The Iraq Thread

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Dec. 18 2002,04:11)</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"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq for the treatment of kidney stones, but which could also under certain circumstances be used as a detonator for atom bombs.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh come on !

I can set up a huge list of materials that can be used for versatile objectives. This doesnt make it a weapon export.<span id='postcolor'>

But it doesn't make it not a weapon export either.  It could be used for the treatment of kidney stones, and it could be used for the detonation of nuclear weapons.

Either way, doesn't this violate Iraq's terms of surrender from desert storm?  I thought they had a trade embargo, but that may just be for oil.

edit - sorry, kind of on a hair trigger here.

If you want my opinion, and I'm sure you're all dying to pick apart what I say (;)), it could go either way. If we look at what happened in Afghanistan, the U.S. helped the Taliban defeat the Soviets, then backed out. They didn't set up a government or influence them at all. They might do the same thing here.

BUT, this is different. Afghanistan was a covert operation, which may have made it too dangerous for the U.S. to set up a government in Afghanistan, especially with U.S.-Soviet tensions. And the U.S. may have learned from the past and would want to set up the government to avoid any mistakes they obviously made in Afghanistan.

Just my two cents.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think that we can safely presume that the decision has already been made. I don't think any arguments in the world will change Bush's determination for a war against Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

Yep, that is what it looks like.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But it doesn't make it not a weapon export either. <span id='postcolor'>

Wrong. Possible usable parts that could be used to manufacture a weapon do not make a weapon in term of definition.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Either way, doesn't this violate Iraq's terms of surrender from desert storm? I thought they had a trade embargo, but that may just be for oil.<span id='postcolor'>

The trade embargo does contain a list of goods that are not to be sold to Iraq or allowed to Iraq to be bought. For the versatility of some products like medicine or technical goods it is hard to decide if they fit the embargo list or not. Sidenote: All deliveries to Iraq are checked for violations on the embargo.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They didn't set up a government or influence them at all. They might do the same thing here.

<span id='postcolor'>

Unlikely as the major goal of the US initiative is to remove Saddam and they already coordinate negotiations with exile Iraqis that discuss the power distribution between exile Iraqis and religiouse groups.

Kurds will not benefit of the "liberation" of Iraq in my opinion as they will stay the minority they are. What really worries me is the major Sikh party in Iraq could come to power and throw the country back to middle age. They are not very tolerant towards the Kurds so it could get even worse for them. If you checked the link I posted on the last page you could see that the Sikh are already at the round table with US and other exile Iraqis.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But it doesn't make it not a weapon export either.

Wrong. Possible usable parts that could be used to manufacture a weapon do not make a weapon in term of definition.<span id='postcolor'>

And they COULD be used to manufacture a weapon too. By definition they ARE a smuggler, since said items aren't suppose to be sold to Iraq whether or not they are used for a weapon, and they DID break the law.

Right now I'm too tired to respond ot anything else. I'll come back when the coffee kicks in

[Lazarus_Long 0]

The more I think about it, the worse the idea of an attack on Iraq seems.  Thanks tex, for bringing up some good points.

Believe it or not, but I've been noticing a lot of doubt from local people about this war on Iraq.  Mainly from veterans organizations.  I find it surprising considering that most people in my part of the world (Florida Panhandle) are hardcore republicans.

I was watching some local groups debate a possible war with Iraq on PBS last night. The organization who seemed to question the war effort the most turned out to be the local chapter of the American Legion! I had to agree with almost all of their conclusions.  Especially the 3rd point they brought up made me really think twice.

The points discussed were this:

1. The necessity for war is too vauge. There is a sense that Washington has not thought it through enough.

2. What will be our long term responsibilities with Iraq after Saddam is ousted? Do we really want to deal with it?

3. Most politicians today (there are some exceptions) especially those who are advocating war, have never served in the armed forces, nor do any of their immediate family members serve.  Unlike the potentially thousands of American military families who may experience devastating losses, these politicians who make the decisions have nothing (or nobody) to lose.  

I say, take their kids out of their fancy ivy leauge schools and make them join the Army instead, then lets see how many politicians would still be interested in waging war with Iraq.  

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Lazarus_Long @ Dec. 18 2002,10:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">3. Most politicians today (there are some exceptions) especially those who are advocating war, have never served in the armed forces, nor do any of their immediate family members serve. Unlike the potentially thousands of American military families who may experience devastating losses, these politicians who make the decisions have nothing (or nobody) to lose.

I say, take their kids out of their fancy ivy leauge schools and make them join the Army instead, then lets see how many politicians would still be interested in waging war with Iraq.

<span id='postcolor'>

I agree... but basically what it boils down to is that most politicians must be low on IQ to HAVE to be in the armed forces to understand what they are doing.

This is why Colin is hte most reasonable of the bunch, he has had his share in the armed forces, he knows.

[Guest]

The ironic thing might be that Saddam's Iraq is actually a stabilizing power in the region. The biggest enemy of the west and western culture in that region is Iran. A weak Iraq is good for Iran. They might even want to annex a part of it to 'liberate' the Shi'a muslims. Saddam also keeps the Kurds on a tight leash. If Saddam's empire was to fall they would gain power which means big problems for Turkey. A weak Turkey makes Greece happy. Perhaps so happy that they take Cyprus back. And then we can kiss NATO goodbye.

[Lazarus_Long 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Dec. 18 2002,17:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The ironic thing might be that Saddam's Iraq is actually a stabilizing power in the region. The biggest enemy of the west and western culture in that region is Iran. A weak Iraq is good for Iran. They might even want to annex a part of it to 'liberate' the Shi'a muslims. Saddam also keeps the Kurds on a tight leash. If Saddam's empire was to fall they would gain power which means big problems for Turkey. A weak Turkey makes Greece happy. Perhaps so happy that they take Cyprus back. And then we can kiss NATO goodbye.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, I don't know about all that Turkey, Greece + the downfall of NATO stuff... Seems a bit on the extreme pessimistic side! I guess you never can tell though...

I agree that we are going to see some major problems with Iran.  The only reason US & Iran relations haven't been as crappy as they usually are is because of our common woes with Iraq.  Once Iraq is out of the picture who knows what could could happen. Iran is only a few steps behind the Taliban when it comes to being Islamic fundamentalists. They have no love for us that's for damn sure - and many people in the US are still pissed off about that hostage crisis stuff.  

It doesent look good... Last weekend my unit had to get living wills done, a bunch of bloodwork, and we also received a whole bunch of new gear like the new flak jackets, M4's, Laser day sights, stuff like knee-pads, ellbow pads, etc.  A whole Bagdad blood-bath kit. It reeks of deplyoment.  When the desert BDU's comes in I'll be really worried....

[Sam Samson 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Dec. 18 2002,17:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The ironic thing might be that Saddam's Iraq is actually a stabilizing power in the region.<span id='postcolor'>

sure. and you are the one holding sweden together.

I think they actually want to get to saudi arabia, whose supposedly decadent elite pays off its fundamentalists with big bucks, who in turn recruite slush-brained youths for their cadres, who in turn terrorize (or colonialize: europe) the west.

and iran needs an overhaul. I agree to that. but in that country the students will probably take care of that, when the US rules iraq for a season. I know of young iranians who are a tremendous asset in their current host nations, just as human beings.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Dec. 18 2002,17:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Dec. 18 2002,17:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The ironic thing might be that Saddam's Iraq is actually a stabilizing power in the region.<span id='postcolor'>

sure. and you are the one holding sweden together. <span id='postcolor'>

That's Sweden with a capital S.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Dec. 18 2002,17:26)</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">Wrong. Possible usable parts that could be used to manufacture a weapon do not make a weapon in term of definition.<span id='postcolor'>

You're nitpicking.  Just because a firing pin isn't, by definition, a weapon, doesn't mean it cant be put into a gun and fired.

In other words, just because we disassemble a nuclear weapon doesn't mean it cant be used as a weapon. It just has to be reassembled.

Just because Saddam's kidney machine can't be used as a nuclear weapon on it's own, it can be made to set one off.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You're nitpicking. Just because a firing pin isn't, by definition, a weapon, doesn't mean it cant be put into a gun and fired.

<span id='postcolor'>

No no. You wont find any parts of weapons sold to Iraq from germany.

If you sell RAW MATERIALS, like alluminium tubes with much versatile usage you cant declare them even as part of a weapon. It is a raw material, nothing else. Not even to be put in synergy with weapons at all. For sure if someone uses alluminium for weapons he will have a use for it. That´s a big difference to selling weapons in parts.

Show me the list of exported materials. I´ll get it next week and my boss has already glimpsed on it and said most of the mentioned trade was done before GW I. He also said that exports to Iraq done since weapons hold and embargo start where in common civillian goods and not military related. For sure if you think Mercedes Benz vehicles make good attack vehicles you may be right

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">we disassemble a nuclear weapon<span id='postcolor'>

We couldnt even sell that stuff, as we have

1. no research on nuclear weapons

2. no right to have nuclear weapons

3. even forced the US Pershings completely out of our country.

[Pukko 0]

Aaah, just came back from watching The two towers (2:nd Lord of the Ring film), and now I want some more war!!!!! Real war!!!!

Come on now, give me some great war pictures from Iraq in my telly (or indeed at the cinema), attack Iraq now!!

[depressed sarcasm mode off]

Well I used to post in these kind of discussions before (last autumn & winter), but now I just have'nt anything to say.... its all too abstract and speculative to make any real point in these discussions I guess Tries to catch up with your postings here though, but the last days this thread has grown too fast (I followed it till page 30 I think). Great to see your, at least in some cases, good arguments anyway 

Sorry for spamming, but I just feel too depressed and apathetic about these things at the time to have anything to contribute with. Just wanted to say that I appreciate you all sharing your opinions...

(if you wonder about my opinions you may find some of my latest posts here )

And btw, The two Towers is an incredibly mighty an well made movie, with probably some of the best made war scenes ever made. Happy cristmas

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Dec. 18 2002,17:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A weak Turkey makes Greece happy. Perhaps so happy that they take Cyprus back. And then we can kiss NATO goodbye.<span id='postcolor'>

Nah, 5 years ago I would have agreed with you, but things have changed in the meanwhile

Turkey currently has just two friends in the EU that support their application - Greece and Germany.

As for Cyprus, as long as we don't get another madman like Papadopoulos in, nothing will happen, we're mates, close mates too, but that is it. Invading Cyprus would be pointless and nobody would risk his head over this.

[Frisbee 0]

Well not's send them fertiliser or detergents,as the could be used to make EXPLOSIVES.

Iraqi kidney patients should just rot,right?[/sarcasm]

You really shouldn't take it the way it exactly as it's pre-chewed for you.

The press twists and turns every wee little thing to have it sound like a possible future terrorist attack.Hey,it gets readers...

[peanuckle_00 0]

I think motives are turning away from freedom and turning towards something much worse as in one world government.

[Balschoiw 0]

mostly it´s about control and power.

[CuteQA 0]

Next might be North Korea@@

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CuteQA @ Dec. 19 2002,10:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Next might be North Korea@@  <span id='postcolor'>

NK would be a far uglier situation. Don't count on any action. Better to let it crumble under its own maoist system then to risk those lives unnecessarily. Plus it doesnt have any neighbors that are sympathetic to its cause (The Chinese are not particularly enamored with them right now).

[Jinef 2]

Plus that and America would get it's arse kicked by NK.

I think that everyone will run into Iraq, kick the civvies, light the beards and rock and roll home saying they've done the world some good. Then i get sent down there to put out fires and fly relief around the country and keep the inevitable civil wars and territory disputes from turning in to a full scale bloodbath. so i personally would like it if we could all stay home and play Raven Shield when it comes out, get really good, and if SH is serious we'll play him over a LAN and neutralize his tango arse - war over, we all go to bed with warm socks on and drink hot chocolate!

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Dec. 18 2002,18:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Plus that and America would get it's arse kicked by NK.

I think that everyone will run into Iraq, kick the civvies, light the beards and rock and roll home saying they've done the world some good. Then i get sent down there to put out fires and fly relief around the country and keep the inevitable civil wars and territory disputes from turning in to a full scale bloodbath. so i personally would like it if we could all stay home and play Raven Shield when it comes out, get really good, and if SH is serious we'll play him over a LAN and neutralize his tango arse - war over, we all go to bed with warm socks on and drink hot chocolate!<span id='postcolor'>

AMEN TO THAT!

[Schoeler 0]

North Korea would kick the U.S. ass? Can I have some of whatever drugs you are taking? What color is the sky in your world?

Sure, any fight against the North Koreans would be an iron clad and ice cold bitch, but anyone familiar with the precepts of modern warfare can see that the U.S. could lay waste to North Korea. Lets do a comparison:

North Korea:

Lots of screaming little gung-ho guys with cheap knockoffs of Kalashnikov rifles who:

1. Aren't all that well fed.

2. Whose family members are starving so the government (incidentally controlled by an insane pedophile) can keep them in fighting trim.

3. Have a lot of relatives in the South.

4. Are increasingly fed up with a power mongering maoist elite.

5. Are supported by at best early 1960's technology in air and armor. I.E. Mig 21's , T-62's etc..

6. Have very little oil to fuel those inferior tanks and planes (estimates range from one to two months worth).

7. Will recieve no assistance from the Chinese this time around.

8. Got their asses handed to them all the way to the Yalu river on the Chinese border by MacArthur in the last war until the Chinese jumped in to help. Then after driving the U.N. forces back to Chosin, got their asses handed to them again until the traditional border at the 38th parallel was reestablished and a cease fire took effect.

U.S.

1. All volunteer military considered if not the best then one of the best and most determined on the face of the earth.

2. Extremely motivated, well trained and supplied.

3. Believe in and are committed to what they are doing and have a history of fighting ferociously in every conflict.

4. Are supported by unmatched technology in air support and armor. Can anyone say Nimitz class carriers, JDAM and JTIDS bombs, F-117 Nighthawks, A10's, Night Vision, M1A2's oh and don't forget, we still have the Marine Corps which has a proud history of service on the Korean peninsula.

5. Have a legitimate reason to fight the Koreans as opposed to Iraq. The Koreans have essentially violated a treaty on nuclear development, told the U.S. to fuck off on weapons exports, kidnapped U.S. and Japanese citizens, shoot at patrols along the DMZ from time to time, threaten our strongest ally in Asia (Japan) by shooting ICBMs over their island, and periodically engage in limited combat actions against another ally (South Korea). Plus, the war never officially ended, technically the U.N. icluding the U.S. is still at war with the North Koreans.

Wake up dude and read your history books. I'm not saying a war wouldn't be costly, or even that it is the best option in this situation, but it certainly is more justified than a war in Iraq and the U.S. could defintely win it. Plus I doubt the North Korean military has the morale or the logistical support to fight more than a month or so.

[Harnu 0]

A fight agaisnt NK wouldn't be pretty. And we do have a good chance of losing. Yes we have technology, but that only goes so far. The ground is where the action happens. In the Korean War U.S. troops killed 10 NK per 1 U.S. Soldiers death I believe. And even then it was hard. Schoeler, we aren't invinsible.

[Warin 0]

I dont think North Korea has a snowballs chance in hell of actually beating the US. they can however (and likely would) inflict a LOT of casualties. And that is something that we've seen in recent years that the US public doesnt seem to be willing to put up with.

[Schoeler 0]

If the Koreans actually stand and fight, yes they have the infantry power to do some damage. But their armor and air support would be gone in 2-3 weeks from lack of fuel alone. Plus their morale is absolutely horrid, so I thin they would fold up rather quickly. Your average North Korean wants a blanket an a meal more than a fight. Still, there's no way they could beat the U.S., only demoralize us and make us pay dearly in blood. Remember we were fairly well matched with them in the first war, but now its no contest. Thier military upgraded by a decade and we leaped about five decades ahead. Those guys aren't going to stand up to a U.S. armored division or air assault brigade when their wives and kids are eating treebark to stay alive.

[Guest]

Schoeler, I've heard those arguments before. I think it was about an south east asian country.. can't quite put my finger on it. It was in the '60 and it started with a "V"