The Iraq Thread 2

[Bernadotte 0]

I don't get what the deal with haliburton was.  Yeah, they're an American company that used to be run by a high level politician.  But it was either them or a french company.  

What French company?  Bechtel and the others "competing" with Haliburton are American.

[Schoeler 0]

Oh, but it's all so clear now: Oil pipe lines! Why do you think they keep exploding? Because Saddam loyalist know that there is really no oil - it's all an elaborate system to hide coolant and waste products from their chemical and nuclear weapons plants! And that is also why TBA is so obsessed with the oil. It's not greed - they're looking for WMD!    

   .......and that's not all you know!

You know why they can't find Saddam? Well, I guess if you take look at the moon right now - you'd see the man in the moon all of a sudden wears one of those macho iraqi moustaches. Let's send Glenn up there to retreive him before he not only destroys the earth in 45 min. but the whole solar system while he's at it!  

Jesus! And I'm worriyng about Sweden! ! ! ! ! !

I was kinda wondering why the moon had suddenly taken to wearing a black beret in an effete manner!

[joltan 0]

Edit: Never mind, I think this has been commented on enough on the last pages.

BTW: Just read about the cameraman on bbc news. Damn killers! And at least in part also the responsibility of the US governement, because they didn't rotate the combat weary troops out in time.

[FSPilot 0]

What French company?  Bechtel and the others "competing" with Haliburton are American.

Dunno the name. I just heard that the other major competitor to Haliburton was French.

[Bernadotte 0]

What French company?  Bechtel and the others "competing" with Haliburton are American.

Dunno the name.  I just heard that the other major competitor to Haliburton was French.

You might be thinking of Schlumberger, founded in France.  

Guess what.  They've not yet been invited to compete for work in Iraq.

[denoir 0]

Breaking news:  Blast hits Baghdad UN building

Quote[/b] ]An explosion has ripped through the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad.

The US military says the blast caused "scores of casualties", the Reuters news agency has reported.

Edit:

Quote[/b] ]The United Nations says its special representative, Sergio Vieira de Mello, was injured in the explosion.

The BBC's Caroline Hawley in Baghdad says the blast tore away part of the building.

She says there are suggestions that the explosion could have been caused by a car bomb.

A plume of black smoke was seen pouring out of the building.

Hundreds of people work in the building, which used to be a hotel.

Edit2: From sky news:

Quote[/b] ]CAR BOMB UN BAGHDAD HQ

A huge car bomb at the UN headquarters in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, has killed at least three people and left scores more wounded.

A UN spokesman said it had been a "major explosion".

The US military said "scores of people" had been injured while residents up to one mile away from the building had their windows shattered by the explosion.

Early reports said one of those injured was the UN's head of oil for food programme in the country.

Another high profile casualty was the UN's representative in Iraq de Mello, said to be seriously hurt..

US Blackhawk helicopters were soon circling around the building, wading through the thick wads of smoke climbing hundreds of feet into the air.

A US military spokeswoman said: "We can confirm there was a car bombing at the Canal Hotel at 4.30pm (12.30pm GMT)."

Sky News' correspondent in Baghdad David Chater said local people would have been working in the building.

He suggested that any attack on the building would be an attempt to "isolate those working for the Coalition forces".

But he pointed out the UN building has "nothing to do with the Coalition or the invasion of Iraq".

Rescue workers were immediately trawling through the mounds of rubble from the blast in a desperate search for casualties.

Hundreds of UN staff work in the building, the former Canal hotel, and a huge column of smoke could be seen rising from the site.

It had been home to UN inspectors called to scour Iraq for weapons of mass destruction in the country before the Coalition's invasion of the country.

Edit3: Sergio Vieira de Mello is reported to be seriously wounded as the bomb exploded right below his office.

[bn880 5]

I wonder what the reason for this is, and who pulled it off. This is a much larger blast than usual, and from a car.

[ralphwiggum 6]

i won't be a bit surprised if some disgrunteled former regime follower did this one. Iraq did accuse UN of being intrusive at times.

however, by attacking UN building, it is caussing adverse effect since UN has nothing to do with war.

or maybe the AQ is sipping into Iraq and is using chaos to stage attacks. who knows.

[Die Alive 0]

Well according to leftist news wire:

Did the US try to kill De Mello in todays bomb attack in Iraq?

You judge: Who would want de Mello dead?

USA Bombs UN In Baghdad

Who needs to speculate, the <s>answers</s> truth is all there.

-=Die Alive=-

[denoir 0]

i won't be a bit surprised if some disgrunteled former regime follower did this one. Iraq did accuse UN of being intrusive at times.

however, by attacking UN building, it is caussing adverse effect since UN has nothing to do with war.

Complete morons are behind this as:

1) The UN has no part in the military occupation of Iraq

2) The UN provides humanitarian aid to Iraqi civilians

The only end result of this is that the occupational powers will gain international support for going after those that stage guerilla attacks. It must be the same morons that blew up the water pipes to Baghdad.

It's possible that it's not at all the same people who attack US troops, but any sympathy people might have had for them as the underdog will certainly wanish with this attack.

Die Alive: While I don't think at all the coalition is involved in this, they will gain most by it for the reasons I stated above.

Edit: I see now that de Mello is dead

[Gollum1 0]

Those murdering idiots

They´re only harming their image and the Iraqi people.

edit: and noncombatant U.N personnel, of course

[ralphwiggum 6]

at this point, let me be a jackass and make some comments.

[rant]

what is impact of this bombing and if it continues?

so far, attacks on coalition forces were usually towards US forces as TBA made the (half-assed) argument for the war and executed it. Arabs don't like US(a.k.a. Great Satan) loitering around their backyard, and such sentiment is exploited by saddam loyalists.

however, as the rule of thumb goes, you should make less enemy as much as possible. unfortunately, those without political senses conveniently forget this.(both sides) if one side has enough power to dump all its resource and subdue the other, then such sense is not a strong factor.

However, the guerilla attacks on US forces and recent attacks on oil and water supply lines are testing the limit. the attackers(guerillas) do not have enough resources to overthrow current gov't(Coalition gov't), and is relying on soft targets. is this working? to some part, yes. the civilians are getting agitated as powers are getting cut off and so are other basic necessities. this is amplified by the fact that coalition forces do not have enough power to get rid of loyalists.

Is this a good way for saddam loyalist to drive out US troops? maybe. by agitating the US tropps and causing media uproar while incurring huge federal cost, the guerillas are doing a good job of making this situation dealt not in favor of anyone. They even manged to scare the lights out of US troops to the point where it is probable that some tank gunner got paranoid and shot a cameraman.

But this tactic will come at a cost. you are alienating citizens and is holding them as hostages. this is not a big problem for Saddma's gov't. However, if coalition forces manage to internalize the cost of attacks with Iraqi civilians, story becomes different. If done properly, the cost of attacks can be shared with civilians and that would turn most of population against saddam's followers. unfortunately, current coalition gov't is not well on this situation, and is dragging their feet in turning current attacks and its consequences to propganda against saddams boys.

These attacks on non-participating entities such as Jordan and UN is going to cost the guerillas. By attacking those who were not in favor of war, they are turning the neutral party in to active participants. it is doubtful if UN or Jordan will suddenly turn around and go hand in hand with or lean towards TBA, but will make it harder for Saddam loyalists to gain support.

But will UN and other neutral parties actually get involved? There are many ways the UN and neutral parties can behave in response to these attacks. One of them is going under TBA's flag. But that's not the most desirable position for neutral parties and the UN. it would justify the war, and make bad precedents.

Another way would be giving up any activity in Iraq and let situation be handled by coalition forces. this can minimize the damages incurred to UN and others, but comes at the cost of loosing political morality factor and loosing influence on matter.

thus, in this limbo, it becomes who gets to stand longer in a competition. should UN and others get continuous wave of attacks its most likely that they will ignore what US does in the future. Currently, US is (on surface) okay on its own in terms of dealing with Iraq. however, as time progresses as if it does now, US sooner or later has to deal with the fact that this will cost more than what it would have been considered by TBA.

TBA can politcize the situation and say "We realize that we can't do this on our own." and ask for UN's help, but that would cost TBA's face and humiliation, which it is reluctant to take at the moment. so in other words, TBA is going to sacrifice some things for its pride. is this a good idea? only if they can pull off an amazing reconstruction scheme for Iraq, which is not happening.

however, if non-discreet attacks prolong, you can bet that neutral parties and UN will ignore what US is doing as long as its not harming them. But it would also put burden on Coalition.

[/rant]

wtf did i just type? just a rant

[denoir 0]

There is one point to do it: no citizens of any country like to see their soldiers torn up. There are several countries that would possibly contribute with troops should the coalition ask for UN help. This way they will be more sceptical about risking the lives of their soldiers for something that they were against in the first place. In short even if Bush asks for UN help, he might very well get the finger.

The nightmare of the Saddam loyalists is that a third party, who the population might trust gets involved. Right now they're living off the support given by the Iraqi population who are not very fond of the occupational powers.

So perhaps this was a move to discourage the UN getting involved.

I think however that their logic is very flawed. International support depends to a large degree on public opinion in the countries that would provide the support. While people can understand and accept guerilla attacks on enemy soldiers, they won't accept attacks on UN civilians.

[Bernadotte 0]

I doubt these are Saddam-loyalists who are killing themselves for the old dictator. I suspect it won't be very long before Syrian, Iranian and Saudi islamists will be implicated.

[denoir 0]

"Saddam loyalists" is a very broad term, perhaps an incorrect one. I don't think however that any external forces are at play here. The position of the Arab world is that any other force in Iraq is better than the US. They've made it very clear that unless the UN gets a full mandate and control that they won't help out in any way. So it would not make sense to attack the UN.

It's somebody who wishes to make the situation in Iraq chaotic enough that the US can't handle it and that they can't call in UN help. The only one I can think of with such an agenda are Iraqis who want Iraq free of foregin troops so that they can move into power. Iran could possibly have a hand in it, but I don't think so. Apart from a direct invasion (which would be politically imposible), I don't see that they have the resources of taking over in Iraq.

There is a very clear pattern of destruction of basic infrastructure in Iraq. The attack on the UN seems like another step in an effort to destabilize Iraq, making it impossible for the occupational powers to restore the country to normality.

[Bernadotte 0]

I don't think however that any external forces are at play here.

I agree, but I still don't think it will be very long before they are implicated.

[Acecombat 0]

Well i'll quote myself from the locked topic

Its a good thing that HQ blowed up someone needs to give UN a good kick in the arse since all it does is do its bidding to america and nothing else its nothing but a legal front to get your illegal activites approved

[Shashman 0]

Well i'll quote myself from the locked topic

Its a good thing that HQ blowed up someone needs to give UN a good kick in the arse since all it does is do its bidding to america and nothing else its nothing but a legal front to get your illegal activites approved

I hope from the bottom of my heart, that you get a permanent ban for that

I have done what I can, to see this done

[bn880 5]

Well, yes, it would seem that anyone who supports any such killings is going to get banned. Seems very uneducated to say the UN (United Nations!) needs a kick in the head by having ~15 of it's members murdered.

[Crazysheep 1]

Methinks Ace Combat should be given a chance, his other posts are fine.

[Acecombat 0]

Support?

I am just happy they got knocked off the UN either needs to be disbanded or claim it to the world that they work soleley for US interest.

Wheres your UN when america veteos resolutions against Israel and palestinians get killed everyday ?

Are their lives not equal to those who worked for the UN in Iraq?

Where was UN when america declared war in Iraq? where was UN when Sudan was bombed by US? Where is UN when american army sprays DU round over Iraqi landscape with their A-10's and M1a1?Where is the proof that Saddam had WMD's hell the UN had everything to do with it! They knew there was no evidence and still they turn a blind eye?

Where is UN when america attacked Afghanistan?

Quote[/b] ]I hope from the bottom of my heart, that you get a permanent ban for that

I hope someone changesthat biased attitude of yours.

[Badgerboy 0]

Methinks Ace Combat should be given a chance, his other posts are fine.

To be fair thats a pretty deranged post (Ace Combats). It doesn't even make any logical sense.

And for being a complete bastard, I hope you get badly hurt during the course of your day, perhaps some suffering will get you back in touch with reality!

BTW, the UN didn't authorise this war. It was waged illegally.

Good night!

[Acecombat 0]

Methinks Ace Combat should be given a chance, his other posts are fine.

Huh?

What chances dude ?

I want a good enough reason to be banned mate.

It seems one cannot even voice his opinion here until unless it supports US or the coalition forces in Iraq

[Acecombat 0]

BTW, the UN didn't authorise this war. It was waged illegally

Thats the point why didnt UN stop it ?

[Badgerboy 0]

Methinks Ace Combat should be given a chance, his other posts are fine.

Huh?

What chances dude ?

I want a good enough reason to be banned mate.

It seems one cannot even voice his opinion here until unless it supports US or the coalition forces in Iraq  

Eh? ARGHHH! Where the hell do you see people supporting this war? Actually do some checking and it might reveal the feelings of the majority of the members on this forum.