The Iraq Thread

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 19 2003,04:52)</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 won't convince FSPilot, no matter what evidence or rational arguments you present and he is not alone. There are a lot of people like him. <span id='postcolor'>

You are right Denoir - but I cannot stop because I want a better and more just world - no matter how insignificant I - the one person - might be.

Ok - this is in norwegian for some of you scandinavians.

Noen mennesker minner meg om Erasmus Montanus: Kan en sten fly? Kan mor lille fly? Nei! Ergo er mor lille en sten!

Forskjellen er kanskje at Erasmus bruker logikk - mens andre bare nekter ĺ innse noe annet en det postulert fra et visst ideologisk stĺsted

[NavyEEL 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 19 2003,04:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[*] Iraq has no connections to AQ or other terrorists

There are a lot of people like .... I can't pretend to understand the mental block against rational thought that is evidently there but it is a classic phenomena.<span id='postcolor'>

no connections to terrorists? so harboring or being supportive of terrorists no longer counts as a connection to them?

and i totally agree that people have a mental block against rational thought. however, it's not FSPilot. the block goes both ways.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Jan. 19 2003,05:27)</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 connections to terrorists? so harboring or being supportive of terrorists no longer counts as a connection to them?<span id='postcolor'>

Iraq connected to terrorists? And harbouring terrorists? Wich ones? You'll have to educate me on this one!

[nopulse 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 19 2003,05:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq connected to terrorists? And harbouring terrorists? Wich ones? You'll have to educate me on this one!<span id='postcolor'>

You forget brgnorway, that if the "United States" says he is, then it must be lol

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (nopulse @ Jan. 19 2003,05:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 19 2003,05:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq connected to terrorists? And harbouring terrorists? Wich ones? You'll have to educate me on this one!<span id='postcolor'>

You forget brgnorway, that if the "United States" says he is, then it must be lol<span id='postcolor'>

....how silly of me!

[Harnu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 19 2003,04:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Regardless of all attempts of justification for the war, these facts remain:

[*] Iraq has not threatened the United States or anybody else for that matter

[*] Iraq has no connections to AQ or other terrorists

[*] There is not a single shred of evidence that Iraq is currently having or developing nuclear weapons.<span id='postcolor'>

Very true, but these facts also remain

[*]Iraq has developed biological and chemical in the past

[*]Iraq has shown it's willingness to use weapons of mass destruction in the base, against enemies, and it's own civilians

Speculation that does make sense is how Iraq kicked out inspectors before.  Saddam obviously thought that they were finding too much.  To disarm after kicked them out just doesn't make any sense.  And Iraq has had years to hide WMD, as well as consolidate them.

_

I'll just tack this on the end here. A few nights ago I was watching a program on The History Channel about the UN Inspectors and what they found in Iraq before. One thing was something that is used for uranium in nuclear weapons. If I can find a source on it I'll post it up.

[brgnorway 0]

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

[*]Iraq has developed biological and chemical in the past

[*]Iraq has shown it's willingness to use weapons of mass destruction in the base, against enemies, and it's own civilians

<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, what you say is true and makes sense - he did develop biologic and chemical weapons in the past. He also used such weapons on his own civilians. However, the present UN resolution is all about what he has or hasn't for that matter. Past action is not the point with this resolution.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Speculation that does make sense is how Iraq kicked out inspectors before.  Saddam obviously thought that they were finding too much.  To disarm after kicked them out just doesn't make any sense.  And Iraq has had years to hide WMD, as well as consolidate them.

<span id='postcolor'>

I agree it doesn't make sense. It could very well be that Saddam is hiding weapons. However, it is up to UN weapons inspectors to prove it.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm just saying the picture that was taken of the UN inspectors "inspecting" one of the so called bio/chem war heads that they found is bogus. If it was an actual bio/chem war head as they say it was, then they would have used proper protective clothing to inspect it. In other words, more propaganda<span id='postcolor'>

Look at more than just headlines and pictures. The warheads they found were empty.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I couldn't agree with you more. Its like brainwashing citizens using the media with propaganda. If it continues this way, they will be able to get away with murder, quite literally!<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah! Except 1) the government doesn't control the media and 2) the media is criticizing the government more now than ever!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, you didn't create him. But you helped him secure his position by aiding him financially and military. Don't come up with the "remember he was our ally once" thing. If you can't accept criticism on your own behalf - that is - your countries dubious actions of the past - then you clearly have no ability of self criticism.<span id='postcolor'>

It's not about criticism, I've criticised my own government myself. This is about you trying to blame people for things they're not responsible for. Iraq was our ally. How are we supposed to tell the future? What if some dictator took over the UK after we made friends with them? It's stupid to hold us responsible for what our ex-friends do when we have absolutely no way of predicting them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> By the way - why do you think all your "former allies" turn and attack you like a mad dog? You are playing a dangerous game and suffer the consequences all to often. Why not learn from your mistakes and stop fucking up all the time. Yes, Saddam is realy really bad, but he is partly your own responsability.<span id='postcolor'>

Well firstly, I don't control the government. Second, you're not telling me where you think we're going wrong. You think we're going wrong by making allies?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is a scam. He is practicaly not allowed to sell his oil because it's sold at so called "unknown" prices. The price of oil from Iraq is supposed to be decided AFTER the deal has been done. Would you buy oil if you didn't know what to pay for it? That's also the biggest problem with the current famine and lack of medicines in Iraq. There is no money to buy material from the "oil for food"-programme.<span id='postcolor'>

No, it is NOT a scam. If Iraq wants food and medicine, they trade it for oil.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh come on! They are potentially much more dangorous than Saddam will ever be!<span id='postcolor'>

Did you not read what I said? They're harmless. The only reason we don't want them having WMDs is because we don't want them having a bargaining chip.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They did also throw out the weapons inspectors monitoring the closed down atomic programme etc.<span id='postcolor'>

Since when were they recquired to keep weapons inspectors in their country? Since when was that atomic program a recquired program?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">North Korea should in your logic certainly not deserve "a new" chance. Maybe your government are too pragmatic for it's own good in the long term.<span id='postcolor'>

Or maybe your mind is closed, but your mouth remains open. I've already explained to you how my logic works, and how NK deserves a chance with diplomacy, but you're still going on about it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[*] Iraq has not threatened the United States or anybody else for that matter<span id='postcolor'>

The fact that he has WMDs is a threat enough to everybody.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[*] Iraq has no connections to AQ or other terrorists<span id='postcolor'>

This is not about Iraqi connections to terrorists.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[*] There is not a single shred of evidence that Iraq is currently having or developing nuclear weapons.<span id='postcolor'>

What about all the WMDs that the UN inspectors didn't get to destroy before they were kicked out in 1998? Do you really think that he disarmed?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Making up pretexts for wars is as old as our civilization. The German made up reasons to invade Europe. The Russians made up reasons to invade Afganistan. Saddam Hussein made up reasons for invading Kuwait. It is in human nature trying to justify ones actions. With some propaganda you will have people believing those pretexts.<span id='postcolor'>

That doesn't prove anything. You could say this about any war or government action.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">History has shown that there is no need for an elaborate pretext - it's enough just to make up something and people will follow since people have a psychological trait that makes them behave like sheep under certain conditions.

What I find is sad is that this lack of individual independent thinking hasn't changed dispite our modern information society. One would say that real information is the best antidote to propaganda. Apparently not.<span id='postcolor'>

You could say the same thing about the anti-war people.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You won't convince FSPilot, no matter what evidence or rational arguments you present and he is not alone. There are a lot of people like him. I can't pretend to understand the mental block against rational thought that is evidently there but it is a classic phenomena.<span id='postcolor'>

You won't convince Denoir, no matter what evidence or rational arguments you present and he is not alone. There are a lot of people like him. I can't pretend to understand the mental block against rational thought that is evidently there but it is a classic phenomena.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 19 2003,06:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You won't convince Denoir, no matter what evidence or rational arguments you present and he is not alone. There are a lot of people like him. I can't pretend to understand the mental block against rational thought that is evidently there but it is a classic phenomena.<span id='postcolor'>

Nice try but you are making a logical error there. You are the one that says that you trust your president without actually seeing any proof of what he is saying. You have said that you implicitly trust your government on this subject.

So the situation is not quite reversable. You are willingly accepting things without proof.

[Harnu 0]

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

Speculation that does make sense is how Iraq kicked out inspectors before.  Saddam obviously thought that they were finding too much.  To disarm after kicked them out just doesn't make any sense.  And Iraq has had years to hide WMD, as well as consolidate them.

I agree it doesn't make sense. It could very well be that Saddam is hiding weapons. However, it is up to UN weapons inspectors to prove it. <span id='postcolor'>

Read again, I said it does make sense  

[llauma 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ Jan. 19 2003,06:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 19 2003,04:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Regardless of all attempts of justification for the war, these facts remain:

[*] Iraq has not threatened the United States or anybody else for that matter

[*] Iraq has no connections to AQ or other terrorists

[*] There is not a single shred of evidence that Iraq is currently having or developing nuclear weapons.<span id='postcolor'>

Very true, but these facts also remain

[*]Iraq has developed biological and chemical in the past

[*]Iraq has shown it's willingness to use weapons of mass destruction in the base, against enemies, and it's own civilians

Speculation that does make sense is how Iraq kicked out inspectors before.  Saddam obviously thought that they were finding too much.  To disarm after kicked them out just doesn't make any sense.  And Iraq has had years to hide WMD, as well as consolidate them.

_

I'll just tack this on the end here.  A few nights ago I was watching a program on The History Channel about the UN Inspectors and what they found in Iraq before.  One thing was something that is used for uranium in nuclear weapons.  If I can find a source on it I'll post it up.<span id='postcolor'>

[*]USA has developed nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in the past.

[*]USA has used weapons of mass destruction against civilians.(Hiroshima and Nagasaki)

[*]USA has invaded countries that haven't been a threat against them. (Grenada)

[*]USA has assisted tyrants to gain power in their countries and to cover up torture and other abuses. (Pinochet)

[*]USA has disobeyed international agreements. (Kyoto protocol)

I could continue forever but I don't have to...

[Longinius 1]

"You've proven my point. If Bush wanted the oil for our companies he'd simply lift the embargo."

Do you really think Saddam would ever let American companies in when he can get the French and Russians instead?

"He's attacked his neighbors before. And the UN weapon inspectors that were kicked out in 1998 said they could not destroy some of his weapons before they left. He's probably exported them if you ask me."

The proof of this? Again, you just speculate, just like your government. You support murder based on speculation and its pathetic.

"Iraq has developed biological and chemical in the past

Iraq has shown it's willingness to use weapons of mass destruction in the base, against enemies, and it's own civilians"

So has the US.

[Jinef 2]

Without the help of the Americans the war would have gone on longer but Hitler would have got greedy and probably try to launch an invasion on Britain and Russia at the same time, we would defend and the Russians would move in from the east and we would all be speaking English with a Russian accent!

The main help America provided was in the form of supplies and it was very useful - even if we did have to put up with them hanging around our country with chewing gum and silk!

[Jinef 2]

On topic,

People seem to underestimate the UN and overestimate Iraq.

If there is WMD then the weapon inspectors will very probably find it. If Iraq is a threat to American national security (ROFL) like everyone keeps banging on about then the UN will deal with it because a lot of their representation is American.

Apparently there are now 70% more reported attempted terror attacks and if someone threatens to kill their pet hampster it's called terrorism. These new terrorists don't seem to be very competent or is it just a bunch of bollocks to keep us scared and supporting of murder in acountry far, far away? I prefered the good ol' IRA, if they were in town you would know about it, 15 people dead and a big bloody hole in the side of a shop....great. Not a load of people running around with chemicals in test tubes and just getting caught!

It's not our increased security because at the height of IRA bombings we were just as 'secure' as now.

FSPilot - how old are you? You are talking to a Swedish soldier who's got a load experience talking sheer sense to my ears and Badgerboy - a RAF guy!

You sound like an all American boy who would gladly die for his corporati.. country and doesn't actually know anything about what he's talking about.

I'm not going to give tons of evidence and try to persuade you as because i've said before it will all end in tears ... mine!

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Jan. 18 2003,12:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Without the help of the Americans the war would have gone on longer but Hitler would have got greedy and probably try to launch an invasion on Britain and Russia at the same time, we would defend and the Russians would move in from the east and we would all be speaking English with a Russian accent!

The main help America provided was in the form of supplies and it was very useful - even if we did have to put up with them hanging around our country with chewing gum and silk!<span id='postcolor'>

Uhm... Why did you post this? Isn't this a topic about Iraq?

Anyway, thank god Hitler was so dumb to start operation barbarossa, he sent a large amount of his forces there... I sometimes wonder if it would've been possible for the allies to invade Europe when all those german soldiers would've stayed in europe instead of attacking Russia...

If you ask me, the decision to attack Russia was the dumbest thing hitler could do... And i'm very thankful that he made such a stupid decision...

[DarkLight 0]

If you ask me, things are going very very very wrong lately. Hatred seems to grow in this world, only a few years ago a large amount of europe really liked the US Gov and had a lot of trust in them. Throughout the last years, people have lost respect, and a lot of people are very angry. Even in Europe, a place that always had good connections with the US, things are getting worse than ever. The East is getting more pissed off than ever before, tensions all over the place...

The "You are with us, or you are against us" way of thinking probable also has a lot to do with the tensions.

If you ask me, the US Gov are digging their own grave slowly... I'm not bashing, just telling what it looks like at this moment. If things aren't gonna change soon, pretty much everyone will be sick of all this crap... The upcoming war in Iraq will probable make the European people even more angry, i don't know about all the countries, but i can guarantee you that in some of the countries, you'll have a hard time finding someone who supports a war.

All this stuff scares me... I live in Central Europe, nice place to live but also a nice place to fight. Both world wars were fought heavily in my country... i just hope a third won't follow...

[5thSFG.CNUTZ 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> It could very well be that Saddam is hiding weapons. However, it is up to UN weapons inspectors to prove it. <span id='postcolor'>

Actually, it is up to Iraq to prove they don't have WMD!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">New York, Nov. 26 (NNN): The chief United Nations weapons inspector, Hans Blix on Monday warned that Iraq must provide "convincing" proof to back up its claim that it no longer has weapons of mass destruction, asserting that declarations submitted by Baghdad to inspectors during the summer "in many cases left an open question whether some weapons remained". <span id='postcolor'>

I don't see how they are doing that considering these statements.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NICOSIA - Chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix said yesterday Iraq had not given his inspectors "genuine cooperation".

Blix, who arrived in Cyprus on the eve of a visit to Baghdad today, said he would impress on Iraqi officials the "seriousness" of failing to help his inspectors in their search for any nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

"There has been prompt access. There has been access everywhere. That is fine. But on substance, there has not been sufficient cooperation. We need to have sincere and genuine cooperation," he told reporters.

<span id='postcolor'>

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Jan. 18 2003,14:38)</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"> It could very well be that Saddam is hiding weapons. However, it is up to UN weapons inspectors to prove it. <span id='postcolor'>

Actually, it is up to Iraq to prove they don't have WMD!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">New York, Nov. 26 (NNN): The chief United Nations weapons inspector, Hans Blix on Monday warned that Iraq must provide "convincing" proof to back up its claim that it no longer has weapons of mass destruction, asserting that declarations submitted by Baghdad to inspectors during the summer "in many cases left an open question whether some weapons remained". <span id='postcolor'>

I don't see how they are doing that considering these statements.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NICOSIA - Chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix said yesterday Iraq had not given his inspectors "genuine cooperation".

Blix, who arrived in Cyprus on the eve of a visit to Baghdad today, said he would impress on Iraqi officials the "seriousness" of failing to help his inspectors in their search for any nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

"There has been prompt access. There has been access everywhere. That is fine. But on substance, there has not been sufficient cooperation. We need to have sincere and genuine cooperation," he told reporters.

<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

How can you proof that you don't have anything? WHat do you think they're doing? Giving us acces to all those places, how else could they proof that they don't have any weapons?

I'd like you to proof that you don't have a red t-shirt lying somewhere in your house. And allowing me to inspect your whole house isn't good enough... How else can you proof that you don't have one lying in your house?

[Shabadu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Jan. 19 2003,13:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Jan. 18 2003,14:38)</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"> It could very well be that Saddam is hiding weapons. However, it is up to UN weapons inspectors to prove it. <span id='postcolor'>

Actually, it is up to Iraq to prove they don't have WMD!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">New York, Nov. 26 (NNN): The chief United Nations weapons inspector, Hans Blix on Monday warned that Iraq must provide "convincing" proof to back up its claim that it no longer has weapons of mass destruction, asserting that declarations submitted by Baghdad to inspectors during the summer "in many cases left an open question whether some weapons remained". <span id='postcolor'>

I don't see how they are doing that considering these statements.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NICOSIA - Chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix said yesterday Iraq had not given his inspectors "genuine cooperation".

Blix, who arrived in Cyprus on the eve of a visit to Baghdad today, said he would impress on Iraqi officials the "seriousness" of failing to help his inspectors in their search for any nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

"There has been prompt access. There has been access everywhere. That is fine. But on substance, there has not been sufficient cooperation. We need to have sincere and genuine cooperation," he told reporters.

<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

How can you proof that you don't have anything?  WHat do you think they're doing?  Giving us acces to all those places, how else could they proof that they don't have any weapons?

I'd like you to proof that you don't have a red t-shirt lying somewhere in your house.  And allowing me to inspect your whole house isn't good enough...  How else can you proof that you don't have one lying in your house?<span id='postcolor'>

This is the problem I have with the whole Iraq deal.

I mean just 'cause you didn't find any means he's hiding them better? You can't simply say 'We think he's hiding WMD so we're going to attack his country.', if the weapons inspectors don't find anything then there aren't any grounds for invasion.

Besides, if he did have them, he would only use them in self-defence. What would be the point in attacking anyone? He would be annihilated as soon as the weapons were halfway across the sea.

He just wants power, he wouldn't jeapordise that power by using thses weapons. We can't justify that we are going in for our own safety.

A better route to follow would be to start imposing world-wide human rights laws. That way you can take him down on the basis that he wiped out how ever many thousands of his own people.

[5thSFG.CNUTZ 0]

Hey, I didn't make the resolution... The U.N. did...  Everyone says, give the inspectors a chance to do their job.  Sounds like the head inspector says he can't fully do his job because he is not getting full cooperation from Iraq.

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

From U.N. Resolution 1441:

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">New York, Nov. 26 (NNN): The chief United Nations weapons inspector, Hans Blix on Monday warned that Iraq must provide "convincing" proof to back up its claim that it no longer has weapons of mass destruction, asserting that declarations submitted by Baghdad to inspectors during the summer "in many cases left an open question whether some weapons remained". <span id='postcolor'>

It was Blix (a U.N. Representative) that said Iraq must prove they don't have WMD, not me.

[5thSFG.CNUTZ 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Besides, if he did have them, he would only use them in self-defence. What would be the point in attacking anyone? He would be annihilated as soon as the weapons were halfway across the sea.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't believe that is true.  What would stop him from giving WMD to a terrorist, then the terrorist attacking the U.S.?  I think it would be pretty hard to trace back to Saddam.  Yes, he does have terrorist ties.  Also, the U.N. has mandated he stop these activities, he continues them today.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> UNSCR 687 prohibits Saddam Hussein from committing or supporting terrorism, or allowing terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. <span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In 1993, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) directed and pursued an attempt to assassinate, through the use of a powerful car bomb, former U.S. President George Bush and the Emir of Kuwait. Kuwaiti authorities thwarted the terrorist plot and arrested 16 suspects, led by two Iraqi nationals.

 

Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians.

 

Iraq shelters several prominent Palestinian terrorist organizations in Baghdad, including the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), which is known for aerial attacks against Israel and is headed by Abu Abbas, who carried out the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered U.S. citizen Leon Klinghoffer.

Iraq shelters the Abu Nidal Organization, an international terrorist organization that has carried out terrorist attacks in twenty countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people. Targets have included the United States and several other Western nations. Each of these groups have offices in Baghdad and receive training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from the government of Iraq.

In April 2002, Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money offered to families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers. The rules for rewarding suicide/homicide bombers are strict and insist that only someone who blows himself up with a belt of explosives gets the full payment. Payments are made on a strict scale, with different amounts for wounds, disablement, death as a "martyr" and $25,000 for a suicide bomber. Mahmoud Besharat, a representative on the West Bank who is handing out to families the money from Saddam, said, "You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue."

Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM

Sunday, June 9, 2002

A Czech diplomat has contradicted U.S. media reports that Mohammad Atta never met an Iraqi intelligence agent.

Hynek Kmonicek, permanent representative of the Czech Republic to the United Nations, said that September 11 hijack suspect Mohammad Atta did meet in Prague with the Iraqi diplomatic official.<span id='postcolor'>

Article about Iraq training terrorists

[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 it would be pretty hard to trace back to Saddam.<span id='postcolor'>

One of the easiest and unique things to identify and trace back on this planet is the origin of bio, chem or nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

Remember the Anthrax letters in the US after 911 ? They were clearly identified as US laboratory origin. Better check your own installations.

My mouth is still sewed , so I can´t tell the things I have experienced during turkmenistan stay, but I hope I will get clearance next week. As a hint you might want to search the internet on "Skywatch".

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, he does have terrorist ties.<span id='postcolor'>

Nearly every country has these ties. It´s just a matter of definition who is assumed bad or good at the moment. Years ago Taliban were not assumed as terrorists for the US government, but now they are.

One thing to remember. Most of the terrorists that flew planes into WTC were Saudi Arabian. Why dont you attack them ? Mohasmmed Atta also received a shitload of money from the Vize pakistani intel director, but still Pakistan is an "ally". Funny how things are twisted. There are also reports that Atta met a CIA contact man in a meeting with Vize pakistani Intel chief. And not to forget the confirmed meeting of Osama Bin Laden with 2 CIA officials during a hospital stay in Abu Dhabi not long before 911.

[5thSFG.CNUTZ 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nearly every country has these ties.<span id='postcolor'>

But not nearly every country would give WMD to terrorists either.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Mohasmmed Atta also received a shitload of money from the Vize pakistani intel director, but still Pakistan is an "ally". Funny how things are twisted. <span id='postcolor'>

Sometimes you have to pick the lesser of two evils to get things accomplished.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One of the easiest and unique things to identify and trace back on this planet is the origin of bio, chem or nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

Remember the Anthrax letters in the US after 911 ? They were clearly identified as US laboratory origin. Better check your own installations.

My mouth is still sewed , so I can´t tell the things I have experienced during turkmenistan stay, but I hope I will get clearance next week. As a hint you might want to search the internet on "Skywatch".

<span id='postcolor'>

All that does is give you the origional origin.  Not who necessarily used the weapon.

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

On a google search all I get is Nasa, astronomy and UFO links?

[Longinius 1]

"Actually, it is up to Iraq to prove they don't have WMD!"

You are innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. Or does that only apply to Americans?

"Sounds like the head inspector says he can't fully do his job because he is not getting full cooperation from Iraq."

Nor from the US, since all the so called proof that Bush has wont be handed over.

It is quite hard to prove you dont have something. That is why it is up to the accuser to prove you have comitted a crime and not the other way around.

[5thSFG.CNUTZ 0]

</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">New York, Nov. 26 (NNN): The chief United Nations weapons inspector, Hans Blix on Monday warned that Iraq must provide "convincing" proof to back up its claim that it no longer has weapons of mass destruction, asserting that declarations submitted by Baghdad to inspectors during the summer "in many cases left an open question whether some weapons remained". <span id='postcolor'>You are innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. Or does that only apply to Americans?<span id='postcolor'>

Hey, I didn't come up with that standard... Hans Blix and the U.N. did.  I suggest you complain to them.  I just want to follow their lead as the world suggests.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nor from the US, since all the so called proof that Bush has wont be handed over.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, the weapon inspectors are getting intelligence now.  Does it not make sense that the president can't tell the world everything we know.  It could put sources at risk?