The Iraq Thread

[Jinef 2]

Avon Lady

I can understand us British being hated mainly because of our holier than thou stance on a lot of world politics and maybe language elitism but what have you got against the Norwegians eh? Or the Swedish? They are all so cute in their little national costumes and just eat nice choccies and go skiing (spelling?). I really can't understand anyone who says "I don't like Europe" mainy because the majority of European countries just want to dance around in tight socks and climb big lumps of rock.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 04 2003,15:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Feb. 04 2003,16:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">.....I sometimes become so tired of some of you US people!<span id='postcolor'>

Believe me, many people don't care for condescending Europeans either!<span id='postcolor'>

I believe that all people who generalise are generally lazy-minded... generally speaking.  

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Feb. 04 2003,17:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I really can't understand anyone who says "I don't like Europe" mainy because the majority of European countries just want to dance around in tight socks and climb big lumps of rock.<span id='postcolor'>

And don't forget France! They make all that smelly cheese!

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Feb. 04 2003,16:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I can understand us British being hated mainly because of our holier than thou stance on a lot of world politics and maybe language elitism but what have you got against the Norwegians eh? Or the Swedish? They are all so cute in their little national costumes and just eat nice choccies and go skiing (spelling?).<span id='postcolor'>

We've raped and pillaged across Britain before and if you don't watch your mouth, we'll do it again!

[DarkLight 0]

I just heard on the news that Bush wants to spend even more money on his defense.

The war with Iraq will cost a huuuuuge amount of money, probable enough to save all the 3rd world countries ten times. Bush decides to use even more money for warfare. Even now, the american economy isn't doing very well, war+defense is all that seems to be important. US already is in problems with their money, this'll only make things worse. Bush's speeches seem more like a way to hide all the problems by promising to lower taxes...

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Feb. 03 2003,15:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is an ongoing rumour on the floors here. The US is currently undermining the UN itself by proposing their war if justified or not, with or without UN mandate. This is the current situation.

Now what could this mean for the UN future ?

It is likely once the US do a solo run to Iraq without UN permission, it won´t take long till G.W.Bush will announce this question : "Is the UN still a thing USA wants to take part in?"

YOu understand what I mean ? The US government is going solo ways a lot at the moment. Kyoto, ICC, and UN.

Doesn´t this show that they are not willing to accept the UN as a higher institution ?

As I said this is a rumour, but if you check how much money USA owes the UN you see why they are possibly tempted to leave for US reaons. The USA is the biggest non-payer to UN. .Currently the debts of USA to UN are around 1.2 billion dollars.

I know FS and all the other´s will come running and screaming now, but that is the facts. Due to the high debts UN has already problems to keep it´s programs up. How to undermine the UN best ? Don´t give them money anymore.

Sidenote: Yesterday premier Aznar (head of spain) held a press conference and revealed that the he has proof for Iraq posessing WMD´s, links to international terrorrism and so on.

He did not tell which proof of course.

It´s funny if you see that Aznar has been to Mr Bush lately and now he claims that spanish intelligence has proof. This is so sick. Ah yes, maybe it is about Repsol ?<span id='postcolor'>

Hmm, didn't read this... It fits nice with my last post...

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Feb. 03 2003,16:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wouldn't care if iraq had chemical weapons.But they seem to be careless with them.That why i care.<span id='postcolor'>

What do you mean with careless? There's no proof that they have ever done anything with them (if they even have them)

[DracoPaladore 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Feb. 04 2003,15:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">.....I sometimes become so tired of some of you US people!<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe they're just so tired of you guys

I'm betting the feeling is mutual

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DracoPaladore @ Feb. 04 2003,16:56)</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">Maybe they're just so tired of you guys

I'm betting the feeling is mutual <span id='postcolor'>

It would be foolish to bet against that!

[brgnorway 0]

Hm...I'm not able to present the pictures of what US is dropping over the Iraqi people - no it's not bombs - yet.

Scroll down to half of the page and Press link - pick "Strřr flygeblader i Irak" and then "se bildene

http://www.bergens-tidende.no/

So what do you think?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

What is a larger threat to the UN's credibility? The US's pursuit of the UN's approval in an attack on Iraq, or the UN's own unwillingness to enforce its own resoultions? Hussein has breached multiple UN resoultions that were prerequisites to a ceasefire in 1991. However, the UN (minus the US and company) have shown a marked unwillingness to enforce its own rules. Now, to me, the UN's unwillingness to follow up on its rules is an entirely larger threat to its relevance and credibility than the US is. It just tells other countries that you can basically tell the UN to fuck off as long as you sell oil and have weapons deals with members of the Security Council

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hm...I'm not able to present the pictures of what US is dropping over the Iraqi people - no it's not bombs - yet.

Scroll down to half of the page and Press link - pick "Strřr flygeblader i Irak" and then "se bildene

http://www.bergens-tidende.no/

So what do you think?<span id='postcolor'>

They did the same thing in the Gulf. SAS teams would cut the optical lines, and then place mines in the hole they had dug. Engineers would come to repair the damage and get blown to bits. Eventually they stopped repairing the damage.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now, to me, the UN's unwillingness to follow up on its rules is an entirely larger threat to its relevance and credibility than the US is.<span id='postcolor'>

One moment please. The UN inspectors that are in Iraq have not found evidence justifying a military operation the US plans right now. And when the hell will you get the fact that the UN is not an instrument to start wars but to prevent wars.

In this case NOTHING justifying a war has been found. Face it.

The less evidence you find for the war on iraq the more weird the speculations get.

And sorry, but have you ever checked the vetoed UN decisions blocked by US ? Israel may ring a bell.

The only one to decide if there is a war or not is the UN. Like it or not. You signed the rules like all the others did, so you have to follow them. If you don´t you show no respect for international matters and prove to be unable to fit into the international community and start an age of war. You can´t be everywhere and you´re money doesn´t grow on trees.

So you break the basic UN rules and don´t think that ANY other country on the world could do the same and show a picture of G.W. Bush as a major excuse. Is this what you want ? Is this what you can take ? Is this what you want to show us and the rest of the world ?

I´m sorry, but if it is that way you are miles away from being a great idol for all other peoples out there.

Denoir has already said it, but it seems like this things are perfectly overread.

So I will repeat it for you:

Ask soldiers that already have been to several conflicts. Ask them what they think about Iraq. I don´t talk about veterans that tend to glorify things after years. Ask people that are active and have seen more than their training camp or airsoft weapons. You will hardly find lots of them supporting the war, but a lot that oppose it.

Why is this so ? They are not afraid of war in general. They have already participated in missions and tasks where teenagers would run crying. They know how dead people smell and they know the nights after you had the first shooting with casualties. They know about the civilians that are always the big losers of wars and they know that they need to have a good reason to cause all that.

I for myself need a good reason and I need to have an UN mandate before I fire a single bullet. I need the decision of the international community and I need evidence, not propaganda. This is what I need. This is what I needed for 13 years. This is what worked good for me and I will accept NOTHING that overruns this principles. Full stop !

[Longinius 1]

"Hussein has breached multiple UN resoultions that were prerequisites to a ceasefire in 1991. However, the UN (minus the US and company) have shown a marked unwillingness to enforce its own rules. Now, to me, the UN's unwillingness to follow up on its rules is an entirely larger threat to its relevance and credibility than the US is."

OK, uhm, does this apply for every country breaking UN rules and regulations? Because if so the UN needs to do some enforcing over on US soil...

[Die Alive 0]

BUSH:

Blowing

Up

Saddam

Hussein

-=Die Alive=-

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 04 2003,18:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now, to me, the UN's unwillingness to follow up on its rules is an entirely larger threat to its relevance and credibility than the US is. It just tells other countries that you can basically tell the UN to fuck off as long as you sell oil and have weapons deals with members of the Security Council<span id='postcolor'>

You sound like you're just finding this out for the first time, Tex.  Some member states have been telling the UN to "fuck off" for over 50 years.  I can think of one member state with around 100 resolutions drafted against it.  Thirty of those resolutions were vetoed by the US.  The UN was indeed simply told to "fuck off" the other 70 times.  Why should this same message to the UN bother the US so much now and not all those other times?

Can ya say, hypocrisy?

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Feb. 04 2003,19:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The less evidence you find for the war on iraq the more weird the speculations get.<span id='postcolor'>

I dunno Balschoiw.  It doesn't look good.  Apparently the CIA intercepted Saddam Hussein in a conference call about a week ago saying something about insulating foam and tiles.  

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Feb. 04 2003,12:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 04 2003,07:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah, and Saddam doesn't torture his civilians.  Not at all.  Oh no, but the US are the bad guys.  We're trying to step in and get rid of this guy who has his civilians raped, tortures children in front of their parents, is an absolute horror of a dictator.  And somehow WE are the bullys. <span id='postcolor'>

Interesting, can you back any of this up with evidence - other than second hand hearsay?<span id='postcolor'>

It's not like it hasn't been posted before.

WARNING: contains some slightly graphic images

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Finally you get my point!

Well, the world wouldn't stand for it - but there is nothing anyone can do about it because US does it anyway! That's our fear - but time will tell.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh please, there's plenty they can and would do if that happened.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Your vaccinations gave Saddam the means to produce biological and chemical weapons, and should have been obvious to you! This has nothing to do with the oil for food programe.<span id='postcolor'>

Us giving him vaccinations, as well as other countries, was us giving them to an ally. We were trying to help people.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes those civilians will be thrilled to getting bombs dropped on them. Ah, how fortunate those are that can get killed by a US made cluster bomb. It's almost living the American dream.<span id='postcolor'>

I cant wait to see the experssion on a 5 year olds face when they learn that the US isn't coming, but saddam's secret police are.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If Saddam Hussen had been in the WTC at the time of the attacks would those attacks have been a good thing? I can assure you that a war on Iraq will cost far more civilian lives then those that were killed on sep. 11th. Or do you think that American civilian lives are more valuable then Iraqi?<span id='postcolor'>

If saddam had nuked New York City, but still denyed having WMDs, would you still believe him?

[HellToupee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 05 2003,08:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

US is sayin we need to invade iraq because they have broken UN rules, well big deal the US disregades them and dosnt follow yet they stil use that argument.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Us giving him vaccinations, as well as other countries, was us giving them to an ally. We were trying to help people.<span id='postcolor'>

Yep bombing their people intot hte ground putting a puppet in charge and taking one of thw worlds largest supplies of oil, thats helping for ya.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If saddam had nuked New York City, but still denyed having WMDs, would you still believe him?<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When did he nuke york? If the US killed 10s of thousands of civilians and took every drop of oil for them selfs would you stil try argue it was good? <span id='postcolor'>

What dose that mean? clearly you know nothing, if you would talk to an iraq you might get an idea of the country, Soccer is very popular, police dont kill people at random etc.

[HellToupee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 05 2003,06:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What is a larger threat to the UN's credibility? The US's pursuit of the UN's approval in an attack on Iraq, or the UN's own unwillingness to enforce its own resoultions? Hussein has breached multiple UN resoultions that were prerequisites to a ceasefire in 1991. However, the UN (minus the US and company) have shown a marked unwillingness to enforce its own rules. Now, to me, the UN's unwillingness to follow up on its rules is an entirely larger threat to its relevance and credibility than the US is. It just tells other countries that you can basically tell the UN to fuck off as long as you sell oil and have weapons deals with members of the Security Council<span id='postcolor'>

So bassically what you are sayin is everyone must do what the UN says or feel the consiquences until the UNs beliefs conflict with the US which then means without a doubt the UN is wrong and the US is right and it must be ignored.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Feb. 05 2003,02:34)</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">US is sayin we need to invade iraq because they have broken UN rules, well big deal the US disregades them and dosnt follow yet they stil use that argument<span id='postcolor'>

But him breaking UN rules puts us at risk.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yep bombing their people intot hte ground putting a puppet in charge and taking one of thw worlds largest supplies of oil, thats helping for ya.<span id='postcolor'>

Quit being so blind. You seem to beunder the mistaken impression that Saddam is good for his people. He's doing more damage to them than a war ever would. Not only are some people dying, but others are being scarred for life. How many will be mad at us for sitting on our hands and not taking him out of power?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When did he nuke york? If the US killed 10s of thousands of civilians and took every drop of oil for them selfs would you stil try argue it was good?<span id='postcolor'>

It's a hypothetical question. And like I've said and has been proven countless times in this thread, this was is not about oil. The international community simply wouldn't let us do it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What dose that mean? clearly you know nothing, if you would talk to an iraq you might get an idea of the country, Soccer is very popular, police dont kill people at random etc.<span id='postcolor'>

Have you even read that dossier that has been linked to in this thread?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 04 2003,20:13)</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">If Saddam Hussen had been in the WTC at the time of the attacks would those attacks have been a good thing? I can assure you that a war on Iraq will cost far more civilian lives then those that were killed on sep. 11th. Or do you think that American civilian lives are more valuable then Iraqi?<span id='postcolor'>

If saddam had nuked New York City, but still denyed having WMDs, would you still believe him?<span id='postcolor'>

How is that nonsense related to my question?

It is a very simple direct question. If Saddam Hussein had been in the WTC at the time on September 11th would you think that the attacks were ok?

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 04 2003,21:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But him breaking UN rules puts us at risk.<span id='postcolor'>

Who's us?

Only the USA or are you speaking for other nations too, and which other nations?

Does Saddam Hussein pose a risk to Ireland, Norway, Morocco, Mexico, Argentina, Poland, etc, etc...

If so, can you explain the risk?

If not, why doesn't he put them at risk?

[Guest]

Interview with Saddam today:

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

Benn: I come for one reason only -- to see whether in a talk we can explore, or you can help me to see, what the paths to peace may be. My only reason, I remember the war because I lost a brother. I never want to see another war.

There are millions of people all over the world who don't want a war, and by agreeing to this interview, which is very historic for all of us, I hope you will be able to help me be able to say something to the world that is significant and positive.

Saddam: Welcome to Baghdad. You are conscious of the role that Iraqis have set out for themselves, inspired by their own culture, their civilisation and their role in human history. This role requires peace in order to prosper and progress. Having said that, the Iraqis are committed to their rights as much as they are committed to the rights of others. Without peace they will be faced with many obstacles that would stop them from fulfilling their human role.

Benn: Mr President, may I ask you some questions. The first is, does Iraq have any weapons of mass destruction?

Saddam: Most Iraqi officials have been in power for over 34 years and have experience of dealing with the outside world. Every fair-minded person knows that when Iraqi officials say something, they are trustworthy. A few minutes ago when you asked me if I wanted to look at the questions beforehand I told you I didn't feel the need so that we don't waste time, and I gave you the freedom to ask me any question directly so that my reply would be direct.

This is an opportunity to reach the British people and the forces of peace in the world. There is only one truth and therefore I tell you as I have said on many occasions before that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction whatsoever. We challenge anyone who claims that we have to bring forward any evidence and present it to public opinion.

Benn: I have another which has been raised: Do you have links with al Qaeda?

Saddam: If we had a relationship with al Qaeda and we believed in that relationship we wouldn't be ashamed to admit it. Therefore I would like to tell you directly and also through you to anyone who is interested to know that we have no relationship with al Qaeda.

Benn: In relation to the inspectors, there appears to be difficulties with inspectors, and I wonder whether there's anything you can tell me about these difficulties and whether you believe they will be cleared up before Mr Hans Blix and Mr ElBaradei come back to Baghdad?

Saddam: You are aware that every major event must encounter some difficulty. On the subject of the inspectors and the resolutions that deal with Iraq you must have been following it and you must have a view and a vision as to whether these resolutions have any basis in international law.

Nevertheless the Security Council produced them. These resolutions -- implemented or not - or the motivation behind these resolutions could lead the current situation to the path of peace or war. Therefore it's a critical situation. Let us also remember the unjust suffering of the Iraqi people.

For the last 13 years since the blockade was imposed, you must be aware of the amount of harm that it has caused the Iraqi people, particularly the children and the elderly, as a result of the shortage of food and medicine and other aspects of their life. Therefore we are facing a critical situation.

On that basis, it is not surprising that there might be complaints relating to the small details of the inspection which may be essential issues as far as we are concerned and the way we see the whole thing. It is possible that those Iraqis who are involved with the inspection might complain about the conduct of the inspectors and they complain indeed.

It is also possible that some inspectors either for reasons of practical and detailed procedure, or for some other motives, may complain about the Iraqi conduct. Every fair-minded person knows that as far as resolution 1441 is concerned, the Iraqis have been fulfilling their obligations under the resolution.

When Iraq objects to the conduct of those implementing the Security Council resolutions, that doesn't mean that Iraq wishes to push things to confrontation.Iraq has no interest in war. No Iraqi official or ordinary citizen has expressed a wish to go to war. The question should be directed at the other side. Are they looking for a pretext so they could justify war against Iraq?

If the purpose was to make sure that Iraq is free of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons then they can do that. These weapons do not come in small pills that you can hide in your pocket. These are weapons of mass destruction and it is easy to work out if Iraq has them or not. We have said many times before and we say it again today that Iraq is free of such weapons.

So when Iraq objects to the conduct of the inspection teams or others, that doesn't mean that Iraq is interested in putting obstacles before them which could hinder the efforts to get to the truth. It is in our interest to facilitate their mission to find the truth. The question is does the other side want to get to the same conclusion or are they looking for a pretext for aggression?

If those concerned prefer aggression then it's within their reach. The super powers can create a pretext any day to claim that Iraq is not implementing resolution 1441. They have claimed before that Iraq did not implement the previous resolutions. However, after many years it became clear that Iraq had complied with these resolutions. Otherwise, why are they focusing now on the latest resolution and not the previous ones?

Benn: May I broaden the question out, Mr President, to the relations between Iraq and the UN, and the prospects for peace more broadly, and I wonder whether with all its weaknesses and all the difficulties, whether you see a way in which the UN can reach that objective for the benefit of humanity?

Saddam: The point you raised can be found in the United Nations charter. As you know Iraq is one of the founders and first signatories of the charter. If we look at the representatives of two superpowers -- America and Britain -- and look at their conduct and their language, we would notice that they are more motivated by war than their responsibility for peace.

And when they talk about peace all they do is accuse others they wish to destroy in the name of peace. They claim they are looking after the interests of their people. You know as well as I do that this is not the truth. Yes the world would respect this principle if it was genuinely applied. It's not about power but it is about right and wrong, about when we base our human relations on good, and respect this principle. So it becomes simple to adhere to this principle ecause anyone who violates it will be exposed to public opinion.

Benn: There are people who believe this present conflict is about oil, and I wonder if you would say something about how you see the enormous oil reserves of Iraq being developed, first for the benefit of the people of Iraq and secondly for the needs of mankind.

Saddam: When we speak about oil in this part of the world -- we are an integral part of the world - we have to deal with others in all aspects of life, economic as well as social, technical, scientific and other areas. It seems that the authorities in the U.S. are motivated by aggression that has been evident for more than a decade against the region.

The first factor is the role of those influential people in the decision taken by the president of the U.S. based on sympathy with the Zionist entity that was created at the expense of Palestine and its people and their humanity. These people force the hand of the American administration by claiming that the Arabs pose a danger to Israel, without remembering their obligation to God and how the Palestinian people were driven out of their homeland.

The consecutive American administrations were led down a path of hostility against the people of this region, including our own nation and we are part of it. Those people and others have been telling the various US administrations, especially the current one, that if you want to control the world you need to control the oil. Therefore the destruction of Iraq is a pre-requisite to controlling oil.

That means the destruction of the Iraqi national identity, since the Iraqis are committed to their principles and rights according to international law and the UN charter. It seems that this argument has appealed to some U.S. administrations especially the current one that if they control the oil in the Middle East, they would be able to control the world.

They could dictate to China the size of its economic growth and interfere in its education system and could do the same to Germany and France and perhaps to Russia and Japan. They might even tell the same to Britain if its oil doesn't satisfy its domestic consumption. It seems to me that this hostility is a trademark of the current US administration and is based on its wish to control the world and spread its hegemony.

People have the right to say that if this aggression by the American administration continues, it would lead to widespread enmity and resistance.

We won't be able to develop the oil fields or the oil industry and therefore create worldwide co-operation as members of the human family when there is war, destruction and death. Isn't it reasonable to question this approach and conclude that this road will not benefit anyone including America or its people? It may serve some short-term interests or the interests of some influential powers in the US but we can't claim that it serves the interest of the American people in the long run or other nations.

Benn: There are tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions of people in Britain and America, in Europe and worldwide, who want to see a peaceful outcome to this problem , and they are the real Americans in my opinion, the real British, the real French, the real Germans, because they think of the world in terms of their children. I have 10 grandchildren and in my family there is English, Scottish, American, French, Irish, Jewish and Indian blood, and for me politics is about their future, their survival. And I wonder whether you could say something yourself directly through this interview to the peace movement of the world that might help to advance the cause they have in mind?

Saddam: First of all we admire the development of the peace movement around the world in the last few years. We pray to God to empower all those working against war and for the cause of peace and security based on just peace for all. And through you we say to the British people that Iraqis do not hate the British people.

Before 1991 Iraq and Britain had a normal relationship as well as normal relations with America. At that time the British governments had no reason to criticise Iraq as we hear some voices doing these days. We hope the British people would tell those who hate the Iraqis and wish them harm that there is no reason to justify this war and please tell them that I say to you because the British people are brave -- tell them that the Iraqis are brave too.

Tell the British people if the Iraqis are subjected to aggression or humiliation they would fight bravely. Just as the British people did in the Second World War and we will defend our country as they defended their country each in its own way. The Iraqis don't wish war but if war is imposed upon them -- if they are attacked and insulted -- they will defend themselves. They will defend their country, their sovereignty and their security. We will not disappoint those who believe in the principles of justice. And we will uphold the principles of justice and right that we strongly believe in.

<span id='postcolor'>

source: CNN

[Longinius 1]

"You seem to beunder the mistaken impression that Saddam is good for his people."

Well, the people that accept the order of the day and follow his lead were doing OK before the sanctions. I wager most of them are doing as good as could be expected under the circumstances. Yes, enemies of the state and their kin are tortured and killed, some held unlawfully in prison. The only difference between the US and Iraq there is that as far as we know the US dont torture their prisoners, not physically anyway.

"He's doing more damage to them than a war ever would."

No, he isnt. But the sanctions are. The Iraqis were quite well off before the war. There are nations where the civilians have it far worse than in Iraq.

"Not only are some people dying, but others are being scarred for life. How many will be mad at us for sitting on our hands and not taking him out of power?"

I think more of them will be mad at you when you come around and kill their relatives...again.