The Iraq Thread

[mr. Duck 0]

Hmm, I don't know, but isn't the U.S. breaking international law now if they really have those SF's already in Iraq? Or is that ok?

[Longinius 1]

"Hmm, I don't know, but isn't the U.S. breaking international law now if they really have those SF's already in Iraq? Or is that ok?"

The US can do whatever they want. They have given themselves permission to do that. So its OK.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (mr. Duck @ Feb. 03 2003,21:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmm, I don't know, but isn't the U.S. breaking international law now if they really have those SF's already in Iraq? Or is that ok?  <span id='postcolor'>

Definitely a visa violation to be taken up with the Iraq Ministry of the Interior!

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 03 2003,21:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 03 2003,20:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 03 2003,21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is first hand information<span id='postcolor'>

This is 95% speculation on the author's part. <!--emo&<span id='postcolor'>

Information without interpretation is worthless. You have to put things into context.<span id='postcolor'>

Or as you want others (or yourself) to believe.

Wake up Denoir! I've never seen you so non-objective.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 04 2003,01:20)</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">I never said that! And you are not listening to what I say!<span id='postcolor'>

My fault, got the names mixed up. Sorry.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The reason why this very "peculiar" arrangement takes place is because Saddam, until two years ago, put a tax on the oil for foodl/medicin programe and this was not tolerated. Also, the deal is not about bartering oil for food or medicine - oil is supposed to be sold on the market - and for that money Iraq is supposed to buy food and medicine from UN.<span id='postcolor'>

So why was Saddam taxing it to buy medicine/food when all the money was going to it 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">IF USA installed a "friendly" government one of the fist tasks for that government would be to grant US with the ability of controling the producing of crude - aswell as refining it into petroleum products. That is how US plans to break the OPEC's hegemony on controling the price of both crude and petroleumproducts.<span id='postcolor'>

The world wouldn't stand for that happening. Simply put. If we invaded, liberated Iraq, then took over their oil business there'd be civil wars and uprisings, not to mention us boiling in political water. People simply wouldn't stand for that happening.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My point is that we never gave Saddam any vaccinations like you did.<span id='postcolor'>

And yet we still get a bad name because the Iraqi people are dying.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Information without interpretation is worthless. You have to put things into context.<span id='postcolor'>

Ooh, my new favorite motto.

[theavonlady 2]

Let's freeze this thread till we know more (maybe) on Wednesday.

[Bernadotte 0]

Could be deja vu all over again.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In September 1990--four months before the Gulf War started--the Pentagon claimed that between 250,000 and 400,000 Iraqi troops and more than 1,500 tanks were amassed on Iraq’s border with Saudi Arabia. While USA Today and other papers reported the claim as fact, the St. Petersburg Times in Florida decided to look for the evidence.

The Times obtained commercial Soviet satellite images of the area--and found nothing. "It was a pretty serious fib," says Jean Heller, the reporter who broke the story. "That [buildup] was the whole justification for Bush sending troops in there, and it just didn’t exist," Heller told the Christian Science Monitor.

<span id='postcolor'>

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 03 2003,22:22)</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">"That [buildup] was the whole justification for Bush sending troops in there, and it just didn’t exist," Heller told the Christian Science Monitor.<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

Um...................... you mean Iraq didn't attack Kuwait?

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 03 2003,21:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Um...................... you mean Iraq didn't attack Kuwait?<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...the Pentagon claimed that between 250,000 and 400,000 Iraqi troops and more than 1,500 tanks were amassed on Iraq’s border with Saudi Arabia.<span id='postcolor'>

Iraq had already entered Kuwait a month earlier.  The Pentagon was making a case for US intervention to defend Saudi Arabia from an Iraqi build up that didn't even exist.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 03 2003,22:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq had already entered Kuwait a month earlier.  The Pentagon was making a case for US intervention to defend Saudi Arabia from an Iraqi build up that didn't even exist.<span id='postcolor'>

I do not recall that the goal of US intervention in the Gulf War was not to assist Kuwait.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 03 2003,21:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 03 2003,22:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq had already entered Kuwait a month earlier.  The Pentagon was making a case for US intervention to defend Saudi Arabia from an Iraqi build up that didn't even exist.<span id='postcolor'>

I do not recall that the goal of US intervention in the Gulf War was not to assist Kuwait.<span id='postcolor'>

That was one of the primrary reasons.  But the US also made a large case for the defence of Saudi Arabia in its force deployments and threat estimates.  I think the intimation is that the US isnt above a little fibbing to manipulate the public and members of congress into doing what they want.  

Of course, since the Republicans have a majority in both houses, and we have George W(armonger) Bush in the White House, that isnt as neccesary, as he has a virtual dictatorship with the current balance of power in the US.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">as he has a virtual dictatorship with the current balance of power in the US.<span id='postcolor'>

So I guess all of the republicans took power at gunpoint?

It's not like they were elected or anything.....

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Feb. 03 2003,22:29)</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">as he has a virtual dictatorship with the current balance of power in the US.<span id='postcolor'>

So I guess all of the republicans took power at gunpoint?

It's not like they were elected or anything.....<span id='postcolor'>

You're missing the point.

Yes, they were elected.

But that doesnt eliminate the fact that right now, Bush can have pretty much any legislation passed that he wants.  Especially since the judiciary of the supreme court is right leaning as well.  Without a Democrat controlled senate or congress or president, there is nothing to check the policies of the party that is in control.  

Or havent you noticed some of the stunningly stupid (firearms registration) legislation that our own virtual dictatorship has passed in the last few years??

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

What is up with the interview that a british "whatever position" held with Saddam. I heard on CNN that we will soon be able to watch it on TV

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 03 2003,06:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 03 2003,11:18)</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">Yes, the information of defectors trying to ingratiate themselves to their new leaders is beyond suspicion - not! They would say whatever the hell they were told to say to keep their new position.<span id='postcolor'>

1. And what position would that be?

At least somebody's finally confronting the evidence.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If I had the time and inclination I could fill up pages with you presenting your personal opinions as if they are fact.<span id='postcolor'>

2. Because I base my opinions on fact?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And the crack about the cookie proves you would rather be flippant when proved wrong than be a man and admit your mistake.<span id='postcolor'>

3. Even though I've already admitted my  mistake?<span id='postcolor'>

1. Position as defectors, you moron. Position as US citizens. Are you really that stupid you can't understand what I was saying? No, your a wise ass who pretends he can't understand when he doesn't want to debate. Dickhead.

2. "Base" doesn't cut it. Not facts. Period. That's why movies have to state they are "based" on a true story, instead of claiming to be a factual representation.

3. Could you please post your admission of the mistake, or better yet, an apology to someone you offended by your bigotry and ignorance? I didn't see anything resembling an admission or apology, just smart ass replies.

Go to town you ignoramous. You said at some point you weren't trying to piss people off. Well, you have. Normally I remain calm in debates like these, but your tactics of acting like a moron who can't understand simple statements or examples when it suits you is infuriating.

Either you are a stupid ignorant little boy, or a clever smartass who can pretend he is. Either way, I'm done with you.

Mods, I know personal attackson members are not allowed, but I had to get this off my chest, sorry.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

what is the point u are making here!

the formula is usually very simple. you can say "you are an ignorant xxxx" if you add the second obligatory piece to your sentence such as "because.......(facts)...>"

[Cloney 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 03 2003,22:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 03 2003,06:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 03 2003,11:18)</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">Yes, the information of defectors trying to ingratiate themselves to their new leaders is beyond suspicion - not! They would say whatever the hell they were told to say to keep their new position.<span id='postcolor'>

1. And what position would that be?

At least somebody's finally confronting the evidence.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If I had the time and inclination I could fill up pages with you presenting your personal opinions as if they are fact.<span id='postcolor'>

2. Because I base my opinions on fact?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And the crack about the cookie proves you would rather be flippant when proved wrong than be a man and admit your mistake.<span id='postcolor'>

3. Even though I've already admitted my  mistake?<span id='postcolor'>

1. Position as defectors, you moron. Position as US citizens. Are you really that stupid you can't understand what I was saying? No, your a wise ass who pretends he can't understand when he doesn't want to debate. Dickhead.

2. "Base" doesn't cut it. Not facts. Period. That's why movies have to state they are "based" on a true story, instead of claiming to be a factual representation.

3. Could you please post your admission of the mistake, or better yet, an apology to someone you offended by your bigotry and ignorance? I didn't see anything resembling an admission or apology, just smart ass replies.

Go to town you ignoramous. You said at some point you weren't trying to piss people off. Well, you have. Normally I remain calm in debates like these, but your tactics of acting like a moron who can't understand simple statements or examples when it suits you is infuriating.

Either you are a stupid ignorant little boy, or a clever smartass who can pretend he is. Either way, I'm done with you.

Mods, I know personal attackson members are not allowed, but I had to get this off my chest, sorry.<span id='postcolor'>

By reading this post I have lowered my own IQ by 6 points. Maybe Mr. Pecker should refrain from personal attacks, if you know they aren't allowed why did you commit them? "because he was pissing me off" isn't a valid excuse.

[Warin 0]

Oxpecker,

Whether you needed that rant or not, you have a 48hour post restriction to ponder on the suitability of such a public attack.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

can someone please post a serious comment! I wanna get back on track!

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 03 2003,21:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 03 2003,22:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq had already entered Kuwait a month earlier.  The Pentagon was making a case for US intervention to defend Saudi Arabia from an Iraqi build up that didn't even exist.<span id='postcolor'>

I do not recall that the goal of US intervention in the Gulf War was not to assist Kuwait.<span id='postcolor'>

Warin said it well.  Certainly the US had other interests in the region besides assisting Kuwait, not least of which was defending Saudi Arabia.  And as I recall, 4 months before the US entered the conflict they still hadn't secured use of Saudi bases for anything but defensive purposes.

[Longinius 1]

"The world wouldn't stand for that happening. Simply put. If we invaded, liberated Iraq, then took over their oil business there'd be civil wars and uprisings, not to mention us boiling in political water. People simply wouldn't stand for that happening."

Yes, there would be civil wars and uprisings. The rest of the world wouldnt do much though because they couldnt do much. America all ready dont give a shit about what the rest of the world is saying, what makes you think it would be different after a war?

[HellToupee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 04 2003,00:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OK... it's time for my next piece of bet-ya-didn't-know-this-about-the-GulfWar trivia.

Meet April Galspie.

She was the United States' ambassador to Iraq and personally told Saddam Hussein, "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts such as your dispute with Kuwait." Many interpreted this as an American green light to aggression because 8 days later Iraq invaded Kuwait. Ms. Galspie, who was relieved of her post, later testified before the Senate:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...we foolishly did not realize Saddam Hussein was stupid...<span id='postcolor'>

(Sounds like something FS might say.) <span id='postcolor'>

yes this is exactlly it, most iraqs belive they were betrayed by teh US for this very incidence.

[Akira 0]

Computers May Determine Nuke Usage

[sarcasm]Gee...what can possibly go wrong here?[/sarcasm]

*insert rolling eyes emoticon*

[joshnolan225 0]

hi i accidenally started another topic, without looking to see if there was another thread.

im no war monger, but i also kno that there is a time for america to stand up and defend herself. Iraq is a bully and bullies dont go away, you dont stand up to them and say heres my lunch money, but please dont take it any more ill forgive you this time, but you have three weeks to stop doing it. no. America is a land of ideals, and the left is hell bent on destroying bush, one way or another, be it through creating another veitnam, where war stories were sensationalized, thus creating an environment where military officials couldnt work due to restrictions put on the war by Johnson, due to the pressure by the anti war left. dont get me wrong i think america should not have been there that long and probebly did more harm than good, by equating the new war with Vietnam, is errorous. Civilians will die, not many but some. Remember, this is not a war to liberate Iraq, like it was in Afghanistan, its a war to ensure american lives against a nuclear dictator who wants to destroy America. to anyone who thinks bush is rushing into war, read Bob Woodward's Bush At War, and no its not conservative propaganda, Woodward is a noted liberal and is an editor for the Washington Post. it really is a good bnook and it will point out good points and will show Facts.... which is what im trying to do......

[Bernadotte 0]

see next page