The Dogs of War

[FSPilot 0]

Maybe he went to Israel?

... naah

[Hit_Sqd_Maximus 0]

Marines find nukes?

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hit_Sqd_Maximus @ April 11 2003,04:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Marines find nukes?

<span id='postcolor'>

Doesn't matter what kind of weapons that they find in iraq.If the iraqi's didn't use them on US/UK soldiers they didn't have any.Even if they find a huge cache of it.No one will believe it.Why ? Because they still are against this war.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ April 11 2003,04:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hit_Sqd_Maximus @ April 11 2003,04:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Marines find nukes?

<span id='postcolor'>

Doesn't matter what kind of weapons that they find in iraq.If the iraqi's didn't use them on US/UK soldiers they didn't have any.Even if they find a huge cache of it.No one will believe it.Why ? Because they still are against this war.<span id='postcolor'>

Sad truth is that that is probably true. They could give definitive proof (ie proof of where it was manufactured which is possible), and they still wouldn't believe....or more importantly want to believe.

[Warin 0]

Strange that none of the major news agencies have reported on this. Or that centcom hasnt made a declaration.

Could it be that there really isnt anything there that the inspectors havent already seen?

This will be an interesting thing over the next months. If impartial investigators are let in with proper radioloigical protection, it could show part of the US theories beoing correct.

Problem is, it was still a war of aggression, that was against the rule of law. Just because you are right doesnt mean the means are right. Just so we're clear on that

[IceFire 0]

Well if anyone has been following the news, We've pretty much WON!

Armed resistence is pretty much dead, the Iraqi civilian population is cheering and celebrating.

All this talk after all the months by people against the war have been proven wrong.

Take that all you anti-war doves!!

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ April 11 2003,05:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Strange that none of the major news agencies have reported on this.  Or that centcom hasnt made a declaration.

Could it be that there really isnt anything there that the inspectors havent already seen?

This will be an interesting thing over the next months.  If impartial investigators are let in with proper radioloigical protection, it could show part of the US theories beoing correct.

Problem is, it was still a war of aggression, that was against the rule of law.  Just because you are right doesnt mean the means are right.  Just so we're clear on that <span id='postcolor'>

The dangerous thing is:

If weapons are found, and verified, and the US's position shown to be true (notice I didn't say "right"), this unfortunately will reduce the UN influence substantially. Regardless whether the inspections were working or weren't working or where you stand on that particular issue, the UN will appear to have dropped the ball. It will have appeared in perfect hindsight that the UN stumbled around, unwilling to enforce its own resos, and that the US, with their superior moralistic fiber, had to step in to get it done.

*Before I get flamed, there is sarcasm in parts peoples*

**Before I get flamed again, I didn't say thats what I think. I just can see this happening easily. Especially among Americans.

[PFC Mongoose 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ April 11 2003,05:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Problem is, it was still a war of aggression, that was against the rule of law.  Just because you are right doesnt mean the means are right.  Just so we're clear on that <span id='postcolor'>

You know, it may be so, but I'm starting to have more faith in the United States as an International law enforcing body than the United Nations.

Much like the police officers who you report a theft to, give an eyewitness account of who did it, and then watch as they do nothing, I've lost confidence in the U.N.'s ability to do what it says it's going to do.

Maybe in the future, if they prove they can pass a Resolution with a microm of expediency and enforce said Resolution without totally relying on the United States to enforce it, then I'm sure my opinion will change. But untill then, I personally feel that the 'rule of law' is an empty point.

For taking the issue into their own hands, the United States has come under fire. And yes, in doing so, they did violate international law. But just as if I had been forced to walk down to that theif's house, beat his face in with a bat, and then get arrested for assault, I would feel morally justified, and I'll bet the U.S. Government feels morally justified, even if they are in the wrong.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ April 11 2003,05:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ April 11 2003,05:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Strange that none of the major news agencies have reported on this.  Or that centcom hasnt made a declaration.

Could it be that there really isnt anything there that the inspectors havent already seen?

This will be an interesting thing over the next months.  If impartial investigators are let in with proper radioloigical protection, it could show part of the US theories beoing correct.

Problem is, it was still a war of aggression, that was against the rule of law.  Just because you are right doesnt mean the means are right.  Just so we're clear on that <span id='postcolor'>

The dangerous thing is:

If weapons are found, and verified, and the US's position shown to be true (notice I didn't say "right"), this unfortunately will reduce the UN influence substantially. Regardless whether the inspections were working or weren't working or where you stand on that particular issue, the UN will appear to have dropped the ball. It will have appeared in perfect hindsight that the UN stumbled around, unwilling to enforce its own resos, and that the US, with their superior moralistic fiber, had to step in to get it done.

*Before I get flamed, there is sarcasm in parts peoples*

**Before I get flamed again, I didn't say thats what I think. I just can see this happening easily. Especially among Americans.<span id='postcolor'>

The point is actually moot. If this find is true, there is nothing that says the UN wouldnt have revisited that site again in a week or a month, seen something out of place and found it themselves. And then the US could have had their little war without looking like a bunch of warmongers

The UN wasnt stumbling around as I see it. Saddam was destroying any and all weapons the UN inspectors demanded him to, including the Al Samoud II missiles, some of which were used that would have otherwise been destroyed had the US not begun it's war of aggresion.

The UN is hardly perfect... but I trust it more than I trust the Bush Administration (note: I am not making a blanket statement about the USA. Bush might be the president for another 19 months, but he is not the embodiment of your nation. At least I hope like hell he isnt! )

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ April 11 2003,06:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">(note: I am not making a blanket statement about the USA.  Bush might be the president for another 19 months, but he is not the embodiment of your nation.  At least I hope like hell he isnt!   )<span id='postcolor'>

Fair assessment. I hope.

I just think, not among leaders, but common people, probably mostly in America, finding something would only re-enforce their conception of this war as it stands. And honestly, though I think this went about all the wrong way, I can't say I won't feel the same.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC Mongoose @ April 11 2003,06:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ April 11 2003,05:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Problem is, it was still a war of aggression, that was against the rule of law.  Just because you are right doesnt mean the means are right.  Just so we're clear on that <span id='postcolor'>

You know, it may be so, but I'm starting to have more faith in the United States as an International law enforcing body than the United Nations.

Much like the police officers who you report a theft to, give an eyewitness account of who did it, and then watch as they do nothing, I've lost confidence in the U.N.'s ability to do what it says it's going to do.

Maybe in the future, if they prove they can pass a Resolution with a microm of expediency and enforce said Resolution without totally relying on the United States to enforce it, then I'm sure my opinion will change.  But untill then, I personally feel that the 'rule of law' is an empty point.

For taking the issue into their own hands, the United States has come under fire.  And yes, in doing so, they did violate international law.  But just as if I had been forced to walk down to that theif's house, beat his face in with a bat, and then get arrested for assault, I would feel morally justified, and I'll bet the U.S. Government feels morally justified, even if they are in the wrong.<span id='postcolor'>

As far as international law goes, I think there is a loophole that states something to the effect of: Nations have a right to act unilaterally when they are threatened. If WMD are found, then the Bush Administration can turn around and say, "See we were right all along." I think we were sold a bill of goods to justify a war that in my mind would have been justifiable for humanitarian reasons alone. I don't know why Bush didn't just come out and say, "This guy Saddam is a brutal and murdering dictator, and we are going to go in and get him and liberate the Iraqi people." It certainly would have been easier to spin that to the rest of the world then the approach we actually took.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ April 11 2003,05:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">All this talk after all the months by people against the war have been proven wrong.

Take that all you anti-war doves!!<span id='postcolor'>

Like when the doves said: "A lot of civvies will get killed." And do you know what, lot of civvies got killed. Victory does not make it right.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 11 2003,07:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As far as international law goes, I think there is a loophole that states something to the effect of:  Nations have a right to act unilaterally when they are threatened.  If WMD are found, then the Bush Administration can turn around and say, "See we were right all along."  I think we were sold a bill of goods to justify a war that in my mind would have been justifiable for humanitarian reasons alone.  I don't know why Bush didn't just come out and say, "This guy Saddam is a brutal and murdering dictator, and we are going to go in and get him and liberate the Iraqi people."  It certainly would have been easier to spin that to the rest of the world then the approach we actually took.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, but the US cannot even remotely make a case for Iraq being a clear and present danger to the USA. If Saddam had used chemical or biological weapons... that may have tilted it that way.

In spite of the altruism you wish to imbue on the current conflict, and in spite of how atruistic Americans might feel in freeing another country of a brutal dictator, it's just not kosher to invade another soverign country because you think that way. Plus, I doubt your altruism extends to the Bush Administration

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ April 11 2003,07:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ April 11 2003,05:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">All this talk after all the months by people against the war have been proven wrong.

Take that all you anti-war doves!!<span id='postcolor'>

Like when the doves said: "A lot of civvies will get killed." And do you know what, lot of civvies got killed. Victory does not make it right.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah "lots" of civilians were killed. Compare the scale of this war to other wars in history of about this size, combine that with urban fighting and one of the most massive bombing campaigns in history and then analyze the colateral damage statistics and your "lots" of civilians getting killed become a laughing matter. However, that being said, the families of those killed aren't going to be comforted by the fact that their loved one was a member of the smallest colateral damage percentages in the history of war. Its a sad fact about war, and its why they are to be avoided at all costs. Innocent people will die. Its just that fewer innocents died in this war percent-wise than in all previous conflicts.

I feel that it will be justified if the greater good is freedom for the Iraqis and ultimately a reduction in the loss of life due to his corrupt and murderous regime. Remember, he killed many times more of his own people than the Coalition has, and so far it seems the Iraqis feel it was worth it. That could be subject to change if the political situation get bogged down though.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ April 11 2003,07:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 11 2003,07:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As far as international law goes, I think there is a loophole that states something to the effect of:  Nations have a right to act unilaterally when they are threatened.  If WMD are found, then the Bush Administration can turn around and say, "See we were right all along."  I think we were sold a bill of goods to justify a war that in my mind would have been justifiable for humanitarian reasons alone.  I don't know why Bush didn't just come out and say, "This guy Saddam is a brutal and murdering dictator, and we are going to go in and get him and liberate the Iraqi people."  It certainly would have been easier to spin that to the rest of the world then the approach we actually took.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, but the US cannot even remotely make a case for Iraq being a clear and present danger to the USA.  If Saddam had used chemical or biological weapons... that may have tilted it that way.

In spite of the altruism you wish to imbue on the current conflict, and in spite of how atruistic Americans might feel in freeing another country of a brutal dictator, it's just not kosher to invade another soverign country because you think that way.  Plus, I doubt your altruism extends to the Bush Administration <span id='postcolor'>

True, I'm no fan of Bush. Personally I think he's a moron, and liable to completely fuck the U.S. economy up for the next 20 years. However, we've been through why I feel this war was justifed. I think you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on that matter.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 11 2003,07:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">True, I'm no fan of Bush.  Personally I think he's a moron, and liable to completely fuck the U.S. economy up for the next 20 years.  However, we've been through why I feel this war was justifed.  I think you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on that matter. <span id='postcolor'>

And that is perfectly OK.

And if invading a sovereign nation because their leader is a moronic asshole were acceptable in the 21st century, we'd actually agree

Getting rid of Saddam = Good.

[foxer 0]

I disagree.If they find chemical weapons in iraq ,then iraq is an threat to America and Allies.

If iraq(saddam) had chemicals weapons,nuclear weapons he could hold the middle east hostage.Sure, some will say he wouldn't attack anyone,but we don't know that.If he has chemical weapons,nuclear.He could do anything he wanted to do.That's when iraq(saddam) becomes a threat to the US,and US allies.I doubt the US would leave it's allies on a battle field with no american support.Plus we(america) would fight for the oil ,if not for the middle east allies.

So ,yes,Iraq(saddam) was a threat to the america.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ April 11 2003,08:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sure, some will say he wouldn't attack anyone,but we don't know that.<span id='postcolor'>

We've got some very solid proof now that he wouldn't. He didn't use them against you now, did he? Even though you removed him from power, he did not use them (if he now had them). That's all the evidence you need that he was no threat in the first place.

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 11 2003,08:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ April 11 2003,08:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sure, some will say he wouldn't attack anyone,but we don't know that.<span id='postcolor'>

We've got some very solid proof now that he wouldn't. He didn't use them against you now, did he? Even though you removed him from power, he did not use them (if he now had them). That's all the evidence you need that he was no threat in the first place.<span id='postcolor'>

We don't know that.Unless you can tell the future.

He could have done anything he wanted ,with chemical weapons.If he has chemical weapons,he could have attack any allies/oil in the middle-east.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ April 11 2003,08:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We don't know that.Unless you can tell the future.

He could have done anything he wanted ,with chemical weapons.If he has chemical weapons,he could have attack any allies/oil in the middle-east.<span id='postcolor'>

Aha, so that's the logic. USA has nukes and chemical weapons. Since I don't know the future, you could be very well planning to attack Sweden. That gives me the right to attack USA in a pre-emptive strike, to disarm you.

Hell, I'm sure that's what Osama did.

[Longinius 1]

"Well if anyone has been following the news, We've pretty much WON!"

Newsflash for you. There are no winners in a war, only different degrees of losers.

"Armed resistence is pretty much dead, the Iraqi civilian population is cheering and celebrating."

Of course they are. They are allowed to roam free and loot at will. They have gotten rid of Saddam, whats not to cheer about? Think they will be cheering in the months to come though? Think the people without water are cheering? Or the wounded who cant get aid in the hospitals? Or the relatives of the dead? You make it sound like the US just solved all issues in Iraq and everyone is happy. I think its far from that, very far.

[Longinius 1]

"For taking the issue into their own hands, the United States has come under fire. And yes, in doing so, they did violate international law. But just as if I had been forced to walk down to that theif's house, beat his face in with a bat, and then get arrested for assault, I would feel morally justified, and I'll bet the U.S. Government feels morally justified, even if they are in the wrong."

Yes, and the US should step up and take their medicine. Just like you would have to do if you had beaten the thief yourself.

[sn1per 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 11 2003,10:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ April 11 2003,08:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We don't know that.Unless you can tell the future.

He could have done anything he wanted ,with chemical weapons.If he has chemical weapons,he could have attack any allies/oil in the middle-east.<span id='postcolor'>

Aha, so that's the logic. USA has nukes and chemical weapons. Since I don't know the future, you could be very well planning to attack Sweden. That gives me the right to attack USA in a pre-emptive strike, to disarm you.

Hell, I'm sure that's what Osama did.  <span id='postcolor'>

Maybe they'll attack Finland first. After all, we do have gas masks in our combat gear.

The world has a lot of dictatators much like saddam, only difference being that they do not have oil. (iraq oil is now being directed to israel, what a way to help iraq people)

And how was saddam a serious threat to U.S.? By having suspected WMD? and how would he have deployed the WMDs? with al-samoud missiles (that have a range of 300km or so?) Only good thing about this war is that Bush is wasting american tax-payer's money, instead of using it to help his own people in the U.S.

[Longinius 1]

"Maybe they'll attack Finland first. After all, we do have gas masks in our combat gear."

You also have a background of using unconventional weapons, like molotov cocktails ;P

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (sn1per @ April 11 2003,10:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The world has a lot of dictatators much like saddam, only difference being that they do not have oil. (iraq oil is now being directed to israel, what a way to help iraq people)<span id='postcolor'>

LOL! More misinformation.

No it isn't and the chances of it ever going through the existing pipeline are less than the Iraqis electing Sadaam Hussein in truly democratic elections.

This whole idea of renewing use of the pipeline came up as a wishful thought of some local business people and some drunkenly optimistic folks in the Energy Ministry here. They must've been sniffing the diesel again!

Jordan's already basically said in less than diplomatic terms to forget about it. In fact, it's just not news here anymore.

Try again.