The Iraq Thread

[OxPecker 0]

Steady on there champ, he did say "us the western world".

He didn't exclude Europe from exploitation of 3rd world countires.

Your other points are interesting. America has done a lot of good in the 20th century, nobody can deny that.

But that doesn't mean a lot of recent US foreign policy hasn't been totally f**ked up, bordering on evil.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 28 2003,06:15)</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">Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that EVERYTHING THAT HAS EVER GONE WRONG IS THE UNITED STATES' FAULT. <span id='postcolor'>

Well, not all of course.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And since America has a monopoly on exploitation of 3rd world populations (why don't you ask Ran why the Foreign Legion spends so much time in Africa), the European countries become the dispensers of morality for the world. That is rich.

<span id='postcolor'>

I think I said us - the western world. But you are right - and I have never said anything else! Actually, if you had read my other posts in this forum you would know I'm blaming the WHOLE of the western world for this situation. I'll try to dig up some of my posts - just for you! But then, the consequences of US foreign policy after WWII has been disastrous, and that is perhaps why your nation receive so much antagonism.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Feb. 28 2003,03:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">USA at war with japan, jap is pretty much defeated and they go and drop 2 nukes on civilian cities, apparty we supposed to think thats good, its good to know instead of using armys we just nuke the population to save a few soldiers lifes.(its not like invasion was nessary)<span id='postcolor'>

Thank you for showing your complete lack of knowledge of World War 2.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Thats the man! I agree that the Lewinsky-story didn't do him any favour in the integrity-department. But, he did try to broke a peace deal between Israel and the palestinians. Also, he did not share his government with politicians that declare that he couldn't care less if Arafat was hanged. Sorry, but Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the gang leaves something to be desired.

<span id='postcolor'>

So, what exactly makes him more trustworthy than the current bunch? The fact that he lied under oath? Or just the adultery part? I don't think he was that bad a president, but I'm pursuing this because you value the words of a dictator and a proven liar over those of a man who, so far, seems to be pretty much on the straight and narrow- I just want to know why. So, now you tell me that the reason you trust him more is that he tried to put together a peace plan for your pet cause that, I might add, failed largely because Yasser Arafat (who I too, incidentally, don't care whether he is hanged or not) turned his nose up at a great deal and proceeded to start another Intifada. Very solid reasoning there, I applaud you.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That was not a particulary nice thing to say - however I'll restrain myself from replying because saying something like that is so fucking stupid!

<span id='postcolor'>

Not nice, but accurate. I'd love to see you prove that valuing the word of a proven perjuror over our current president just because his current policy doesn't suit you isn't half as nuts as it sounds.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not yet, but soon maybe!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2806795.stm

<span id='postcolor'>

Soon? Maybe? How does 12 years strike you?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, the last thing Bush & Co needs is Britain leaving the "coalition of the willing". So no war until Britain says go then.

<span id='postcolor'>

Rationalize all you want, the simple fact is that we are letting the inspections run their course. However, we are running out of patience, as is Britain.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The inspectors asked for more time! Why do you think they did that? Could it possibly be because the whole mess would take longer than an average american working day?

<span id='postcolor'>

They asked for more time because they don't want to be the reason a war starts, and are willing to put up with an Iraqi version of three-card Monty to do so. And, incidentally, we are giving them more time, it's just that 1441 was never a resolution that allowed for a leisurely inspection process. Once again, I'd like to point out that Iraq has lied and evaded for 12 years now- what would another 4 months accomplish?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This could very well be - but that is perhaps why the inspectore are there in the first place!

<span id='postcolor'>

Really? I thought they were over there to regulate the garlic levels in Iraqi hummis. No, 1441 makes no provision as to whether or not Iraq is in violation of 687, it simply requires that Iraq get its ass in gear and get into compliance tout-de-suite, before Uncle Sam turns Baghdad into a shooting gallery.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, but politics sort of change that a bit doesn't it! Why do you think there is no war yet? Don't you think that has a wee bit to do with other nations resisting such an act?

<span id='postcolor'>

And we are humoring those other nations by jumping through all the hoops required. Still, 1441 does not mince words, and the clock is ticking.

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 28 2003,06:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Feb. 28 2003,03:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">USA at war with japan, jap is pretty much defeated and they go and drop 2 nukes on civilian cities, apparty we supposed to think thats good, its good to know instead of using armys we just nuke the population to save a few soldiers lifes.(its not like invasion was nessary)<span id='postcolor'>

Thank you for showing your complete lack of knowledge of World War 2.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, there is quite a bit of evidence that supports this view.

I can't find it at the moment, but before this was made taboo for discussion in this thread, people posted a few links to support this view.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 28 2003,04:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Dredging up pictures of US war graves, and then implying the world is sort of ungrateful in some way because they wont flop over to whatever comes out of Washington is a little disgusting.  

Strikes me as a rather feeble way of implying 'if you aint with us, you're against us'<span id='postcolor'>

[Rant] I'm not concerned about whether the world is grateful or not, or whether they're "with us or against us."  I am, however, concerned about the complete and utter BS spewed about how we plan to attack Iraq for oil or to further American imperialism.  If the past 85 years aren't sufficient evidence for the rest of the world that we're not after global domination, then please pardon me if I find it increasingly difficult to give a rat's @$$ about the rest of the world's opinion. [/Rant]

Does anyone have some Tylenol?

Semper Fi

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't think he was that bad a president, but I'm pursuing this because you value the words of a dictator and a proven liar over those of a man who, so far, seems to be pretty much on the straight and narrow- I just want to know why. <span id='postcolor'>

So which dictator am I valuing the words of if I may ask?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So, now you tell me that the reason you trust him more is that he tried to put together a peace plan for your pet cause that, I might add, failed largely because Yasser Arafat (who I too, incidentally, don't care whether he is hanged or not) turned his nose up at a great deal and proceeded to start another Intifada. Very solid reasoning there, I applaud you.

<span id='postcolor'>

My pet? Are you trying to insult me? I've never been pro-arafat! But I believe the palestinians should choose their own leader - thus it's usualy unfair when Israel or USA makes the choice for them (guess wolfowitz and rumsfeld would love it though).

And dare I suggest you have a selective memory? Because the intifada was a grasroot reaction and the peacedeal went down the toilet because of a deal that firstly - was a very bad deal for the palestinians - and secondly - did not solve the problem with settlements. Also if you cared to remember what you conveniently left out - the illegal settlements were increasing in numbers - despite the Oslo-agreement. Maybe you have a pet of your own: Mr Sharon.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Soon? Maybe? How does 12 years strike you?

<span id='postcolor'>

The al Samoud II rockets were not a part of the deal 12 years ago - could be because they had yet to be invented though!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">However, we are running out of patience, as is Britain.

<span id='postcolor'>

Britain - or rather Blair - has to tread carefuly. He can't order England to go to war all by himself. He already has enough difficulties holding his party together on this one.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 28 2003,06:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 28 2003,06:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Feb. 28 2003,03:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">USA at war with japan, jap is pretty much defeated and they go and drop 2 nukes on civilian cities, apparty we supposed to think thats good, its good to know instead of using armys we just nuke the population to save a few soldiers lifes.(its not like invasion was nessary)<span id='postcolor'>

Thank you for showing your complete lack of knowledge of World War 2.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, there is quite a bit of evidence that supports this view.

I can't find it at the moment, but before this was made taboo for discussion in this thread, people posted a few links to support this view.<span id='postcolor'>

Then feel free to open another thread and support the revisionist history with said links.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So which dictator am I valuing the words of if I may ask?

<span id='postcolor'>

I'll give you a hint: he's the one who says he no longer possesses 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">My pet? Are you trying to insult me?<span id='postcolor'>

Not at all. A pet cause is a phrase in English that does not have as much a negative connotation as it appears to non-native speakers. In any case, I was referring to the Pal cause in general, not just Yasser Arafat.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And dare I suggest you have a selective memory? Because the intifada was a grasroot reaction and the peacedeal went down the toilet because of a deal that firstly - was a very bad deal for the palestinians - and secondly - did not solve the problem with settlements. Also if you cared to remember what you conveniently left out - the illegal settlements were increasing in numbers - despite the Oslo-agreement. Maybe you have a pet of your own: Mr Sharon.<span id='postcolor'>

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. If you want to talk about this stuff, we can mosey over to the Mid-East thread. I was merely elaborating on a point, and possibly overstepped my bounds of knowledge. The original point I was making is that you only trust Clinton more than Bush because he worked more pro-actively toward a cause you feel strongly about. The fact that Clinton is a proven perjuror doesn't enter into your judgement. Is that clear enough?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The al Samoud II rockets were not a part of the deal 12 years ago - could be because they had yet to be invented though!

<span id='postcolor'>

Exactly, so by Saddam's clock, he ought to be getting around to actually disarming them -everybody sing it now- 12 years in the future, at the very least. But really, I don't care all that much about the missiles themselves- they aren't all that dangerous beyond the prescribed limits, as compromises in guidance have to be made to increase distance. But the principle of the matter is that this missile situation exposes Iraq as trying to play the same game they have for years now. Instead of cooperating fully, they are taking every opportunity to try to escape the implications of 1441 and 687.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Britain - or rather Blair - has to tread carefuly. He can't order England to go to war all by himself. He already has enough difficulties holding his party together on this one.

<span id='postcolor'>

Which is why the British UN Ambasador's name is on a new resolution that would declare Iraq in material breach of 1441 and 687, and authorize the doling out of the 'severe consequences' pprescribed in 1441.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 28 2003,06:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 28 2003,04:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Dredging up pictures of US war graves, and then implying the world is sort of ungrateful in some way because they wont flop over to whatever comes out of Washington is a little disgusting.  

Strikes me as a rather feeble way of implying 'if you aint with us, you're against us'<span id='postcolor'>

[Rant] I'm not concerned about whether the world is grateful or not, or whether they're "with us or against us."  I am, however, concerned about the complete and utter BS spewed about how we plan to attack Iraq for oil or to further American imperialism.  If the past 85 years aren't sufficient evidence for the rest of the world that we're not after global domination, then please pardon me if I find it increasingly difficult to give a rat's @$$ about the rest of the world's opinion. [/Rant]

Does anyone have some Tylenol?

Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'>

I will admit that some of the rants about the motivation of the United States are more than a little off base.

But the simple fact is that as pure and wonderful as the Bush Administration wants to appear, they backpedal and change their tune at every turn.

At first it was about Iraq having links to AQ and that was the reason for going to war.  When that was shown to be flimsy and unsubstantiated evidence, it was suddenly that Saddam has programs producing WMD.  That has been pretty much proved as equally fallacious as the links to AQ.  Now it's about Iraq being unwilling to prove and destroy any WMD.  It's starting t look like a vendetta, especially when there is an equally whacked out dictator flaunting his WMD around in Korea.

I dont think anyone here thinks Saddam is a great guy that deserves to stay in power.  All we think is that there are better ways to get rid of him than to level Baghdad.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 28 2003,07:15)</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 which dictator am I valuing the words of if I may ask?

<span id='postcolor'>

I'll give you a hint: he's the one who says he no longer possesses 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">My pet? Are you trying to insult me?<span id='postcolor'>

Not at all. A pet cause is a phrase in English that does not have as much a negative connotation as it appears to non-native speakers. In any case, I was referring to the Pal cause in general, not just Yasser Arafat.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And dare I suggest you have a selective memory? Because the intifada was a grasroot reaction and the peacedeal went down the toilet because of a deal that firstly - was a very bad deal for the palestinians - and secondly - did not solve the problem with settlements. Also if you cared to remember what you conveniently left out - the illegal settlements were increasing in numbers - despite the Oslo-agreement. Maybe you have a pet of your own: Mr Sharon.<span id='postcolor'>

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. If you want to talk about this stuff, we can mosey over to the Mid-East thread. I was merely elaborating on a point, and possibly overstepped my bounds of knowledge. The original point I was making is that you only trust Clinton more than Bush because he worked more pro-actively toward a cause you feel strongly about. The fact that Clinton is a proven perjuror doesn't enter into your judgement. Is that clear enough?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The al Samoud II rockets were not a part of the deal 12 years ago - could be because they had yet to be invented though!

<span id='postcolor'>

Exactly, so by Saddam's clock, he ought to be getting around to actually disarming them -everybody sing it now- 12 years in the future, at the very least. But really, I don't care all that much about the missiles themselves- they aren't all that dangerous beyond the prescribed limits, as compromises in guidance have to be made to increase distance. But the principle of the matter is that this missile situation exposes Iraq as trying to play the same game they have for years now. Instead of cooperating fully, they are taking every opportunity to try to escape the implications of 1441 and 687.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Britain - or rather Blair - has to tread carefuly. He can't order England to go to war all by himself. He already has enough difficulties holding his party together on this one.

<span id='postcolor'>

Which is why the British UN Ambasador's name is on a new resolution that would declare Iraq in material breach of 1441 and 687, and authorize the doling out of the 'severe consequences' pprescribed in 1441.<span id='postcolor'>

I have to go to bed now. If this discussion is still relevant in the evening I'll reply.

bye

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 28 2003,07:15)</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">The al Samoud II rockets were not a part of the deal 12 years ago - could be because they had yet to be invented though!

<span id='postcolor'>

Exactly, so by Saddam's clock, he ought to be getting around to actually disarming them -everybody sing it now- 12 years in the future, at the very least. But really, I don't care all that much about the missiles themselves- they aren't all that dangerous beyond the prescribed limits, as compromises in guidance have to be made to increase distance. But the principle of the matter is that this missile situation exposes Iraq as trying to play the same game they have for years now. Instead of cooperating fully, they are taking every opportunity to try to escape the implications of 1441 and 687.<span id='postcolor'>

Iraq has agreed to dismantle the missiles. (source).

Why do you find it surprising that Iraq stalls? Of course they want to keep their weapons when the US is about to invade them. Do you think they are stupid? The only reason they are cooperating with the UN is to make sure that USA does not get allies willing to bomb Iraq.

[Balschoiw 0]

General Zinni's Advice on Governing Iraq- General Anthony Zinni (USMC Ret); experienced in the theory, planning, and conduct of Military Operations Other Than War (MOOTW) as well as a leading proponent of cultural intelligence; developed the following considerations for humanitarian assistance, peacekeeping, and peace enforcement operations. The successful conduct of operations in Iraq extends well beyond 'taking down Saddam'. The end state we achieve in Iraq - and how we 'achieved it' - will have a direct and serious impact on all future operations in the conduct of our war on terrorism.

They are presented here as helpful guidelines on 'winning the peace' before, during, and after the dust settles in Baghdad and other Iraqi urban areas.

· Each operation is unique. We must be careful what lessons we learn from a single experience.

· Each operation has two key aspects - the degree of complexity of the operation and the degree of consent of the involved parties and the international community for the operation.

· The earlier the involvement, the better the chance for success.

· Start planning as early as possible, include everyone in the planning process.

· Make as thorough an assessment as possible before deployment.

· Conduct a thorough mission analysis, determine the centers of gravity, end state, commander's intent, measures of effectiveness, exit strategy, and the estimated duration of the operation.

· Stay focused on the mission. Line up military tasks with political objectives. Avoid mission creep and allow for mission shifts. A mission shift is a conscious decision, made by political leadership in consultation with the military commander, responding to a changing situation.

· Centralize planning and decentralize execution of the operation. This allows subordinate commanders to make appropriate adjustments to meet their individual situation or rapidly changing conditions.

· Coordinate everything with everybody. Establish coordination mechanisms that include political, military, nongovernmental organizations, and the interested parties.

· Know the culture and the issues. We must know who the decision-makers are. We must know how the involved parties think. We cannot impose our cultural values on people with their own culture.

· Start or restore key institutions as early as possible.

· Don't lose the initiative and momentum.

· Don't make unnecessary enemies. If you do, don't treat them gently. Avoid mindsets or words that might come back to haunt you.

· Seek unity of effort and unity of command. Create the fewest possible seams between organizations and involved parties.

· Open a dialogue with everyone. Establish a forum for each of the involved parties.

· Encourage innovation and nontraditional responses.

· Personalities are often more important than processes. You need the right people in the right places.

· Be careful whom you empower. Think carefully about who you invite to participate, use as a go-between, or enter into contracts with since you are giving them influence in the process.

· Decide on the image you want to portray and keep focused on it. Whatever the image; humanitarian or firm, but well-intentioned agent of change; ensure your troops are aware of it so they can conduct themselves accordingly.

· Centralize information management. Ensure that your public affairs and psychological operations are coordinated, accurate and consistent.

· Seek compatibility in all operations; cultural and political compatibility and military interoperability are crucial to success. The interests, cultures, capabilities, and motivations of all parties may not be uniform; but they cannot be allowed to work against one another.

· Senior commanders and their staffs need the most education and training in nontraditional roles. The troops need awareness and understanding of their roles. The commander and the staff need to develop and apply new skills, such as negotiating, supporting humanitarian organizations effectively and appropriately, and building coordinating agencies with humanitarian goals.

General Zinni offers basic, common-sense guidelines here. Unfortunately, many of these guidelines are left behind at our military 'think-tanks' and 'school-houses' once the first round goes down range. We are reaching critical mass and can ill-afford to relearn lessons from such places as Vietnam, Somalia, Haiti, and elsewhere. It is time to start winning wars vice battles - winning hearts and minds vice temporary respite. With that we will win the peace.

-- Dave Dilegge

Urban Operations Journal

If you take all this into account the Bush administration is already on the wrong path.

Edit: Oh yeah and the proposal of Mr G.W. Bush that a war on Iraq will lead to a souvereign palestinian state as he claimed yesterday is a lie a big bad lie to gather supporters. USA is not interested in a palestinian state. The one that actually halted the process of influencing israel towards a souvereign palestinian state was G.W Bush. Remember Daiton ? Haven´t hear much of it till he is in power. He is a liar.

[foxer 0]

I have a question.Will bush ever be right ? Seems like everything bush does is wrong or not the right way to do it.I don't like bush.But i just don't bash him over stupid stuff.I really don't think the US is going mistreat the iraqi's.Think about it,We want muslims on our side.Some people forget we are trying to butter up the muslim people.If US do really well in iraq ,it won't be reported.Why ? Because iraq will say they killed large amount of civilians ,and some european people will believe iraq.Just like they did in afghanistan.I hate to say it ,but most europeans will not believe the US no matter what, it's kinda sad too.Seems like they believe iraq more then the US.But I guess when your number one in almost everything people will envy.

Also I would like to add that if america didn't bomb soo many countries maybe we would get more support.I mean we should have never went into kosvo and bosnia,and other stupid conflicts.We should have save those missions for later truly needed missions.

But if everything you say what the US going do in iraq.

Then tons of muslims will hate us.I doubt bush wants that.

I really don't understand though.I mean i truly don't know what the US did to you people not to believe them.Sure i don't believe them over this iraq crap.But i rather root for the hometeam when there is no doubt the usa is going to war.Which bring me to another point.The french.Hell, How long we been allies ? Long ass time.They don't have to do anything but just go along with US in the un,But what are they doing ? Rally countries for an veto.I just don't get it.I mean i understand germany.But i don't get the Frogs gov't,err the french gov't.

Makes you think what they have going with iraq.They rather not go with allies,and go with iraq.

Blah,long ass crap.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Feb. 28 2003,14:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I really don't understand though.I mean i truly don't know what the US did to you people not to believe them.Sure i don't believe them over this iraq crap.But i rather root for the hometeam when there is no doubt the usa is going to war.Which bring me to another point.The french.Hell, How long we been allies ? Long ass time.They don't have to do anything but just go along with US in the un,But what are they doing ? Rally countries for an veto.I just don't get it.I mean i understand germany.But i don't get the Frogs gov't,err the french gov't.

Makes you think what they have going with iraq.They rather not go with allies,and go with iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

You don't understand it because you are looking at it the completely wrong way. France (and the majority of the wrold) doesn't disagree with the war on Iraq just to oppose the US. France supports the position of the UN inspectors. They have asked for more time and most of the world agrees. This is not about liking Saddam Hussein. Everybody agrees that he must disarm. The debate is on how to do it.

France maintains the position that war is a failure and that all diplomatic possibilities have to be explored before one starts dropping bombs.

I'm afraid foxer that you have been too inspired by the Bush slogan "either you are with us or againt us". This isn't about USA. It's about Iraq.

[rschaufus 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also I would like to add that if america didn't bomb soo many countries maybe we would get more support.I mean we should have never went into kosvo and bosnia,and other stupid conflicts.<span id='postcolor'>  

Kosovo and the region around it is plagued with "ethnic cleansing". When you say we (I am a U.S. citizen) shouldn't have mixed ourselves up in the conflict is absurd. Most "stupid conflicts" we got mixed up with was at the request of the U.N. I just want to make it clear Kosovo was not a stupid conflict and helping refugees escape ethinic cleansing is not a stupid thing to do.

[foxer 0]

IF it's about iraq why are we talking about bush ?

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Feb. 28 2003,10:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">IF it's about iraq why are we talking about bush ? <span id='postcolor'>

Because Bush has problems dealing with Iraq, and he wants desperatly to deal with it.

[foxer 0]

I was goiing change what i posted.But anyways.

I don't think it's time to go war now,but i believe next winter is time.I just don't like how the french are trying rally support for no war.For being an allie to the US ,you would think they wouldn't do that.I mean i understand if they don't want to support the war,but to rally other countries behind them is wrong.Maybe that's just the way I feel.I wouldn't care if they wasn't trying to rally other countries though.

[bn880 5]

I don't think it's wrong, I think it's necessary. If they didn't try to do that maybe the U.S. would be walking all over the Iraqis now. What they are doing is rallying up support for a civilized solution that involves saving peoples lives (and the U.S. economy).

Seriously, we are talking about peoples lives here, and the sanctions were not very friendly to life either. I can't believe what is happening to Iraqi children, the suffering is out of this world and age.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Feb. 28 2003,16:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I was goiing change what i posted.But anyways.

I don't think it's time to go war now,but i believe next winter is time.I just don't like how the french are trying rally support for no war.For being an allie to the US ,you would think they wouldn't do that.I mean i understand if they don't want to support the war,but to rally other countries behind them is wrong.Maybe that's just the way I feel.I wouldn't care if they wasn't trying to rally other countries though.<span id='postcolor'>

You can say the same thing about the US. It's ok to support a war, but why are they trying to rally support for war, going against their allies, the French? Not only that, but Rumsfeld has on several occasions directly insulted the French.

Also, why is USA vowing to veto the Franco-German-Russian proposal to the UN? France and Germany are your allies. And yet you are rallying support from other countries against their proposal!

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 28 2003,07:15)</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'll give you a hint: he's the one who says he no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction.

<span id='postcolor'>

Well, you are wrong! I too believe he must be disarmed - and I think the best thing is if he disappeared altogether. It's just the way it is done that bothers me, because it might create a disaster for the civil population and the whole region in general.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not at all. A pet cause is a phrase in English that does not have as much a negative connotation as it appears to non-native speakers. In any case, I was referring to the Pal cause in general, not just Yasser Arafat.

<span id='postcolor'>

Thanks for the clarification - but I'm not more conserned by the palestinian cause than I am with the israeli cause. I want peace in the area. Do not question my sympathy for the jews - or for that matter - the palestinian in the occupied territories.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. If you want to talk about this stuff, we can mosey over to the Mid-East thread. I was merely elaborating on a point, and possibly overstepped my bounds of knowledge. The original point I was making is that you only trust Clinton more than Bush because he worked more pro-actively toward a cause you feel strongly about. The fact that Clinton is a proven perjuror doesn't enter into your judgement. Is that clear enough?

<span id='postcolor'>

You brought it up by mentioning the intifada. I just proved a point when refering to whos to trust or not (cheney, rumsfeld etc). He may be a proven perjuror, but I sincerely believe it was something that should not have taken the proportions the republicans made a piont of. Inquisition if you ask me.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Exactly, so by Saddam's clock, he ought to be getting around to actually disarming them -everybody sing it now- 12 years in the future, at the very least.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, there is pressure on him now so expect to see him making rubble out of the rockets. Besides, it would help him politically because the situation in the security council would be very difficult if he did.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But really, I don't care all that much about the missiles themselves- they aren't all that dangerous beyond the prescribed limits, as compromises in guidance have to be made to increase distance.<span id='postcolor'>

That sounds kind of like your president. When the rockets are destroyed I guess his going to say "oh well, that means nothing" !

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But the principle of the matter is that this missile situation exposes Iraq as trying to play the same game they have for years now. Instead of cooperating fully, they are taking every opportunity to try to escape the implications of 1441 and 687.

<span id='postcolor'>

I sort of agree with you on this one. However, is it good enough to go to war? I know, you will now say yes because the resolution (1441) demands it in your view. The wording of the text is vague however, and there are different opinions on whether the resolution actually implies a possible war. Many countries doubt that and demands a new resolution in order to go to war.

Secondly, the range of the misssiles is only 15 miles off the limit set by the UN resolution. It makes it understandable that the thief from bagdad hesisitated. Expect them to be destroyed soon though - at least because of the political problems it will cause the security council.

[Guest]

This is very interesting: cost estimates for war.

Especially

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">WAR COSTS

White House estimate: $60 billion - $95 billion

1991 Gulf War cost: $60 billion (80 percent paid by other countries)

One long -range Tomahawk cruise missile: $1 million (U.S. may use 700 of them)

Estimates exclude: Humanitarian supplies and aid

Postwar costs for five years: $25 billion to $105 billion

War aid to Turkey and Israel: $10 billion

Source: Center for Strategic Budgetary Assessments

<span id='postcolor'>

That's the big issue of getting allies. It's not about military power but about splitting the bill. Only 20% of the costs for GW1 were paid by the US.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 28 2003,10:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is very interesting: cost estimates for war.

<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, that's 60 - 95 Billion, a billion per day for a 2 - 3 month operation. It is eastimated that a long drawn out conflict could reach a maximum price of 1.9 Trillion USD. Maybe Ralph can tell us about the relative comparison of this to the GDP etc...

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 28 2003,16:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is very interesting: cost estimates for war.

Especially

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">WAR COSTS

White House estimate:  $60 billion - $95 billion

1991 Gulf War cost: $60 billion (80 percent paid by other countries)

One long -range Tomahawk cruise missile: $1 million (U.S. may use 700 of them)

Estimates exclude: Humanitarian supplies and aid

Postwar costs for five years: $25 billion to $105 billion

War aid to Turkey and Israel: $10 billion

Source: Center for Strategic Budgetary Assessments

<span id='postcolor'>

That's the big issue of getting allies. It's not about military power but about splitting the bill. Only 20% of the costs for GW1 were paid by the US.<span id='postcolor'>

Guess what - the bill will grow to enourmous proportions when Iraq has been occupied! Not just because of Iraq - but the next step in the big plan made by wolfowits and friends.

I know - some of the forum-members might say "conspiracy idiot", but I strongly believe they wish to change the political landscape of the whole of the middle east.

They just don't understand that if that's supposed to have a chance of success - they have to do something about the israel-palestine conflict. It all really depends on this bugger!

And who's next in line? Guess it will be Iran or Syria!