The Iraq Thread

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 08 2003,09:12)</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 can't just put intermediate ballistic missiles in somebody's bathroom. They don't fit. These are not weapons that you keep in your fridge, they have to have the right infrastructure and logistics which private homes don't have.<span id='postcolor'>

Nice attempt at a deflection but its clear Saddam doesn't care about the missiles themselves as the inspectors have found some.  It's the chemicals or organisms that clearly matter and those can be stored in a compact manner.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The fact that Saddam hasn't used them renders the Bush regimes claim that Iraq was a "clear and present danger" useless.<span id='postcolor'>

He hasn't used them because he knows it would make Bush right all along and would deflate people like you. As long as he holds off (and tries to keep them hidden), he knows people like you will intensify their hatred.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There was no danger from Saddam.<span id='postcolor'>

<flashback>The Swedes once said there was no danger from Germany.  Of course, they kept supporting them materially once their romps began AND let the wehrmacht travel freely in their country to attack their neighbors. Thanks for all the help. </flashback>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1) He didn't have them in the first place<span id='postcolor'>

Sorry, he has had them and probably still does.  There are hundreds of cases going against European companies for selling him prohibited hardware used for generating chemical and biological weapons.

oh.. and before you pull the "U.S sold him weapons" canard, the U.S never sold him WMD but sold him a tiny amount (less than 1%) of his conventional weapons.  Saddam illegaly took American anthrax samples used specifically for creating vaccines for farm animals and weaponized it.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 08 2003,09:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><flashback>The Swedes once said there was no danger from Germany. Of course, they kept supporting them materially once their romps began AND let the wehrmacht travel freely in their country to attack their neighbors. Thanks for all the help. </flashback><span id='postcolor'>

So did Poland, but what do you think would happen if Sweden and Poland tried to disarm Hitler? Not this basically harmless defense that Iraq is putting up.

They were not a thread, you are using a lot of loopy logic now to say they were. It doesn't even matter if they have some chemicals here or there, if they are not fitted to a good delivery system WTF is it going to do to anyone. USA has to be disarmed, I mean that, it's the most dangerous country in the world. Period.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 08 2003,15:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><flashback>The Swedes once said there was no danger from Germany.  Of course, they kept supporting them materially once their romps began AND let the wehrmacht travel freely in their country to attack their neighbors. Thanks for all the help. </flashback><span id='postcolor'>

So did you until you were attacked. The war started in 1939, not 1941. Sweden got an ultimatum from Germany to let the troops pass or be invaded. Since we could in no way win the fight we let them. At the same time Sweden was a safe refuge for several hundred thousand Jews during the war.

My great grandfather was executed by the Germans in 1944 in Romania. He was working for the Swedish embassy there and they were issuing false Swedish passports to persecuted Jews. When the Germans figured it out they executed most of the staff of the embassy, including my great grandfather.

The Swedes never said that "there was no danger from Germany". On the contrary, we were just outgunned. You on the other hand insisted that Germany was a-ok until the axis powers attacked your interests.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 08 2003,16:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can't just put intermediate ballistic missiles in somebody's bathroom. They don't fit.<span id='postcolor'>

C'mom, Denoir! You've seen Saddam's bathrooms!

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 08 2003,09:38)</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">So did Poland, but what do you think would happen if Sweden and Poland tried to disarm Hitler?  Not this basically harmless defense that Iraq is putting up<span id='postcolor'>

Germany was very weak after WW1.  Of course, they were essentially ignored as they obviously built up the most formidable military of the time IN CLEAR VIOLATION of the Versailles treaty.  oops. ok.. enough WW2. it's all I need to know the natural tendencies of the European players involved.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It doesn't even matter if they have some chemicals here or there, if they are not fitted to a good delivery system WTF is it going to do to anyone.<span id='postcolor'>

The fact that they could become THE stalwart WMD provider in the underworld black market (particularly in that region) is the key point. Delivery systems are a dime a dozen and fairly irrelevant.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">USA has to be disarmed, I mean that, it's the most dangerous country in the world. Period. <span id='postcolor'>

naturally    

[Die Alive 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Iraq will not be defeated" in the war, Mohsen Khalil (Iraq's ambassador to the Arab League) told a news conference in Egypt. "Iraq has now already achieved victory -- apart from <span style='color:red'>some technicalities</span>."<span id='postcolor'> JPost

Technicalities? Now that's the understatment of the century!

[theavonlady 2]

[Longinius 1]

Pitviper, I am not going to comment on your statement regarding Sweden and Germany during WW2, Denoir took care of that. However...

"Sorry, he has had them and probably still does. There are hundreds of cases going against European companies for selling him prohibited hardware used for generating chemical and biological weapons.

oh.. and before you pull the "U.S sold him weapons" canard, the U.S never sold him WMD but sold him a tiny amount (less than 1%) of his conventional weapons. Saddam illegaly took American anthrax samples used specifically for creating vaccines for farm animals and weaponized it."

So, it was OK for America to sell him anthrax, but not OK for other countries to sell him hardware? If he "tricked" the US as you say into selling him the anthrax for legitimate use, dont you think he could trick other countries into selling him hardware? Not that I believe there was much trickery involved though. I think most countries knew exactly what Saddam planned to use anthrax for...

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 08 2003,09:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The fact that they could become THE stalwart WMD provider in the underworld black market (particularly in that region) is the key point. Delivery systems are a dime a dozen and fairly irrelevant.<span id='postcolor'>

No they are not.

WW2? Oh so right after WW1 you anted Germany to be attacked when it was weak. You a crazy little bugger. We were talking about Germany when it was a threat, when it had power. f***

[Guest]

World Bank not invited to Iraq

This would indicate that USA is not interested of international financing of the rebuilding of Iraq. That's an interesting development. Until now the positions have been:

EU: UN administration in Iraq, USA and UK pays the bill.

UK: UN administration in Iraq, UN pays the bill.

USA US administration in Iraq, UN pays the bill.

The fact that the world bank has not been invited would indicate that USA has changed it's position to:

US administration in Iraq, US&UK pays the bill.

It is going to be interesting since Russia & France will almost certainly veto lifting the sanctions against Iraq unless there is a UN administration in place. That would leave USA the choice of either accepting a UN administration or violating the sanctions. Then we have the question of what the rest of the world will do. Either they will follow the UN directives (which will make USA's rebuilding efforts very difficult since they won't get any money from the Iraqi oil) or they will violate the UN sanctions too, which would more or less destroy the UN and set us back at 1939 level of international law.

[PitViper 0]

article on the Iraqi government and the Baathist party.

http://www.nationalpost.com/comment....F6C4%7D

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 08 2003,18:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This would indicate that USA is not interested of international financing of the rebuilding of Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe it indicates that the US hasn't decided yet on exactly how and to what extent the UN will be involved in assisting Iraq.

edit Bush, Blair Pledge U.N. Role in Iraq

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 08 2003,10:55)</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">WW2?  Oh so right after WW1 you (w)anted Germany to be attacked when it was weak.<span id='postcolor'>

No.  I'm talking about enforcing the Versailles Treaty if you really wanted it followed.  Otherwise, DON'T BOTHER.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We were talking about Germany when it was a threat, when it had power.  f***<span id='postcolor'>

You purposefully ignored it when its intentions were quite clear.

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The fact that the world bank has not been invited would indicate that USA has changed it's position to:

US administration in Iraq, US&UK pays the bill.<span id='postcolor'>

Cheers guys, for pissing my tax money away. I'm still waiting for my road to get resurfaced!

[WhoCares 0]

It is fairly obvious, that the TBA wants to leave the humanitarian assistance to the UN, while the USA builts the economical and political infrastructure...

[PitViper 0]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv....703.htm

War opposition:  16% of population in U.S (and falling?)

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 08 2003,17:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv....703.htm

War opposition:  16% of population in U.S<span id='postcolor'>

Hmm. 49% of the African Americans support the war. Could it be because of the fact that the US military is dominated by ethinc minorities? That they are the ones actually dying and bleeding?

Aslo note this disclaimer:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The margin of sampling error for results shown ranges from plus or minus 3 to 12 percentage points, depending on the size of the demographic subsample.<span id='postcolor'>

[WhoCares 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 08 2003,17:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv....703.htm

War opposition:  16% of population in U.S (and falling?)<span id='postcolor'>

Todays support doesn't really matter, as the war is ongoing and already influenced people in a way, that they support their soldiers and thus they support the war (while the link between both is disputable). The fact, that the war is going good drops the number of the opposition as well...

More intresting were the numbers pre-war, when they were slightly above 50% and decreasing, iirc.

[Guest]

W's daddy had 94% support for the first Gulf War. Just for comparison.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 08 2003,18:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Aslo note this disclaimer:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The margin of sampling error for results shown ranges from plus or minus 3 to 12 percentage points, depending on the size of the demographic subsample.<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

So it could be that only 4% of the population opposes the war.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 08 2003,11:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 08 2003,17:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv....703.htm

War opposition:  16% of population in U.S<span id='postcolor'>

Hmm. 49% of the African Americans support the war. Could it be because of the fact that the US military is dominated by ethinc minorities? That they are the ones actually dying and bleeding?<span id='postcolor'>

boy.. you're really grasping at straws now...

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 08 2003,17:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">boy.. you're really grasping at straws now...<span id='postcolor'>

No, I'm just asking. Why is it? You don't think those two things are correlated?

[PitViper 0]

http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051....040703D

more on the "Iraq body count" site.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 08 2003,18:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051....040703D

more on the "Iraq body count" site.<span id='postcolor'>

I am very disappointed with the "Iraq bodycount" counter. They are lagging behind. Ĺsne Seierstad (Norwegian reporter, reporting for Swedish TV from Baghdad) did a tour of the hospitals and morgues today and she counted about 400 dead civilians within the last 24 hours. Many of them children.

The counter hasn't been updated to include that number. I guess that they are looking for confirmation from a second source

I think that they are way to conservative with their numbers, but I suppose that's the effect when they are looking for dual confirmation of each incident. The real number of killed civilians is without a doubt far higher then the counter indicates.

[WhoCares 0]

The body counter relies mostly on press releases. But the press doesn't cover the complete battlefield. So there are hardly any reports from Nassariyah (~200000people), Najaf (~450000), Karbala(~200000), Basrah(1800000)...