - doing great because of your government!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah I was just being sarcastic. I still can't afford one though.

<span id='postcolor'>

[DracoPaladore 0]

FS, more civilians will die from American gun fire than probobly Saddam's "acts against humanity".

I don't beleive that Saddam is or isn't doing these. Why? Because I don't live there and I have no diea. I don't trust the media either, full of propaganda and always about how Bush is pushing further for "peace". Propaganda, you can't deny that most of it is propagandic BS. Of course, your going to deny it as so, but its true. They use Propaganda 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75 years ago. And beyond that. They will and ARE using it again. Just think of what people portrayed the Germans in WW1. Marking them as "monsters" and other odd names that is even now being done.

[OxPecker 0]

2--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 27 2003,032)</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">America attacks Iraq = innocent civvies will die (fact)

America doesn't attack Iraq = innocent civilians might die (very slim chance IMHO, no evidence other than conjecture and paranoia to back this up)<span id='postcolor'>

The amount of evidence is speculation.  I think we have more than enough, you don't.  The fact is, innocent civilians are dying now, innocent civilians died as a result of his being in power, and innocent civilians will die because of him in the future.  Yes, innocent civilians will die in a war on Iraq.  But how many lives will we save?<span id='postcolor'>

"The amount of evidence is speculation". No, I think what you are trying to say is the amount of evidence is a matter of opinion. You think there is enough, I don't. Fair enough, I don't think either of us will agree on this point.

But please, don't insult the rest of the world by claiming you are invading Iraq for humanitarian reasons, to save the poor Iraqis. This has nothing to do with American reasons for their action. Oh sure, they throw this into the mix to dilute their real reasons for going in: paranoia about WMD being smuggled to terrorists for use on US soil, protecting "assets" (i.e. oil), and generally being pissed off with the whole Middle East over what Osama did. If it truly was to liberate the downtrodden masses in Iraq, then there are plenty of countries higher on the list for human rights abuses against their population. Why did America single out Iraq? Yes yes, 1441. Got it.

The whole "liberation of the Iraqi population from their evil dictator" bit is just a propoganda shtick to try to win over world support and turn Iraqis against their government. In the grand scheme of things, the US government doesnt give a flying fig about Iraqi civilians, as evidenced in the first Gulf War.

But my challenge to FSPilot is this: please show me convincing evidence that Iraq and/or Saddam has any ties to terrorist organisations.  

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 27 2003,032)</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">Because we can make it easier on everyone by getting a coalition. Except for Saddam that is.

<span id='postcolor'>

The coalition is not representative for the world's opinion on the Iraq crisis. Most of the major players disagree with you.<span id='postcolor'>

So it would be easier if we went on our own against the whole of the world instead of getting all the allies we can first?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </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">Yes because he should of completed everything years ago. There shouldn't be any room for progress, he should be done now.

<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe he should have completed years ago. On the other hand, UN/the world decided to give him a second chance. US is not in position to decide for UN that he's failing to comply with the resolution.<span id='postcolor'>

When did they decide to give him a second chance? If you ask me, they're simply not enforcing their rules.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I sincerely believe you care FSpilot (not being sarcastic now), but US administration doesn't give a damn about those people. To Washington, "the poor and suffering of Iraq" is just an argument - a claim to be doing "the right thing or "caring about democracy". If your government cares so much about other people - why doesn't it start to overthrow a couple of the bad guys your government is supporting? I mean, there are lot's of Saddams out there - doing great because of your government!<span id='postcolor'>

Because we can't just overthrow a government because of human rights abuses. Granted, they're apalling. But it's just one of many reasons to invade Iraq.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">FS, more civilians will die from American gun fire than probobly Saddam's "acts against humanity".<span id='postcolor'>

Probably? Over 1 million?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"The amount of evidence is speculation". No, I think what you are trying to say is the amount of evidence is a matter of opinion. You think there is enough, I don't. Fair enough, I don't think either of us will agree on this point.<span id='postcolor'>

You're right, I meant to say opinion. *slaps forehead*

Typing fast is not always a good quality

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But please, don't insult the rest of the world by claiming you are invading Iraq for humanitarian reasons, to save the poor Iraqis. This has nothing to do with American reasons for their action. Oh sure, they throw this into the mix to dilute their real reasons for going in: paranoia about WMD being smuggled to terrorists for use on US soil, protecting "assets" (i.e. oil), and generally being pissed off with the whole Middle East over what Osama did.<span id='postcolor'>

Now see, thats borderline conspiracy theory. The US isn't pissed off at the whole middle east, if we were we would be invading other middle eastern countries. The US isn't trying to "dilute" real reasons for a war, we just have more than one.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If it truly was to liberate the downtrodden masses in Iraq, then there are plenty of countries higher on the list for human rights abuses against their population. Why did America single out Iraq? Yes yes, 1441. Got it.<span id='postcolor'>

Human rights violations are not the only reason we're going to war with Iraq. Neither is liberating the Iraqi people. Its one of many reasons.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The whole "liberation of the Iraqi population from their evil dictator" bit is just a propoganda shtick to try to win over world support and turn Iraqis against their government. In the grand scheme of things, the US government doesnt give a flying fig about Iraqi civilians, as evidenced in the first Gulf War.<span id='postcolor'>

And I think the whole "this war is about oil" bit is just a propoganda shtic to try to win over world support and turn Americans against their government.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But my challenge to FSPilot is this: please show me convincing evidence that Iraq and/or Saddam has any ties to terrorist organisations. <!--emo&<span id='postcolor'>

When did I say they did?

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 27 2003,05:08)</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">So it would be easier if we went on our own against the whole of the world instead of getting all the allies we can first?

<span id='postcolor'>

You won't be able to get "all the allies" you want. Apart from a few nations no one will support a war based on the current lack of evidence. However, that will probably not stop you from starting the madness. Just wait and see!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When did they decide to give him a second chance? If you ask me, they're simply not enforcing their rules.

<span id='postcolor'>

The hole point of the resolution is to disarm Saddam with the help of the weapons inspectors. I'd call that a second chance wouldn't you?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Because we can't just overthrow a government because of human rights abuses. Granted, they're apalling. But it's just one of many reasons to invade Iraq.

<span id='postcolor'>

You can certainly do your bit to help though. Usually that is not done by supporting them as your country has done more than a few times in the past and present.

[Hit_Sqd_Maximus 0]

anyone watch the interview w/ saddam on 60 minutes? saddam smiled when the interviewer asked if he was scared of defeat or death or something like that, I have it recorded, maybe I can hook my vcr up to my computer some how and put it on a .mov or something

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 27 2003,05:08)</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">But my challenge to FSPilot is this: please show me convincing evidence that Iraq and/or Saddam has any ties to terrorist organisations. <span id='postcolor'>

When did I say they did?<span id='postcolor'>

So you don't think Saddam/Iraq has terrorist ties?

Then why do you feel threatened by the possibility of them supplying WMD to terrorists to use against the US?

Or do you just feel threatened without any evidence?

[Othin 0]

Saw this on the CSMonitor, thought it was pretty interesting.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If antiwar protesters succeed

To publish an unsigned opinion piece is an exception to the Monitor's policy. But the views expressed here, if put with a name, could endanger the writer's extended family in Baghdad. The author - known to Monitor staff - was born and raised in Iraq. Now a US citizen with a business that requires extensive world travel, the author is in frequent touch with the Iraqi diaspora but is not connected with organized opposition to Saddam Hussein.

Since Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League, started warning that a US invasion of Iraq would "open the gates of hell," the retort that has been flying around Iraqi exiles' websites is, "Good! We'd like to get out!"

It got me wondering: What if you antiwar protesters and politicians succeed in stopping a US-led war to change the regime in Baghdad? What then will you do?

Will you also demonstrate and demand "peaceful" actions to cure the abysmal human rights violations of the Iraqi people under the rule of Saddam Hussein?

Or, will you simply forget about us Iraqis once you discredit George W. Bush?

Will you demand that the United Nations send human rights inspectors to Iraq? Or are you only interested in weapons of "mass destruction" inspections, not of "mass torture" practices?

Will you also insist that such human rights inspectors be given time to discover Hussein's secret prisons and coercion as you do for the weapons inspectors? Or will you simply accept a "clean bill of health" if you can't find the thousands of buried corpses?

Will you pressure your own countries to host millions more Iraqi refugees (estimated now at 4 million) fleeing Hussein's brutality?Or will you prefer they stay in bondage?

Will you vigorously demand an international tribunal to indict Hussein's regime for crimes against humanity? Or will you simply dismiss him as "another" dictator of a "sovereign" country?

Will you question why Hussein builds lavish palaces while his people are suffering? Or will you simply blame it all on UN sanctions and US "hegemony?"

Will you decry the hypocritical oil and arms commerce of France, Germany, Russia, and China with the butcher of Baghdad? Or are you only against US interests in Iraqi oil?

Will you expose ethnic cleansing of native Iraqi non-Arabs (Kurds, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Turkomens), non-Sunni-Muslims (Shiite), and non-Muslims (Christians, Mandaens, Yezidis)? Or are these not equivalent to the cleansing of Bosnians and Kosovars?

Will you show concern about the brutal silencing of the "Iraqi street"? Or are you only worried about the orchestrated noises of "Arab and Islamist streets" outside Iraq?

Will you hear the cries of Iraqis executed in acid tanks in Baghdad? the Iraqi women raped in front of their husbands and fathers to extract confessions? Or of children tortured in front of their parents? Or of families billed for the bullets used to execute military "deserters" in front of their own homes?

No. I suspect that most of you will simply retire to your cappucino cafes to brainstorm the next hot topic to protest, and that you will simply forget about us Iraqis, once you succeed in discrediting President Bush.

Please, prove me wrong<span id='postcolor'>

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0226/p11s02-coop.html

[Die Alive 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No. I suspect that most of you will simply retire to your cappucino cafes to brainstorm the next hot topic to protest, and that you will simply forget about us Iraqis, once you succeed in discrediting President Bush.<span id='postcolor'>

Hey, isn't there still Chinese occupation of Tibet?  I totally forgot about them.  I used to see all kinds of concerts and marches for the people of Tibet, but not anymore.  They all must be in the Save-Iraq marches now.  Hmmmm, that means all must be well in Tibet nowadays.

-=Die Alive=-

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You won't be able to get "all the allies" you want. Apart from a few nations no one will support a war based on the current lack of evidence. However, that will probably not stop you from starting the madness. Just wait and see.<span id='postcolor'>

I didn't say all the allies we want I said all the allies we can. And what do you mean stop ME from starting the madness? I've said before I'm opposed to a war without more international support.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The hole point of the resolution is to disarm Saddam with the help of the weapons inspectors. I'd call that a second chance wouldn't you?<span id='postcolor'>

Resolution 1441?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can certainly do your bit to help though. Usually that is not done by supporting them as your country has done more than a few times in the past and present.<span id='postcolor'>

You're right, its done by taking them out of power by whatever means necessary.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So you don't think Saddam/Iraq has terrorist ties?

Then why do you feel threatened by the possibility of them supplying WMD to terrorists to use against the US?

Or do you just feel threatened without any evidence?<span id='postcolor'>

I think that just because he hasn't done it in the past, which we're not sure of either way, doesn't mean he won't do it in the future. Especially in the case of Saddam Hussein.

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 27 2003,22:29)</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 you don't think Saddam/Iraq has terrorist ties?

Then why do you feel threatened by the possibility of them supplying WMD to terrorists to use against the US?

Or do you just feel threatened without any evidence?<span id='postcolor'>

I think that just because he hasn't done it in the past, which we're not sure of either way, doesn't mean he won't do it in the future.  Especially in the case of Saddam Hussein.<span id='postcolor'>

OK, so the point I've been making, that people are worried about this without evidence and based on conjecture and paranoia was correct.

I understand that S11 was a huge blow to your country, but you can't let constant fear of terrorist attack rule your lives and dictate your foreign policy, especially when there is no evidence.

[FSPilot 0]

But we think there is more than enough evidence. And it's not reall about paranoia, if you ask me. September 11th put a huge emphasis on terrorism. Suddenly it became front page news. So now we have to act about it.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 27 2003,22:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 27 2003,22:29)</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 you don't think Saddam/Iraq has terrorist ties?

Then why do you feel threatened by the possibility of them supplying WMD to terrorists to use against the US?

Or do you just feel threatened without any evidence?<span id='postcolor'>

I think that just because he hasn't done it in the past, which we're not sure of either way, doesn't mean he won't do it in the future.  Especially in the case of Saddam Hussein.<span id='postcolor'>

OK, so the point I've been making, that people are worried about this without evidence and based on conjecture and paranoia was correct.

I understand that S11 was a huge blow to your country, but you can't let constant fear of terrorist attack rule your lives and dictate your foreign policy, especially when there is no evidence.<span id='postcolor'>

Quite right.

Can anyone here, looking back to the pre- Sept 11 world imagine American citizens running to harware stores to buy plastic sheeting and duct tape in case of a gas attack?  

I certainly couldnt.

With things like The Patriot Act and the rumours of TPAII, I think the terrorists have won.  Even at the height of the Cold War, I cant remember seing national guardsmen near bridegs, tunnels, and monuments.  Nor do I rememeber seeing SAM batteries around airports.

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 27 2003,05)</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">But my challenge to FSPilot is this: please show me convincing evidence that Iraq and/or Saddam has any ties to terrorist organisations. <span id='postcolor'>

When did I say they did?<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 27 2003,22:29)</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 you don't think Saddam/Iraq has terrorist ties?

Then why do you feel threatened by the possibility of them supplying WMD to terrorists to use against the US?

Or do you just feel threatened without any evidence?<span id='postcolor'>

I think that just because he hasn't done it in the past, which we're not sure of either way, doesn't mean he won't do it in the future.  Especially in the case of Saddam Hussein.<span id='postcolor'>

6--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 27 2003,236)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But we think there is more than enough evidence.  And it's not reall about paranoia, if you ask me.  September 11th put a huge emphasis on terrorism.  Suddenly it became front page news.  So now we have to act about it.<span id='postcolor'>

Now you've really got me stumped - do you believe that there is evidence Saddam will supply WMDs for terrorists to use against the US, or not?

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 27 2003,22:29)</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">I didn't say all the allies we want I said all the allies we can. <span id='postcolor'>

Doesn't matter - you would go to war anyway. Your president said so!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And what do you mean stop ME from starting the madness? I've said before I'm opposed to a war without more international support.

<span id='postcolor'>

Sorry - I meant your country!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Resolution 1441? <span id='postcolor'>

Exactly! US and the European counterparts differ on the meaning of the resolution though.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You're right, its done by taking them out of power by whatever means necessary.

<span id='postcolor'>

Not so, there are many ways of doing this. Ususaly it's best with change from the inside of a nation - you could start with supporting opposition of regimes - instead of supporting the tyrants as you have a habit of doing!

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Feb. 28 2003,05:26)</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">Now you've really got me stumped - do you believe that there is evidence Saddam will supply WMDs for terrorists to use against the US, or not?<span id='postcolor'>

You took my 3rd quote out of context, I was talking about his WMDs, not ties to terrorists.

And you're right, we don't have any hard evidence that he has ties to terrorism. But then again, I don't think I said we did. Saddam Hussein isn't allowed to have these weapons in the first place, terrorist ties or not. And just because he hasn't had terrorist ties in the past doesn't mean he wont in the future.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Doesn't matter - you would go to war anyway. Your president said so!<span id='postcolor'>

I know that. But it would be a lot easier on everybody if we had a coalition.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Exactly! US and the European counterparts differ on the meaning of the resolution though.<span id='postcolor'>

How is resolution 1441 a second chance for Saddam getting rid of weapons? 1441 is the resolution that made him get rid of the WMDs in the first place.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not so, there are many ways of doing this. Ususaly it's best with change from the inside of a nation - you could start with supporting opposition of regimes - instead of supporting the tyrants as you have a habit of doing!<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, we could do that. Or we could try to get as much international support we can and go in as a coalition. This allows us to ensure that it goes smoothly, to our liking, and that another crazy dictator doesn't just take power once Saddam leaves.