The Iraq Thread

[Akira 0]

Effect Of Iraq War

A case by case study by a Jordanian minister and scholar. Very interesting.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SGTKOPP @ Mar. 19 2003,03:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">there is over 600 reporters going to IRAQ with the US units they will not have to have there stories censored  they can publish everything they see this has been mandated be president BUSH<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, reporters escorted by military units. I don't doubt that they'll report what they see, but I doubt that they will be shown the real picture. It's not a conicidence that Bush specifically told foregin independent journalists to evacuate from Baghdad. Somehow I doubt it was all out of concern for their well-being. After all, if the US forces will do their outmost not to kill Iraqi civilans, then there should be no danger to the reporters, should there?

I've heard about the propaganda from Afganistan from other people who have been there. I have however seen the propaganda that was used during the war on Yugoslavia. The picture that was given by NATO had no foundation in any reality. Everything was pure bullshit, ranging from military accomplishments and own casualties to collateral damage and killed civilians. The Serbs managed to cash in on this by very effectivly broadcasting their own propaganda. NATO would show footage from a satellite guided bomb hitting some military objective and the Serbs would show it from the ground showing how they bombed the completely wrong target, hitting some residential area. Most embarassing was the loss of two F117s which NATO vigorously denied until Yugoslav TV showed footage of the wrecks.

As for the casualties, one can look at the figures of downed aircraft. Official NATO figures claimed that at the end of the hostilities 12 aricraft had been lost, 8 of them from technical malfunctions. Inofficial NATO reports said 38 aircraft. Yugoslavia claimed that they downed about 200 aircraft.

So what's the truth? Difficult to tell. I would certainly not trust neither the NATO nor the Yugoslav numbers. The truth is somewhere in between. During 2000-2001 KFOR investigated about 150 crash sites claimed to be downed NATO airaft. Of those 67 could be confirmed. So we know for certain that it isn't 12 and we know that it isn't 200 either.

This comparison is possible since the Yugoslav TV managed to counter CNN broadcasts (and that's why they got bombed). I don't think that the Iraqi will manage to do that. For one thing they don't have the television and internet infrastructure that Yugoslavia has.

A very basic principle of wartime information flow is that you trust neither side.

There is an old saying:

"Truth is the first casualty of War"

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Mar. 19 2003,02:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't really carry about who may have mentioned Kuwait's dozen incubators before 10 October.<span id='postcolor'>

For anyone who does care about the facts, here are a few links showing that what I posted was correct.

Incubator story origin

Semper Fi

[Guest]

It's very funny reading Tex's answer to Bals. post - it's extremely main-stream. From what I've read in the US media since Bush's speech more or less all opposition to the war has silenced and gone over to a more "We stand united and support our troops" -style. Interesting collective reaction.

[Renagade 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SGTKOPP @ Mar. 19 2003,04:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 19 2003,03:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The bad thing is that we won't be getting any reliable info on this war. In Kosovo one could average out US and Yugoslav propaganda to get some form of objective picture.

I don't think however that Iraq is capable of getting out their point of view.<span id='postcolor'>

most IRAQ citizens dont even know whats going on in there own country<span id='postcolor'>

and u do ?

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 19 2003,04:19)</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">- act against UN<span id='postcolor'>

The UN shot itself in the foot entirely on its own. And I'd like to point this out once again: if the UN proves itself inconsequential by refusing to enforce its own resolutions, then it does not matter if the US ignores it from that point on, because an organization that can't assert itself indeed does not matter. The UN has become an international chihuahua- loud, obnoxious, but ultimately insignificant. The Security Council has become a place where members like France use power conferred upon them to protect their fifth-column interests. I won't lie, I've never been a huge fan of the UN, but it has surpassed my wildest expectations over the past few months.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">- didn´t tell us where the fucking prove for this war is

<span id='postcolor'>

I'm sorry, but where in 1441 is the statement that the onus is on America? The entire point is that it was Iraq's responsibility to let us know why there shouldn't be a war. And look how well they did.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">- didn´t tell us how you can outrule the UN<span id='postcolor'>

This one's pretty easy: the UN is not able to enforce itself or its resolutions, ergo the UN doesn't matter.<span id='postcolor'>

Sorry, I must have missed the vote where America was made the police of the world. I know I certainly didnt get a say.

Seriously, what gives America the bloody right to enforce UN resolutions against the UN's will?

Contrary to recent US foreign policy. might doesn't make right.

If America wants to start wars without UN approval, it should stand down as a UN member. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 19 2003,04:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's very funny reading Tex's answer to Bals. post - it's extremely main-stream. From what I've read in the US media since Bush's speech more or less all opposition to the war has silenced and gone over to a more "We stand united and support our troops" -style. Interesting collective reaction.<span id='postcolor'>

I told you at about page 200 what was up Denoir. I can't stand being thought of as simple-minded because of it.

I'd much rather support the troops now, and sort it out later rather than pulling a Jane Fonda.

edit: typo

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 19 2003,04:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 19 2003,04:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's very funny reading Tex's answer to Bals. post - it's extremely main-stream. From what I've read in the US media since Bush's speech more or less all opposition to the war has silenced and gone over to a more "We stand united and support our troops" -style. Interesting collective reaction.<span id='postcolor'>

I told you at about page 200 what was up Denoir. I can't stand being thought of as simple-minded because of it.

I'd much rather support the troops now, and sort it out laterm rather than pulling a Jane Fonda.<span id='postcolor'>

No, not at all, I'm not calling you simple-minded. I'm just observing the public reaction of Americans and your post was a good example.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 19 2003,04:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 19 2003,04:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 19 2003,04:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's very funny reading Tex's answer to Bals. post - it's extremely main-stream. From what I've read in the US media since Bush's speech more or less all opposition to the war has silenced and gone over to a more "We stand united and support our troops" -style. Interesting collective reaction.<span id='postcolor'>

I told you at about page 200 what was up Denoir. I can't stand being thought of as simple-minded because of it.

I'd much rather support the troops now, and sort it out laterm rather than pulling a Jane Fonda.<span id='postcolor'>

No, not at all, I'm not calling you simple-minded. I'm just observing the public reaction of Americans and your post was a good example. <span id='postcolor'>

I think there is a strong difference between supporting the war and supporting the troops.

One can support the troops while at the same time not supporting the war, as I do.

As evidenced in Tex's post, America still has a strong complex about the way Viet Nam vet's were treated on their return to the States. Whether this particular generation, with no connection to the soul-searching of the '80s, and who don't support the war will realize this is another matter.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

The US hasn't had a cogent foreign policy in nearly 15 years, and the policy that preceded that was an absolute disaster. Currently we are making good progress up shit creek sans a paddle with our current actions, as your post and half of this thread proves. But that doesn't change the fact that when an organization like the UN loses its relevancy, suddenly it doesn't matter what the UN says or doesn't say. And currently, the UN charter is the only thing that makes the current US actions illegal, so as soon as the UN ceases to be relevant, so does its rules.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Seriously, what gives America the bloody right to enforce UN resolutions against the UN's will?

Contrary to recent US foreign policy. might doesn't make right.

If America wants to start wars without UN approval, it should stand down as a UN member. You can't have your cake and eat it too.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't disagree, however I don't make foregin policy. Not to mention, just imagine the shitstorm if the US pulled out of the UN lol. Besides, I don't think we get to leave until we pay our back dues

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Mar. 18 2003,22:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For anyone who does care about the facts, here are a few links showing that what I posted was correct.

Incubator story origin<span id='postcolor'>

So what if the story was created by the Kuwaiti housing minister?  Do you honestly believe it was ok for the US to propagate the incubator deception as long as the fable originated elsewhere?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Schoeler:  You guys are fucking nuts.  The U.S. doesn't work that way, and even if it tried, it couldn't get away with it.  Americans would blow the whistle.  That just a bunch of conspiracy theorist irrational paranoid bullshit, and anyone with half an education and a rationally working mind is laughing at you right now.

Longinius:  What about the made up report of Iraqi soldiers killing babies in incubators during GW1?

E6Hotel:  And one final reminder, the U.S. did not originate the incubator story.  It was first told by the exiled Kuwaiti housing minister, and reported by The London Daily Telegraph on September 5, 1990.<span id='postcolor'>

Bush Sr did not quote the Kuwaiti minister.  Bush Sr sold the GW1 idea using the bogus incubator testimony before congress that had been arranged by representatives Lantos and Porter.  In other word, yes Virginia, the US does work that way.

[OxPecker 0]

But has the UN lost it's effectiveness? I guess that is a matter of debate.

Personally, I don't think the UN is a toothless tiger, but then again I agree that it hasn't really enforced 1441 as well as it probably should have.

Still, IMHO, we are better off with the UN than any single country dictating the rules, no matter which country it may be.

Maybe the UN needs a serious overhaul to bring it more in line with the political climate of today.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Please note: please don't address questions to me, as they will not be answered. Thank you.<span id='postcolor'>

I must admit you've lasted longer than anyone else.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">how could u ever get the real figures on something like that though,just like those silly opinion polls usually a load of bullshit <span id='postcolor'>

The 1.5 million is all over the news, and the 2000+ is according to the Iraqis even, so I don't think it's that true.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">- choose the wrong time<span id='postcolor'>

You're right, we should of done it a while ago.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">- the wrong method<span id='postcolor'>

Well, diplomacy doesn't work.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">- act against UN<span id='postcolor'>

Who don't do much in the first place.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">- will worsen the ME a lot<span id='postcolor'>

Or make it better, depends on who you ask.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">- will use 3000 aerial projectiles to save your soldiers from fighting<span id='postcolor'>

Nothing wrong with saving US soldier's lives.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">- will kill a lot of civilians. multiple times more than in GW1<span id='postcolor'>

Again, look at the graph. And the fact that our weapons are much more precise now. Then again, it will be urban fighting, so I think the two factors balance each other out.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">- didnt set up the figures right as you included Iran-Iraq victims that were no problem when US was involved in that war<span id='postcolor'>

Doesn't make them not dead.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">- used US numbers for the CD numbers of iraq´s civillian victims wich are far from being correct.<span id='postcolor'>

No, I used the Iraqi's numbers. I can look them up if you want.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">- didn´t tell us where the fucking prove for this war is

<span id='postcolor'>

1998, yadda yadda, been over it before.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">- didn´t tell us how you can outrule the UN<span id='postcolor'>

Because France wasn't going to let us vote on anything.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">- didn´t tell us that 48 percent of Iraqs population is under the age of 14.<span id='postcolor'>

I also didn't mention that the capital of Iraq is Baghdad. What difference does it make.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">- didn´t tell us anything about the refugees that will come up in huge numbers.<span id='postcolor'>

It's a problem, I know. But it doesn't mean by any margin that we shouldn't go to war.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">- didn´t tell us anything about deaths of civilians as a result of GW I after the war was long over.<span id='postcolor'>

You mean the UN sanctions that would be lifted by this war? Or the lack of medical care and food that this war would ease?

[Guest]

To evolve on the subject of public opinion:

Two thirds of all Americans support Bush's stark ultimatum... CNN Article.

I saw another poll on CNN that indicated that 70% of the US public thought that "Bush and Blair have made a good case for a war on Iraq"

Now the points that Bush made for an attack were the following:

[*] Iraq has not disposed of its WMD capability

[*] Iraq has ties to AQ and would love to give them some WMDs to use against USA

[*] Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who is torturing his people

So what are the arguments and evidence behind it?

WMD

Dispite the vigorous claims including forged evidence there has been no proof of Iraq currently having any larger scale production, deployment or storage of WMD. The UMOVIC inspectors who have the best hands-on knowledge say that there are some more issues to be resolved but that the verification process is working. There has been no evidence whatsoever about an Iraqi nuclear program. Too bad that people have so short memory since this was the initial reason for an war with Iraq. The 'evidence' that Powell presented before the UN has been investigated and dismissed by the UN inspectors.

If it's about WMDs, why are we not looking at NK, Iran or Syria?

I'll quote Robin Cook on the issue:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term—namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target. It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories. Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create? Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors? <span id='postcolor'>

Al Qaeda links

There has been no evidence at all linking Saddam to AQ. None whatsoever. Not one hint. Why are we not looking in the direction of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan?

Saddam's dictatorship

True, Saddam is a dictator with a lot of blood on his hands. Does that explain the urgency of this invasion? The man's been at it for 30 years, 15 of those with US blessing! So what's the sudden rush? Why now?

Supporting an unjust and pointless war is not patriotic. Remember that Bush is not only risking the lives of Iraqi civilians but also of US servicemen. Is your love for Bush stronger then your support for the troops. And don't get confused by the "support for the troops" part. That support means that you acknowledge what they are doing for their country but it doesn't mean that you support a regime who wants to send them as cannon fodder in an unnecessary and unjust war.

[FSPilot 0]

Denoir, I think it's obvious now that we're simply exposed to biased propoganda, and were biased in the first place. Whether you believe it or not, we have good evidence of links to Al Queda, have good proof that Iraq has WMDs, have good proof that Iraq is a threat to the US. You just don't believe what we believe. Like you've already said, truth is the first casualty in war.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 19 2003,05:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saddam's dictatorship

True, Saddam is a dictator with a lot of blood on his hands. Does that explain the urgency of this invasion? The man's been at it for 30 years, 15 of those with US blessing! So what's the sudden rush? Why now?<span id='postcolor'>

Saw an interesting debate where one of the anti-war advocates used this same arguement, bascially saying that since the US didn't do anything before, why are they doing it now? Especially if the US supported him previously.

The pro-war (marginally) advocate called this the "dirty hands" arguement. It essentially states that because the US used to support Iraq, that they have "dirty hands." Since the US has "dirty hands," it assumes that the US can't do right because of it. Basically saying the US, because of past affiliation, is incapable of doing "right" now.

I too think this is untrue.

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

Supporting an unjust and pointless war is not patriotic. Remember that Bush is not only risking the lives of Iraqi civilians but also of US servicemen. Is your love for Bush stronger then your support for the troops. And don't get confused by the "support for the troops" part. That support means that you acknowledge what they are doing for their country but it doesn't mean that you support a regime who wants to send them as cannon fodder in an unnecessary and unjust war.<span id='postcolor'>

Hey! I already said that!

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 19 2003,05:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir, I think it's obvious now that we're simply exposed to biased propoganda, and were biased in the first place.  Whether you believe it or not, we have good evidence of links to Al Queda, have good proof that Iraq has WMDs, have good proof that Iraq is a threat to the US.  You just don't believe what we believe.  Like you've already said, truth is the first casualty in war.<span id='postcolor'>

Where is that evidence? Are you refering to the forged reports of uranium imports from Nigeria? Or are you talking about the 'secret' British intelligence report that turned out to be a plagiarized report of a grad student?

There has been no credible evidence reported by any mainstream media, not CNN, not Reuters, not FoxNew, nobody. Why? Because the Bush administration has not presented any evidence.

The Powell report sent the UN inspectors on a wild goose chase and they tested the validity of the claims and found that they were all untrue. The inspectors are from many different countries, including the US and they neither support nor oppose a war, they only investigate. They are the closest thing you can come to an unbiased source on the matter.

Where is that "good proof"? Where? Please show me because I have certainly not seen it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ ,,,,)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saw an interesting debate where one of the anti-war advocates used this same arguement, bascially saying that since the US didn't do anything before, why are they doing it now? Especially if the US supported him previously.

The pro-war (marginally) advocate called this the "dirty hands" arguement. It essentially states that because the US used to support Iraq, that they have "dirty hands." Since the US has "dirty hands," it assumes that the US can't do right because of it. Basically saying the US, because of past affiliation, is incapable of doing "right" now.

I too think this is untrue.<span id='postcolor'>

I agree but it still doesn't explain the urgency of doing it now, this month, this week since it has been going on for 30 years.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 19 2003,05:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir, I think it's obvious now that we're simply exposed to biased propoganda, and were biased in the first place.  Whether you believe it or not, we have good evidence of links to Al Queda, have good proof that Iraq has WMDs, have good proof that Iraq is a threat to the US.  You just don't believe what we believe.  Like you've already said, truth is the first casualty in war.<span id='postcolor'>

LOL.  your good evidence convinced the other permanant members of the Security Council to support the US action in Iraq!

Um...wait..it didnt.

And your good evidence gave inspectors what they needed to find WMD in Iraq.

Um...wait..they didnt find anything with the evidence they were given!

And you're right!  The evil dictator has come right out and said that he will use nuclear weapons if the US invades.

Oh.. sheesh.. yet again I am mistaken.  That is North Korea.

It looks like the truth that is battered, bruised, and almost about to die is the truth that GW Bush is peddling.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Mar. 19 2003,0507)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do you honestly believe it was ok for the US to propagate the incubator deception as long as the fable originated elsewhere?<span id='postcolor'>

Nope.  Never claimed it was.  And I sure as hell don't think it was necessary to use it to justify our actions in the Gulf War.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Mar. 19 2003,0507)</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">Schoeler:  You guys are fucking nuts.  The U.S. doesn't work that way, and even if it tried, it couldn't get away with it.  Americans would blow the whistle.  That just a bunch of conspiracy theorist irrational paranoid bullshit, and anyone with half an education and a rationally working mind is laughing at you right now.

Longinius:  What about the made up report of Iraqi soldiers killing babies in incubators during GW1?

E6Hotel:  And one final reminder, the U.S. did not originate the incubator story.  It was first told by the exiled Kuwaiti housing minister, and reported by The London Daily Telegraph on September 5, 1990.<span id='postcolor'>

Bush Sr did not quote the Kuwaiti minister.  Bush Sr sold the GW1 idea using the bogus incubator testimony before congress that had been arranged by representatives Lantos and Porter.  In other word, yes Virginia, the US does work that way.<span id='postcolor'>

1)  Incubator story presented as evidence of U.S. propensity to manufacture evidence.

2)  U.S. didn't create incubator story.  

3)  On December 10, 1990 USA Today reported: "A doctor just out of Kuwait challenges assertions by President Bush and Kuwait exiles that invading Iraqi soldiers had dumped babies out of incubators."  -- further substantiation of Schoeler's claim that someone, somewhere would blow the whistle if the U.S. tried to plant WMD's in Iraq.

Semper Fi

[Renagade 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 19 2003,05:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 19 2003,05:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saddam's dictatorship

True, Saddam is a dictator with a lot of blood on his hands. Does that explain the urgency of this invasion? The man's been at it for 30 years, 15 of those with US blessing! So what's the sudden rush? Why now?<span id='postcolor'>

Saw an interesting debate where one of the anti-war advocates used this same arguement, bascially saying that since the US didn't do anything before, why are they doing it now? Especially if the US supported him previously.<span id='postcolor'>

yeah but it is hypocritical to support him then trun around and go he really evil now lets whack him

another reason could be that they sold sadam something back then and their afriad it will get into some other ppls hands

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The pro-war (marginally) advocate called this the "dirty hands" arguement. It essentially states that because the US used to support Iraq, that they have "dirty hands." Since the US has "dirty hands," it assumes that the US can't do right because of it. Basically saying the US, because of past affiliation, is incapable of doing "right" now.

I too think this is untrue.

<span id='postcolor'>

yeah sadam gets a lot of that "dirty hands" stuff too

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Okay, we obviously aren't getting anywhere. So, for the sake of argument, I just want to ask a question. Suppose, for a second, the war goes fairly well- relatively few civilian casualties, most Iraqi forces surrender without a fight, and we find stocks of WMD. Who here who is now against the war will switch into retroactive support? (we can always flip the question around to if the war goes badly later- if the war hasn't already started)

Here's the reasoning. If only a few civilians are killed (or none- but we can only hope), that will allay the fears of a large group who think that Iraq's people have already been subjected to more than they deserve, and more would just be too much. If Iraq's military dissolves quickly, then that will allay the fears that the war will escalate into a Vietnam-type scenario. And finally, if we find stocks of WMD, it will prove dead-wrong people who have full faith that the inspection regime was working right up until the point that the US pulled the plug. So... where do we stand? Will the war still be considered illegal/immoral/just plain wrong even after a positive outcome?

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Renagade @ Mar. 19 2003,05:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yeah sadam gets a lot of that "dirty hands" stuff too <span id='postcolor'>

EDIT: Nevermind I got your drift...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yeah but it is hypocritical to support him then trun

around and go  he really evil now lets whack him

another reason could be that they sold sadam something back then and their afriad it will get into some other ppls hands<span id='postcolor'>

How is it hypocritical?

So since the US used to support him against what was viewed as a larger regional threat, we can't oppose him at all? That is just ridiculous.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 19 2003,07:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Suppose, for a second, the war goes fairly well- relatively few civilian casualties, most Iraqi forces surrender without a fight, and we find stocks of WMD. Who here who is now against the war will switch into retroactive support?<span id='postcolor'>

Chirac.

Elf needs their oil.

[OxPecker 0]

3--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 19 2003,063)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Okay, we obviously aren't getting anywhere. So, for the sake of argument, I just want to ask a question. Suppose, for a second, the war goes fairly well- relatively few civilian casualties, most Iraqi forces surrender without a fight, and we find stocks of WMD. Who here who is now against the war will switch into retroactive support? (we can always flip the question around to if the war goes badly later- if the war hasn't already started)

Here's the reasoning. If only a few civilians are killed (or none- but we can only hope), that will allay the fears of a large group who think that Iraq's people have already been subjected to more than they deserve, and more would just be too much. If Iraq's military dissolves quickly, then that will allay the fears that the war will escalate into a Vietnam-type scenario. And finally, if we find stocks of WMD, it will prove dead-wrong people who have full faith that the inspection regime was working right up until the point that the US pulled the plug. So... where do we stand? Will the war still be considered illegal/immoral/just plain wrong even after a positive outcome?<span id='postcolor'>

OK, I will give you my personal answers to these questions -

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Okay, we obviously aren't getting anywhere. So, for the sake of argument, I just want to ask a question. Suppose, for a second, the war goes fairly well- relatively few civilian casualties, most Iraqi forces surrender without a fight, and we find stocks of WMD. Who here who is now against the war will switch into retroactive support? <span id='postcolor'>

No, I won't change my mind, even if the outcome is optimal. I certainly hope now that war seems inevitable that it does turn out like this, but even if it does it won't change my mind that the US should toe the line and not initiate war without UN approval. If you find stocks of WMD, and there is no doubt they are legitimate and not "planted", then I would agree that the UN inspection process needs to be thouroughly looked into and updated, and people held accountable as to why they didn't find any evidence.

But the bottom line is the war is and will be illegal, even if they find Saddam sitting on top of a pile of nuclear armed ICBMs. Even if Iraq turns out exactly as the US have claimed and their attack goes according to plan with minimal loss of life, it still isn't right. It just opens the door to use their specious reasoning and questionable evidence to barge into whoever's backyard they feel like.

It's like the urban myth of the guy who shot himself in the head and accidentally cured his brain tumor: the end result is great, but his actions are idiotic.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 19 2003,10:35)</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">Where is that evidence? Are you refering to the forged reports of uranium imports from Nigeria? Or are you talking about the 'secret' British intelligence report that turned out to be a plagiarized report of a grad student?

There has been no credible evidence reported by any mainstream media, not CNN, not Reuters, not FoxNew, nobody. Why? Because the Bush administration has not presented any evidence.

The Powell report sent the UN inspectors on a wild goose chase and they tested the validity of the claims and found that they were all untrue. The inspectors are from many different countries, including the US and they neither support nor oppose a war, they only investigate. They are the closest thing you can come to an unbiased source on the matter.

Where is that "good proof"? Where? Please show me because I have certainly not seen it.<span id='postcolor'>

The UN's proof from 1998.

Aside from that you're still not getting what I was saying. I quoted you, roughly, saying "truth is the first casualty in war". Meaning NONE of us have been exposed to the truth, only the bias newsflashes that whatever our news sources are want us to hear. Every day I'm hearing on the radio of Iraq's links to Al Queda, but every day you're probably hearing all this anti-US stuff. It simply effects how we make our decisions.