The Iraq Thread

[Longinius 1]

"The sad thing is that saddam would try that, and people would believe him."

Yes, its strange how people tend to believe their governments. Like for example when they say the enemy is dragging babies from incubators and throwing them on the ground...

[Jinef 2]

Interesting site, if i go to America this year i'll bring that up *clenches fists*

Nah just kidding, i'm not a violent person really.

Come on war, hurry up and finish already. I know it's sad to say things like that but it's true. I've got friends there and they seem quite pissed off that it's taking so long, in the couple of days between now and the deadline do you think the Bush admin is gonna come out with some marvelous justification?

Hopefully in this war we won't do much, let's send the guys who wanted the war in the first place to do the fighting.

[bogo 0]

Well i wonder who is next after iraq , Iran or Somalia ?

I dont think he will stop with iraq .

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 07 2003,17:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is a direct breach of postwar agreements with the UN as they have not been informed about the action.<span id='postcolor'>

A direct breach of postwar agreements?  This calls for twelve years of Security Council resolutions!

Semper Fi

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

An admittedly bizarre thought i have been having lately

I wish non lethal chemical weapons could be used on Iraqi military installations shortly before ground forces go in instead of eradicating them with explosives.

In fact it was Iraqi civilians in a report optimistically thinking that the US would do this in an attack that got me thinking on it.

I think this would be morally supportable in the short term.

I should explain that the type of chemicals i am talking about are still being developed(and maybe weaponised by some states for law enforcement). Non-lethal (though obviously there is some risk) non-permanent(again some risk) chemical weapons somewhat similar to those used by law enforcement agencies. Various temporary Physiological/perceptual effects can be brought about by the latest generation of such chemicals with potential for warfare.

But obviously to use (even non lethal) chemical weapons against a state for not disposing of its own chemical and other weapons would seem absurd.

And it could lead to a slippery slope if other states tried to legitimize their own use of chemical weapons. but im not sure its such a bad thing as long as the chemical weapons in question are all non lethal and non permanent.

Ok it may sound a little crazy, but if it came right down to it wouldnt you rather be gassed with some temporary coma-inducer (with small risk of death) or incapacitant of some kind than blown apart by a US bomb?

It is questionable in what situations such weapons could be used effectively but i still like the idea.

unfortunatly it could increase proliferation and use of chemical weapons as a whole which must be a major downside.

Well thats my bizarre thought for the day

[FallenPaladin 0]

There was a hostage situation last year when chechen rebels took hostages in Moscow theatre, i think. The special units used such a non-lethal gas for disabling all persons inside the building. But because they dosed it to high, many people died.

I think the same would happen, if you had to use gas in an open field. But even if usage of non-lethal weapons is a good thing, even in an unjustified war, like we will face him soon, I think the US forces will bomb everything. It`s just easier!

[foxer 0]

Ok, I stopped being lazy.Here's why french don't support a war.It's because of money/oil.It has nothing to with peace.Which i believe is true.I'm thinking germany against this war is legit.I don't know about the french and russians.Isn't russia owned like 11 billion dollars from iraq ,because all the weapons iraq bought from russia?

Link 1

But France takes seriously the threat that the special relationship may end. In the past few weeks, French diplomats paid a visit to a key member of one of the main exiled Iraqi opposition groups asking for the country's business interests to be respected in case of regime change, a member of the Iraqi opposition told Dow Jones Newswires. "They were worried. They inquired about what position they would have in terms of business and trade, including but not only, for oil," the opposition source said.

link 2

Now the company is focused on Iraq. It is anxious to develop vast new energy deposits in a post-Saddam Iraq. But it also fears that tw tentative agreements it has signed with Saddam's regime could be voided by U.S.-led military action. "We would like to develop those fields as soon as possible," de Margerie said.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 07 2003,23:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ok, I stopped being lazy.Here's why french don't support a war.It's because of money/oil.It has nothing to with peace.Which i believe is true.I'm thinking germany against this war is legit.I don't know about the french and russians.Isn't russia owned like 11 billion dollars from iraq ,because all the weapons iraq bought from russia?<span id='postcolor'>

There are some things that makes your theory questionable.

1) France is not opposed to a war. They are in favour that the UN inspectors get a chance to do their job. France has made it very clear that if the UN inspectors find it impossible to complete their mission that France will fully support a war.

2) Russia is going to make a big profit out of the war since they are the ones expected during the conflict to deliver the oil that today comes from Iraq. (article - lol - Russia's problem - too much money)

[foxer 0]

1) France is not opposed to a war. They are in favour that the UN inspectors get a chance to do their job. France has made it very clear that if the UN inspectors find it impossible to complete their mission that France will fully support a war.

If the UN inspectors find a huge cache of hidden chemical weapons tomorrow,the french will say that Inspectors are working,there is no need for war.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 07 2003,23:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1) France is not opposed to a war. They are in favour that the UN inspectors get a chance to do their job. France has made it very clear that if the UN inspectors find it impossible to complete their mission that France will fully support a war.

2) Russia is going to make a big profit out of the war since they are the ones expected during the conflict to deliver the oil that today comes from Iraq. (article - lol - Russia's problem - too much money)<span id='postcolor'>

1) France is opposed to war if the US starts it and leaves the UN out of it. This will make their multi-million dollar contracts for large swaths of unexplored oil regions meaningless. Worse...they won't exsist anymore. If regime change comes from a US led invasion, and France fails to participate, what are the chances this new US-installed regime will award France oil contracts? Zip.

2) How long do you think that cash-cow will last for Russia if and when the US install a regime change in Iraq? Not long. My guess is their cash cow will end the instant the pumps start again. Then where will that leave her? Especially without all those contracts she as well has with Iraq.

[Longinius 1]

So, France and Russia have made their stand in this matter based on oil... But the US decisions have nothing to do with oil or money? Hmmm, I find that interesting.

You see, I think they are all looking after their own interests and in all cases oil have a lot to do with it.

If the US wanted to help the people of Iraq, they could have / should have done so long ago.

I find it amusing that now when other countries are suddenly vetoing US proposals and ideas in the Security Council, it is an outcry. But when the US do it to others, its OK. I also heard today that US diplomats have threatened Russia with economic sanctions if they oppose them in the security council. Interesting way to deal with things, real mature like.

"If you don't come with me and play with GI Joes, I will make sure mom takes away your allowance. Bu-hu!"

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 07 2003,23:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So, France and Russia have made their stand in this matter based on oil... But the US decisions have nothing to do with oil or money? Hmmm, I find that interesting.

You see, I think they are all looking after their own interests and in all cases oil have a lot to do with it.

If the US wanted to help the people of Iraq, they could have / should have done so long ago.<span id='postcolor'>

I didn't say it had nothing to do with oil.

But on the flip-side, I find it absurd to say France and Russia are against the war because of their ideals when their multi-million dollar oil contracts with Iraq are well known and in jeopardy.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 07 2003,23:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But on the flip-side, I find it absurd to say France and Russia are against the war because of their ideals when their multi-million dollar oil contracts with Iraq are well known and in jeopardy.<span id='postcolor'>

That may very well be, but you have to agree that not starting a war for questionable reasons is better then starting a war for questionable reasons.

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 07 2003,23:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So, France and Russia have made their stand in this matter based on oil... But the US decisions have nothing to do with oil or money? Hmmm, I find that interesting.

You see, I think they are all looking after their own interests and in all cases oil have a lot to do with it.

If the US wanted to help the people of Iraq, they could have / should have done so long ago.

I find it amusing that now when other countries are suddenly vetoing US proposals and ideas in the Security Council, it is an outcry. But when the US do it to others, its OK. I also heard today that US diplomats have threatened Russia with economic sanctions if they oppose them in the security council. Interesting way to deal with things, real mature like.

"If you don't come with me and play with GI Joes, I will make sure mom takes away your allowance. Bu-hu!"<span id='postcolor'>

All I was pointing out is that french and russia has their own reason why they want peace.It has nothing to do with the civilians.Peace is the best deal for them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If the US wanted to help the people of Iraq, they could have / should have done so long ago. <span id='postcolor'>

Come on,If this was happening 6 years ago people would be saying the samething they're saying now.

I find it amusing that now when other countries are suddenly vetoing US proposals and ideas in the Security Council, it is an outcry. But when the US do it to others, its OK. I also heard today that US diplomats have threatened Russia with economic sanctions if they oppose them in the security council. Interesting way to deal with things, real mature like.

I doubt that.It's probably going be something like if they itch our back were itch theirs.

link.like this one.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 07 2003,23:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 07 2003,23:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But on the flip-side, I find it absurd to say France and Russia are against the war because of their ideals when their multi-million dollar oil contracts with Iraq are well known and in jeopardy.<span id='postcolor'>

That may very well be, but you have to agree that not starting a war for questionable reasons is better then starting a war for questionable reasons.<span id='postcolor'>

Hmmmm.......

Yeah ok

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 07 2003,23:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I find it amusing that now when other countries are suddenly vetoing US proposals and ideas in the Security Council, it is an outcry. But when the US do it to others, its OK. I also heard today that US diplomats have threatened Russia with economic sanctions if they oppose them in the security council. Interesting way to deal with things, real mature like.

I doubt that.It's probably going be something like if they itch our back were itch theirs.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Washington Post @ ,,,)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bush administration officials are threatening unspecified consequences if Russia blocks a U.S.-backed resolution in the U.N. Security Council,where Russia is one of five members with veto power.<span id='postcolor'>

(article)

[foxer 0]

I just did a search on where it says sanction and i got this.....

At the same time, U.S. officials are unwilling to promise Russia that a new government in Iraq would honor multibillion-dollar oil development contracts, which have been on hold because of U.N. sanctions, and repay $8 billion Iraq owes Russia. Moreover, if war leads in the long term to a collapse in oil prices, as many analysts expect, revenue from Russia's oil exports will shrink.

So peace is yet again a better deal for them.

[foxer 0]

Bush administration officials are threatening unspecified consequences if Russia blocks a U.S.-backed resolution in the U.N. Security Council, where Russia is one of five members with veto power.

Oh i see it now.But still it could mean that we won't be soo easy making deals with them.We could be harder on deals and stuff.

[Hit_Sqd_Maximus 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Mar. 07 2003,23:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There was a hostage situation last year when chechen rebels took hostages in Moscow theatre, i think. The special units used such a non-lethal gas for disabling all persons inside the building. But because they dosed it to high, many people died.<span id='postcolor'>

It was an opiate wasnt it? Like morphean(spelling), heroin and opium?

[Longinius 1]

"Oh i see it now.But still it could mean that we won't be soo easy making deals with them.We could be harder on deals and stuff."

No, its more along the line of preventing them joining the WTO. And stuff.

[FallenPaladin 0]

I think it was a kind of sleeping gas like the ones they use also in clinics before operations. But because the hostages and rebels were in the great hall of the theatre they had to dose the gas very high, so that all persons in there would get unconcious at once. Otherwise the rebels had blown up themselves together with the hostages and the theatre. It`s sad, that so many of the hostages died because of that gas, but without it noone of them might have survived. That russian mission to free the hostages was in my eyes a success and the russian units can be proud, because they saved a part of the hostages.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Mar. 08 2003,00:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think it was a kind of sleeping gas like the ones they use also in clinics before operations. But because the hostages and rebels were in the great hall of the theatre they had to dose the gas very high, so that all persons in there would get unconcious at once. Otherwise the rebels had blown up themselves together with the hostages and the theatre. It`s sad, that so many of the hostages died because of that gas, but without it noone of them might have survived. That russian mission to free the hostages was in my eyes a success and the russian units can be proud, because they saved a part of the hostages.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually it was an opiate-based gas.

[HellToupee 0]

there have been worse attempts i think, like in ejipt arg damn funny name, they stormed the airline after the hijacked plane returned and demanded fuel, they had already been thru many countries, one of the people to survive of the few was on tehy had shot in the back of the head when they wernt getting fuel, she played dead amoung the ones before her on the ground, they stormed the plane and the gunfight left most people dead.

[FSPilot 0]

Maybe this is a little late.

But didn't this thread used to be over 300 pages?

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 08 2003,14:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe this is a little late.

But didn't this thread used to be over 300 pages?  <span id='postcolor'>

You might have seen that thread with a poll posted by Denoir. It was a vote on whether threads should have 10 posts or 15 posts per page. The 15 posts per page won so now there are more posts on a page so less pages