The Iraq Thread

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

bn880- "the U.N. inspectors have shown that Iraq does not really posses any WMD's"

Hans Blix would be interested to hear that! How can you claim that inspectors have conclusively proved in a country the size of Iraq within a short time that it has no weapons of mass destruction (when there is some -at least- circumstantial evidence to the contrary)?

France is not claiming that, nor i believe is Sweden or Canada or most of the rest of the 'international community'.(the diplomats in the UN)

Just because the inspectors have not found stocks of bio/chem weapons in the recent inspections does not mean they cant exist. Whether the possibility of their existance

legitimizes war is another issue.

It is not true that Saddams regime(S.R.) has made efforts to fully cooperate. In the S.R.s written report (called for by the UN)there were multiple omissions and discrepancies innaccuracies etc and the inspectors have continued to -discover- relevant information and objects as opposed to having them handed over.

There is simply no reason i can see for S.R. to act this way (with all the power it has over its people) unless it wishes to hold onto some such weapons (chemical weapons having been very important to Iraqi military doctrine and the military being very important to Saddam).

Well perhaps he is just unwilling to show weakness(afraid of his own people?)

There are plenty of valid arguments against war without needing to believe all that Saddam says about his weapons program.

bn880-"Using force when it is not necessary is humiliating failure"

I agree.

Not using force when it is necessary is also by definition a failure.

So is force necessary now?

Of course the question of necessity depends on the context.

Seeing as some people are content that S.R. has no weapons of mass destruction ,and some are so convinced that he has them (and the will to use such weapons) that

they are willing to invade -its not surprising there is such  disagreement on how 'right' war is.

It may be necessary to combat an imminent Iraqi attack against the USA using agents or terrorists, but there has been no significant evidence of (especially imminent)attack thus presented ( i personally happen to believe it is unlikely).

However ,one could argue that in the post sept.11 America the relatively small possibility of a bio attack is deemed terrible enough to warrant a show of force against the proliferation of such weapons.

Iraq may attack Americas ally Israel(or other another ally) with WMD (any it has) at some crucial point. It seems more likely and would not be out of character for Saddam. Is there any evidence of plans for an immediate attack? Apparently not.

However such an attack is nonetheless within the realms of possibility in various scenarios (including the upcoming war)

There are possible other humanitarian reasons, possible reasons of geo-stability ,possible desire to control the oil wells (that i regard as rather unlikely) which i wont go into.

This use of force may not be necessary (or even able?)to prevent such an attack (only Saddam can know for certain).

Inevitably there is guesswork involved.

Will this attack be legal?

Well even in a purely legal sense the case can argued both sides , though the argument suggesting an attack may be illegal is perhaps more obviously laid out, you can argue the case for legality if necessary going right back to the end of Gulf War 1 and Saddams violation of the cease fire conditions imposed by the UN- you could argue that there has legally been a state of war since the end of GW1

1441 in some ways muddies the proverbial waters. Security council members must decide if Saddam is using reasonably his last chance to disarm his WMD program or if serious consequences are applicable. But there is not unanimous agreement and there has been no vote on a new resolution.

(with latent vetos and members possibly acting based on -in their view- 'unreasonably' vetoed resolutions as possibilities the UN diplomats dont WANT to vote if it could tear up the UN)

But these legal shenanigans do not greatly impress me (or a lot of people i think)

I understand the importance of obeying rules as long as they are in effect but the UN was set up by the winners of WW2 including america. The rulebook was written in a different era. The UN is an outdated organisation in desperate need of revision.

Without that revision i fear for the future. The international order is tenuous. And a UN without the US is not the formula for international stability.

What really matters is if it will be for the best, if it is wiser to act or wiser not to act.

Denoir said that even though kosovo (actions pertaining to) may have been illegal ,the intentions were good. And there was quite a broad international support.

Things in the Former Yugoslavia have changed (some for the better some for the worse) There is less government suppression of media etc

But many people died. Was it wise to go in? It was not necessary (for defence). It was a war for humanitarian reasons, perhaps it was for the best. Perhaps not. Are there any scales big enough to weigh such a thing?

anyway i have rather rambled,

i would rather there was not a war.

I would rather there were not repressive regimes and international terrorists, the threat of biological attacks, a murderous conflict in the middle east

and a less than effective UN which is unpopular in the most powerful country, and a most powerful country which is unpopular in much of the UN.

But there are all of those things

and there will be war.

I dont know the future. We can guess, but the future has a way of kicking expectations in the teeth.

[Schoeler 0]

Good post IsThatYouJohnWayne.

[SirLoins 0]

Instead of a boycott of America why not take my advice to stop the war on Iraq. Yes you heard me right, I have a plan to stop the invasion of Iraq.

If all of the countries against war with Iraq, along with the UN will follow my advice, you can have the peace you so desparately desire.

This is so simple, with all the hundreds of pages of discussion on this forum I can't believe in your infinite wisdom you all haven't though of it.

Here it is. Get off your spineless peaceloving asses and STOP the US and it's allies from invading Iraq.

Have YOUR military occupy Baghdad. Send YOUR troops to defend Iraq from the US.

Get your precious UN, or better yet France, to lead the way and stop the US from it's plan of attack.

Instead of waving your banners of hatred toward Bush and America at your useless peace rallies, gather your troops and actually do something without the US for once in your life.

Of course there may be innocent lives lost. But you will be ridding the world once and for all from the big bad United States of America.

So instead of boycotting American products, call your local and national leaders today. Call your friends, family and neighbors and make this happen. Call France, Germany, Russia. Do something for the sake of humanity.

One problem, your countries don't have the balls to do it.

The UN doesn't have the balls to do it.

[bn880 5]

NO. I feel much better boycotting and making your life more miserable than fighting your goons.

EDIT: And if the Iraqis don't surrender in mass right after the attack begins, boy is your economy going to get it where it hurts.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

I dont think a war or possible military flare up between powers armed with ICBMs would help the situation for the better or increase understanding between america and europe (something i am interested in and believe in)

[bn880 5]

That's the other important reason for not fighting your goons.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

bn880-I have a question- if sanctions against Iraq have not worked (they certainly havent got rid of the problems of ten years ago) what do you think boycotts will achieve?

Sanctions seem to have hurt the ordinary Iraqis a whole lot more than they hurt Saddam. In fact various reports suggest they gave a significant boost to Saddams regime by creating an atmosphere of war and hardship that he could exploit.

Dont you think boycotts might enforce US prejudices (just as US boycotts might enforce european prejudices) , hurt average americans who might not support Bush, and actually make Bush and his policies more popular in an -us against them- type of way

(which many americans after Spt.11 seem willing to accept as the norm)

?

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SirLoins @ Mar. 16 2003,22:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Here it is.  Get off your spineless peaceloving asses and STOP the US and it's allies from invading Iraq.

Have YOUR military occupy Baghdad.  Send YOUR troops to defend Iraq from the US.  

Get your precious UN, or better yet France, to lead the way and stop the US from it's plan of attack.

Instead of waving your banners of hatred toward Bush and America at your useless peace rallies, gather your troops and actually do something without the US for once in your life.<span id='postcolor'>

and if that actually happens, current supporters of pro-war will start whining about things not going their way, and in future, that camp will always refer that as the reason why we should pull out of international arena, only to reinforce the other's perception that we are not interested in international matters

[bn880 5]

Boycotts are to hurt the U.S. economy, which looks like it will be used to do greater harm every day.

[Renagade 0]

looks like its getting real close for action if its not already started.

ps. how come aa little while ago it was uk,us, and italy hobnobbing now it seems to be uk.usa and spain now

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Mar. 16 2003,22<!--emo&)</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">(when there is some -at least- circumstantial evidence to the contrary)?

<span id='postcolor'>

Perhaps you would like to explain what exactly this "circumstantial evidence" is?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just because the inspectors have not found stocks of bio/chem weapons in the recent inspections does not mean they cant exist.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, and there might be green men on Mars too! The point is that if you have agreed to send the weapons inspectors to Iraq - it could possibly be because they are there to verify if Iraq has such weapons or not.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Whether the possibility of their existance

legitimizes war is another issue.

<span id='postcolor'>

Following your logic it really isn't - because you wrote this:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">you can argue the case for legality if necessary going right back to the end of Gulf War 1 and Saddams violation of the cease fire conditions imposed by the UN- you could argue that there has legally been a state of war since the end of GW1

<span id='postcolor'>

However, it's not USA's or Britains job to decide when UN's ceasefire agreement is to be enforced. As far as I'm concerned a task like that is strictly a UN matter and not to be decided upon by the ridiculous "coalition of the willing" .

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">However ,one could argue that in the post sept.11 America the relatively small possibility of a bio attack is deemed terrible enough to warrant a show of force against the proliferation of such weapons.

<span id='postcolor'>

A show of force? That's preposterous! Have you any idea what a show of force could cost in victims - and a further tensioning between the poor world and the western world. Don't you get it? The only way a poorer country can defent itself in the future is to get hold of weapons of massdestruction. Just try to imagine what would happen when poor nations with WMD's have had enough of the exploitation of their resources and start nationalising farms, manufacturing plants etc. What are the good ol' US of A going to do then to protect their interests? Another aspect of the "show of force" argument is that you rationalise other peoples intentions. It's not always the fact that people are not willing to die for something they find meaningfull. If anything - I suggest there will be even more terror after "show of force" actions!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq may attack Americas ally Israel(or other another ally) with WMD (any it has) at some crucial point<span id='postcolor'>

There is no doubt about the fact that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons during Desert Storm. Did they use it? No, they didn't! Did they drop WMD's over Israel? No, they didn't!

But if Iraq has such weapons they could very well be used as a last resort to blackmail - or even as a revenge - if "the coalition of the willing" continue on their illegal path.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">However such an attack is nonetheless within the realms of possibility in various scenarios (including the upcoming war)<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, and USSR back in the 80's was also capable of doing their stuff too! Sometimes one just have to trust people.

If I'm suspicious of you being able to nick my bicycle - should I give you a bloody nose before you do it?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I understand the importance of obeying rules as long as they are in effect but the UN was set up by the winners of WW2 including america. The rulebook was written in a different era. The UN is an outdated organisation in desperate need of revision.

Without that revision i fear for the future. The international order is tenuous. And a UN without the US is not the formula for international stability.

<span id='postcolor'>

I agree with you on this - but the best way of ensuring a just and effective UN is not by doing all one can to destroy it in advance. Which is what US and Britain currently is doing so well!

What I can't agree on is that much of UN's work is after all a lot more than the Iraq-crisis. I'm I right in believing you are writing off the work done by UNICEF and so on?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir said that even though kosovo (actions pertaining to) may have been illegal ,the intentions were good. And there was quite a broad international support.<span id='postcolor'>

If the intentions were so good - why were UN not backed up by it's most important members in the first place? Everything changed of course when NATO found out they had to dropp a few bombs, and the badges on the vehicles were changed from UN to Nato! UN were helpless in their effort to save civilians because US and other nations would not risk a ground operation - and thus failed to support UN troops with heavy artillery and armour.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would rather there were not repressive regimes and international terrorists, the threat of biological attacks, a murderous conflict in the middle east<span id='postcolor'>

Perhaps you should ask yourself who secured most of these buggers as tyrants in their area in the first place - by supporting them financially, militarily and even (the fools) with bacteriological cultures?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and a less than effective UN which is unpopular in the most powerful country, and a most powerful country which is unpopular in much of the UN.<span id='postcolor'>

Guess what - any organisation with a goal like UN can never be run as a commercial company!

US won't be overly happy about anything that disturbes their conception of the almighty constitution. It makes them "un-free" .

And the reason why the most powerful nation in the world are unpopular in much of the UN should be clear to everyone. Try this: doing what they want no matter what is decided upon, their armtwisting diplomacy, their refusal to pay their debts etc.

[FSPilot 0]

Good post, IsthatyouJohnWayne. Yours always seem to be very well thought out.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">really fspilot, im not even trying to change your mind, just trying to mirror your logic....<span id='postcolor'>

This goes back to your point that all sources are, to some degree, biased. I think yours are and you think mine are.

Screw it, lets go to war and find out whos REALLY biased.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So mr FS supersmart tell me one thing I told you that wasnt true besides the joke with the B52´s. You call me biased ? If YOU say so... it doesn´t mean much to me. Biased is your second name when it comes to US foreign policy.

This is the second time you accuse me of lying. Where have I ? Better tell me fast FS. Or is it just another personal insult you tend to start when you run out of highschool knowledge ?

Disgusting...<span id='postcolor'>

Wait, you think me saying you're biased is calling you a liar, and you take that as a personal insult. Then you sarcastically call me "supersmart", say "biased is my second name", that I only have a high school knowledge, and that I'm disgusting. If you think THOSE aren't personal insults compared to calling you biased, you've been sitting at the computer for too long.

Also, if you think calling someone biased is the same as calling you a liar you'd better get on Pete's case too.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">as i said, ALL sources are biased, this cannot be avoided as long as we belong to the human race and live with different opinions about many things, abortion, weapon laws, wars, politics...at some point you will take a stand for something and this makes you biased, some are more biased than others, but we all are biased.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, that required so much training. Going into an aircraft with large box cutters saying "This is a hijacking!".

The real training was the flight training. They actually knew how to pilot those aircraft. That requires quite some more training and skills then taking control of a few unarmed civilians.<span id='postcolor'>

And you know this how? You ever hijacked a plane before? How do you know it doesn't recquire training to subdue possible ex-military pilots?

[Guest]

3--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Mar. 16 2003,223)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">bn880- "the U.N. inspectors have shown that Iraq does not really posses any WMD's"

Hans Blix would be interested to hear that! How can you claim that inspectors have conclusively proved in a country the size of Iraq within a short time that it has no weapons of mass destruction (when there is some -at least- circumstantial evidence to the contrary)?

France is not claiming that, nor i believe is Sweden or Canada or most of the rest of the 'international community'.(the diplomats in the UN)

Just because the inspectors have not found stocks of bio/chem weapons in the recent inspections does not mean they cant exist. Whether the possibility of their existance

legitimizes war is another issue.<span id='postcolor'>

The current position of the inspectors is that they havn't been able yet to verify the complete destruction of Iraqi WMD. That doesn't  mean that he has 'em. The UN inspectors further think that they indeed can with the current level of cooperation complete their work and really verify that Iraq doesn't have them (or destroy the ones that he has). It's work in progress but a majority of the world thinks it is working.

From that point of view a war is really not necessary.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is not true that Saddams regime(S.R.) has made efforts to fully cooperate. In the S.R.s written report (called for by the UN)there were multiple omissions and discrepancies innaccuracies etc and the inspectors have continued to -discover- relevant information and objects as opposed to having them handed over.

<span id='postcolor'>

Actually so far it has checked out. The inital report was incomplete but the additions that they made have so far checked out and been consistent with what they claimed the first time. Blix himself is very sceptical about a highly organized, administrative country like Iraq not knowing what it did with it weapons but so far is yet to be caught in a lie.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not using force when it is necessary is also by definition a failure.

<span id='postcolor'>

You must admit that using unnecessary force is much worse then using necessary force. If you think that the little lady living next door is a psychotic mass murder, nobody will hold you accountable if you don't kill her and she really turns out to be what you thought. If you on the other hand pre-emptivly kill her and it turns out that you are wrong then you can expect to spend a longer time in jail.

Neither USA nor Britain have provided any form of evidence that would suggest that Iraq is a clear and present immediate danger to the world. As a matter of fact the only immediate danger comes from the situation that can evolve from an attack on Iraq. This is not something to play with and not to be underestimated. Even disregarding the internal problems of Iraq with the Kurds and the Sh'ia there is a grave potential for a world wide disaster. You have many strong important muslim countries that are on the verge of revolution because of their government's cooperation with USA. The war might very well trigger it. How happy and safe will we all be when fundamentalists take over Pakistan. Who will have The Bomb then? Proliferation control my ass.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir said that even though kosovo (actions pertaining to) may have been illegal ,the intentions were good. And there was quite a broad international support.

Things in the Former Yugoslavia have changed (some for the better some for the worse) There is less government suppression of media etc

But many people died. Was it wise to go in? It was not necessary (for defence). It was a war for humanitarian reasons, perhaps it was for the best. Perhaps not. Are there any scales big enough to weigh such a thing?

<span id='postcolor'>

One thing that pisses me off is how Kosovo is written off as a success. I just listened today to an interview with Jack Straw where he was saying how people were against a British intervention in Kosovo but how well that one turned out.

That's just 100% pure bullshit. Operation Allied Force was a total fiasko. What it accomplished was:

1) Killing more Albanians then the Serbs did

2) Helping the Serbs to accelerate its tempo of ethnic cleansing

3) Create a lot, and I mean a lot refugees

4) Kept Milosevic in power for about six months longer then he would have lasted.

5) Killing a lot of Serb civilians and destroying civilan infrastructure.

The damage done to the Yugoslav military was nothing, null, nada. Milosevic could stay in power a while longer because the national unity around him that the war created. Without Milosevic the cleansings would have not continued since the opposition wanted to get international funds.

Kosovo was a big fucking failure. As I said the only thing that prevents me from lashing out on it is the fact that it was done in wide agreement and with good intent. One thing that is very scary is how far the military is prepared to go to achieve a victory. I realized that when I saw Belgrade for the first time. It's a modern western European city, no different from Stockholm, Berlin or London. If NATO was willing to bomb Belgrade it could easily bomb Stockholm or London if a crisis emerged. With Iraq it's somewhat easier to dismiss since it is "different" - we don't identify ourselves with the situation as well.

Bombing Belgrade was as just/barbaric as the attacks on the WTC. If you think a bit about it you'll see that a bombing of Baghdad is the same. The difference is intent, but the dead don't give a fuck if you targeted them or if they were "regrettable but acceptable collateral damage".

War is attacking the WTC, war is bombing Belgrade, war is bombing Iraq. How can you who condemned the attacks of September 11th support another mass slaughter of civilians. Do you really think that it is any different. That your cause is just? Well, I got news for you, the attacks on the WTC were also just in the eyes of AQ. All of it is wrapped in layer after layer of bullshit. In the end what matters is the people that get killed and I refuse to think that the value of life of a New York citizen is more worth then the life of a Baghdad citizen.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SirLoins @ Mar. 16 2003,22:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Here it is.  Get off your spineless peaceloving asses and STOP the US and it's allies from invading Iraq.

Have YOUR military occupy Baghdad.  Send YOUR troops to defend Iraq from the US.  

Get your precious UN, or better yet France, to lead the way and stop the US from it's plan of attack.

Instead of waving your banners of hatred toward Bush and America at your useless peace rallies, gather your troops and actually do something without the US for once in your life.<span id='postcolor'>

Hmm, yes why don't we just start a nuclear first strike (pre-emptive of course) and level the US to the ground. With the current preoccupation of the military and the fact that NORAD is basically no more, you'll never know what hit you. Yes, that must be the way to do it. Good luck digging up your parents and children from the rubble.  

Don't have the guts? Ha! We bombed Afganistan and Kosovo with you. We started two world wars. We have been killing each other millenia before you existed. We have murdered millions in cold blood for a variety of "just" causes. It's not a question of what atrocities we are capable of, it's a question of how sensible we are not wanting to commit them again.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">. You have many strong important muslim countries that are on the verge of revolution because of their government's cooperation with USA. The war might very well trigger it. How happy and safe will we all be when fundamentalists take over Pakistan. Who will have The Bomb then? Proliferation control my ass.

<span id='postcolor'>

This is perhaps what I fear most about the future! In the spirit of Pukko (no offense) I would like to point out that I've claimed this could happen pages ago in this thread. And it's similar to my argument from my former post.

No one knows for sure what the future will bring - but the current situation and the actions taken by "the coalition of the willing" is perhaps the most serious threat the world has ever seen. Yet very few reflect upon it! How shortsighted is that?

[SirLoins 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmm, yes why don't we just start a nuclear first strike (pre-emptive of course) and level the US to the ground. With the current preoccupation of the military and the fact that NORAD is basically no more, you'll never know what hit you. Yes, that must be the way to do it. Good luck digging up your parents and children from the rubble.

Don't have the guts? Ha! We bombed Afganistan and Kosovo with you. We started two world wars. We have been killing each other millenia before you existed. We have murdered millions in cold blood for a variety of "just" causes. It's not a question of what atrocities we are capable of, it's a question of how sensible we are not wanting to commit them again.

<span id='postcolor'>

You all missed my point completly. Do you really think the US would attack Iraq if the countries opposing war moved in ahead of us?

That's my point, that you all will sit on your ass and bitch and moan, but you won't do a damn thing about it.

Oh, and as far as our economy, bring it on. I can do without European crap a lot better than you can do with American crap.

Why not start with your windows operating system.

[foxer 0]

There really no reason to post about this crap anyways,never going change anyone opinion.But if you are pro war your wrong ,if your pro peace your also wrong.People for pro war could be wrong about iraq and hurt and kill lots of civilians and soldiers.But on the other hand saddam will probably be gone.People for pro peace is wrong,because they don't know what will iraq do in the future,but they think they know.They  also think this war will create more terrorist,i doubt it.If you want to be a terrorist you will be one.If you don't wanna kill people you won't be.Samething as murderers ,you wanna kill someone you will,if you don't you won't be come one.

I'm still on the fence,but i rather support the US then Iraq.So, Go US.

Also i like to add about this boycott america goods.Go ahead,most of it is made in china,korea,some europe countries.Also canada(they don't have to pay for health care insurance),mexico.So you will just be putting your own workers outta the job.But then again,i think america would win a boycott contest.

Also i don't like bush,but i don't think he's going lie everyday.I mean is it that hard to believe him ? Some people believe saddam more then bush.That's truly sad.

I hope you people are rooting for the US/UK/All of the willing soldiers,remember it isn't their fault their there.It's the UN fault(should be world soldiers),the first bush fault.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 17 2003,02:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also i like to add about this boycott america goods.Go ahead,most of it is made in china,korea,some europe countries.Also canada(they don't have to pay for health care insurence),mexico.So you will just be putting your own workers outta the job.But then again,i think america would win a boycott contest. <span id='postcolor'>

Not likely since you export more to us then we export to you. Europe is America's by far biggest market and the export accounts for a significant portion of your GDP. We'll take a hit on not getting some goods but in the longer run it will only strengthen our domestic industry. The products that are imported from the US are most not essential ones (software being an exception). You on the other hand would take a huge economic hit. With the current declining US economy plus the cost for a war there is no way you could afford it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They  also think this war will create more terrorist,i doubt it.If you want to be a terrorist you will be one.If you don't wanna kill people you won't be.Samething as murderers ,you wanna kill someone you will,if you don't you won't be come one.

<span id='postcolor'>

So you think that the people in Northern Irland are genetically more prone to become terrorists and that the political situation has nothing to do with it?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm still on the fence,but i rather support the US then Iraq.So, Go US.

<span id='postcolor'>

Opposing a war is not the same thing as supporting Iraq. An absolute majority agrees on a disarmament of Iraq. There is little evidence however that this has to be done now, by force.

And as for supporting the US troops, that's a split issue. Was supporting a war on Vietnam the same as supporting the countless number of US servicemen that got killed for a lost cause.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">People for pro peace is wrong,because they don't know what will iraq do in the future,but they think they know.

<span id='postcolor'>

The same goes for pro-war people. It's difficult to predict what will happen and potentially some nasty things can happen. So what's the rush? Why not explore the option of letting the inspectors do their work. You can always go to war later.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I hope you people are rooting for the US/UK/All of the willing soldiers,remember it isn't their fault their there.It's the UN fault(should be world soldiers),the first bush fault.<span id='postcolor'>

I never blame the soldiers. I don't blame the Iraqi ones and I don't blame the US ones. They are just following the policy of their country.

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 17 2003,02:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There really no reason to post about this crap anyways,never going change anyone opinion.But if you are pro war your wrong ,if your pro peace your also wrong.People for pro war could be wrong about iraq and hurt and kill lots of civilians and soldiers.But on the other hand saddam will probably be gone.People for pro peace is wrong,because they don't know what will iraq do in the future,but they think they know.They  also think this war will create more terrorist,i doubt it.If you want to be a terrorist you will be one.If you don't wanna kill people you won't be.Samething as murderers ,you wanna kill someone you will,if you don't you won't be come one.

I'm still on the fence,but i rather support the US then Iraq.So, Go US.

Also i like to add about this boycott america goods.Go ahead,most of it is made in china,korea,some europe countries.Also canada(they don't have to pay for health care insurance),mexico.So you will just be putting your own workers outta the job.But then again,i think america would win a boycott contest.

Also i don't like bush,but i don't think he's going lie everyday.I mean is it that hard to believe him ? Some people believe saddam more then bush.That's truly sad.

I hope you people are rooting for the US/UK/All of the willing soldiers,remember it isn't their fault their there.It's the UN fault(should be world soldiers),the first bush fault.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But if you are pro war your wrong ,if your pro peace your also wrong.People for pro war could be wrong about iraq and hurt and kill lots of civilians and soldiers.But on the other hand saddam will probably be gone.People for pro peace is wrong,because they don't know what will iraq do in the future,but they think they know.<span id='postcolor'>

Better to err on the side of caution. No, we don't know what Iraq will do in the future, but we do know that attacking Iraq now will kill civilians.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They also think this war will create more terrorist,i doubt it.If you want to be a terrorist you will be one.If you don't wanna kill people you won't be.Samething as murderers ,you wanna kill someone you will,if you don't you won't be come one.<span id='postcolor'>

You don't sound like you know much about the roots of terrorism. Most terrorists arent mentally ill, like serial killers. Remember, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I doubt the guys who flew the planes into the WTC were thinking "cool, I get to kill a bunch of people". They were pumped up on religious dogma, and believing they were striking out against an oppresive enemy country. Doesn't make it right, but you can bet your ass a US attack on Iraq will create more terrorists than it destroys.

[foxer 0]

Saddam Threatens Global War if Iraq Attacked

I guess that mean he does have terrorist connection ?

I don't know what to say.I agree the war should wait a year for atleast next winter.But it's not,soo i rather root for the us soldiers.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 17 2003,10:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saddam Threatens Global War if Iraq Attacked

I guess that mean he does have terrorist connection ?

I don't know what to say.I agree the war should wait a year for atleast next winter.But it's not,soo i rather root for the us soldiers.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't think that Suddam Hussein saying "When the enemy starts a large-scale battle, he must realize that the battle between us will be open wherever there is sky, land and water in the entire world" is the same as saying 'when you invade us we are going to call up our buddies in Al Queda and get them to blow stuff up all over the world'.

I don't think that Husseins quote should be taken literally. I think the point he was really trying to make (if he indeed did make this speech) is that Iraq is ready to fight a big war.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wait, you think me saying you're biased is calling you a liar, and you take that as a personal insult. Then you sarcastically call me "supersmart", say "biased is my second name", that I only have a high school knowledge, and that I'm disgusting. If you think THOSE aren't personal insults compared to calling you biased, you've been sitting at the computer for too long.

Also, if you think calling someone biased is the same as calling you a liar you'd better get on Pete's case too.

<span id='postcolor'>

Whatever FS...

You know I´ll do it the same way as you do now. I´ll stick my fingers in my ears and run around screaming "lalala" only not to hear what the others do tell. You said my sources or me in special is biased, but didn´t come up with any proof to show that. But you were proven multiple times wrong with your TBA printed proves. You know I´m tired of you. I can spend my time better than argueing with an immarture juvenile that dreams of bombing people.

Have a nice life.

[Schoeler 0]

To answer that question about the airplane boneyard, it is quite impressive. There are intact aircraft from every era dating back to pre-World War II up until today's planes kept there. We just got some B1B's in the other day. If you ever visit Tucson, take the tour. They drive you around on a little cart and you can get off and check out any plane you want.

The reason they keep the aircraft there is in case of another world war. America will have a variety of ready to go aircraft in case the shit hits the fan. Also, they use them for spare parts and refurbish some and sell them off to foreign nations. The newer planes are all tarped up and sealed airtight with plastic to protect the engines and electronics. An interesting sidenote: A local pilot recently bought an F-4 Phantom from the boneyard. He had to get Congress' permission because it is illegal to sell a Mach 2 capable plane in the U.S. Hes currently upgrading the engines and electronics. Gonna be an expensive plane to fly though.

Also interesting is that a lot of the A-10's and F-16's that were stored in the yard have disappeared in the last month, which leads me to believe the U.S. is getting them ready in case of a conflict with the North Koreans. Lets hope not.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 17 2003,02:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saddam Threatens Global War if Iraq Attacked

I guess that mean he does have terrorist connection ?

I don't know what to say.I agree the war should wait a year for atleast next winter.But it's not,soo i rather root for the us soldiers.<span id='postcolor'>

This doesn't prove anything - not even the least!

I'm also sceptical to placing these two news in the same context - it sort of links Bush's words as a response to what Saddam told the world (and it's not correct by the way) .

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BAGHDAD, Iraq — Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein warned Sunday that if Iraq is attacked, it will take the war anywhere in the world "wherever there is sky, land or water." President Bush gave the United Nations one more day to find a diplomatic solution to the standoff.

<span id='postcolor'>

I'm also very sceptical to Fox-news in general, and when I enter this article a popup appears with an advertisement for driver insurance doesn't make it better  

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 17 2003,01:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Don't have the guts? Ha! We bombed Afganistan and Kosovo with you. We started two world wars. We have been killing each other millenia before you existed. We have murdered millions in cold blood for a variety of "just" causes. It's not a question of what atrocities we are capable of, it's a question of how sensible we are not wanting to commit them again.<span id='postcolor'>

yup, that 's the same Europe that claims to be the bigger brother. i can do this but you can't do that. do as i say, not as i do

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (sirloins @ above)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You all missed my point completly. Do you really think the US would attack Iraq if the countries opposing war moved in ahead of us?

That's my point, that you all will sit on your ass and bitch and moan, but you won't do a damn thing about it.<span id='postcolor'>

so rest of the world should join US? let me get this straight. If rest of the world blindly follow current administration's directives, then US will goto war anyways. one of the 6 propositions was that Hussein openly admit that he has WMD. we are not able to postitively verify that he has one, and who the hell are we to tell him to say one thing that we can't even prove? It's like me saying to you to admit that your intellectual level is comparable to that of a 7 yr old. You are not a 7 year old, but you have to say it just because I have to otherwise i'll serve you chicken tenders instead of sirloin USDA select beef for your dinner!

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

Oh, and as far as our economy, bring it on. I can do without European crap a lot better than you can do with American crap.

Why not start with your windows operating system. <span id='postcolor'>

cause if they don't use US products, we suffer. if they don't use MS OS, then MS's profit plummets and that means US economy will be affected.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 17 2003,02:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There really no reason to post about this crap anyways,never going change anyone opinion.But if you are pro war your wrong ,if your pro peace your also wrong.People for pro war could be wrong about iraq and hurt and kill lots of civilians and soldiers.But on the other hand saddam will probably be gone.People for pro peace is wrong,because they don't know what will iraq do in the future,but they think they know.They  also think this war will create more terrorist,i doubt it.If you want to be a terrorist you will be one.If you don't wanna kill people you won't be.Samething as murderers ,you wanna kill someone you will,if you don't you won't be come one.<span id='postcolor'>

yes, each side has their own idiots.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also i like to add about this boycott america goods.Go ahead,most of it is made in china,korea,some europe countries.Also canada(they don't have to pay for health care insurance),mexico.So you will just be putting your own workers outta the job.But then again,i think america would win a boycott contest.

<span id='postcolor'>

and if they boycott us too, then we are in for some serious trouble. considering anti-Us sentiments around the world, it's gonna hurt us if they all get pissed at us.