The Iraq Thread

[R. Gerschwarzenge 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Mar. 26 2003,09:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What I love the Onion for this:

Point-Counterpoint: The War On Iraq

Read it and then read the Iraq thread. Similarities? <span id='postcolor'>

I was going to post the same thing.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

well seeing as we're all getting in on the act:

http://www.theonion.com/onion3911/pt_the_war_on_iraq.html

just in case anyone missed it the first three times.

-----------------------------------------------------

Well anyway , now that this terrible war has begun, now that thousands of troops and scores of civilians have died with many more wounded in bringing down the psychotic Hussein leadership, now that thousands have risen against their government, now that the worlds only democratic superpower and a major EU country are engaged in combat with a murderous dictatorial middle eastern regime (who all modern europeans will realise arent really that bad anyway), surely all sensible people can see that the best and only course of action now is to withdraw and make peace with that regime, to go back to the UN and apologise to Mr.Saddam, to send letters of apology to those killed and wounded and the thousands who have risen in Basra "sorry we didnt mean it..it wont happen again, honest"

But no- Pete was right

America might just get frustrated and try again in Iran or North Korea or Libya, so withdrawing is not enough. America must be defeated. This illegal war must be punished with a massive death toll that america will never forget, the american people must suffer for their support of the criminal Bush, they must be trampled into the earth and the entire american military must be scarred for ever after never to recover or dare to act on its own. The economy of the ignorant pig americans keeping up their depraved fascist subhuman culture of greed and avarice deserves to be and must be collapsed and destroyed utterly. America must implode-never again must americans walk the earth with pride or act with confidence, they must lower themselves into the dust as the inferior dog race they have become. DEATH TO AMERICA ! DEATH TO AMERICA! DEATH TO AMERICA!

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

having said that ..

Bush is an ass.

[DarkLight 0]

Yesterday night i saw a speech on TV that Bush once did, he said that he thanked all of the 40 countries that support his war. 40 countries? What 40 countries? The UK, America, Britain, Spain... well... that's all i know about...

[Tales_From_Topographic_Oceans 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you want to bring Cuba into this, get your facts straight, because you've got them 90% wrong<span id='postcolor'>

Bite me

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yesterday night i saw a speech on TV that Bush once did, he said that he thanked all of the 40 countries that support his war.  40 countries?  What 40 countries?  The UK, America, Britain, Spain... well... that's all i know about...<span id='postcolor'>

The Aussie's have a warships in the region. The Polish special forces are also there in or near Iraq. Iran just intercepted suicide Iraqi speedboats loaded with high explosives.....etc

[stgn 39]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Mar. 26 2003,13:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yesterday night i saw a speech on TV that Bush once did, he said that he thanked all of the 40 countries that support his war.  40 countries?  What 40 countries?  The UK, America, Britain, Spain... well... that's all i know about...<span id='postcolor'>

Britain and UK is almost the same thing(hope I am not ofending enyone) and how can you forget us Danish which has a sub and a ship helping(we should be sending our world class Special Forces insted) Australia also have troops in the gulf. Spain dosen realy do enything.

STGN

[Wires 0]

Go the Danish

Funny how a number of news site/channels ect have USA / Briton as the major players and list only Australia as having special forces in Iraq. We also have a number of ships and other forces such as navy clearance divers. There are also the Polish special forces in Iraq and I'm sure others we are not aware of

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wires @ Mar. 26 2003,16:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are also the Polish special forces in Iraq and I'm sure others we are not aware of  <span id='postcolor'>

That I was aware of:

Pics of Polish SF in Iraq

[Potatoman 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yesterday night i saw a speech on TV that Bush once did, he said that he thanked all of the 40 countries that support his war. 40 countries? What 40 countries? The UK, America, Britain, Spain... well... that's all i know about...

<span id='postcolor'>

Ireland is counted as one of the countries as we allow US aircraft to refuel at Shannon airport. To the great displeasure of the majority of Ireland's population who are anti-war. Our gutless government claim that we are neutral but are afraid to upset the US.

[WhoCares 0]

I guess, they also count Germany, as they are permitted to use our airspace...

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Bluntly, i do not like this war, i do not like the Bush Administration for pushing my country (or rather the politicians and armed forces) into it, but now that we ARE into it i am supporting my countries troops (as long as i believe they have good intentions- and i do). Its easy for people sitting on the sidelines to laugh at this postion or regard it as stupid or simplistic or pro-war, but then a massive portion of their countries military is not locked in a life or death struggle with that of Iraqs.

I will say this- Never again.

Blair went out on a limb in this war of choice but if he goes for another in support of the neo-conservatives grand schemes then that limb will be rapidly chopped off by the British people and Labour party.

Im pretty sure, even if i have to wield the axe personally.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">but now that we ARE into it i am supporting my countries troops<span id='postcolor'>

I have a little problem with this. I know it´s ok and great to support citizens of your homecountry during wartime, but I somehow get the impression public forgets about the reasons and justifications for a war as soon as the war (for whatever reasons, without international support via the UN) has started. I mean : Do people actually think of the justification anymore, or has this gone down the drain with all that warpictures flickering over their TV sets ?

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Mar. 26 2003,16:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bluntly, i do not like this war, i do not like the Bush Administration for pushing my country (or rather the politicians and armed forces) into it, but now that we ARE into it i am supporting my countries troops (as long as i believe they have good intentions- and i do). Its easy for people sitting on the sidelines to laugh at this postion or regard it as stupid or simplistic or pro-war, but then a massive portion of their countries military is not locked in a life or death struggle with that of Iraqs.

I will say this- Never again.

Blair went out on a limb in this war of choice but if he goes for another in support of the neo-conservatives grand schemes then that limb will be rapidly chopped off by the British people and Labour party.<span id='postcolor'>

To some extent I have to say I agree with you. Although I can't say I support this war I'd still say that the war is a reality and we all need to focus on the coming aftermath of the conflict.

There will be a huge need to adress several issues of rebuilding Iraq and establishing a rule with political support of the iraqi population - and it's various ethnic groups. The whole world must via the UN system contribute with maximum effort regardless who fought the war or not. Iraq must not be allowed to be seen as price money for the war effort. This is going to cost a lot and there won't be a "fourteen days money back guarantee" with it!

If the fighting parties neglect UN in the rebuilding - and US companies in particular - are receiving the majority of the contracts we will be witnessing a future calamity.

By the way Isthatyoujohnwayne - I replied to your last post a day ago.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have a little problem with this. I know it´s ok and great to support citizens of your homecountry during wartime, but I somehow get the impression public forgets about the reasons and justifications for a war as soon as the war (for whatever reasons, without international support via the UN) has started. I mean : Do people actually think of the justification anymore, or has this gone down the drain with all that warpictures flickering over their TV sets ?

<span id='postcolor'>

I'd say that it's gone down the drain. The war is a fact now and while it lasts there is little point in complaining about it being unjustified, especially this early. It will become relevant after the war when Iraq has to be rebuilt or if the war starts to go badly. Then people will start asking "What the hell are we doing here?". Right now it's too early for those questions.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> will say this- Never again.

Blair went out on a limb in this war of choice but if he goes for another in support of the neo-conservatives grand schemes then that limb will be rapidly chopped off by the British people and Labour party.

Im pretty sure, even if i have to wield the axe personally.

<span id='postcolor'>

Unless the war is a grand "success" from British point of view. Then all will be forgiven and forgotten and you'll support Bush's next war.

[brgnorway 0]

Ok, back on topic!

I'm somewhat tired of the conflict going on in Iraq nowadays. I'm actually far more interested in what will happen in the future of a country raped by 30 years of Baath party rule and torn apart by sanctions and war. It's not a controversial opinion that it's going to be an extremely difficult and labourous task plaugued by numerous possible "wrongs and faults" . I strongly believe the UN system is the best option for achieving this - not only because it could provide a neutral option, but also because it's probably the only way for the involved parties to achieve a sort of compromise.

I found a very good basic analysis on the "International Crisis Group" website:

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

Political Challenges After The Conflict

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The success or failure of Iraq's post-war transition will chiefly depend on whether domestic realities and dynamics are accurately understood and can be translated into a form of governance that is accepted as legitimate by core Iraqi constituencies. Ultimately, the international community's task will be to navigate competing claims to power and influence, ensuring a level playing field and not anointing any pretender until a process can be constructed to give voice to the mass of Iraqis who have been disenfranchised by three decades of authoritarian Baathist rule.

The key is to set up as soon as possible (notwithstanding the reluctance of the UN Secretariat to take on so extensive a role, and the U.S. to give it up) a UN transitional civil authority with full executive and legislative powers. This authority would use, to the maximum extent possible, local professionals and civil servants, as well as experts from the diaspora; and during the transitional phase, municipal, regional and functional elections would help designate those Iraqis who, together with the diaspora, can establish the rules by which a pluralistic, democratic and stable Iraq can be governed. This authority would operate alongside a U.S.-led security presence, optimally itself endorsed as a multinational force by the UN Security Council.

The United States and the international community are not entering a vacuum. "Day after" does not mean day one. Iraq cannot nor should it be treated as a tabula rasa. Baathist rule for 30 years and twelve years of international sanctions have profoundly transformed Iraq's social make-up. New social classes have emerged – a sprawling bureaucracy and civil service; a once potent, now pauperised middle class; resilient entrepreneurs; an impoverished and volatile urban underclass. Tribal and kinship loyalties, at one time vociferously denounced by the Baath, have since been instrumentalised by the regime. Nationalist feelings remain potent, despite the regime's attempts to hijack them. Even religious sentiment has flourished of late as this once secular state has desperately sought to bolster its legitimacy in the face of growing internal discontent. Many of the forces that sustained the Baathist polity for years should not be expected to collapse simultaneously with the regime.

Given that, who should run Iraq once hostilities have ceased? The first option, assumption of full authority by the United States, has been roundly criticised by members both of the Iraqi opposition and of the international community. Even many U.S. policy-makers acknowledge that it risks alienating Iraqis, exposing Washington to accusations that it nurtures imperial designs and further undermining its posture in the region.

An alternative proposal, based on the rapid establishment of an interim Iraqi authority to which the U.S. would transfer power and with which it would jointly govern, has received more support, as necessary for domestic legitimacy. This interim authority would give way to a permanent Iraqi authority once political conditions (e.g., agreement on a constitution, national elections) permit. But this proposal, too, is flawed. The fundamental problem is that no pre-identifiable, optimal Iraqi candidates exist whom either the United States or the international community can handpick to run an interim authority. Socio-political dynamics in Iraq are complex and too little is known of the actual preferences or aspirations of those inside the country.

Members of the exiled opposition have staked their claim. But their limited contacts with and current knowledge of the Iraqi people cast serious doubt on the degree to which they are genuinely representative. Inside Iraq, numerous forces – among them tribes, religious institutions and business elites – will come forward as well and claim privileged status. But they are likely to be dominated by those who gained prominence during the years of Baath Party rule and compromised with it. It would be a mistake to short circuit the domestic political contest by prematurely picking a winner. Under either of these two scenarios, the bulk of Iraqis inside Iraq – Sunni and Shiite, Arab and Kurd, Turkoman and others who have been brutally disenfranchised for over three decades – would remain voiceless.

The best road for Iraq and for the international community, therefore, is to set up a United Nations transitional civil authority with full executive and legislative powers to run the country until a legitimate, democratic, permanent Iraqi authority can be established. This authority would not have security responsibilities, relying instead on a U.S.-led multinational force (MNF) presence throughout Iraq, which itself would optimally, though not necessarily, be endorsed by the Security Council.

The UN civil authority, while exercising overall supervisory authority, would rely for day-to-day administrative tasks not on UN personnel but, as much and and as early as possible, on vetted bureaucrats, civil servants and qualified members of the diaspora: this will be important to maximise the Iraqi people's sense of ownership in the transition process.

<span id='postcolor'>

For the whole paper go here:

http://www.crisisweb.org/projects/showreport.cfm?reportid=927

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 26 2003,18:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For the whole paper go here:

http://www.crisisweb.org/projects/showreport.cfm?reportid=927<span id='postcolor'>

Related news items from today:

Blair to Press Bush to Agree U.N. Role in Iraq

U.S. Forces Prepare Martial Law for Iraq

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tales_From_Topographic_Oceans @ Mar. 26 2003,14:20)</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">If you want to bring Cuba into this, get your facts straight, because you've got them 90% wrong<span id='postcolor'>

Bite me<span id='postcolor'>

I think I just did, I took a huge chunk out of your ignorant statement. "Bite me"? let me know when you get out of gradeschool, then we can talk again.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 26 2003,17:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Blair"]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....8]Blair to Press Bush to Agree U.N. Role in Iraq<span id='postcolor'>

Good links Avon. Looks like a promising effort from Blair.

My highly unqualified guess is that Bush junior will ask his father for an opinion - and the answer will probably be to go with the UN on this one.

[Tales_From_Topographic_Oceans 0]

The UN can go to hell! Our strategy is to not die for our country but to make the other son-of-abitch die for his.

The Palestinians should not be given a state. They are a bunch of whiney people--equivalent to the NAACP (National Association for the Always Complaining People) over here. In history, those who achieve independence, fight for it and win. In this case, the Palestinians' strategy is to moan and groan to the international community so that they will make Israel give the Palestinians a state. What? When in history has a country been made to give up its land without war? It is the Palestinians who are the ones "occupying." They are on Israeli land which was won fair and square in the 1967 war. Want me to tell you how to secure peace in the Middle East? Answer: For the US to let Israel go unrestrained and destroy the Palestinian militants. This whole thing is ridiculous.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think I just did, I took a huge chunk out of your ignorant statement. "Bite me"? let me know when you get out of gradeschool, then we can talk again.<span id='postcolor'>

Good for you. Now run along…..that's a good lad.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tales_From_Topographic_Oceans @ Mar. 26 2003,19:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The UN can go to hell! Our strategy is to not die for our country but to make the other son-of-abitch die for his.

The Palestinians should not be given a state. They are a bunch of whiney people--equivalent to the NAACP (National Association for the Always Complaining People) over here. In history, those who achieve independence, fight for it and win. In this case, the Palestinians' strategy is to moan and groan to the international community so that they will make Israel give the Palestinians a state. What? When in history has a country been made to give up its land without war? It is the Palestinians who are the ones "occupying." They are on Israeli land which was won fair and square in the 1967 war. Want me to tell you how to secure peace in the Middle East? Answer: For the US to let Israel go unrestrained and destroy the Palestinian militants. This whole thing is ridiculous.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think I just did, I took a huge chunk out of your ignorant statement. "Bite me"? let me know when you get out of gradeschool, then we can talk again.<span id='postcolor'>

Good for you. Now run along…..that's a good lad.<span id='postcolor'>

I think you should be banned for ruining a perfectly good discusion!

No one here is interested in your rants!

[Placebo 28]

Tales_From_Topographic_Oceans either post in this thread maturely or do not post here.

Tovarish don't rise to the bait, you're better than that.

[Lowjack 0]

I'm curious what you folks think about this one...

So the French destroy a couple McDonalds and American flags.... but they hate us enough to sh!t on the 9/11 victims?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82245,00.html

(forgive me if this has been mentioned, some days I can keep up with the 20 new pages a day, sometimes I'm lazy)

I've been trying my darndest lately to respect France, so maybe I can be enlightened as to how any human could go that far. Are they bad apples? Or are we hated THAT much by France's general pop? There was also a similar report recently of Canadians defacing a 9/11 memorial that a CANADIAN had assembled in his lawn.

I guess my question is... is the great satan despised so much at this point that all sympathy for 9/11 is gone? I get angry at certain countries occasionally... but as short tempered as I am, ... I just can't fathom it.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Lowjack @ Mar. 26 2003,20:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I've been trying my darndest lately to respect France, so maybe I can be enlightened as to how any human could go that far.  Are they bad apples?  Or are we hated THAT much by France's general pop?  There was also a similar report recently of Canadians defacing a 9/11 memorial that a CANADIAN had assembled in his lawn.  <span id='postcolor'>

I think you're mistaken in interpreting the actions of a few assholes as representative of a whole country

[Longinius 1]

"I guess my question is... is the great satan despised so much at this point that all sympathy for 9/11 is gone? I get angry at certain countries occasionally... but as short tempered as I am, ... I just can't fathom it."

Uhm, do you honestly believe this kind of behaviour is representative of the over all population? Of course it isnt. Because if that was the case, every western nation in the world would be anti semetic for example, since every western nation has skinheads that have destroyed jewish cemeteries and monuments at one point or another.

No, what you are talking about is a very small minority of dimwits and criminals. Often teenagers with nothing better to do than cause other people grief.

[Lowjack 0]

I'd hope so, which is why I asked.  

I'm a paranoid person by nature, so when 100% of Europeans that end up on our t.v.s here have such an intense hatred for us... I guess I get more paranoid?  

Forgive me if I sounded hostile, I understand why the French are upset... I just wondered if it went anywhere near that far w/ most average citizens.  I assumed obvioiusly that the country as a whole wouldn't feel EXACTLY that way... I guess a better way to have phrased my question would have been to ask... do many French find such an action vile and inhuman.  Or do they figure, despite it being a little extreme, "ahhh they deserve it."

Edit: These are weird times, my mind is way too jumbled lately. I should have probably asked a less specific question... maybe, Has the sympathy for 9/11 dwindled at all due to current events. I shouldn't have let it sound directed at any one country.