The Iraq Thread

[haunted 0]

I was against war as well, but you have to look at the facts. US and UK are both clear terrorist targets for eastern groups, Iraq funds and houses these terrorists, therefore we have to get him out.

No matter what anyone feels about the war however, I would certainly hope, especially us UK people, that we support our troops all the way, I know a couple of guys over there and I will be supporting them, but will any of you lot??

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

the last thing I would do is hope for a military desaster with many dead soldiers (or civillians)..but hell yes I hope Bush himself gets the bill for that one day...

[Balschoiw 0]

unconfirmed news:

Tarik Azis, vice premier of iraq possibly shot. Latest reports indicate he was shot at while trying to flee a governmental bunker. It is not confimed yet. Also it is unknown if he was injured or killed.

I personally liked Mr Azis. He is / was a smart fox when it came to intelligent political discussions.

[CosmicCastaway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (haunted @ Mar. 19 2003,15:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I was against war as well, but you have to look at the facts. US and UK are both clear terrorist targets for eastern groups, Iraq funds and houses these terrorists, therefore we have to get him out.<span id='postcolor'>

If we wern't before we certainly will be now. As for funding and housing terrorists, read back a few pages in this thread for discussions about the legitimacy of those claims.

Not supporting the cause or the instigator is not the same as not wishing the troops well.

[Guest]

6--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 19 2003,166)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">unconfirmed news:

Tarik Azis, vice premier of iraq possibly shot. Latest reports indicate he was shot at while trying to flee a governmental bunker. It is not confimed yet. Also it is unknown if he was injured or killed.

I personally liked Mr Azis. He is / was a smart fox when it came to intelligent political discussions.<span id='postcolor'>

I just talked to some of my former colleagues at HQ, asking about Aziz, since I havn't been able to find any reference to it in the media.

They said that Bulgarian sources claim that Aziz has defected and run off to the northern part of Iraq. As for now it's unconfirmed and no other sources have been found to back it up.

No mention of him being shot though.  

Edit: Correction. I've found something now on the NPP/JCL (unclassified). They say that the Kurdish rebel leader Ismail Thaer said on Kuwaiti radio that Aziz defected to them and that he was shot at during his escape. No confirmation of that.

[Balschoiw 0]

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

<span id='postcolor'>

That´s what will be an often heard expression in the next days / weeks / months

At least I am happy that out intel is faster than yours

Cheers to the BND !

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 19 2003,17:14)</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">unconfirmed news:

<span id='postcolor'>

That´s what will be an often heard expression in the next days / weeks / months  

At least I am happy that out intel is faster than yours  

Cheers to the BND !<span id='postcolor'>

Bah. You only got the intel faster because I called after your post. MUST all the way

Anyway, some news is that Turkey has decided not to let US ground forces use its bases to attack Iraq. If they are going to let thair air space be used remains to be seen. The parliament is going to vote on it probably tomorrow.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Mar. 19 2003,08:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So, based on the incubator scam the bottom line seems to be this:  If Saddam Hussein's enemies plant evidence of WMDs for the US military to find then the US government could be expected to propagate such a deception, even if they know the evidence to be bogus.  However, we'd all have to be "fucking nuts" to believe that the US military would directly plant such evidence themselves, right?  Umm... sure thing, Sarge.<span id='postcolor'>

I tried to follow this paragraph all the way through, but I just don't have enough mental RAM, I guess.  It's safe to say that since I don't have a frickin' clue what the paragraph says, it doesn't reflect my viewpoint.

Let me try again.

The incubator story was brought up in a discussion about (1) whether the U.S. government would plant WMD's in Iraq and (2) whether such an act could be concealed.  My response indicated that the incubator story was not convincing evidence, because (1) we didn't create the incubator story, and (2) the truth eventually got out.

As you have conceded, these are facts.

At no time did I defend the incubator story, and in fact pointed out that I don't think it was necessary to use it to justify our actions.

If you believe that we'll plant WMD's in Iraq, go ahead -- you're entitled to your own opinion.  However, you are not entitled to your own facts.

Semper Fi

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I find it funny that you keep harping on about the 'proof' of the UN Inspectors in 1998, when one of the most knowlegable and informed men in that group of inspectors is totally and completely against the war, and believes that Iraq has destroyed most of their WMD.

And he's an American.

Look it up... his name is Scott Ritter.<span id='postcolor'>

Who cares if he's against the war?  He hasn't found any evidence that Iraq has disarmed.  That's all I need.  If the world wanted his personal opinion he'd be on a UN personal opinion team.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes we already see that freedom of press. The journalists who are already with the US forces are not allowed to film what they want. They are not allowed to talk with anyone they would like. They are not allowed to film what they would like. There are suggestions made by US authorities and these have to be followed. If the journalists don´t do, they will be not allowed to move along with US any more.

There are several independant journalists in Iraq that panicaly try to get their hands on old cameras wich work with usual film material, cause they are afraid that an EMP strike will disable their cams first, wich would make them useless.

The media precise war during GW1 was a betrayal and the GW2 media will be also abused. I cant see freedom of journalism here.<span id='postcolor'>

Yet if you were in the field with a reporter who was constantly breaching security by constantly reporting your position and intentions on the news you'd be complaining.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The most interesting trend however that I've seen is people who say "I was against the war, but now I am going to suspend my disbelief and support my president". There were plenty of people who basically said that those opposing a war should shut up now if they have nothing good to say about the war and that opposing a war in public was basically treason.<span id='postcolor'>

Try to think back to Vietnam, or reading about it at least (I don't know how old you are).  The soldiers had absolutely no public support which was completely horrible for morale.  I don't think it's illegal, but it sure is nice that our soldiers overseas won't have to face swarms of isolated hippies screaming "baby killer".

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

In other words "Hey, guess what bobby just said about linda!"

edit - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81446,00.html

Looks similar to the first Gulf War, but those repuiblican guards will probably go to Bagdad or some other city.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 19 2003,17:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Try to think back to Vietnam, or reading about it at least (I don't know how old you are).  The soldiers had absolutely no public support which was completely horrible for morale.  I don't think it's illegal, but it sure is nice that our soldiers overseas won't have to face swarms of isolated hippies screaming "baby killer".<span id='postcolor'>

If the soldiers are doing something wrong (as they were in Vietnam) then they have to take the blame for it, even if it was not their choice to do it. To quote Bush:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen care fully to this warning: In any conflict, your fate will depend on your actions. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be punished and it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders." <span id='postcolor'>

Soldiers that are "just doing their job" in executing an unjust war are indirectly responsible. That might seem unfair, but that's the way the game is played. That logic was applied to Nazi soldiers in WW2 and should be applied to US soldiers as well. Or would you say that the German people that opposed the Nazis were wrong, that they should have "supported their troops"? Loyalty for your country is no excuse in accepting the wrongs it does. If you are pro-war, be pro-war and face the consequences. If you are anti-war then be anti-war and face the consequences. If you are opposed to a war but choose to follow the path of least resistance in order to support a united front, then you are no better then the war-mongers - you're worse. At least they stand for what they believe in.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Mar. 19 2003,17:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The incubator story was brought up in a discussion about (1) whether the U.S. government would plant WMD's in Iraq and (2) whether such an act could be concealed.  My response indicated that the incubator story was not convincing evidence, because (1) we didn't create the incubator story, and (2) the truth eventually got out.<span id='postcolor'>

1) While it perhaps didn't create it, it used it fully, referenced to it and transmitted it.

2) This is one example. How do you know that there are not thousands of other deceptions that didn't come out.

Right now the US track record on telling the truth is not very good. We have the forged evidence of Iraq trying to get nuclear material and the plagiarized grad student report as prime examples. If that isn't enough just see what the UN inspectors have said about the intelligence they have been recieving from the US.

It leaves only two options. US intelligence is either

1) Grossly incompetent

2) Grossly incompetent and malicious

Grossly incompetent because either they didn't recognize the apparent forgeries or they did a piss-poor job making them. The British report would suggest the second one. Are they malicious? Since all the false evidence has been clearly against Iraq, I would have to say yes on that one.

So is there any reason why we should trust US sources if they say that they have found WMDs? I cannot see how without independent verification of those findings. The current track record of USA telling the truth is not very good. The US and UK governements has shown that it is both willing and able to both forge evidence and to support forged evidence to further their cause.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 19 2003,22:40)</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">If the soldiers are doing something wrong (as they were in Vietnam) then they have to take the blame for it, even if it was not their choice to do it. To quote Bush:<span id='postcolor'>

Yes but many times in Vietnam they would just pick someone in uniform and spit at them. Could of been a clerk for all they know.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Soldiers that are "just doing their job" in executing an unjust war are indirectly responsible. That might seem unfair, but that's the way the game is played.<span id='postcolor'>

But this war is only unjust depending on which propoganda you listen to.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Or would you say that the German people that opposed the Nazis were wrong, that they should have "supported their troops"? Loyalty for your country is no excuse in accepting the wrongs it does.<span id='postcolor'>

The German soldiers - yes. The nazis - no. If you were just a German private (shuetze?) you probablyp didn't have much to do with war crimes. So there's no reason for the German public not to support you. But if they were supporting Nazi death camps and that whole deal, then there's a problem. Same situation here.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> If you are pro-war, be pro-war and face the consequences. If you are anti-war then be anti-war and face the consequences. If you are opposed to a war but choose to follow the path of least resistance in order to support a united front, then you are no better then the war-mongers - you're worse. At least they stand for what they believe in.<span id='postcolor'>

This isn't really about standing up for what you believe in. Just making the troops who don't have much of a say in the matter feel better. Raise the moral so maybe more of them will come home. Look at it this way: I don't care about sports, I think they're a waste of time and we shouldn't be doing it. But I'm still going to root for my team.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yet if you were in the field with a reporter who was constantly breaching security by constantly reporting your position and intentions on the news you'd be complaining.<span id='postcolor'>

That´s not what i am talking about. I talk about strict censorship and "suggested" things to film.

[FSPilot 0]

Which are?

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Mar. 19 2003,11:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I tried to follow this paragraph all the way through, but I just don't have enough mental RAM, I guess.  It's safe to say that since I don't have a frickin' clue what the paragraph says, it doesn't reflect my viewpoint.

Let me try again.<span id='postcolor'>

No... Let me try again...

Schoeler felt that the US would never manufacture WMD evidence and propagate such a deception.  And anyone who believes the US could do such a thing is "fucking nuts."

Longinius argued against this, using the GW1 incubator scam as an example.

You defended Schoeler by pointing out that the incubator scam was not manufactured by the US.

I've been arguing that if the US could propagate such a deception (as they did with the incubator scam) then it's very likely the US could also manufacture such a deception.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 19 2003,17:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The German soldiers - yes.  The nazis - no.  If you were just a German private (shuetze?) you probably didn't have much to do with war crimes.  So there's no reason for the German public not to support you.  But if they were supporting Nazi death camps and that whole deal, then there's a problem.  Same situation here.<span id='postcolor'>

Fair enough, but you have to realize that the verdicts come after the fact. You don't know who is going to be the good guy or the bad guy so it's difficult to take an absolute position from the beginning. You are suggesting that you give your government a carte blanche supporting them in anything. In the WW2 analogy it would include giving the support for the SS and the keepers of deathcamps because your government supports that. I think on the other hand that you should stick to your own moral codes and act accordingly. Your troops might be individually subjected to unfair accusation, but that's a part of the profession and in the end it's the government that's to blame.

[ran 0]

just thought it was funny .....

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 19 2003,23:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You are suggesting that you give your government a carte blanche supporting them in anything.<span id='postcolor'>

Not in anything, just in war time. And not even really supporting the government, just the soldiers.

[Schoeler 0]

If you think the U.S. Army is capable of keeping thousands of its soldiers from talking about what they see (such as the U.S. planting WMD) then you ARE fucking nuts. We have the first Amendment here in the U.S., and our army isn't some totalitarian hitleresque body capable of silencing its troops. I think you have some serious misconceptions about the nature of American society and government, which is interesting because its a well known fact of psychology that we judge outsiders from our own frame of reference, which means that your governments too, would be capable of such a deception.

Do you really believe that someone in the military wouldn't sell his story to all the talkshows, have a book written for him and act as a consultant on the made for TV movie about the U.S. faking evidence of WMD in Iraq?

Do you really believe that the U.S. is some sort of totalitarian government capable of silencing ALL of its citizens?

Do you really believe that the U.S. is going to go about buying up 122mm rocket warheads and fill them with VX or mustard and then ask its troops to tote them along with them in case we need to plant fake evidence?

If you do, you don't understand us, our society, our government or how we operate at all, and I find that sad. You are spouting off an irrational and inaccurate point of view worthy only of ridicule, and you will find out how wrong you were. Why do you think France has offered to go in if the U.S. is attacked with chemical weapons? Do you suppose its because their intelligence services might have caught a whiff of the reports that Saddam issued VX and mustard to his Republican Guard units at AL Kut for use against the U.S.? He's going to attack us with chemical weapons, and when it happens those of you making this silly argument are going to feel like jackasses even if you don't have the balls to admit it.

[Schoeler 0]

Or you could take your lunacy one step further and accuse the U.S. of using chemical weapons against its own troops simply for the sake of justifying the war.  If you believe what you've already said, then it seems you're gullible enough to believe anything no matter how irrational or paranoid the theory.

If thats the case, then you should build a bomb shelter, buy a rifle and stock up on supplies because the evil U.S. imperialist army will soon be at your doorstep.  Or maybe we'll just send a CIA hit team to silence you.  Or better yet, beam mind control rays over to just get you thinking the way we want you to.  Better put on your tinfoil hat and go out to the public square to shout out about the impending dangers.  I'd bet you would get locked up for being insane even in your own countries.

By the way, since you seem capable of believing anything, I have this bridge in Brooklyn that Im trying to sell.  I could let you have it for a bargain.

[Longinius 1]

"If you think the U.S. Army is capable of keeping thousands of its soldiers from talking about what they see (such as the U.S. planting WMD) then you ARE fucking nuts."

Thousands of soldiers wouldnt plant the evidence. It would of course be a small group, special forces or CIA.

"We have the first Amendment here in the U.S., and our army isn't some totalitarian hitleresque body capable of silencing its troops."

Yes, it is actually. Soldiers are not always free to speak about everything they see and learn. In fact, most of the time, it is a punishable offense to speak about such things.

"I think you have some serious misconceptions about the nature of American society and government, which is interesting because its a well known fact of psychology that we judge outsiders from our own frame of reference, which means that your governments too, would be capable of such a deception."

Yes, every government is capable of doing it. The US is the only one that would need to do it in this scenario though.

"Do you really believe that someone in the military wouldn't sell his story to all the talkshows, have a book written for him and act as a consultant on the made for TV movie about the U.S. faking evidence of WMD in Iraq?"

Yes, he would. And he would be descredited or thrown in jail for it, depending on how it was handled. One lone man against the US military? He wouldnt have a prayer.

"Do you really believe that the U.S. is some sort of totalitarian government capable of silencing ALL of its citizens?"

All of the citizens wouldnt know. Only a small group of extremely dedicated and loyal people would even have a clue about it.

"Do you really believe that the U.S. is going to go about buying up 122mm rocket warheads and fill them with VX or mustard and then ask its troops to tote them along with them in case we need to plant fake evidence?"

No, thats not needed. They can plant all kinds of evidence and it doesnt have to be actual weapons.

"He's going to attack us with chemical weapons, and when it happens those of you making this silly argument are going to feel like jackasses even if you don't have the balls to admit it."

Of course he will use any and all WMD's at his disposal. Just like the US would if the situation was reversed. I am sure he has biological and chemical weapons hidden someplace. What I am not sure of is how much or if it can still be of any use. I also find it very unlikely that he would ever use it, except as a last resort during an invasion.

[R. Gerschwarzenge 0]

I just saw the news: 15 Iraqi soldiers have surrendered to US troops.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, it is actually. Soldiers are not always free to speak about everything they see and learn. In fact, most of the time, it is a punishable offense to speak about such things.

<span id='postcolor'>

I've served in our military for 6 years, and E6Hotel is currently serving.  Both of us have argued that you are wrong about this.  Who's in a better position to make that argument, us or you?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Do you really believe that someone in the military wouldn't sell his story to all the talkshows, have a book written for him and act as a consultant on the made for TV movie about the U.S. faking evidence of WMD in Iraq?"

Yes, he would. And he would be descredited or thrown in jail for it, depending on how it was handled. One lone man against the US military? He wouldnt have a prayer.

<span id='postcolor'>

Give me a break.  All the miltary could do is discharge him dishonorably.  He can't be locked up, remeber I mentioned the 1st Amendment?  Besides, the money he would get for blowing the whistle would more than make up for the discharge.  Besides, it wouldn't just be one lone man.  Knowing Americans and our sense of justice and morality, a lot of people would blow the whistle.  We live in a free society with free speech.  We pride ourselves on doing the right thing, and as evidenced by all the demonstrations against the war, on speaking out when our government gets caught doing the wrong thing.  As I said earlier, I think you have some serious misconceptions about Americans and that is truly sad.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I also find it very unlikely that he would ever use it, except as a last resort during an invasion.<span id='postcolor'>

I find it interesting that you are willing to give Saddam more credit than you are the U.S.  It speaks volumes about your mindset and attitude and shows me that no rational argument that I make is going to convince you of anything.  Since I can't argue effectively with a person who from my perspective seems completely irrational and capable of extending his beliefs to the most far-fetched flights of fantasy, I''l simply resort to ridicule of any such statement from now on.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Mar. 19 2003,1806)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Schoeler felt that the US would never manufacture WMD evidence and propagate such a deception.  And anyone who believes the US could do such a thing is "fucking nuts."

Longinius argued against this, using the GW1 incubator scam as an example.

You defended Schoeler by pointing out that the incubator scam was not manufactured by the US.

I've been arguing that if the US could propagate such a deception (as they did with the incubator scam) then it's very likely the US could also manufacture such a deception.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm sure you'll agree that the last thing Schoeler needs is me defending him.

The point I'm arguing is that the incubator story is stronger evidence that the U.S. would not invent a story and would not be able to keep it under wraps in the event said story was invented.

Has the U.S. ever used propaganda?  Who hasn't?  This particular example, however, does not support the case being presented.  At least make sure the reasons for distrusting us are accurate.

Semper Fi

[Longinius 1]

"I've served in our military for 6 years, and E6Hotel is currently serving.  Both of us have argued that you are wrong about this.  Who's in a better position to make that argument, us or you?"

So you say that units involved in covert and secret operations are allowed to discuss the nature of their missions? Wow, when I worked for the Swedish airforce I had to sign an NDA, stating that I was not allowed to discuss certain matters. I am honestly surprised that American soldiers can talk about anything and everything.

"Give me a break.  All the miltary could do is discharge him dishonorably.  He can't be locked up, remeber I mentioned the 1st Amendment?  Besides, the money he would get for blowing the whistle would more than make up for the discharge.  Besides, it wouldn't just be one lone man.  Knowing Americans and our sense of justice and morality, a lot of people would blow the whistle.  We live in a free society with free speech."

Yeah, I see how well you rallied behind the crew of the USS Liberty for example. They got a whole lot of support and werent at all shunned by the military and government.

Besides, does the first amendment really apply if you reveal information that is classified as secret by the military or government? If so, you guys cant have many secrets I reckon. Furthermore, you cant really convict anyone for espionage. Its freedom of speech after all...

"I find it interesting that you are willing to give Saddam more credit than you are the U.S.  It speaks volumes about your mindset and attitude and shows me that no rational argument that I make is going to convince you of anything."

In what way am I willing to give Saddam more credit? I just doubt he would ever use any kind of WMD against the US and allied forces except for when he has been cornered. If that is giving more credit to Saddam then the US I must be missing something.