The Iraq Thread

[Akira 0]

Oopps...I need to read the articles I post better...

This is in the first link I mentioned...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The inspectors said they found 11 empty chemical warheads in "excellent" condition at an ammunition storage area where they were inspecting bunkers built in the late 1990s, a U.N. spokesman reported. They had not previously been declared by Iraq, the spokesman said.

A 12th warhead, also of a 122 mm, was found that requires further evaluation, according to the statement by Hiro Ueki, the spokesman for U.N. weapons inspectors in Baghdad.<span id='postcolor'>

hehe...oopps

[brgnorway 0]

never mind

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 17 2003,07:33)</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">Someone here presented an article in Washington Post wich I personaly find believable. It did state that the thought of removing Saddam was a footnote in a memo. The rest you can ascribe to massmanipulation: someone screams "WAR-WAR" and the rest follows screaming without knowing whatever happened - sort of like "COMMUNISM-COMMUNISM" in the 50's (does that make me smartass or what)

<span id='postcolor'>

So the washington post thinks that this war is about oil because it was mentioned in a memo? I don't follow.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Again, I think you might be right. However there are rules to follow. It's the name of the game - even if it takes longer time.<span id='postcolor'>

Uh, ok. What rules?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, it's not likely with Saddam - and I bet he is lying too. But even though he should be given the chance to destroy (or hopefully by UN personell) his WMD's. Especially for the sake of the Iraqi civilians and generally for the middle eastern stability.<span id='postcolor'>

He did have the opportunity, he gave it up in 1998. Frankly I don't think these weapons are in Iraq anymore. He's probably exported them.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 17 2003,04:28)</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 the washington post thinks that this war is about oil because it was mentioned in a memo?  I don't follow.

<span id='postcolor'>

No, that is not what I said. Washington Post merely pointed to the fact that the decision to pursue Saddam was a bit coincidental. It's almost like: "Well, what do we do after 911?-Hmmm...oh, there's allways Saddam you know....hasn't he got a lot of oil too? Yeah, lets go for Saddam...we can't find Osama anyway!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Uh, ok.  What rules?

<span id='postcolor'>

If someone believes there is an international problem or more specific - as in this case - someone suspects Saddam has WMD's, then it's a problem for the UN whom eventually will seek negotiationes on a resolution with it's members. UN appoints weapons inspectors. These inspectors try to find and prove that Saddam has or has not WMD's. Then they decide on what and how to react in case the resolution has been broken. This is a process wichj takes time. It's not like saying: "come on - we know you have it and we will, no matter what they find or don't - attack you".

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He did have the opportunity, he gave it up in 1998.  Frankly I don't think these weapons are in Iraq anymore.  He's probably exported them.<span id='postcolor'>

Could be, but we don't know. That's why the weapons inspectors must be given enough time to do their job.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 17 2003,09:55)</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">No, that is not what I said. Washington Post merely pointed to the fact that the decision to pursue Saddam was a bit coincidental. It's almost like: "Well, what do we do after 911?-Hmmm...oh, there's allways Saddam you know....hasn't he got a lot of oil too? Yeah, lets go for Saddam...we can't find Osama anyway!<span id='postcolor'>

That's stupid though.  Saddam isn't at all tied to 09/11.  They're two seperate issues.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If someone believes there is an international problem or more specific - as in this case - someone suspects Saddam has WMD's, then it's a problem for the UN whom eventually will seek negotiationes on a resolution with it's members. UN appoints weapons inspectors. These inspectors try to find and prove that Saddam has or has not WMD's. Then they decide on what and how to react in case the resolution has been broken. This is a process wichj takes time.<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, but that's what's going on now.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> It's not like saying: "come on - we know you have it and we will, no matter what they find or don't - attack you".<span id='postcolor'>

Nobody's saying that at all.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Could be, but we don't know. That's why the weapons inspectors must be given enough time to do their job.<span id='postcolor'>

Which is exactly what we're doing.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 17 2003,05:34)</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">That's stupid though. Saddam isn't at all tied to 09/11. They're two seperate issues.

<span id='postcolor'>

Yes they are separate issues - but until recently the Bush administration tried pretty hard to link Saddam with Osama. Even CIA doubted that - and the rest of the world. So they gave it up.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ok, but that's what's going on now.<span id='postcolor'>

I thought I'd never see the day we actually agree on something

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nobody's saying that at all.<span id='postcolor'>

No, maybe not in those words, but Blair stated in the news a couple of days ago that: "Saddam must go"!

Also, when Bush say "I'm getting sick of his lies" I suspect war is just around the corner.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Which is exactly what we're doing.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes. let's hope it stays that way.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 17 2003,10:44)</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">Yes they are separate issues - but until recently the Bush administration tried pretty hard to link Saddam with Osama. Even CIA doubted that - and the rest of the world. So they gave it up.<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, so don't bring it up. It's no longer an issue.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, maybe not in those words, but Blair stated in the news a couple of days ago that: "Saddam must go"!

Also, when Bush say "I'm getting sick of his lies" I suspect war is just around the corner.<span id='postcolor'>

Well I suspsect that if Saddam disarms peacefully war won't happen.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes. let's hope it stays that way.

<span id='postcolor'>

And let's hope Norway doesn't invade Sweden.

[Schoeler 0]

Sorry, but I'm going to have to drop out of this debate as it is getting way too personal. If I'm going to be accused of being racist for my rational (and incidently neutral) discussion of the use of the atomic bombs, when the sources I cited were my own personal friendship with the Nelson family, a Japanese/American family who had members on both sides of the war, as well as my reading of several books on the subject and my own personal experience of living in the Marianas Islands and talking with people who lived through the Japanese occupation there, then you might as well accuse me of being a communist/evil bastard or whatever you feel like labeling me at the moment. I offered some very basic information, I didn't mention the word savages, I didn't make any racial insinuations, I cited the Bushido code and the Japanese sentiment towards their emporer Hirohito during the war. These are confirmed and easily verifiable facts. Any Japanese citizen will readily admit to them. Actually, if you want my honest opinion, I think the way the Japanese refused to surrender was actually tragically noble and honorable. I don't have to justify myself to you, and I won't. I'll simply leave this discussion with my dignity intact. I'm too old for this kind of crap anyway, and as I mentioned in my last post, my life has other priorities right now.

[Blake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Jan. 16 2003,18:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[sarcasm]And if Osama hadn't carried out 9/11, most Americans wouldn't know how horrible terrorism is. We should be thankful to him[/sarcasm]

There have been plenty of tests on animals to show how terrible those weapons are.<span id='postcolor'>

Nuclear weapons haven't been used for the last 60 years. New terrorists attacks will come that is only matter of time.

Nuclear bomb ended the war, but terrorists attacks only marked the beginning of the larger anti-terror war that has been going on for decades.

No matter how many bunnies you nuke out in Nevada desert, only those gruesome attacks on cities made it clear to everyone how terrible they really are. That's the way people just are.

[nopulse 0]

CNUTZ,

I'm not bashing America or an anti-American etc.  I love America, and the people.  I just think the governement is corrupt and lies to the American people about a lot of things.

And I feel really bad for the U.S soldiers that might die over in Iraq.  In the gulf war, one of the ammunition depots caught on fire.  And in the ammunition depot were tank shells.  And everyone knows that tank shells have Uranium in them.  And when the U.S and Canadian soldiers were putting out the fire, they were not told about the Uranium they were exposed to.  A lot of U.S soldiers developed cancer because they were not wearing the proper protective clothing and wear exposed the lethal doses of uranium!  ANd I'm not making this up, it was on one of those documentary shows.  And to this day, both the U.S and Canadian governments lie about the soldiers being exposed to uranium.

It sickens me how little anyone cares about soldiers, especially their own government!  I mean they are putting their lives on the line to secure our freedom and to protect us.  I hate how the government thinks they are expendable!

Its easy for those military advisers up in the White House or Canadian Parlament to basically send soldiers to die.  I mean ofter all, they are not risking theirs lives, they are not the ones going to die!

Someone made a comment about Bin Laden and Saddam are two seperate issues, but its funny how you never hear anything about Bin Laden any more.  It's like they are focusing more attention on Saddam because they have no clue where Bin Laden is, and don't want the U.S citizens to get upset over they fact that they couldn't find him.  Its like hey, look in this hand (and you don't see whats in the other hand).  Misdirection!

I know I'm going to get flammed for this one, but.....

How much can you trust a government that conspired to kill its own President, JFK.  I mean come on, you honestly believe Oswall could shoot that fast and have hit the president that many times?  Or that one bullet could magically hit the president that many times?  There were so many factors on that day.  Why would they kill JFK?  Because the miltary advisors didn't like the fact that he was "soft".  That and the fact that JFK wanted to "restructure" the FBI and they dind't want that. I mean JFK avoided a war with the Cubians/Russians during the Cubian Missle Crisis and they were afraid the same would happen during VietNam.  To this day, if JFK was still alive, I bet the war in VietNam could have been avoided.  And possibly even the Gulf war.

Thats why IMHO a lot of this stuff you hear is propaganda.

Call me a conspiracy freak or looney tune etc.  Whatever!  I'm just opened minded to a lot of things, and don't believe things I hear because so and so said so.

If you really want to stop terrorism, someone must bring the war to them. In the movie Swordfish, John Travolta said it perfectly:

"they bomb a church, we bomb 10"

"they hijack a plane, we take out an airport"

"they execute american tourists, we tactically nuke an entire city"

"our job is to make terrorism so horrific, that it becomes unthinkable to attack Americans"

Thats how you stop terrorism. I mean how else do you rationalize with people that have no reguard for their own lives, let alone others and suicide bomb tourists and innocent people? Hell their families praise them for doing so and they think that their God will praise them for suicide bombing people.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Dont forget that basically ALL of Bushs team has a history in the oil business, even Mrs Rice has an Oil Tanker named after her. I will update you later on that cause I am busy right now. I will present their OIL-CVs to you.

And guess what. Iraq is considered as the country with the second biggest oil-resources in the region after Saudi Arabia. So no american would have to be afraid of having to sell his silly SUV.

In terms of mistrust and broken UN-laws Corea is far ahead of Iraq. But in contrast to Iraq Corea is REALY armed and has high risk of conflict-involvement. If the US wants to fight against a threat then they must have mixed that up or maybe the smell of oil just made them stoned!

Either get into a serious war with a serious aim or keep playing Americas Army!

Saddam is in a kind of very extremely vexed situation right now. While Mr. Blix is searching arround in his country the americans are getting ready. Is the war is gonna come anyway then Saddam is wasting time. He should get his army ready but that is kind of tough if th UN-inspectors are keeping their eyes open. If we think about it as a strategy then it works damn well. Saddam cant move a single finger right now, while the enemy is growing stronger.

[5thSFG.CNUTZ 0]

I'm not bashing America or an anti-American etc.</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

Never said you were... I respect your and everyones opinion.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How much can you trust a government that conspired to kill its own President, JFK. <span id='postcolor'>

Everyone should question the government of all nations. I would say they are all corrupt in some degree. However, that doesn't change what Saddam has done and could do.

[nopulse 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Jan. 17 2003,11:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Dont forget that basically ALL of Bushs team has a history in the oil business, even Mrs Rice has an Oil Tanker named after her. I will update you later on that cause I am busy right now. I will present their OIL-CVs to you.

And guess what. Iraq is considered as the country with the second biggest oil-resources in the region after Saudi Arabia. So no american would have to be afraid of having to sell his silly SUV.

Saddam is in a kind of very extremely vexed situation right now. While Mr. Blix is searching arround in his country the americans are getting ready. Is the war is gonna come anyway then Saddam is wasting time. He should get his army ready but that is kind of tough if th UN-inspectors are keeping their eyes open. If we think about it as a strategy then it works damn well. Saddam cant move a single finger right now, while the enemy is growing stronger.<span id='postcolor'>

Couldn't have said it any better  Anyone that thinks this isn't about OIL is blind!

Sure the U.S has oil resources, but those are used for reserves incase of a "war".  Most of the oil/gas that is used in the cars etc in America comes from the middle east.

What disgusts me is how a lot of people think its "cool" to go war and are all gun ho about it.  Especially 15yr olds.  Its the ones that are not going to be in the war that disgust me.  Because they sit back and think its cool to watch the war on CNN from their homes. I mean its easy to say lets go to war etc when your not going to be actively in it, but to have bullets flying past you, i think you would have a different view.

[nopulse 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Jan. 17 2003,12:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Everyone should question the government of all nations.  I would say they are all corrupt in some degree.  However, that doesn't change what Saddam has done and could do.<span id='postcolor'>

I agree CNUTZ, all governments are corrupt in some degree.

Power + Money = Greed!

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ Jan. 16 2003,02:47)</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">What disgusts me is that American soldiers are going to war and lose their lives over OIL! <span id='postcolor'>

You're missing something here.  It's not up to the American soldiers to choose if they want to fight.  It's up to the politicians and the president, and his advisors, etc.

Soldiers/Marines just follow their orders.<span id='postcolor'>

FUCK PRESIDENTS, THEIR ADVISORS AND ALL THE OTHER DUMB POLITICIANS!!!!!!!!!

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Jan. 15 2003,09:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sauron?

<span id='postcolor'>

Aaaaaaaah great, now you've spoiled the end of the 3rd movie!!!!

[Aaron Kane 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Jan. 17 2003,18:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ Jan. 16 2003,02:47)</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">What disgusts me is that American soldiers are going to war and lose their lives over OIL! <span id='postcolor'>

You're missing something here.  It's not up to the American soldiers to choose if they want to fight.  It's up to the politicians and the president, and his advisors, etc.

Soldiers/Marines just follow their orders.<span id='postcolor'>

FUCK PRESIDENTS, THEIR ADVISORS AND ALL THE OTHER DUMB POLITICIANS!!!!!!!!!<span id='postcolor'>

Surely you dont mean the BOARD PRESIDENT too!?!?

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Aaron Kane @ Jan. 16 2003,19:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Jan. 17 2003,182)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ Jan. 16 2003,02:47)</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">What disgusts me is that American soldiers are going to war and lose their lives over OIL! <span id='postcolor'>

You're missing something here.  It's not up to the American soldiers to choose if they want to fight.  It's up to the politicians and the president, and his advisors, etc.

Soldiers/Marines just follow their orders.<span id='postcolor'>

FUCK PRESIDENTS, THEIR ADVISORS AND ALL THE OTHER DUMB POLITICIANS!!!!!!!!!<span id='postcolor'>

Surely you dont mean the BOARD PRESIDENT too!?!?<span id='postcolor'>

Hm, better be careful now...

No no, of course not, those aren't the kind of presidents that i'm talking about!

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And everyone knows that tank shells have Uranium in them. And when the U.S and Canadian soldiers were putting out the fire, they were not told about the Uranium they were exposed to. A lot of U.S soldiers developed cancer because they were not wearing the proper protective clothing and wear exposed the lethal doses of uranium!<span id='postcolor'>

No, thats not true. The uranium that's in some ammunition is depleted uranium. Although it is radioactive, it's not nearly radioactive enough to be dangerous. The only real danger from depleted uranium is when you're getting shot at by it. People who have survived DU attacks usually inhale dust from the shells whic turns out to be toxic.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It sickens me how little anyone cares about soldiers, especially their own government! I mean they are putting their lives on the line to secure our freedom and to protect us. I hate how the government thinks they are expendable!

Its easy for those military advisers up in the White House or Canadian Parlament to basically send soldiers to die. I mean ofter all, they are not risking theirs lives, they are not the ones going to die!<span id='postcolor'>

This is where you're very wrong. The government does care about the soldiers lives very much. But we didn't build up a big military to NOT send it off to war. It's never an easy decision to send troops off to war.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Someone made a comment about Bin Laden and Saddam are two seperate issues, but its funny how you never hear anything about Bin Laden any more. It's like they are focusing more attention on Saddam because they have no clue where Bin Laden is, and don't want the U.S citizens to get upset over they fact that they couldn't find him. Its like hey, look in this hand (and you don't see whats in the other hand). Misdirection!<span id='postcolor'>

The president doesn't control the media, and the media is what's focusing on Saddam now instead of Bin Laden. The US is still fighting in Afghanistan, but the media isn't covering it as much.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I know I'm going to get flammed for this one, but.....

How much can you trust a government that conspired to kill its own President, JFK. I mean come on, you honestly believe Oswall could shoot that fast and have hit the president that many times? Or that one bullet could magically hit the president that many times? There were so many factors on that day. Why would they kill JFK? Because the miltary advisors didn't like the fact that he was "soft". That and the fact that JFK wanted to "restructure" the FBI and they dind't want that. I mean JFK avoided a war with the Cubians/Russians during the Cubian Missle Crisis and they were afraid the same would happen during VietNam. To this day, if JFK was still alive, I bet the war in VietNam could have been avoided. And possibly even the Gulf war.<span id='postcolor'>

A conspiracy theory isn't a very good reason to not trust a government.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you really want to stop terrorism, someone must bring the war to them.<span id='postcolor'>

What do you think we're doing in Afghanistan?

Albert

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Dont forget that basically ALL of Bushs team has a history in the oil business, even Mrs Rice has an Oil Tanker named after her. I will update you later on that cause I am busy right now. I will present their OIL-CVs to you.

And guess what. Iraq is considered as the country with the second biggest oil-resources in the region after Saudi Arabia. So no american would have to be afraid of having to sell his silly SUV.<span id='postcolor'>

If this war is even slightly about oil, it's about protecting oil from Saddam. Remember what he did in the gulf war? Remember how much oil he burned? Remember how he was close to controlling the majority of the world's oil supply? He's the oil hungry one, not us.

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

In terms of mistrust and broken UN-laws Corea is far ahead of Iraq. But in contrast to Iraq Corea is REALY armed and has high risk of conflict-involvement. If the US wants to fight against a threat then they must have mixed that up or maybe the smell of oil just made them stoned!

Either get into a serious war with a serious aim or keep playing Americas Army!<span id='postcolor'>

I've already explained how Korea and Iraq are two completely seperate issues.

People who complain about us going to war with Iraq so quickly, then ask why we're not going to war with Korea are hypocrits. We're trying democracy with Korea first. We're not trying it with Iraq because Saddam's not a diplomat at all.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 17 2003,20:34)</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">And everyone knows that tank shells have Uranium in them.  And when the U.S and Canadian soldiers were putting out the fire, they were not told about the Uranium they were exposed to.  A lot of U.S soldiers developed cancer because they were not wearing the proper protective clothing and wear exposed the lethal doses of uranium!<span id='postcolor'>

No, thats not true.  The uranium that's in some ammunition is depleted uranium.  Although it is radioactive, it's not nearly radioactive enough to be dangerous.  The only real danger from depleted uranium is when you're getting shot at by it.  People who have survived DU attacks usually inhale dust from the shells whic turns out to be toxic.<span id='postcolor'>

Not quite true. The toxic dust from the DU shells have been causing long term problems for people exposed to it. This includes allied soldiers. It was a big problem after the Gulf War. The problem surfaced in Kosovo too, which led to a ban of its usage (in Kosovo).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I've already explained how Korea and Iraq are two completely seperate issues.

People who complain about us going to war with Iraq so quickly, then ask why we're not going to war with Korea are hypocrits. We're trying democracy with Korea first. We're not trying it with Iraq because Saddam's not a diplomat at all.<span id='postcolor'>

They are not hypocrites. They are not complaining, just wondering why there is no logic to the US policy. Saddam has been cooperating with the UN, NK has not. On the contrary, Korea has been making very explicit threats against the US. Saddam has made no threats except for saying that he will defend his country and people against an invasion. The only reason for the different policies is that doing something military against Korea is beyond USA's capabilities right now.

[nopulse 0]

If the U.S cares so much about its soldiers, why is it that a McDonald employee thats min wage makes more an hour than a PFC?  They did a comparison on tv the other day about it.  Apparently the soldiers are not too happy with their pay (can't blame them). Compared to what they soldiers make in the private sector, the U.S army doesn't pay them shit!

I understand they get health, dental etc out the wazzoo, and if they decide to live on base, then housing and food is paid for.  But IMHO they are not paid enough to risk their lives for others.  It should be soldiers that earn 6 figures, instead of hollywood actors or sports players.

[turms 0]

Image removed

nuff said.

[nopulse 0]

LMAO *in tears*

I love that picture

[Longinius 1]

"This is where you're very wrong. The government does care about the soldiers lives very much. But we didn't build up a big military to NOT send it off to war. It's never an easy decision to send troops off to war."

If the government cares so much, why are so many Gulf War veterans suffering from this Gulf War Syndrome being treated so badly?

"If this war is even slightly about oil, it's about protecting oil from Saddam. Remember what he did in the gulf war? Remember how much oil he burned? Remember how he was close to controlling the majority of the world's oil supply? He's the oil hungry one, not us."

The oil aspect is simply the fact that Iraq has access to one of the worlds largest oil resources, and Saddam isnt giving any of it to the US companies. He has however signed contracts with French and Russian companies.

Bush and his buddies are all kneedeep in the oil industry. Getting cut off from the Iraqi oilfields would be disastrous in the long run for the American oilindustry.

[Akira 0]

The US knows where Bin Laden is!

And they are sending a special group to take care of him!

Bin Laden's Downfall!