The Iraq Thread

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Jan. 18 2003,18:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">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.<span id='postcolor'>

Exactly... That's what i mean too..

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Just follow the following logic.

Saddam, as most dictators has no ideological boundaries with  religion. There might be an evidence of weapons of mass destruction (which are propbably no longer stationed within Iraq).

If the last tape that has been published of Osama Bin Laden is authentic (there is no proof against it), then we can also say that he in no way mentioned the upcoming Iraq-war. Didnt he think it is not important to mention or didnt he see any connections between Saddam and him? Saddam, maybe funds the palestinian suicide bombers, is he therefore a threat for the US? What is he gonna do? What weapons does he have to be building in order to harm the US? Do we just talk about bombing embassies or do we talk about intercontinental missiles?

The next question would be, why should he do it? He has no religious motivations. He is not a risk-taking person, cause otherwise he wouldnt have wiped out everyone in his family who could have endangered his power-monopoly. He also must be a very foxy person cause he was able to stay in power after a lost war, he was expected to get stoned by his generals. So what goddamn reason should Saddam have to attack the US??? what goal??? And what do you think he assumes would be the consequence???

There are some things I read throughout the last pages that I would like to clarify. Saddam didnt gas his own people. He gased the kurdish minority. This minority was funded by the American forces to attack Saddam from within. But unfortunately in the end the kurds didnt get the expected support (which they were promised) and were wiped out in a quick action by Saddam, without having had the slightest chance. Or why do you think the kurds now refuse to cooperate once again with the US, and why do you think the US right now feels obliged to protect the kurdish teritory in Iraq?  (I guess remources)

Why cant the government control the press? Of course it can, there are two strategies to make the press and media work your way.

Number 1 is you impose rules that forbid them to do things, but that would be against the freedom of press.... and then there is solution 2 which is to reward the press for doing the right thing. A good example is not only the funding of the film "we were heroes" (under the condition that the script will be modified as much as the military authority wants it). And the second is that only members of the press that have turned out to be governmental-friendly will be allowed into sensitive areas and therefore get the competitive edge over their critical competitors from other publishers. Want an example? Did you see that during the last training in Iraq only a selected amount of journalists was shown the war-room? The message is clear:

if you want the story which your newspaper needs to survive then we must like you, and we like you if you express in your articles that you like us. A win win situation.

And the second solution would be that no journalists will be allowed on the battlefield. And may I remind you that this was not the case in Vietnam. And I can also proof to you that pictures of dead Marines were publicly shown during the war. Times change and the US government has learned their lesson. The lesson was that basically no enemy can keep up against their military strike-power and so the hardest battle will be fought on the home-front, within the own country. Propaganda has its revival!

[5thSFG.CNUTZ 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What is he gonna do? What weapons does he have to be building in order to harm the US?<span id='postcolor'>

Suitcase nuke?  Umm, dirty bomb?

From this

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A Turkish military officer has revealed that Turkey's intelligence service believes Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's regime has successfully produced a nuclear device.

According to U.S. intelligence officials the new intelligence on Iraq's nuclear weapons efforts was obtained in early March and adds to a growing body of intelligence on Saddam's efforts to produce nuclear arms. <span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">An Iraqi nuclear weapons engineer, Khidir Hamza, defected to the United States in 1996 and disclosed that Iraq switched from a plutonium-based nuclear arms program to one based on enriched uranium, which can be produced from natural uranium mined in Iraq.  The nuclear program is being carried out in schools, mosques, hospitals and warehouses," the defense official said. "The possibility of finding them and destroying them is negligible. We can't say when (Saddam) will cross that threshold, but he will. It could be tomorrow, it could be a year from now. If he successfully buys weapons-grade uranium, he may already have a nuclear device. But he certainly, if he doesn't have one now, is going to get one. And when he does the whole geopolitics of the region will be changed fundamentally." <span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saddam, as most dictators has no ideological boundaries with  religion.<span id='postcolor'>

I think not....

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1991, during the Gulf War, when President Saddam Hussein added the words "Allahu Akbar", Arabic for "God is great", to the Iraqi flag and promised he would liberate Jerusalem, a holy site for Muslims. <span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A few years later, Saddam, a Sunni Muslim, launched what is called the "Faith Campaign", making the studying of the Koran compulsory in schools across Iraq. In 1996, alcohol was banned in restaurants. <span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Our leader, the great believer Saddam Hussein, always called on people to go back to religion and real values," said Sheikh al Qaysi.  "He is our example, our school in religion and faith. Our great project now is to start teaching the sayings of the Iraqi president in universities."<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saddam Hussein built the Mother of all Battles mosque, in reference to the name he gave to the 1991 Gulf War. Surrounding the dome are eight minarets, four that are shaped like Scud missiles sitting on a launch pad and four like machine-gun barrels. Inside the mosque lies a Koran inscribed in the blood of the Iraqi leader, or so Iraqi officials say. The Iraqi president reportedly donated 50 pints of blood to write the holy book.

<span id='postcolor'>

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Pah, Allah Akhbar is as often used as the word "yeah" in american songs.

Saddam is not religious and you are not proofing me wrong, you are simply stating that he uses the religion as another backup tool. As you might assume this is especially important for his haterage against the Isreali. And in the end this is his last boundary with the other arab nations! Why would he cut that line if he can use it. But no, he is not religious nor is he intending a Jihad.

The one question that remains is...why should he commit a silly attack of revenge if the consequence would be his own death or loss of power? If his situation would be without hope then yes, but as long as he is the leader of a rich power-monopoly why should he give it up?

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Jan. 19 2003,10:23)</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">Nearly every country has these ties.<span id='postcolor'>

But not nearly every country would give WMD to terrorists either.<span id='postcolor'>

Right, the U.S. probably would.

Isn't the U.S. responsible for creating the Taliban?

And how about this

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Meanwhile, Kennedy made the first major U.S. arms sale to Israel, providing it with advanced Hawk anti-aircraft missiles--a crucial policy shift that marks the origins of America's alliance with the Jewish state. But Kennedy also feared that Israel would get the bomb and demanded that Ben-Gurion open his secret nuclear reactor to U.S. inspectors, leading to a grave confrontation. Ultimately, Israel agreed to inspections--but continued its nuclear weapons program under the cover of intense secrecy.

<span id='postcolor'> From the book Support Any Friend

Kennedy's Middle East and the Making of the U.S.-Israel Alliance

Should Israel not be on the top of the Axis of Evil list? I mean, their army is just a giant terrorist cell.

[5thSFG.CNUTZ 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The one question that remains is...why should he commit a silly attack of revenge if the consequence would be his own death or loss of power? If his situation would be without hope then yes, but as long as he is the leader of a rich power-monopoly why should he give it up?

<span id='postcolor'>

If a suitcase nuke was given to terrorist by Saddam.  It was used to attack the US.  I would say there could be a good chance it would not be traced back to him.  More so if the Uranium was obtained from another source outside of Iraq.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But no, he is not religious nor is he intending a Jihad.

<span id='postcolor'> Funny that footage of him praying has been on TV?  You have now way of knowing that he is not religous for sure.  At least I am trying to determine his stance by his own actions.

[5thSFG.CNUTZ 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Right, the U.S. probably would.

Isn't the U.S. responsible for creating the Taliban?<span id='postcolor'>

I never said the U.S. has not sponsored groups. I was talking about WMD. You know what WMD means right? Ummm, I don't think the U.S. Government gave the Taliban any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons!

And about Kennedy and Israel, Hawk anti-aircraft missles are not WMD. The key in you quote is they proceeded under secrecy. You are getting off-topic a little.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Jan. 19 2003,19:11)</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">The one question that remains is...why should he commit a silly attack of revenge if the consequence would be his own death or loss of power? If his situation would be without hope then yes, but as long as he is the leader of a rich power-monopoly why should he give it up?

<span id='postcolor'>

If a suitcase nuke was given to terrorist by Saddam.  It was used to attack the US.  I would say there could be a good chance it would not be traced back to him.  More so if the Uranium was obtained from another source outside of Iraq.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But no, he is not religious nor is he intending a Jihad.

<span id='postcolor'> Funny that footage of him praying has been on TV?  You have now whay of knowing that he is not religous for sure.  At least I am trying to determine his stance by his own actions.<span id='postcolor'>

Pah, to get this tiny nuclear bomb you dont have to wait for Saddam to finish it. I buy you a map of Kasachstan and by end of next week you will be the proud owner of one.  

But seriously, someone praying on a carpet doesnt mean jackshit, I mean Hitler also met the pope. Or do you realy seriously think that Saddam is driven by religious aims, well I seriously doubt that.

[5thSFG.CNUTZ 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Pah, to get this tiny nuclear bomb you dont have to wait for Saddam to finish it. I buy you a map of Kasachstan and by end of next week you will be the proud owner of one.  <span id='postcolor'>

That doesn't make what Saddam is soing any less dangerous does it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But seriously, someone praying on a carpet doesnt mean jackshit, I mean Hitler also met the pope. Or do you realy seriously think that Saddam is driven by religious aims, well I seriously doubt that. <span id='postcolor'>

I guess actions don't mean anything.  But you can't prove he is not religious.  Show me something other than his political affiliation that proves he isn't religious.  My wife is a registered Democrat...  Well, the Democratic Party isn't religious but my wife is Catholic.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Jan. 19 2003,19:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If a suitcase nuke was given to terrorist by Saddam.  It was used to attack the US.  I would say there could be a good chance it would not be traced back to him.  More so if the Uranium was obtained from another source outside of Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

What you omitt is that Saddam has no beef with the US, its the other way around. He was actually pro US until you started dropping bombs on him when he invaded Kuwait. Saddam has no other motivation then self defence to engage in a conflict with the US.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I never said the U.S. has not sponsored groups. I was talking about WMD. You know what WMD means right? Ummm, I don't think the U.S. Government gave the Taliban any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons<span id='postcolor'>

Not nuclear (as far as I know) but chemical and biological, in Iraq's case. Check earlier posts in this thread, many references were provided. During the Iran-Iraq conflict USA provided Iraq with bio-chemical agents that had no other usage then in weapons.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I guess actions don't mean anything. But you can't prove he is not religious. Show me something other than his political affiliation that proves he isn't religious.<span id='postcolor'>

His political affiliation is a form of communism that is anti-religious per se. The only way Saddam uses religion is in attempts to get the arab states to symphatize with him. It is just as his opposition to Israel. He couldn't care less about the existance of Israel ideologically, but he uses it every chance he gets to create a split between the US and its arab allies. It almost succeeded in the Gulf War.

[5thSFG.CNUTZ 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What you omitt is that Saddam has no beef with the US, its the other way around. He was actually pro US until you started dropping bombs on him when he invaded Kuwait. Saddam has no other motivation then self defence to engage in a conflict with the US. <span id='postcolor'>

What you omit is that it was U.N. support after he invaded Kuwait.  Sweden not part of the UN my friend?  So it is not like we (and 26 other coalition nations) just bombed him for no reason.  I guess that would give motive for attack wouldn't it?  Also, if he has no beef with the US then why did he try to assasinate President Bush years later?

I also realize he was US backed but that was when the US thought he was less of a threat than Iran.  Who if you recall was taking US Citizens as hostages.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not nuclear (as far as I know) but chemical and biological, in Iraq's case. Check earlier posts in this thread, many references were provided. During the Iran-Iraq conflict USA provided Iraq with bio-chemical agents that had no other usage then in weapons. <span id='postcolor'>

Lesser of two evils.  Iran was killing and attempting to kill U.S. Citizen.  Saddam wasn't at that point.  Besides, the comment was refered to the Taliban and terrorists.  I doubt many nations considered Iraq a terrorist state at time point in history.  Maybe if the US had a crystal ball we wouldn't have done it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">His political affiliation is a form of communism that is anti-religious per se. The only way Saddam uses religion is in attempts to get the arab states to symphatize with him. It is just as his opposition to Israel. He couldn't care less about the existance of Israel ideologically, but he uses it every chance he gets to create a split between the US and its arab allies. It almost succeeded in the Gulf War.<span id='postcolor'>

From what I recal there was several middle-east nations invloved in Desert Storm.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 20 2003,00:57)</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">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.<span id='postcolor'>

No, like I've said countless times in this thread we have plenty of proof. You're just ignoring it because it doesn't agree with you.

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

The USA is not an unstable dictatorship sitting on a world asset. Iraq is.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I could continue forever but I don't have to...<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah you've already made me laugh.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do you really think Saddam would ever let American companies in when he can get the French and Russians instead?<span id='postcolor'>

For the right money I'm sure he would.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The proof of this? Again, you just speculate, just like your government. You support murder based on speculation and its pathetic.<span id='postcolor'>

This is NOT speculation. THE UN INSPECTORS KNEW OF THESE WEAPONS, then they were kicked out. They're still there.

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

Don't start on the stupid argument about the atomic bombs. We attacked a military asset, not civilians.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If there is WMD then the weapon inspectors will very probably find it.<span id='postcolor'>

Unless, of course, he's exported it. Or hidden it which isn't that hard to do.

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

It doesn't matter how old I am, or how much experience anybody else has. We've all been exposed to and are arguing different propoganda.

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

And so do you.

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

Oh yes, and you have no evidence.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What you omitt is that Saddam has no beef with the US, its the other way around. He was actually pro US until you started dropping bombs on him when he invaded Kuwait. Saddam has no other motivation then self defence to engage in a conflict with the US. <span id='postcolor'>

I find it hard to believe that you think this. Saddam does have a beef with the US, more now than ever. Of course Saddam wouldn't engage the US in a force on force war, we all know he'd lose. He's probably exported his weapons to a friendly nation in the region or given them to some terrorist organization.

I want to go on record as saying that I will not support a war on Iraq unless we can find his weapons, or evidence that he's done anything except destroy his weapons. Frankly, IMO, he should be removed from power because he's a dictator who rapes and murders his own people (probably not personally, but you get the idea), but that's just my opinion.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Quote  

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)

That doesnt belong here, basta! Just to inform you about past experiences all of us had:

If something like this is posted and someone else consideres it as general US-bashing with no purpose than to ridicule a nation then the thread gets locked. That would be quite ashame after we discussed so disciplined for 117 pages. And once a thread like this gets locked, the moderators wont allow us to establish a new one untill some tempers have settled, and this can take days.

A BIT MORE GERMAN DISCIPLINE PLEASE  

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

The interesting question will also be what happens if even the UK will (ups sorry I mean "would") no longer back up an attack without a UN-resolution? Will the US go for it all alone, ignoring the international community?

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Jan. 19 2003,13:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Right, the U.S. probably would.

Isn't the U.S. responsible for creating the Taliban?<span id='postcolor'>

I never said the U.S. has not sponsored groups. I was talking about WMD. You know what WMD means right? Ummm, I don't think the U.S. Government gave the Taliban any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons!

And about Kennedy and Israel, Hawk anti-aircraft missles are not WMD. The key in you quote is they proceeded under secrecy. You are getting off-topic a little.<span id='postcolor'>

Reasoning is what you are missing. Supporting such groups means to you, Iraq could also give WMD to them. For the U.S. it means what? Something else? Double standard.

The key there is the Israelis were hiding their WMD program. Right?

Or can I say, Iraq is suppost to have no WMD's but it's okay if it keeps some WMD programs under secrecy. ?

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Jan. 19 2003,15:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Quote

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)

That doesnt belong here, basta! Just to inform you about past experiences all of us had:

If something like this is posted and someone else consideres it as general US-bashing with no purpose than to ridicule a nation then the thread gets locked. That would be quite ashame after we discussed so disciplined for 117 pages. And once a thread like this gets locked, the moderators wont allow us to establish a new one untill some tempers have settled, and this can take days.

A BIT MORE GERMAN DISCIPLINE PLEASE

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

The interesting question will also be what happens if even the UK will (ups sorry I mean "would") no longer back up an attack without a UN-resolution? Will the US go for it all alone, ignoring the international community?<span id='postcolor'>

I disagree, it is a logical process. Countering the logic behind wanting to go for Iraq.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 19 2003,14:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 20 2003,00:57)</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">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.<span id='postcolor'>

No, like I've said countless times in this thread we have plenty of proof. You're just ignoring it because it doesn't agree with you.<span id='postcolor'>

What?

</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">[*]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)<span id='postcolor'>

The USA is not an unstable dictatorship sitting on a world asset. Iraq is.

<span id='postcolor'> Why not stop making it unstable then. Logic, logic, logic calling FSPilot.

</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">So has the US.<span id='postcolor'>

Don't start on the stupid argument about the atomic bombs. We attacked a military asset, not civilians.

<span id='postcolor'> Now you are calling people stupid again, and trying to make your point while blocking others.

</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">If there is WMD then the weapon inspectors will very probably find it.<span id='postcolor'>

Unless, of course, he's exported it. Or hidden it which isn't that hard to do.

<span id='postcolor'> Nah, they would still be eventually found. You have a coalition inspecting Iraq, they are not naive.

</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">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! <span id='postcolor'>

It doesn't matter how old I am, or how much experience anybody else has. We've all been exposed to and are arguing different propoganda.

<span id='postcolor'> Except being young is usually associated with being immature and not having enough experience to understand some issues.

</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">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. <span id='postcolor'>

And so do you.

<span id='postcolor'> No because his points make logical sense and he is aware of the situation.

</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">What you omitt is that Saddam has no beef with the US, its the other way around. He was actually pro US until you started dropping bombs on him when he invaded Kuwait. Saddam has no other motivation then self defence to engage in a conflict with the US. <span id='postcolor'>

I find it hard to believe that you think this. Saddam does have a beef with the US, more now than ever. Of course Saddam wouldn't engage the US in a force on force war, we all know he'd lose. He's probably exported his weapons to a friendly nation in the region or given them to some terrorist organization.

<span id='postcolor'> Or maybe not?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I want to go on record as saying that I will not support a war on Iraq unless we can find his weapons, or evidence that he's done anything except destroy his weapons. Frankly, IMO, he should be removed from power because he's a dictator who rapes and murders his own people (probably not personally, but you get the idea), but that's just my opinion.<span id='postcolor'> Removing Hussein is turning most of the Iraqi population against the agressor. Not good idea.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

thanks bn880 for creating this QUOTES mess that we have to read.

[5thSFG.CNUTZ 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Or can I say, Iraq is suppost to have no WMD's but it's okay if it keeps some WMD programs under secrecy.<span id='postcolor'>

First, don't assume I am a big pro-Israeli supporter because I am from the U.S.  No it wasn't ok for them to do what they did.  I don't think Israel was right to develop them under secrecy but I fail to see what that has to do with Iraq.  If it was secret then what could the US have done about it if they didn't know?  NK developed them secretly and wow, they have them.  I doubt they would have gotten them if the U.S. knew they were violating the treaty they signed.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Reasoning is what you are missing.  Supporting such groups means to you, Iraq could also give WMD to them.  For the U.S. it means what?  Something else?  Double standard.<span id='postcolor'>Do you have a credible reference for that? If it is true, at the time the U.S. supported the Taliban they were not considered terrorists.  Again, if the US government had a crystal ball, maybe things would be different.  None of this changes the fact that Iraq is dangerous!  You can bitch and moan all you want about past policy and how you don't agree with it but the threat still exists.  Something needs to be done.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Jan. 19 2003,16:05)</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">Reasoning is what you are missing. Supporting such groups means to you, Iraq could also give WMD to them. For the U.S. it means what? Something else? Double standard.<span id='postcolor'>Well, at the time the U.S. supported the Taliban they were not considered terrorists. Again, if the US government had a crystal ball, maybe things would be different. None of this changes the fact that Iraq is dangerous! You can bitch and moan all you want about past policy and how you don't agree with it but the threat still exists. Something needs to be done.<span id='postcolor'>

What is the exact threat, who is thretening whom and why?

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Jan. 19 2003,16:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">thanks bn880 for creating this QUOTES mess that we have to read. <span id='postcolor'>

WAS, everything is in richtung!

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 20 2003,03:00)</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">What? <span id='postcolor'>

Did I stutter?

I've provided everyone here with my reasons and my logic for why we should attack Iraq. You haven't disputed it, only come up with different reasons why we shouldn't attack Iraq, which I have negated.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why not stop making it unstable then. Logic, logic, logic calling FSPilot. <span id='postcolor'>

Because Saddam is the reason it's unstable.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now you are calling people stupid again, and trying to make your point while blocking others.<span id='postcolor'>

I didn't call anybody stupid. I said his argument was stupid. We've been over that "point", or lack thereof, before and have decided to drop it, as it's irrelevant.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nah, they would still be eventually found. You have a coalition inspecting Iraq, they are not naive.<span id='postcolor'>

Unless they exported it. What if they're not in Iraq?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Except being young is usually associated with being immature and not having enough experience to understand some issues.<span id='postcolor'>

Point being? Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm immature.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No because his points make logical sense and he is aware of the situation. <span id='postcolor'>

No they don't.

See, this is getting off topic. We're not talking about Iraq, we're nitpicking each other's personalities and backgrounds. It's not productive.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Or maybe not? <span id='postcolor'>

Or maybe yes?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Removing Hussein is turning most of the Iraqi population against the agressor. Not good idea.<span id='postcolor'>

I highly doubt it. Saddam has been overtly oppressive to these people. The reason a lot of people think they support Saddam is because they'd probably be shot for saying they dont, especially on camera.

As a side note, I don't care how he's removed from power. I'd be happy with the US funding the rebellion in Iraq. But then again, what'd we do in Afghanistan.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Yes, everything in richtige richtung, but too many richtungen. This reminds me of my early traumas with double brackets!

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I highly doubt it. Saddam has been overtly oppressive to these people. The reason a lot of people think they support Saddam is because they'd probably be shot for saying they dont, especially on camera.

As a side note, I don't care how he's removed from power. I'd be happy with the US funding the rebellion in Iraq. But then again, what'd we do in Afghanistan.

THat I doubt. People live in fear, but their rage against an agressor will reunite. I say this because I recently watched a docu about teenagers in Iraq. They didnt talk in fear of opression but in a fear of war. The will certainly be pulled into the army and later on appear in a glorious statistic as "IRAQI soldiers killed". Without the threat they would be civillians. Hell I can only repeat myself over and over again but a war does not only mean dead american soldiers but especially a great amount of dead civillians and recruits that have nothing to do with 9/11 nor any of Saddams intentions.

[5thSFG.CNUTZ 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What is the exact threat, who is thretening whom and why? <span id='postcolor'>

Well for all the reason I have mentioned in previous posts and this new one today Iraq is a threat to the US and its neighbors..

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">KUWAIT CITY -(AP) A Kuwaiti soldier accused of spying for Iraq was working on plans to poison a large number of American soldiers, a well-connected Kuwaiti newspaper reported Saturday.

The alleged spy, Sgt. Mohammed Hamad al-Juwayed of the Kuwaiti National Guards, also was helping Iraqi agents infiltrate the country with the aim of assassinating Kuwaiti politicians and blowing up oil and power facilities, according to the newspaper Al-Watan.

The Interior Ministry announced al-Juwayed's arrest on Friday, saying he "provided security and military information to the Iraqis and spied on movements of senior Kuwaiti officials with the intent of facilitating terrorist and sabotage operations."

<span id='postcolor'>

***Please note the word "terrorist"

[bn880 5]

Well, the neigbours of the U.S., are Mexico and Canada. Iraq is a threat to neither, nor the U.S.

You mean Iraq is an incovenience to the U.S. foreign policy and financial well being. even though attacking Iraq probably means financial ruin for the U.S., it still appears to be worth more than doing nothing.

EDIT: To explain the last point, there must be a great economical return for invading Iraq.