The Iraq Thread

[bn880 5]

6--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 21 2003,006)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I agree.

But "should" is extremely different than what is realistic. I think everyone should live in peace...unfortunately that doesn't mean it will happen.<span id='postcolor'>

And I agree to that, but who has this quote "No single rain drop is responsible for the flood" I think it is a key to having peace. Understanding and playing your part....

EDIT: on a funny note http://www.theonion.com/onion3901/bush_on_north_korea.html

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OMG the USA has more nukes than anybody else, quick men we gota invade, china, north korea, russia, india pakastian all have nukes, i belive 1 % of USA's stock pile is enough to kill us all. One question a country like iraq with little anti missle defence systems that if uses nukes would become nothing but a crater, were as a country like the US developing nuke defence systems is more likly to use them because thy can defend them selfs. There are far more dangrous countries than iraq, iraq isnt even the US's problem iraq has no means to attack the US.<span id='postcolor'>

For the proper responses to your statements: read this thread.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i dont believe mustard gas was used to destroy cities, if iraq is invaded by the US and they strike the US with nukes to "save" their troops lives thats the same excuses they use for US attacking the jap cities 2 times. Fact is US is only country with a bad record with nuke weapons<span id='postcolor'>

We're not talking about JUST nuclear weapons, we're talking about all WMDs. and the US is not the only country to use WMDs.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">all WMDs should be outlawed in everysingle country, chemical weapons have the ability to wipe out everyone, who knows how long and far teh agent can travel.<span id='postcolor'>

If there was some way to get rid of every WMD int he world it would've been done a long time ago.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Fact is the USA has more WMD than anybody else, y do they have the right to stop other countries using them, they showed in ww2 wat they do, they are only effective agaisnt civilian populations so y have thousands of them and y continue to build them.<span id='postcolor'>

Stop trying to dig up the argument about world war two. we've already argued it, agreed to disagree, read what we said you're interested.

I'd love to have a peaceful world. Nothing more to worry about except getting a sweet airline pilot job. But that's not going to happen. Let's think realistically here. If there was a way to do it, it would've been done.

[HellToupee 0]

there is a way to get rid of every WMD, first u make them illegal, then u take every one of them out of the missle silos destroy them and put the radio active bits in a bunker for teh nxt 10,000 years, the US pulled out of the treaty to reduce nuke weapon stock piles, it was held in south africa, nothing good can come of having nuke weapons to use them is to destroy us all, the US tried to black mail my country into letting them put nuclear ships in our waters or no free trade.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Jan. 21 2003,12:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">there is a way to get rid of every WMD, first u make them illegal, then u take every one of them out of the missle silos destroy them and put the radio active bits in a bunker for teh nxt 10,000 years, <span id='postcolor'>

You don't really believe that would happen do you?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the US pulled out of the treaty to reduce nuke weapon stock piles, it was held in south africa, nothing good can come of having nuke weapons to use them is to destroy us all, the US tried to black mail my country into letting them put nuclear ships in our waters or no free trade.<span id='postcolor'>

Uhhh, ok. What relevence does this have to anything?

[Longinius 1]

"If you know it, it's already been proven, or you can prove it. Otherwise it's just a theory."

Not so, I all ready gave you an example of something known that can't be proven.

"You think the only way to get food is to import it?"

For Iraq, there isnt really much agricultural land to use. If none of the food reached the population there would hardly be any by now.

"Since when was the UN inspection team an American source?"

You mean the guys who havent found any WMD's this time around, but you still use as a reference to prove your standpoint?

"No, it's on Saddam's hands. He's the one who started and lost the war that ended up in these terms of surrender."

Yes, and we are the ones making civilians pay for his mistakes.

"Don't count on it."

Its good to see that you dont trust your own press to even give an accurate portrayal of your homeland. It is scary though that you trust them to tell you the situtation abroad.

"Yeah, tractors are a real target."

Tractors are probably on the blockade list since it can be used by the military. So is a lot of other material used in farming, since it can be used for other things as well.

"Nobody's banned medical aid. He can still import it if he trades it for oil. Either way it doesn't have any relevance to the conversation. Everything else you said was irrelevant."

Are you daft? The whole point is that he CANT import it. Possibly he can import bandaids and asprin, but thats about it. He cant import dialisys equipment, he cant import most modern medicine or lab equipment. Dont you get that??

"because he'll use them to kill people, not help people."

That wasnt your point two posts ago. You stated earlier he could import the medicines needed. Can't you atleast stick to your arguments? I hope you someday live in a nation that gets bombed back to the stoneage. After you have been bombed and most of your family is killed, you get sanctions imposed on your nation. A ban on cancer treatment is one of the effects. Then your kid or wife gets cancer and slowly dies, because your doctors cant treat her. Maybe then you will understand what this is all about. Forget facking Saddam, you can blow him to bits if you want. Do you understand that it is ordinary people that are suffering because of the sanctions we are forcing on them? And you yourself are supporting the deaths of women and children. You're sick.

"UN inspectors found WMDs, he USED WMDs, Iraqi defectors have confessed about WMDs. What else is there? "

To prove that he still has them maybe??

"the US pulled out of the treaty to reduce nuke weapon stock piles, it was held in south africa, nothing good can come of having nuke weapons to use them is to destroy us all, the US tried to black mail my country into letting them put nuclear ships in our waters or no free trade.

Uhhh, ok. What relevence does this have to anything? "

It proves the double standard your nation is fighting for. You can have WMDs and do whatever you want. Noone else can. And you wonder why some people critizise you and others hate you. Yeah, what a riddle...

[Balschoiw 0]

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

First of all, I didnt yell at you.

No, but you were getting aggressive and personal.

<span id='postcolor'>

OMG. You should be grown up enough to face someone that doesnt meet your opinions.

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

Second you can do something. Open your mind and eyes.

You're the one who seems to have his eyes closed to the evidence against Iraq.

<span id='postcolor'>

Sorry FS , but my job requires more neutrality and objectivity than any other job I could think of by now. It is my definate job to be objective and not emotional lead. I have seen plenty of lies coming true in variouse countries on this planet so please don´t tell me to open my eyes to a subject I am really very well informed about. Neutrally informed and only based on facts. Not media informed and mislead.

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

If you are still convinced sign up for army as it seems to be a very important thing to you to spread pain over Iraq. Grab a gun and hop onto the wartrain.

I suggest this to everyone here that thinks war is cool and can solve problems of a higher nature.

I've said before that I don't support a war without evidence that Saddam has, or has been exporting his WMDs.

<span id='postcolor'>

You better make up your mind. What is it now ? Once you say we need to bomb Iraq or Saddam or both, next you say there is plenty of evidence and two seconds later when it comes to a personal participation you say you don´t support a war without evidence. Come on, what you say is pretty weird.

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

It must have been a very long film as the papers I know of have more than 12000 pages.

Maybe we're thinking of different papers.  This show was an hour long and outlined saddams WMD programs and NBC capabilities, including what the UN inspectors could not destroy when they were kicked out in 1998.

<span id='postcolor'>

Whatever you say...I only can repeat myself. Not everything is public. You should know best when checking your own countries information policy about certain things. Do you really believe that all the reports are public ? Then you have a really funny view on intelligence work.

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

Seriously, the passages about condition of military and unitcount plus reports on facilities are not public. They will be in 20 years maybe but for now they are locked and only open for UN personel at a certain security level. You have to realize that info published to media is not all of the info collected and available.

So they have more?  It's obviously public knowledge if it was in a documentary.

<span id='postcolor'>

A piece of information is not the whole knowledge , is it ? Funny you think everything is public. It is not. Iraq may have lost the war, but has rights as an independant country. This rights include a protection of data. Even you should know that.

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

so what happened 4 or 5 years ago ? You answer. Iraq is not to be disarmed completely. There was never an agreement on that. Pretty stupid idea anyway.

It's stupid to think that he disarmed voluntarilly after having WMDs in 1998.  He wouldn't spend so much time and money on it AND kick out the inspectors just to disarm voluntarilly when they're gone.

<span id='postcolor'>

The reasons why he kicked out inspectors were variouse and not necessarily based on the fact that he wanted to continue with the developement of WMD´s. YOu have no proof for that. In fact if you check the Iraq´s ability to buil WMD´s you will find out faster than I can say "One , two , three" that the facilities required to research and build WMD´s were

a) mostly destroyed

b) turned into civil useage

c) plus he is not having the amount of raw materials to build WMD´s in the numbers you suspect him to do.

Not to forget that all this facilities must have vanished to dust when the inspectors reentered the country. Don´t you agree that it is very hard to delete any trace to programs of WMD´s in a short time like this ?

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

Again you refuse to see that Iraq is the best sat and aerial watched country on this planet since GW. The inspectors have not found any WMD´s till today. So what´s the problem ?

Could've done the same thing he did in desert storm: move whatever he needs to when there aren't any satellites overhead.

<span id='postcolor'>

Funny but since GW the number of satellites over the Iraq has a bit changed. The word "geo -stationary" may ring a bell. No more black times the Sat is transmitting 24 hours a day. It´s just these Sat´s the US are afraid of to be destroyed when they want to use there microwave weapon against Iraq com´s in an upcoming war.

Source ? Here you go:

January 15, 2003: The US is set to combat test its new directed-energy (microwave) weapons against Iraqi command facilities, frying their electronics as an attack begins. The problem is that focusing such weapons can be difficult and they could end up damaging US aircraft and even satellites. New programs are underway to develop shielding for US systems, but for now the US will have to use tactics to time the use of such weapons when they do not affect other US equipment. --Stephen V Cole

The devil gesture pic was only shown to demonstrate that "evil" is a pure thing of definition as many people assume your president and government as "evil" like you do it vice versa to them. No point here.

[Bernadotte 0]

I haven't read much of this thread. I searched January's posts for the term "bluff" and "bluffing" and found none. So maybe my opinion isn't shared by very many.

The US and Britain are bluffing to achieve the highest level of cooperation possible from Iraq. That is all. There will be no invasion.

Even if Iraq has WMDs, any nation with enough smarts to develop them will also be clever enough to hide them.

So, how long can the bluff last? Hussein knows that Bush is trying to irritate, intimidate and humiliate them until they lose their temper and cause an obstruction that could be considered a "material breach", but that this can't go on forever. Each time an inspector searches through another Iraqi scientist's wife's underwear drawer, the world community gets more fed up with Bush's program and Hussein knows it. Time is on his side.

The only problem with Bush's bluff is that he may have trouble getting re-elected if Hussein is still in power next year and santions are lifted. Many Americans will begin to ask, "What the hell was that all about? All that money spent and no oil to show for it." This is the only reason that there might be an invasion. But I doubt it.

[bn880 5]

Well, it could be a bluff, but either way, for the sake of every one, we have to consider this to be a real grave situation. Just in case it does turn bad. I think you know what I mean. I recognized this a while ago, but there is no need to dismiss the issue.

For instance if someone calls your house 10 times telling you he will kill you, okay, you may figure it's a bluff to make you scared and fall into depression, but the chance that it is not a bluff would make you actively engage the situation with the police.

[Balschoiw 0]

To call this all a "show" or "bluff" is the most funny thing I have heard till now.

Do you have an idea what this "bluff" costs ?

No way it is a bluff.

[Frisbee 0]

Let me just say this for the umpteenth time, IF america had decent proof of WMD's,they'd show it to the UN,and if the un states that the proof is there,then it'll at least ahve some justification.

Yes I really don't believe that the US has proof,why wouldn't they show it to the UN then?They'd get a coalition on their side to help them.

[nopulse 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 21 2003,03:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Jan. 21 2003,03:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And the "devil" is a very  flexible thing to define.

<span id='postcolor'>

Not to take away from your post, and I'm sure the pic was in jest...

But that is from a University of Texas function. His little hand gesture is used at football games of the Universities "Longhorns"....a type of bull for those that don't know. It means "Hook em horns."

Many jokes around here center around the "devilish" nature of the sign (similar to the Atlanta Braves "Tomahawk")<span id='postcolor'>

Or it could mean this lol

[nopulse 0]

I agree that no countries should have WMD, and should be outlawed, but its not going to happen.  Its like saying you can stop racism.  The fact is, you can not change everyone's view, everyone has their opinion of things and are entitled to them.

In other words, say Russia, Iraq, Isreal, U.S and every other countries with WMD decided to get rid of all their WMD.  I bet you there will be some small rogue terrorist group that gets their hands on them and uses them.  It would be open season on the countries that could not defend themselves against such an attack with WMD.

WMD are used to strike fear, and it works darn well IMHO.  That's why no one has "pushed the button".  Because they know all too well the outcome of what would happen if someone decided to launch WMD.  The other side would retaliate with WMD. And no one wins.

I'm apposed to WMD, but it would be quite hard to track countries that have WMD (they could lie and hide them), and quite hard to get them to get rid of them.  One side would accuse the other of not disarming all the WMD, and break the treaty.

Fact is, there will never be world peace in the world.  There will always be some crackpot that has a insane vision of ruling the entire world (like Hitler).

Just think if Hitler would ahve been a successful artist, maybe he wouldn't have started WWII. One never knows!

[Guest]

Denoir is proud to present: The Logic of FSPilot

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 15 2002,04:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

The inspectors are checkign out the U.S. claims because the U.S. CANNOT back up its claims for the reasons I've explained before.

<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 16 2002,04<!--emo&:0)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

I'll just sleep tight tonight knowing that my president probably had a good reason to do what he did, I just don't know it.

<span id='postcolor'>

So you say that you don't need personally to see any evidence, since you trust your president.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 21 2003,04:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

I've said before that I don't support a war without evidence that Saddam has, or has been exporting his WMDs.

<span id='postcolor'>

Wait a second now, what's this evidence stuff now? I thought you said that you don't need it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 14 2002,06:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

How were they supposed to tell if the Taliban was going to be a stable government or not?  They got the soviets out which was our objective, then the Taliban took control.

<span id='postcolor'>

So you don't have a crystal ball?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 20 2003,19<!--emo&:0)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

But the US isn't looking to feel justified by Saddam's actions.  We know he has WMDs, we know he'll probably use them.  So are we to sit and wait for him to use them, kill a few thousand more innocent civilians?

<span id='postcolor'>

So you do have a crystall ball?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 13 2002,04:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

But if my country does something wrong I'm not going to abandon it and run for the hills.  I'm a patriot, as you've already labelled me several times.  I know my country has made mistakes in the past, but that doesn't mean we cant do good things in the future.<span id='postcolor'>

So doing bad things in the past doesn't mean you are bound to do them again?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 20 2003,19<!--emo&:0)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

So are we to sit and wait for him to use them, kill a few thousand more innocent civilians?

<span id='postcolor'>

So doing bad things in the past does mean that you are bound to do them again?

[Balschoiw 0]

I usualy dont quote myself, but FS makes me do it as his circular debating methods with a lot of memory holes seem to repeat over and over again. Things he does not want to see or believe are ignored , turned around, twisted to the extend that he doesn´t know what he assumed as right or wrong, believeable or not, justified or not ten pages ago.

I appreciate contributing debaters, but i see hardly any contributions from his side. He has set up a personal defense ring around his patriotism and it is useless to discuss with a person that is blinded by media and his own government. We can carry on this thing for ages but i am sure he will not move an inch from his opinions. I don´t care anyway as there are people here that are interested in developements and world affairs and not only want to infestate their position. For a discussion of course this is a killer.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 21 2003,15:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I recognized this a while ago, but there is no need to dismiss the issue.<span id='postcolor'>

Just because it's probably a bluff doesn't mean the issue can be dismissed.  And I certainly wouldn't want Hussein to think it's a bluff so don't tell him, k?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Jan. 21 2003,15:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To call this all a "show" or "bluff" is the most funny thing I have heard till now.

Do you have an idea what this "bluff" costs ?

No way it is a bluff.<span id='postcolor'>

If you want a real good laugh just consider the new ABM system that doesn't even work.  Do you have any idea how much that will cost?

Sorry.  I just don't buy your too-expensive-to-be-a-bluff argument.  Time will tell which one of us is being naive.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you want a real good laugh just consider the new ABM system that doesn't even work.  Do you have any idea how much that will cost?

Sorry.  I just don't buy your too-expensive-to-be-a-bluff argument.  Time will tell which one of us is being naive.<span id='postcolor'>

I tend to like strange ideas but this idea is really very unreal.

We will see. I hope we never see US forces moving into iraq without common UN sense. This would be best for all participants.

EDIT: I have met US and British officials that were checking out a turkish airport that has been used during GW1 for Airstrikes against Iraq. You know the whole machine is rolling. To call this a bluff is unrealistic. Us have 4 major carriers in the region when Kitty Hawk arrives. This leaves a big defense hole to the US and other hotspots. You know what I mean ? The US are not known to give up a lot of their self defence capacities for no reason. UN itself is aware of the situation and it treats it like the hot thing it is. There are so much risks along the troop crowd around Iraq. This is no movie drama. Iran is mobilizing right as we speek to do some weird things.

Turkish armored forces already have entered the Iraq.

All bases here are on high alert and British forces are doing a maneuver right now that is related to the possible war. German Bundeswehr will start to guard US installations within germany with 7000 men. This is no bluff. This is real.

[bn880 5]

Obviously I would actually bet it is not a bluff, but there is almost always a chance. Like I tried to say before, discussing wether it is a bluff is not relevant to us, might be for Iraq. I don't think there is a point to discussing "bluff or no bluff".

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I'm going with Balschoiw on this one. Like it or not, this sucker is for real. We've mobilized too many formations, called up too many reserves, and invested too much capital (political and monetary) to have this all turn out to be a bluff. At this point, I propose that the most constructive thing we could do is start a Paypal pot and have people take bets on when D-day (or maybe D-week, if you guys aren't feeling lucky) will be.

[Die Alive 0]

April 28th, Saddam's birthday!

-=Die Alive=-

[Balschoiw 0]

Pls dont let us turn this thread into date-speculation one.

IMO there are more interesting things to discuss than that.

[Die Alive 0]

You are so right, this is the What is to be expected after the war on iraq? thread.  So all that Japan talk and WW2 talk should be ignored and stricken from the record.

Now where are those What is to be expected BEFORE the war on iraq? thread and the What is to be expected DURING the war on iraq? threads?

Put the horse in front of the carriage people, so we can see its asshole better.

-=Die Alive=-

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Jan. 21 2003,12:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm going with Balschoiw on this one. Like it or not, this sucker is for real. We've mobilized too many formations, called up too many reserves, and invested too much capital (political and monetary) to have this all turn out to be a bluff.<span id='postcolor'>

So you do want to discuss a useless topic of the bluff? How can we be sure this is too much for a bluff? Yes I know the huge mobilization/transportation/training costs already invested (well more less). Maybe after all it is not such a huge expense to pay for some end goal, whatever that might be. I really don't care to eliminate one possibility from the analysis of this problem, it's still there even if very small.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 21 2003,22:04)</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 mean the guys who havent found any WMD's this time around, but you still use as a reference to prove your standpoint?<span id='postcolor'>

They haven't found any because he's hidden them. These aren't big things. They can be held in water bottles and suitcases. Not hard to hide, but hard to find.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, and we are the ones making civilians pay for his mistakes.<span id='postcolor'>

No, he is the one not giving food or medicing to his civilians.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Are you daft? The whole point is that he CANT import it. Possibly he can import bandaids and asprin, but thats about it. He cant import dialisys equipment, he cant import most modern medicine or lab equipment. Dont you get that??<span id='postcolor'>

Because he isn't goign to use it to help people, he isn't going to give it to doctors or hospitals. He's going to use it to hurt people. Don't you get that??

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I hope you someday live in a nation that gets bombed back to the stoneage. After you have been bombed and most of your family is killed, you get sanctions imposed on your nation. A ban on cancer treatment is one of the effects. Then your kid or wife gets cancer and slowly dies, because your doctors cant treat her.<span id='postcolor'>

Are you going to attack me or actually make a point? We all know that saddam is doing horrible things to his people, that's not the issue.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To prove that he still has them maybe??<span id='postcolor'>

He had them as recently as 5 years ago! He did NOT disarm, I persoanlly gurantee you that. If you look at the facts, the history, anyone with a shred of common sense would know this.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It proves the double standard your nation is fighting for. You can have WMDs and do whatever you want. Noone else can. And you wonder why some people critizise you and others hate you. Yeah, what a riddle...<span id='postcolor'>

Uh no. We wont let some people have WMDs because we know they'll use them to kill civilians. We have them because we'd only use them to defend ourselves.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OMG. You should be grown up enough to face someone that doesnt meet your opinions. <span id='postcolor'>

You're acting like a five year old. Stop attacking me, and start making points.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sorry FS , but my job requires more neutrality and objectivity than any other job I could think of by now. It is my definate job to be objective and not emotional lead. I have seen plenty of lies coming true in variouse countries on this planet so please don´t tell me to open my eyes to a subject I am really very well informed about. Neutrally informed and only based on facts. Not media informed and mislead.<span id='postcolor'>

yet you still ignore what the weapons inspectors found in 1998.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You better make up your mind. What is it now ? Once you say we need to bomb Iraq or Saddam or both, next you say there is plenty of evidence and two seconds later when it comes to a personal participation you say you don´t support a war without evidence. Come on, what you say is pretty weird. <span id='postcolor'>

I think he should be removed from power because he is an evil person. There is plenty of evidence, but nobody seems to be accepting it. SO I don't support a war without evidence that would unite a coalition.

Maybe if I worded it different.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Whatever you say...I only can repeat myself. Not everything is public.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh, so the UN is allowed to keep things secret while still basing their decisions on them, but not the US?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A piece of information is not the whole knowledge , is it ?<span id='postcolor'>

No, but why would the UN release incriminating information and not the other half that clears his name?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> you will find out faster than I can say "One , two , three" that the facilities required to research and build WMD´s were

a) mostly destroyed<span id='postcolor'>

By who? I heard reports that the US only destroyed a small amount of WMD facilities in the war.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Don´t you agree that it is very hard to delete any trace to programs of WMD´s in a short time like this? <span id='postcolor'>

Not if you pretend it's a power plant, or a "baby food factory".

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So you say that you don't need personally to see any evidence, since you trust your president.<span id='postcolor'>

I trust my president's evidence. But I'd like to see a coalition before we go to war.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So you do have a crystall ball?<span id='postcolor'>

No, but I do have common sense. The Taliban was a resistance movement, no big histories of gassing civilian populations or invading countries with no warning. Iraq is a dictatorship that gasses it's own people and invades countrys with little or no warning.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So doing bad things in the past does mean that you are bound to do them again?<span id='postcolor'>

See, the thing about the US is that we get a new president every 4 or 8 years. Why should Bush be held responsible for what Reagan did, or Washington for that matter?

[Blake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Jan. 21 2003,18:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you want a real good laugh just consider the new ABM system that doesn't even work.  Do you have any idea how much that will cost?

Sorry.  I just don't buy your too-expensive-to-be-a-bluff argument.  Time will tell which one of us is being naive.<span id='postcolor'>

It does not work - YET. But I'm sure it will work in the future -hell, even V-2 rockets didn't work on the first launch.

If US keeps investing in it at current rate it will probably be working after some time. But naturally it will just lessen the thret of ICBMs but anti-US terrorists or rogue nations will find other methods of hurting the US.

Currently I'm a bit curious how Iraq has forgotten so much WMD related stuff in the storages. Not directly 'Material Breach' ones but it's worrying how carelessly Iraq documents and tracks it's materials. Hard to predict but full military invasion on any grounds may be questionable, it would be more feasible they would eliminate the problem itself: Saddam Hussein and his regime. If there's any support for toppling of Saddam among Iraqi officers and government it could be the best way to get rid of him without causing too much civilian casualties. It is however uncertain is there any opposition left - Saddam has killed or imprisoned most of his potential opposition by now.

Coup could also lead to civil war and without nobody in Iraq standing between the fighting sides it could become bloodier than actual invasion. I don't support war without hard evidence but that has to be some pretty hard stuff like nukes etc. On the other hand Saddam is an old man and keeping him contained with inspections, no-fly zones etc. could also be option for future without bloodshed. Letting him get away for all he has done is not a victory either.

Sorry if I'm repeating somebody but had to put some stuff because I hate to see this debate going into personal ramble between Blaischow/Denoir/FSpilot trying to find holes in each others stories leaving bystanders just wondering what the hell is this all about.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Jan. 21 2003,17:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US are not known to give up a lot of their self defence capacities for no reason.<span id='postcolor'>

I totally agree.  But there is a reason behind all this - disarming Iraq of WMDs.  I'm only saying that if WMDs are not found then there will be no invasion.  And the chances of UNMOVIC finding WMDs in a territory the size of California is nearly 0%.  They are either too well hidden or don't exist.

It is all Bush's talk about going in without a material breach and a second UN mandate that is a bluff.  Now he even insists that Iraq must prove it no longer has WMDs.  How can you prove that you don't have something.  Can Bush prove that he no longer possesses cocaine?  Certainly not from his behaviour.