The Iraq Thread

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (mr. Duck @ Jan. 22 2003,01:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hey just like that song someone posted before <span id='postcolor'>

Lol yep, that's what I thought too

[Akira 0]

Found this interesting bit in the "National Strategy to Combat WMD" doctrine released in December 2002.

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

WMD Proliferation

The United States, our friends and allies, and

the broader international community must

undertake every effort to prevent states and

terrorists from acquiring WMD and missiles. We

must enhance traditional measures—diplomacy,

arms control, multilateral agreements, threat

reduction assistance, and export controls—that

seek to dissuade or impede proliferant states and

terrorist networks, as well as to slow and make

more costly their access to sensitive technologies,

material, and expertise. We must ensure compliance

with relevant international agreements,

including the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty

(NPT), the Chemical Weapons Convention

(CWC), and the Biological Weapons Convention

(BWC). The United States will continue to work

with other states to improve their capability to

prevent unauthorized transfers of WMD and

missile technology, expertise, and material. We

will identify and pursue new methods of

prevention, such as national criminalization of

proliferation activities and expanded safety and

security measures.

<span id='postcolor'>

Later in the short document:

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

COUNTERPROLIFERATION

We know from experience that we cannot

always be successful in preventing and containing

the proliferation of WMD to hostile states and

terrorists. Therefore, U.S. military and appropriate

civilian agencies must possess the full range

of operational capabilities to counter the threat

and use of WMD by states and terrorists against

the United States, our military forces, and friends

and allies.

Interdiction

Effective interdiction is a critical part of the U.S.

strategy to combat WMD and their delivery

means. We must enhance the capabilities of our

military, intelligence, technical, and law enforcement

communities to prevent the movement of

WMD materials, technology, and expertise to

hostile states and terrorist organizations.

Deterrence

Today’s threats are far more diverse and less

predictable than those of the past. States hostile

to the United States and to our friends and allies

have demonstrated their willingness to take high

risks to achieve their goals, and are aggressively

pursuing WMD and their means of delivery as

critical tools in this effort. As a consequence, we

require new methods of deterrence. A strong

declaratory policy and effective military forces are

essential elements of our contemporary deterrent

posture, along with the full range of political tools

to persuade potential adversaries not to seek or

use WMD. The United States will continue to

make clear that it reserves the right to respond

with overwhelming force—including through

resort to all of our options—to the use of WMD

against the United States, our forces abroad, and

friends and allies.

In addition to our conventional and nuclear

response and defense capabilities, our overall

deterrent posture against WMD threats is reinforced

by effective intelligence, surveillance,

interdiction, and domestic law enforcement capabilities.

Such combined capabilities enhance

deterrence both by devaluing an adversary’s

WMD and missiles, and by posing the prospect

of an overwhelming response to any use of such

weapons.<span id='postcolor'>

Also noted:

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

NONPROLIFERATION

Active Nonproliferation Diplomacy

The United States will actively employ diplomatic

approaches in bilateral and multilateral

settings in pursuit of our nonproliferation goals. We must dissuade supplier states from cooperating

with proliferant states and induce

proliferant states to end their WMD and missile

programs. We will hold countries responsible for

complying with their commitments. In addition,

we will continue to build coalitions to support

our efforts, as well as to seek their increased

support for nonproliferation and threat reduction

cooperation programs. However, should our

wide-ranging nonproliferation efforts fail, we

must have available the full range of operational

capabilities necessary to defend against the

possible employment of WMD.

<span id='postcolor'>

A strong emphasis on "diplomacy" and multinational agreements, yet always with the underlaying "full range of operational capabilities."

Thoughts?

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 21 2003,19:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The word "logic" is thrown around here a lot, mostly as the basis of some people's arguement. "Your logic states..." and "By your logic...".

Logic, dispite everything that I hear repeated around here, is not concrete and is goverened by human hubris. I think some people need a refresher course in philosophy and logic.

Some one can be a brilliant scientist and still do something stupid or idiotic. Nothing is static and nothing is set to "rules of logic." Because he did something stupid, does not make THE PERSON stupid. Your logic is fundamentally flawed.

So yes. I didn't call them idiots or stupid, I called their actions stupid.<span id='postcolor'>

<!--emo& Actually, I never said logic there, and, arguments and statements can't be stupid. I understand people or AI being stupid.

EDIT: Anyway, this is pretty funny, but, if you disagree with someones statement don't say the statement is stupid, because it can't think, in effect you are saying the person may be stupid. Why don't you jsut say it doesn't make sense, or it is illogical. Or I disagree.

[FSPilot 0]

I wish I knew how to use PSP so I could make funny pictures of Saddam Hussein.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How do you know. Have you spoken with any Iraqis about this, like I have? Or are you just making this up as you go along?<span id='postcolor'>

Some defected Iraqis get hounded by the media about what happened in Iraq.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No. Not if the US aircraft is in Iraqi airspace.<span id='postcolor'>

It's not in Iraqi airspace, it's a no-fly zone. They're enforcing it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Um... Is that your explanation for why you think they are legal?<span id='postcolor'>

No, but it's not a US only thing. Why don't you research it some to find out why it's there?

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 22 2003,02:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 21 2003,19:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The word "logic" is thrown around here a lot, mostly as the basis of some people's arguement. "Your logic states..." and "By your logic...".

Logic, dispite everything that I hear repeated around here, is not concrete and is goverened by human hubris. I think some people need a refresher course in philosophy and logic.

Some one can be a brilliant scientist and still do something stupid or idiotic. Nothing is static and nothing is set to "rules of logic." Because he did something stupid, does not make THE PERSON stupid. Your logic is fundamentally flawed.

So yes. I didn't call them idiots or stupid, I called their actions stupid.<span id='postcolor'>

<!--emo& Actually, I never said logic there, and, arguments and statements can't be stupid. I understand people or AI being stupid.

EDIT: Anyway, this is pretty funny, but, if you disagree with someones statement don't say the statement is stupid, because it can't think, in effect you are saying the person may be stupid. Why don't you jsut say it doesn't make sense, or it is illogical. Or I disagree.<span id='postcolor'>

I disagree and think it is ill-conceived

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 21 2003,20:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I disagree and think it is ill-conceived <span id='postcolor'>

See, it works. Ok, let's not fill this thread with capola too much more.

[Llauma 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 22 2003,00:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In the US? Honestly? I think people here will say "It's their own fault."

I have no problem with their views, what i have a problem with is their playing into the hands of one of the possible future combatants. And by placing their lives in danger they place other lives in danger as well (regardless if the attack is wrong or right).

And I didn't call THEM idiots...just their actions idiotic.<span id='postcolor'>

The link to the article was named "idiots"

I have yo highest respect for these peoples who are willing to stand up against the most powerful army in the world unarmed.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Llauma @ Jan. 22 2003,02:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 22 2003,00:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In the US? Honestly? I think people here will say "It's their own fault."

I have no problem with their views, what i have a problem with is their playing into the hands of one of the possible future combatants. And by placing their lives in danger they place other lives in danger as well (regardless if the attack is wrong or right).

And I didn't call THEM idiots...just their actions idiotic.<span id='postcolor'>

The link to the article was named "idiots"

I have yo highest respect for these peoples who are willing to stand up against the most powerful army in the world unarmed.<span id='postcolor'>

True...I just noticed that myself...hehe...ooppss...

If they "human shield" themselves to baby food factories, milk factories, people's houses, I will respect them as well.

I suspect though Saddam will use this to his advantage and chain them around his C&C bunker.

[nopulse 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Jan. 22 2003,00:38)</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">My respect for their standing up in what they believe in is tempered by the idiocy of what they are doing.<span id='postcolor'>

Why is it idiocy?  These people believe that the actions of the US and UK governments which are leading to what seems to be an inevitable conflict are wrong.  And they are willing to lay their lives on the line to protest.  It may be foolhardy and a touch on the insane side, but  I wouldnt call them idiots.

I wonder how people will react if US bombs kill US citizens that have put their lives in jeopardy.<span id='postcolor'>

I too have nothing but respect for people that are the willing to that far to protest against war. Not too many people are willing to go that far in something they believe in.

[FSPilot 0]

I respect them, but not that much. Frankly they're along the lines of terrorists that kill themselves for their cause (NO, I'm not calling them terrorists). I've got nothing but respect for people who die for what they believe in. But you can serve your own causes better alive than dead.

At least IMO.

[Llauma 0]

These human shields can be found in Israel too protecting palestine civilians and their homes from Israel army attacks.

[FSPilot 0]

Just spend a few hundred dollars and buy someone some kevlar.

[bn880 5]

Anyone hear of this:

Huntsville-Alabama

Motorists honking in support for peace as they drive by peace activists are pulled over and given citations by Huntsville police. Officer(s) were filmed saying they do not appreciate the camera filming them.

Can you say...

I can try to find an article, but I doubt I will.

EDIT: I may get a source tomorrow... I think so.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Well, it is Alabama, so I'm not too surprised.

As for these human shield guys, well, you can't fault them for standing up for what they believe in. I just hope they don't get killed for their troubles.

[HellToupee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 22 2003,14:10)</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">How do you know. Have you spoken with any Iraqis about this, like I have? Or are you just making this up as you go along?<span id='postcolor'>

Some defected Iraqis get hounded by the media about what happened in Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

so u belive what they show on the news, as if they are gona show things that dont support what the country is doing on the news.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Jan. 22 2003,04:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">so u belive what they show on the news, as if they are gona show things that dont support what the country is doing on the news.<span id='postcolor'>

We have a little thing called freedom of speech here. Media outlets are not punished for criticizing government policy or government figures (anyone remember Clinton's BJ-Gate?). Since news has become a form of entertainment, the audience wants a little controversy with their news. To that effect, news reporting has started to morph into news analysis, and now everyone and their dogs have an opinion on politics and policy. Any bias you see in American media is strictly due to the news outlets catering to their respective audiences (Fox to conservatives, CNN to people who want to say that they watch the news but don't actually want to hear any real news, etc etc), not because of some overarching media-control scheme set up by the US government.

[HellToupee 0]

US dose what it suits them, they help iraq if it helps them, they attack iraq if it helps them, same for afganstan, attack north korea dose not help them because they are capable of putting up a fight.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Jan. 22 2003,04:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">US dose what it suits them, they help iraq if it helps them, they attack iraq if it helps them, same for afganstan, attack north korea dose not help them because they are capable of putting up a fight.<span id='postcolor'>

And they sure don't have any natural resources we can pillage and plunder!

[HellToupee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Jan. 22 2003,16:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Jan. 22 2003,04:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">so u belive what they show on the news, as if they are gona show things that dont support what the country is doing on the news.<span id='postcolor'>

We have a little thing called freedom of speech here. Media outlets are not punished for criticizing government policy or government figures (anyone remember Clinton's BJ-Gate?). Since news has become a form of entertainment, the audience wants a little controversy with their news. To that effect, news reporting has started to morph into news analysis, and now everyone and their dogs have an opinion on politics and policy. Any bias you see in American media is strictly due to the news outlets catering to their respective audiences (Fox to conservatives, CNN to people who want to say that they watch the news but don't actually want to hear any real news, etc etc), not because of some overarching media-control scheme set up by the US government.<span id='postcolor'>

tex dont u get it, you can have all the freedom of speece u want but thats not gona stop propaganda

[FSPilot 0]

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

Motorists honking in support for peace as they drive by peace activists are pulled over and given citations by Huntsville police.  Officer(s) were filmed saying they do not appreciate the camera filming them.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah you're not really supposed to honk your horn.  Which just befoozles me as to why they put them on cars in the first place.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">so u belive what they show on the news, as if they are gona show things that dont support what the country is doing on the news.<span id='postcolor'>

This isn't Iraq.  The media isnt' controlled by the government.  One of our freedoms is freedom of the press, they can say whatever they want within reason, and they do.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">US dose what it suits them, they help iraq if it helps them, they attack iraq if it helps them, same for afganstan, attack north korea dose not help them because they are capable of putting up a fight.<span id='postcolor'>

No, Afghanistan supported terrorists that attacked us.  We're afraid Iraq has WMDs again, and North Korea is also developing WMDs.  Has nothing to do with what suits us.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Jan. 22 2003,10:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">tex dont u get it, you can have all the freedom of speece u want but thats not gona stop propaganda<span id='postcolor'>

That's the thing though, a lot of new sources don't support the current government. Then again, a lot do. That doesn't make them propaganda though.

[HellToupee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 22 2003,17:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The media isnt' controlled by the government. One of our freedoms is freedom of the press, they can say whatever they want within reason, and they do.<span id='postcolor'>

really if u knew they was controlled by government u wouldnt belive them, the trick is to make ppl belive it is free from bias.

[FSPilot 0]

Nothing is free from bias. But these are widely accepted facts in the US.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Jan. 22 2003,06:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">really if u knew they was controlled by government u wouldnt belive them, the trick is to make ppl belive it is free from bias.<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe you're paranoid. Maybe I'm paranoid. But are we paranoid enough? The only way we'll ever find out is when the Illuminati test our strength by attacking our compound out in Wyomi- did you hear that? *Jumps out the window*

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Jan. 22 2003,06<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 22 2003,17:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The media isnt' controlled by the government. One of our freedoms is freedom of the press, they can say whatever they want within reason, and they do.<span id='postcolor'>

really if u knew they was controlled by government u wouldnt belive them, the trick is to make ppl belive it is free from bias.<span id='postcolor'>

As Tex was saying...

Its not about propoganda or media control. For a large part, in the US people will watch what they want to watch, they will read what they want to read.

But beyond the "freedom" of it, as Tex was saying, is the all important "demographic." People watch programs that agree with their all ready held viewpoint. You want to watch something that generally bashes Democrats? Watch FOX. Want to watch the news and say you watched the news without really watching the news? Watch CNN. Same with papers and magazines.

The point is it is quite hard to blind America with propoganda. There is too much free flow of info, and if people don't like what they hear...they turn it off.

EDIT: Typos and the DISCLAIMER That if that isn't what Tex was sayin' I shut my mouth!