Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
brgnorway

The Iraq Thread

Recommended Posts

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Feb. 01 2003,11:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"6.christ i'm a moderate but this makes me sick, until you have your own 9-11 i pray you don't , it's impossible to understand"

Europe has tasted more terrorism and war than the US ever will. Norway for example was an occupied country just some 50 years ago, which means that many people in Norway today had parents and grandparents that were oppressed, killed and tortured. I think Europe understands perfectly well. I also think we have learnt, as opposed to many in the US, that violence always leads to more violence.<span id='postcolor'>

I love the way some people think Europe is a place without violence, unknown by terrorists, while America is the only country that has been attacked and that they at least know what terrorism is like...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 02 2003,05:o3)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You told me Saddam's excuse for war.  He thought the Kuwaitis were slant-drilling and stealing his oil.  Which is not a reason to invade a country.<span id='postcolor'>

Slant-drilling, eh?  That's complete news to me.  You wouldn't just be making that up now, would you?  How 'bout posting a reference?

I suppose the real explanation might be a bit technically challenging.  Maybe we should just drop it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 02 2003,10:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Feb. 02 2003,11:o9)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I also think we have learnt, as opposed to many in the US, that violence always leads to more violence.<span id='postcolor'>

But it took violence to free Norway and the rest of Europe from its occupiers over 50 years ago. confused.gif

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

israel_flag.gif

<span id='postcolor'>

I agree.  Violence against occupiers is ok.  wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"But it took violence to free Norway and the rest of Europe from its occupiers over 50 years ago."

Yes, it took violence to the extreme where the Nazi party was totally destroyed and their leader ended up dead. There was no choice in the matter however, Nazi Germany occupied most of Europe and that simply wasnt acceptable. There was no other way than violence to end it however. I am not so sure its the same in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Feb. 02 2003,13:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"But it took violence to free Norway and the rest of Europe from its occupiers over 50 years ago."

Yes, it took violence to the extreme where the Nazi party was totally destroyed and their leader ended up dead. There was no choice in the matter however, Nazi Germany occupied most of Europe and that simply wasnt acceptable. There was no other way than violence to end it however. I am not so sure its the same in this case.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you in this particular case, just pointing out that your previous statement seemed overly definitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> may be it was destroyed, the US wont even give the weapon inspectors time,<span id='postcolor'>

If it is destroyed why doesn't he cooperate and prove it was destroyed.  When a country destroys say 30,000 chemical warheads, there is documentation and trace evidence left over.  Where is it?  As Blix says, Iraq is NOT actively cooperating.  Nothing would please me more than to have Saddam do so.  I just don't see it happening.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The inspectors' letter said they expected Iraq to provide data missing from a declaration it made on December 7, such as the whereabouts of the deadly chemical agent VX and anthrax. Blix reiterated Saturday that he also wanted Iraq first to agree to unrestricted flights by spy planes over Iraq and to allow private interviews with Iraqi experts.

<span id='postcolor'>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the significance of Iraq not disclosing the destruction of biological and chemical agent stockpiles from the 1980s that, long ago, would have deteriorated on their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 02 2003,08:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't understand the significance of Iraq not disclosing the destruction of biological and chemical agent stockpiles from the 1980s that, long ago, would have deteriorated on their own.<span id='postcolor'>

From what I recall, they had significant stockpiles yet to be destroyed in 1998 when the inspectors left.  Now they claim those were destroyed unilateraly. Blix said they have not offered any proof to confirm that statement.  If he is so innocent, why isn't he cooperating fully?  True, it doesn't make him guilty but it contributes to a pattern of guilt over the last 12 years.  Why should anyone trust him when he hasn't given the UN a reason to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Feb. 02 2003,14:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 02 2003,08:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't understand the significance of Iraq not disclosing the destruction of biological and chemical agent stockpiles from the 1980s that, long ago, would have deteriorated on their own.<span id='postcolor'>

From what I recall, they had significant stockpiles yet to be destroyed in 1998 when the inspectors left.  Now they claim those were destroyed unilateraly. Blix said they have not offered any proof to confirm that statement.  If he is so innocent, why isn't he cooperating fully?  True, it doesn't make him guilty but it contributes to a pattern of guilt over the last 12 years.  Why should anyone trust him when he hasn't given the UN a reason to?<span id='postcolor'>

Nobody is saying he is "so innocent."  But, the 1998 stockpiles you refer to were produced in the 1980s and would have, by now, become useless.

Have you any idea how different the situation was in 1991?  And even with the baby incubator scam, Bush Sr barely rallied enough support within his own government to launch an attack.  It passed the Senate by only a 5% margin.

Then, the ultimatum was clear.  "Get back to your own side of the border by midnight or we kick you out."  This time it's "show us documents about some 15 year-old agents that must have expired 5 years ago anyways or we take over your entire nation."  Good luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 02 2003,10:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Feb. 02 2003,14:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 02 2003,08:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't understand the significance of Iraq not disclosing the destruction of biological and chemical agent stockpiles from the 1980s that, long ago, would have deteriorated on their own.<span id='postcolor'>

From what I recall, they had significant stockpiles yet to be destroyed in 1998 when the inspectors left.  Now they claim those were destroyed unilateraly. Blix said they have not offered any proof to confirm that statement.  If he is so innocent, why isn't he cooperating fully?  True, it doesn't make him guilty but it contributes to a pattern of guilt over the last 12 years.  Why should anyone trust him when he hasn't given the UN a reason to?<span id='postcolor'>

Nobody is saying he is "so innocent."  But, the 1998 stockpiles you refer to were produced in the 1980s and would have, by now, become useless.

Have you any idea how different the situation was in 1991?  And even with the baby incubator scam, Bush Sr barely rallied enough support within his own government to launch an attack.  It passed the Senate by only a 5% margin.

Then, the ultimatum was clear.  "Get back to your own side of the border by midnight or we kick you out."  This time it's "show us documents about some 15 year-old agents that must have expired 5 years ago anyways or we take over your entire nation."  Good luck!<span id='postcolor'>

I appreciate the link but how is this less of a propaganda resource than the some credible media stories/sites I hear getting bashed in here all the time.  It is just supporting another view.  Maybe it's not propaganda because you agree with it?  confused.gif  I mean the Scott Ritter article links, he said in a report in 1998 that Iraq was not disarmed and Iraq posed a danger to its surrounding neighbors.  Now all of a sudden he says Iraq is harmless?  WTF?  Can't he make up his mind?  I have seen him interviewed on this several times on TV, he doesn't seem credible too me.

What makes you think that he stopped making WMD after the inspectors left in 1998?  He still had them, why wouldn't he replenish his supplies under NO supervision from the UN?  

I have never said the US is totally correct in all matters regarding Iraq.  However, I don't trust Saddam and I think he is dangerous.  If he indeed is deceiving UNMOVIC as Powell and others have said then what is left to do? Diplomacy is not working. Why would he be hiding things if he didn't have WMD or was trying to make WMD?   We will have to see what Powell says.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lately everyone seems to be nagging about all the anti-US people on this board and all over the world. Now the funny thing is, a couple years ago, a lot of people liked the US. Lately, less people seem to like it, a few seem to show signs of hatred.

I'm not trying to make any american people angry, i'd just like them to think about it. Why do you think, suddenly the hatred towards the US government in particular (not really the US people) is growing so fast?

Please, i'd really like someone to answer this... (someone american)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Feb. 01 2003,17:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why would he be hiding things if he didn't have WMD or was trying to make WMD?   We will have to see what Powell says.....<span id='postcolor'>

Be careful what you say, there still is no proof at all that he's hiding something...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Feb. 02 2003,10:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Feb. 01 2003,17:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why would he be hiding things if he didn't have WMD or was trying to make WMD?   We will have to see what Powell says.....<span id='postcolor'>

Be careful what you say, there still is no proof at all that he's hiding something...<span id='postcolor'>

Hence why I type we have to wait and see what Powell says.... wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Feb. 02 2003,16:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Feb. 01 2003,17:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why would he be hiding things if he didn't have WMD or was trying to make WMD? We will have to see what Powell says.....<span id='postcolor'>

Be careful what you say, there still is no proof at all that he's hiding something...<span id='postcolor'>

What do you mean there is no proof? There has been more than enough proof over the past 12 years. The proof is growing by the day.

All I say to you, is wait until February 5. Then look at the evidence that Powell discloses to the UN. The proof has been there all along. Appeasment of Saddam Hussein only provides a false sense of security, we are only deceiving ourselves. It is only until Saddam is removed from power, that we (the whole world) can be assured an increased feeling of safety in the world. Anyone who believes otherwise, should evaluate all the relevant information again.

If one thinks a gas attack or a mushroom cloud would provide the evidence needed to change his/her opinion, there is something seriously wrong.

edit: spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It is only until Saddam is removed from power, that we (the whole world) can be assured an increased feeling of safety in the world. Anyone who believes otherwise, should evaluate all the relevant information again."

I for one dont think the world will be a safe place when Saddam is gone. Lots of nations still have WMD's, Osama is still on the loose, Al Queda is still in operation, the situation in the middle east is still a ticking time bomb.

Saddam is not the root to all which is evil in our modern society. He is but one of many issues and the world is not a safe place just because he is removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Feb. 02 2003,08:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (JJPHAT @ Feb. 02 2003,20:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">GOD THIS IS SO DUMB....how about ALL OF US SIT ON OUR ASSESS AND WAIT for some terrorist drop a vile of Vx in one of your subways<span id='postcolor'>

Dumb? u failing to understant a simple concept is dumb, the india pakastian is far more dangrous than iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

Jesus Christ, this guy is pissing me off cause he's SO DUMB....Saddam DOES HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, the world knows this! When he kicked out the inspectors in 1998 they discovered VX, WOMD parts, Chemical Weapons, Warheads! If he destroyed them he would have shwon videos of him destroying them, he hasn't even accounted for where they are. Do you have no knowledge of foreign affairs?

Pakistan and India have been sable wrattling with eachother for years now, if they were gonna do it they would have by now. Neither of them would be stupid enough to launch nukes while us and british forces were in the region. They always respond to diplomacy and reasoning. IRAQ DOESEN'T!

North Korea is not a threat whatsoever. They have been saber rattling for the last 20 years, and the world is sick of it. If they attack south korea, millions of refugee's flea to hina and russia,. China and Russia don't want that. Plus to be able to wage a war they need an economy. THEY HAVE NO, economy, AND ALWAYS RESPOND TO DIPLOMACY. yes in the near future i see a war, but not for a long while.

Listen before you type again, Go READ. Read history on the Arabian Peninsula, The War of two cities, desert storm, desert shield, Pakistan and Indian wars on Kashmir, Military capabilities of North Korea and the UN led defense of South Korea. Until then, STOP TALKING, Also read up on inspector reports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (JJPHAT @ Feb. 02 2003,17:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Jesus Christ, this guy is pissing me off cause he's SO DUMB<span id='postcolor'>

Behave or be post restricted. Flaming is not acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"THEY HAVE NO, economy, AND ALWAYS RESPOND TO DIPLOMACY."

And what, Iraq has an economy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Feb. 02 2003,10:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"6.christ i'm a moderate but this makes me sick, until you have your own 9-11 i pray you don't , it's impossible to understand"

Europe has tasted more terrorism and war than the US ever will. Norway for example was an occupied country just some 50 years ago, which means that many people in Norway today had parents and grandparents that were oppressed, killed and tortured. I think Europe understands perfectly well. I also think we have learnt, as opposed to many in the US, that violence always leads to more violence.<span id='postcolor'>

Not on the massive scale the US has, except for maybe athens and paris. Besides being an occupied country isn't a terrorist act....what Europe hasn't learned at all is the fact that APPEASMENT DOES NOT WORK. The British learned it, and thats why they help with Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Feb. 02 2003,17:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"THEY HAVE NO, economy, AND ALWAYS RESPOND TO DIPLOMACY."

And what, Iraq has an economy?<span id='postcolor'>

Actually more of an economy than NK

Iraqis don't have to eat their dead...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Not on the massive scale the US has, except for maybe athens and paris. Besides being an occupied country isn't a terrorist act...."

Tell that to those that are occupied, oppressed, persecuted and tortured. I am quite sure they would disagree and in fact claim they were subject to state terrorism.

"what Europe hasn't learned at all is the fact that APPEASMENT DOES NOT WORK. The British learned it, and thats why they help with Iraq. "

No, appeasment does not work. But there is usually a middle ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I for one dont think the world will be a safe place when Saddam is gone. Lots of nations still have WMD's, Osama is still on the loose, Al Queda is still in operation, the situation in the middle east is still a ticking time bomb.

Saddam is not the root to all which is evil in our modern society. He is but one of many issues and the world is not a safe place just because he is removed. <span id='postcolor'>

Hawkins never said that by removing Saddam, the whole world would be totally safe.  He said it would provide a "increased feeling of safety in the world".  Meaning it would be a step in the right direction, not a total solution for all safety issues.

I don't recall in Hawkins post that he said Saddam was the root of all evil in the world either? wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Feb. 02 2003,18:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Not on the massive scale the US has, except for maybe athens and paris. Besides being an occupied country isn't a terrorist act...."

Tell that to those that are occupied, oppressed, persecuted and tortured. I am quite sure they would disagree and in fact claim they were subject to state terrorism.

"what Europe hasn't learned at all is the fact that APPEASMENT DOES NOT WORK. The British learned it, and thats why they help with Iraq. "

No, appeasment does not work. But there is usually a middle ground.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes Occupation Sucks thank you for that insight. But you do understand that to be occupied, thats not terrorism. Most US occupations in the 20th century have been very beneficial to the people of the countries occupied. Occupation is much different from state sponsored terrorism. Please it is imperative that you read up on your history.

Saddam refused that middle ground

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Feb. 02 2003,16:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I appreciate the link but how is this less of a propaganda resource than the some credible media stories/sites I hear getting bashed in here all the time.  It is just supporting another view.  Maybe it's not propaganda because you agree with it?  confused.gif<span id='postcolor'>

Look here for over 1000 links to the Kuwaiti incubator scam story including as many reputable sources as you could ask for.  It really happened, nobody questions it (like Scott Ritter's opinions) and nobody was punished.  Which means it could easily be happening again.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Feb. 02 2003,16:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What makes you think that he stopped making WMD after the inspectors left in 1998?  He still had them, why wouldn't he replenish his supplies under NO supervision from the UN?<span id='postcolor'>

Exactly.  If he has these spent, past-date agents then why not just present them?  That way the UN would go home, sanctions would be lifted and he could proceed to make fresh weapons.  The reason he doesn't present them and take the easy path to rearming might be that he really doesn't have them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Yes Occupation Sucks thank you for that insight. But you do understand that to be occupied, thats not terrorism. Most US occupations in the 20th century have been very beneficial to the people of the countries occupied. Occupation is much different from state sponsored terrorism. Please it is imperative that you read up on your history."

I wasnt talking about US occupation. I was talking about terrorism. Wouldnt you call what the Nazis did to the people they occupied a form terrorism? If not, then what was it?

"Hawkins never said that by removing Saddam, the whole world would be totally safe. He said it would provide a "increased feeling of safety in the world". Meaning it would be a step in the right direction, not a total solution for all safety issues."

Well, the thing is, it might feel safer but it wont change anything. Saddam never planned attacking any western country. He never even had the means. Possibly he could provide terrorists with material, but they will get what they need regardless. If they dont, they will use something else (like airplanes).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×