The Iraq Thread

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (joshnolan225 @ Feb. 06 2003,19:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">to all you debating bush's competince, polls:

Bush won, get over it

He has 60% of americas population for war with Iraq

he has 75% approval rating<span id='postcolor'>

You can say that with complete certainty? Are you 100% sure?

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (joshnolan225 @ Feb. 07 2003,01:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">to all you debating bush's competince, polls:

Bush won, get over it

He has 60% of americas population for war with Iraq

he has 75% approval rating<span id='postcolor'>

What does this survey consist of?

If I had to guess...

Poll was taken of 1000 people on the mailing list of the Republican Party.

Whats your source for those numbers, buddy. Until I see one, I will assume you pulled them from your hat.

[Shabadu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 07 2003,01:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If I had to guess...

Poll was taken of 1000 people on the mailing list of the Republican Party.<span id='postcolor'>

lol, probably

would like to know where these so-called figures come from also.

[HellToupee 0]

heh look at teh figures for australia like 6% support for war on iraq, in NZ i think its 4 %, operating from memory.

[Shabadu 0]

certainly more people are against the war here in Britain than are in favour of it. But that's got a lot to do with the fact that we would prefer not to take military action unless the circumstances are very severe indeed.

Not quite as gung-ho as some.

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 07 2003,00:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">7--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 07 2003,007)</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">It's like Iraq's revenge. they can sell arms to people who fight America without they themselves having to move a finger.  <span id='postcolor'>

Hmm, sorta like America did with Afghanistan when they were fighting Russia? Or like they do with Israel?

Pot calling the kettle black comes to mind.<span id='postcolor'>

There is a rather large gap between Stingers and Scuds. As for Israel- you may not like it, but a majority of Americans see Israel not only as a strategic ally, but our only real friend in the Mid-East. You may not like it, but then again, tough shit. We aren't selling them weapons to fight our wars for us, we sell them the weapons because they want them and can pay for them. It's called capitalism- welcome to planet Earth, can I get you anything before you head back to where you came from? Besides, that's not why we're pursuing a war with him. If exporting weapons was a reason the US went to war, we'd be engaged in wars with at least 5 of our principal allies, every single one of our enemies, and we'd be fighting a civil war as well.<span id='postcolor'>

Whoah, take it easy man!

I was pointing out the hypocracy of the statement, not attacking Israel.

Perhaps Israel wasn't the best example, but what about Afghanistan?

While it is true that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", it doesn't make it morally right to pour fuel on the fire. Were you really so concerned about the "poor Afghanis" (the same Afghanis you just got done bombing the crap out of) being attacked by the big bad Russian bear, or maybe just a chance to stick it to a cold war enemy?

While I understand that this is a military and political realism today and happens all the time, I just find it ironic that you are waggling the finger at Iraq for much the same thing. (Oh, have I pointed out that there is no solid evidence that iraq is actually planning to do this either?).

And what was that pesky Iran Contra thing about again?

[OxPecker 0]

Oh, and I forgot to mention it before - does anyone know where I can get a copy of the "Justifications for War" Powerpoint wizard Colon Bowell used?

[Shabadu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 07 2003,02:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh, and I forgot to mention it before - does anyone know where I can get a copy of the "Justifications for War" Powerpoint wizard Colon Bowell used?  <span id='postcolor'>

LOL

I dunno, you try www.lame-half-arsedreasonstoattackblokeswithdodgytashes.org ?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I said it before, we aren't going to war with Iraq because they've pawned some Russian missile launchers. We're dealing with an entirely seperate set of violations.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">While it is true that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", it doesn't make it morally right to pour fuel on the fire. Were you really so concerned about the "poor Afghanis" (the same Afghanis you just got done bombing the crap out of) being attacked by the big bad Russian bear, or maybe just a chance to stick it to a cold war enemy?

<span id='postcolor'>

Well, duh. Of course we were doing it to stick it to the Soviets, just like they did in Vietnam and North Korea.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And what was that pesky Iran Contra thing about again?

<span id='postcolor'>

I never said that that whole mess wasn't a big mistake, in addition to it being entirely irrelevant to what we're talking about. I have the decency to not bring up a laundry list of Great Britain's mistakes, why? Because it is irrelevant to Great Britain's current policies. How about you return the favor?

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 07 2003,02:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And what was that pesky Iran Contra thing about again?

<span id='postcolor'>

I never said that that whole mess wasn't a big mistake, in addition to it being entirely irrelevant to what we're talking about. I have the decency to not bring up a laundry list of Great Britain's mistakes, why? Because it is irrelevant to Great Britain's current policies. How about you return the favor?<span id='postcolor'>

In some ways, Iran/Contra is comletely relevant to the current discussions.

It's a prime example of the biggest problem the US faces right now.  Blowback

Or 'Your actions today can have distinct and negative repercussions in the future'

And as admirable as it might seem to 'go in and clean up our mistakes' sometimes that can, in and of itself, create a huge problem down the road.  Who is to say the next September 11th style terrorist attack might not be made in a decade by a bunch of 20 something terrorists who were orphaned in their early teens by American smart bombs in the 'War of Liberation' the US pursued in the early part of the 21st century?  The best intentions can often have totally unexpected results.

[Mister 5 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 07 2003,02:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have the decency to not bring up a laundry list of Great Britain's mistakes, why? Because it is irrelevant to Great Britain's current policies. How about you return the favor?<span id='postcolor'>

Wow. Have I ever mentioned how much I love you? You can have your way with my sister any time you want!

Seriously though, I think it's about time someone came out and said that. Good job.

[Shabadu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister 5 @ Feb. 07 2003,02:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 07 2003,02:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have the decency to not bring up a laundry list of Great Britain's mistakes, why? Because it is irrelevant to Great Britain's current policies. How about you return the favor?<span id='postcolor'>

Wow. Have I ever mentioned how much I love you? You can have your way with my sister any time you want!

Seriously though, I think it's about time someone came out and said that. Good job.<span id='postcolor'>

Hmmm, I can see this getting ugly. Best if all concerned leave this topic alone. Hate to see this thread get closed down by flaming.

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 07 2003,02:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I said it before, we aren't going to war with Iraq because they've pawned some Russian missile launchers. We're dealing with an entirely seperate set of violations.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">While it is true that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", it doesn't make it morally right to pour fuel on the fire. Were you really so concerned about the "poor Afghanis" (the same Afghanis you just got done bombing the crap out of) being attacked by the big bad Russian bear, or maybe just a chance to stick it to a cold war enemy?

<span id='postcolor'>

Well, duh. Of course we were doing it to stick it to the Soviets, just like they did in Vietnam and North Korea.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And what was that pesky Iran Contra thing about again?

<span id='postcolor'>

I never said that that whole mess wasn't a big mistake, in addition to it being entirely irrelevant to what we're talking about. I have the decency to not bring up a laundry list of Great Britain's mistakes, why? Because it is irrelevant to Great Britain's current policies. How about you return the favor?<span id='postcolor'>

Feel free to drag Great Britain's name through the mud, it ain't my homeland.

So it's OK to supply weapons for people to fight your enemies, unless they are directly threatening to invade you (like US is with Iraq).

Sorry, just can't see the logic there.

[Shabadu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 07 2003,03:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Feel free to drag Great Britain's name through the mud, it ain't my homeland.

So it's OK to supply weapons for people to fight your enemies, unless they are directly threatening to invade you (like US is with Iraq).

Sorry, just can't see the logic there.  <span id='postcolor'>

How in the hell is Iraq threatening the US withinvasion? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

I mean, there's very little likelihood of Sadman using the WMD he's reputedly in ownership of, in a pre-emptive strike. He'd retaliate sure, but to attack the US or even Britain first is suicidal.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 07 2003,02:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In some ways, Iran/Contra is comletely relevant to the current discussions.

It's a prime example of the biggest problem the US faces right now.  Blowback

Or 'Your actions today can have distinct and negative repercussions in the future'

And as admirable as it might seem to 'go in and clean up our mistakes' sometimes that can, in and of itself, create a huge problem down the road.  Who is to say the next September 11th style terrorist attack might not be made in a decade by a bunch of 20 something terrorists who were orphaned in their early teens by American smart bombs in the 'War of Liberation' the US pursued in the early part of the 21st century?  The best intentions can often have totally unexpected results.<span id='postcolor'>

That is exactly the point.

It's not about assigning blame but about not doing the same mistakes again.

Tex, you made an excellent post about the complexity of the Iraq situation a while ago, pointing out the problems with the ethnic minorities in Iraq.

Just as the US made a mistake in Afganistan '80 it is doing it agian in Iraq.

Tell me, what will happen after you arm the Kurds to fight Saddam and then deny them a country of their own. Who do you think they will point the weapons at?

[Shabadu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 07 2003,03:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Tell me, what will happen after you arm the Kurds to fight Saddam and then deny them a country of their own. Who do you think they will point the weapons at?<span id='postcolor'>

You have a point there. Especially when you consider that during the previous Gulf War our forces covered Turkish attacks on Kurdish settlements. Aren't they going to feel a little pissed off at the fact that we let that happen?

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shabadu @ Feb. 07 2003,03:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 07 2003,031)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Feel free to drag Great Britain's name through the mud, it ain't my homeland.

So it's OK to supply weapons for people to fight your enemies, unless they are directly threatening to invade you (like US is with Iraq).

Sorry, just can't see the logic there.  <span id='postcolor'>

How in the hell is Iraq threatening the US withinvasion? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

I mean, there's very little likelihood of Sadman using the WMD he's reputedly in ownership of, in  a pre-emptive strike. He'd retaliate sure, but to attack the US or even Britain first is suicidal.<span id='postcolor'>

I meant other way round US invading Iraq.

[Shabadu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 07 2003,03:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">4--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shabadu @ Feb. 07 2003,034)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 07 2003,03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Feel free to drag Great Britain's name through the mud, it ain't my homeland.

So it's OK to supply weapons for people to fight your enemies, unless they are directly threatening to invade you (like US is with Iraq).

Sorry, just can't see the logic there.  <!--emo&<span id='postcolor'>

How in the hell is Iraq threatening the US withinvasion? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

I mean, there's very little likelihood of Sadman using the WMD he's reputedly in ownership of, in  a pre-emptive strike. He'd retaliate sure, but to attack the US or even Britain first is suicidal.<span id='postcolor'>

I meant other way round US invading Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

I thought as much, sorry.

In that case can you explain? I haven't a clue what you meant by that comment.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So, was it just an accident that they caught a photo of the exact moment that inspectors arrived at that sanitised site?<span id='postcolor'>

What?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">(...and what about the other examples I gave in my post?)<span id='postcolor'>

Fine...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And don't give me the crap about compromising intel sources.<span id='postcolor'>

I didn't say anything about compromising intel sources.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And if the US can't do it that way then the UN should give UNMOVIC equal time to present to the world the many cases that US intel has so far proved very unreliable.<span id='postcolor'>

Pictures and audio tapes are unreliable?

[OxPecker 0]

Hey FS, I'll provide you with an audio tape of an American speaking to another American guy talking about how this war is really all about oil and American expansionism.

Just give me a few days to get some voice actors.

Don't believe everything you hear.

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shabadu @ Feb. 07 2003,03:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In that case can you explain? I haven't a clue what you meant by that comment.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, what I drew from what Tex said was it was OK for the US to supply weapons to people to attack enemies of his country, but for some reason he thinks it's not OK for Iraq to do that to the US, presumably because they are under threat of invasion. His logic baffled me, if I was drawing the right conclusion.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Feel free to drag Great Britain's name through the mud, it ain't my homeland.

<span id='postcolor'>

Cut and paste in your homeland, then. Unless of course it's Canada, because I love those guys (please send more bacon and syrup! )

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In some ways, Iran/Contra is comletely relevant to the current discussions.

It's a prime example of the biggest problem the US faces right now. Blowback

Or 'Your actions today can have distinct and negative repercussions in the future'

And as admirable as it might seem to 'go in and clean up our mistakes' sometimes that can, in and of itself, create a huge problem down the road. Who is to say the next September 11th style terrorist attack might not be made in a decade by a bunch of 20 something terrorists who were orphaned in their early teens by American smart bombs in the 'War of Liberation' the US pursued in the early part of the 21st century? The best intentions can often have totally unexpected results.

<span id='postcolor'>

You're probably right, but then again if we allow the fear of an unintended consequence magnifying itself to keep us from at least attempting to do the right thing, then we might as well just pack it in and call it a day. Of course, at this point it is fairly clear that no matter what we do, someone will get pissed off by it, so we might as well do what we think is right.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Tex, you made an excellent post about the complexity of the Iraq situation a while ago, pointing out the problems with the ethnic minorities in Iraq.

Just as the US made a mistake in Afganistan '80 it is doing it agian in Iraq.

Tell me, what will happen after you arm the Kurds to fight Saddam and then deny them a country of their own. Who do you think they will point the weapons at?<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not going to argue with myself (because I'm still right ), but I'd like to point out that I never said that this whole Iraq thing was a good idea. At this point I'm trying to find a silver lining, and so far I've got this:

-Saddam will die.

-Any WMDs he has left will be taken out of circulation.

-One less dictatorship in the world.

-The look on Jacques Chirac's face when he finds out that not only has he alienated France from their strongest ally, but that they also lost their source of dirt-cheap petroleum.

but yes, the ethnic questions are still one of the biggest caveats in an invasion of Iraq. Hopefully though, we can short-circuit the problem by doing the fighting ourselves (cutting out the whole 'we fought for ourselves, so we should get out due', and setting up a government that can deal effectively with the Kurds. Still, that is not at all probable, and I can see the conflict spreading to involve Iran, Turkey, and anyone else looking for a good fight.

Like I said, it was never a very good idea

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 07 2003,03:17)</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">And if the US can't do it that way then the UN should give UNMOVIC equal time to present to the world the many cases that US intel has so far proved very unreliable.<span id='postcolor'>

Pictures and audio tapes are unreliable?<span id='postcolor'>

Does the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution ring any bells?

As for the popular support for a war in Iraq among US citizens as somebody mentioned, I have a quote. It's from Erich Fromm one of the most important sociologists of this century:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"What is so deceptive about the state of mind of the members of a society is the 'consensual validation' of their concepts... Just as there is a 'folie a deux' there is a 'folie a millions.' The fact that millions of people share the same vices does not make these vices cirtues, the fact that they share so many errors does not make the errors to be truths, and the fact that millions of people share the same forms of mental pathology does not make these people sane."

- Erich Fromm

<span id='postcolor'>

[Shabadu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 07 2003,03:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shabadu @ Feb. 07 2003,03:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In that case can you explain? I haven't a clue what you meant by that comment.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, what I drew from what Tex said was it was OK for the US to supply weapons to people to attack enemies of his country, but for some reason he thinks it's not OK for Iraq to do that to the US, presumably because they are under threat of invasion. His logic baffled me, if I was drawing the right conclusion.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh, I see. I don't understand why Iraq would be supplying weapons to the US. Must be a misunderstanding somewhere along the lines.

The thing that bothers me is that we sold Sadman most of his stuff, does any of it work? It doesn't for us.

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shabadu @ Feb. 07 2003,03:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 07 2003,03:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shabadu @ Feb. 07 2003,03:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In that case can you explain? I haven't a clue what you meant by that comment.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, what I drew from what Tex said was it was OK for the US to supply weapons to people to attack enemies of his country, but for some reason he thinks it's not OK for Iraq to do that to the US, presumably because they are under threat of invasion. His logic baffled me, if I was drawing the right conclusion.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh, I see. I don't understand why Iraq would be supplying weapons to the US. Must be a misunderstanding somewhere along the lines.

The thing that bothers me is that we sold Sadman most of his stuff, does any of it work? It doesn't for us.  <span id='postcolor'>

Yes, I'm probably wording it poorly.

I meant (In Tex's views) US supplying weapons to people to attack Russia = right.

Iraq supplying weapons to people to attack US = wrong.