The Iraq Thread

[NavyEEL 0]

and when the UN isnt doing its job...? coalitions have been wrong in the past, and just because the UN is an "alliance" of several countries does not mean it knows what's best. remember what happened last time a UN-like force sat back and let a country build up its military power illegally? what was that called? oh yeah, world war 2. well let's nip it in the bud this time so we can avoid another one of those.

[Guest]

The UN was founded in 1945.

[HellToupee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Feb. 01 2003,15:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and when the UN isnt doing its job...? coalitions have been wrong in the past, and just because the UN is an "alliance" of several countries does not mean it knows what's best. remember what happened last time a UN-like force sat back and let a country build up its military power illegally? what was that called? oh yeah, world war 2. well let's nip it in the bud this time so we can avoid another one of those.<span id='postcolor'>

was teh UN around in world war 2? and ww2 well is iraq as power ful as germany dose it have millions of soldiers and is it more advanced than the rest of the world no, iraq is less a risk to the US than NK, iraq has not the means to wage war, there is no proof its done anything to suggest its gona declare war on the US.

Sum quote a read, the US was 4 years late for ww1, tehy were 2 years late for ww2, for ww3 they are going to be there nice and early. One note with ww2 the US is more willing to go to war with iraq because its a threat than when germany declared war on its allies.

This cartoon ahs it covered

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/pics/r29malcolmevans.JPG

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 01 2003,03:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The UN was founded in 1945.<span id='postcolor'>

He's speaking of the League of Nations and its inability ot stop Japan and Germany from arming and going to war.

NSA Secret Tapes

[Guest]

The Legue of Nations was a completely different form of organization with absoulutely no legal powers. It is quite pointless to compare it to the UN.

[HellToupee 0]

the question is could they of disarmed germany back then, ww1 was terrible most countries never wanted that to happen again, it would have cost massive amounts of destruction and loss of life to disarm germany when they started, it would have been less than later but they were desprate for peace, it took almost 6 years to defeat germany with russia, france great britian and its allies, and the US.

[NavyEEL 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 01 2003,03:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">7--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 01 2003,037)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The UN was founded in 1945.<span id='postcolor'>

He's speaking of the League of Nations and its inability ot stop Japan and Germany from arming and going to war.

NSA Secret Tapes<span id='postcolor'>

thx, Akira. you obviously understood what i was talking about

and i got to meet with Colin Powell today at the State Department and he was talking along the same lines as that article you posted--the evidence is there, as it has been all along. he said that obviously they cant release all the information to the public like they want.... if the information was released, then the enemy would know how that information was obtained, and then our source would be eliminated or the "leak" sealed. either way, i dont understand why more people dont have faith in the United States?

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Feb. 01 2003,03:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the question is could they of disarmed germany back then, ww1 was terrible most countries never wanted that to happen again, it would have cost massive amounts of destruction and loss of life to disarm germany when they started, it would have been less than later but they were desprate for peace, it took almost 6 years to defeat germany with russia, france great britian and its allies, and the US.<span id='postcolor'>

The League of Nations itself?

No they couldn't. When Japan was reprimanded for its aggression in China, it simply walked out never to return.

Plus Hitler had his own deceptions going. If a ship was 35000t, in the paper work it would be 10 or 15000t. Thats how he slipped his commerce raiders the Gneisanau and Scharnhorst through. Everyone believed him. When he laid down the Tirpitz and Bismark they were registered at far less tonnage then they really were. Again everyone just believed him.

The fact was Europe was scared and afraid, understandably after the carnage of WW1. No one wanted to go to war again. So instead they ignored and appeased the demands of a mad dictator until war was upon them and there was nothing they could do.

It would have been far easier had we acted earlier, with far less bloodshed and destruction.

"Peace in our time."

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Feb. 01 2003,03:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> either way, i dont understand why more people dont have faith in the United States?<span id='postcolor'>

The Bay of Pigs, The Contras, Arms to Iran to support the Contras, Grenada, Panama, Vietnam, Samosa, Batista, Pinochet...

Shall I continue?

the War on Iraq will be another amazing experiment in blowback. You'd think the US would have learned their lesson by now.

If Powell does an Adlai Stevenson and gives the UN a smoking gun, then I expect there will be another UN resolution. And if it supports a military solution and passes the Security Council, then you wont hear another complaint from me about it. If military action is the only way to ensure Iraq disarming, then so be it. But it is not the place of the US to dictate to the world... especially isnce they are the masters of the military blunder in the latter half of the 20th century.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Feb. 01 2003,03:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">he said that obviously they cant release all the information to the public like they want.... if the information was released, then the enemy would know how that information was obtained, and then our source would be eliminated or the "leak" sealed.  <span id='postcolor'>

The evidence can't be released because thereis no evidence. If there was you could have pointed the UN inspectors to the right place and the 'source' would be safe.

The 'evidence' that Bush and Blair have insisted most on so far were the aluminum tubes that were supposedly to be used for nuclear weapons production. In the end the IAEA showed that they were not suitable for that purpose at all.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 01 2003,03:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The evidence can't be released because thereis no evidence. If there was you could have pointed the UN inspectors to the right place and the 'source' would be safe.

The 'evidence' that Bush and Blair have insisted most on so far were the aluminum tubes that were supposedly to be used for nuclear weapons production. In the end the IAEA showed that they were not suitable for that purpose at all.<span id='postcolor'>

I am actually going to disagree with you on this one, Denoir.

At least untill Wednesday when Powell addresses the UN. That's sort of the test of whether they actually do have reasonable intelligence that points to a pattern of deception and misinformation from Iraq. But if it's more rhetoric without basis then, I will change my opinion to agree with you.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 01 2003,03:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Feb. 01 2003,03:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">he said that obviously they cant release all the information to the public like they want.... if the information was released, then the enemy would know how that information was obtained, and then our source would be eliminated or the "leak" sealed.  <span id='postcolor'>

The evidence can't be released because thereis no evidence. If there was you could have pointed the UN inspectors to the right place and the 'source' would be safe.

The 'evidence' that Bush and Blair have insisted most on so far were the aluminum tubes that were supposedly to be used for nuclear weapons production. In the end the IAEA showed that they were not suitable for that purpose at all.<span id='postcolor'>

We all will see Feb. 5th I imagine. Should be...."interesting."

[Akira 0]

About Oil My Ass!

EDIT: 6 More Weeks!

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">FSPilot, when are going to understand that this is not about WMD's? Plenty of dangerous countries have WMD's, but no one gives a rats ass. Thus, this isnt about WMD's. It might be the excuse, but its not the real reason.<span id='postcolor'>

But it is about WMDs. Those other dangerous countrys don't have sanctions and UN resolutions against them forbiding them to have WMDs.

Personally I have all the evidence I want for this war. More than enough actually. But I think we should wait for more international support, which means we need more evidence. So I think we should wait for even more evidence to move out.

[Harnu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The evidence can't be released because thereis no evidence.<span id='postcolor'>

What evidence do you have that there is no evidence? To that you may reply, what evidence do you have there is evidence.

Wanna stop now before we enter yet another mobius strip of endless bickering!

[NavyEEL 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ Feb. 01 2003,04:55)</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 evidence can't be released because thereis no evidence.<span id='postcolor'>

What evidence do you have that there is no evidence?  To that you may reply, what evidence do you have there is evidence.

Wanna stop now before we enter yet another mobius strip of endless bickering!

<span id='postcolor'>

i need evidence to show that, if we don't stop arguing over evidence, then there will be "yet another mobius strip of endless bickering." sorry, but i just can't believe what you say without any PROOF!!!

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Feb. 01 2003,03:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and when the UN isnt doing its job...?  coalitions have been wrong in the past, and just because the UN is an "alliance" of several countries does not mean it knows what's best.  remember what happened last time a UN-like force sat back and let a country build up its military power illegally?  what was that called? oh yeah, world war 2.  well let's nip it in the bud this time so we can avoid another one of those.<span id='postcolor'>

So basically it's up to every country in the world to decide whats right or wrong for themselves, and ignore the UN when they disagree.

Hmm, isn't that what Saddam is doing by allegedly amassing WMD? Or is it only America who gets thumb their nose at the UN?

[FSPilot 0]

Saddam is the one thumbing his nose at the UN. We're urging them to enforce their own rules because we feel threatened. If they don't do anything, we're not going to sit quiet and live with the threat.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 01 2003,05:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saddam is the one thumbing his nose at the UN.  We're urging them to enforce their own rules because we feel threatened.  If they don't do anything, we're not going to sit quiet and live with the threat.<span id='postcolor'>

Why would you (US) feel threatened? His neighbouring countries arn't very afraid!

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 01 2003,05:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saddam is the one thumbing his nose at the UN.  We're urging them to enforce their own rules because we feel threatened.  If they don't do anything, we're not going to sit quiet and live with the threat.<span id='postcolor'>

So your saying that the Bush and Saddam are both equally disdainful of international law. OK.

US feeling threatened, yes, I'm sure Iraq's huge strike will arrive at the US borders any moment now. I bet your all shaking in your boots. What a joke.

If you think a terrorist really needs Iraq's resources to get their hands on WMD your a fooling yourself. Did Iraq give the sarin gas to the people who gassed Japans subway?

Anyway, how can I argue with illogic like yours. You answer every question with a question, dodge the issues put to you, and generally come up with nothing relevant. Hey, you sure you're not a politician?

OK OK, I really am getting out of this thread this time.

[NavyEEL 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Feb. 01 2003,06:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">US feeling threatened, yes, I'm sure Iraq's huge strike will arrive at the US borders any moment now. I bet your all shaking in your boots. What a joke.

If you think a terrorist really needs Iraq's resources to get their hands on WMD your a fooling yourself. Did Iraq give the sarin gas to the people who gassed Japans subway?

Anyway, how can I argue with illogic like yours. You answer every question with a question, dodge the issues put to you, and generally come up with nothing relevant. Hey, you sure you're not a politician?  

OK OK, I really am getting out of this thread this time.<span id='postcolor'>

Iraq a joke? I'm sure you said the same about Al Qaeda prior to 9-11. Oh how quickly you forget why we do what we do.

No a terrorist doesn't need Iraq to get their hands on WMD, but why leave that option open for them in the first place? No a druggie doesn't need Drug Dealer #1 to get their hands on drugs, but why not arrest him to stop the problem at its source (or at least one of its sources)?

You all feel so safe with your air conditioned houses, warm food, good jobs, and happy families... you fail to realize that there are people trying to take that away from us. Aside from that, it's not only a matter of whether or not the US will be safe or not. Iraq has violated the rules set in place years ago by the US and UN. Are we to just sit by and let them break these rules, just because we are more powerful than them? So the weak can be wreckless and do what they want, but the more powerful nations cannot "straighten them out"? Seems screwy to me... Iraq needs to learn that we mean business and won't tolerate their failure to comply with the rules anymore

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Feb. 01 2003,11:21)</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">Why would you (US) feel threatened? His neighbouring countries arn't very afraid!<span id='postcolor'>

You're speaking for them?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So your saying that the Bush and Saddam are both equally disdainful of international law. OK. <span id='postcolor'>

It's against the law for us to attack someone we feel as a threat?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">US feeling threatened, yes, I'm sure Iraq's huge strike will arrive at the US borders any moment now. I bet your all shaking in your boots. What a joke.<span id='postcolor'>

We've been over this before. He'd probably hand the nuke to some terrorist, or use it for blackmail, or as a bargaining chip.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you think a terrorist really needs Iraq's resources to get their hands on WMD your a fooling yourself. Did Iraq give the sarin gas to the people who gassed Japans subway?<span id='postcolor'>

Apples and oranges. Besides, why would Iraq attack Japan?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anyway, how can I argue with illogic like yours. You answer every question with a question, dodge the issues put to you, and generally come up with nothing relevant. Hey, you sure you're not a politician? <span id='postcolor'>

I could say the same thing about you, but I've done it too many times before and it's lost it's flare.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OK OK, I really am getting out of this thread this time.<span id='postcolor'>

I think I've said that a few times before too.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Feb. 01 2003,10:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

When/If the Bush release all the info they know about iraq and his chemical weapons.Do you guy's think we should go to war ? If they show the evidence of iraq still having chemical weapons ,will you say it's time for war or Will you say it's made up evidence ? You can't say that UN inspector will work,because only reason their in iraq is because the US wants war with iraq,and iraq knew they had to play the game.

Here my question ,If they show iraq does have chemical weapons,do you think we should go to war with them ?

<span id='postcolor'>

I do think that it's possible that Iraq has chemical weapons. I don't think however that it is a valid justification for a war. Even with such weapons, Saddam is no threat to anybody. Most of his weapons were destroyd. Iraq is under heavy sanctions. Saddam is perfectly aware that there would not be much left of Baghdad if he tried to use WMDs.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Don't say, USA has them, why can't iraq.Because i hate when someone says that<span id='postcolor'>

But it's true. It's only fair that you set the same rules for yourself as you do for others.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 01 2003,15:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's against the law for us to attack someone we feel as a threat?<span id='postcolor'>

Iraq could could use that kind of thinking to say 'we feel threatened by America and all its thousands of soldiers in Kuwait so we are going to invoke Bush Doctrine 2.0 and attack them first to make sure we reamin safe from any American strikes'. I feel Iraq has more reason to feel threatened by America than America needs to be of Iraq unless the Iraqis happen to have an agent with a suitcase nuke somewhere in America.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Feb. 01 2003,06:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq has violated the rules set in place years ago by the US and UN.  Are we to just sit by and let them break these rules, just because we are more powerful than them?  So the weak can be wreckless and do what they want, but the more powerful nations cannot "straighten them out"?  Seems screwy to me... Iraq needs to learn that we mean business and won't tolerate their failure to comply with the rules anymore<span id='postcolor'>

I would feel much convinced of that argument if the US didn't veto Israel related resolutions on  a regular basis. Israel is the country that has the largest number of UN resolution violations. I don't see us discussin invading Israel to "straighten them out" as you say...